Suffrage Stories: Emily Wilding Davison and Kate Frye – Derby Day 1913

The memorial brooch to Emily Davison that Mary Leigh kept all her life

The memorial brooch to Emily Davison that Mary Leigh kept all her life, I can’t explain the scribbles!

In yesterday’s post I explained that on the evening of 3 June 1913 Emily Davison went to Kensington, to the WSPU Summer Fair. I think it likely that the idea of doing ‘something’ next day at the Derby only crystallised during the course of that evening or night.

For, the next morning, Emily travelled into town from 133 Clapham Road, where we believe she was staying with her friend, Mrs Alice Green, in order to visit WSPU headquarters in Kingsway and acquire two WSPU flags. The journey she would have followed involved travelling on the City and South London Railway (now the Northern line) to Bank, changing there to the Central line and exiting at British Museum, a station long since incorporated into Holborn station. From there it was a short walk to WSPU headquarters at Lincoln’s Inn House.

A WSPU flag

A WSPU flag

If she had planned in advance to travel to Epsom that day, Emily would surely have picked up the flags earlier. It would have been much easier to travel from Clapham to Victoria, without making a detour into Holborn. As it was it would appear that she rolled up the flags, which are made from quite heavy woollen material, pinned them inside the back of her coat (according to the police report) and set off for Victoria.

Victoria Station

Victoria Station

As I have explained in an earlier post, at Victoria it is more than likely that the only ticket Emily could buy, whether she wanted it or not, was a special Derby Day  excursion return – at the not inconsiderable price of 8 shillings.  The one she travelled took her to Epsom Downs station, close to the Grandstand, but quite a distance from Tattenham Corner. She may have arrived around the middle of the day, possibly in time for the first race.

The Derby began at 3.01pm. As the horses approached Tattenham Corner a mere 4 seconds elapsed between Emily Davison ducking under the rails and being knocked flying by Anmer. The horse got to his feet and the crowd rushed forward to surround Emily Davison and Herbert Jones, the jockey.

The main witness, a policeman, Frank Bunn, who was standing near to the point where Emily went under the rail,  made clear at the inquest that there was no identification of  Emily until after she was admitted to Epsom Cottage Hospital. The identification may have come from the marking on a handkerchief in her pocket. Here is the complete inventory of Emily’s possessions, as noted by Frank Bunn.

  • ‘On her jacket being removed I found 2 Suffragette flags, 1½ yards long by ¾ yards wide, each consisting of green, white and purple stripes, folded up and pinned to the back of her jacket, on the inside.
  • On person, 1 purse containing 3/8¾d.,
  • 1 return half railway ticket from Epsom Race Course to Victoria No 0315,
  • 8 ½d stamps,
  • 1 helper’s pass for Suffragette Summer Festival, Empress Rooms, High Street, Kensington for 4th June 1913,
  • 1 race card,
  • some envelopes and writing paper,
  • 1 handkerchief Emily Davison Mrs. E.W.D 8 88.
  • 2 postal order counterfoils No. 790/435593 for 2/6, ‘crossed’ written in ink thereon, one 20H/924704 for 7/6 E.Gore 1/4/13 written in ink thereon,
  • one insurance ticket dated May 10th 1913 on G.E. railway to and from New Oxford Street,
  • 1 key,
  • 1 small memo book’

Some of these items survive in the collection of the Women’s Library @ LSE

As she lay on the racecourse, Emily Davison was tended by Mrs Catherine Warburg, a member of the wealthy banking family, a woman with, the inquest reported, some nursing experience. The Warburgs’ had an estate nearby in Surrey and,  quite incidentally, one of Mrs Warburg’s sons, Edmund, was to become an eminent botanist.

While Herbert Jones was carried into the racecourse ambulance, Emily had to rely  on the goodwill of a race goer and was taken to Epsom hospital in the car of Johann Faber, who lived at nearby Ewell and, among his other activities, was the Danish consul general in London.

The reverse of Mary Leigh's Emily WIlding Davison brooch, annotated, characteristically,  in Mary's handwriting

The reverse of Mary Leigh’s Emily WIlding Davison brooch, annotated, characteristically, in Mary’s handwriting

There is no contemporary evidence to suggest that Emily Davison was accompanied to Epsom by anybody else. Mary Richardson, another militant suffragette, claimed, both in her autobiography and in a BBC interview, to have been standing near Emily and to have seen her dash onto the race track. However, I do not believe this. She wrote the book- and recorded the interview – in 1953, forty years after that Derby Day. She was impoverished and to create some hype placed herself at the scene of every major suffragette drama. This is, I feel, a pity as the parts of the book which can be tied to historical fact do have power, but in 1953 (as, perhaps, now) the public only wanted drama from the suffragettes. If she had really been close at Epsom on 4 June 1913 she would surely have written about this – or it would have been reported – in The Suffragette, even if not called as a witness at the inquest. Moreover she rather gilds the lily by claiming to be at the Derby to sell copies of The Suffragette, a paper that, at this very time, the Home Office was not permitting to be sold. I cannot imagine that the masses of police manning the Derby would have allowed Mary Richardson to ply her wares. But such is the power of the media that careful reasoning is always trumped by the easy soundbite.

