VOTES FOR WOMEN

Wairarapa Age, 23 May 1928, Page 5

VOTES FOR WOMEN

EQUAL FRANCHISE DEBATED BY THE LORDS. OPINIONS MUCH AT VARIANCE. DEBATE ADJOURNED. United Press Association.—By Electric Telegraph-—Copyright. (Received Tuesday, 9.5 p.m.) LONDON, May 22. In the House of Lords the Lord. Chancellor, moving the second reading of the Votes for Women Bill, said he looked forward to men and women equally sharing the burden of Empire. They had. slowly built up a democracy to which they were now setting a coping stone. Lord Haldane believed that the decisive majority in the House of Commons was endorsed by the groat mass of public opinion. Lord Banbury, in moving the rejection of the Bill, claimed that there was no mandate at the last election for sueh a Bill. Previous extensions of the franchise did not result in increased interest in polities. Lord Beauchamp pointed out that all opponents of the Bill were Conservatives. Absentees from the House of Commons division on the measure included three members of Cabinet and twelve junior Ministers. Lord Beauchamp objected to an increase in plural voting, a fact which made it more expensive to enter Parliament. The Duke of Northumberland said the Bill represented a breach of the pledge to call a party conference on the subject, when it would have been accompanied by a redistribution of seats. The Reform of the House of Lords Act, 1918, had lowered the standard of political morality and led to the creation by the Government of the day of enormous funds for propaganda in the electorates by means of the sale of honours. Lords Newton, Sumner, Joicey and and Ampthill spoke against the Bill and the debate was adjourned.—(Australian Press Association.—United Service.)