HC Deb 20 November 1917 vol 99 cc1035-154

(1) A woman shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector for a constituency (other than a university constituency) if she —

  1. (a) has attained the age of thirty years; and
  2. (b) is not subject to any legal incapacity; and
  3. (c) is entitled to be registered as a local government elector in respect of the occupation of land or premises in that constituency, or is the wife of a husband entitled to be so registered.

(2) A woman shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector for a university constituency if she has attained the age of thirty years and would be entitled to be so registered if she were a man.

(3) A woman shall be entitled to be registered as a local government elector for any local government electoral area where she would be entitled to be so registered if she were a man: Provided that a husband and wife shall not both be qualified as local government electors in respect of the same property.

Adjourned Debate resumed on Amendment proposed [15th November], in Subsection (3), to leave out the words " Provided that a husband and wife shall not both be qualified as local government electors in respect of the same property," and to insert instead thereof the words " or where she is the wife of a man entitled to be so registered." —[Mr. Acland.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill." Debate resumed.

Mr. CARADOC REES

It will be in the recollection of the House that on Thursday night, at 11 o'clock, there was an idea that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would have something to communicate to the House this afternoon that would obviate the necessity of any remarks being made. The House, I am sure, would like to have that statement, and if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to make it, I will give way to him. The right hon. Gentleman signifies that he is not prepared at this moment to accept the Amendment. In effect, the Amendment was that a married woman residing with her husband should have the municipal vote, and there was a suggested Amendment to that, to which, the House generally agreed, restricting that municipal vote to those who had attained the age of thirty years. The Bill gives married women the full Imperial. vote, and it was with some astonishment that many of us learned that, although women of thirty years of age and upwards received that vote, that they would not be allowed to vote for municipal representatives on the local bodies. One would have thought that the greater contained the less. There are two points I wish to refer to —first, the Amendment on its merits, and, second, the point raised in opposition, whether the Amendment can be properly embodied in this Bill at present. As to the merits, I have read every speech made in the House on Thursday, and no matter whether the Speaker was in favour of the Amendment or against it, in the sense that it ought to be done in some other way, not one single Member said anything against the merits of the Amendment.

Mr. PETO

I would ask the hon. Member not to include me in that statement.

Mr. REES

I will make an exception of the hon. Member, and say that apart from the hon. Gentleman nothing was said against the merits of the Amendment. For a long time women have been battling in order to get the vote; they have taken the highest peak, the right to vote for membership of the Imperial Parliament. Having captured the highest mountain, they saw a small mountain half-way up which they had not captured, but all their guns can be trained on to it, and in time nearly everybody admits that we must withdraw from that small mountain of municipal voting, and that women must have not only the Parliamentary vote, bat the municipal vote. It is said that this was not one of the points considered by the Conference. But I submit if it can be done, the quicker it is done the better. We do not want to have another agitation throughout the country and to have women dissatisfied. I support the Amendment, and propose to vote for it on. Division.

Sir CHARLES HENRY

As a consistent opponent of the extension of the franchise to women, I heartily support this Amendment. I have always held the view, and I believe this is the view of most of those opposed to the Parliamentary vote for women, that women are particularly concerned in and should have their activities directed to municipal affairs and to matters pertaining to their district. I consider that it is the height of inconsistency if you are going to give the Parliamentary vote to women, or as my hon. Friend has just described it, the Imperial vote, to deny to them the municipal franchise. Until this matter was brought up I was not aware that it was not intended to give this vote to women. The sphere of activity of women, I maintain, is largely in municipal affairs, and I entirely endorse what the last speaker said, that if you pass this Bill without including these women in the municipal franchise, there will be an agitation in order to secure that it shall be done. I think when you are passing this comprehensive franchise Bill that it is better to deal with all these thorny subjects and not leave them for future consideration. As regards the Amendment to the Amendment to make the age thirty, I fail to see what logic there is in that proposal. I consider that a woman of twenty-one is quite able and quite intelligent enough to exercise the municipal vote. Though an opponent of woman's suffrage, I would rather, if you are giving it, that no age limit should be fixed. The suggestion that a woman of twenty-one cannot be trusted to vote on municipal affairs is not a tenable proposition. I hope that the Home Secretary will recognise the opinion of the House on this question, an opinion which I venture to say reflects the opinion of the people throughout the country. I consider that if you extend the Parliamentary vote to women you cannot logically take up the position that you should not extend the municipal vote on equal terms.

