VOTES FOR WOMEN

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 76, 30 March 1928, Page 7

VOTES FOR WOMEN

BRITISH BILL. Labour Supports Conservative Measure. HOSTILE TORY SECTION. (British Official Wireless.) (Received 1.30 p.m.) RUGBY, March 29.

Sir William Joynson-Hicks, Home Secretary, moved in the House of Commons, to-day the second reading of the Equal Franchise Bill, which gives votes to women on the same terms as men.

He said the measure fulfilled what had been for many years the aim of all parties. It was quite true that the Conservative party, prior to the year 1832 was opposed to the extension of Parliamentary reform, but since 1832 it had joined With the other parties in the various extensions of franchise brotight before Parliament.

Now he had the privilege to move what he thought would be the final reform, which would have the effect of giving representation to people of this country greater and freer than that of any democratic country in the world.

Every successive alteration of the franchise had been justified by results. The great social questions which were every day becoming more important could only be satisfactorily settled when the whole of the people took part in the work of legislation. Was there any member of the House who would deny the truth of that statement or who would suggest that he feared the people ?

The Act of 1918, continued the Home Secretary, embodied the first measure of franchise for women, but this was on a restricted basis. It was quite obvious that these restrictions could not be permanent* and under the bill which he now presented the qualifications for the Parliamentary vote would be the same for men and women. .

A woman who had reached the age of 21 would be entitled to vpte if she had resided for three months or carried on business for three months in premises of not less than £10 annual rental. It was proposed to give a wife a second vote when a husband had a second vote in respect of business premises, and in order that there should be no inequality on either side it was proposed to give a husband an additional vote in respect of his wife's business premises.

In regard to University franchise, any woman who had three qualifications, residential, business and University, could only exercise two votes.

. The main opposition to the bill, said Sir William Joynson-Hicks, seemed to be on the ground that control of political power would be transferred from men to women. To-day there were between 12,250,000 men voters and 9,250,000 women voters. • It was true 'that if this bill Were passed there would be a majority Of 2,000,000 women voters, but we could hot possibly riay we were placing representation of the people on the broadest possible basis if we leave 5,000,000 women over the age of 21 unrepresented in the House of Commons.

He could not imagine anyone at this time of day saying that women were unfit, intellectually, for the vote or that their judgment was not as sound as that of men. He referred to the progress of women in all businesses and professions and to the fact that a woman was compelled to serve on a jury.

The Minister added that when the bill was passed there would be about 26,000,000 voters. In order to enable new voters to vote at the general election which must take place next year, the new register would be prepared on the basis of three months ending December 1, 1928, as the qualifying period. The new register would come into force on May 1, 1929.

Mr. Philip Snowden, for the Labour party, supported the bill. He said his party, from its inception, had been united, unanimous and wholehearted in its support of political equality for the sexes. He complained, however, that this bill maintained some of the objectionable features of the existing law, including dual qualification.

Brigadier-General Sir George Cockerill (Con., Reigate), on behalf of a section of the Conservatives moved the following amendment: "That this House declines to accord a second reading to the bill which, while adding 5,000,000 persons to the existing electorate and giving women a permanent majority in the constituencies, does not deal with other vital questions connected with franchise, nor follows the constitutional practice of accompanying the extension of franchise by a measure of redistribution."