November 6, 1911, To the Editor of The Manchester Guardian, “A Woman Returning
Officer”
Emily Davison could not resist the chance to point out the paradox resulting from separating
the local franchise from the parliamentary one. While she recognized a “woman’s point of
view” and wrote frequently about women’s special interest in local and domestic issues of
health, education, and sanitation, she did not accept that the “work of women on municipal
and other bodies concerned with domestic and social affairs of the community” provided
women the power or scope they deserved and, indeed, which was only to be found in
Parliamentary action.
Sir, –In your columns to-day you note that for the first time on record a lady occupies the
position of returning officer for a Parliamentary election. Mrs. Lees, the Mayor of Oldham,
is the phenomenon, and it has been decided that she is the proper person to have the duty.
But the especially interesting feature of this remarkable occasion is that if by any chance
the poll resulted in a draw Mrs. Lees would have the casting vote; the woman would decide.
Here is a genuine nut for anti-suffragists to crack! The constitution of their League runs
thus:–
‘To resist the proposal to admit women to the Parliamentary franchise and to
Parliament, whilst at the same time maintaining the principle of the representation of
women on municipal and other bodies concerned with the domestic and social affairs of
the community.’
This dilemma into which they are thrust by these two objectives is here evident. By
becoming mayor of a town a woman may be obliged to exercise the Parliamentary
franchise, and with more than the average amount of effect. Therefore by their illogical
attitude, whilst they are ostensibly working to prevent women getting the Parliamentary
vote, by the second part of their creed they are promoting women’s enfranchisement. –
Yours., &c.,
EMILY WILDING DAVISON
31, Coram-street, W.C., November 3