The LORD CHANCELLOR:- The first question that naturally occurred to one was - Did women want the vote? Some undoubtedly did - very much indeed. But did the great majority of women want it? He was not at all satisfied that they did. He quoted the statement of one lady, who said, "The first use I will make of it will be to vote for taking it away." As to a general desire, on the part of women for the vote, evidence there was absolutely none. But there was another and more important consideration. Did the nation want this great change? On that question, surely, there was the same paucity of evidence. The nation had not been consulted on the subject, and had never had an opportunity of expressing its opinion. The present House of Commons had twice rejected much more moderate proposals for the enfranchisement of women; and so far as he could judge, if there were any strong feeling on the part of the great mass of the population, it was one of being tired of the whole subject. There was no sufficient evidence of the people's will to show that they desired what was neither more nor less than the revolution embodied in this clause. (Cheers.)
In justification of a change of opinion it was said that the war had changed everything, and they were urged to look at women's war work. That was no new thing. The women of England had always done their duty in war time. The workers did not ask for the vote as a reward for their services; and most of the women who were working in the munition factories were under 30 years of age, and therefore would not be enfranchised by the Bill. The proposal was one for a gigantic experiment unprecedented in the history of this country, or, he thought he might say, of the world. What would be the effect of adding 6,000,000 women to the electorate if a General Election took place before the war was over? There would be a vast mass of women without political experience upon which pacifists might work. The younger and more buoyant women would be excluded from voting; and owing to war-weariness, the loss of sons, husbands, and brothers, and, it might be, scarcity of provisions for their children, whom they loved more than their own souls, the others might be tempted by specious terms of peace which would leave Prussian militarism unbroken and throw away all the advantages for which we had fought so hard and made tremendous sacrifices in men and money. If the result of the women's vote should be a hasty and inconclusive peace there would be an end of the greatness of this country, and, in the near future, of the continued existence of the Empire.
THE COST OF REJECTION
The EARL of SELBORNE believed that the enfranchisement of women would bring strength and fresh power to this land and Empire. He held that women were as well fitted on the average as men to take a share in the control of Imperial and domestic affairs. That was no extravagant compliment. (Laughter.) For whatever reason the franchise was extended to men, judged by that reason, women on the average were equally fitted for it.
In the economic reconstruction after the war, what would be the position of millions of women who were earning their own livelihoods if they had no vote while male trade unionists and employers had votes? It was absolutely ludicrous to say that Parliament would fairly consider the interests of women in these circumstances. On some subjects women had a distinct point of view which they had a right to express. There was a body of opinion in the nation and in the House of Lords in favour of drastic changes in the marriage laws. How could they, with any sense of justice, think of dealing with the marriage laws, turning them upside down, without allowing women to have a say in the matter? (Hear, hear.)
WOMEN AND THE PACIFISTS
The inclusion of married women would be an immense assurance against the forebodings and dangers inseparable from any extension of the franchise. He was sorry to hear the Lord Chancellor suggest that women would be more likely than men to be a prey to the pacifists, and that if the vote were given to women there would be a danger of a humiliating or inconclusive peace. What had the women of England done to deserve that taunt? The House should judge of the fairness and justice of that insinuation by the attitude of women in the war. Their services were as essential to victory as those of men. (Hear, hear.) Had the women ever shown themselves less patriotic than men, less able to comprehend the causes of the war, or the issues at stake, less determined or less self-sacrificing? Had they shown themselves more hysterical? Had they ever once struck work during the war? Had there been any disturbance of national unity or any weakening of national resolution coming from the women? Never once. (Cheers.) He thought that in the magnificent solidarity of our race during the war there had perhaps been more evidence of weakening among the men than there had been among the women. If the questions which he had asked could not be answered adversely to the women, on what ground of justice or fairness or wisdom could they refuse them the vote?
A RECOGNITION OF NATIONAL SERVICE
EARL RUSSELL said that it was understood that there would be a considerable labour fight by women who were now earning their own living, and that they would need all the assistance that a Parliamentary vote could give them in that struggle. He held that it would be an insult to women were the gates of the promised land now slammed in their faces. This Bill came before the House because the time called for it. It was a political necessity which no Government could escape, and it was also a political necessity to include woman suffrage. The country regarded it almost as a fait accompli, and for the House to reject it would, from the point of view of the House's own authority and existence, be very unwise and unstatesmanlike.
THE OPINION OF ORGANIZED WOMEN
The EARL of LYTTON said that there had been no adequate expression in this debate of the feeling of those who were most affected by the amendment - those women who for many years had been waiting with ever-increasing impatience, and, he feared, ever-increasing bitterness, for their admission to the Parliamentary franchise. This was one of the oldest of political controversies in this country - personally he had taken a part in it for 10 years - and during its course there had been many incidents which had given rise to a sense of soreness and grievance on the part of women and a feeling that they had not received fair play. Up to the present moment there were only four classes who were specifically excluded from the franchise - paupers, lunatics, children, and women. The fact that women had been condemned to remain in that category had created a great feeling of injustice. Women were, indeed, in a worse position than any of the three other classes mentioned. By this Bill it was proposed to remove the pauper disqualification; there was hope that lunatics might one day cease to be lunatics; certainly children would cease to be children if they lived long enough; it was women alone as a class, at all times and of all ages, whom it was proposed to exclude from the rights of citizenship.
