I selected Emily Wilding Davison as my subject, as she was often described as ‘irregular’
and ‘intransigent’ by her peers (Holton: 1996.pp.147). I aim to place the seemingly ordinary
woman in her exceptional circumstances with wider consequence.
After the French Revolution of 1799, Thomas Payne and Mary Wollstonecraft began
publishing their infamous works, and the role of women became public debate.
Emily Wilding Davison was born in 1872 and lived in a society where the ideas and concepts
of the domestic ideology and separate spheres were imposed upon women and where it was
still uncommon for women to be highly educated.
Wollstonecraft noted: “Wisdom is thy principle thing: therefore get wisdom; and with all thy
gettings get understanding” (Wollstonecraft [1792]:2004.pp.126). Wollstonecraft identified
that women’s inferior status was a result of their environment and felt they should be better
educated to equip them for the world.
Despite the convention that girls should have a limited education, Davison studied literature
at Royal Holloway College in 1895, after working as a governess, she went on to achieve a
first class honours degree in the Oxford University examination for women, but was unable
to graduate as Oxford degrees were closed to women at that time. Between 1896 and 1898
she worked as a teacher in Worthing and raised enough money to return to university
education, eventually graduating from the University of London (Simkin: 2003). Davison’s
educational career demonstrates how difficult it was for women to become educated to the
same level as men. Hadow states: “In general it may safely be said that the traditional
education for girls accentuated the differences between the sexes” (Hadow: 1923.pp.23 in
Gillard: 2011).
State education was introduced with the 1870 Education Act; school boards were formed
and could insist on the attendance of children between the ages of five and 13. (Gillard:
2011). Women’s education was limited and classes to aid girls in becoming good wives and
mothers featured heavily (Gillard: 2011). By 1874, approximately 5000 schools had been set
up under the 1870 Act, and in 1880 school attendance was made compulsory for all children
up to the age of ten (Stephens: 1998). In using biography it can be noted that the education
that Davison gained was atypical and I would conclude that this access to education played
a role in her, and many others’ involvement with the suffrage movement.
In the mid-nineteenth century new ideas surrounding society and especially the role of
women were beginning to form, with writers such as Catherine Hall suggesting that
Evangelicalism provided the driving force behind them (Hall, in Burman: 1979). Diaries and
letters support the argument that the Victorian domestic ideology was widespread and
influential. For example, the diary written by Margaretta Greg states: “…a lady, to be a lady,
must be a mere lady and nothing else...”(Greg: 1853)
It is widely accepted that the view of women as belonging in the home had long existed, yet
it was the separation of the private and public that fuelled the omission of women in much of
the wider society. I would suggest that the domestic ideology had wider implications. It was
believed by many, that politics would corrupt women and would interfere with their role as
wives and mothers. This shows why many were against women having the vote (Hall: 1979).
It is the rejection of this ideology that exhorted Davison’s support of the suffrage movement.
Hannam notes that:
“From the mid 1850’s a more explicit challenge was mounted
against the ideology of separate spheres, when a series of
campaigns developed which sought to address the inequalities
and disadvantages faced by women.” (Hannam: 2000a.pp.219)
There had been examples of politicised women during the century with many women
becoming involved in the Swing Riots (1830-1832), Chartism (1836-1848) and the Trade
Union Movement towards the end of the century. Beddoe notes that it is from the 1870’s
onwards that the opportunity for political involvement was opening up for women (Beddoe:
1998).
The era also brought about the ‘New Woman’ about whom observers debated from the
1880’s onwards, and who was encapsulated by forward thinking writers such as Henrik
Ibsen, Rebecca West and Bernard Shaw. Colmore, writing of Emily Wilding Davison’s
interest in the theatre states: “…she declared, ‘…I can enjoy a musical comedy as much as
a Shakespeare play or a Bernard Shaw’…”(Colmore: 1913.pp.12). I suggest that this is
evidence of the importance Davison placed on the ideas of the ‘New Woman’ through her
equal comparison of the work of Bernard Shaw with Shakespeare.
The term ‘New Woman’ described women who were pushing against the limits placed upon
them by society, through education, employment, marital choices and sexual liberation.
(Bland: 1987). In Ibsen’s notes for A Doll's House (1879), he maintained; "A woman cannot
be herself in contemporary society; it is an exclusively male society with laws drafted by
men” (Cited in Bland: 1987).
