Davison’s humour was met by the wry humour of this letter which managed to turn the

tables on the usual gender stereotypes that Davison tried continually to rebuff:

October 10 1912, To the Editor of The Newcastle Daily Journal , “The Hunger

Strike”

Sir, –I fear it would not be easy to enforce a hunger strike upon the male sex

during the festive season, as Miss Davison suggests in your paper today; since

all the most accomplished cooks are men, who might have a sneaking sympathy

with the starving victims. It is precisely in the domestic arts, such as cooking,

housework, and dressmaking that a man excels; let us give the devil his due; but

over wider affairs of national importance he invariably makes a most conspicuous

ass of himself. When it comes to positions requiring high powers of organization,

tact, and diplomacy, a wide and intimate grasp of detail, and an incorruptible

devotion to duty, then a woman is required.

To take one small example: if Miss Davison will enter any of our best

shops, doing a large and successful business, she will find that the window-

dressing and other work which requires a man’s taste and a man’s skilful fingers

is done (as it should be ) by men; but at the cashier’s desk a woman sits

enthroned.

9th October, 1912

LOOKER-ON

Davison, however, did not take kindly to the tone or the content of “Looker-

women.

October 15, 1912, To the Editor of The Newcastle Daily Journal

Sir, Your correspondent, ‘Looker On,’ is evidently given to the art of picturesque

abuse when he unkindly reflects on the diabolic tendencies of the male sex, and

at the same time cunningly displays the male cloven hoof by referring to the age-

long masculine tendency to absorb all the paying and comfortable sinecures,

which belong to the sphere usually elegantly described as peculiar to women.

Thus, too, ‘Looker On’ is cleverly forcing upon our notice how absolutely the

average male is thrusting his tongue into his cheek, when he urges the exploited

female to shine brightly in her own ‘sphere’ when he can tell her to pay up and

shut up, so long as he controls the law and the purse-strings!

‘Looker-On’ rams home the little fact that the astute (or asinine!) male still

sees to it that he runs the gamut of guiding women by shop windows, and great

autocrats of fashion, such as Worth, to exhaust their energy and cash on the

very prettiest and most changeable of fashions, so that they may all through the

ages play into his hands! And the amusing commentary on it all is that ‘Looker

On’ points to the fact that the gentle devil does it all through those very acts in

which he is deficient .

The average masculine good taste is abundantly evidenced in his

hideosities, in his sight-offending cities, his own monstrosities in the matter of

male and female attire (which causes him to clothe himself in the beauteous

topper and sightly [sic] bifurcated garments, while he orders his female to

veer from the cramped shoes of old China to the alternatives of the crinoline

and hobble-skirt of Europe), to the very ugliness of his own private dens and

city offices. ‘Looker On’ is evidently possessed by a satire almost worthy of

Dean Swift in referring to the ‘skilful fingers’ of the male, when we consider the

blasphemy to which the latter is given when faced by the departing button or the

recalcitrant collar-stud!

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

September 18, 1912, The Newcastle Daily Journal article, “Forcible Feeding; Mr.

Bernard Shaw and the Suffragettes”

‘”Cold Logic:’ Eat or Die”

Mr. Bernard Shaw has written a long letter to Miss Gawthorpe on the

been ‘ignominiously beaten.’

‘The moment the women go on to graver crimes,’ Mr. Shaw

proceeds, ‘this illogical compounding of a month’s imprisonment for a week’s

torture is no longer possible. An attempt to give the Mountjoy prisoners an

equivalent in forcible feeding for three and a half years’ penal servitude would

probably end either in killing them or driving them mad. The result of that

might be that other suffragists might be goaded into doing something that

would be punished by sentence of penal servitude for life.

‘In that case what would the Government do? To release a really

dangerous criminal after a fortnight’s stomach-pumping would be ridiculous,

and the released prisoner might quite possibly be lynched. To keep the

prisoner would mean allowing her to starve herself to death.

‘STAND AND DELIVER”

‘In such an extremity it seems to me that the prisoner’s right to commit suicide

would have to be recognized. As long as the Government placed within

the prisoner’s reach a sufficiency of food, I do not see how it could be held

accountable for the prisoner’s death any more than if she committed suicide in

any other manner.

‘If a woman meets me on Waterloo Bridge, and says, “Give me a five-pound

note or I’ll jump into the Thames and drown myself as soon as you have gone

a sufficient distance to prevent you from holding me,” I really do not see how I

could reasonably comply with the request, because if it were established as a

rule of conduct that I was bound to do so or else be held guilty of the woman’s

death, all the women in London might make me stand and deliver in turn until I

was a beggar.

