Lords Are Diffident About Flappers' Bill —Several Oppose it

Manawatu Times, Volume LIII, Issue 6617, 23 May 1928, Page 7

Lords Are Diffident About Flappers' Bill —Several Oppose it

NO MANDATE FOR SUCH AVERS LORD BANBURY

Aust. Press Assn.—United Service. Received Tuesday, 5.25 p.m. LONDON, May 22,

In tho House of Lords tho Lord Chancellor, moving tho second reading of the Votes for Women Bill, said he looked forward to men and women equally sharing the burden of tho Empire. They had slowly built up the democracy to which they were now setting the coping stone.

Lord Haldane said he believed the decisive majority in tho House of Commons was endorsed by tho great mass of public opinion. Lord Banbury, in moving the rejection of the Bill, claimed that there was no mandate at the last election for such a Bill, Previous extensions of the franchise did not result in increased interest in politics.

Earl Beauchamp pointed out that all tho opponents of tho Bill were Conservatives. Absentees from the House of Commons’ division on tho measure included three members of Cabinet and 12 junior Ministers.

Earl Beauchamp objected to tbo increase in plural voting, a fact which made it more expensive to enter Parliament.

The Duke of Northumberland said (ho Bill represented a breach of pledge to call a Party conference on the subject, when it would have been accompanied by a redistribution of scats. Tho Reform of tho Lords Act of 1918 had lowered the standard political morality, and had led to tho creation by the Government of tho day of enormous funds for propaganda in the electorate by means of a sale of honors. Lords Newton, Summer, Joiccy, and Ampthill spoke against the Bill, and the debate was adjourned.