WOMEN’S FRANCHISE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 20126, 20 April 1928, Page 7

WOMEN’S FRANCHISE

STATUS IN BRITAIN Amendment to Raise Minimum Age is Rejected MAXIMUM TO ELECTION EXPENSES. [ By Telegraph—Per Press Assn.—Copyright ] (By Radio) RUGBY, April 18. The House of Commons to-day began the committee stage of the Bill giving votes to women at the age of 21 on the same terms' as for men- A feature of the debate was the attempt made by some Conservative members to make the voting age at 25. Sir Alexander Sprott (Conservative) moved an amendment to define the electoral age for both men and women as 25, except in the cases of voters already on the register. Ho thought that it was desirable that when people were to be put upon the roll of voters they should have some experience of life. Moreover, he claimed that there had been no demand for the vote from young women.

Aiiss Alargarct Bondficld (Labour), in opposing the amendment, ridiculed the idea that the young people of the working class, many of whom between the ages of 14 and 21 had suffered the hardships of unemployment and poverty, had had no experience of life. It was just that section of the community that interested itself in politics. Amendment Lost. Lord Hugh Cecil, who was among Conservatives .supporting the amend-; ment, said that the plain truth ought to be recognised, that people over 25 were, in respect to political judgment, more mature than people under 25. The present Bill would add 5,000,000 young voters to the electorate and would thus take away the political power and diminish the authority of those now exercising the vote. The Home Secretary, Sir William Joynson - Hicks, characterised the amendment as a proposal to enfranchise 2,500,000 women at the age of 25 and to disfranchise 2,500,000 men between the ages of 21 and 25. He regarded that as putting back the political clock. The amendment was rejected by 359 votes to .16. Putting the Brake on. Before the House went into committee on the Bill. Captain Bourne and Captain Fraser, two Conservative members, proposed and seconded a motion that it should be an instruction to the committee that they had power to inscert in the Bill provisions dealing -with the maximum scale of election expenses. The amount of money which a candidate for Parliament is allowed to expend on his candidacy is based on a certain sum per head of the electorate, and the supporters of the motion argued that the increase of the electorate would increase the amount which candidates were entitled to spend, and that this would benefit the wealthy candidates- Labour and Liberal speakers especially on this ground urged the need of a revision of the basis of electoral expenditure. Sir William Joynson-Hicks said that the Government desired this matter to be fully discussed. The instruction was agreed to.

FURTHER AMENDMENTS

CONSIDERED VIEWS LATER. Received April 19, 11 p.m. (A.P.A.-Sun) LONDON, April IS. In the House of Commons, while the “Flapper” votes bill was in committee, Miss Bondfield (Labour), moved to delete the provision to give a woman an additional vote for her own or her husband’s property. Sir John Simon said there was no justification for the clause except a deliberate desire to increase the number of plural voters. Air Petherick Lawrence (Labour), said that women’s suffrage societies did not want the clause. Sir Frederick Henderson, opposed the amendment. The Bill in every particular insisted that the franchise rights to women of 21 should be on an equality with those of men. Air J. H. Hudson (Labour), said that if employers had votes for business premises as well as homes-, workers ought to have votes in constituencies in which they worked as well as for those in which they lived. The amendment was defeated by 208 votes to 138. Air Arthur Henderson on behalf of Labour moved a new clause reducing the maximum scale of election expenses from 7d per voter to 6d in country constituencies, and 5d to 4d in boroughs, on the ground of the increase in electorates. Otherwise candidates’ expenditures would be increased between £2OO and £3OO in every constituency. Sir William Joynson-Hicks said that in view of the diversity of opinion he wished to consult the Prime Alinister. The house adjourned on the understanding that it would receive the considered views of the government on A lon day.