September 23, 1911, To the Editor of The Morning Post, “Enfranchisement of Working

Men”

Emily Davison’s broad vision of the social and political ramifications of suffrage lead

miners.

Sir, –In the tenth of the clever series of articles by your Special Correspondent on “The

Revolt of Labour” it is suggested that one of the causes of the present position of Trade

Unionism is the “curse of politics.” In a very able way the writer points out that the right to

have representation in Parliament which was secured by the Acts of 1871, 1875, and 1876

to Trade Unions has acted in detrimental fashion upon the Unions in some ways. He gives

as the two main reasons of this fact that the men’s Parliamentary representatives become

blinded by the glamour of Westminster, and as a result get out of touch with the Trade

Unions; and, secondly, that the various lodges and branches allow themselves to be led

away from their primary object into becoming hotbeds of Socialism.

Now, there is no doubt a great deal of truth in both of these contentions, but, on the

other hand, no great reform has ever been introduced without some hardships and even

mistakes accompanying it. It is impossible to forget that Trade Unionism would not have

gained its present position without the power of Parliamentary representation behind it.

Trade Unions had been in existence for numbers of years before working men got the vote,

and so secured representation for their union. That this was necessary is proved by the

women’s Trade Unions to-day. They have no power of collective bargaining because they

have no vote, and so even in Bermondsey they thought themselves extraordinarily

successful because they won an increase of wages, mostly of about 1s a week.

As for the problem put before us by your Special Correspondent it will undoubtedly

find its solution soon in the institution of Arbitration Courts or some such scheme. The

militant tactics of the men will necessitate the finding of a way, and all this in indirect ways

is the result of the enfranchisement of the working-man. The working woman must now be

enfranchised too. Yours, &c.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31, Coram-street, Sept. 22

September 19, 1911, to The Editor of The Morning Post, “Women Strikers of Bermondsey”

In this response to the writer of the original story about the Bermondsey strikes (Sept.

free, individual citizens.

Sir, –May I be allowed to make a few comments on the courteous answer from your Special

Correspondent who devoted his fourth article on the Revolt of Labour to the Women

Strikers of Bermondsey. In answer to his request, I have once more carefully read through

the article, and I still adhere to my contention, although I am prepared to allow that your

correspondent shows much sympathetic understanding of the girls’ case. The feature of

the article to which I specially objected was his implication that the strike was adopted by

those women-labourers in an irresponsible spirit. The words which gave this idea I

quote: ’Women who had never shown the least sign of discontent, and some whose wages

and conditions were far above the average of the district, were drawn in the excitement

and the chance of a holiday. Indeed, in some aspects the whole affair was more like a

holiday outing than a strike,’ and the article then went on to describe the procession to

which your correspondent alludes in his answer to-day, in which he notes the Cockney wit

and chaff. But even here I venture to criticize the general tone of his remarks, because the

wit and banter displayed by the girl strikers was no sign of an irresponsible and holiday

gaiety, which showed lack of appreciation of the serious issues involved. To my mind it

was rather the staunch and brave attempt to put a good face on a very serious matter. The

truth of this idea was well borne out by the keen remarks made to us onlookers by these

same strikers when we conversed with them. The feature of the strike was the never-

failing good courage, when all that seemed to be before them was starvation, which they

fully recognized. They displayed the courage of the ‘Suffragette,’ which means facing

danger regardless of consequences, and they displayed also that ‘Suffragette’ saving sense

of humour which has pulled us through many a dark hour. In short, to me the strike of

Bermondsey seemed to be one of the best manifestations of the new spirit among women,

the new sense of dignity and the right to assert individuality, and it seemed to me to be a

truly hopeful sign of the success that must soon be ours. What I also resented was the

implication that this natural and spontaneous rising was simply done in imitation of the

men strikers. It was the assertion of women workers of their right as human beings of

their place in the army of the workers of the world. Your correspondent in one of his

sentences gave an inkling that there was more in the revolt of the women than a mere

strike when he wrote ‘a new force has animated the most depressed and least skilled of all

industrial workers to a sudden passion for their rights.’ That force is the feeling fast

dawning among women that they have a right to demand full citizenship. Hence the

statement of your correspondent that ‘many of the girls thoroughly enjoyed the strike’

gains in force and meaning. What the girls enjoyed and what the Suffragettes have enjoyed

in undergoing their most horrible experiences has been that joy in at last asserting their

individuality as free-born Britons.

