Emmeline Pankhurst
MILITANT SUFFRAGISTS
November 13，1913
I do not come here as an advocate，because what－ever position the suffrage movement may occupy inthe United States of America，in England it haspassed beyond the realm of advocacy and it has en-tered into the sphere of practical politics.It hasbecome the subject of revolution and civil war，andso to－night I am not here to advocate woman suf－frage.American suffragists can do that very wellfor themselves.I am here as a soldier who has temporarily left the field of battle in order to ex－plain—it seems strange it should have to be ex－plained—what civil war is like when civil war iswaged by women.I am not only here as a soldiertemporarily absent from the field of battle；I am here—and that，I think，is the strangest part ofmy coming—I am here as a person who，accordingto the law courts of my country，it has been decid-ed，is of no value to the community at all；and Iam adjudged because of my life to be a dangerousperson，under sentence of penal servitude in a con－vict prison.So you see there is some special inter－est in hearing so unusual a person address you.Idare say，in the minds of many of you—you willperhaps forgive me this personal touch—that I do not look either very like a soldier or very like aconvict，and yet I am both.
It would take too long to trace the course ofmilitant methods as adopted by women，because itis about eight years since the word militant wasfirst used to describe what we were doing； it isabout eight years since the first militant action wastaken by women.It was not militant at all，exceptthat it provoked militancy on the part of those whowere opposed to it.When women asked questions in political meetings and failed to get answers，they were not doing anything militant.To ask questions at political meetings is an acknowledgedright of all people who attend public meetings ； cer－tainly in my country，men have always done it，and I hope they do it in America，because it seemsto me that if you allow people to enter your legisla－tures without asking them any questions as to whatthey are going to do when they get there you arenot exercising your citizen rights and your citizenduties as you ought.At any rate in Great Britain itis a custom，a timehonored one，to ask questionsof candidates for Parliament and ask questions ofmembers of the government.No man was ever put out of a public meeting for asking a question untilVotes for Women came onto the political horizon.The first people who were put out of a politicalmeeting for asking questions，were women； theywere brutally ill－used ；they found themselves injail before twenty-four hours had expired.But in-stead of the newspapers，which are largely inspiredby the politicians，putting militancy and the re-proach of militancy，if reproach there is，on thepeople who had assaulted the women，they actual－ly said it was the women who were militant and very much to blame.
It was not the speakers on the platform whowould not answer them，who were to blame，orthe ushers at the meeting；it was the poor womenwho had had their bruises and their knocks and scratches，and who were put into prison for doingprecisely nothing but holding a protest meeting inthe street after it was all over.However，we werecalled militant for doing that，and we were quitewilling to accept the name，because militancy forus is time－h(huán)onored；you have the church militantand in the sense of spiritual militancy we were verymilitant indeed.We were determined to press thisquestion of the enfranchisement of the women tothe point where we were no longer to be ignored bythe politicians as had been the case for about fiftyyears，during which time women had patientlyused every means open to them to win their politi－cal enfranchisement.
Experience will show you that if you reallywant to get anything done，it is not so much a mat-ter of whether you alienate sympathy； sympathy isa very unsatisfactory thing if it is not practicalsympathy.It does not matter to the practical suf－fragist whether she alienates sympathy that wasnever of any use to her.What she wants is to getsomething practical done，and whether it is doneout of sympathy or whether it is done out of fear，or whether it is done because you want to be com-fortable again and not be worried in this way，doesn't particularly matter so long as you get it.We had enough of sympathy for fifty years；it nev-er brought us anything；and we would rather havean angry man going to the government and saying，my business is interfered with and I won't submitto its being interfered with any longer because youwon't give women the vote，than to have a gentle－man come onto our platforms year in and year outand talk about his ardent sympathy with woman suffrage.
“Put them in prison，”they said：“that willstop it.” But it didn't stop it.They put women inprison for long terms of imprisonment，for makinga nuisance of themselves—that was the expressionwhen they took petitions in their hands to the doorof the House of Commons； and they thought thatby sending them to prison，giving them a day's im－prisonment，would cause them to all settle down a-gain and there would be no further trouble.But itdidn't happen so at all：instead of the women givingit up，more women did it，and more and more andmore women did it until there were three hundredwomen at a time，who had not broken a singlelaw，only “made a nuisance of themselves” as thepoliticians say.
