I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Nearly every Member of the three political parties in this House has accepted the principle which this Bill contains, but this morning we are faced with what the Press describes as a "reasoned Amendment," in the name of the Home Secretary. It is a singular thing that the franchise in this country has been of such slow development. In the early days the franchise was granted to property and not to citizens. The citizens who had the good fortune to be the owners and occupiers of property were privileged to exercise the vote. This Bill seeks rather to give the privilege of the franchise to citizens in this country, and not so much to property. It has taken us 100 years to reach the principle of adult men suffrage in this country, and when some of us look at the Amendment on the Paper this morning we wonder whether it is going to take just as long to reach the principle of equal suffrage between men and women. One of the main planks of the Chartists was adult suffrage, and we are just, beginning to realise that important fact now.

There is a constitutional point as to whether an alteration in our franchise must necessarily be followed by a General Election, and I expect we shall hear much of that point to-clay. The franchise in this country does not appear to me to have been altered so often as to establish the idea that such alterations must necessarily be followed by an appeal to the electorate. The Reform Act of 1832 brought about the enfranchisement in the main of the industrial middle classes. The Act of 1867 gave the franchise to the urban workers, and that was followed in 1884 by legislation extending the franchise to agricultural workers. Between then and 1918 there does not appear to have been any real development of the franchise. In 1918 we were brought to the position of the establishment of general male adult suffrage, and in a limited way the franchise was granted to women on certain terms. The restrictions in the Act of 1918 are the things which this Bill seeks to set on one side.

The present Bill asks that the general principle of the franchise be granted to women, and that it should be given to them at the age of 21, just in the same way as it applies to men. I can understand very readily that hon. Members on the Government Benches are placed in a somewhat difficult position. The Amendment shows that the Press has done its work exceedingly well during the week. The Press has been telling us day by day that this is an important matter, so important that it ought not to be taken into consideration by a Parliament in the early days of its life, but that it is a matter which ought to be dealt, with rather in its dying days, and that then an appeal could be made to the new electorate for new Parliament.

I am not sure that this House of Commons can be said at any time actually to represent the whole electorate of the country. Additional voters are placed upon the register every six months, which means that in reality we never represent the new thought that is coming on to the register. That is one of the reasons why Clause 6 has been put into this Bill, to obviate on the passing of a Measure of this kind an immediate General Election. It is difficult to say how long any Parliament is going to last. Some of us who came here in 1922 for the first time thought that we should be here for a long time in the ordinary way, but suddenly, in 1923, we were forced into a General Election. Last year we quite appreciated and expected that the Government could not last for a long time.

Last year this Bill, or the principle contained in this Bill, was agreed to on Second Reading by this House and it passed through Committee, but we had a General Election before it- could be made effective. In spite of the huge majority of the Government, we cannot say that the Government will last two, three, four or five years. Therefore, every party in this House having agreed to the general principle contained in this Bill that women shall be entitled to the franchise on exactly the same terms as men, we can very well afford to put the Bill on the Statute Book, on the understanding that it shall not be used until there is a General Election. Why the women of this country should wait until the dying days of the Government, when there may not be time to fulfil the promises that have been made by this House to the women, passes by my comprehension.

Hear, hear, and mine, too.

It is well that hon. Members should realise the many obstacles which the Act of 1918 places in the way of women, particularly of married women, from obtaining a vote, even when they are 30 years of age. Some of the obstacles are that she must be the occupier as tenant or owner of a house or flat of any value; a lodger in a room or rooms of any value which were let to her unfurnished; the occupier, by virtue of office, service or employment, of premises in which her employer does not reside. An occupier, as tenant or owner, of land or premises, shop, office, warehouse, living rooms occupied other than as lodgings, or as a dwelling house of a yearly value of not less than £5. Again, you have the principle of women suffrage in the 1918 Act, and there you give the franchise to the property and not to the woman.

In this Bill we are seeking, by the repeal of Sub-section (4) of Section 43 to remove these restrictions and grant the franchise to the women of this country on equal terms with men because they are citizens and not property owners. One finds the argument used that the older women in the country are not anxious that the younger women shall be entitled to the franchise. I have been looking into this matter and I find that at the last big conference held on the subject there were 56 societies represented, most of them societies of a national character, and they decided unanimously in favour of equal franchise as between men and women. The majority of women present at the conference were over 30 years of age. I have seen deputations of women in the Lobby of this House, and all those deputations were made up of women of 40 years and upwards, who came to appeal that the franchise should be granted to women from 21 years upwards. One has had some very interesting correspondence during the week. I have had correspondence arguing that I have taken a mean advan- tage of the Conservative Government. They tell me that the Conservative party are strongly pledged to this principle, but that, having had the good fortune to secure the second place in the Ballot, I have, for purely political purposes, chosen this Bill in order to secure the vote of women at the next election. I have also had letters informing me that this is the policy advocated by the Liberal party——

Where is the Liberal party?

——and that the Labour party ought not to assume that they are the only people who stand for this particular principle. I am pleased to find from the correspondence that all parties are so unanimous on this subject, and I feel certain, after what I have read during the week, that had any member on the Government side of this House been fortunate enough to secure the first Friday for a Private Member's Bill, he would have been delighted to do exactly what I am doing this morning. Last year, when my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. W. M. Adamson) brought this matter before the House, there were two very interesting speeches made by Members of the present Government. The present Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Sir Burton Chadwick) said in the course of that Debate:

It is a singular thing that we in this country should be behind other countries in providing that there should be no distinction in granting the franchise to men and women. If women under 30 years of age come to this country from New Zealand, the Irish Free State or Australia, they are disfranchised because they happen to be under 30 years of age. The Mother country ought not to be behind these countries, and we ought to see to it that the women of this country are granted the franchise on equal terms with men. It is because this Bill seeks to bring forward this main principle and to remove, by the repeal of Sub-section (4) of Section 43 of the Act of 1918, all the restrictions that are at present in operation, that I have great pleasure in moving the Second Reading of this Bill.

I beg to second the Motion.

I do not propose to discuss the general principle of women suffrage. That battle has been won, and if any hon. Member would like occasionally a little comic relief from the tedium of Debate in this House, he might do worse than read the arguments used in opposition to the proposal to have women suffrage in the Debate in 1918. It is curious when we look back and realise how unfounded were all the horrors that were predicted as arguments against this Measure. We had the famous film "Ruined by the Vote; the broken house and home." Who had terrible pictures drawn of women members in hysterics on the Floor of the House. My short experience as women members have slipped unobserved to their places is that hysterics are very largely confined to a section of the Press. What we are concerned with to-day, therefore, is just a definite and restricted point, namely, is the artificial division of thirty years of age to be maintained and is it justified or desirable? One of the main arguments, an argument that has already been alluded to as a supplementary question in this House, is that there is no general demand for this extension of the franchise. That is best answered by the pledge which the Prime Minister himself gave just before the last General Election. Prime Ministers, of whatever party, as wise men do not throw pledges about where they are not needed. They much prefer to avoid giving pledges unless they are placed in a position where they cannot avoid so doing. Yet we find that the Prime Minister, in a declaration in October last, stated that the Conservative party stands for equality between men and women. I have not to remind so honourable a gentleman as the Prime Minister that the most sacred pledge that any man can give is the pledge given to those who cannot retaliate if that pledge is broken. If any Minister gives a pledge to any section of electors, and he breaks that pledge, they can square accounts with him at the next Election. If the pledge given to women under 30 is broken, no retaliation on the part of those women can fall on Cabinet Ministers, and I am sure that our present Prime Minister will realise the importance of that fact.

It has also been suggested that there is no demand from the women themselves. The Mover of the Second Reading has alluded to the long list of women's societies, connected with every branch of public life, which have urged this reform. It is stated that there are actually women members of this House who are against the extension of the franchise. Of course, to me that is an utterly incomprehensible position. I can always understand a woman who was herself against the franchise when other women were asking for it, refusing either to vote or have anything to do with the vote which she did not want; but I cannot understand those women who take full advantage of the work that other women have done for them, and then do not want to extend the vote to their younger sisters. It has been stated by at least one important member of this House that if the vote were given to the young women they would invariably vote only for the best looking candidate. On looking round this House, Mr. Speaker, I cannot see that there is any need for hon. members to be worried, but I take it that we shall see in the division Lobby those members who are not quite sure of themselves in this respect. I know that there are, perhaps, some of the older members of this House who regard women of twenty-one as they regard their grand-daughters—as people to be kept mute. I hope we shall not see against us in this Debate the young men, the men of this generation, the men who have faced the competition and had the comradeship of women of their own age on the sports ground, yes, and even in the late War, and who have grown up in the atmosphere of equality. As to the older men, we could forgive them theft prejudice, but we cannot forgive prejudice on the part of men of our own generation.

In respect of the need for women below the age of thirty to be enfranchised, I do not want to enter into great detail, because in speaking on this question in connection with the King's Speech, I dealt with it in some detail. May I just refresh the memories of hon. Members by saying that we are not dealing merely with women of a certain age, but that what does happen under the present law is that a whole class of women are disfranchised, and those are the women between twenty-one and thirty who are earning their living in our factories and workshops. Even to-day all women over thirty have not the vote. Only the women who can rent an unfurnished room are enfranchised, and there are certain qualifications. Thus it is the industrial and professional women, just those women who most need the protection of this House who are disfranchised.

On looking at the Amendment to be proposed by the Government, one realises, as we women have always done in the whole of this franchise fight, that we are faced with another red herring drawn across the path. Many of us remember the struggle for the franchise previously to the War. We remember that after every conceivable person who could possibly be pledged to vote for the Bill, representing an overwhelming majority of the Members of this House, had been pledged, there were Members who got themselves out of the difficulty by one of the many subterfuges that are open to Members of-this House. I regret that a great party like the Government should lend themselves to the subterfuge and the bogy that this reform necessarily means a General Election. We have the precedent of 1917, as has been stated. An equally curious thing is this, that while to-day it is being argued that it is too early in this Parliament to have this reform, one of the great arguments against the Suffrage Bill in 1917 was that the Government were introducing it too late in that Parliament, that the Parliament had, as a matter of fact, lost its mandate, and that such reforms should be introduced as soon as possible after a General Election. It is not possible to have it both ways. I am going to appeal to hon. Members in this matter. This is not a party matter. Every party is completely convinced that the women will always go and vote for the other party. The paper of my own party, the "Daily Herald," has been printing letters from certain agitated members of the Labour party, T need not remind hon. Members opposite, who, I am sure, are faithful readers of that organ. But the other party organs and other party machinery are always afraid of the extension of the franchise. We on this side are prepared to take a leap in the dark because we feel this is not a question of party expediency but a question of justice. It is not necessary, I am sure, to remind hon. Members that the man who does justice to others need not be afraid of the final result.

