September 26, 1912, To the Editor of The Pall Mall Gazette, “How to Stop Hunger
Striking”
Bare months before the 1913 Prisoners Temporary Discharge for Ill Health Act, also
known as the “Cat and Mouse” Act, because of the way that hunger-striking and
forcibly-fed suffragettes would be let out of prison to recuperate, and, when sufficiently
well, were re-arrested and taken back to jail, Emily Davison wrote this response to
The Pall Mall Gazette’s story suggesting that suffragette prisoners be allowed to starve
for two days, be released for a week’s recuperation, and then re-incarcerated. Her
second paragraph rebuttal uses her own experience to point out the folly of such
a scheme, for it would transform a three week sentence into a protracted period
of “freedom” alternating with imprisonment. She also wonders, given Christabel
Pankhurst’s successful escape to France, how efficient the police force would be in
rounding up suffragettes once they had been released. The letter was written from
Brighton on Sept. 24th.
Sir,– May I comment on the Gilbertian suggestion made in your columns that, in
order to find a way of dealing with our Suffragist prisoners, the authorities should
allow us to starve for two days and then release us, say, for a week, and so on,
toties quoties [repeatedly] till the sentence expires?
On July 30, 1909, I was sentenced and began a hunger strike, which
lasted five and a half days, when I was released. I was nursed up and kindly
treated at home till September 4, 1909, when I was once more imprisoned, and
again made a hunger-strike. I was released after two and a half days as it was
my second hunger strike. The absurdity of your correspondent’s suggestion, due
to want of actual experience, is now evident, for this is how matters went for me
in the days when we only hunger-struck without being forcibly fed, and I suppose
the authorities knew what they were about. At this rate the period for hunger-
striking would soon vanish, and the intervals for recovery between would
increase proportionately so that the whole time was release!
Again, in such a case how would the authorities secure the return of the
prisoner? She certainly would not walk back and surrender herself! To judge by
the marvelous ingenuity shown in the search for Miss Christabel Pankhurst, the
whole available force of constables and detectives would find their work well and
usefully cut out. If the Suffragist prisoners were many in number (as in March)
the unfortunate taxpayer would be severely touched in his pocket which, of
course, he would deserve!
Finally, may the authorities be inspired to try to experiment, as they will
soon come to the conclusion that it would be far easier to yield the vote to
women.
Yours, etc.,
EMILY WILDING Davison
13, Victoria-road, Brighton, Sept. 24