FEMALE SUFFRAGE BILL.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 131, 26 July 1911, Page 8

FEMALE SUFFRAGE BILL.

■AND SIR JOSEPH WARD. In the course of an inter new the oilier day w'th a newspaper reporter Mr W F. Massey, leader if the Ofposit.on, ann-ng other things, saul. “When Sir, James Carroll talks ah: nt being ccm.eeccd with al! the great progressive measures of past years, it is interesting to, remember that both he and Sir Joseph Ward voted against Sir John Hall’s Female Suffrage Rill, and I can’t think of any more progressive movement than that. I was not in Parliament at the time, but the proposal had my strong support outside.” It i is quite true that Sir Joseph Ward paired with the Hon. E. Mitchclson against the second reading of Sir John Hall’s Bill. The fact is on record in “Hansard,” which the “Lyttelton Times” lias been looking up, and it makes this discovery : that just before the third reading was taken Sir Joseph Ward (thou Mr) explained how his name came to be recorded among the “noes.” In “Hansard,” vol. 74, page 223, appears the following:— Mr Ward said : I rise for the purpose of' making a personal explanation. When the second reading of this Bill was before the House 1 was absent. I was paired upon Government questions with Mr Mitchelson. During my absence the second reading of the Female Franchise Bill came on, and in order that my pair might be kept with Mr Mitchelson, who voted for the Female Francmse Bill, 1 was put in the pasiDon of voting against it. 1 now desire to put myself right, inasmuch as had I been there .1 should have voted the same way as Mr M itchelson, and have voted for the second reading of the Bill. When I ascertained tha’t L had been paired in a direction contrary to what 1 had desired, I telegraphed to the Whips and asked them, if possible, to have it reported rightly; but

so many honourable members voted or paired on the Bill that it was impossible to find anyone with whom I could pair in the way 1 desired to vote. ! take this opportunity now of putting myself right and of asking tiie Whip to hoar me out what I say, that 1 endeavoured to get myself paired in a direction wli c'i would have placed me as voting for the Bill, and in the direction in which ! have voted in this House on more than one occasion. Mr \V. C. Smith: I should like to point out that what the Hon. the lo.'-Lmaster-Ccneral says is correct. Immediately after the division I received an urgent telegram from that gentl 'man telling mo that lie should ho paired for the second reading of the Bill ; but, unfortunately, the pairs wcKi all full, and 1 was unable to change it.

We do not know, says tho “Times,” what Mr Massey will have to say by way of explanation—we arc almost tempted to w rite that wo do not care —but here is a brazen piece of misrepresentation, made apparently for tho pettiest party purpose, which even an indulgent critic might describe by a much harsher term.