May I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the House for giving me an opportunity to speak so early in the Debate, having regard to the fact that I have not yet recovered from what is the enemy of most people at present, namely influenza. I rise to support the Second Reading of the Bill. It is scarcely necessary, after the speeches to which we: have just listened, to remind the House that there is, among all parties, such a measure of agreement on the principle of the Bill, that we should spend very little time to-day in debating that principle. As it has been pointed out, all three parties have been definitely committed to the principle of political equality between men and women for some time past. The Coalition Government, the succeeding Unionist. Government and the Labour Government, in succession, committed themselves to the principle of equal political rights. We have also been reminded that the three parties reiterated their committals at the recent General Election. The Prime Minister made a very definite statement with regard to the principle. The Liberal party and the Labour party also made very definite statements in their political manifestoes. It is true they were not all equally pronounced as to the time and method by which the principle was to be applied, but, if the statements of the Mover and Seconder and the statement I have just made correctly represent the position of the three parties, it seems to me the question about which the House should now concern itself is not the principle, but how that principle can be most effectively applied to meet the convenience of the country.

On this point I presently desire to make some suggestions, which, I hope, will have the serious consideration of the Government, but, before doing so, I venture to make a brief reference to the scope of this Bill. This, I am afraid, is not quite understood. It is all the more important that I should make a reference to the scope of the Bill, in view of the Debate which we had just a year ago on a previous Bill, and the subsequent proceedings in Committee upstairs. Last year several of those who now occupy seats on the Treasury Bench took part in the Debate, and also took a very important part in the discussions in Committee. The general tenour of their statements was that we had extended the scope of our Bill; that the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. W. M. Adamson) had not been satisfied with bringing in a Bill merely to grant equal political rights to men and women, but had introduced a number of ancillary questions which had made the Bill very objectionable. It was repeatedly stated that, if my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock, who was responsible for the Bill, had contented himself with a single Clause to bring about equality of political rights, there would have been a more friendly disposition towards the Bill than was shown in the Committee—though I may say that, in spite of these objections, the disposition of the Committee, as a whole, was not altogether unfriendly.

What is the position to-day? We have responded to the appeals made to us on the last occasion. We have restricted the Bill on this occasion to the one principle of placing men and women on an equality before the law so far as the franchise is concerned. That circumstance should appeal to those opponents who took what we will accept as an honest objection to the previous Bill, on the ground that we had extended its scope. What is the real effect of the Bill now before the House? It will do no more than place men and women on exactly the same footing with regard to the Parliamentary vote. Under the law as it is at present, those women who secure the vote do so on one of two qualifications. The woman must either be a Local Government elector in her own right, or she must be the wife of an existing Local Government elector. The Bill before us proposes to alter Section 1 of the Representation of the People Act, 1918, so that the qualification whereby a man can secure a Parliamentary vote shall also apply in exactly the same way to a woman. In other words, the Bill proposes that in future a woman will not have to rely upon possessing the Local Government franchise in her own right, or upon being the wife of a Local Government elector, but any woman who has reached the age of 21 and has a six months' residence in a constituency will be entitled to secure the vote. This, of course, will be in addition to her existing right to a Local Government vote, if she is occupier as owner or tenant of qualifying premises. I emphasise that point because it is of importance.

There is another point which should be made unmistakably plain. This Bill will not only enfranchise women between the ages of 21 and 30; it will also enable women over 30 who have not previously possessed a local government qualification, or who do not happen to be the wives of local government electors, to obtain the vote on exactly the same terms as men do to-day. I believe it is estimated that something like 1,500,000 women over 30 have not yet had the vote, and the Bill will enable all such women to secure the Parliamentary vote on the claim of residence only. That is the main Clause of the Bill, and I think I have correctly shown how it will operate. The remaining Clauses of the Bill, except Clause 6, are in the form of consequential Amendments to the Representation of the People Act, 1918, which are necessary in order to make the operation of Clause 1 effective.

Those of us who have taken part in previous debates on this subject in this House have been confronted with three main criticisms or objections. First, we have had the objection raised about dealing prematurely with this form of legislation, having regard to the fact that the last Act was passed only in 1918, and more than once we have been reminded that during the conference over which your distinguished predecessor presided, Mr. Speaker, some understanding was reached—certainly no agreement, but some understanding, we are told—that if Parliament would only agree to pass the recommendations of the conference, there would be no further effort made to enlarge the franchise for a period of 10 years. We have never accepted that contention, we know of no such understanding, we have had no such agreement, and the Labour party were not in any way committed to it, even as an understanding, but the point I want to deduce is this: If such an understanding did exist—and if it was honourably come to, it ought to be honourably observed—it was reached in 1917. In the speeches of Ministers that I have read during recent days, I think they all speak as if they were under the care of an all-wise dispensation and are going to have a very long life.

Hear, hear!

I am glad that the Home Secretary, at any rate, accepts that position.

He believes in divine dispensation.

That being so, the point that I want to make is this: Let us assume that this long life is going to be extended for a period, say, for the sake of argument, of four years. I do not think the Home Secretary will demur to that. Perhaps his dispensation extends even beyond that period.

indicated assent.

Then that makes my argument all the stronger, but let us take, for the sake of argument, four years. That will bring us to 1929, and from 1917 to 1929 is not 10 but 12 years. If that be so, surely those who last year put up the claim that there was some understanding about a 10 years limit will be compelled to abandon that argument, because I am going to try to show that we are now in a fair way towards having a period, not of 10 years but of 12 years. The second point is that the age of 21 years is too low. We had that argument raised last year and in previous Debates, and we had it raised in Committee. We had an Amendment moved in Committee, raising this point and moving that the age be 25 years. We had a very long discussion, and it was discussed all ways. We had it discussed from the point of view that the vote for men should remain as it is and the vote for women be given at 25. Then we had another, in our judgment, very reactionary proposal, namely, the proposal that we should equalise the age and give the vote at 25 years for both men and women.—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—All I have to say is this, that if the acceptance of that principle signified by the cheers of hon. Members on the Government side of the House is to be the position of the Government, if that is the point referred to in the Amendment on the Paper this morning in the name of the Home Secretary, I hope he will tell the House before this Debate closes that that is the Government position. A more reactionary proposal in these days, when Ministers are going up and down the country telling us that the test of the Conservative party is free democracy, than to put the men hack from 21 to 25 and create further anomalies and further illogical positions than those now existing, it would be difficult to find, and it is a position that, I am quite sure, the Prime Minister, at any rate, will not agree would he a correct interpretation of the promise which he made to the electorate, on behalf of the Unionist party, at the recent General Election.

When this question was debated in Committee, what happened? We took a division on the Amendment that the age should be 25 instead of 21, and that, Amendment was negatived by 38 votes to 11. Those of us who have experience of Standing Committees must know that that is a very substantial vote in favour of the principle of 21 years of age. The minority of 11 consisted of 10 Unionist members and one Liberal member. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who was the Liberal?"] He does not happen to be a member of this House at present, but I want to point out that those members who then accepted the age of 25, and those who in this debate may be influenced by the idea of 25, take up a positively illogical position. If we accepted 25, it would not be getting rid of the difficulty, it would be but creating a further illogical position; nor would it be more satisfactory if, as I have already pointed out, we accepted the suggestion to make the age, for both men and women, 25. Therefore, in our opinion, the only logical course is to abolish entirely any distinction that exists as between men and women at the present time.

The third objection that has been frequently raised is that the passage of a Bill such as this would so increase the number of electors as to involve and create numerous disparities in the size of the constituencies, and would, therefore, render redistribution inevitable. It would be well if the House, in considering this Bill, if they are influenced by such points as that, would keep in mind existing disparities, and I will try to show presently how we ought to guard against taking a course that may result in intensifying those disparities. May I give one or two illustrations of the disparities existing in the size of constituencies to-day under the 1918 redistribution? Rotherham 42,000 electors, Wakefield 25,000; Gates head 56,000, Darlington 82,000; Southend-on-Sea 47,000, Gillingham 25,000; Coventry 63,000, Rugby 32,000; Burnley, with which I am a little concerned, 51,000, Ashton under-Lytle, not very far away, 25,000. Those who are influenced by this suggestion would be doing well to keep in mind these existing disparities.

Having been in the House as an old electioneer, having to watch these things, I say that the 1918 redistribution left very, very much to be desired, and it created a number of anomalies, which, in my judgment, were due to haste, and this has some bearing upon the Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the Home Secretary. Many of the anomalies were due to haste, against which this House ought to guard itself in future. For these reasons, I now venture to make a suggestion as to precedure, which, I trust, may receive the sympathetic consideration of the Government and of the House. My suggestion, first, is that this Bill should be accorded a Second Reading, and should be sent to a Standing Committee, on the clear, mutual understanding amongst all parties in the House that it does not come into operation for voting purposes until the next General Election. I hope the Home Secretary will note that point.

Would it be possible to say that it should not come into operation until 1928, no matter what Government was in power?

