EQUAL FRANCHISE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 16612, 30 March 1928, Page 8

EQUAL FRANCHISE

THE BRITISH ELECTORATE BILL BEFORE COMMONS FINAL ELECTORAL REFORM. (British Official Wireless.) Rec. 1 p.m. RUGBY, March 29. Sir Wm. Joynson-Ilicks, the Home Secretary', moved in the House of Commons to-day the second reading of the Equal Franchise Bill, which gives votes to women on the same terms as men. Sir William said the. measure fulfilled what had been for many' years the aim of all parties. It. was quite true that the Conservative Party prior to the year 1832 was opposed to the extension of Parliamentary reform, but since 1832 ithad joined with other parties in the various extensions of the franchise brought before Parliament. Now he had the privilege to move what he thought would he the final reform, which would', have the effect of giving representation to the people of this country' greater and freer than that of any democratic country in the world. Every successive alteration of the franchise had been justified by the results. The great social questions, which every day were, becoming more important, co-uld only be satisfactorily settled when the whole of the people took part in the work of legislation. Was there any member of the House who would deny the truth of that statement, or who would suggest that he feared the people? NO! INEQUALITY. The Act of 1918, continued the Homo Secretary, emboidied the first measure of franchise for women, but this was on a restricted basis. It was quite obvious that these restrictions could* not be permanent, and under tlm bill which be now presented the qualifications for a Parliamentary vote would be the same for men mid women. A woman who had reached the. age of 21 years wouldbe entitled to vote if she had resided in the country for three months or carried on business for three months in premises of not less than CIO annual rental. It was proposed to give a wife a second vote when the husband ‘had a second vote in respect of business premises, and in order that there should he no inequality on either side it was. proposed to give the husband an additional vote, in respect of his wife’s business premises. In regard to the University franchise. any woman who had the three qualifications, residential, business, and university, could only exercise two votes. The main opposition to the Bill, said Sir William Joynson-llieks, seemed to he on the ground that the control of political power would he transferred from the men to the. women. To-day there were between 12,250,000 men voters and 9,250.000 women voters. It was true that if this hill were passed there would be a. majority of 2,000,000 women voters, but we could not possibly say we were placing the representation of the people on the broadest possible basis if we left 5,000,000 women over the age of 21 years unrepresented in the House of Commons. PROGRESS OF WOMEN.

He could not imagine anyone at this time of the day saying women were unfit, intellectually, for the vote, or that their judgment was not as sound as that of men. He referred to the progress of woman in all. businesses and professions, and .to the, fact that women were compelled to serve r-n juries.

The Minister added that when the BilL war. passed there would he about 26,000,000 voters. In order to enable new voters to vote at the general election which must take place next year a- new register would be prepared on the basis of the three months ending December 1, 1923, ns the qualifying period. The new register would come into force or May 1, 1929.

Mr. Philip Snowden, for the Labor Party, supporti.-l the Bill, lie said his party from its inception had been unit-

'd. unanimous, and whole-hearted in its support of political equality, of the sexes. He complained, however, that this Bill maintained some- of the. objectionable features of the existing law, including dual qualification. Brigadier-General Sir George Cockerill, on behalf of a section of Conservatives, moved the following amendment: “ That this House declines to accord a, second reading to the bill, which, while adding 5,000,000 persons to the existing electorate and giving to women a. permanent majority in the constituencies does not deni with other vital questions connected with the franchise, nor follows the constitutional practice of accompanying an extension of the franchise by measures of redistribution.”