‘And in the same way if the Government is bound to release every prisoner who

threatens to commit suicide by starvation, then all the criminals can compel a

general gaol delivery and practically abolish all legal methods of dealing with

crime. The fact that these methods are so bad that one could hardly regret such

a result does not affect the argument, because any methods, however human,

could be evaded in the same way.

‘My conclusion, therefore, is that if the prisoners in Mountjoy are determined

to commit suicide by starvation they must be allowed to do so, and that the

Government could not be held responsible for their deaths if it could convince the

public that the prisoners had plenty of food within their reach.’

Shaw’s lucid, sardonic argument, like Jonathan Swift’s in A Modest Proposal, seems

but “honourable political prisoners.”

Sir, — It is impossible to believe that so illogical and inhuman a production could

possibly have emanated from the pen of Mr. Bernard Shaw as that which you

quote in your paper.

George Bernard Shaw maintains that it would be quite permissible, and

even meritorious, of the Government to allow Mary Leigh and Gladys Evans to

die in Mountjoy Prison. Before I consider the point, let me just remind the British

nation what such a thing would mean. It would mean a lasting indelible disgrace

to our nation to allow two such noble and honourable women to be done to death

for conscience’s sake. True it is that these women are ready to pay the heroic

price to gain freedom for their sex, but is the nation quite sure that it desires such

a holocaust, which can bring nothing but disgrace upon it?

I speak as one who does know, as I have faced death several times in this

cause, and faced it quite recently in the way that they are doing now. When I

attempted to commit suicide in Holloway Prison on June 22 I did it deliberately

and with all my power, because I felt that by nothing but the sacrifice of human

life would the nation be brought to realize the horrible torture our women face! If

I had succeeded I am sure that forcible feeding could not in all conscience have

been resorted to again.

Just as Nogi and his wife made the most tremendous sacrifice of all (that

a man lay down his life for his friend) to try and bring Japan back to her lost

ideals, so did I face death! I attribute the fact that my two comrades are facing

torture now to the fact that I failed, a failure which provoked ribald jesting and a

glossing over of facts in the House of Commons. If I had succeeded, I am sure

that the British nation would have prepared to adopt the only sane moral right

and wise course to be adopted in these cases, and insisted upon our being

treated from henceforth as political prisoners! The only alternatives are not, as

George Bernard Shaw states, forcible feeding or death! Hence death in such a

case would be downright, hideous, unjustifiable murder! The course which future

ages will see clearly with discriminating ayes [sic; changed to “eyes” in letter to

Newcastle Daily Journal] to be the only possible course to save Britain and the

present Government from the dishonour of committing torture or murder is to

acknowledge legally that these women are not low and selfish criminals (who

could never face what these heroic women have faced), but honourable political

prisoners. –Yours, etc.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

Longhorsley, Northumberland, Sept. 17([25.])

To the Editor of The Newcastle Daily Journal “Votes for Women”

Emily Davison’s quick wit and relentless determination to advocate for the cause of

incidental details.

Longhorsley, Northumberland

Sir, — Those who carry out the machinery of the law have very often more sense

of justice and more of a saving sense of humour than those who put the laws

on the Statute book! Yesterday, the Revising Barrister for the district visited

Longhorsley to revise claims for the Parliamentary vote. As a militant, I felt that

the chance was not to be lost. Cutting the big ‘Votes for Women’ heading from

our W.S.P.U. weekly, I supplied words above and below, so that my message

ran thus:–

‘May you soon be Revising

VOTES FOR WOMEN

As Well as for Men!’

I enclosed it in an envelope, addressed: ‘To the Revising Barrister,

Longhorsley School Room.’ The missive was entrusted to one of the school

children, who came back with the message: ‘Tell Miss Emily Davison the claim is

allowed!’

Brevity is the soul of wit and the salt of life!

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

17th Sept., 1912

PEACEFUL CITIZEN

Emily Davison’s response reveals something of the wide range of connections she had,

accomplish mutual goals.

