EQUAL FRANCHISE

Southland Times, Issue 20495, 25 May 1928, Page 7

EQUAL FRANCHISE

DEBATE BY LORDS BILL PASSES SECOND READING LORD BIRKENHEAD’S APT SUMMING UP (United Press Assn.—By Telegraph—Copyright.) London, May 22. In the House of Lords, Lord Middleton opposing the Equal Franchise Bill, urged, that reform of the House of Lords was infinitely more pressing than extension of the franchise. He hoped the Government would reconsider the age at which women should receive the vote. Lord Bhlfour, of Burleigh, said if the Lords accepted “ancient Britons” extremely bad advice and rejected the Bill they would find feeling in the country far from apathetic. There would be such a storm that when the dust settled the House of Lords would not be reformed and strengthened but abolished. Lord Lytton stated that the “Old Guard” was still manfully supporting a lost cause. The selection of a representative Parliament was not a greater responsibility than the choice of a life partner, yet opponents wanted to make the vote the only duty that could not be performed by citizens at the age of 21. Lord Clifford, of Chudleigh, opposed the Bill. Lord Bertie said he hoped the Lords would reject the Bill because the Conservative Party had been bounced. Earl Iveagh said he had fought nine elections and his wife had fought one. Elections were not more difficult owing to larger electorates. Women did not vote separately from men and gave as good a reflection of public opinion. Lord Birkenhead said: “I was against the extension of the franchise to women and I am so still, but therg is no inconsistency in recommending the measure. The disaster took place in 1919. 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 we descended the slippery path. It was first proposed to give the vote to soldiers. We found munition workers could not be resisted. Finally women munition workers had to be included. Only a negligible minority voted against these 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 duty as AttorneyGeneral to carry out the wishes of the Government. There were timely relevant arguments against franchising women in 1919, but there is none now. To throw out the 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.” The Bill was read a second time by 114 ' otes to 35. Australian Press Association.