Manawatu Evening Standard. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1925. WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLV, Issue 73, 25 February 1925, Page 4

Manawatu Evening Standard. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1925. WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

The debate on the second reading of Mr W. Wkiteley's bill for establishing the equality of the sexes in regard to the Parliamentary franchise in Great Britain carries the mind back to what feels like ancient history, though it all really occurred within the last eleven or twelve years. First, there was that unhappy period just before the war when a few wild women were endeavouring to prove the right of their sex to the franchise by showing that they could be as lawless and as vicious and as mischievous as some of the wildest of the wild men. The peaceful suppression of the suffragettes' campaign of violence was one of the minor benefits that we owe to the war, and the women whose cause had been well advertised but badly discredited by these unfortunate tactics had their reward when the feeling of national unity produced by the war and the magnificent war services of the disfranchised sex produced a wonderful revolution of public opinion in their favour. There was no time for popular agitation on such a subject while the Empire was at grips with Germany, but none was needed. The sentiment of unity and gratitude overcame all opposition without friction or oii'ort, and the nation woke up to find that, if women were good enough to relieve and help the fighting men in all sorts of services for which they had previously been supposed unqualified, they were certainly good enough to perform the relatively simple operation of voting. The striking fashion in which the popularity of the principle of woman sutt'rago had declined during the years of violent agitation and then suddenly leapt to victory under the stimulus of the war is shown by the results of the various proposals for the enfranchisement of women since 1010. The voting in the House of Commons waa as follows: —

For 167 Agst. 14 Agst. 43 For 330 Mere sentiment would of course have been insufficient to effect such a revolution unaided, and Parliament was enabled to make the sentiment effective through the deliberations of a representative conference over which the Speaker presided. The compromise approved by this conference and adopted by the House of Commons fixed the age qualification for women

voters at thirty years, and even in the House of Lords it was passed by a majority of three to one (37 votes to 12). And so the most sweeping Reform Bill ever introduced into the British Parliament was passed by far more decisive majorities than any of its predecessors and with an amount of opposition bo slight as to be virtually negligible. As in New Zealand, the result of the reform seems to have disappointed the prophets of good and of evil with strict impartiality. If women have not elevated politics and assuaged the bitterness of party strife, they certainly have not degraded politics nor have they degraded themselves in tho manner that was so vaguely and yet so freely predicted. The enfranchised woman has left poli tics very much as she found them, except that she has certainly induced the politicians to pay a more careful attention to the things in which she is particularly interested than they had previously paid. This attention has been quickened in Great Britain by the return to Parliament of a small number of ablo women who in their representative position have exercised an influence quite out of proportion to their number. It is a singular thing that, though the women of New Zealand were nearly twenty-five years ahead of the women of Britain in obtaining the franchise, no New Zealand constituency has yet elected a woman to Parliament.

The only point raised by Mr Whiteley's bill was the abolition of the thirty years' age limit for women. In moving c. hostile amendment on behalf of the Government, Sir W. Joyu-son-Hicki pointed out "that if the bill was passed women voters would be in a majority of two millions over the men, instead of being in a minority of two millions as at present." The statement is interesting, but.it is not entitled to the weight wine l ' it would have carried in this cotintry thirty yea's ago, or in England seven years ago. Before they had voted, it was possible to argue—and it was very commonly argued—that the enfranchisement of women would produce a radical change in the electorate. But as experience has proved that no substantial change has been produced except in point of number, we fail to see the force of the argument implied in the Homo Secretary's reference to the change in the relative numbers of men and women voters.

While opposing the bill, Sir W. Joynson-Hicks declared that the Government intended to carry out its pledge to give equal political rights to men and women, but ho gave no indication of how this was to be done. If, however, the rights of the sexes are to bo equal, and tho equality is not to be established at tho age of twenty-one, tho meeting-point must be at some more advanced age. It is therefore quite likely that Mr Ramsay MacDonald's statement that the Government intends to lower tho age for women to 25 years and to increase it for men to 25, has hit the mark or come very near it. Why he should denounce such a procedure as "an unholy transaction" we cannot see. To disfranchise those who are already qualified would, of course, be wrong, but it would also be unnecessary. In the ordinary course tho next General Election will not take place till 1925), by which time every elector already enrolled will be past tho ago of 25, and if the now voters, whether men or women, come on at tho same age, what is there to be alarmed or excited about?

The Principle of W' 1011. 1912. •jruan Suffrage. 1913. 1917. For Against .. 255 .. 83 208 222 219 267 3ii5 55