September 13, 1912, To the Editor of The Newcastle Daily Journal

“CANADA AND MILITANT SUFFRAGETTES”

Longhorsley, Northumberland

Sir,– My interest has been greatly aroused by some of the statements made

in a letter which appeared in your columns of September 9th in answer to mine

on ‘Canada and Militant Suffragettes.’ The writer in question prefers as do

most of our opponents, to remain anonymous, adopting the nom de plume

of ‘Peaceful Citizen.’ The word “Citizen’ shows me that the writer is of the male

sex, for women here are not acknowledged as citizens. Whether he would be

so ‘peaceful’ if he were expected and forced to obey laws to which his consent

had by no means been asked, or if he had to pay taxes without a voice in the

spending of them, is by no means certain.

‘Peaceful Citizen’ writes with high tone as one who has lived in Canada,

and apparently takes my ignorance and unwariness for granted. I am not so

unwise as to write of that which I do not know. I have both friends and relations

in Canada, and receive papers and journals of all kinds regularly from that

country, which keep me well posted as to Canadian affairs. Hence,

when ‘Peaceful Citizen’ ventures to make so foolish a statement as

that ‘Canadian people have absolutely no grievance against the Government,’ I

exclaim at his own guilelessness, and see, moreover, that women have more

need of the vote in Canada than I thought, as apparently there, even as here,

they do not count as ‘people.’ I read constantly in my Canadian papers that

Canadian women are very discontened [sic] with the present state of the laws

with regard ‘to dower, the right to homestead, etc.’ (I quote from the Western

Home Monthly for August).

When my opponent so far lets zeal outrun discretion as to put in

juxtaposition two such strangely inapposite epithets as ‘demoniacal and childish’

I feel compelled out of very pity to remind him that courtesy and coolness are two

absolutely indispensable corollaries to success in argument.

‘Peaceful Citizen’ states that ‘Canadian women are more womanly than

some of our English women.’ Here again he dares the perils of rash and

unthinking assertion, for who in this part of the world knows what a ‘womanly

woman’ is, seeing that women have hitherto been cribbed, cabined, and confined

into male ideas of what is womanly, and the sex is no more what it naturally

might be than is the tiny puling little lap-dog in any way to be taken as

representative of that fine animal, the dog! We know now-a-days how grave is

the crime of cramping the child who shows marked ability in one or more

directions into a narrow and often entirely unsuitable routine! At present we give

our boys every possible chance for developing their special talents, whilst we are

only just beginning to see that wisdom demands that the same opportunity must

be given to the girls. As to Canadian women, I have met several. I have found

by experience, which has been supported by those who know, that the Eastern

Canadian girl is as well educated, independent, and self-assertive as her

excellent United States sister, whilst the Western Canadian girl appears to be

expected to work has hard as any man, without the man’s civic privileges. In

each case they seem to be fully worthy of the vote.

‘Peaceful Citizen’ deplores our tactics during the ‘last two years’ and

thereby displays the cloven hoof of ignorance of the movement. During 1910 and

1911 the militants carefully preserved a truce to give the Conciliation Bill a fair

chance; nay, more, they worked might and main ‘Constitutionally’ till Mr. Asquith

destroyed it by his adult suffrage proposition. Then, and only then, was militancy

resumed, beginning with stone-throwing and culminating when our prisoners had

been treated in the most illogical and barbarous fashion, in some more serious

episodes, all of which are quite recent events. ‘Peaceful Citizen,’ of course,

should have said ‘during the last few months.’

‘Peaceful Citizen’ evidently out-Herod’s Herod in his ideas of punishment,

when he says, ‘the Government should have adopted drastic measures at the

commencement,’ when most people know well that the earliest sentences were

exorbitantly severe, considering that in those days for doing so Constitutional

and legal an act as merely going on a deputation to Parliament, women were

given such wicked sentences as one month, six weeks, and three months’

imprisonment. What he apparently does not realize is that Draconic [sic] measures

only make us the more determined, as they prove the need of greater sanity and

morality in the laws on the Statute Book.

Sept. 11, 1912

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

Davison’s image of the hydra-headed suffrage movement could equally well apply

Davison’s own underlinings, used in her response to “Peaceful Citizen” who wrote as follows19:

September 9, 1912, The Newcastle Daily Journal,

“CANADA AND MILITANT SUFFRAGETTES”

Sir, –Your correspondent Emily Wilding Davison offers some comment upon

a paragraph which appeared in your paper ‘that the immigration officials have

decided to deport all militant suffragettes as undesirable aliens if they attempt

to demonstrate in Canada.” As I have lived in Canada, I can assure her they are

just the sort of people to carry out the threat, and rightly so, as Canadian people

have absolutely no grievances against the Government. They were never happier,

or more prosperous, than they are to-day. Then why should they allow such

demoniacal and childish women to enter their peaceful and happy country to stir

up strife and discontent amongst the people.

