Three days later, on August 29th, she wrote the following letter to the “Other People’s
Opinions” section of The North Mail. It points out an inconsistency in the reporting of
the same meeting between Canadian Prime Minster Borden and the British suffragette
deputation. In addition to the recurrent charge that the British are behind their
former “colonies,” the letter contains an implication of press bias against the suffrage
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