The whole argument with the anti－suffragists，or even the critical suffragist man，is this：that： youcan govern human beings without their consent.They have said to us，“Government rests upon force；the women haven't force，so they must sub-mit.” Well，we are showing them that governmentdoes not rest upon force at all；it rests upon con－sent.As long as women consent to be unjustly governed，they can be；but directly women say：“ We withhold our consent，we will not be gov－erned any longer so long as that government is un-just，” not by the forces of civil war can you governthe very weakest woman.You can kill that wom- an，but she escapes you then； you cannot governher.And that is，I think，a most valuable demon-stration we have been making to the world.
Now，I want to say to you who think womencannot succeed，we have brought the governmentof England to this position，that it has to face thisalternative；either women are to be killed or women are to have the vote.I ask American menin this meeting，what would you say if in yourState you were faced with that alternative，thatyou must either kill them or give them their citi-zenship，—women，many of whom you respect，women whom you know have lived useful lives，women whom you know，even if you do not knowthem personally，are animated with the highestmotives，women who are in pursuit of liberty andthe power to do useful public service？ Well，thereis only one answer to that alternative；there is onlyone way out of it，unless you are prepared to putback civilization two or three generations ；youmust give those women the vote.Now that is theoutcome of our civil war.
You won your freedom in America when youhad the Revolution，by bloodshed，by sacrificinghuman life.You won the Civil War by the sacrificeof human life when you decided to emancipate thenegro.You have left it to the women in your land，the men of all civilized countries have left it towomen，to work out their own salvation.That isthe way in which we women of England are doing.Human life for us is sacred，but we say if any lifeis to be sacrificed it shall be ours；we won't do itourselves，but we will put the enemy in the posi-tion where they will have to choose between givingus freedom or giving us death.
埃米林·潘克赫斯特
爭(zhēng)取婦女選舉權(quán)的斗士
1913年11月13日
今天我到這里來，不是為了宣傳，因?yàn)椴徽摖?zhēng)取婦女選舉權(quán)的運(yùn)動(dòng)在美國(guó)居于何等地位，這個(gè)運(yùn)動(dòng)在英國(guó)已經(jīng)超出了宣傳的范圍而進(jìn)入了實(shí)際政治活動(dòng)的階段。它已成為革命和內(nèi)戰(zhàn)的主題，所以我今晚不是來宣傳婦女選舉權(quán)的。美國(guó)爭(zhēng)取婦女選舉權(quán)的人能很好地開展她們自己的工作。我是作為一個(gè)為了解釋婦女所發(fā)動(dòng)的內(nèi)戰(zhàn)是什么樣子——對(duì)這一點(diǎn)還得進(jìn)行解釋，這看來似乎很奇怪——而暫時(shí)離開戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)的士兵來到這里的。我不僅是作為一名暫時(shí)離開戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)的士兵來到這里，而且——我認(rèn)為這是我此行的最奇怪的方面——是作為一個(gè)被自己國(guó)家的法庭判定為對(duì)社會(huì)毫無價(jià)值的人而來參加這個(gè)集會(huì)的；由于我的活動(dòng)，我被認(rèn)定為危險(xiǎn)人物，被判處在監(jiān)獄中服苦役刑。所以，你們看，聽這樣一個(gè)不尋常的人向你們講話是有一種特殊興味的。我敢說，在你們?cè)S多人心目中——你們或許會(huì)原諒我這種個(gè)人的風(fēng)格——我看起來既不很像士兵，又不很像囚犯，可是事實(shí)上我是集這二者于一身的。
