Poverty Bay Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, FRIDAY, MAY 13, 1927, EQUAL FRANCHISE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16339, 13 May 1927, Page 6

Poverty Bay Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, FRIDAY, MAY 13, 1927, EQUAL FRANCHISE

It dot's not .scorn such n far cry back to fho days when processions bearing banners emblazoned “Votes for Women ” wont through London, and enthusiastic protagonists of the fair-sex with hammers and hatchets concealed under their blouses descended on stop-fronts and engaged in a window-smashing campaign as a means of drawing attention to their demand for the franchise. The Great War followed, and the ferment subsided. The noble part that women took in sharing the struggle of the nation in the hour of danger won for them recognition of political status in a manner that years of demonstrating and window-smashing would never have accomplished. But the franchise granted was subject to an age limit. ■A woman had to be over <lO to secure the right to vote. The sox has not been content with this, and latterly has made appeal for equal enfranchisement with men; in other words that women should be entitled to vote at 21. A poll has been taken of the Conservative members of the House of Commons, and this is said to have shown that an enfranchisement bill would pass without any great difficulty. Definite proposals by the Government for extending the franchise are being framed and probably will bo presented to Parliament at an early date. If the decision is to confer .an equal franchise it must mean a very considerable addition to the electoral machinery of Britain, and give results that no one at present can safely calculate. The Home Secretary, Sir 'William Joynson Hicks, m a debate on the subject some time ago, accepted an estimate that votes to women at. 21 would add 5,120,000 to the register and place women in a. distinct majority. Under the existing franchise there is a majority of men over women voters of three millions. By the addition of 5,120,000 the position would be: Women voters, 13,926,000; men voters, 1J,800,000; majority for women 2,120,000. It has been suggested that the voting age for all—men and women alike—be placed at 25. Neither a young man nor a young woman; at 2.1, it is held, has yet attained the years of discretion desirable for u. voter. Nor have the youth of either sex any real interest in politics or any knowledge of political questions or political processes which would give ,value to their votes.. All this is admitted, and it is admitted, too, that successive enfranchisements, while they have added enormously to the cost and difficulty of conducting elections, have not added anything to competence in government. At the same time there has never been a block disenfranchisement, in any British country. Once a class or ago group lias received the vote it Ims remained. It would therefore be regarded as a very retrograde step to take the franchise away from those young men between the ages of 21 and 25 who now have it. It follows, then, that if women and men are to be placed on the same plane, both sexes will have to be given votes on attaining the age of 2B Commenting on the proposd extension of the franchise, the London Outlook points out that successive extensions have resulted not in quickening public interest iu politics but in increasing public inertia.. More and more, it says, there is a tendency for voters to leave govmeuts alone so long as they do not make a decided mess of things, and in proof of this it points 'out that the average life of governments in Great Britain prior to 1885 was live years, while the average life since has been ten years. Tho danger from adding the names of several million young ladies to the voters’ lists, it says, is not that the young ladies will prove less patriotic than their brothers but that giving them the vote will simply increase the public tendency to let things drift. Thus, it goes on, the executive is constantly gaining power at the expense of flio House of Commons; and the more the country takes on the appearance of a real democracy the less democratic does its government really become. Wo can only judge the matter in the light of Now Zealand experience, and hero, we should say, there is no support for the Outlook’s thesis that wider enfranchisement leads to diminished interest in political affairs. Tho contrary, we think, lias been the case in Now Zealand. Of course there are many women in this country who do not highly prize their privilege and never bother themselves with political affairs, but the average woman voter casts quite an intelligent vote, and we think wo can say that, on the whole politics in this country have benefited by the influence of the fair sex. There cun be no sense or justice in allowing men in England to vote at 21 and compelling women to wait till they are 30. In worldly wisdom the average gill of 21 is quite the equal of the average boy of that age. She knows by intuition what ho has to learn by experience. Really, of course, it is not a question of intelligence, but rather of maturity; and it is true that girls of 21 nro more mature than men of the same age. On the test of maturity, it is ; likely that neither men nor women ! acquire a rough practical working philosophy of life before they are 30. But if men of 21 can be called to j give their lives on the battlefield, and girls of 21 can embrace the high calling of wifehood and mother- 1 hood, it is no use talking about denying either of them tho vote. Some English critics suggest .that, equalising the age qualification will hand the power of government, which has so long been a masculine monopoly, into feminine hands: in other words, that wo shall have an era of petticoat government. Instead, of there being “a woman question” there will be “a man question.” Women will be able to give men just so much liborty as thoy think lit and

no more. Democracy will allow no appeal from a two millions majority. “Everything comes to her who waits as well as to him,” says one writer, As men once could legislate to suit themselves, now women have got that privilege. The obey clause which bound the woman in tho marriage contract has already been struck out. If she chose she may put it in again and make it apply to the man. She may legislate to deprive him of all the rights of which formerly she was deprived, and more along with them. Justice whirls in equal measure, and if he got his deserts he would now have centuries of slavery before him. All he can hope is that his new ruler will temper justice with mercy and tako no unduo advantage of the sceptre that is to be taken from him and handed over to her.”