§ Mr. LANSBURYhad given notice of a Motion for leave to introduce a "Bill to remove the sex disqualification which debars a woman from being enrolled as an elector or from voting at Parliamentary elections."
§ Mr. SPEAKERI would like to point out to the hon. Member that the House has already, considered, discussed, and disposed of a Bill under the same title as the Bill which he now proposes to introduce. The House, therefore, could not consider a precisely similar Bill. I do not know whether the hon. Member proposes in the Bill which he now asks leave to introduce, to raise another question which was not discussed by the House. If he proposes to raise simply the same point as has already been discussed, I would point out to him that we cannot proceed with this Bill. Does this Bill contain any fresh proposal?
§ Mr. LANSBURYThe Bill I propose to introduce is one simply to remove the sex disqualification, and is entirely different from the Bill which was defeated a few weeks ago. This Bill sets out with the simple object that where a woman has the same qualification for the vote as a man she may be registered as a voter, which, I think you will find on examination, is rather different from what was known as the Conciliation Bill. The object in bringing it forward is that the House may have one more opportunity of considering the question of the removal of the sex disqualification without all the difficulties which surrounded the last Bill. I would like to remind the House that in 1870, on the Motion of the late Mr. Jacob Bright, a Bill identical to that which I am now asking leave to bring in was read a second time by a large majority, and on various occasions since then similar Bills and this identical Bill have also been 1755 carried. In the 1906 Parliament a Bill was brought in by a large number of Members, and it was also given a Second Reading, so that it is a Bill which this House, or rather various parties represented in this House, have considered with a great deal of favour, but for a variety of reasons the Bill has never got beyond its Second Reading. It appears to me that at the present moment in this Assembly there are an overwhelming majority of men who believe in giving votes to women and removing the sex disqualification. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Well, I at all events think that the vote which was given in 1911 is at least as worthy of representing the opinion of this House as the vote that was given a few weeks ago. There were probably a variety of reasons why hon. Members changed their minds. I believe that in the main they were temporary reasons, and had nothing whatever to do with the principle of the Bill under discussion. I think no one in the House will deny that a considerable number of Members wished to prevent any time being given to any other than a particular subject, and that some Members also wrote to the newspapers and proclaimed the fact that they had changed their minds because of violence outside. I think both of those reasons are rather bad when dealing with a question of principle, and I think they are reasons which do not appeal to hon. Members either from Ireland or Wales.
§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURYOn a point of Order. As I understand the question is not whether the House in 1911 or at any other date has sanctioned a Women's Enfranchisement Bill, but whether, in view of the fact that the House has already this Session, rightly or wrongly, refused the franchise to women, it is in order to bring in this Bill to confer the franchise on women?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman seemed to me to be inviting the House to reverse the decision already come to. As I pointed out in my first observations, we cannot do that. If the Bill contains matter other than was in the Bill which the House rejected on 28th March, then the hon. Member might obtain leave to introduce it; but if the matter is the same and if all he is now asking is that the House should reconsider the decision which was come to two months ago, that we cannot do, and I could not allow the Bill to be brought in.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI was trying to argue as to the principle of votes for women. This Bill is entirely different from that known as the Conciliation Bill. This Bill, if passed, would enable a woman who has the same qualification as a man for a vote to be registered as a Parliamentary elector and to vote as a Parliamentary elector. This very Parliament has affirmed the principle of giving women votes. It affirmed the principle about a year ago. A few weeks ago a Bill was rejected by a very narrow majority. I was trying to point out that in these circumstances the House ought not to reject this Bill from the point of view of principle, because it has already decided that. This is not so wide a Bill as the one which was carried last Session in favour of women having votes. The position in regard to this matter is very complicated at present. A large number of women are suffering the indignities of being in prison and others are on their trial. The real thing that they are striving for is the recognition by this House of the principle that women who pay rates and taxes and perform all the ordinary duties of male citizens should be entitled to be put on the Parliamentary register. I ask the House to consider the question not as politicians or as men belonging to various parties. Those of us who believe in this principle are to be found in all corners of the House, and the reason why we have not been able to get it recognised by law is not because of opposition to the principle, but for a variety of other reasons. In this Session, when we have two great measures as regards both of which there was an agitation accompanied by a certain amount of violence, when all sides unite in asking us to let bygones be bygones, and when from every bench there comes eulogy of the men who were a year or two ago denounced as traitors and men unworthy to be trusted—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is making no statement whatever with regard to the Bill. He is dealing with the question of principle and with letting bygones be bygones and so on. As I have pointed out, we cannot let bygones be bygones, for it is only two months since we rejected a Bill of exactly the same kind as that which he is introducing. The title of it was the Women's Enfranchisement Bill. The purpose of it was to confer the Parliamentary franchise on women. I have called upon the hon. Member to show how his Bill differs from that. If the hon. Member will show that, and show that 1757 there is any difference between the contents of the Bill which he proposes now to introduce and that which was rejected, then, if there is any difference, he can introduce this Bill.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI am extremely sorry if I have not made myself plain, but twice over I have tried, and with very great respect I will try again. This is a Bill to remove the sex disqualification which debars women from being enrolled as electors or from voting at Parliamentary elections. It is entirely different from the last Bill. In principle I admit that it is not different, but in its application it is different.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member has given his case away in admitting that in principle it is not different, and therefore I cannot call upon him.