An article in The North Mail on December 18, 1912 evoked a series of responses, among which Emily Davison’s in turn stimulated the vituperative response of “Henpecked.” At issue was the militant tactic of ringing fire alarms to summon fire engines to non-existent fires. In her first letter Davison defends the practice as comparatively humane, in light of male warfare, and as a tactic to leverage the government out of their stalling tactics. She concludes with a quote from the Gospel of Matthew, 11:15, where Jesus reproves the citizens of cities he has visited for not repenting and changing their ways. In her second letter she seems to loose control and lapses into a kind of stilted insult roughly equivalent to “keep your shirt on,” the world is not about to end, after having called attention once more to the government’s cat and mouse torture of two women who have been released temporarily from prison in order to regain their strength before being re-incarcerated. The full exchange follows:

Article in The North Mail, Dec. 18, 1912, “Murderous Militants”

There will be very widespread satisfaction this morning at the news that one at least of the women who have resorted to giving bogus fire alarms has been captured by the police. Of all the outrages to which civilized society has been subjected by the militant suffragettes, the wanton ringing of the fire alarm bells is probably the most dangerous. In yesterday’s case, the female Anarchist who broke the glass and gave the false alarm succeeded in hurrying five engines to the scene of the supposed fire. One shudders at the bare contemplation of what this might mean if an actual fire, in which human life was in peril, should have broken out in the same district at the same time. Compared with such cruel and abominable attacks on society as these, the attempts to blow up theatres are comparatively trivial, while the letter-box fiends are merely foolish. It is sincerely to be hoped that the authorities will not be influenced by any mistaken chivalry in punishing miscreants found guilty of such callous criminality. In dealing with the militant peril, we are bound, sooner or later, to be driven to defend ourselves irrespective of the sex of the offenders. This seems to be the point at which it would be wise to begin.

Emily Davison responded in “Other People’s Opinions: Topics and Affairs Discussed by ‘North Mail Readers’” December 19, 1912, “Murderous Militants”:

Sir, in your issue to-day there is a hysterical and amusing leader on ‘Murderous Militants,’ in which you denounce the latest manifestation of militancy. As each new occasion arises, fresh epithets of vituperation have to be found if possible to denounce the act till perhaps the Press and Parliament will at last grasp the sovereign truth that it is ‘deeds, not words’ that are needed, and ‘the only way’ to put an end to these manifestations of unrest and discontent is to remove the cause of the grievance, a fact which the Government realized clearly enough in the case of the recently ended strike in Newcastle, and which the combatants of Central Europe are endeavoring to carry out in London to-day.

Anything else is hysteria and waste of breath! Thus, for example, in your desire to pile on the agony in the matter of abuse, you describe ‘the wanton ringing of the fire alarm bells’ as ‘the most dangerous’ of all the methods so far adopted not even excepting, ‘attempts to blow up (sic!) theatres,’ because, forsooth, a genuine alarm of fire might have taken place in the same neighbourhood! What would then have happened? Why, the engines would have been ready and able to reach the scene of action a little more promptly, and those in danger might have had reason to bless the militants!

How much more humane is our way of warfare than that of men as exemplified in strikes and the Balkan war! It is, perhaps, too humane for those who only understand the language of inhumanity, but it is none the less determined! He that hath ears to hear, let him hear!– Yours, etc.

Emily Wilding DAVISON
Longhorsley, Dec. 18, 1912

This letter evoked the following insulting response in “Other People’s Opinions” on Friday, Dec. 20, 1912, “Murderous Militants”

Sir, I am afraid you must accept the criticism of Miss E.W. Davison on your leader on ‘Murderous Militants,’ which she describes as hysterical. She having had a large experience in the various degrees of hysteria, even up to acute forms of suicidal and homicidal mania, there can be no appeal against such an authoritative decision, and your only alternative is to seek a more level-headed leader writer.

Her attempt to minimize the serious consequences of calling out fire engines on fruitless errands is typical of the logic displayed by Mrs. Pankhurst and Co. How on earth would an engine be able to reach the scene of action a little more promptly if it happened to be a mile or two away when the real alarm was given?

Her Biblical quotation is very apt. We have ears and we can hear right enough, but oh! What rot we are deafened with—Yours, etc.

“HENPECKED”
Gateshead, Dec. 19, 1912

Prompting this response from Davson in “Other People’s Opinions” December 21, 1912, “Murderous Militants”

Sir, –The anonymous letter in your columns to-day signed suggestively enough, ‘Henpecked,’ clearly emanates from just such a brave and chivalrous one as those who, according to another paragraph in your issue, have once more seized two frail women, with whom they have been playing a cat and mouse game for the past three months, after having tortured them by forcible feeding for one or two months before that, so that both have been at death’s door.

fBut with regard to the terrible bogeys which are exercising your unfortunate correspondent, and apparently leading him into the wildest flights of imagination, they cannot fail to remind us of the salutary douche applied to similar visionaries that ‘pigs might fly!’ The prospect is terrific and awe-inspiring, but the contingency is as yet remote enough for us to urge your ‘preux chevalier’ to keep his hirsute growth firmly fixed to the upper part of his cranium! Yours, etc.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON
Longhorsley, Dec. 20, 1912

Three days later, on August 29th, she wrote the following letter to the “Other People’s

movement, an anxiety shared by both “constitutionalists” and the WSPU:

August 30, 1912, To the Editor of The North Mail, “Other People’s Opinions:

Mr. Borden and the W.S.P. U.”