Kate Frye coverIf we do not know what Mary Richardson was really doing for the Cause on Derby Day, there is no doubt what Emily Davison was doing and, indeed, what Kate Frye, another stalwart campaigner, working at this time in Fakenham, Norfolk, as organizer for the New Constitutional Society for Women’s Suffrage, was up to.

Kate’s diary entry for 4 June 1913 tells us that she was unsuccessful in her search for a chairwoman for a meeting (the reason often given was that whichever local worthy she approached did not want in any way to be associated with the militant suffragettes, even though the NCS was, as its name suggests, a constitutional society) and spent some hours walking round the town, canvassing for members. A thankless task and, of course, hardly the stuff of drama.

She ends the day’s entry with ‘My good landlady talks more than I need but she seems to like me and as she has never had a lady lodger before I must make a good impression.’ So, in her own way, Kate was breaking boundaries on that day 100 years ago. I am sure we are all grateful that, as women, we are not barred as lodgers. Presumably in previous years that ‘kind landlady’ had turned women away, doubtless worrying that they would give her house a bad reputation. My point being that revolutions require a succession of infinitely small changes – as well as the grand gesture.


, , , ,

  1. #1 by sonia lambert on June 4, 2013 - 9:47 am

    Thank you Elizabeth, this is fascinating. I have been really enjoying your posts. It never rings true to me when people go on about the significance of the return ticket – just too easy, somehow – and also as if she could have been able to see with such confidence into the future, and buy a single! Also like your points about drama and the media.

  2. #3 by CATTUK.ORG on May 25, 2022 - 5:25 pm

    Dear Elizabeth. Re: “a paper that, at this very time, the Home Office was not permitting to be sold”. Can you give me a reference for this, please? I have read Sylvia Pankhurst (1931) and she does not say it was ever banned from sale, plus I searched the Suffragette itself and I can find no reference to any overall ban from sale. Hope you see this and reply as it is very important to me right now.

    • #4 by womanandhersphere on May 27, 2022 - 9:42 am

      Thank you for your enquiry.
      From February 1913, when Mrs Pankhurst claimed responsibility for ‘blowing up the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s house’, the Home Office began to clamp down in earnest on the WSPU. For instance, Mrs Pankhurst was prosecuted and imprisoned, Annie Kenney was arrested, and Lincoln’s Inn House was raided. As part of this campaign the Home Office made considerable efforts to suppress The Suffragette. The printer was arrested in May 1913 and subsequently prosecuted and, although WSPU activists saw that the paper continued to appear, they were obliged to change printers frequently, with blank spaces often appearing when a printer considered the content would make them liable for prosecution. Home Office documents (eg HO 144 /1268/238215) reveal that it was not only printers, but also distributors of the paper (newsagents/booksellers), who were threatened with prosecution in this way – which is what I meant by ‘not permitting it to be sold’. It is always necessary to dig beneath secondary sources (such as Pankhurst’s The Suffragette Movement) to uncover what was really happening. Active suffragettes did sell the paper in public, but while doing so could be liable for arrest – particularly at a heavily-policed event. This was just an aside comment. I think it much more telling that there was no contemporary report of Mary Richardson being at the Derby, far less standing close to EWD, in any of the numerous official statements or newspaper stories. I would have thought that, if she had a Derby story to tell, she would have made sure she told it at the time. But that, of course, is just my opinion.

      • #5 by CATTUK.ORG on May 27, 2022 - 12:12 pm

        Thank you so much for your reply.

        I agree with your opion; in fact, I now believe her Derby story is total fiction, and last week I wrote quite a lengthy critique of it, explaining why I have reached this conclusion.

        I was surprised to see that Joyce Marlow doubted Mary as long ago as 2000 in her book ‘Votes for Women’ — 22 years ago — yet I saw only yesterday that the Jockey Club includes Mary’s tale on its website without a hint of scepticism. Funnily enough, I am about to see the HO 144 and other HO documents, as a friend happens to be going to Kew and will photograph them for me. What I was hoping you could provide me with is a specific reference to the police or Home Office specifically banning the sale of The Suffragette by individual women in public. Not because I need convincing, but because I would like to provide it myself as a source for the assertion.

        I am currently writing a biography of “Mary Raleigh Richardson”. It would be good to be in direct touch with you, because if you have anything at all that you think needs to be included in my book, but which you think I probably have not seen, I would be extremely grateful to have sight of it. My email is

        I mean references, quotes, photos, etc. I am doing my utmost to trawl every online source, but there may be things that have never been published or put online and as I strive to do the best job I can I would like to see every relevant item.

        I have here your big, fat, beautiful, wonderful WSM, which I have owned since 2001; it’s on my desk 24/7 as I write Mary’s life story (and literally one minute ago was inserting a footnote referencing your entry on Annie Kenney.)

        Helena Wojtczak

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: