The Dominion THURSDAY, MAY 17, 1917. ELECTORAL REFORM IN BRITAIN

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3086, 17 May 1917, Page 4

The Dominion THURSDAY, MAY 17, 1917. ELECTORAL REFORM IN BRITAIN

The Parliament sitting at Westminster is in a number of respects remarkable. It is entrusted with the affairs of the nation in the midst of the greatest war in- history, and it is the longest Parliament since the Union, its life having been three times extended. Now it gains a further title to fame in being- called upon to deal with by far the most liberal measure of electoral reform ever set before a British Parliament. The Electoral Bill brought down in cliai'ge of Me. Walter TjONg (Colonial Secretary) embodies the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference.' which delivered its report to the Imperial Prime Minister at the end of January. Apart from the limitation imposed upon tho female franchise, the recommendations of the Conference, now embodied in the Bill, are tantamount to the concession of manhood and womanhood suffrage. The- scope of the reform proposed may be gathered from the fact that at present only about one-sixth of the British population consists of electors, whereas in New Zealand, under a universal franchise, about fiveninths of the total population are voters. In its principal, features the Bill provides that any person of full ago (HO in the case of women and 21 in the case of men) not legally disqualified,' who has resided in any premises for six months or has occupied premises of an annual valuo of £10 for purposes of business, profession, or trade, shall be entitled to vote. Proportional representation is proposed in the caso of contiguous borough constituencies (about one-fourth of the total number). The University franchise is retained, but the provision that a votor may vote in respect of both residential and business premises is the only important departure from the principle of one man (or woman) one vote. The .proposal that all elections shall bo held on one day will tend if adopted to reduce to a minimum the practice of putting up the same candidate for a number of different seats, and will give a defeated candidate no second chance of getting into the House, unless, of course, another member resigns in his favour. The limitation imposed upon the grant of the vote to women has not been seriously defended otherwise ' than as a compromise and as a sten towards granting electoral privileges

to women on tho same terms as to

The introduction 0 £ u lO -q\]\ exemplifies tlio -ability 'of the LloydQkorgk Government to deal boldly with big issues. Critics have urged that the. time is unsuitable for dealwith such a reform, that the Departments concerned are Hot now competent (on ftceouni; of tlio depletion of their Staffs) t'onndertako at short notice the drafting of tho complicated measure or measures required, and much more to the same effect. The Government, however, has a, very strong case to rely upon in sweeping these objections aside. In any case an exhaustive revision of tho British electoral register ],s rieccssary as a preliminary to aji■■ election if it is to be more than a sham and a farce. The existing register is based on qualifications for votes' dating from July, 1913. and it is computed that if a general election were taken on it more than half tho,people entitled by law to a vote would be disfranchised. But the grand argument for an immediate and sweeping measure of electoral reform is that advanced by •Mr.'Walter Long. Ho is on firm ground in contending that an election is impossible until tho fighters are enfranchised, and that it is incumbent on Britain to set her house in order before attempting to deal with the great and urgent problems raised at the.lmperial Conference. Though it is boldly planned, and deals with problems .in some aspects complex and difficult, the Electoral Bill has good prospects. This appeared at a sitting of the House of Commons in March, when Mr. Asquith moved the adoption of tho Speaker's Conference recommendations, and Mr. Lloyd George strongly supported the recommendations and urged an early non-party settlement of the matter. The House approved tho recommendations by 341 votes to 62. Some Unionist opposition has appeared, but it will hardly prevail over the determination of the Government and the body of support which the Bill is assured. ■