Sir, –In your issue to-day you give a very interesting account of Mr. Borden’s

reception of the W.S.P.U. deputation at the Savoy Hotel yesterday, which hardly

merits the description you give of the event in ‘To-day’s Story,’ for there you say

that they ‘received an unsympathetic reply.’ The excellent report which is given

in your columns of the interview by no means justifies this description, for the

following reasons:–

(1) If Mr. Borden had not been interested in the question of woman suffrage, it

is hardly likely that he would have given up some of his valuable time to receiving

the deputation, and apparently listening to it most courteously. In this respect Mr.

Borden showed an open-mindedness which, alas! is only too wanting amongst

our own politicians.

(2) Although pointing out to the deputation that he himself had no power to

introduce the measure in question, he indicated to those present the way in

which Canadian women must set to work, namely, through the nine separate

provincial Parliaments, which have ‘absolute control of the franchise laws.’

(3) Far from being ‘unsympathetic,’ Mr. Borden professed entire agreement

with regard to the particular law which the deputation instanced as needing

strengthening and amendment.

Such an interview, taken in conjunction with the fact that so prominent a

statesman of the Western Continent as Mr. Roosevelt has put woman suffrage in

the fore-front of his Presidential programme, should give food for thought to our

lagging British Legislature. Yours, etc.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

Longhorsley, August 29, 1912

August 20, 1912, Article in The North Mail, “Feminism and Face Fins”

Apparently no story was too slight to attract Davison’s attention or to warrant a

facial hair.

There appears to be little doubt that we are in for an epidemic of side

whiskers. The mysterious gods who decide such matters have spoken, and there

seems to be nothing for it but to bear the affliction as best we may. It is curious,

however, to find the plea made in defence of the new ‘face-fin’ that it will help the

male person to more successfully resist the advancing forces of feminism. It is

suggested that the practice of shaving clean has tended to sap masculine

authority, if not to enervate the shaver himself, and it is further hinted that, by

again growing whiskers, he will demonstrate to the pushful feminist that there is

at least one thing in which women cannot compete. Perhaps.

To which Emily Davison responded, August 21, 1912, “Feminism and Face Fins”

Sir, — Under the heading of ‘Affairs of To-day’ there is quite a touching little

paragraph headed ‘Feminism and Face Fins,’ in which the writer wonders

despondently whether his sex will be allowed by my sex to retain the proud

monopoly of side-whiskers, the latest masculine fashion!

Will you allow one of us fierce tigresses to reassure him upon this

momentous question? Up till the present no desire has manifested itself among

the female of the species to poach on the male in his cherished preserves of the

artistic ‘topper’ and the beauteous Dundreary [long side whiskers]. The pathetic final

‘perhaps’ of the writer shows us that even in this direction the timorous male is

beginning to doubt his own superiority, having in mind the memory of various reports of

women who have to shave in order to avoid unsightly hirsute growth! Fear not,

neither be afraid, O literary Thomas! Even the tigrish suffragette is far too

thoughtful for her appearance to care to risk it by developing into a copy-cat of

masculine hideousities! Yours, etc.,

EMILY WILDING DAVISON

Longhorsley, Northumberland

August 20, 1912

August 15, 1912, The North Mail , “Feminine Logic”

The article and responding letter below exemplify Davison’s propensity to engage attitudes which she deemed mistaken or dangerous. The title of the article in The North Mail is provocative in itself, while the tone is condescending. Davison’s reply is an example of her focused corrective responses. She draws a fine, but traceable distinction, and explains it by using a word unknown even to editors of newspapers. All in all, given her love of verbal jousting, and her sense of humour, a “victory” for Emily Davison.

The latest manifesto issued by the Women’s Social and Political Union is even more illogical than those which have preceded it—which is saying a great deal. The authors of it say that the militant suffragists desire it to be clearly understood by Mr. Chuchill that they are certainly the women to dare and suffer all things in resistance to the tyranny of disfranchisement imposed upon them by the Government.

This means, if it means anything, that women are voteless because the present Government have disfranchised them. It is hardly possible to conceive of a more flagrant misuse of words.

Response. Saturday, August 17, 1912 To the Editor of The North Mail, “Women and the Vote”

Sir, –In your notes on ‘Affairs of Today’ under the heading ‘Feminine Logic’ you demonstrate very clearly the truth of the adage that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

In criticising the W.S.P.U. application of Mr. Churchill’s own words in reply to Mr. Bonar Law to women in claiming that they will certainly ‘dare and suffer all things in resistance to the tyranny of disfranchisement imposed upon them by the Government,’ you assert that ‘this means if anything that women are voteless because the present Government have disfranchised them.’ This would be as you term it ‘a flagrant misuse of words’ if it were not that you yourselves are guilty of a ‘terminological inexactitude.’ The writer of the notes has evidently confused the two terms: ‘Disfranchisement’ and “Disenfranchisement’ in a way that he would not have done if he had carefully studied his own language. For whereas the term ‘Disenfranchisement’ clearly bears the meaning of ‘the act of enfranchising’ owing to the interpolation of the affix ‘en,’ which has a crescive [i.e. growing, enlarging] meaning, the term ‘Disfranchisement’ simply implies ‘the lack of or want of the franchise.’ Yours, etc.

EMILY WILDING DAVISON
Longhorsley, S.O. Northumberland
August 15, 1912