4.0 P.M.

Sir GEORGE GREENWOOD

I rise to support the appeal so strongly made from both sides to the Home Secretary, that he should consider whether he is not able even now to reconsider the position which he has taken up with regard to this Amendment. I think the right hon. Gentleman is really in favour of the Amendment, but he has alleged that he is bound by the terms of the Speaker's Conference. It has already been pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman himself said that the whole object of the Speaker's Conference had been to come to arrangements on matters affecting election of Parliament, and that nothing was referred to them as to the local government franchise. He said that they purposely left local government franchise, so that the female Parliamentary suffrage might be placed on a uniform footing. Taking those words, it surely cannot be argued from them that the Speaker's Conference recommended, or in any way implied, that the municipal franchise should not be extended to women, and surely that argument could not be found embodied, taking the right hon. Gentleman's own words. But, then, it is said, they recommended with regard to the local government register that a husband and wife shall not both be qualified in respect of the same premises. I understood my right hon. Friend to say that he felt bound by those words—that those words were the real objection to his accepting this Amendment. I venture to say that if he has looked at the matter, not as a quibble but quite seriously, he will see that the proper legal interpretation to put upon the words, if this Amendment is accepted, is that husband and wife will not both be registered in respect of the same premises. Take, for, instance, the Parliamentary vote. Our wishes are that the women should have the Parliamentary vote, and also the municipal vote. There I cannot agree with my hon. Friend beneath me, because I do think it is right to limit the age, as is proposed to be done, with, I think, the general assent of the House, to take the age of thirty for the municipal register when we have taken it for the Parliamentary register.

An HON. MEMBER

Why?

Sir G. GREENWOOD

One reason has been explained by the Home Secretary himself. The very large number of women who would be suddenly put upon the municipal register if we took the age of twenty-one. It is better, in my humble opinion, to have the same qualification both for the Parliamentary and for the municipal register. If we look at the Bill we see that a woman will have the Parliamentary franchise if she has attained the age of thirty—that she is entitled to be registered if she is the wife of a husband entitled to be so registered. Let me quote: (1) A woman shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector for a constituency … if she—

