THE FRANCHISE BILL

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8340, 29 January 1913, Page 6

THE FRANCHISE BILL

The withdrawal of its Franchise Bill by the British Government was just what everybody who has followed the trend of recent events must have expected. The Speaker's ruling as to the result of Sir Edward Grey’s amendment being carried made the step Mr Asquith has taken almost inevitable. The Speaker’s view is, in effect, that if a Franchise Bill primarily dealing with males only were so amended as to- make it include females its character would be so materially changed that it piust be withdrawn and a new Bill submitted. As the present Government has never professed nor pretended to stand for female franchise, as a Government, it has been decided to separate the issues. An Electqral Reform Bill will be proceeded with during the current session, and facilities are to bo given next session for the introduction of a private member’s Bill to give voting power to women. We doubt if anything fairer could be offered or asked under the circumstances. The way is certainly cleared for the passage of a longdelayed reform in the abolition of the Elural vote behind which Conservatism as sheltered in the past. This has always been a grievous handicap on the democracy of the United Kingdom. Nobody is in a position to say with accuracy just how great an advantage it has meant to the reactionary party, but competent authorities estimate that it gives the Tories from thirty to fifty seats, which they would not otherwise secure. With the inconvenient issue of female franchise out of the way the House of Commons is sure to pass the Government’s Reform Bill, and the Parliament Act safeguards its ultimate “acceptance” by the Lords. This will be one of the most important pieces of legislation within living memory, not only for its immediate effects, but because it will constitute a striking expresson of that progress in democratic thought and sentiment which, most fortunately. characterises modern politics generally. As to votes for women, there is one consideration that is-worthy of note. When Mr Asquith gives his word he means it. There is no more consistent, honest, straightforward man in the political arena than the head of the present Government; none who pursues a etraighter course; none so difficult to deflect from a programme for which he. declares. The opportunity Mr Asquith has undertaken to provide for the principle of women’s suffrage to be decided by means of a private member’s Bill will assuredly be given. It will just as certainly .be a fair opportunity. The Government is not likely to take sides, but will leave the question to the judgment of the House without party restrictions or reservations. The question has already been before the House three times in the form of that half-measure, as denoted by its title, the “Conciliation Bill,” proposing to give women the vote on a moderate property qualification. , It may be worth while here to reproduce an interesting analysis of the voting on those occasions appearing in a recent issue of the Sydney “Telegraph” i

As the “Telegraph” remarks, the hostile vote of last year (in March) was taken at a time when resentment against the extreme militancy of the suffragettes was at fever heat. Moreover, the Nationalists on that occasion either abstained from voting or actively opposed the measure because they feared it would imperil Home Rule, hf a really democratic measure is produced and dispassionately discussed it should have a very favourable chance of passing.

For. Against, ... 173 67 Unionists ll Nationalists ... 19 324 215 Majority for. 109. 1911. For. Against, Liberals ... 170 48 ~ * . 78 86 Nationalists ,,, 31 Labour — 310 143 Majority for. 167. 1912. For. Against. Liberals ... 135 81 ■Unionists ... 76 Nationalists 36 OBrUaites ... 3 — Labour ... 27 — 241 255 Majority against, 14.