August 20,1911, To the Editor of The Sunday Times
A letter so convoluted in its argument that only those who know the references to New
Zealand politics may have understood it. In all likelihood Davison did not have a copy of the
New Zealand Offiical Year Book for 1910 to hand, but she knew where to find one and how
to use it to support her argument from fact, not memory. Clearly Davison has her dander up
here—she dislikes being criticized and she definitely does not like to be reduced to the level of
stereotypes of women: “No one but a woman would think that a reply.”
Sir, — Mr. F.W. Sharp politely accuses me of being “tone-deaf” and of “a little discrepancy of
fact,” What of this gentleman’s own original statement that “the only issue of any kind in
New Zealand is Prohibition, aye or no, and for this the women vote on one side and the men
on the other”? When Lady Stout completely disproved this statement by figures from the
New Zealand Official Year Book for 1910, which showed that men as well as women voted
against beer, which did away with his fiction that men voted pro-Beer and women contra-
Beer (for otherwise Beer would have gained the day), Mr. F.W. Sharp petulantly exclaimed
that “No one but a woman would think that a reply” or would attempt to prove anything
from figures.
At this point I stepped in and Mr. Sharp then turned his attentions to me and
attacked me because I used the term which he himself used and chose at the beginning of
the argument, “Prohibition,“ which he declared to be “the only issue of any kind in New
Zealand.” All the world knows what he apparently ignores, that the power of Prohibition
was inaugurated and “passed” for New Zealand by the Alcoholic Liquor Sale Act of 1893,
which instituted Local Opposition. This Act determined that voters should decide:
- (a) Whether the number of licenses existing in the district shall continue.
(b) Whether the number shall be reduced.
(c) Whether any licenses whatever shall be granted.
Mr. Sharp leaves himself a small loophole of escape by the remark “I speak from memory,”
for his statement that “with the exception of four or five of the smaller towns (I speak from
memory) or as we should call them villages with populations averaging 3,000 to 4,000
there is no Prohibition in New Zealand, and therefore it cannot have been passed by a very
decided majority.”
I should strongly recommend him to buy and study the New Zealand Official Year
Book for 1910, where he will find some very interesting lists referring to sixty-eight
licensing districts, each including inhabitants varying between 5,000 and 9,000. His
attention should especially be drawn to page 457, on which occurs the following passage:
“From the foregoing table it will be seen that 175,671 votes were recorded in favour
of continuing existing licenses….162,562 for reduction, and 221,471 for no license. In
thirty-four of the sixty-eight licensing districts no proposal was carried, in fifteen the
majority of the voters was in favour of continuance, in seven reduction, in six no license
was carried, and six non-restoration was carried. In thirty-eight of the districts a majority
of the polls was for no license, but not in sufficient number to make up the three-fifths
required to carry that issue. Of the total number of persons who voted 235,554, or 55.82
per cent., were men, and 186,399 or 44.18, were women… The increases in the number of
votes recorded for no license or reduction are prominent features in the (given) table.”
The full value of the above passage is clear if the student turns to the Local Option
Polls of the Year Book of 1900, where he will find that all the licensing districts
carried ”reduction” and one which carried “no license.” Where now is Mr. Sharp’s accuracy
and authority? __ Yours, etc.,
EMILY WILDING DAVISON
31, Coram Street, W.C., August 10 [1911]