  1. a) has attained the age of thirty years; and
  2. (b) is not subject to any legal incapacity; and
  3. (c) is entitled to be registered as a local government elector in respect of the occupation of land or premises in.…
I can leave that out for the moment. or is the wife of a husband entitled to be so registered." Very well. In that case the husband and the wife are not registered in respect of the occupation of the same premises. The registration officer would not have to consider what premises are occupied by the wife at all. She is not registered at all in respect of any premises. She is registered as the wife of her husband who is on the municipal register. It would mean exactly the same thing in this case. I maintain that these words which are proposed to be left out by way of Amendment Provided that a husband and wife shall not both be qualified as local government electors in respect of the same property "— might even be left in the Statute and stand together with the Amendment, because the Amendment does not propose that a woman should be registered in respect of premises at all; it only proposes that she shall be registered in respect of the municipal register because " she is the wife of a husband who is entitled to be upon that register." Therefore I submit that the Speaker's Conference really did not make any recommendation which is a bar to this Amendment. The Speaker's Conference did contemplate changes in the muncipal franchise. They, on page 7, say this: The franchise for local government purposes is so closely connected with the Parliamentary franchise that the Conference thought it desirable to deal with the matter, and resolved that— 31. (a) In substitution for all existing franchises for local government purposes every person who for a period of six months immediately preceding the 15th day of January and the 15th day of July in any year has occupied as owner or tenant any land or premises in a local government area in England and Wales shall be entitled to be registered and to vote as a local government elector in that area. The Conference go on to say (b) For the purpose of this resolution neither sex nor marriage shall be a disqualification, provide that a husband and wife shall not both be qualified in respect of the same premises. Quite so. It is perfectly easy to consider the franchise which might be proposed if there were a different franchise for husband and wife who were in joint occupation of certain premises, say, of a certain value. In that case, if that was applied to the municipal register, it would be running counter to the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference. But I submit the present Amendment, which only wishes that the woman who is the wife of a man who is on the local government register shall be entitled to the municipal vote as well as the Parliamentary vote, does not run contrary to the Speaker's Conference, or the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, either in spirit or in effect. I submit, again, that this is a real, serious, legal interpretation of the words, and it does not in any way quibble with the matter. Putting that aside, what is the real argument in favour of this Amendment? Surely it is the absurdity of giving the Parliamentary vote to women and denying them the municipal or local government vote? If they ought to have the Parliamentary vote, surely a fortiori they ought to have the municipal vote, because here comes in the work of women—the welfare of children, education, housing, and other matters which have already been mentioned. I can hardly conceive of anyone in favour under these circumstances of giving the Parliamentary vote to women who would not also be in favour of giving them the municipal vote. One knows that many who are opposed to, and who long have been opposed to, the Parliamentary vote to women are in favour of giving them the municipal vote. We allow women to sit upon these various boards. They may be on a county or a town council, and those of us who are on these bodies appeal to the class of women who are interested. Again, it seems that this is an anomaly that ought to be removed. As my hon. Friend has already said, if this is not done, there will be at once another agitation, and I think a just and a proper agitation, in order to obtain for women the municipal vote. It is better, surely, to settle this at once ! I understand that the Amendment to the Amendment will be accepted raising the age of women to thirty. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland was taken to task by the hon. and learned Member for York because he said that if the Home Secretary stood strictly by the Speaker's Conference in this instance he should expect him to do the same, in other cases also, such as the case of plural and proxy voting. This my hon. Friend called a menace and a trap. I fail to see it. If the Home Secretary is really going to stand so rigidly, I was almost going to say pedantically—but certainly I do not use that epithet, for nobody in the world is less a pedant than the Home Secretary—if he is going to stand strictly and rigidly upon what he considers to be the terms of the Speaker's Conference—which I humbly submit is not against us in this Amendment—in this particular case, then it would only be consistent that he should adopt the same attitude in regard to, say, plural voting and proxy voting. I fail to see that this is a menace or a trap. 'To me it seems to be a perfectly fair argument. If, however, you are going to be consistent, if you are going to carry this Amendment to this particular point, how can you refuse to adopt the same attitude in other matters? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot see his way to accept this Amendment—and I devoutly hope he will put an end to this controversy—there is one thing, at any rate, that I trust he will see to: to allow this question to go freely to the House for Members to express an independent and an unbound opinion upon it. That was done in the case of the Parliamentary vote for women, and I can see no objection to the same course being taken in regard to the municipal vote. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that point.

Mr. ARNOLD WARD

I desire to say a very few words in support of this Amendment, which was moved in such a convincing speech. As an opponent of the granting of the Parliamentary franchise to women, I ask myself how this Amendment bears upon the question of the Parliamentary franchise? I noticed that on Thursday night my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Somersetshire called attention to the fact that on the Report stage of this Bill the opponents of woman's suffrage did not again challenge the decision of the House. It certainly seemed to me, in view of the Division in June, that it would have been a waste of time at this stage to have asked the House of Commons to go into another discussion and another Division: it was wiser for us to rely upon the hope that the provisions of this Bill relating to woman's suffrage would be modified in another place. That hope, I am sure it will be admitted by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, is a legitimate one. He himself has so often declared against. Single-Chamber despotism that I am sure he will admit that the revising Chamber have a right to ensure that a change of so great magnitude should be submitted to the country. How does that bear upon the question before us this afternoon? I will put it frankly in this way to my right hon. Friend: Suppose that this Amendment is rejected; suppose that the Government ask the House to reject it? That will certainly help us enormously in fomenting opposition to the Parliamentary vote in the House of Lords. I admit it will strengthen our hands very greatly.

