BRITISH FRANCHISE BILL.

Waikato Times, Volume 103, Issue 17383, 20 April 1928, Page 8

BRITISH FRANCHISE BILL.

AMENDMENT DEFEAT. MINISTER'S EMPHATIC STATEMENT (Australian Press Association.) LONDON, April IS. The House of Commons to-day rejected an amendment, to the, Enfranchisement Rill moved by Sir Alex Sprot, (Conservative, Lanark), to define the electoral age for both men and women as 25, except, in the case of voters already on the register. Sir \Y. Joynson Hicks, Secretary of State for Horne Affairs, in opposing the amendment, said the Cabinet was absolutely unanimous in opposing the amendment, which was (lying in the face of the political ideas of the whole civilised world. They were not going to shirk their responsibility by taking something off. They dared not go to the country as a party to reaction by declaring that because they objected to enfranchising women at 21 they were going to disfranchise men from 21 to 25.

The amendment was lost by 359 to 16.

Plural Votes Wanted.

Miss Bondfleld moved to delete the provision to give a woman an additional vote for her own or her' husband’s property. Sir .John Simon, Conservative member for Billhead, Glasgow, said there was no justification for the clause except a deliberate desire to increase the number of plural votes. Mr F. W. Pethick-Lawrence, Labour member for Leicester, said the women’s suffrage societies did not want the clause.

Air .1. H. Hudson, Labour member for Huddersfield, said the employers had votes for their business premises as well as for their homes. The workers ought to have votes in the constituencies in which they worked as well as for those in which they lived.'

The amendment was defeated by 208 votes lo 138. Before the House went into Committee Captain 11. C. Bourne (Oxford) and Captain I. Fraser (St. Pancras), two Conservative members, had respectively proposed and seconded a motion that it should he instruction to the committee that it had power to insert in the Bill provisions to deal 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.

Supporters of the motion hah argued that, (.he increase in the electorates which would he created by the Bill 'would automatically increase the amount, which candidates would bo entitled to spend, and that this would benefit wealthy candidates. Labour and Liberal speakers, especially on this ground, urged the need of a revision of the basis of electoral expenditure. The Home Secretary said the Government desired this matter to be fully discussed. The motion was agreed to. In the committee stage later Mr A. Henderson, Labour member for Burnley, moved a new clause to reduce the maximum scale of election expenses from 7d per voter to 6d in the country constituencies and 5d to 'id in the boroughs, on the ground of the increase in the electorates. The mover said that, otherwise candidates’ expenditure would be increased between £2OO and £3OO in every const! tu'ency. The Home Secretary said that in view of the diversity of opinion he wished to consult the Prime Minister. The House was then adjourned on the understanding that it, would receive the, considered views of the 1 Government, on Monday.