12 N.

I do not think that is quite a fair way to put it, if the Noble Lady will allow me to say so. If she will follow me, and hear my argument to the end, I hope it will convince her. My suggestion, if agreed to, would necessitate an alteration in Clause 6 of the Bill, which states that the Act shall come into operation on such date as His Majesty may fix by Order in Council. The Bill should be given a Second Reading, on the understanding that all parties agree to invite yin, Sir, to follow the example of your predecessor in presiding over another Conference. This Conference should consider the effect of the Measure noon such outstations as redistribution, cost of election, corrupt practices, and, if you like, methods of voting. But the point I now want to make is this. If the idea of a Conference is to be accepted, if we are going to have an inquiry at all into these important questions, especially re-distribution, it seems to me that there is the most powerful argument for this Bill being given a Second Reading to-day. If the Conference is to do its work successfully it must know exactly what the future registers are likely to be. There are no figures now, except figures that may be worked out, say, by the Registrar-General. I put up the suggestion that we give the Bill a Second Reading, that it be dated not to operate till the next General Election for voting purposes, and that we amend Clause 6 in such a way that we give power by Order in Council to create a supplementary register, so that if you were taking the first register for next year, you would have the live register operating during that period, but, in addition, you would have a supplementary register of starred electors, of all those who had qualified under this Bill, which would be the new Act. That would be the basis on which the Commissioners set up for re-distribution purposes would be able to work, and for the first time they would be able to work on a register, instead of hypothetical figures, which, with the haste involved has been very largely the cause of the serious anomalies that exist in the constituencies of this country to-day. But I emphasise the point that it would be necessary to assist the Commissioners by having this register. Of course, I should say that once that register was prepared, it would be a waste of money to do other than make arrangements, by Order in Council, for it to be kept alive as a starred register, in order that it would be ready for the next. General Election.

May I say a word with regard to the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary? I think all Members of the House will agree with me that this Amendment represents one of the moat astonishing positions which any Government could take up, especially any Government so committed to the principle of political equality as this Government is by the speech and declaration of the Prime Minister. What does this Amendment seek to do? There can be no two opinions. It seeks to kill this Bill, and it seeks to kill this Bill on the specious plea that it will involve a General Election. I see no reason to have a General Election because we pass this Bill. We are not enfranchising an entirely new class of electors. That is the plea that has, been put up in days gone by. I think when the Boroughs were enfranchised, when the Counties wore enfranchised, the plea was that you were adding an entirely new class of electors to your electoral roll, and, therefore, you must appeal to the country. You are not doing anything of the kind if you pass this Bill. All we are doing is that we are lowering the age, to permit of an increased number of already qualified women. That is not a new class of elector, and, therefore, I think that in itself removes all the necessity that might have existed for an early election had who been enfranchising entirely new voters.

Then we are told in the Amendment that a considered scheme should be brought before the House at a suitable opportunity within the lifetime of the present Parliament. I want to ask one or two questions. Will the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, inform the House as to what is meant, and what principles will be included in this considered scheme? May I also ask, will their considered scheme, in view of what I said earlier, enfranchise more women, or less women, than the Bill we are now considering? That is a very important question, and I think, before this debate closes, the Home Secretary should enlighten the House upon it. I am emboldened to make a request for information on those two points all the more freely, having in mind what took place in the debate a year ago.

In the Debate of a year ago a very serious effort was made to pin the then minority Government down to more definite information for that particular session. Mark you, we were a minority Government ! It was our first session. Yet no less than three Ministers, occupants of the Government Front Bench—then on the Opposition Front Bench—the Colonial Secretary—whom I do not see in his place—the Solicitor General—who, I am sorry to say is absent because of influenza—and the Patronage Secretary asked for more definite information. After the Under-Secretary for the Home Office had stated the position for the Government, and after the Lord Privy Seal had spoken, three of them pressed the Government to give more definite information as to what they would do provided the Bill got through Committee and came down to the House for Report. What is more, I think I am right in saying that when the Bill was last year before the House no less than six Members of the present Ministry voted in favour of it. Surely all these considerations make it necessary that the Government should enlighten us as to exactly their position! To cloud it up by the phrases of

I want to make an appeal to the Government. The Seconder of the Motion said that this ought not to be a party question. I have no desire to make it a party question. But there is just this suggestion in the attitude which the Government are taking up; that they want to leave the Bill as late as possible, or action as late as possible, in the Session; I suppose in order that it may be fresh in the minds of these electors, and that they may scoop up all the credit of having, placed the women of 21 upon the register. I will venture to make this prediction in the presence of the Prime Minister, who committed his party on this principle: if he continues to put down such Amendments—the first time I have ever known it in 22 years to a private Member's Bill by a representative of the Government—if he continues to allow this to be done, and he goes on for the four years to which I have already referred, he will need, not only to mobilise the old women as he did on the last occasion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Of both sexes !"]—but he will need to mobilise all the reactionary elements and the young women to save him from his fate at the next Election. The last point that I should like the Prime Minister to consider is this: redistribution, whenever undertaken, ought to be undertaken in plenty of time——

Hear, hear !

I have already said that many of the anomalies are due to that. The haste cannot be questioned with which our redistribution schemes have been set up in days gone by. I want the Prime Minister to consider, even now, that it is not too late to consider whether the Home Secretary should press the Amendment, or whether the Government should not follow the course I have suggested. I suggest it meets all the difficulties which they have in their minds. Let them bring the whole of the parties into unity with regard to a conference. If a conference is to be set up, it could consider the basis upon which it should act in regard to redistribution. At any rate, my final word is, that the course I suggest would lead to the honourable fulfilment of the election declaration of the Prime Minister, and would satisfy the expectations which his declaration created in the minds of his own party, and, I believe, in the minds of the women of the country.

I beg to move to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words

"this House declines in the early stages of a n w Parliament to accord a Second Reading to a Franchise Bill, involving as it would a General Election with the consequent interruption of important legislative and administrative work, and records its opinion that a considered scheme of franchise reform should be brought before this House at a suitable opportunity within the lifetime of the present Parliament."

The hand of the right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) has not lost its cunning. I would like to say that he is a master—I will not say of political casuistry—but in the art of political expediency, and I should like to congratulate him on having made a speech which will read very well in the morning. Really, however, I do not think it will commend itself to the body of Members of this House as one really containing satisfactory reasons why we on this side of the House, now that we have been in power for three months, should accept a Bill on behalf of a very small body of our political opponents, lather than do what we have agreed to do, that which the Prime Minister has stated we have in view—bring in a Bill, after a full consideration of the whole matter, and with the full responsibility of it being a Government Bill—as all Franchise Bills ought to be. They always have been Government Bills, to they are, perhaps, the most responsible form of Bill that can be introduced into the Houses of Parliament. We should be prepared to bring in even what the right hon. Gentleman sneers at as "a considered scheme," which means a scheme which has been carefully considered by those in authority, with full access to all those sources of information which the right hon. Gentleman had last year. When that scheme comes before the House, I rather think that even he, with his well-known honesty, will be one of the first to admit that it was wise to wait a year or two to get a fully considered scheme.

May I ask— —. [ Interruption. ]

The hon. and gallant Gentleman will have his opportunity.

You do not give the date. That is all I wanted to point out.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman will be able to speak, and I am quite sure he will speak later. I wanted, before I finally deal with the proposals of the Bill, to point out the curious method of passing a Bill and suspending its operations in mid-air till some period later in the life of Parliament. I want the House just to consider the present position and what would be involved if this Bill were passed at the present time. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there are terrible anomalies in the present system of woman suffrage, anomalies which mean that there are millions unenfranchised women over 30 years of age who should be voters. I agree that under the present system there are really 2,000,000 of women over 30 years of age who ought to have votes, and who at the present time have not votes. There are great inequalities between men and women. That is only one consideration. For instance, there is the enormous number of domestic servants throughout the country. They have no vote. There is the enormous number of shop assistants living in. They have no vote. There is a large number of women who in all parts of the country live in furnished lodging. They have no vote. On the other hand the male domestic servant, the male shop-assistant, and the man living in furnished lodging has, under the present law, a vote. These are anomalies which must be dealt with and I say at once, will be dealt with and swept away.

When?

During the lifetime of the present Parliament. I want the House to realise the position. The right hon. Gentleman has given some figures as to the inequalities of Parliamentary constituencies at the present time. I will just go through a few of them. I have had prepared a short paper showing the inequalities that would occur in representative constituencies if this Bill were passed without redistribution. Perhaps I may say at once that I am in the very pleasant position in speaking on this subject as never once in the whole course of the female suffrage movement having pledged myself on either side of the question. I think the supporters and the opponents of women's suffrage are not quite so clever as they thought they were, or it may be that my seat was se safe that it was not necessary to pledge in order to get votes.

The country has got to face this position. To-day there are something like 3,000,000 fewer women voters than there are men voters; in other words, the country is ruled to-day by a majority of men. I am not saying it is not right that you should he ruled by a majority of women, but let us pass this Bill with our eyes open and realise what the position would be. What would this Bill involve? To-day there are 11,800,000 men voters and 8,800,000 women voters, a majority of nearly 3,000,000. If this Bill passed, there would be added to the women voters 5,126,000 voters, making a majority of just over 2,000,000 women voters throughout the country.

That is all right.

Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the figure's he has just given would include the 2,000,000, to which he referred a moment ago?

Oh, yes, certainly. The 2,000,000 I referred to a moment ago, if they were enfranchised without the age being reduced to 21, would very nearly equalise the number of men and women voters; but if the age were reduced to 21, then, owing, I suppose, to the larger number of women in this country, there would be a majority of women voters? The Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) suggested that that would be all right. I think it would be all right for our party. I have no fear. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley concluded his speech by telling us we had mobilised all the old women at the last election. I am not at all afraid of mobilising the young women, with, I think, equally good results. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough East (Miss Wilkinson) told the House that she could never forgive young men, though she might be able to forgive old men. If that be the case, those of us who are beyond the meredian will fare well at the next election, because even the hon. Lady herself will forgive those of us who have got to this somewhat elderly age, and it will be only the young men candidates who will, perhaps, have to suffer the hostility of the unforgiving women; but they have other advantages which we elderly men have not. On the whole, I do not think any of my young colleagues on these benches need fear the result of giving young women the vote.