Another reason why the feeling of resentment had been increased was that women had found that a different standard of evidence and of opinion was applied to their agitation for the Parliamentary vote than to any other political agitation. It had been asserted repeatedly that there was no evidence of the desire of women to have the political franchise. In regard to other political questions a decision as to the side on which the weight of opinion lay was reached by taking the expressions of opinion given by organized bodies. Without exception every women's organization, for whatever purpose it existed - women doctors, women nurses, women teachers, women trade unionists, women workers of all kinds wherever they were organized - had expressed opinions or passed resolutions in favour of the enfranchisement of women.
The strongest reason - not for giving women the vote - but for giving it them now, was the part they had taken in national service. That was the cause of the tremendous change which had taken place in public opinion on the subject. The Sovereign had recently decided that women should be entitled to rewards for their services in the same way as men, and had instituted an Order, under which rewards for national service during the war should be distributed equally and impartially between men and women. All these things had made a profound impression elsewhere, and he refused to believe that that House was the only place that remained unaffected. Lord Lansdowne had said that if a mistake were made in enfranchising women it would be irreparable, but if a mistake were made in refusing the franchise it might be repaired. The mistake of refusal had been constantly made in the past, and this was the opportunity of repairing it.
WOMEN AND THE LABOUR VOTE
VISCOUNT CHAPLIN said it was well known that women invariably voted with their male relatives. In Australia they had helped to defeat Mr. Hughes on the question of conscription, and if women suffrage were general in Canada instead of only in the more Western States it was almost certain that Sir Robert Borden and his policy of conscription would have been beaten as well. That was an unpleasant position to contemplate at a time when it was vital to England and the Empire that every possible man should be obtained in order to win the war. He had been assured, on an authority which he had no reason to doubt, that five out of the six million female voters to be created by the Bill were connected either directly or indirectly with labour. That meant that 7,000,000 voters - the 2,000,000 men and the 5,000,000 women - were to be added to organized labour. He was convinced that the great mass of working-class men were just as loyal and patriotic as any other section of the community. Their attitude towards the war showed that. But, on the other hand, there were strikes almost week after week. He had read the remarkable series of articles which appeared in The Times some months ago, on "The Ferment of Revolution" - perhaps the best thing that had been done in the Press for many years - and if those articles were true, as he was afraid they were, to a certain extent, it was clear that the extremists and the pacifists were now pulling the strings of labour. That, he thought, was the best of reasons for refusing to make an addition to their forces.
LORD CURZON REMAINS UNCONVINCED
EARL CURZON, after explaining that in taking part in the debate he was not speaking as spokesman of the Government or Leader of the House, stated that, having listened to nearly every speech, he personally remained unconvinced that it was either fair, or desirable, or wise, in the manner proposed, to add six million female votes to the electorate of the country. In the first place, this was a vast, incalculable, and almost catastrophic change, which, whatever might be their views about it, was without precedent in history and without justification in experience. Nothing could alter the undisputed fact that no great State in history had ever made so far-reaching a change; and he could not think he was acting foolishly in ranging himself by the side of France and Italy - he would not mention Germany in this connexion - and the other great countries on the Continent, while the example of Russia, which at one sweep had conceded universal suffrage, male and female, did not fill him with enthusiasm. The second point which affected him was that this change, the most serious in our constitutional development for at least a century, would be irrevocable. Once given, the franchise was a boon, a privilege, a right - whatever they liked to call it which could never be taken back. It might be misused or even abused; but once given it could never be withdrawn. It might be that they would be doing more than crossing the Rubicon. They would be opening the floodgates to something much more than a tidal river - they would be opening them to a flood which they could not stop, which might presently overspread this country and submerge many landmarks. He had heard in this debate no sufficient answer to the plea that no mandate or authority had been given by the country for the grant of the vote to women.
He did not think anyone had disputed Lord Loreburn's contention that the selection of the age of 30 years as that at which women should be entitled to the franchise was both arbitrary and illogical. That arbitrary, artificial, and illogical limit of age in the case of women could not possibly last. This was not only the thin end of the wedge; they would be taking the wedge and hammering it half way in. The 6,000,000 women voters within 20 years or 15 or even 10 years would become 10,000,000, or very likely 12,000,000. On all these grounds he continued to regard this proposal with a mistrust and an apprehension which he would be dishonest were he to attempt to conceal.
.lcThe Representation of the People Bill finally passed into law two months after the end of the first world war. From this day, women over the age of 30 had the legal right to vote.
