Incidents on Which Women Claim the Vote”

This letter introduces a theme which recurs throughout Davison’s writing, the economic

parliamentary recourse against discriminatory economic legislation.

Sir,–No better object lesson could be afforded of the imminent necessity of the speedy

enfranchisement of women than the passing by the Grand Committee sitting on the Coal

Mines Bill, by 15 to 13, of the amendment which will throw 3,000 women out of decent,

honest employment. This fact was fully recognized and explained by Sir Frederick

Banbury, who drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that, if the amendment

passed, it would afford one of the strongest possible arguments for Votes for Women.

That such an amendment could have ever been proposed in the House of Commons

rams the fact home. For this is a clear case of the rights of the individual, of the human

being, in short, of the right to work being infringed. Is there any single body of men from

whom their right to engage in the work by which they can earn their bread could be calmly

filched? We know there is not. The only possible grounds upon which such an action could

be justified is that the employment is injurious to themselves of the community. In this

case it is neither. The girls are claimed to be far healthier and better developed and to

make better wives and mothers than girls who are employed in factories. A great outcry

was raised, when it was proposed out of a spurious sentimentalism to prevent women

earning their living as barmaids; now there is not even the pretended excuse of moral

danger. The only real excuse is that a certain number of mining men want to exclude

women from taking any share in that employment for which they are fitted, so that men

may have it.

Sir Frederick Banbury, although a staunch anti-suffragist, has pointed the moral

well. The only safeguard against such iniquities is to give women the direct voice in

legislation.—Yours, etc.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31, Coram Street, W.C.