What effect will the change have in particular constituencies? Take the right hon. Gentleman's own constituency of Burnley. He already has 51,000 voters. This Bill would add 14,300 more women to him, so that he would have a total of 36,000 women voters as against 28,000 men. In Coventry, although it is a larger constituency, there are more men workers in the factories, and so the Bill would add only 12,000 voters, giving 38,000 women as against 35,000 men. When we come to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), there will be added to the good things which he has already no less than 25,500 new women voters. How my hon. Friend would cope with that additional 25,500 women I do not know, but it will finally end by his having 44,600 women voters and only 18,400 men voters. I assume that would be a constituency in which there would be a plethora of women candidates. Whether they would be returned I do not know. In Marylebone the Bill would add 20,600 women voters, and in all these semi-suburban and town constituencies where there are no factories you will find an enormous addition to the number of women voters, not merely of the younger ones, but of voters out of that block of 2,000,000 voters over 30, to which I have referred. I do not think any of my hon. Friends—I do not know the views of any one of them in particular—need have very grave anxiety as to the effect of the admission of all these women to the franchise. A very large number of them will support the present Conservative Members.

It depends.

I agree with the Noble Lady, but I do not think it depends on whether they vote for this Bill or not. I do not believe, and my experi- ence of politics is almost as great and as long as that of the Noble Lady, the people of this country have ever given an additional vote for any rise in the franchise, nor should they. There is no reason why, because a particular party enfranchises any particular class of the community, that that class of the community should immediately vote for that party. There are political questions and social questions for the people to consider, and the mere fact that they have had the vote given to them is only an intimation to them that they are called upon to exercise their thoughts, their minds, their intellects and vote in what they consider to be the best interests of the country on the questions before the country.

The House will see at once that with a scheme of this kind there must be a redistribution. We cannot possibly go on with differences as large as 74,000 and as small, take Lincoln, as 32,000, or the Hexham Division of Northumberland with 34,000. If the Bill be passed I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the demand for redistribution is absolute and it must come, and any Bill, whenever it is passed, either to-day or in two or three years time, must inevitably be followed by a redistribution scheme. Reference has been made to the pledge of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I will read that pledge—

How would you destroy it?

It would interrupt our work, and in my view it must be followed by a General Election. The terms of the Bill lay down that the Act may come into force at such date as may be announced by an Order in Council.

But suppose we put in an Amendment that the Measure could not come into force until 1928 or 1929? Surely that would not interrupt anything.

That is very much the same suggestion as the one I was dealing with. Take the Clause as it stands, which lays down that the Measure is not to come into operation only by an Order in Council. If this Measure be passed to-day, I can foresee the Government being pressed to issue this Order in Council immediately. When this Bill has been in operation for 19 months, we shall be asked, "Is it not time that an Order in Council was issued?"

I am surprised that such action should be attributed to the Labour party, in view of the fact that I put forward the suggestion that Clause 6 should be amended, so as to include a proviso that the Bill should not operate until the next General Election, and that it should be amended so as to provide for a starred register.

I am dealing with the Bill as it stands, and I will deal with the right hon. Gentleman's argument later. I thought it only right to assume that the Bill might pass in the way it has been drawn by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his advisers. The right hon. Gentleman says the Bill should only come into operation at the next General Election, and that there should be a starred register, that is to say, that all these 4,500,000 women are to be put on a starred register as a kind of aliens waiting for the good things that are to come to them at the next General Election. Then we should have people saying, "Here are 4,500,000 women on the register waiting for a General Election, and we demand on behalf of those women an immediate General Election." In those circumstances I think it would be very difficult to prevent it. At any rate the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman opposite would be closed, and it would be impossible for him to demand an immediate General Election; but the right hon. Gentleman has a following, and he has within his party those who lead from behind. I was in the House only yesterday, and I heard some hon. Members sitting opposite who come from the North of the Tweed declare, "Our leaders are nothing to us and we are not bound by them." I think his supporters would be entitled to demand that his Bill should be put on the Statute Book early in 1925, in order to make up the right hon. Gentleman's fancy register of starred women who are to be allowed to vote when somebody can tumble this Government out of office and call for a General Election I cannot see how that appeals to any sensible body of men, and the right hon. Gentleman's first thoughts seem to be better than his second thoughts. At any rate his first thoughts make the Bill logical, while his second thoughts do not.

Then the right hon. Gentleman says, "Pass the Bill and do not make it a party question." I have often appealed to political meetings not to deal with the matter in a party spirit, and what I meant was that those who are my opponents should vote for my proposals, and I think that is what the right hon. Gentleman opposite means to-day. He really means, "Do not let us vote in a party spirit, but vote for my proposal in a non-party spirit."

It is not my Bill.

At any rate, the Bill emanates from the right hon. Gentleman's followers, and it is one which the right hon. Gentleman has blessed. He says, "Pass this Bill, and then call the conference to deal with corrupt practices, redistribution and other methods of voting." What is the object of all this? We say, "Wait until we bring in our Franchise Bill and our considered scheme, and then we will deal with these anomalies." The suggestion I make to the right hon. Gentleman, and I do it in a non-party spirit, is that when we have got through the burdens of this Session—we have a large amount of legislation coming before the House, and it is useful legislation, because we have a large amount of mistakes to put right in our various offices which is the natural legacy of the previous Government——

We had plenty left us.

The right hon. Gentleman should have allowed me to finish my sentence. I was going to say, "the natural legacy of a Government in office without power." I am speaking now in a non-party spirit, and I suggest that these mistakes are the inevitable consequence of the difficulties under which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues worked in the list Government. We have plenty of water. I have been asked by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough East (Miss Wilkinson) how long this Parliament is going to last? In my view I have no doubt it will last until 1929, and hon. Members opposite may prepare themselves to face that position. With our present majority it is, humanly speaking, almost impossible that there can be another General Election before 1928. Therefore, I suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite that we should confer together in regard to all these difficult. questions

The last Franchise Bill was brought in after a conference at which every party was represented, and over which Lord Ullswater presided. It is not for me to say that you, Mr. Speaker, in your present position—nor is it fair to ask you—should express any view as to whether you would preside over such a conference. I think such a conference should take place between various parties in this House. There is no dispute whatever as to the Prime Minister's pledge or its meaning and intention, and we do mean to carry out that pledge. We do mean to give equal political rights to men and women, but we desire to do it by agreement. To achieve this end we think there should be a conference between all parties. Of course, a Measure of this kind must be followed by redistribution proposals. That is a matter of difficulty, and it should also be the subject of a conference.

That being so, I say, even to the Noble Lady herself (Viscountess Astor), who I know is keenly determined to get this scheme through, that she would be doing better for her own wishes if she fell in with the views that I have expressed. I know that she would not agree with the statement which appears in to-day's "Times" from the Parliamentary Secretary of the National Union of Societies for Equal Citizenship, which I was very sorry to see. There is in the "Times" a letter from this lady referring to the Prime Minister's pledge, and she says:

Votes at 21?

Equal rights for men and women.

The Noble Lady, I know, hopes to catch my eye later on, and I suggest that she should not attempt now to make that speech in jerks.

May I suggest that more important than catching your eye is to ask just this question, which is of vital importance—does the right hon. Gentleman mean equal votes at 21?

It means exactly what it says. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer !"] No, it would be wrong of me to pre-judge the views which hon. Members opposite might put before the conference. It means that a conference will be held—that is my proposal—at which all parties will be asked to be present, and they will then be asked to consider how the Prime Minister's pledge can best be carried out. The Prime Minister's pledge is for equal rights and at the next election. I will say quite definitely that means that no difference will take place in the ages at which men and women will go to the poll at the next election. [HON. MEMBERS: "At what age?"]

Are you going to take the vote from some of the men?

It would be excedingly difficult to take away anything that the men have at the present time. It shows the difficulties of the situation. I have tried, really in a nonparty spirit, to put before the House the difficulties, and I have pledged myself and the Government, of which my right hon. Friend is the leader, again in the spirit and in the letter to that pledge which has been referred to to-day, and that pledge will be carried out. I invite all parties to join with us in a conference to make that pledge effective, and, that being so, I suggest that the House should postpone the Second Reading of this Bill. Let us have our conference and bring in a considered Bill, and I am quite sure that it will be carried unanimously.

I wish someone better qualified than I were not unable by his engagements to put forward in this Debate the unanimous opinion of hon. Gentlemen who sit on these benches in favour of this Bill and of its passage to-day on Second Reading. I venture to think that the people of the country, and particularly the women of the country, will regard the Debate to-day as a definite breach, if not of the pledge, at least of the hopes excited by the Prime Minister and the members of the Government at the last Election. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will tell hon. Members why. At the last election we all said—I said—that on this matter of equal political rights and on the Vote for women at 21 all parties were agreed. That is what we understood to be the case—we read the Prime Minister's pledge, and we know how punctilious he is in the observation of pledges—that a Bill of this kind would not only receive a Second Reading, but would receive a Second Reading with the unanimous support of the members of the Government. Then to-day we see the amazing spectacle of the Home Secretary, of all people, the right hon. Gentleman into whose charge the interests of the women of the country specially lie, coming down and moving an Amendment which I can only describe as a flimsy pretext.

After one or two modest observations about important legislation and administrative work which the Government. are about to carry out, and of which no doubt they are the best judges, he suggested on grounds mast unsubstantial that a Second Reading should not he given to this Bill. If it be not, if will be the first year since the War that the House of Commons has not passed a similar Bill, and, of course, this is the first year since the War that We have had a Conservative Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—well, in real power. I except the short tranquillity administration of the late Mr. Bonar Law. We are learning from day to day what a Conservative Government really means, and the first thing we learn is that a pledge of equal political rights to men and women means that at some date, not specified, some conference, the composition of which is not determined and the terms of reference of which are not known, is to be set up. I should have trembled had I been on that side of the House at the cocksure manner in which the right hon. Gentleman advertised that the Government was to last till 1929. This is supposed to be the fulfilment of the pledge that was given by the Prime Minister at the General Election. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us some more information now? Has he got a scheme in his mind? I do not mind him interrupting me. Is 21 to be the age? Let me put that specific question to him. Will he tell me? He will not. He does not know anything at all about this conference. it is a pretext. When is it going to met I Will he tell us that? Has he considered the terms of reference of this conference? Will he tell us that? No, significant silence.

