October 7, 1911, To the Editor of The Manchester Guardian, “Pit-Brow Women” ([33.])

In this letter Davison responds to a correspondent whose opinions reflect the complicated

here, once again, that for her the two were inevitably and directly connected.

Sir,–The action of the Miners’ Federation with regard to women’s labour at the pit brow

only affords further proof, if any were required, of the necessity of women having direct

representation. These men, on the specious plea of sentimentalism, assume their right

to interfere in women’s labour, or, as Mr. Masterman put it so well at the Home Office on

August 3,”the argument was unanswerable that if they had an occupation for women which

was acknowledge to be healthy and not dangerous to their limbs or their morals a men’s

Parliament selected by men had no right to prevent that occupation.”

Mr. Smillie, the advocate of spurious sentimentalism, says that he has seen women

twisted nearly double at the work below-ground. Such statements go directly counter to

the picture drawn by the women themselves at the deputations and also at the recent

demonstration in Manchester. Mr. Smillie and his like, while making such meretricious

appeals as these, do not seem to hesitate to go on wishing that miners’ wives and

womenkind should have to stagger about with heavy pails of water for their menfolk,

rather than agree to legislation which would allow them to get cleansed at the pits

themselves.

Further, when Mr. Smillie accuses “suffragettes” of acting unfairly by taking up the

women’s cause he has got his facts all wrong. The agitation arose quite naturally and

spontaneously among the women themselves, supported by the public-spirited Mayor and

Mayoress of Wigan, who, I submit, knew a good deal more about the facts of the case than

Mr. Smillie or any other delegate of the men. It was not till the pit-brow deputation had

actually arrived in London that anything was done by the W.S.P.U., but on the news of that

event, Miss Annie Kenny, the ex-factory girl, especially hurried along to support her fellow-

workers at Westminster, which she could do so well, as she knew the condition of factory

girls’ work. After that it is true the suffragist societies supported the women might and

main, and were of course right to do so. If they had not done so those very sentimental

gentlemen would have been the first to say that they were neglecting their duty as

women’s advocates. But the agitation began, as it was right and wise, among the women

themselves. It is a strong prima facie case for the vote, as Sir Frederick Banbury put it in

the Committee which passed the iniquitous amendment. –Yours, &c.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31 Coram-street, London, W.C., October 5

September 28, 1911, To the Editor of The Manchester Guardian, “A Suffrage Lesson from

Kansas”

The letter below demonstrates Emily Davison’s ability to make bricks out of straw. She turns

life.

Sir, –In your paper to-day you give an account of the trouble the woman Mayor of Kansas is

having with the male electors because she is persisting in appointing women to all kinds of

municipal official posts. The men are getting so angry at this that according to the accounts

they are refusing to pay taxes and to obey orders.

Now to those who think the reason is quite clear. Kansas, one of the central States,

is, like the other members of the Federation, riddled with political corruption. The men,

knowing this to be their canker, elected a fearless and upright woman to remove it. The

woman, being a thorough-going reformer, proceeded to cleanse out the Augean stables

with somewhat more zeal and energy than was anticipated. In her struggle she chose

women of like caliber to help her. The men, not being ready for a clean sweep, and finding

some of their own dearest vices threatened, began to kick, with the present result.

Now, as a keen English suffragist, I venture to suggest the real reason of the trouble.

We suffragists in England hold that we must win the Parliamentary vote as an

indispensable preliminary before all else. Anti-suffragists, recognizing that women are too

far in public life to-day to be totally excluded, say that they will not give women the vote,

but that they can devote all their surplus energies to local administration. By such a case as

this their ideas are shown to be completely illogical. If instead of electing a lady mayor the

men of Kansas who desired gradual and sure reform had given the full franchise to the

women of the State the course of events would have been altered. Kansas women would

have entered directly into politics and slowly but surely have eliminated corruption.

Instead of that, the men elected a lady mayor, who, not having had the political education of

being a full elector, rushes madly and courageously into headlong reformation, which may

throw back the cause of reform for some time.

In England, on the other hand, such women as Miss Margaret Ashton, having

wrestled vainly and nobly to bring about reform in municipal matters simply by personal

influence (the influence which our opponents praise), unsupported by the fact of being

publicly recognised as full citizens, have recognized that they must lay aside all such side

issues of the great question and win political enfranchisement. Kansas proves that they are

right! –Yours, &c.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31, CORAM-STREET, LONDON, W.C.,

September 26

Monday, August 7, 1911 [incorrect date], To the Editor of The Manchester Guardian

“Miss E.W. Davison writes from 31, Coram Street, London, W.C.:”

The following letter testifies to the strain of patience so often ignored—or forgotten—

equal terms of suffrage for men and women.

In answer to Mrs. Swanwick, the Manchester anti-suffragists have sent a letter which you

publish in your Saturday’s issue. The first fallacy under which, apparently, they labour is

that women, as women, can as yet expect equal treatment with men, and can demand as

large a share of the electorate to be accorded to them at one fell swoop as the men have

gained after a long and desperate struggle for themselves. Such an error is due to

ignorance of the character of the English voter. Thus Mr. Gladstone said in his powerful

speech on the Representation of the People Act of 1884:– “I am prepared for the complaint

that this is not a complete bill and for the question ‘Why don’t you introduce a complete

bill?’ On that I have to say that there never has been a complete bill presented to

Parliament on this question of Parliamentary reform. Parliament has never attempted a

complete bill, and, moreover, I will go a little further and say that Governments and

Parliaments would have made the gravest error in judgment—I might almost say they

would have been out of their senses—if they had attempted a complete bill. I have the

strongest appeal to make to the friends of this bill: I entreat them not to endanger it by

additions, for I do not hesitate to say that it is just as possible for friends to destroy the bill

by additions which it will not bear as it is for enemies.” The event justified his policy. But if

such amendments as that which would have included women had been pressed, Mr.

Gladstone would not have won his measure. Just as the bill of 1884 could not be

overweighted for the sake of the women in 1884, so the women’s bill in 1912 cannot be

overweighted with amendments, however justifiable they may seem.