VOTES FOR WOMEN BILL

Northern Advocate, 23 May 1928, Page 6

VOTES FOR WOMEN BILL

DEBATED IN THE LORDS

COPING STONE OF DEMOCRACY,

(Australian Press Assn.—United Service.)

(Received 8.47 a.m.) LONDON, May 22,

In tiie House of Lords, the Lord Chancellor, in moving the, second reading of the Voles for Women Bill, said he looked forward to men and women equally -sharing the -burden of Empire. They had slowly built up a democracy to which they were now setting the coping stone. Lord Haldane believed that, the decisive majority in the House of Commons was endorsed by the great mass of public opinion.

Lord Banbury, in moving rejection of the Bill, claimed that there was no mandate at last election for such a bill. Previous extensions of the franchise did not result in increased interest in polities.

Lord Beauchamp pointed out that all -opponents of the Bill were Conservatives. The absentees from the House of Commons’ division on the measure included three members of Uahinet and twelve junior Ministers. He objected to an increase in plural voting, a fact which made it more expensive to enter Parliament. Tlie Duke of Northumberland said the Bill represented a breach of the pledge to call a puffy conference on the subject, when it would have been accompanied by a redistribution -of seats. The Reform of the Lords Act 1918, had lowered the standard of political morality and led to the creation by the Government of enormous funds for propaganda, in electorates by means of. the sale of honours. Lords Newton, Hummer, Joinery and Ampthill spoke against the Bill and the debate was adjourned.

FOR AND AGAINST

“OLD GUARD” AND A LOST

CAUSE

EARL BIRKENHEAD YIELDS,

“SPIRIT OF RESOLUTE RESIG

NATION.”

(Australian Press Assn. —United Service.) (Received 2.57 p.m.) LONDON, May 22.

In the House of Lords, Lord Middleton, opposing the Votes for Women Bill, urged that the Reform of the House of Lords was infinitely more pressing than the extension of the franchise. He hoped the. Government would reconsider the age at which women should receive the vote.

Lord Balfour of Burleigh said that if the Lords accepted the “ancient Briton’s” extromolv bad advice and rejected the bill they would find the finding in the eountry far from apathetic. There would be such a stem that when the dust settled the House of Lords eonld not be reformed and strengthened, but abolished. Lord Lytton stated that the “Old Guard” was still manfully supporting a lost cause. The selection of representative Parliaments was not a greater responsibility than the choice of a life partner, yet opponents of the BilJ wanted to make the vote the only duty that could not be performed by citizens at the age of 21 years. Lord Clifford of Chndleigh opposed the bill.

Ylseount Bertie of Thame said ho hoped the Lords would reject the hill because the Conservative Party had been bounced.

Karl Iveagh said he had fought nine elections and his wife had fought one. The elections were not more difficult owing to the larger electorates. Women did not vote separately from men and gave as good a reflection of public opinion.

Karl 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 Inifl. But for the war, I believe we should have, resisted the enfranchisement of women for an indefinite period, but everybody went mad in 1919, and gradually and inevitably wo descended tin 1 slippery path. It was first proposed to give the vote to soldiers. We then found that munition workers could not be resisted. Finally women munition wokers had to be included. Onlv a negligible minority voted against those proposals. At the time I took the view that, having made a frank explanation to the House of Commons of my position, it was my dutv as Attorney-General to carry out the wishes of the Government. There were timely and relevant arguments against enfranchising women in 1919, but there is none now. To throw out tin* bill would be to cover the House of Lords with ridicule. My recommendation to your Lordships is to go to the lobby in favour of the bill, if without enthusiasm, yet with a spirit of resolute resignation.”

■SECOND LEADING ADOPTED. (Australian Press Association.) (Received 1.35 p.m.) LONDON, May 22. The,second reading of the bill giving voles to women at the age of 21 nn same terms as men, was adopted I>v the House of Lords by 114 votes to 35. ‘ '•