EQUAL FRANCHISE BILL

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19953, 23 May 1928, Page 11

EQUAL FRANCHISE BILL

HOUSE OF LORDS DEBATE. SPEECHES IN OPPOSITION. POLITICAL MORALITY QUESTION. Australian Press Association—United Service (Received May 22, 6.35 p.m.) LONDON. Mav 21. The Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham, formerly Sir Douglas Hogg, to-day moved the second reading in the House of Lords of the Equal Franchise Bill, to give the vote to women at the age of 21, as in the case of men. He said he looked forward to the time when men and women, equally sharing the burden of Empire, would slowly build up a democracy to which they were now setting the copingstone. Lord Haldane safd he believed the decisive majority for the bill in the House of Commons was endorsed by the great mass of public opinion. Lord Banbury of Southam moved the rejection of * the measure. He claimed that no mandate had been given for it at the last general election. Previous extensions of the franchise had not resulted in increasing public interest in politics. Parliament was proposing to give 26,000,000 out of 44.000.000 people power to decide the fate of the Empire. Earl Beauchamp said all the opponents of the bill were Conservatives. The absentees in the House of Commons when the division on the bill was taken included three members of the Cabinet and 12 junior Ministers. He objected to increased plural voting because it made it more expensive to enter Parliament. The Duke of Northumberland said the bill represented a breach of the pledge to call a party conference on the subject, when it would have been accompanied by Redistribution and the Reform of the House of Lords. The Act of 1918 had lowered the standard of political morality and led to the creation by the Government of the day of enormous funds for propaganda in the electorate by means of the sale of honours. Lord Newton opposed the bill. He said he regretted that Viscount Rothermere, in spite of what he had written against the bill, had not taken the trouble to record his vote against it, possibly because he thought the seat of government was not at Westminster but at Carmelite House. Lords Sumner, Joicey and Ampthill spoke against the bill. The debate was then adjourned.