There is not a jot or a little of substance in this argument; it is a pretext and a pretence The right hon. Gentleman says he wants agreement. With whom? Does he want agreement with hon. Members of the Labour party? He knows their views. Is he going Jo pay that great compliment to the small and diminished numbers of our own party? He knows our views; they are embodied in this Bill. What is the need for a conference and an agreement? Is it that he wants agreement with his own party? Then he raises the question of redistribution, which has been most admirably dealt with by the late Home Secretary; and then he raises the question of elections, and says the reason you cannot announce that you will enfranchise these women, or adopt the expedient of the very experienced mind of the late Home Secretary—the expedient of a starred register— is because I should put questions on the Paper and the right hon. Gentleman would not be equal to standing the strain of answering them. Then the right hon. Gentleman—i really thought we were back in the old days of 1910 and 1913, when we debated this subject—raised the question of there being more women voters than men. The answer to that is that there are more women than men, and that is a sufficient answer.

I quite agree with the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) that, if anyone wants a little diversion from what is undoubtedly sometimes the tedium of our Debates, they should turn up the OFFICIAL REPORT of those years and read what was said. There were some who objected—I remember that the Foreign Secretary objected—to the vote on the grounds that women were too downright and unwilling to compromise, and stuck too Closely to what they believed. Others objected that women were subject to collective emotion, and that if they were given the vote that would soon develop into something like what was seen during the French Revolution on the part of the Tricatcurs. Some said they were opposed to the giving of the vote to women because women would cry for war; others, on the other hand, opposed with equal strength because women would have peace at any price. Then there were the people who said that women should not have the vote because they were always saved first in a shipwreck; there were those who said that women should not have the vote because, when they want a really good suit of clothes, they go to a man's tailor; and then there was the great. unanswerable objection raised by Mr. F. E. Smith, who, about that time. was ordering his uniform and accoutrements and selecting a quiet charger for his duties in connection with the Ulster Rebellion. He opposed the Bill because women had advocated violence. And the crowning satire of the whole matter was that, although the great argument against the giving of the vote to women was that women could take no part in war, it was war itself which eventually secured the enfranchisement of women.

I venture to say to the Home Secretary that this question cannot be met by a few Parliamentary evasions. The thing; s serious, and it is a shocking thing that the Home Secretary, who, as I have said, is the Minister specially charged with Bills dealing with economic and political matters concerning women, should come forward with an evasion when the country is demanding action. I have sat in this House now for 20 years, and any hon. Member who has sat here as long as that will agree with me that a marked difference has come over the House owing to the enfranchisement of women—I do not say owing to the presence of women Members, although everyone has recognised the good work they have done in this House, and the valuable contributions they have made——

There are great numbers in the House.

I would remind the hon. Member that it is not a question of numbers, but a question of the forces behind them. I remember, in those pre-War days, that some of the questions which have been the subject of legislation in the last six or seven years were debated on Motions at 8.15, and debated with a sort of jocose hilarity which was not always very entertaining. The tone was very much altered when women were voting for the Members returned to this House. The whole tone of the Debates was altered, and the whole course of legislation has been slightly and beneficently diverted within the last six years by various Bills that were passed, and that are now claimed to be non-party Bills, so just are they in their claims. There were the Guardianship of Infants Bill, the Legitimacy Bill, the Infanticide Bill, the Bastardy Bill, and others. There are questions like the nationality of women who marry aliens, and the most significant of them all is that the Matrimonal Causes Bill, which was never thought of as an important matter at all before the enfranchisement of women, secured, when it was brought forward in 1923 by Mr. Entwistle, an immediate Second Reading by 10 to one and an immediate passage into law. Who will say that, if women had not been enfranchised, these things would have come to pass? Moreover, there are great matters of administration as well.

These people who would be enfranchised by this Bill demand the right to protect themselves with the weapon of the vote. Who are they? They are women between 20 and 30 years of age—industrial workers, young married women who are having children, and who are concerned with questions of legitimacy, questions of desertion, and all the rest, Why does the right hon. Gentleman say that we not proceed now to give these people the vote? There is no possible logical argument against it. Every important argument against it went in 1917, when the Bill of that year was passed, for it was truly said by every opponent of the Bill that, if once you start with this thing, then you must give the vote to all women on the same terms as men. Mr. F. E. Smith, Mr. Walter Long, and all the other opponents of the Bill admitted it, Even it was true. Hon. gentlemen opposite are going to-day to deprive these young women of the opportunity of exercising their influence by the vote; and next Friday week they are going to try to deprive them, and many other trade unionists, of the opportunity of exercising their influence in political matters. So far as the actions of a Government can influence the economic condition of workers—and I, for one, think the power of any Government is very limited in this matter—so far as Government action can have any influence, these women have a direct day-to-day bread-and-butter interest in securing the vote. You have the Food Prices Commission; you have the housing question; you have unemployment; you have all these conventions regulating labour and the hours of labour; you have Factory Bills—and these are the people who ate going to be touched by all these Measures. Therefore, on behalf of the constitutional and representative character of this House, on behalf of justice to these people who urgently demand this Measure, and because it is inevitable in any case, I beg to support the Second Reading of the Bill,

As a back-bench Member, who very seldom has the privilege of catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, I promise to be short, but I think I have a few plain things to say to hon. Gentlemen opposite. The first is this: I am old enough to remember three great changes in the franchise of this Kingdom, two of which were properly discussed. Two of them threw the whole realm into excited discussion, even into disorder. Everything was upset by the first of these, franchise changes, and I remember that the little town where I was then living was so appallingly devastated by party feeling that there was actually bloodshed in the streets. On the second occasion that I can remember, when Mr. Gladstone enlarged the agricultural franchise, there were meetings all over the country month after month, there were long sittings in Parliament, and the whole thing was well discussed. Of the third change in the franchise that I remember, I have to speak in another way, for it was something more resembling what we are seeing to-day. I speak of the Bill of 1917, when the Coalition Government of the country, being engaged in the greatest War that the world has known, and with all good men otherwise employed, chose to pass a Bill completely changing the whole Parliamentary arrangements of Great Britain without submitting it to the notion for preliminary discussion. I regard that as one of the greatest malfeasances of the Coalition. That change was made without any appeal to the country and without any great support from the country.

As to this present Bill I have been in a good position to know what people in various circles are talking about. I read a good many newspapers and reviews, and I am bound to say that this subject at present occupies a very back seat in the thoughts of the British nation. With the exception of a few people whose names were extremely well known to me in pre-war days through the suffragette agitation, who keep sending me pamphlets on the subject, I find no interest in it whatever. Beet sugar has been a great deal more interesting to the House than this extraordinary proposal which, as the Home Secretary rightly said, was proposing to change the whole balance of the government of this Kingdom. It is the biggest change ever asked for and it has not been accompanied by any public discussion, and still less by any great wish to see it carried in the country.

I will give the House one example from practice, which is worth a good deal of theory. There is a women's club in my own little constituency, and a few weeks ago a discussion was held on the enfranchisement of girls between 21 and 30. I am bound to say the balance of the speakers was distinctly on the side of showing no approval thereof. The older women showed no enthusiasm for it. May I tell you one anecdote which may stress what I mean? A lady Conservative worker who was once involved in the suffragette movement said it had been her duty as a canvasser at the last General Election to go round among many obscure districts and see many mothers of families. Before the War she had been in favour of the enfranchisement of all women, but when she found the paltry, ignorant and hopelessly wrong-headed reasons for which these good ladies were going to vote one way or the other, she was appalled at the part she had taken 10 or 12 years previously. I think that is a sufficient answer to the idea that all the older women are in favour of the enfranchisement of the younger ones.

The second point I have to make is a short one too. It is simply that I refuse to be hypnotised by the words "equalitarianism" and "abnormality." To say there are anomalies in the franchise conveys no very great sense of horror to my mind. In fact, cannot we all see that nature is in favour of inequality and abnormality? No two people are the same size, the same colour and the same weight, and similarly, mentally, there is no absolute equality between either the two greatest men of science who have been benefactors to their whole race or between the two laziest, work-shy tramps on the road. No two men are equal, and therefore to appeal to me on the ground of equalitarianism is perfectly useless. Those who claim equalisation all round are simply crying out against nature. Equality does not exist and cannot exist; therefore I trust that very little more will be heard about that. You cannot give the vote to everyone. You cannot say, "This is a human being; therefore it must have a vote." You cannot say lunatics or infants must have the vote, because they, like other people, are human beings. Not equality, but abnormality is the rule of the world.

1.0 P.M.

The thing that is really important to be borne in mind to-day is, what sort of an electorate are we going to add to the electorate already existing? There are many undoubtedly admirable women who would be added to the electorate if the Bill were passed, but shall we be sinning too much against the truth if we say that, on the whole, we shall also be adding a number a thousand times greater of very inexperienced and very impressionable people to the electorate? I think it cannot be denied. If you add those people to the electorate I do not think it improves the quality of the electorate. What we require, above all things, is a solid, well-informed, experienced electorate. Since the words "abnormality" and "equality" have no particular meaning for me, the only way in which I can envisage the situation is to ask whether, on the whole, this Bill adds a more eligible or less eligible body of electors to the general body as it at present exists. On the whole, I am inclined to think a little experience is the one necessary thing.

