August 21. 1912, Letter to the Editor of the Manchester Guardian
From W. A. Dudley in reply to EWD of August 17, 1912
Sir,– In her letter published on Saturday, Miss Davison calls upon me to prove
that militancy, steadily increasing in force, is not needed. My answer is that
women’s suffrage will be best won (to use her own words) by ‘that weapon
which, well manipulated, is the most effective and least destructive to win reform,
namely, the vote’ of the existing electors. She is quite mistaken in thinking that
I question for a moment the heroism and devotion of the militants. I oppose
militancy because, particularly in its later developments, it will not be effective to
win reform.
Miss Davison asks ’If Governments fail to yield to love who can blame women if
they bring the motive of fear into play?’ I do not blame them at all; they are quite
right; but fear of what? Physical violence? The worst Government will refuse
to be terrorized by physical violence. But the fear to which statesmen generally
succumb is the fear of the loss of votes and so of power. Miss Davison should
answer this question: ‘Do the militant outrages turn the votes of electors against
women’s suffrage?’ If so that weapon is not effective at all, but damages friend
and not foe.
Miss Barrett’s letter is answered fully and much better than I could by Mr.
Richardson to-day. My point was that in 1832 outrage was the action of the
mob and not the policy of the Reform leaders. Then, again, I oppose militancy
because it is most destructive and therefore the wrong weapon. If successful it
would destroy not only the present Government but all government. Would no
one imitate their anarchical methods? Their plea is that of Bassanio—
‘To do a great right, do a little wrong;
And curb this cruel devil of his will’
My reply is that of Portia—
‘ ‘Twill be recorded for a precedent;
And many an error, by the same example,
Will rush into the state; it cannot be.’[(12.)]
Yours, &c., W.A. Dudley
Manchester, August 20