What shall we be able to point out? That after months of labour, after prolonged discussion and delay, the Parliamentary vote has been conferred upon six millions of women, while, at the same time, not on the spur of the moment, but after very careful consideration, this House has declined to enfranchise women in the sphere in which practically every body admits women are well qualified to exercise the franchise. That will be such a transparent absurdity that it will help us in saying to our friends in another place, " The woman question has been mishandled in the House of Commons." It will go far to justify many of the hard things which the Suffragists have said about this House in the past when they have been dealing with questions affecting women. This will be a most gross injustice to women. It will help us very much to fight the Parliamentary vote. I am sure, however, it is a weapon of which no opponent of the Parliamentary suffrage for women will wish to avail himself.

In view of the public demand for this change, of which I have seen many evidences in my constituency, the complete absence of opposition to it in the country, the almost complete absence of opposition in this House, I am justified in assuring the House that those women who are opposed to the Parliamentary vote are not in the least opposed to the extension of the municipal vote, and that they will welcome this change if made by the House of Commons this afternoon.

Colonel YATE

I should like to say one word in support of what has just been said by the hon. Member, and also in support of what has been said by the hon. Member for Wellington (Sir O. Henry). I am entirely in favour of giving votes to women in municipal affairs, and shall vote for it, on condition that the age is fixed at thirty. I am opposed, and have been from the commencement, to the vote being given to women in Imperial matters, which are not their sphere at all, but I entirely endorse what has been said regarding this Amendment. I hope the women will be given the vote for municipal affairs, where their assistance may be of the greatest use to the country; and, in fact, I will go so far as to say that if you gave internal legislative control to England, Scotland and Wales, as to Ireland, I should support votes for women in those assemblies. But I am absolutely opposed to their having a vote in an Imperial Parliament.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave)

I can only speak again by the indulgence of the House. The Amendment which we are technically considering is not that which is really being pressed on the Government, because it is common ground that two changes must be made in it in order that it may be considered by the Government. One is that it should be confined to women who are residing with their husbands, and the other is that it should be confined to women who attain the age of thirty. In fact, the only form in which it can be considered is that of the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks). Therefore, what I have to say applies to the Amendment in that form. I have, of course, been listening, as I was absolutely bound to listen, to the expressions of opinion of Members in this House. I have always received, and I dare say others have received—probably I suffer more than others in that respect—an enormous mass of resolutions and letters on this matter, all of them in favour of the Amendment, and none of them against it. There has been some opposition, quite reasonably worded, in this House to this Amendment, even on merits. Two hon. Members, I think, spoke against it, but there has been a long succession of speeches in its favour—speeches made by Members of all parties in this House; indeed, I do not think it would be possible to make a comparison as to the proportion of one party or the other by which this Amendment has been supported. Members like my hon. Friends who have last spoken, who are opposed to the Parliamentary suffrage for women, have spoken in favour of the Amendment. When I spoke last week I did not think it my duty to put forward any arguments against this Amendment on the merits, for reasons. which I think the House will probably guess at. But I did put forward, and I think I was absolutely bound to put forward, the view that we are working under special conditions in regard to this Bill. I mean, of course, that it arises out of the report of the Speaker's Conference, and no one, I think, has had to press so often upon the House that view as I have. If we had not had that protection in these Debates, we could never have got so far in this Bill as we have. Therefore, I have always been reluctant to go beyond the Report of that Conference. At the same time, no one recognises more than I do that the whole object of that Conference was to obtain agreement—I will not; say permanent and final agreement, but, at all events, lasting agreement upon all these matters relating to the suffrage, and, apart from the merits, I think we should all be reluctant to see left outstanding and unsettled a question of this importance, if it could be now solved by a stroke of the pen.