追溯婦女采取戰(zhàn)斗性方法的經(jīng)過需要很長(zhǎng)的時(shí)間，因?yàn)榈谝淮斡脩?zhàn)斗一詞來說明我們的活動(dòng)是在8年以前；婦女第一次采取戰(zhàn)斗行動(dòng)已經(jīng)8年了。其實(shí)，這種活動(dòng)，除了激起那些反對(duì)它的人的好斗性外，根本不是好斗的。婦女在政治集會(huì)上提出的問題沒有得到答復(fù)，可她們沒有采取任何激烈行動(dòng)。在政治集會(huì)上提出問題是所有公共集會(huì)參加者的被認(rèn)可的權(quán)利；在我的國(guó)家里，男人們是經(jīng)常那樣做的，我希望他們?cè)诿绹?guó)也那樣做，因?yàn)?，在我看來，如果你們讓某些人進(jìn)入立法機(jī)構(gòu)而不問他們?cè)谀抢飳⒆鲂┦裁?，你們就沒有行使和履行公民應(yīng)有的權(quán)利和應(yīng)盡的義務(wù)。不論怎么說，在大不列顛，向議員候選人和政府成員提出問題是一種習(xí)慣，一種由來已久的習(xí)慣。在婦女選舉權(quán)問題出現(xiàn)于政治領(lǐng)域之前，沒有人因?yàn)樘崃艘粋€(gè)問題而被排除于公眾集會(huì)之外。由于提出問題而被排除于政治集會(huì)之外的第一批人是婦女；她們受到殘酷的折磨；她們發(fā)現(xiàn)在24小時(shí)的期限終止以前自己已被關(guān)進(jìn)監(jiān)獄。聽命于政治家的一些報(bào)紙不是把好斗的罪名和對(duì)好斗的責(zé)備放在那些攻擊婦女的人身上，而是聲稱好斗者全屬婦女，婦女應(yīng)該受到嚴(yán)厲的譴責(zé)。
被打得渾身青紫、傷痕累累的，不是那些不愿回答問題、那些確應(yīng)加以譴責(zé)的在講臺(tái)上講話的人，也不是會(huì)議上的招待員，而是可憐的婦女，她們僅僅因?yàn)樵诮稚吓e行了*集會(huì)，會(huì)后即被捕，投入監(jiān)獄了。然而，我們竟因那種活動(dòng)而被稱為好斗。我們很愿意接受這種名聲，因?yàn)閷?duì)我們來說戰(zhàn)斗性是歷史悠久、值得尊重的，你們不是有“戰(zhàn)斗教會(huì)” 嗎？就精神上的戰(zhàn)斗性而言，我們的確是十分好斗的。我們決心促使給予婦女以選舉權(quán)的問題得到解決，以便使我們不再像以往50年中為政治家所忽視，50年來婦女們耐心地使用了一切可用的方法以贏得政治選舉權(quán)。
經(jīng)驗(yàn)將向你們表明，如果你真想做成一件事，那么你是否失去同情無關(guān)緊要。如果沒有實(shí)際的作用，同情是非常不能令人滿意的。對(duì)于注重實(shí)效的爭(zhēng)取婦女選舉權(quán)的人來說，她并不在乎是否失去那從未起過作用的同情。她所需要的是辦成某件實(shí)事，至于辦成這件事是出于同情還是恐懼，還是由于人們企盼重享安寧而不在這方面再有煩惱，只要這件事已辦成，就都沒有什么特別要緊的了。50年間我們得到過足夠多的同情，卻從未因而得益；與其看到一位紳士年復(fù)一年地走上我們的講臺(tái)侈談他對(duì)婦女選舉權(quán)的熱忱，還不如看到一個(gè)憤怒的男人去對(duì)政府說，我的生意受到了阻礙，我不能容忍由于你們不給婦女以選舉權(quán)而使我的事業(yè)繼續(xù)受到干擾。
有人說：“把她們關(guān)進(jìn)監(jiān)獄就能阻止她們的活動(dòng)?！钡撬齻儧]有停止活動(dòng)。他們把婦女投入監(jiān)獄，處以長(zhǎng)期徒刑，理由是她們招人厭惡——這是他們手持請(qǐng)求書走向下議院大門時(shí)說的原話；他們以為把她們送進(jìn)監(jiān)獄，哪怕只關(guān)一天，就足以使她們安靜下來，就不會(huì)再有麻煩了?？墒鞘聭B(tài)的發(fā)展完全不同：婦女們沒有屈服，而是繼續(xù)戰(zhàn)斗，并且有越來越多的婦女參加進(jìn)來，甚至1次有300人之多。她們沒有觸犯任何一條法律，而只是如政治家們所說的“招人厭惡”。
對(duì)爭(zhēng)取婦女選舉權(quán)持反對(duì)態(tài)度的人或持批評(píng)意見的人的全部論點(diǎn)只是：你可以統(tǒng)治別人而不必得到他們的同意。這些人對(duì)我們說：“政府建立在力量的基礎(chǔ)上，婦女沒有力量，她們必須屈服?！蹦敲矗覀兙拖蛩麄儽砻鳎赫静皇墙⒃诹α康幕A(chǔ)之上，而是建立在同意的基礎(chǔ)上。只要婦女同意接受不公正的統(tǒng)治，她們就會(huì)受到不公正的統(tǒng)治；但是婦女們直截了當(dāng)?shù)匦Q：“我們保留我們的同意，只要政府是不公正的，我們就不會(huì)接受它的統(tǒng)治，”你們無法依仗打內(nèi)戰(zhàn)的武力去統(tǒng)治一個(gè)最最軟弱的女子。你可以殺死這個(gè)女子，而她卻因此可以擺脫你；你無法統(tǒng)治她。我認(rèn)為，這就是我們一直在向世界表明的最重要的一點(diǎn)。
現(xiàn)在，我要對(duì)那些認(rèn)為婦女不會(huì)成功的人說，我們已迫使英國(guó)政府面對(duì)這樣的選擇；或者是婦女們被殺掉，或者是婦女們得到選舉權(quán)。我要問這個(gè)集會(huì)上的美國(guó)男人：如果在你們國(guó)家里，你們面對(duì)著或者把婦女殺掉或者給她們以公民權(quán)的選擇，你將怎么說？婦女中的許多人是你們所敬重的，你們知道她們中許多人的生平事跡是值得稱頌的，你們知道—— 即使不是你們個(gè)人所認(rèn)識(shí)的——婦女中有許多人為崇高的動(dòng)機(jī)所激勵(lì)，追求自由，力求獲得為公眾提供有益服務(wù)的力量。那么，對(duì)這個(gè)選擇只有一個(gè)答案；如果你無意于使文明倒退兩三代，那就只有一條出路：你必須給婦女以選舉權(quán)。這就是我們的內(nèi)戰(zhàn)的結(jié)局。
你們?cè)讵?dú)立戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中，通過流血和犧牲生命，在美洲贏得了自由。在你們決心解放黑奴時(shí)，你們通過犧牲生命打贏了內(nèi)戰(zhàn)。你們把婦女自救的工作留給了你們國(guó)家的婦女，一切文明國(guó)家的男人都把這件工作留給了婦女。這也就是我們英國(guó)婦女正在做的工作。生命對(duì)我們是神圣的，但我們說如果有什么人要犧牲生命，那將是我們；我們自己不愿那么做，但我們將使敵人處于這樣的境地：他們必須在給我們以自由或給我們以死亡這二者中作出抉擇。