I may say that the Canadian women are more womenly [sic] than some of our

English women. Such tactics as have been practiced this last two years by

suffragettes have bred the greatest contempt for them. They have spoilt their

cause entirely. The Government should have adopted drastic measures at the

commencement, and sentenced them to twelve months instead of only two weeks, and

we might now have heard no more of it. In Canada they are very severe on the

lawless, so severe, that the police watch drinking saloons, and pounce upon any

man who comes out staggering and promptly take him to the lock-up.

Shortly after this exchange, The Newcastle Daily Journal published a brief story

SUFFRAGETTES: Stern Hint from Canada”

It is stated in Ottawa that a warm reception awaits any militant British suffragette

who goes over to Canada. The Dominion immigration officials have conferred on

the subject, and have decided to deport all militant suffragettes as undesirable

aliens if they attempt to make any demonstrations in Canada. This rule will apply

only to the violent sort of suffragists, as the Canadian authorities do not propose

to allow windows to be broken and Ministers assaulted.

Emily Davison challenged the negative cast of this story, turning it into an assertion of

Canadian far-sightedness and suffrage victory:

September 7, 1912, to the Editor of The Newcastle Daily Journal

“Canada and Militant Suffragettes”

Sir, –In your issue of September 4th there is a small paragraph headed ‘Militant

Suffragettes,’ in which you state that ‘the Dominion immigration officials have

decided to deport all militant suffragettes as undesirable aliens if they attempt

to demonstrate in Canada,’ the object being, as your further declare, to prevent

windows being broken and ministers assaulted. These precautions are no doubt

due to the very harmless little reminder which Miss Barrett18 gave Mr. Borden,

that if he in Canada takes up the absurd attitude of the present Government

here towards this question, he will probably find that Canadian women will

not stand any nonsense. Your report looks as if the Canadian authorities are

doing precisely what the W.S.P.U. hoped they would do, i.e., taking stock of the

situation, and that they evidently want to take the bull by the horns in good time.

Will you allow me to suggest that the most effective way would be to avoid

infuriating the bull, and to promptly get the nine various Legislatures to bring in a

measure giving votes for women? By doing so they would accomplish many

desirable things:–

(a) Show themselves to be as progressive as parts of the Empire as New

Zealand or Australia

(b) Encourage women immigrants, of whom at present they stand in great

need.

(c) Avoid the foolish mistake of the old country in seeking to repress what

is inevitable by terrorism and oppression.

The woman suffrage cause is now hydra-headed.

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

6th September, 1912

Longhorsley, Northumberland

August 21, 1912, Story from The Newcastle Daily Journal

Davison used this brief story, with its quiet North country humor, as a means of

responses kept the stories and letters they addressed alive in readers’ minds.

Here (says the Evening Dispatch) is a little extract of humour out of the acrid

Insurance Act. In the Border district, near Kelso, a farmer ruefully contemplated

the sixteen cards of his farm servants. ‘Well,’ he says to the steward, ‘I’ll pay the

women’s insurance, but no’ the men’s!’ ‘What’s that for?’ asked the steward.

‘It’s the men’s votes that has dune a this, no the women’s. They had naething to

da w’it,’ was the explanation!

Davison’s response: To the Editor of The Newcastle Daily Journal, “Votes for

Women”

[this is a version of letter written same day Aug. 22, and published Aug 24 in

The Birmingham Evening Dispatch]

Sir,– The story from The Evening Dispatch of the logical Kelso farmer quoted

in your issue of August 21st serves a delightful double purpose. It points the

moral to adorn the tale of votes from women to the Government, which taxes

women without so much as a ‘by your leave,’ and tried to force down their throats

laws such as the Insurance Act, in which they have had no say, thereby directly

violating their own party principles.

The story also shows that many an ordinary decent working man like the

Kelso farmer has far more sense of justice and logic than the peddling politicians

whom he puts into office, and somewhat rashly allows to do as they like. Let him

just remember for one moment that if he likes to assert himself he is the

sovereign power in this country, and seeing that ‘union is strength,’ can soon

make the Government pay for introducing measures of which he does not

approve; whilst, also, he has the power to force it to do justice to women by

acknowledging them as part of the sovereign people.

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

22 August, 1912