I rise to support the Bill. I support it from experience, as the last speaker would have done if he had had the experience I have had. Ever since 1878 I have been an official of textile unions. We have over a quarter of a million of women in the unions and for over 20 years they have been carrying resolution after resolution at their conferences that they should have equal votes with men. We stand here for that purpose. I am disappointed with the statement of the Home Secretary. I expect that, after the statement of the Prime Minister, everyone in the country believed there was going to be equality. If there is going to be equality give us an assurance to-day. I want to see it passed to-day and not to have it shelved. [HON. MEMBER: "It is not shelved."] It is shelved if it is not passed to-day. You may not get it in time for the next General Election. Do not wait till the next election and use it as an election cry, but let them have it in time for the election so that they can vote like others. I appeal to parents. I have sons and daughters, and I appeal as a parent. What right has a parent to say that his son shall have an advantage over his daughter? What right have we in this House to make any provision of that sort? I stand for equal franchise. Reference has been made to girls of twenty-one. I believe that my daughters are more capable than my sons for the vote. Of that I am satisfied, and I ask that the question of experience shall not be made a barrier to our giving votes to women of twenty-one. I represent these people in this House. The Division that I represent has sent through me a mandate and a hope that we shall pass this Bill. I say to hon. Members opposite: if you want to have an election and you refuse to pass this Bill, we on this side are ready for an election to-morrow. Hon. Members opposite have come here with a majority, but if they had told the electors that they would not give them this Bill, I do not think they would have come here with their majority. [HON MEMBERS: "We should."] I do not think you would. I happen to know what is the feeling of the Lancashire operatives. The Home Secretary knows what that feeling is.

Hear, hear!

The right hon. Gentleman has been there, and I wonder whether he would go and tell the people of Burnley, Blackburn and Accrington that they are not to have this Bill. The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Hugh Edwards) knows the feeling in that division on the subject. I hope that we shall pass this Bill, and not shelve it.

I have much respect for the hon. Member, and I should like to tell him that I spoke a good deal in Lancashire during the Election, and I was not asked one single question on this subject.

You were not asked a single question because your Prime Minister had given a pledge that this reform was to come.

I do not think it is a fact that a woman of 21 is more capable, as was suggested by the hon. Member who has just sat down, than a young man of twenty-one to register a vote. I am not sure, as he suggested, that a girl of 21 develops more quickly than does a boy of that age. I rise chiefly to say how much I welcome the speech of the Home Secretary. A Bill of this kind ought to be a Government Measure, and ought to be dealt with more fully than is possible in a Private Member's Measure. I am one of those who believe that once you have accepted the principle of giving the vote to women, it is most illogical to say that you cannot give the franchise on equal terms to both sexes. The extension of the franchise in the way suggested means an inevitable redistribution. I welcome what the Home Secretary said that it is the intention of the Government to set up a conference with, I hope, Mr. Speaker as Chairman, as his predecessor was Chairman of the former conference, in order that this matter may be fully considered. It is absolutely necessary that these things should go hand in band. There are anomalies which must be considered by an impartial Committee. It is an excellent suggestion that all parties should be recommended on the Committee, and if possible, that they should reach an agreed decision.

I cannot understand how anybody in this House could accept the proposal of the late Home Secretary to have a sort of sham register, with starred voters, and think that, there would not be an immediate demand for a General Election. As soon as you get such a register, whether voters are starred or not, and whether or not you give pledges in this House that the register will not be used forthwith, there will be an inevitable demand for a General Election. Who wants a General Election?

The Labour party.

I do not think any party desires a General Election, and I am certain that the, country does not want an election. Do the Labour party want an election? Do the trade unions, who have been supplying funds all these years for gentlemen who all themselves the intelligentsia of the Labour party, and have been finding them funds for three General Elections in a short, space of time, want another General Election in order that they may have to find more money? What of the Liberal party? They have got so far as the issuing of 14 points, but I do not think they have decided on their leader. They want time to discover a policy which would be acceptable to the country, and I am certain that they do not want a General Election. Members on this side of the House do not want a General Election. One of the reasons why we were elected with such a large majority was because the country believed that if a Conservative Government was elected there would be a chance of four or five. years of government without the hazards and expense of rushing into a General Election, which is the last thing that the traders and the people of the country want.

I cannot understand why hon. Members opposite, and some hon. Members on our own side, have fears that the pledge or the Government will not be redeemed. I think the Home Secretary, or whoever answers for the Government later, might give some indication as to when the conference will be set up. It is a matter of urgency, because the conference is bound to take time. There is something in the contention of hon. Members opposite that if we leave the question until the last year of the lifetime of this Parliament

I will answer the hon. Member at once. I said that we were so busy this Session that we could not set up the conference this Session. We can set up the conference in 1926—it will take a few months to go into the questions which hon. Members desire to be included in the terms of reference—and bring in a Bill in the following year.

I think that is a perfectly reasonable proposition. As far as we can tell, the lifetime of this Parliament will be prolonged beyond that date. There is no one in this House or in the country who really desires an election at the present time. Therefore, let us be satisfied with what has been said. I appreciate the force of the argument which the Home Secretary put with so much wit and clarity in which he explained to us the position. I, as one of those who have been in favour of extending the franchise to women of 21, am perfectly certain that we shall be doing the right thing if we adopt the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, whereas if we proceed with the matter at once, no matter what has been said in. this House, a General Election will be inevitable.

I rise to support the Second Reading of the Bill, and to oppose the Amendment. So far the enfranchise- ment of women has, I believe, operated in elections largely against the party of which I am proud to be a Member. That is a confession that is not often made. It may not have had a great effect in my own constituency, but I believe that, largely, women being new to the consideration of politics, with power to act, have been frightened and stampeded by the Press, generally run by the opponents of the people we represent in our party, and have not voted as clearly as they will vote in the future. There will come a change, because when women begin to understand their political powers, their finer sentiments of humanity and their Mother love will save this nation, which is very badly in need of it. Despite all that, I am desirous of supporting the immediate enfranchisement of women, along with men, at the age of 21, because it is a fair and just proposition. The arguments which have been raised from the opposite benches mean nothing but subterfuge and delay. They do not face any real understanding of the position as regards equal rights for all, whether they are men or women, before the law seeing that they have to obey it.

I can appreciate and pardon the views of many hon. Members who appear to believe that young women under 30 years of age have not materialised a sufficiency of intelligence to enable them to vote cogently in helping to make the laws of their country. But why? It is because I fear that their view of young women is very largely that, of the young women of the class they represent, they are, butterflies who have not come up against the realities of life, and therefore may not be seriously interested in having the vote because they are having a very jovial, happy, and unfortunately, largely, a very excited life, and they are not prepared to settle down and understand the necessity of tackling the serious problems which confront their sex among the classes whom our comrades on these benches represent. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I would suggest, to hon. Members who say "No" that they may not understand the position from the view-point of the working women.

I have three sisters who were forced into the wage slave market, of our country during the years of adolescence, before their bodies were formed, to work in that very industry which my hon. Friend who has just sat down mentioned—the cotton industry. They worked and understood the meaning of life before they were 21. One of them, unfortunately, is still engaged in that almost dehumanising slavery, and I suggest that these women are up against the realities of life and they desire to modify the harshness of the order and the laws under which we live. These women are not living in a whirl of pleasurable excitement. Their nose is to the grindstone, and these women, who are still inarticulate, desire the vote. Therefore I am supporting this Bill, If we believe in all that is said about our sympathy for women folk, then why all these fears, because this happens not to be a Government Measure, about giving equal rights of franchise to men and women of 21? Unfortunately, politics are not as sincere as they might be on all occasions, and the people of the country are beginning to realise this. In our great picture galleries we show the beauties of history, Helen of Troy, Cleopatra and some of the others. Possibly, if we inquired very closely into their lives, they might be put outside the walls of our picture galleries. Many hon. Members deify women in pictures, but the women of the class whom I represent are not deified. They have been forced to earn for private capital its living and all its pleasures.

These women are forced by the stress of their existence to understand that politics is not fine speeches across the Floor of this House, and is not a "highfalutin" election campaign, but that politics to these women is bread and butter, the happiness of their existence and the settlement of the very conditions in which they work. It is for those women I am appealing to hon. Members to grant this measure of justice, and not as a matter of political expediency. There appears to be a tremendous fear on the Government. Benches that this may mean a General Election. My right hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) has spoken words which, I think, will clear away that suspicion, but I can understand the fear on the other side of the House of a General Election, because they know that when it comes retribution will come. [ Laughter. ] Yes, smile now, Gentlemen ! [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!] I apologise if I have misnamed hon. Members, but I would suggest to hon. Gentlemen that., when the time comes, their smile may be out of place, because they cannot conjure red letters out of the thin air every time an election comes along. But why have that fear? The Government have been assured that nothing of that sort is desired on this side.

Just one word on the argument that young women of 21 are not capable of grasping the finer elements of politics. If that be so, then what a commentary upon our educational system! If the education, more especially of young women of the class represented by hon. Members opposite, has not fitted them at least for giving a thoughtful consideration to political questions, then we should say that the women of that age, whom we represent, have been educated in the hard school of industrial life, and understand exactly what they are doing. I am amazed at what I may designate, I hope without being disrespectful, at the shuffing in answer to a question put by my hon. Friend below the gangway and by the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor). Apparently it is that some time may come, some day, if we wait long enough, when we may secure equal rights of voting at 21 years of age. I am exceedingly suspicious of the silence in the answer to that question, because it is feared that nothing of the kind is intended.

That is not so.

I hope not, but it has not been made clear, and, knowing the past record of the party now in power, makes one rather suspicious when they do not speak so clearly, or even when they do, because it is so often ambiguous. I therefore have great pleasure, in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill, to give justice to women at 21 equally with men.

I have listened carefully to this Debate, and I think that one point has been entirely overlooked. In all the speeches which have been made, I think that we have been discussing a principle upon which we all agree, and that we have not been discussing the contents of the Bill. Clause 3 provides that a person shall not vote at a General Election for more than one constituency for which he is registered by virtue of residence qualification, or for more than one constituency for which he is registered by virtue of other qualifications. I have no hesitation in the attitude which I am taking up on this Bill, because I voted against a similar Bill last year in this House, because, though this is a better Bill than that one was, and does not contain quite so many revolutionary changes in our electoral system as that one did, I think the Labour party are, possibly, learning by degrees what can be done and what cannot be done. Those of us who represent constituencies which have a very large population of possessors of the second vote are not to be led away by the very inadequate arguments on the rights of women below the age of 21 by allowing these other provisions in the Bill to pass unchallenged.

What other provisions?

The provisions to which I have referred.

They are the law of the land.