MILITANT SUFFRAGISTS
November 13，1913
I do not come here as an advocate，because what－ever position the suffrage movement may occupy inthe United States of America，in England it haspassed beyond the realm of advocacy and it has en-tered into the sphere of practical politics.It hasbecome the subject of revolution and civil war，andso to－night I am not here to advocate woman suf－frage.American suffragists can do that very wellfor themselves.I am here as a soldier who has temporarily left the field of battle in order to ex－plain—it seems strange it should have to be ex－plained—what civil war is like when civil war iswaged by women.I am not only here as a soldiertemporarily absent from the field of battle；I am here—and that，I think，is the strangest part ofmy coming—I am here as a person who，accordingto the law courts of my country，it has been decid-ed，is of no value to the community at all；and Iam adjudged because of my life to be a dangerousperson，under sentence of penal servitude in a con－vict prison.So you see there is some special inter－est in hearing so unusual a person address you.Idare say，in the minds of many of you—you willperhaps forgive me this personal touch—that I do not look either very like a soldier or very like aconvict，and yet I am both.
It would take too long to trace the course ofmilitant methods as adopted by women，because itis about eight years since the word militant wasfirst used to describe what we were doing； it isabout eight years since the first militant action wastaken by women.It was not militant at all，exceptthat it provoked militancy on the part of those whowere opposed to it.When women asked questions in political meetings and failed to get answers，they were not doing anything militant.To ask questions at political meetings is an acknowledgedright of all people who attend public meetings ； cer－tainly in my country，men have always done it，and I hope they do it in America，because it seemsto me that if you allow people to enter your legisla－tures without asking them any questions as to whatthey are going to do when they get there you arenot exercising your citizen rights and your citizenduties as you ought.At any rate in Great Britain itis a custom，a timehonored one，to ask questionsof candidates for Parliament and ask questions ofmembers of the government.No man was ever put out of a public meeting for asking a question untilVotes for Women came onto the political horizon.The first people who were put out of a politicalmeeting for asking questions，were women； theywere brutally ill－used ；they found themselves injail before twenty-four hours had expired.But in-stead of the newspapers，which are largely inspiredby the politicians，putting militancy and the re-proach of militancy，if reproach there is，on thepeople who had assaulted the women，they actual－ly said it was the women who were militant and very much to blame.
