VOTES FOR WOMEN

Wairarapa Age, 24 May 1928, Page 5

VOTES FOR WOMEN

BILL READ SECOND TIME IN THE LORDS. “OLD GUARD’’ MAKES LAST STAND. LORD BIRKENHEAD’S LAMENT. United Press Association. —By Electric Telegraph—Copyright. LONDON, May 22. In the House of Lords, Lord Middleton, opposing the Votes for Women Bill, urged that the reform of the House of Lords was infinitely more pressing than an extension of the franchise. He hoped that the Government would reconsider the age at which the women should receive the vote. Lord Balfour of Burleigh said that if the Lords accepted the “Ancient Britons’ ” extremely bad advice and rejected the Bill, they would find the feeling in the country far from apathetic. There would be such a storm ■that when the dust settled, the Lords would not be reformed or strengthened, but Lord Lytton said 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 their opponents wanted to make the vote the only duty not performable by citizens at the age of twenty-one. Lord Clifford of Chudleigh opposed the Bill. Lord Bertie hoped that the Lords would reject it because the Conservative Party had been bounced into it. Earl Iveagh said that ho had fought nine elections, and his wife had fought one. Elections were not more difficult owing to larger electorates, and women did not vote separately from the men, and gave as good a reflection of public opinion. Lord Birkenhead said he was against an extension of the franchise to women. “I am so still,’’ he said, “but there is no inconsistency in recommending this 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 tho vote to the soldiers. It was then found that the vote to the munition workers could not be resisted, and finally the women munitioners 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 Attor-ney-General to carry out the wishes of the Government. There were timely and relevant arguments against enfranchising women in 1919, but none now. To throw out the Bill would be to cover the House of Lords with ridicule. My recommendation to vour Lordships is to go to the lobby in favour of the Bill, if without enthusiasm, J a , s Pi r it of resolute resignation.’’ The Bill passed is second reading bv 114 votes to 55.—(Australian Press Association.)