One further lesson of the women’s strike that might be given is the fact that the

women knew how to strike when the iron was hot, and that is one of the essentials of

politics.—Yours, &c.,

Emily Wilding Davison

31,Coram-street, Sept. 18 (1911)

September 16, 1911, To the Editor of The Morning Post

In the summer of 1911 women workers in the Bermondsey district of south London, an area

for the trades union movement grew in London between 1910 and 1914.

Sir, — It is with interest that many of us read the fourth of the articles by your Special

Correspondent on the Revolt of Labour which deals with the women’s strikes. But as a

woman who went down among the women-strikers to ascertain the real facts of the case

for herself, I feel that I must take exception to some of the statements made by the writer of

the article.

First and foremost, it is a downright misapprehension of the facts to declare that

these girls came out on strike in an irresponsible, frivolous way with the idea of taking a

sort of Roman holiday. The first feature which struck me and another woman-observer

was the deadly earnestness of the girls in their action; and no wonder when we came to

hear their stories. If ever a strike was justified it was so in the case of these girls: tea and

cocoa packers, tinmakers, makers of jam, confectionery, and biscuits, their labour was

undoubtedly being exploited, if ever labour was exploited. Decent, honest-looking enough

girls they seemed, who had been roused into thought by the sight of the great industrial

upheaval which was taking place around them. They saw responsible, serious men laying

down tools and taking part in one of the greatest manifestations of labour ever made in the

country. The natural outcome was the thought: ‘We, too, are labourers; why should we,

too, not stand out for the right to live?’ These girls, most of them, earned hard-earned

wages averaging from 5s. to 10s. [a week] in a working day often lasting from six in the

morning till eight at night. They were also victims of the miserable ‘piece work’ system.

When they saw men striking for 35s. and more a week for a far shorter day what wonder

that they realized that something would have to be done for them.

Secondly, I object to the statement that ‘women who had never shown the least sign

of discontent and some whose wages and conditions were far above the average of the

district were drawn in the excitement and the chance of a holiday.’ This is an entirely

misleading statement. The spirit which had manifested itself among the women was that

of ‘union’ in the best sense of the word. The most luckily-placed women felt the common

bond of a common interest. Each felt morally responsible for the sweating conditions, if

they were allowed to continue. In short. Amongst those poor women of Bermondsey was

manifested the true spirit which should animate Trade Unionism to-day. It was the insight

into the real meaning of ‘res publica,’ the public welfare. Miss Mary MacArthur and Dr.

Marion Phillips supplied the finishing touch of good leadership.

One part of the article gets, however, to the root of the matter when it is indicated

that what enabled the women to win was public opinion. It was that fact and their own co-

operative powers which made them win. But wherever we went we found these women-

workers alive to the necessity of the vote to working women as a means of protection.

Yours, &c.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31 Coram-street, Sept. 15 [1911]

September 7, 1911, To the Editor of The Morning Post

This brief letter, with its sarcasm and energy, touches on several major themes Davison

respect and compromise was a suffragist goal.

Sir,– Your correspondent who signs himself ‘One Who Knows,” has, probably unwittingly,

given in his letter one of the strongest arguments for Woman Suffrage. He asserts that

the modern English woman makes it her business to inveigle some man into marrying

her, and that once accomplished she proceeds to give herself up to selfish enjoyment

and shirks her duties. Although personally I should feel inclined to remark that your

correspondent must be unfortunate in the circle of his acquaintances, and that his remarks

apply rather to an age which is rapidly passing into Limbo with women’s increasing powers

and opportunities, yet, accepting his criterion for the sake of argument, I then throw down

to him the challenge: ‘If women act in this irresponsible, selfish way “a qui la faut”?’ The

fault lies with the men who trained up women in the idea that they were either to be over-

dressed, unintellectual dolls, or miserably underpaid and ill-treated drudges. Women were

either on a pedestal or in the mire. But this artificial absurdity is rapidly passing away.

Nowadays women are learning that they have a responsibility in life, a mission which they

must be free to discharge. They have a right to their own souls, and they have earned

economic independence. As a result, when they marry they do so more and more for love.

Marriage is no longer a soul-market. As women win more and more political and social

independence the standard of marriage will be inevitably raised. It will be entered into

as a solemn and holy contract, which entails self-sacrifice and self-respect on both sides,

and not on one side alone. In short, women’s direct entrance into the State and politics

means that the whole home-life of the nation will be raised and ennobled. This is the law of

evolution, –Yours, &c.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

31, Coram-street, Sept. 6