It was not the speakers on the platform whowould not answer them，who were to blame，orthe ushers at the meeting；it was the poor womenwho had had their bruises and their knocks and scratches，and who were put into prison for doingprecisely nothing but holding a protest meeting inthe street after it was all over.However，we werecalled militant for doing that，and we were quitewilling to accept the name，because militancy forus is time－h(huán)onored；you have the church militantand in the sense of spiritual militancy we were verymilitant indeed.We were determined to press thisquestion of the enfranchisement of the women tothe point where we were no longer to be ignored bythe politicians as had been the case for about fiftyyears，during which time women had patientlyused every means open to them to win their politi－cal enfranchisement.
Experience will show you that if you reallywant to get anything done，it is not so much a mat-ter of whether you alienate sympathy； sympathy isa very unsatisfactory thing if it is not practicalsympathy.It does not matter to the practical suf－fragist whether she alienates sympathy that wasnever of any use to her.What she wants is to getsomething practical done，and whether it is doneout of sympathy or whether it is done out of fear，or whether it is done because you want to be com-fortable again and not be worried in this way，doesn't particularly matter so long as you get it.We had enough of sympathy for fifty years；it nev-er brought us anything；and we would rather havean angry man going to the government and saying，my business is interfered with and I won't submitto its being interfered with any longer because youwon't give women the vote，than to have a gentle－man come onto our platforms year in and year outand talk about his ardent sympathy with woman suffrage.
“Put them in prison，”they said：“that willstop it.” But it didn't stop it.They put women inprison for long terms of imprisonment，for makinga nuisance of themselves—that was the expressionwhen they took petitions in their hands to the doorof the House of Commons； and they thought thatby sending them to prison，giving them a day's im－prisonment，would cause them to all settle down a-gain and there would be no further trouble.But itdidn't happen so at all：instead of the women givingit up，more women did it，and more and more andmore women did it until there were three hundredwomen at a time，who had not broken a singlelaw，only “made a nuisance of themselves” as thepoliticians say.
The whole argument with the anti－suffragists，or even the critical suffragist man，is this：that： youcan govern human beings without their consent.They have said to us，“Government rests upon force；the women haven't force，so they must sub-mit.” Well，we are showing them that governmentdoes not rest upon force at all；it rests upon con－sent.As long as women consent to be unjustly governed，they can be；but directly women say：“ We withhold our consent，we will not be gov－erned any longer so long as that government is un-just，” not by the forces of civil war can you governthe very weakest woman.You can kill that wom- an，but she escapes you then； you cannot governher.And that is，I think，a most valuable demon-stration we have been making to the world.
Now，I want to say to you who think womencannot succeed，we have brought the governmentof England to this position，that it has to face thisalternative；either women are to be killed or women are to have the vote.I ask American menin this meeting，what would you say if in yourState you were faced with that alternative，thatyou must either kill them or give them their citi-zenship，—women，many of whom you respect，women whom you know have lived useful lives，women whom you know，even if you do not knowthem personally，are animated with the highestmotives，women who are in pursuit of liberty andthe power to do useful public service？ Well，thereis only one answer to that alternative；there is onlyone way out of it，unless you are prepared to putback civilization two or three generations ；youmust give those women the vote.Now that is theoutcome of our civil war.
You won your freedom in America when youhad the Revolution，by bloodshed，by sacrificinghuman life.You won the Civil War by the sacrificeof human life when you decided to emancipate thenegro.You have left it to the women in your land，the men of all civilized countries have left it towomen，to work out their own salvation.That isthe way in which we women of England are doing.Human life for us is sacred，but we say if any lifeis to be sacrificed it shall be ours；we won't do itourselves，but we will put the enemy in the posi-tion where they will have to choose between givingus freedom or giving us death.
