WOMEN’S FRANCHISE

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 23 May 1928, Page 11

WOMEN’S FRANCHISE

LATE EDITION

EQUAL VOTES BILL.

“OLD GUARDS’ ’’ OPPOSITION,

DEBATE IN HOUSE OF LORDS ii

(UNITED PRESS ASSOCIATION— BV-ELECTRIC TELEI IK Ai'li—COP V KIGiIT.) (AUSTRALIAN PRESS ASSOCIATION—UNITED SERVICE.) LONDON, May 22. In the House of Lords, Lord Aliddileton, m opposing the Votes for Women 'Bill, urged that reform of tho Houtse of Lords was infinitely more pressing than an extension of the franchise. lie hoped the Government would reconsider the age at which women should receive the vote. 4 Elai’l Bat'ouji- of Burleigh said that if the House of Lords accepted “Ancient Britons’ ” extremely bad advice and rejected, the Bill they would find the feeling in the country far® from apathetic. There would be such a (Sitorm that when the dust settled it he House of Lords would not be reformed and strengthened, but abolished. Lord Lytton stated that tllie “old guard” was still manfully supporting a lost cause. The se'ieo&ion of a representative in Parliament was not a greater responsibility than the choice of a life partner, yet the opponents wanted to make the vote the only duty that cfiuld not be performed by citizens at the age of 21. Lord 1 Clifford of Chudleigh opposed the Bill.

Lord .Bertie of Thame said that he hoped the House of Lords would reject the Bill. The Earl of Iveagh said that he had fought nine elections and his wife had fought one. Elections were not more difficult owing to the larger electorates. 'Women did not- vote separately from men, anti gave as good a reflection of public opinion. Earl Birkenhead said: “I was against the extension of the franchise to women and I am so still, but there is no inconsistency in recommending this measure. The disaster took place in 1919. But •for the war, I believe we should have resisted the enfranchisement of vvomer for an indefinite period, but everybody went mad in 1919 and gradually and inevitably we descended the slippery path. It was at first proposed to give the; vote to soldiers. We then found that munition (workers could not be resisted. and finally the women munition workers had to be included. Only a negligible minority voted against these proposals. At the timra I took the view that., having made a frank explanation to the House of Commons of my position, it was my duty as Attorney-Gen-eral to carry out the wishes of the Government. There were timely and revelant arguments against the ing of women in 1919. but there is none now. To throw out the Bill would be to cover the House of Lords with ridicule. Mv recommendation to youir lordships is! to go to the lobby in favour of the Bill, if without enthusiasm, yet with a spirit of resolute resignation.” The Bill was read a second! time by 114 votes to 35.