Davison’s life reflects the ideologies brought about by the politicised ‘New Woman’, Gertrude
Colmore noted in 1913 that Davison defied authority and stood against submission
(Colmore: 1913). She spent, “…her childhood [in] a Georgian house three storeys in height,
with tall, spacious rooms…” (Colmore: 1913.pp.5), which characterises her middle class
background, (Colmore: 1913). Although one could argue that Davison’s class background
and liberal outlook would have led to a more privileged position in society I would state that
this is not evidential to the intentions of the politicised liberal women within the campaign.
The suffrage movement was primarily middle class but was divided amongst those who
campaigned for universal suffrage, and those who fought for adult suffrage under the
property criteria that already existed. Working class women felt this was another form of
subjugation (Davis: 2008).
The suffrage movement had begun to gain momentum from the 1860’s. By 1892, 503,000
women were eligible to vote in local elections but it was limited to strict property criteria. In
1897 the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies, led by Lydia Becker then later
Millicent Garrett Fawcett was formed. The organisation’s tactics were constitutional, in
particular, introducing Parliamentary Bills, holding meetings and through ‘memorabilia’
(Walters: 2005).
Emmeline Pankhurst, who had been active in the suffrage movement since the 1870’s, had
become frustrated at the lack of success in gaining the vote. Pankhurst founded the
Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) in 1903. Approximately 5000 members,
including Davison in 1906, joined Pankhurst and adopted new tactics to gain public attention
and compel the government to grant women suffrage (Gullickson: 2008).
Early WSPU tactics included; public rallies, demonstrations, newspaper articles and the
interruption of public meetings with questions regarding suffrage. The latter lead to many
women being removed, arrested and required to choose between a fine or imprisonment
(Rosen: 1974). According to Gertrude Colmore, it was the reports in newspapers of the early
actions that first drew Davison to the suffrage cause. Colmore states that:
“When the W.S.P.U. was beginning to be talked about…the
papers…out of curiosity at first, and to verify her impressions, she
began attending meetings.”
(Colmore: 1913, in Stanley and Morley: 1988.pp.17)
She found that the speakers had been misrepresented and her interest strengthened
(Colmore: 1913).
During its formative years, the WSPU was rooted in a ‘politically radical’ Manchester, and in
1906 it severed party political ties and re-affirmed its ‘independence’ allowing for a class
neutral membership, among other benefits. When tactics did not change government policy:
“…the group turned what had heretofore been a peaceful
campaign for the vote into one of open conflict [and] physical
confrontation” (Gullickson: 2008.pp.463)
Women damaged property, committed arson, mutilated Orchids and threw bricks through
windows (Gullickson: 2008). Between 1905 until 1914 approximately 1,000 women and 40
men were imprisoned for partaking in the militant ‘deeds’ with “…the majority of the female
prisoners being drawn from the ranks of the WSPU…” (Purvis: 2000.pp.135). Emily Wilding
Davison took part in many of these militant protests and between March 1909 and January
1912 she served roughly 14 months in prison for charges ranging from; arson, stone
throwing, property damage and assault (Trueman: 2010).
There is a prevalence of a ‘victimisation’ of the report of suffragette imprisonment within
schools, rather than the discussion of the militant actions and protests. I suggest this shows
underlying concepts of authorised knowledge surrounding female behaviour and the
tendency to place women in history as victims rather than protagonists, if at all (Rowbotham:
1973). The biography of Davison gives insight into the militant actions and the continuing
protests of the women whilst in prison. The significance of using biography to study the
WSPU tactics is the insight into the repercussions of those actions and the way suffragettes
utilised them.
During her sentence at Strangeways in Manchester, Davison, in protest of the rough
treatment of the prisoners, barricaded herself in her cell. After the event Davison wrote:
“ I saw to my joy that there were two plank beds in the cell….down
went the two beds as quietly as possible, lengthways exactly
between the door and the window…different people came,
begged me to get off the planks, and threatened me with
punishment.”