埃米林·潘克赫斯特
爭(zhēng)取婦女選舉權(quán)的斗士
1913年11月13日
今天我到這里來，不是為了宣傳，因?yàn)椴徽摖?zhēng)取婦女選舉權(quán)的運(yùn)動(dòng)在美國(guó)居于何等地位，這個(gè)運(yùn)動(dòng)在英國(guó)已經(jīng)超出了宣傳的范圍而進(jìn)入了實(shí)際政治活動(dòng)的階段。它已成為革命和內(nèi)戰(zhàn)的主題，所以我今晚不是來宣傳婦女選舉權(quán)的。美國(guó)爭(zhēng)取婦女選舉權(quán)的人能很好地開展她們自己的工作。我是作為一個(gè)為了解釋婦女所發(fā)動(dòng)的內(nèi)戰(zhàn)是什么樣子——對(duì)這一點(diǎn)還得進(jìn)行解釋，這看來似乎很奇怪——而暫時(shí)離開戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)的士兵來到這里的。我不僅是作為一名暫時(shí)離開戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)的士兵來到這里，而且——我認(rèn)為這是我此行的最奇怪的方面——是作為一個(gè)被自己國(guó)家的法庭判定為對(duì)社會(huì)毫無價(jià)值的人而來參加這個(gè)集會(huì)的；由于我的活動(dòng)，我被認(rèn)定為危險(xiǎn)人物，被判處在監(jiān)獄中服苦役刑。所以，你們看，聽這樣一個(gè)不尋常的人向你們講話是有一種特殊興味的。我敢說，在你們?cè)S多人心目中——你們或許會(huì)原諒我這種個(gè)人的風(fēng)格——我看起來既不很像士兵，又不很像囚犯，可是事實(shí)上我是集這二者于一身的。
追溯婦女采取戰(zhàn)斗性方法的經(jīng)過需要很長(zhǎng)的時(shí)間，因?yàn)榈谝淮斡脩?zhàn)斗一詞來說明我們的活動(dòng)是在8年以前；婦女第一次采取戰(zhàn)斗行動(dòng)已經(jīng)8年了。其實(shí)，這種活動(dòng)，除了激起那些反對(duì)它的人的好斗性外，根本不是好斗的。婦女在政治集會(huì)上提出的問題沒有得到答復(fù)，可她們沒有采取任何激烈行動(dòng)。在政治集會(huì)上提出問題是所有公共集會(huì)參加者的被認(rèn)可的權(quán)利；在我的國(guó)家里，男人們是經(jīng)常那樣做的，我希望他們?cè)诿绹?guó)也那樣做，因?yàn)?，在我看來，如果你們讓某些人進(jìn)入立法機(jī)構(gòu)而不問他們?cè)谀抢飳⒆鲂┦裁?，你們就沒有行使和履行公民應(yīng)有的權(quán)利和應(yīng)盡的義務(wù)。不論怎么說，在大不列顛，向議員候選人和政府成員提出問題是一種習(xí)慣，一種由來已久的習(xí)慣。在婦女選舉權(quán)問題出現(xiàn)于政治領(lǐng)域之前，沒有人因?yàn)樘崃艘粋€(gè)問題而被排除于公眾集會(huì)之外。由于提出問題而被排除于政治集會(huì)之外的第一批人是婦女；她們受到殘酷的折磨；她們發(fā)現(xiàn)在24小時(shí)的期限終止以前自己已被關(guān)進(jìn)監(jiān)獄。聽命于政治家的一些報(bào)紙不是把好斗的罪名和對(duì)好斗的責(zé)備放在那些攻擊婦女的人身上，而是聲稱好斗者全屬婦女，婦女應(yīng)該受到嚴(yán)厲的譴責(zé)。
被打得渾身青紫、傷痕累累的，不是那些不愿回答問題、那些確應(yīng)加以譴責(zé)的在講臺(tái)上講話的人，也不是會(huì)議上的招待員，而是可憐的婦女，她們僅僅因?yàn)樵诮稚吓e行了*集會(huì)，會(huì)后即被捕，投入監(jiān)獄了。然而，我們竟因那種活動(dòng)而被稱為好斗。我們很愿意接受這種名聲，因?yàn)閷?duì)我們來說戰(zhàn)斗性是歷史悠久、值得尊重的，你們不是有“戰(zhàn)斗教會(huì)” 嗎？就精神上的戰(zhàn)斗性而言，我們的確是十分好斗的。我們決心促使給予婦女以選舉權(quán)的問題得到解決，以便使我們不再像以往50年中為政治家所忽視，50年來婦女們耐心地使用了一切可用的方法以贏得政治選舉權(quán)。
