Evening Post. FRIDAY, JANUARY 24, 1913. A REVOLUTIONARY BILL

Evening Post, Volume LXXXV, Issue 20, 24 January 1913, Page 6

Evening Post. FRIDAY, JANUARY 24, 1913. A REVOLUTIONARY BILL

The unique position created by the attitude of the Britian Government towards its own Franchise Bill is developing in a moat alarming way. The measure iteelf is one of momentous importance, seeing that ifc propose* to abolish all property qualifications for the franchise and all plural voting, and to substitute a residential qualification, with "one man one vote/ on approved colonial lines. Numerically, the measure will have the effect of increasing the number of electors from about 7,500,000 to about 10,000,000, thus making an addition to the electorate about fivetimes as large as that effected by the great Reform JBill of 18X2. Politically, the consequences are beyond the power of any man to foretell, but the enlargement of the electorate by 33£ .per cent., the whole of which will be taken, from the non-propertied classes, while at the same time every privilege of property with regard to the franchise ie swept away, may Well be almost revolutionary in its effect. As though this great experiment were not enough for tho shattered nerves of British Conservatism, the proposal now is to supplement ifc by another. The attempt will be made while the Bill is in Committee to incorporate an amendment which will provide for the enfranchisement of women. If the principle of absolute equality between the sexes ia recog* nised, the number of the enlarged electorate will be mere than doubled, and a further increase of about 10,500,000 effected, for in the United Kingdom the female population outnumbers the male by more than a million. The second of these revolutionary changes is not in the Government programme, but the | Government is pledged to allow full facilities for its discussion, and to acI cept it if carried. It is a singular in* | novation on the fundamental dogma of Cabinet responsibility that the Premier, ; who is implacably opposed to the «n* franchisGment of women and is supported in this opposition, by several of liis colleagues, should nevertheless be will* [ ing to accept whatever amendment on the subject the House may choose to adopt. Compromise is, of course, of the essence of politics, but there can suteTy ba no precedent for, the acceptance by the Government of responsibility for far-reaching reform which its leader has done his best to defeat and which has compelled Ministers to speak and vote on opposite Bides. ' At 'first sight it looks as though the amendment which the Foreign Minister will move in the measure introduced by the Premier on behalf of the Government went the whole length to which we have referred. When Sir Edward Grey mqves to strike out the word "male" from before the word "person" in the main operative clause of the measure, he ia apparently declaring for an absolute equality between the sexes in respect of the franchise. That, however, is evidently not the intention of the mover. His amendment is intended to (test the question whether women shall be admitted to the question at all, and the vote will be taken on those lines. If Sir Edward Grey's amendment is carried, the subsequent amendment will determine the extent of the political power to be cottc-pileri to women. On behalf of the Labour Party, Mr. Arthur Henderson will move for identity of qualifications, while Mr. W. H. Dickinson's amendment takes the much milder course of extending the franchise to women over twenty-five years of age who are occupiers or the wives of occupiers. Mr. Alfred Lyttelton, on the other hand, will move from the Unionist fronb bench an amendment merely extending the municipal franchise to women. From the speculations cabled yesterday regarding Mr. Dickinson's amendment, we may infer that this represents the highwater mark of the reformers' hopes. Many Liberals and Labour men will oppose Mr. Lyttelton's amendment if Mr. Dickinson's is lost, because it will increase the power of property in municipal politics. But the chances of the Labour Party's "whole hog" amendment are evidently not worth discussing. Lucky would it be for Mr,Asquith if the House cut the Gordian Knot for him by rejecting Sir Edward Grey's amend* ment, but the result is very far from certain. The Nationalists are recognised as holding the key of the position, and they must be expected to use it without reference to the troubles of the Cabinet o» the exigencies of British party tactics, except in so far as these may affect the fortunes of Home Rule. The one imperative requirement of Home Rule is, however, that the Liberals shall stick together and retain the control of the House of Commons for two more sessions. If this is not done, the Home Rule Bill cannot be passed over the heads of the Lords ; and though notliing can be predicted with confidence of a situation which is admittedly chaotic, it certainly looks at the present time of writing as though the carrying of woman's franchise might split the party. One cannot wonder at the bitterness of the opposition that mahy Liberals are showing to the movement \vhen one remembers how vilely their leaders have been treated by its most conspicuous champions. It will be one of the moat striking ironies of history if, after all this, Mr. Asquith is driven to put through a measure he detests by means of the Parliament Act/ He would be strictly logical if he carried the sacrifice of his own convictions to this extreme point, but he will surely draw the line at the sacrifice of the unity of Ms party. '