WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT. (Hansard, 25 April 1923)

§ Mr. FOOT
I beg to move, That leave be given to introduce a Bill to extend the suffrage to women on the same terms as men. The Bill which I have the honour to submit is one of six Clauses. Four of the Clauses are operative and two are merely subsidiary. The character of the Bill will be seen from the first Clause which, with the consent of the House, I will read: 470 A Woman whether married or unmarried shall be entitled to be registered as a Parliamentary elector for any Parliamentary constituency where she would be entitled to be so registered, if she were a man. The second Clause gives to women the power of voting equally with men. The third Clause states that the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1918, relating to women only, shall have effect during the continuance of the present Parliament, and the fourth Clause stipulates that this Bill shall only come into force, as far as voting is concerned, on the expiration of the present Parliament. This Bill has a history running back to the compromise of 1918, and to the declaration which was made at that time to the country by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and the present Prime Minister, who declared in their manifesto: It will be the duty of the new Government to remove all existing inequalities as between men and women. I do not know how that promise was intended, but there is no doubt as to its interpretation throughout the country, and in the year 1919 a Women's Emancipation Bill was introduced into this House containing the Clauses which are in my Bill to-day. It passed its Second Reading without a Division and its Third Reading by 100 votes to 85, and among those who voted against the Government on that occasion, were seven hon. Members who to-day are His Majesty's Ministers. In 1920 the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Grundy) introduced a similar Bill which was carried on Second Reading by 122 votes to 38, and last year, on the 8th March, the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin introduced a Bill which is almost identical with the one I submit to-day, and leave was given on that occasion by 208 votes to 60 votes. I think some objection was raised on that occasion by the hon. and gallant Member for Finsbury (Lieut.-Colonel Archer-Shee), who urged against the Bill that there was no demand for it, as was shown by the fact of 40 per cent. of the electors not going to the poll. He will allow me to remind him that since that speech was made there has been a new election, and we have a new House and a new atmosphere. Nothing was more noticeable in the last election than the keen interest taken by the women electors, and I think, generally 471 speaking, the women were just as keen upon their political responsibilities as were the men. Further, in that election a large number of promises were made by most Members of this House, and a number of Members of this House actually pledged themselves to the reform which I now suggest. I think they will welcome the opportunity of redeeming, at any rate, one of their pledges. It was at the beginning of the Session that I put a question to the Prime Minister asking him if he intended introducing a Bill upon these lines, and because his answer was in the negative, I have brought forward this Bill to-day. I do not intend entering into the general arguments in favour of this Bill. I think all that it is necessary to do is to refer to the famous essay written over 60 years ago by John Stuart Mill, in which he said: The difference of sex is as entirely irrelevant to political rights as difference in height or in the colour of the hair. The compromise of 1918 was based on many fears which have not been justified by subsequent experience, and I think most. Members will agree with me that the election law as it exists to-day is full of differences, discriminations, and distinctions that are difficult to understand and absolutely impossible to justify. I know that the objection raised in 1918 and again last year was that this Bill would make more women electors than men electors. We are not responsible for that, and we have some better use for our time and energy than trying to remedy and rectify the supposed mistakes and miscalculations of Providence. It has been suggested that the women do not want this Bill. The answer is the organised demand of many associations throughout the country. If it were true that the women did not demand the Bill, I do not accept that contention as being a valid argument. Referring again to John Stuart Mill, I would remind the House that he said: It is a benefit to human beings to have their fetters removed oven if they do not desire to walk. There is the further objection that this Bill would result in the enfranchisement of the young. That is not an argument against the Bill, but in support of it. It is certain, when you have growing up in the same household a boy and a girl and the boy is able to exercise his vote 472 when he reaches 21 and the girl is not until she reaches 30, you have ample ground for resentment and indignation. The assumption, I suppose, is that it takes nine years longer for the woman's mind to mature than the man's. It is the same sort of resentment and indignation that I used to feel when I was one of a family of six exercising the vote, and my mother could not exercise it, although she had more sense than all the rest of us put together. As a matter of fact, this Bill will not only enfranchise the young. It will deal with the older women as well. The franchise law as it exists to-day actually excludes the great mass of women engaged in occupations and industry. I, therefore, urge upon those who have responsibility in this matter the wisdom of passing this Measure now. Nothing is more certain in an uncertain political world than that this reform must come. I only urge that it may be given as a concession and not be extorted from us in later years.

§ Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE
I desire, very briefly, to give a few reasons in opposition to the hon. Member's Motion. It is a very invidious task, because I am not an anti-feminist. I believe in the words used by Chaucer, who said What is better than wisdom? He answered it himself, and said A woman. Then he said What is better than a good woman? and he replied Nothing. The point is that the hon. Member proposes to enfranchise something like 5,000,000 more people. It is only five years ago that during the Great. War, without the men being asked, without the existing electors being asked, a Measure was passed enfranchising something like 13,000,000 more people in this country. Although that has been more or less accepted by the people of this country since, I see no reason why the number of 21,000,000 who already exercise the franchise should be increased. Parliament even then, in 1918, very wisely put the age of women at 30, because there are something like 2,000,000 more women than men in the country. The reason for that—I think a very good reason—was that it would not be a good thing to have 473 more women voting than men, or, in other words, to give the electoral power into the hands of the women. After all, Government does not depend only upon public opinion. It depends very largely also upon the force in the background, and the physical force is the men's force. At the last election something like 5,000,000 people who were entitled to vote did not vote. I am including in that number the uncontested elections, in which there were something like 2,000,000 entitled to vote. That is more than 25 per cent. of the electors as it exists today. I suggest, therefore, that there is no necessity for this Bill. It would be far better to wait and see how the women's vote is going to work in future years.
The last franchise reform was carried only five years ago, in 1918, and, as I have said, 13,000,000 more people were enfranchised. That was many years after the previous franchise reform. Five years is nothing in the history of a nation. Surely we ought to see how the women's vote is going to work before we rush forward and increase the number. Another great objection which I have to this Bill is that we ought to ask the existing voters whether they wish their stock to be watered down. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, it reduces the value of the vote by 20 per cent. Another objection is that it will cost an enormous sum of money. In the first place, to enfranchise 5,000,000 extra voters will mean, at 5d. each, 25,000,000 pence, or over £100,000, which you will have to pay to the registration officers. Then you have the printing of the registers, which in 1920 cost—I know, because I happened to be Chairman of the Publication and Debates Committee—£690,000, and you will increase that amount by another 25 per cent., or £150,000. This Bill, therefore, unnecessary as it appears to be, will cost the country at this time, when we are hard pressed to find money for many purposes, £250,000 at least. We have already, only three years ago, had very full discussions in Committee on this proposal. I remember we were kept on the first Clause of that Bill several days in Committee, and at the end of that time the Labour party, having got the first Clause out of nine, said that they would not proceed any further with the Bill.
474 After all, this Bill ought not to be brought in except by the Government and then only in the last few months of its existence, and it ought not to be brought into force at all until the people have decided that the numbers enfranchised should be increased in this way. That is the proper democratic way of going about this reform, or whatever you like to call it, and that is the way in which we should proceed. There is a great danger of giving the electoral power of this country into the hands of the women, and there are great objections to that, owing not only to the fact that we control our own country but that we also control the destinies of one-fifth of the human race and one-quarter of the habitable globe. In addition, we may find that there will be a demand in future for disfranchising the men. I believe in the prophecy in "Punch" in 1917 or 1918, when one char-lady was represented as saying to another: When women get the Vote, will men be allowed to vote? And the other answered: Yes, my dear, at first. By increasing the electorate in this country you will water down the stock, and you will make an election a joke. You will make it really difficult to get the opinion of the thinking people of this country. You are going to give 5,000,000 people the vote when you know perfectly well that at least 4,500,000 of them do not want it, and do not want to be bothered with it. I do not propose to divide the House on this question, because I think we ought to see what the Bill is like. I am against dividing against, First Readings, because we ought to see what a Bill is like.

§ Mr. FOOT
This Bill is like the Measure against which you divided last year.

§ Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE
I do not approve of the action of hon. Members who bring in Bills like this and then do not print them, like the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) who brought in a Bill some six weeks ago and a copy of which we cannot see yet. I am sure that my hon. Friend opposite intends to print this Bill, and therefore I do not propose to divide the House.