Invoking the trope of Rip Van Winkle to characterize the ignorance of the writer of

Thomas Jefferson.

Sir, –The writer of your leader to-day header “Suffragette Survivals” must surely be a

modern Rip Van Winkle, who has been asleep during the past four of five years. Because

in your paper you have a report of some unfortunate lady who had once upon a time been

a militant Suffragette, and has now apparently turned her back upon the movement, you

have seized the opportunity to pour the vials of your wrath upon Suffragettes in general.

You say that the lessons that this woman has not forgotten from her previous actions are:–

(1)—that attention must be called to distress or grievance by violence, instead of appealing

to the proper institutions; (2) that the demonstration must be violent and calculated

to cause inconvenience to the public. May I be allowed, however, to set Rip Van Winkle

right? It is perfectly true that the right way to get grievances redressed is to appeal to the

institutions appointed for that purpose. But what is to be done if the appointed institutions

fail to take notice of the grievance, although reiterated often and strongly during, say, 50

years? Is it right to continue to sit down under the grievance? Is it not indeed criminal and

cowardly? It is an axiom of politics that those who accept tyranny are worthy of tyranny,

and further that rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God! So much for your first

lesson.

With regard to the second, it is the inevitable conclusion of the lessons of history.

No reform was ever won in this country without a very great deal of effort. It is impossible

to avoid remarking that in the case of the women’s agitation the violence done so far has

been mild compared to the men’s agitation in past days, especially in 1832 , 1867, and

during this strike year of 1911, and the resulting inconvenience has been suffered by the

women themselves and not the public, as in the men’s cases. In the case of this poor

woman, too, the public seems not to have been troubled at all, as according to the accounts

of the incident, after breaking the windows she went to Cannon-row [police station] and

delivered herself up.

Having indulged in a tirade against the deputations to Parliament-square, which

apparently your Rip Van Winkle does not know have been so conducted as to come strictly

within the meaning of the law, by avoiding the character of a procession and by consisting

of separate detachments of less than 13, the leader next attacks the action of Miss Clemence

Housman in refusing to pay her Inhabited House Duty on the strictly constitutional

ground that taxation without representation is legalized robbery. Rip Van Winkle shows

that he is still too sleepy to talk common sense when he remarks that “it did not seem to

strike her that the tax in question was imposed on her by a higher power than her own

individuality.” Yet it is now established and has been the theory for centuries that it is “the

people” who, by the voice of their representatives, consent to their own taxation. She,

therefore, in logic is part of “the higher power” herself. The point that is now being

rammed home by the political descendants of John Hampden is that women are “people”

as well as men, and until their consent is given they refuse to be taxed. It is the British

nation to-day which has evidently to be taught logic.

The only logical grounds on which the nation can refuse votes to women is that they

do not require them to pay taxes.—I am, Sir, yours, &c.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31, Coram-street, Oct. 2

Davison’s conviction that the “present” position of women is an historical anomaly owing

heading “Wages for Wives” in the Daily Express on September 30, 1911.

Sir,– In your columns to-day you deal with the question of the position of the wife with

regard to the family income, apropos of the remarks made by Yorkshire women Liberals.

The present position of the wife in the matter is entirely unsatisfactory. But the idea of a

wife receiving ‘wages’ is of course equally unpleasing for many reasons, amongst which

is the one that her services are priceless. Some people suggest a ‘wife’s charter’ of rights;

others suggest equally futile remedies. The plain truth of the matter is that the present

position of women in marriage is an anomaly, and due to clumsy attempts made from time

to time to tinker up the laws of marriage, which have descended to us from feudal days.

Now, the root of the matter is the position of women itself. When women are

enfranchised the marriage laws, which are more unjust in England than in most European

countries, will be overhauled and put right on a just basis. Neither privilege nor injustice is

desirable, but fair play. Let those Liberal women therefore who complain of the economic

position of the wife, see to it that no tricks are played with the Conciliation Bill next year.—

I am, Sir, yours, &c.

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31 Coram-street, W.C., Sept. 29