(Davison: 1909 in Sunday Dispatch, Cited in Marlow: 2000.
pp.103)
Wardens used a fire hose against her. Davison recalls, “I had to hold on for grim death. The
force of water was terrific…I gasped for breath…I could see that if the door fell it would
crush me”. Davison remarks:
“A male warden climbed in… [and] lifted me up….my clothes were
literally torn off, and I was rushed through the building to the
hospital …then forcibly fed through the nose.” (Davison: 1909 in
Sunday Dispatch, Cited in Marlow: 2000. pp.103)
This account exemplifies the dedication of the women involved and the ’thrill’ of
disobedience which was a far reach from their supposed place in society. I argue that these
protests formed a major part of the campaigns; however they are often overlooked by
contemporary historians. Rosen (1974) dedicates only two sentences to the aforementioned
event, which demonstrates the importance of biography in the furtherance of historical
study.
Forcible feeding was a significant issue for many suffragettes as many went on hunger
strike in prison which led to the 1913 Temporary Discharge for Ill Health Act known as the
Cat and Mouse Act (Walters: 2005). The Act led to a cycle of painfully invasive measures of
force-feeding followed, when an individual was considered too ill to remain incarcerated, by
release until they were deemed healthy enough to return.
Emmeline Pankhurst wrote of the growing militancy as: “[The] beginning of a campaign of
the like which was never known in England, or for that matter, in any other country…”
(Pankhurst [1914]: 1979). This exemplifies the anticipation amongst the WSPU (Humm:
1992). However, Stanley and Morley state, in regards to biographical study that: “…there is
no ‘before feminism’ for Emily, nor even any ‘before militancy’…” (Stanley, Morley: 1988.
pp.74) they go on to explain that this was largely to do with:
“…[her] position within the WSPU….Emily’s habit of acting on her
own initiative meant that she was not in favour with the leadership
of the WSPU , and indeed was seen by them rather as an
unpredictable thorn in the flesh” (Stanley, Morley: 1988. pp. 74)
By this I suggest that although Emmeline Pankhurst was initially ‘exited’ by the new type of
campaign, Davison’s actions were not in favour with many of the WSPU members, perhaps
reflecting the socialised domestic ideology and role of women even among the members of
the women’s movement. Davison “…frequently took militant action on [her] own initiative
which was then sanctioned, albeit reluctantly, by the national leadership” (Purvis & Holton:
1996). Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence wrote in a letter to fellow a WSPU member “…you are
not serving the best interests of the union in exposing yourself to more imprisonment”
(Holton: 1996. pp. 147). However, not all militancy was destructive.
Davison, on census night, 2 April 1911, concealed herself in the Crypt Chapel in the House
of Commons so as to give it as her address in the official census.
“It is an irony that when some suffragettes were trying to evade
being recorded in the census, Davison was recorded twice” (UK
Parliament: 2011)
Davison underwent “considerable violence at the hands of prison authorities” (Holton: 1996.
pp.147). She is well known for her protests against this treatment and is reported to have
jumped off the iron stairs in Holloway prison caught only by the netting below (Stanley and
Morley: 1988. pp.157). This act has long been considered ‘proof’ that Davison’s actions in
1913, which led to her death, were suicidal. Davison remarked that her actions were to save
the ‘torture’ of her friends not to die. She wrote: "…one big tragedy may save many others."
(Davison: 1913.pp.577) According to Gullickson “… [Many were] willing to risk injury and
death to win the vote. Hundreds of women were beaten up by young men…seriously injured
by stewards…endured hunger strikes and forcible feeding” (Gullickson: 2008.pp.470)
Hannam expresses concern stating that historians need to exercise caution in making
generalisations about the nature of militancy (Hannam: 2000. pp. 241). Militancy began to
decrease around 1912 and;
“…individual acts of violence replaced collective mass protests
and alienated many members of the WSPU which became more
isolated as an organisation” (Purvis: 2000).
On June 4th 1913, Emily Wilding Davison attended the Epsom Derby which was featuring the
Kings horse Anmer. As the horses rounded Tattenham corner, she passed under the rail and
ran onto the track (Mulvey-Roberts: 2000). Film of the event shows her; …”running toward
the king's horse and throwing up her hands, perhaps to stop the horse, perhaps to protect
herself.” (Stanley and Morley: 1988.pp.165). Davison died on June 8th never regaining
consciousness after the collision
In Stanley and Morley’s account of the event they note that the footage of the event shows
that Davison had a hand on Anmer’s bridle (Stanley& Morley: 1988.pp.165). I suggest this
does not establish whether she intended to die but it goes some way to conclude that she
intended to “take a petition to the king” by attaching a flag to Anmer (Stanley & Morley:
1988.pp.165).
