June 7: 1911. Worcestershire won by 116 runs.
Warwickshire's winning streak is over. They lost to, nay, were trounced by, Worcestershire by 116 runs. Most upsetting. But that wasn't the half of it.
Just after luncheon I was sitting in the sunshine at New Road on the benches outside the ladies pavilion with a cup of tea and slice of upside-down cake. Warwickshire, needing 290, were in the soup at 63 for five, but it was still a delightful scene. The flowers in the baskets have been eagerly watered through the drought and fairly glowed. Across the way the cathedral shimmered in the haze above the Severn. A joyously gentle breeze, with a hint of blossom, made it's way across the ground, kissing all.
Then Arbuthnot came over with a copy of today's Post and said: "Interesting letter, old boy," and pointed to a column headed 'Coronation News'. It rounded up all the local news pertaining to the coronation later this month and at the bottom was a letter.
"We are striving to obtain for women a more definite recognition of their place and part as citizens of this great country," it said.
Suffragettes! Why the devil would Arbuthnot think I was interested in what these fanatics had to say?
I read on. "We wish His Majesty and all the royal party all joy upon the forthcoming marriage and believe he will lead our great country and empire with honour, dignity and courage. We also express our fervent hope that during His Majesty's reign, which we trust to be a long and happy one, the rights of women will be acknowledged as they have been in other countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, where it is widely believed that emancipation has led to a strengthening of the sense of citizenship in all."
At the bottom it was signed: "From the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies, Birmingham secretary, Dilys Halford.
I was speechless.
So that's what she's been up to.
Fomenting. In my own home.
I was some minutes composing myself until jolted out of it by the cheers of Worcester's members as Foster, the dolt, went down the wicket to Simpson-Hayward and was stumped for the second time in the match.
This is a serious matter. The captain must show more self-discipline than that. The lower order followed his reckless course and defeat soon followed.
I cogitated on the journey home and, upon my return, ordered Munge to summon Dilys to my study without delay. He returned a few minutes later and said she might see me if I write to the NUWSS office in Colmore Row and make an appointment.
This is a most unsatisfactory situation. I must attend to it as soon as the match against Yorkshire, which starts at Edgbaston tomorrow, is over.
Older/Newer
« June 6, 1911: Warwickshire 213, Worcestershire 292 for 7. | June 8, 1911: Warwickshire 317. Yorkshire 99 for 1. »




Make sure those militants don't get their way, Algernon old stick. Over here we gave the distaff side the vote in 1902 and in the very next Test that Australia played, at your Edgbaston stadium, they were 36 all out. It unhinges the whole nature of things.
Yes, fight the good fight that man. Yesterday evening on returning from a veritable sojourn at The Cow and Snuffers I was witness to an occurrence that does not portend goodliness of life should the militants succeed in their imprudent endeavours. I observed a lady attempting with diligent effort to reverse park her horse and carriage into a field of not unworthy size. This very morning the activity was still in progress. The horse looked not a little weary. In modern times allowing the female the right to own property does appear to have been an unwise deed indeed. Give them a chain and they will take a furlong.
Felicitations to you, brother. I thank you for your support in this most difficult situation.
These are strange and dangerous times in which we live.
If it will help you to stamp your authority once and for all in this matter of marital disharmony, may I offer you a legal opinion which seems to put all doubts in the matter to rest. It comes from the publication International Coomercial Law by Mr. Leone Levi (1863). I often read it to my wife when we are ensconced in the conjugal bed. Sadly, she usually claims that it gives her one of her bed-time headaches. Never mind, I offer it to you anyway:
“ By marriage, the personal identity of the woman is lost. Her person is completely sunk in that of her husband, and he acquires an absolute mastery over her person and effects. Hence her complete disability to contract legal obligations; and except in the event of separation by divorce, or other causes, a married woman in the United Kingdom cannot engage in trade. ”
Leone Levi, International Commercial Law, 1863
I thank you very much, Mr Shedd. That, I believe, puts the issue in a very nutshell.
I shall read Mr Levi's unarguable statement of affairs aloud to Dilys tonight.
Oh yes. She can put that in her pipe and smoke it.