the Vote”

In this response Davison makes her reply an opportunity to expand on an argument

she makes frequently—the slow pace of change in Britain, and the lessons of history.

Davison continues to see the suffrage movement as part of the onward march of

history, part of the tapestry of British valor, persistence and victory. She reads

Asquith’s dodge of throwing over the woman suffrage movement in favor of a

universal suffrage bill in 1913 as a sign of his near-capitulation to the suffragists.

Her conclusion, however, belies her optimism, for she writes that change will come

only when John Bull’s back is against the wall and the choice is either to torture and

murder women or give them the vote.

Sir,–The paragraph in a recent issue headed ‘Women and the Vote’ shows the

same intelligent appreciation which Mary previously displayed in her remarks on

the question (see letter 12). But as in so many other cases this appreciation is

limited simply because Mary forgets the essential characteristic of our nation.

This is dogged tenacity well indicated by the national type, John Bull. John Bull

holds on like grim death, but he is also extraordinarily slow to move, no doubt

owing to his immense bulk and weight! But when he does more [sic], then

there is no holding him back. It is this immense potentiality, which makes him

the respected dread of his neighbours, but which also makes him sometimes

obstinately pig-headed to his nearest and dearest. All reformers know this well.

The characteristic is at once his weakness and his strength.

So it is in our case. We are not surprised that we have an apparently

herculean task, when we read the lessons of history.

The lessons of history teach us this, that the struggle grows fiercer and

hotter towards the end, and that then is the time when every effort must be

directed towards the one goal, and certainly not relaxed. Where would England

have been if the gallant British square had relaxed their efforts at Waterloo, when

word came that Blucher was near? Where if Nelson had relaxed his final efforts

at Copenhagen and Trafalgar? Where the city which seemed impregnable is

within the grasp of the attacking force, do they retire and rest on their laurels?

No they carry on their tremendous struggle to victory. And so it is with the

women to-day. That the end is near was proved by the playing of the trump card

of manhood suffrage by Mr. Asquith.

Mary unconsciously gives her whole case away when she admits the

necessity of the early militancy to rouse the nation. She admits that it was

roused. But that was not enough. John Bull must move, and move to some

purpose. Public opinion, which is awakened as Mary owns, must come to the

pitch of ‘deeds not words.’ That can only be done by fighting to a finish. When it

is clear to the nation that it must either murder or torture its women in units, tens,

hundred, or thousands, or else emancipate them, there is not much doubt which

alternative it will choose. For after all there are other characteristics in John

Bull’s character. He has the highest reverence for courage, and an intense love

of fair play. But the lion must apparently be strongly roused, for then he will not

only roar but spring.—I am, etc.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

Longhorsley, Oct., 1912

“Latest Phase of a Democratic Struggle”

Once more Davison raises her pen to refute charges that militant tactics have impeded

women’s progress toward suffrage. In responding to “Mary’s” letter, Davison uses

her second paragraph to articulate her message about the cost of militancy to

suffragettes, and the courage needed for the first advocates of woman suffrage merely

to speak in public to plead for their political rights. She moves on in the rest of the

letter once more to position the struggle for woman suffrage within the wider suffrage

struggles Britain has witnessed, and to charge the enfranchised electorate with failure

to support women’s just cause. Supported or friendless, she avers that suffragettes will

persevere because they know their cause is just, and because they read history, both

Christian and secular, as a record which assures them that finally right triumphs over

brute force, no matter how dark the future seems. Once more she invokes the trope of

the Christian martyr and vows, “The price will…be paid, if exacted.”

Sir, — In the column on ‘Home and Fashion’ in your issue of September 7 there

is a small paragraph headed ‘Women and the Vote,’ in which the writer declares

that ‘it needs some courage for a woman to say she thinks she ought to have

the Parliamentary vote, owing to the change brought about in the minds of the

average man by the fierce measures pursued by the very militant section of

Suffragists.’

As one of the militants to whom ‘Mary’ refers, will you allow me to reply

that whatever courage may be needed by her to express even a wish for the

Parliamentary vote, far more courage is needed by our militants to face personal

ill-treatment, vindictive sentences, to say nothing of the mental, moral and

physical torture of forcible feeding, and not even thinking of the terrible

misunderstanding, misrepresentation, insult, and obloquy to which they are

subjected by open foes and half-hearted friends? Does ‘Mary’ ever consider for

one moment what every active militant has to undergo? Every single one who

puts militancy into practice has to make some enormous sacrifice. The sacrifice

varies according to the circumstances. It may be loss of livelihood, position,

wealth, friends, relations, and not less commonly loss of health, and even

possibly risk of life itself. Are such sacrifices lightly made? In all this no mention

is made of the personal shrinking which every woman feels as a matter of

certainty from being thrust into publicity, especially such unpleasant publicity,

which is parallel to the feeling which ‘Mary’ herself represses in just asking for

Votes for Women. This was the repugnance which the pioneers of the

movement had to overcome, when they did what in those days was quite as

horrifying and shocking as is our militancy now—namely, presented the then

extraordinary spectacle of women speaking on a public platform.

But who is to blame for the present position? Certainly not the women. It

is the voters themselves, who are responsible for the excesses (!) of militancy,

and who will be to blame if worse things follow. The extension of the vote to

women is acknowledged by such skilled Parliamentarians as ‘P.W.W. as

inevitable (vide the recent article last month in the ‘Daily News and Leader,’ and

also the one by him in the ‘Englishwoman.’) Why then delay it? If the electorate

had shown any decided attitude on the question in 1867, in 1884, and still more

in 1910 and 1911, the matter would have been settled, and settled without any

display of real militancy, except a very mild amount of stone-throwing. But the

electorate has hitherto failed to grasp how completely this is a people’s battle—

the latest phase of a democratic struggle—and so we women have to struggle on

to the best of our ability. This lays a fearful burden upon us, especially as the

Government have always cruelly adopted the attitude of trying to crush the

movement by brute force, a thing which women have always dreaded. The

result is that we had either to submit to brute force (which according to the anti-

Suffragist is the real basis of Government), or use a certain amount of brute

force in order to go on with the struggle. But what we have behind us, and our

movement is something far higher than brute-force—moral force. It is that which

is enabling us to carry on this terrible struggle which entails as great suffering for

us as had to be faced by the early Christians. Of course, we could not carry it on

if we did not know that we have Right on our side. That moral force will make

our victory sure but how quickly the victory is to be won or at how small a cost

lies with the people of England. For the sake of the public conscience it is to be

hoped that the people will soon assert their sovereign power; otherwise, the

victory will be won at a serious cost to the national honour. The price will,

however, be paid if exacted.

‘Mary’ shows great intelligence in pointing out how contemptible is the

attitude of those people, who, because of some (wonderfully few) excesses, the

causes of which they have not troubled to examine and understand, would

condemn a whole sex to remain un-enfranchised. There were plenty of such

faithless friends in 1867, and again in 1884, but the Reform Bill went through all

the same. When Woman Suffrage has been established for a few years, the

fanatics and zealots of to-day will be looked upon as the clear-headed,

progressive statesmen of the past. –I am, etc.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

Longhorsley, Northumberland