The whole argument with the anti-suffragists, or even the critical suffragist man, is this: that you can govern human beings without their consent.

There is something that governments care for more than human life, and that is the security of property, and so it is through property that we shall strike the enemy.... Those of you who can break windows--break them. Those of you who can still further attack the secret idol of property, so as to make the Government realize that property is as greatly endangered by women's suffrage as it was by the Chartists of old--do so. And my last word is to the Government: I incite this meeting to rebellion!

I would rather be a rebel than a slave.

If it is right for men to fight for their freedom, and God knows what the human race would be like today if men had not, since time began, fought for their freedom, then it is right for women to fight for their freedom and the freedom of the children they bear.

We have to free half of the human race, the women, so that they can help free the other half.

How different the reasoning is that men adopt when they are discussing the cases of men and those of women.

What is the use of fighting for a vote if we have not got a country to vote in?