My complaint is that the hon. Member and his party wish to alter the law of the land. I cannot accept the idea that a man is not justified in voting in respect of a business residence. I noticed that in his excellent speech, to which I listened with close attention, the right hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) just touched on that subject and very lightly skated over it, no doubt hoping that it would escape attention. Suppose that this Bill was carried. It would reduce the voting of the City of London to almost a farce. I do not think chat this House and the country can afford to be without adequate representation of the City of London. In view of our position as the head and centre of the money market of the world, it is essential that we should have the best advice, and it is pretty certain that the City of London would return, as it has always done, two Members who are fully qualified to speak from that point of view. Although the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) suggested that ho and his party were in favour of this Bill, yet I am not sure whether he had actually studied that point and whether he commits the Liberal party to the principle of disfranchising large numbers of people.

I am not prepared to support a Bill which will disfranchise a very large number of the constituents who sent me here. I agree entirely in principle with equal-franchise for men and women. Once we have allowed women to vote there is no logical reason why they should not be granted the vote on the same terms as men. If the vote is given to men at 21 years there is no logical reason, from the theoretical point of view, why women should not have the same right. But I would rather await the result of the conference which the Home Secretary suggested for laying down the law on that point. I am certain that we on this side of the House realise that the Prime Minister means to implement the pledges that he gave at the last Election. At this moment I cannot view with satisfaction the provisions of this Bill, and I can do nothing else but vote against the Second reading.

It seems to me that this Bill is a logical consequence of the Representation of the People Act, 1918. The general principle of the enfranchisement of women is embodied in that Act, and unless and until the relevant provisions of that Act are repealed we have to consider this Bill on the assumption that that principle is now a definitely settled feature of our constitution. There is no doubt that the Act of 1918 constituted a great experiment in democratic government. I imagine that the number of Members who would venture to assert that that experiment has been doomed to failure is very small. Our experience of the working of the experiment justifies us in pressing this Bill upon the Government to-day. There are two tests which one might have of the enfranchisement of women. One is, Have they exercised the franchise very generally? And the second is, Have they exercised it wisely? As to the first question, there is no doubt at all. In each of the elections which have taken place since 1918 I think it is the experience of everyone that the women have made a full and free use of the right to vote. It may perhaps be a little more difficult to dogmatise generally in regard to the second question, as to whether they have exercised the vote wisely. Some, undoubtedly, have exercised it wisely, and others have voted for the other man. Apart from that, there is no general accusation of unwisdom which could be brought against them, and no candidate can expect infallibility. He does not expect it from male voters, and cannot expect it from female voters, of whom it is said:

It is a feature of our Constitution that it has never been deliberately built on any logical basis or by methodical means. It has adapted itself, almost unconsciously, from time to time to changing conditions and to the prevailing temper and spirit of the people. But where changes have been made by deliberate act in the Constitution they have always been made in a very cautious, conservative and tentative spirit. That was the case in regard to the Representation of the People Act, 1918. Now, in the light of our experience of the working of that Act, we surely can take a further step. It is called for. But that does not weigh with me so much as the fact that it is right that we should do so. We have the women who are mothers, women who are taking a responsible place in the industrial life of the country, women who have reached a high standard of education, women who have graduated in the Universities or passed other examinations of a professional character, Yet those women are told that, until they have reached the age of 30 years they are not equipped with the faculties for recording their votes, which every man, although he may be a hopeless waster, or of no education, is assumed to possess at the age of 21. I am sure that it is the experience of all hon. Members that one result of the enfranchisement of women has been to spread among them a vivid interest in public affairs, and also to arouse in them a keen desire to take their part actively in the public life of the country. I imagine it is the experience of every Member of this House that many of his keenest supporters were women under 30 years of age. I believe that experience will go still further and indicate that women under 30 are just as capable of making up their minds as women over 30, and if ability to make up one's mind is a test of ability to exercise the franchise, then certainly women under 30 possess it. I am reminded of the couplet: Gentleman was asked to say what the Prime Minister's pledge meant, apparently he did not know. So far as I can see, the main purpose of the proposed conference is to decide what the Prime Minister meant when he made the pledge. Perhaps the Under-Secretary, with his usual courtesy, will throw a little more light on this matter than the Home Secretary was able to do. Does the Prime Minister's pledge mean that women shall be given the vote at 21 years of age? The Prime Minister must have known, when he made the pledge, whether he meant women to have the vote at the age of 21 or not. He is not, I presume, a man who makes important declarations like that without thinking of exactly they mean. Surely we are not asking much in asking the Government to inform us, before the end of this Debate, whether the Prime Minister, when he gave that pledge, meant what the great bulk of the people of the country thought he meant—that no distinction should be drawn between the right to exercise the franchise which women ought to have and that which men possess at the present time, and that no question was involved of trying to raise the age in the case of men.

It is all very well to say there is plenty of time. Every Government in the first months of its existence thinks it is going to have plenty of time to do all it wants, but accidents happen in Conservative Governments just as they do in the best regulated families, and it may he that some accident will occur as a result of which the Government will not have plenty of time to fulfil its pledge. We prefer to take this opportunity of getting this Bill passed. If, after the Bill has been passed, the Government want to remove further anomalies there is no reason against, introducing further reforms. They will be able to exercise the right of doing so at a later opportunity. Although I appreciate the practical objections mentioned, the speech of the Home Secretary has left me suspicious and dissatisfied as to the real intentions of the Government. For that reason I join in pressing for the Second Reading of the Bill. The Home Secretary has given no adequate reason for postponing a Measure which will remove a great and irritating anomaly in our system and confer on those to whom it relates a right which, I am confident, they will regard more as a responsibility to be conscientiously discharged than a privilege to be lightly enjoyed.

I do not wish to give a silent vote on this question. I think I am in a happy position, compared with some other Members of the House, inasmuch as at the time the Prime Minister's pledge was before the country, I took pains at every meeting I addressed to give the interpretation of the pledge as it appeared to me. As a result of the interpretation which I put upon it, I certainly did not lose the women's vote in my Constituency or I should not be here with a majority of nearly 14,000. In the course of this Debate observations have been made on the personal qualities of women and their fitness to vote. That question arose very often in 1920, but I am glad that it does not arise so often to-day. On that point, I am perfectly sure the whole House is at one. In judgment, in ability, in intelligence, in all those qualities which a voter should possess, women are just as capable of exercising the franchise as men. I thought when I came into this House that we were all agreed on the principle stated by the Prime Minister, the principle of equal political rights for men and fa—women. The interpretation which I put on those words before and during the election was this: I said that clearly the intention was to give equal political weight and equal political power to the two sexes, and there was not a word about giving the vote at the age of 21 or 25, or any other age. The object in view is to give equal rights to the two sexes.

I remember what converted me originally to the idea of giving votes to women. I suppose I was as Conservative as other Members of my party, and, perhaps, as reluctant as they are supposed to be to move in the direction of extending the franchise to women, but I took the opportunity of discovering what men had to say, especially in the industrial areas, about the competition of women in industry, The fact that hon. Members opposite support this Bill would seem to contradict the conclusion at which I arrived, but it seemed to me, after hearing at street corners and elsewhere an immense amount of bitterness expressed by men against women competitors in industry, to be absolutely essential, if women were to get equal consideration in public life, that they should be given an equal weight in the franchise. The very argument which converted me to extending the vote to women is, it seems to me, against giving votes to women to such an extent that the women's vote would wholly outweigh the men's vote. It seems to me that that is not the intention. With a few exceptions, I have never found any woman who was anxious to see the Government of this country carried on under conditions in which the aggregate woman's vote would have greater power and weight than the aggregate of the man's suffrage. I am rather confirmed in my view by what I see in a little pamphlet called "The Case for Equal Franchise," and issued to hon. Members by the National Union of Societies for Equal Franchise. This is what the writer says:

There is no sex vote. The women do not vote as a sex.

The Noble Lady can scarcely have followed the implication of the argument here if she makes that retort to it. The obvious implication here is that if the aggregate weight on the men's side is greater than that on the women's, politicians, being such as they are, and dependent in any democratic country on the popular vote, will turn obviously in that direction where the larger number of voters are, and if women in the aggregate enjoy fewer votes than men, they will in the aggregate, according to the writer, expect and receive less consideration than the men. I merely take that argument and turn it about. This Bill proposes to give to women in the aggregate greater political power than to men in the aggregate, and if the one proposition be true, the other proposition is equally true, and for the same reason.

No.

That argument is developed later in this pamphlet, since the Noble Lady disputes it. It does not even stop there. It says:

"We cannot afford any longer to allow a world of men, women, and children to be ruled by men alone."

You have several million women voting to-day, and yet we are told that with 8,000,000 women voting, you are ruled by men alone.

You have not a woman in the Cabinet.

Women should make cabinet puddings.

If you have more women voting than men, it will be equally true to say we are ruled by women alone. I venture to think, too, there is already some sign of it, and that there is an increasing political pressure from women. I think coming events, perhaps in the view of some hon. Members, seem to be casting their shadows before them, and already they are trimming their sails to get the favouring gale which they hope to receive into them when they have given the women the preponderance of strength in this country. I wholly and entirely agree with what has been said on both sides, that we, on this side of the House, have nothing to fear from giving to women an even more extended vote. I know that view is held on the other side of the House as well. In 1920 it was expressed from those benches that probably the Conservative party stood to gain far more than the Labour party by giving the vote to more and more women. I agree with that. I am not in the least fearing the political results of this Bill, but I am greatly fearing the economic results.

I am perfectly convinced myself that the effect of giving the women the vote to this extent will be that the economic influence of women in industry will be too great, and that it will be to the detriment of men in industry, and will be so used. [HON. MEMBERS: "How? "] Hon. Members opposite ought not to ask how. The whole object of their movement is to substitute for economic worth political pressure. They seek to gain economic advantages by coming to this House and legislating. It is, in my judgment, an illusion, as they will find, but they do think they can secure economic advantages by political pressure, and they are under the impression that you can raise wages, not by increased output, but by banding together to demand a higher proportion of what is produced.

The hon. and gallant Member is travelling rather wide of the question at issue.