Therefore, I think we were entitled to consider again what course we should take in this matter. The exceedingly ingenious argument of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir G. Greenwood) impressed me, but did not convince me. The Government, of course, in conducting this Bill are doing the work of the House as a whole, and if it be the fact—as all the indications tend to show—that the very great majority of this House would like this experiment to be made, then I think we should be justified in leaving this matter to the decision of the House. I have come to that conclusion with considerable hesitation, because I do not want to leave more matters open in that way than we are absolutely bound so to leave, and I think I am entitled to add this: My right hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel) last week said to us very pointedly, " If you are going to be stiff about this Amendment, are you going to be equally stiff about other Amendments relating to proxies and matters of that kind? " It is an argument I shall bear in mind in future, and if we leave to the House the right of choice on this Amendment, we shall feel at liberty to exercise something of the same freedom in dealing with the other Amendments to which my right hon. Friend referred. We are coming to important matters, raising such questions as the military vote, the right of the conscientious objector to vote, and the right to vote by proxy, and, in view of the pressure which has been exercised upon us from all parts of the House to come to the decision which I have just announced, namely, not to put on the Government Whips on this question, I anticipate that similar freedom will be conceded to us by the House when we come to consider the method of dealing with those other matters. Notwithstanding what I have said, I am heartily desirous that we should still look upon this Report as our guide in dealing with this Bill. Exceptions, as I have said, must be made, but I still may have to appeal as a general rule to the Report of the Conference as our guide, and I hope that nothing that happens in this Debate will prevent our still going on with the Bill in that general agreement on nearly all the points of the Bill which has enabled us to carry the matter so far. I hope the decision I have announced will commend itself to the House.

Mr. ACLAND

Perhaps I may, by leave of the House, say a few words. The Movers of the Amendment are entirely disposed to accept either the words of the hon. Member for Woolwich, or perhaps merely the addition of the words " in respect of premises in which they both reside and she has attained the age of thirty years," which embody all the points the right hon. Gentleman made. I would merely add we would not have thought it right to bring forward anything which conflicted with the Report of the Conference had it not been that the right hon. Gentleman himself said at an earlier stage of the Bill that nothing with regard to the municipal vote was referred to the Conference. Therefore, we thought it rather in a different category than the other questions.

Question, "That the words 'Provided that a husband and wife shall not both be qualified as local government electors in respect of the same property,' stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Mr. CROOKS

I beg to move, after the word " man," to insert the words " or where she is the wife of a man who is so. registered in respect of premises in which they both reside and she has attained the age of thirty years."

Mr. T. WILSON

I beg to second the Amendment. I think, after what the right hon. Gentleman has said— [HON. MEMBERS: " Agreed ! "] I second it.

Mr. SPEAKER

Does the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) withdraw his Amendment? In that case I will put the words proposed by the hon. Member for Woolwich.

Mr. ACLAND

Yes, Sir; but there is one verbal point. It says " who is so registered " instead of " entitled to be so registered." If that can be put right, I withdraw the Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: In place of the words left out, after the word " man," insert the words " or where she is the wife of a man who is so entitled to be registered in respect of premises in which they both reside and she has attained the age of thirty years."—[Mr.. Crooks.]

Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL

Before this matter is finally settled, 1 should like to take the opportunity of saying just a word in respect of the observations which fell a moment ago from the Home Secretary. I am sure the majority of the House is very grateful to him for having left this matter to the decision of the House, and I have no doubt this Amendment will be generally accepted. The Home Secretary has said that if there is a matter in which there is general assent that we should be at liberty to leave ourselves free to depart from the strict letter of the Conference, and that similar latitude should be allowed in similar cases. I venture to suggest, however, that they must be similar cases. The right hon. Gentleman will fully appreciate that where a matter raises issues which before the War were regarded as questions of acute party controversy, on which the Conference arrived with much difficulty at a general compromise, on such matters as those we should still feel ourselves entitled to claim that the decisions of the Conference should be respected. I have in mind particularly the question of plural voting, to which many of us attach the greatest importance, and if the effect of this Bill is to increase the number of plural voters far beyond the number contemplated by the Conference in their Report, we must press the right hon. Gentleman not to depart from the Conference recommendations in that particular, even though on these matters on which there is general assent we have felt ourselves free to indulge in a somewhat larger latitude.

Amendment agreed to.

    cc1047-82
  1. CLAUSE 5.—(Special Provisions for Persons Serving on War Service.) 14,660 words
    2. cc1082-5
  2. CLAUSE 6.—(Qualifying Period.) 1,032 words
    3. cc1085-115
  3. CLAUSE 7.—(Right of Person Registered to Vote.) 12,585 words, 1 division
    4. cc1115-52
  4. CLAUSE 8.—(Provision -as. to Disqualifications) 15,685 words
    5. cc1152-4
  5. COLONEL MONTEAGLE BROWNE. 347 words