September 13, 1911, To the Editor of The Croydon Times, “Woman Suffrage”

Beginning with an acknowledgment of the cultural and historical differences that separate

the United States and Great Britain in the matter of suffrage, Davison moves on to explicate

the rationales the WSPU offered for the nature of the compromises it made. Choosing to

focus on the matter of woman suffrage, the militant suffrage movement sought above all

to displace the notion that, as Davison writes elsewhere, women were regarded as not fully

male and therefore not fully citizens. The shibboleth of women’s demi-humanity, in a world

in which maleness was regarded by default as the normal state of humanity, had persisted

in western culture from the time of Aristotle. Davison regarded it as a more pernicious and

dangerous threat to women’s suffrage than class, and so she finds herself arguing for limited

suffrage, rather than universal suffrage, in order to break “down forever” the “iniquitous sex

bar.”

Sir, –In your issue of September 2nd there is an article headed ‘Woman Suffrage—Limited

or Adult?’ by W.N.E. wherein some American opinions are quoted to show that in America

it is held by Suffragists that ‘limited suffrage’ for women is no good. This fact W.N.E. no

doubt intends to quote, to show that in England also ‘limited suffrage’ (as he, in ignorance,

calls it), is no good. But in pressing this argument W.N.E. is forgetful of one or two

important considerations.

(a) England and America are totally differently situations. England is a very old

country whose constitution is the result of centuries of slow construction and much

tradition. She is only now breaking away from feudalism into democracy. America is a

young country, and started with no traditions and conventions right away upon a

democratic foundation.

(b) The only reasonable principle to be insisted upon in both the old and new

country for the admission of women is that of equality with men. That is the demand upon

which it is made by all Suffrage Societies in Great Britain, which means that so long as the

franchise is a limited one for men, it must also be a limited one for women. The question

for Suffragists is not the franchise qualification, but the removal of the sex bar. Once that

bar is removed, then any further extension of the franchise cannot exclude women. If Adult

Suffrage were introduced before Woman Suffrage it would mean ‘Votes for all men’ and ‘no

votes for women’ and the last state would be worse than the first. With regard to America,

of course the only decent basis on which to give the franchise to women is to give it to all

women, seeing that all men have the vote there.

May I also criticise one or two special points in W.N.E.’s article? He declares

that ‘The claim for Woman Suffrage must rest upon the principles of democracy. There is

no other possible basis.’ I, of course, agree with him that on the two basic Liberal

principles of Government—‘Government of the people, by the people, and for the people, ‘

and that ‘those who obey the laws should have a voice in the laws,’ women should be

enfranchised; but he is wrong in asserting that these are the only possible principles of

democracy, and is once more forgetting that he must face facts and not merely air theories.

In Old England there is an other democratic principle which is so incontrovertible that it

led Democratic America to her independence. It is that ‘there must be no taxation without

representation.’ This is the principle which W.N.E. appears to ignore, and it is important

because it is, at any rate for the present, and for many a long day probably, the basis of the

English franchise. It is also the principle which justifies the present Conciliation Bill.

I really must protest at W.N.E.’s unwarranted assertion that Suffragists deny the

right of any woman to the vote, and that logically they therefore deny the right of every

woman to the vote. As a matter of plain fact Suffragists do not make any specification of a

franchise qualification at all. On nearly every publication issued by the W.S.P.U. runs the

motto—‘We demand the vote on the same terms as it is, or may be, granted to men.’ There

is no word in the demand of denying the vote to any woman or women. The number of

women to be enfranchised varies in proportion relatively to the men’s number. It is true

that the Conciliation Bill does not fully grant this demand. But then, the men did not win

their demand in one bound, and, in fact, have not yet won it. But the conciliation Bill effects

the most important desideratum of all: it breaks down forever the iniquitous sex bar,

which is far more iniquitous than any class bar.

Yours, etc.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31, Coram street,

W.C.