There are many conflicting accounts of the events leading up to, and on that day, though
ultimately there is no proof of her exact intentions. Davison’s essay, published posthumously
in 1914, entitled ‘The Price of Liberty’ suggests that she believed;
“To lay down life for friends, that is glorious, selfless, inspiring! But
to re-enact the tragedy of Calvary for generations yet unborn, that
is the last consummate sacrifice of the Militant," (Davison,
1914:129).
This shows the religious influence of not only Davison, but the era and the suffrage
movement. The martyred Joan of Arc was the WSPU’s patron saint and role model
(Pankhurst, C: 1913.pp.501) and the day before the Derby, Davison,
“…with her friend Mary Leigh, she stood before the statue of Joan
of Arc and read the inscription: "Fight on and God will give the
Victory" (Colmore, 1913: 56).
But, as Stanley and Morley note: “The price of liberty has no date and gives no indication of
any actual act which has not stopped many concluding that it is a suicide note or martyrdom
note “ (Stanley and Morley: 1988.pp165).
The circumstances surrounding the death of Emily Wilding Davison made her: “One of the
most famous and controversial of British suffragettes.” (Gullickson: 2008.pp 461). The
response to her death was varied with the WSPU declaring her a martyr and praising her
actions as from someone who, according to Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence, risked her life to
draw attention to:
“[The] great hardships and privations endured by women by
reason of their exclusion from any political status”
(E.
Pethick-Lawrence, 1913: In Gullickson: 2008.pp 462)
Anti-Suffragists opposed this view and questioned her sanity characterising her actions as
“reckless fanaticism” (Gullickson: 2008.pp462). Emmeline Pankhurst stated that Davison
had been "one of our valiant soldiers," who had "gladly laid down her life for the cause of
women's freedom" (E. Pankhurst, 1913: 8).
Only recently has opinion coalesced around the notion that: “she was willing to die, but
hoped she would not” (Stanley & Morley: 1988). The return ticket found on her persons when
she died is often used to state that she had not intended to die. However, this is not
evidential as it may have been cost or habit that led her to purchase of a return ticket.
Emily Wilding Davison’s funeral was held in London but she was buried in the family vault in
Morpeth with the WSPU motto ‘Deeds Not Words’ (Marlow: 2000). Thousands of
suffragettes and supporters gathered and London almost ground to a halt. Mary Stocks
observed; “What a strange place London is…[it] throws clods of earth at unoffending lawabiding National Unionists and turns out in thousands, with…tears in its eyes, to watch the
funeral of the most destructive militant who ever milled” (Stocks: 1913 in Marlow:
2000.pp.199). This shows an unusual reverence, upon death, for the woman that so many
were opposed to, exemplifying the impact of her death on the nation.
In conclusion, although there had been some progress in the Houses of Parliament with
regards to women’s rights after Davison’s death, in 1918, a partial victory was won with the
Representation of the People Act, which allowed women over 30 to vote under property
criteria, but the act also granted universal male suffrage. It may be argued that the 1918 Act
was introduced to appease the suffrage movement. However, the campaign continued for
another decade until on July 2 nd 1928 when “…Women and men who had reached the age
of 21 could vote on equal terms” (Purvis & Holton: 2000.pp.2).Some historians argue that
Davison’s actions may have been detrimental. Evans argues that;
“it is not difficult to imagine suffragette sympathisers cursing her…
knowing her sacrifice [would] paint women as irrational,
passionate creatures who could not be trusted with the vote”
(Evans: 2008).
Davison’s death continues to be debated as historians contemplate opposing views
regarding her intentions, psychological health and militant career. Emmeline Pankhurst
believed that:
“Emily Davison clung to her conviction that, one great
tragedy…would put an end to the intolerable torture of women”
(Pankhurst: [1914] 1979).
I would suggest that it is conjecture based in evidence that forms much of the understanding
of her death. However, the examination of an “extraordinary woman through the framework
of the ‘ordinary’ female experience” (Caine: 1994.pp.253) has allowed me to understand
some reasons why women campaigned for suffrage, what the wider implications were and
why Davison’s death had such an impact regardless of its controversy.