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