Nelson Evening Mail. MONDAY, MAY 19, 1918. GREATEST REFORM ACT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LII, Issue 115, 20 May 1918, Page 4

Nelson Evening Mail. MONDAY, MAY 19, 1918. GREATEST REFORM ACT.

THE Representation of the People Act which received the Royal assent on February 6tb. last, is the greatest Reform Act which has ever been passed bv the Imperial Parliament. It increased the* number of voters from 8,000.000 to 16,000.000, the increase being made up of 1,000,000 male voters and 7 000 000 women voters. The great ReW'Tt of IBM added 500,00C►to the then existing 440,000 electors, and the . \ct of 1867 increased the electoiate from 1.100,000 to 2,400,000 Tn the temporary Review Sir Wdlougjgr Dickinson summarises the events culminating in an Act which meets the de--3S of half a century's agitation. The most insistent of these _ demands came from the women, who in the years immediately preceding the outbreak of war had become extremely ™» lt "'" t ; Before 1906 female suffrage had had but small chance of success in the House o" Commons, but the general election of that Year saw the return to Parliament Si number of members in sympathy with the movement. In 1901' Sir VUJ {Dickinson- introduced a BUI conferring the franchise on women but it was talked out. The same.Bill the following vear was carried through the Sond readinu by 271 votes to ?2 There followed in 1910 the "Conc.liationl iIL which was read a second time b> 3g votes to-175, and again m.1911 .»> £>? vo£ to 88. 'When -produced i. 1912 this Bill was rejected by tef ™ies w 208 the set-back being due to the women's militant policy, which greatly S°S te who hau hitherto not doubled to vote In 1912 the Government introduced a Reform Bill, framed to allow of amendments for the enfranchisement of Several amendments were tlbled° one by Sir Edward Gjej 'mere* the principle. The bpeaitei, however s ruled that the carrying oi any of the amendments would destroy the Bill and the Government therefore withdrew it. Later in the session a priWfe member's Bill, drafted on fto lines of an amendment previously tabled by Sir Willoughby Dickinson, and providing for the enfranchisement of occupiers n S d wives of occupiers, was rejected by 265 votes to 219. No further Bill had been introduced when war broke out, and? savs Sir Willoughby »/ cl ™?° n ' -seemed to render hopeless all legislation on this subject. In truth, novv over, the war has had the opposite effect- It is the war that has brought about the enfranchisement of women, and this for two reasons. In the fust nlace the great disturbance to the population caused by. the enlistment . of m ions of men, and the resulting, impossibility of framing a proper register of efeSs, compelled *«!»»«* * take up the Question, ot electoral leform. The men who were being drafted into the Army or moved to munition works .were thereby losing their qualification for electors, and the existing re-.ri-ters were becoming less and less adequate for the purposes of a general election. Moreover, .in order to enable soldiers and sailors to vote a complete change was needed both m the law qf * registration and in the systenv of voting A soldier who had spent two years"in the trenches could not qualify as an elector in a constituency at homo by anv of the old rights of occupation of laud or house thereon. And, further, even if registeed at home he could not return to England to vote at an election. In view of these considerations Parliament referred the whole subject to the Conference presided over by Mr Speaker, and, when the Conference came to grips with the problem, they soon discovered that the old law which rested on the elector's relationship to

some property in a constituency would j have to be. scrapped, and, in lieu there- ; of, it would be necessary to adopt the principle that the right to vote should be a nersonal right inherent in the individual. When once this principle was accepted it was impossible to deny to a woman what was conceded to a man, j and thus, when the Conference divided ; on the general question, the majority voted in favour of female enfranchisement. But there was a second reason which . operated in the minds of those . who had previouslv opposed the suffrage. The war had brought into prominence the value and variety of woman's power of work. Short of actual service in the firing line, there was hardly any branch of war labour in , which women had not entered and proved their capacity. Men had become willing to grant the franchise to women, not as a reward for work done, but because for the first time they had recognised its value. If war cannot be carrfed on without women's assistance, whv should the nation m peace time decline to accept their help and treat women as being on a different plane of citizenship from men? The war has really proved the moral and economic equality of the sexes, and> in this respect it has made the world take a long step forward towards the perfecting of its civilisation." Acting on the recommendation of the Sneaker's Conference, the Government introduced a Bill conferring the franchise on women—not complete enfranchisement, but fa r more than the men had ever received at one time. By the Bill, which subsequently became law, every woman oyer 30 years of age who occupies a home, or any landed property of the annual value oj £5, of which either she or her husband i= the tenant, will have the right to | become a Parliamentary elector.. T.ne Act is not so liberal as that operating : in this Dominion, where every woman j becomes entitled to the vote on reaching tlie age of 21; but short of the universal enfranchisement of both sexes, | it is a very generous measure of political emancipation of women. In regard in men the Act is one of universal suf- j fva"e, the qualification by which 99 per cent of men will be entitled to vote in a, .constituency being 1 r<*sudenc* m premises in that constituency during six months. Brief reference may be made to the progress of the Bill. The Commons sent It to the Lords on December 7th. The Upper House gave seventeen davs to its consideration and returned it to' the Lower House on January 30th with 87 pages of amendments. One ot the amendments proposed proportional representation, which the House ot Commons had by large majorities rejected on three occasions. Agam the Commons rejected it, and the Lords thereupon amended their first proposal by limiting its application. The amendment proposed shared the same fate in the Commons, and on the Bill being again returned to the Lords they inserted a new clause to the effect that commissioners should be appointed" to pre- ! pare a scheme under which about 10U members were to be elected on the prin. ! ciple of proportional representation _in I certain town and country areas, which were to be combined into single constiI tuencies returning from three to seven mebers. - This scheme 'was to require the approval of both Houses before becoming effective. The amendment was accepted by the Commons on the condition mentioned, and the Bill received the Royal Assent. (On the matter coming before the House of Commons this session, proportional representation was an-aiin rejected, a cablegram , to this effect having been published last ween). In his article Sir Willoughby Dickinson remarks that, some people may ask why it was that a Conservative body like the Lords should wish to introduce a Fcheme so novel and untried as_ that ot proportional' representation, .and should have insisted-bn their. view at the risk of a constitutional crisis. The answer is that the majority of the Peers have viewed the Bill with great dislike. It i s a measure enfranchising an enormous number of new voters, and many of the Peers still consider the extension ot democracy as a danger to the country. The adoption of proportional representation is" supposed to ensure that the minority shall always command a measure of* representation m the House ot Commons, and thus tend to P«yent any great wave of popular feeling from having any excessive effect upon Parliament. Proportional representation was really put forward by the House of Lords as a protection agamst the people It is. however, only right to sa\ that whilst the. majority of the Peei* adopted this view the Conservative P~arty in the House of .Commons do not appear to have entertained similar fears."