The same issues appear in this more extended and serious consideration of women’s ability to

movement at just the time that Davison was writing.

“Women’s Point of View”

Madam,–A very interesting statement has been extracted from your anti-Suffragist

correspondent, Gwladys Gladstone Solomon—namely, that ‘there is no doubt that the

possession of such a powerful weapon as the Parliamentary vote would be useful to

woman, qua woman,’ in the light of the fact that anti-Suffragists usually set up as reasons

for the withholding of the vote from women either that (1) the vote is of no use (vide Mr.

Chesterton), or (2) that the vote would do women harm. Yet here we have one confessing

that the vote certainly is a powerful weapon, and, as she probably will allow that women

have a very hard battle in life, often at a disadvantage, therefore the only wise thing to do is

to arm the women as well as possible. Just as one woman with a good revolver can keep a

host of savages or wild beasts at bay, so no one would dream of sending a woman out into

such a situation without arms because it is ‘unwomanly.’

Mrs. Solomon’s objections to woman suffrage are, she says, twofold,( 1) ‘Any

possible measure of woman suffrage must inevitably lead to adult suffrage, and England

will not be ready for that for many years to come.’ I answer, why? On what basis can Mrs.

Solomon suppose that the addition of one million women voters to the seven and a quarter

million men voters will bring about that for which England is not yet ready? There can be

only one plea put forward to justify such a statement, and that is that one million women

are cleverer than seven and a quarter million men. As Mr. Philip Snowden and other

adultists have told us, this cry of adult suffrage has only been raised as woman suffrage got

near to success. Why? By one set of people with the idea of wrecking the women’s cause;

by the other set of people with the idea of surreptitiously stealing the fruits of the women’s

valiant efforts. But then, to return to the anti point of view, are the women cleverer than

the men? Well, if so, they ought certainly to have the vote. But again, these dear antis

maintain that to give votes to women would mean adding to an already too large number of

ignorant electors. And so the antis get lost in the maze of their own sophistics.

To turn to Mrs. Solomon’s second point, which is ‘that all the reforms women might

bring about with the vote they can certainly bring about without it.’ No doubt they can do

so, but only by an iniquitous waste of energy and time. Here is an anti who probably

believes ardently in woman keeping to woman’s sphere, telling us to choose the longer, the

more cumbrous, the more nerve-wearing, the more doubtful, method of working, by

means of stirring public opinion (which, of course, can be stirred, but it is often a killing

process), instead of using the obviously practical, effective, and easy way of the vote. Why,

such advice indicts all government, and would bring people round to Mr. Chesterton’s

paradoxical attitude that the vote is no good, and is therefore not worth fighting for. But it

is worse than that, for it means that the women must take upon themselves such cumbrous,

burdensome work that they cannot possibly attend to their own peculiar sphere. When

one reflects that Josephine Butler had to devote her whole life, had to ‘scorn delights and

live laborious days,’ in getting one injustice to women, which shrieked aloud to the skies,

removed, and that very little has been done in that direction since, and that several urgent

laws upon the White Slave Traffic are waiting, and waiting in vain, to be put on the Statute

Book, one begins to cry aloud—‘How Long, O Lord! How long!’ and bitterly to deplore that

one of those who (unwittingly, of course, but nevertheless blameworthily) are seeking to

keep upon women’s backs the grievous yoke, which is almost too heavy to bear, is a

woman. Yet such crosses have to be borne by all reformers!—Yours, &c.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31 Coram Street, W.C.,

November 1st, 1911

This letter constitutes the third in a cluster focused on the role of women’s perspectives in

John Bull, the personification of the British people, to move.

Madam, The way the Press nowadays is opening its portals to the woman’s point of view is

a source of the greatest interest to those who believe in the gradual evolution of the race.

Now, the most powerful lever for evolution is undoubtedly public opinion, and

public opinion to a great extent is moulded by the Press. For over forty years the cause of

woman’s enfranchisement has been before the nation, ever since John Stuart Mill brought it

to public notice in 1866; but it had not public opinion behind it. As a matter of fact, public

opinion and the Press were deadly opposed to the whole movement. This fact was in strict

consonance with the British character. We are, as a nation, extremely cautious and slow to

change. When such a tremendous change as that of the status of woman was involved, it is

not to be wondered at that time and the woman were needed to make it acceptable. But

the matter was lagging too much a decade ago. In order to make John Bull move it has been

proved in the past that he must be given an electric shock. He got it in the uprising of his

womenfolk. That women should stand up and demand justice was, to the slow-going old

gentleman, absolutely unthinkable. He opened his eyes; he wondered if he were standing

on his head or his heels. But the shock had succeeded in its object; it had roused him. Now

the result of the shock was this: John Bull was first pained and surprised; he then was led

to examine the matter; and the last stage is conversion. He is hovering between the last

two stages now, but he has at any rate reached the stage of interest. That is well shown in

the Press.

At the dinner of journalists given last year it was said that any just cause that was

taken up by the Press was certain of success. What we Suffragists have now to do to the

Press is to prove the justice of our cause, and that we can easily do with a ‘fair field and no

favour.’

Now the men of the nation have been given this fair field, but the women have not.

The men cannot, however, take full advantage of their chances because they are

handicapped by having undeveloped mothers. It is a well-known domestic truth that the

boy usually takes after his mother, and the girl after the father. That is why, with all their

opportunities, men are still held back from perfect development. But what of women?

Their condition is deplorable. With the dawn of liberty ahead of them they are struggling

upwards, but it is a bitter fight. One by one they are breaking the fetters and gradually

gaining power. The day is not far distant when they will stand free, side by side by men,

untrammeled, erect, with the proud bearing of equals; diverse, yet equal. Then indeed it

will be possible to set the true standard of manliness and of womanliness. Then, and not

till then, for each will have risen to full stature. Then and not till then will a perfectly

developed race be shown to the world.

Yours, &c.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

(B.A. Lond. and Oxford Final Honour School)