The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. FRIDAY, MAY 9, 1913.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXV, Issue 3827, 9 May 1913, Page 4

The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. FRIDAY, MAY 9, 1913.

It will have boon duly noted that the latest effort in the direction of securing for women at Homo by constitutional means tho-right to vote lias been, like similar efforts in the past, unsuccessful. As the law relating to parliamentary elections stands in the United Kingdom to-day, not a single member of “the fair sex” is, of course, eligible to be placed on the rolls. Women, it is well-known, rank ‘among the *‘permanently disqualified” wit h —as the authorities put matters—“infants, peers, idiots and lunatics, and aliens.” ' They have,, indeed, less chance under the present law of exercising tho franchise than “persons who have received par, eliial relief within twelve months, bankrupts, convicted felons, persons employed at elections, ami those convicted of corrupt and illegal practices at elections,” all oft whom come within the category of only “temporarily disqualified.” But women are not, it is equally well-known, debarred at Homo from voting at county council, municipal, and other elections for in connection with such contests they share with “tho stern sex” tho right to vote on an equal qualification which, in practice, .amounts to “the occupation joint or several as owner or tenant of any house, warehouse, counting house, shop or other building provided that tho qualifying property is rated for. tho poor rate which with other rates has been duly paid.” As a matter of fact, too,, tho part taken by women in , local government is steadgrowing, ponding the achievement

Why the Women Have Not Won.

of the parliamentary franchise. Two women, for instance, sit on the London County Council; 17 on provincial town councils; and 145 on rural district councils in England and Wales, nine on metropolitan borough councils, and 1175 on boards of guardians in England and Wales. As far as the suggested extension of the parliamentary franchise is concerned, it would seem that this is being kept back mainly as a result of injudicious tactics on the part of a section of those who are clamoring for the reform. Two roasohs might bo advanced which would account for the killing of Mr Dickinson's Bill which lias just been before the House of Commons. In the first place its proposals were, everything goes to show, too ambitious for the outset ,seeing that they sought to secure the enrolment of six millioi/women. If adult suffrage should ever bo adopted at Home, it would greatly increase the number of male electors as well as grant the franchise to adult women, and it is felt by lukewarm supporters of “votes for women” would put potential women voters in a majority. Mr Dickinson, however, did not propose to have such a sweeping change made. What he suggested was that women of 25 years of age and upwards who are householders, or the wives of householders should be enfranchised. Under such a scheme the women voters would form about one third of the electors. The proposal which would at the present time receive the most powerful support would it seems be one that would give the vote only to a million or more women householders, married women being practically excluded. From such a small beginning it would assuredly not have been long before the system of women’s suffrage would have become increasingly liberal. But quite apart from the matter of degree of enfranchisement of women that should be granted it is clearly the position that Mr Dickinson’s Bill would have fared much better had ft not been for the extreme militancy of a section of the advocates of “votes for women.” In 1911, it may be remembered, the Conciliation Bill (which proposed to enfranchise women householders) passed its second reading by a majority of IG7. When it was brought forward again last yearafter many acts of damage had been committed—it was, however, defeated by the small majority of 14 votes. Upon this occasion no detailed analysis of the voting has yet come to hand. It is almost certain to bo found, we should say, that the Nationalists were not alone chiefly to blame'for the killing of the Bill, as on previous occasions they have voted in a similar way —not on account of convictions but on j account of considerations of tactics. Clearly militant suffragettes will, perhaps, now realise that, as a result of their clumsy and dangerous tactics, they have been driving away support from the very side of the House from | which they might reasonably, expect j most sympathy. The additional inj formation about the voting in a cable j Ibis morning—-“ Seventy-five Liberals j voted against the Bill”—surely tells its own story? Maybe now the Home Government- will have to enact still further legislation aiming at putting j down the members of what has become known as the “Shrieking Sisterhood.”