WOMEN’S FRANCHISE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXV, Issue 23, 25 January 1913, Page 5

WOMEN’S FRANCHISE.

AN UNEXPECTED DEVELOPMENT. London, January 24. There was a sensation in the House of Commons when, replying to Mr Bonar Law, the Speaker said that, without expressing any opinion on the Government’s amendments, including that cancelling the occupation franchise, he warned the House that as a general principle, if in committee a Bill was so amended as to materially affect its substance, it must be withdrawn and a new Bill introduced. The women’s suffrage amendments made a huge difference to the Bill. Heaven only knew what form they would event ually take. Members interpret the ruling to mean that if the suffragette amendcarried the Bill will be dead, as there will be no time in the present session to reintroduce and rediscuss it. If Sir E. Grey’s amendment is rejected, the Government will also withdraw the franchise and proceed, instead, to Mr Baker’s Bill. Mr Bonar Law’s amendment was negatived by 259 to 191. The Premier’s resolution was adopted.

The Chronicle suggests that the Government should immediately drop the Franchise Bill and adopt Mr Baker s Bill, and also introduce alternative Bills covering the various forms of women’s franchise, promising that the Bill finally adopted should convey the same advantages as offered under the Franchise Bill. PARTY MOVES. (Received 9.35 a.m.) London, January 24. Speakers are giving warning of the increased probability of Sir E. Grey’s amendment being defeated. An anti-suffrage petition consisting of 4788 men and women was presented in the House of Commons. The Right Hon. Mr. Lyttelton (L T .), moving Sir E. Grey’s amendment in Committee, contended that the amend ment simply demonstrated that the subject was worthy of discussion. Mr. Lewis Harcourt said that the introduction of such a gigantic proposal under the Parliament Act would be a grave blow to that Act. He did not like the referendum, but it would be the best method. A year ago Mr. Lloyd George declared that he had no mandate, yet he was now endeavouring to pass the amendment under the Parliament Act.