經(jīng)驗(yàn)將向你們表明，如果你真想做成一件事，那么你是否失去同情無關(guān)緊要。如果沒有實(shí)際的作用，同情是非常不能令人滿意的。對(duì)于注重實(shí)效的爭(zhēng)取婦女選舉權(quán)的人來說，她并不在乎是否失去那從未起過作用的同情。她所需要的是辦成某件實(shí)事，至于辦成這件事是出于同情還是恐懼，還是由于人們企盼重享安寧而不在這方面再有煩惱，只要這件事已辦成，就都沒有什么特別要緊的了。50年間我們得到過足夠多的同情，卻從未因而得益；與其看到一位紳士年復(fù)一年地走上我們的講臺(tái)侈談他對(duì)婦女選舉權(quán)的熱忱，還不如看到一個(gè)憤怒的男人去對(duì)政府說，我的生意受到了阻礙，我不能容忍由于你們不給婦女以選舉權(quán)而使我的事業(yè)繼續(xù)受到干擾。
有人說：“把她們關(guān)進(jìn)監(jiān)獄就能阻止她們的活動(dòng)?！钡撬齻儧]有停止活動(dòng)。他們把婦女投入監(jiān)獄，處以長(zhǎng)期徒刑，理由是她們招人厭惡——這是他們手持請(qǐng)求書走向下議院大門時(shí)說的原話；他們以為把她們送進(jìn)監(jiān)獄，哪怕只關(guān)一天，就足以使她們安靜下來，就不會(huì)再有麻煩了?？墒鞘聭B(tài)的發(fā)展完全不同：婦女們沒有屈服，而是繼續(xù)戰(zhàn)斗，并且有越來越多的婦女參加進(jìn)來，甚至1次有300人之多。她們沒有觸犯任何一條法律，而只是如政治家們所說的“招人厭惡”。
對(duì)爭(zhēng)取婦女選舉權(quán)持反對(duì)態(tài)度的人或持批評(píng)意見的人的全部論點(diǎn)只是：你可以統(tǒng)治別人而不必得到他們的同意。這些人對(duì)我們說：“政府建立在力量的基礎(chǔ)上，婦女沒有力量，她們必須屈服?！蹦敲矗覀兙拖蛩麄儽砻鳎赫静皇墙⒃诹α康幕A(chǔ)之上，而是建立在同意的基礎(chǔ)上。只要婦女同意接受不公正的統(tǒng)治，她們就會(huì)受到不公正的統(tǒng)治；但是婦女們直截了當(dāng)?shù)匦Q：“我們保留我們的同意，只要政府是不公正的，我們就不會(huì)接受它的統(tǒng)治，”你們無法依仗打內(nèi)戰(zhàn)的武力去統(tǒng)治一個(gè)最最軟弱的女子。你可以殺死這個(gè)女子，而她卻因此可以擺脫你；你無法統(tǒng)治她。我認(rèn)為，這就是我們一直在向世界表明的最重要的一點(diǎn)。
現(xiàn)在，我要對(duì)那些認(rèn)為婦女不會(huì)成功的人說，我們已迫使英國(guó)政府面對(duì)這樣的選擇；或者是婦女們被殺掉，或者是婦女們得到選舉權(quán)。我要問這個(gè)集會(huì)上的美國(guó)男人：如果在你們國(guó)家里，你們面對(duì)著或者把婦女殺掉或者給她們以公民權(quán)的選擇，你將怎么說？婦女中的許多人是你們所敬重的，你們知道她們中許多人的生平事跡是值得稱頌的，你們知道—— 即使不是你們個(gè)人所認(rèn)識(shí)的——婦女中有許多人為崇高的動(dòng)機(jī)所激勵(lì)，追求自由，力求獲得為公眾提供有益服務(wù)的力量。那么，對(duì)這個(gè)選擇只有一個(gè)答案；如果你無意于使文明倒退兩三代，那就只有一條出路：你必須給婦女以選舉權(quán)。這就是我們的內(nèi)戰(zhàn)的結(jié)局。
你們?cè)讵?dú)立戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中，通過流血和犧牲生命，在美洲贏得了自由。在你們決心解放黑奴時(shí)，你們通過犧牲生命打贏了內(nèi)戰(zhàn)。你們把婦女自救的工作留給了你們國(guó)家的婦女，一切文明國(guó)家的男人都把這件工作留給了婦女。這也就是我們英國(guó)婦女正在做的工作。生命對(duì)我們是神圣的，但我們說如果有什么人要犧牲生命，那將是我們；我們自己不愿那么做，但我們將使敵人處于這樣的境地：他們必須在給我們以自由或給我們以死亡這二者中作出抉擇。