I was very well aware, Sir, that you would not allow me to pursue that very far, but I was asked from those benches how, and it is because of that political pressure that is exercised and can be exercised, though ultimately not, as I believe, to the advantage of the people, that I take the stand I do. I know that the textile trades are an exception, but in other directions the women are mainly occupied in the sheltered trades, and it is only in the sheltered trades that it is possible by political action to force up money wages, and I think there is a real danger—and I put it quite seriously to hon. Members opposite—that if women are given in the aggregate greater political power than men, there will be a tendency in the future to raise wages in sheltered trades in which women are employed, while lowering, to a corresponding extent, wages in the men's trades. It is for these reasons, which seem to me to deserve some attention even from hon. Members opposite, and not only on the grounds given from my front bench, that, while I am wholly and entirely in favour of equal political power for both sexes, I am not in favour of this Bill.

I am very glad to find in this House so large a unanimity on the principle for which this Bill stands, but I find exceptions to that in the speech to which we have just listened. The hon. and gallant Member for the Reigate Division (Brigadier-General Cockerill) seems to me to be under an entire misapprehension. Women do not vote as a sex, they vote as individuals.

I said so.

The hon. and gallant Member may have said so, but he did not apply it to the case, because he assumes that women would vote as a sex and in the industrial field would act entirely in the interests of the women in industry as against the men in industry. Nothing in what has actually occurred justifies him in making that assumption, and I would point out that among the women voters there are many millions—and there will be more millions if this Bill be carried into law—who are or will be the wives of working men and not themselves in the industrial field. If he imagines that women will vote for their own interests, I would point out to him that the interests of those something like 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 women who will have votes as the wives of working men will be in an exactly opposite direction from that in which he suggests that women as a sex would vote. I would also like to say, with regard to his speech, that his view of the Prime Minister's pledge, as I understand it, is in direct conflict with the view put forward by the Home Secretary, because, if my recollection serves me aright, the Home Secretary definitely said that the pledge of the Prime Minister did involve granting the franchise at an equal age for men and women. Therefore, the hon. and gallant Member for Reigate will find that he is in conflict with the Home Secretary in that matter.

Now I want to deal with the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rhys). He said that he could not vote for this Bill, because it took away votes from men, and he cited Clause 3 as evidence of that fact. The hon. Member evidently does not understand the Bill, because Clause 3 does nothing of the kind. It merely re-states, in words which are suitable to the new situation, the prevailing law as it exists at the present time. Possibly he was confusing the Bill of last year with the Bill of to-day. So far as men are concerned, I can assure him, and any Members of the House who are doubtful on this point, that their position is left unaltered by the proposals of this Bill.

I come now to the position of the Home Secretary, and I think it is well that we should appreciate what measure of agreement we have now got. The Home Secretary agrees with us in thinking that the Prime Minister's pledge involves a Franchise Bill during this Parliament. He agrees with us in thinking that the Prime Minister's pledge involves the equal treatment of men and women in such a Bill when introduced. He agrees with us in thinking that the age at which women should get the vote should be equal with that at which men get the vote. The only two points where he differs from us are these. First of all, he is not quite sure whether the age should be fixed at 21 both for men and women, Or whether it should be fixed at a later age both for men and women. He did not say that, but that is the inference from his remarks; that is the only point open to doubt. If that be so, I do suggest to hon. Members opposite, and particularly to the hon. Member for Romford, that, as a matter of fact, they cannot seriously contemplate taking away votes from men at the present time. They may think at the present moment that it would be a good thing to do, but when they actually come to face it, I do riot believe they will be able to do so Therefore, I suggest to them that, as a matter of fact, the position which the Government are taking up on the principle cannot really be differentiated from that which is put forward in this Bill.

2.0 P.M.

We come, therefore, to the last point of disagreement between the Home Secretary and ourselves, as to the time for carrying this pledge into effect. The Home Secretary maintained that this was not the right time. He said he was confident that the Government would last for several years, and that a time later would arise. I would remind him that he realises fully that a redistribution plan would have to be carried out. That involves considerable delay after the Bill is carried, and, probably, means that two years would be necessary from the passing of the Bill before the redistribution was carried out, the actual register complete and the new voters were properly on the register. Therefore, there is a considerable time involved in this question. Can he really be quite certain that the Government will last so long, whatever the probabilities may be, if ho puts off this year to a later date? The Homo Secretary spoke in terms of rather severe rebuke of a letter from a lady which appeared in the, papers today, as he seemed to think that it implied a disbelief in the Prime Minister's honour. Of course, it did nothing of the kind. The intention, as I understand it—and I agree with the writer of the letter—simply was, that unless the time when it presents itself be taken, another time may not, after all, arise, and circumstances, and not the Prime Minister's want of faith, might act so as to prevent his pledge being, in fact, kept. With regard to the suggestion of the certainty of another opportunity arising, there is only one thing certain in political life, and that is that you cannot prophesy the future with certainty, and, in spite of the enormous majority the Government have at the present time, they cannot be quite sure that they will last for the period to which the Home Secretary referred. It is a common thing daily life—and lawyers, doctors and divines will bear it out—that people often put off too long the day of grace. They are 'advised to make a will. They say, "Not to-day; I am quite healthy. There will be plenty of time to make a will later on." They are advised to repent, and lead a Godly life. They say, "There is plenty of time for that. I am still young. There are many years before me, and I can do that in good time before the end." it sometimes happens that their expectations are not fulfilled. They have let the day of grace go by, and the clay of judgment may come sooner than they expect. It is particularly so in a case of this kind, where at least two years will be required in order to carry their pledges into operation. I would suggest to Conservative Members who are thinking of following the advice given them by their own Front Bench, and who have given very definite pledges, many of them to support a suffrage Measure, that they are taking a very considerable risk if they put off the day of grace, because the day of judgment may arise earlier than they anticipate.

I will conclude by reminding members of the Conservative party of the tragic fate of what was once another great party, equal in numbers to themselves, but which is now reduced in this House to very small dimensions. I contend—and, I think, those who study the facts will find that it is borne out—that the beginning of the decay in that great party was largely attributable to the fast-and-loose method that they adopted in dealing with this question of woman suffrage. I remember quite well the days when the Liberal party was led by the great Mr. Gladstone, that the members played fast and-loose with their promises with regard to giving women the vote. They were encouraged to do that by Mr. Gladstone himself. They were told that it should be a matter for the Government, for a Government Franchise Bill, and, therefore, they voted against the Private Member's Bill. When the Government Bill was brought forward they were told that it would not include woman suffrage, that that was a matter that should be introduced in a Private Member's Bill.

That did not sap the strength of the party for some years, but later, the Noble Lord who has recently left us for a more elevated sphere, when he was in charge of the fortunes and destinies of the Liberal party, also played fast-and-loose with this question. A violent opposition, which he and members of his party provoked, occurred amongst the women of this country, and I am perfectly certain that that played its part in bringing that historic party to the condition it is to-day. I put it to Members on the Conservative side of the House. Great numbers of them are pledged to women suffrage. I would ask them to take heed before they take a course which may easily have the same effect upon their party which that course had upon the other party which sits below the gangway. We feel that the time is now. It is no use telling the people that they cannot have things to-day: that they may get them next day. You hon. Members opposite may not he here next day to give these things. If you are there may be some slip. It may be that your intentions are all right, but it may be that, through some slip later, you may be unable to fulfil your pledges. It will not be the fault of us on this side of the House who have given Members an opportunity if they fail to take that advantage of that opportunity.

It must give considerable satisfaction to the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken to note the point at which this question of women suffrage has arrived. If it were not that the late Home Secretary and the present Home Secretary have told us that we must deal with this question in a non-party spirit. I should be tempted to think that the enthusiasm on the benches opposite for the earlier age of 21 as compared with 25 was due to their belief that youth and inexperience at which they are more likely to accept the unsubstantial and variegated theories of Socialism. [ Interruption. ] Can any one of the hon. Gentlemen opposite point to a successful national experiment in Socialism?

Yes.

The hon. Gentleman for Windsor possibly recognises that he is opening out a subject of very large issues?

He is asking for it!

I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have had the advantage of serving on the Committee of the House last year which dealt with this subject and some of us urged the point that the possession of the franchise is a great privilege and that in the exercise of that privilege you should have the best combination of vigour with a sense of responsibility and some experience of life. We consider that 25 is the best age——

Hear, hear!

——at which women and men should have the franchise on fair and equal terms. I feel quite certain that if this matter were put to the country in the form of a referendum there would be an enormous majority in favour of it. In the course of the discussion in Committee last year one prominent Socialist Member incautiously remarked that he was opposed to political propaganda amongst the young. Thereupon I invited him to come down to my constituency to oppose the establishment of a Socialist Sunday School. The reply was in the negative. I urge that the age should be 25.

What about the W.A.A.C.S. during the War?

I do not wish to detain the House or I should be very willing to go into the War connection, but I would say: that it is not generous of women to base an extension of the franchise on the score of inequality of the numbers of men and women brought about by the War. There was a remark made to me by a woman recently who was in favour of the age of 21; she said it was only fair that the young who have to fight should have the franchise. That did not seem to be logical, because, after all, unless we become a nation of weaklings, it is the men who have to do the fighting. I think the position can be Met by the Resolution before the House. It has been recalled that the Dominions have granted the franchise universally at 21. I submit that there is a vast difference between the case of the Dominions and this country. This is an old country, and as in the case of all, or most, old countries, we have a very large preponderance of women. In the Dominions there is a surplus of men over women, and the object there is to give the suffrage to as many white people as possible.

In some countries the age is 25. The French show appreciation of the age of 25 in their regulation that no citizen shall be eligible for the Chambre des Députés until he has reached that ago. I have put before meeting after meeting the question whether the age at which the franchise should be granted err equal terms should be 21 or 25, and the invariable answer has been 25. The women, undoubtedly, are in favour of it. As to the men, I think it would be fair, if the conference which the Prime Minister is pledged to set up takes place, to ask that conference to recommend that, in granting the franchise to men and women at the age of 25, there should be inserted a provision in the Bill giving effect to their recommendations, that every male child horn up to the day the Act comes into operation shall have the privilege of the franchise at 21 subsequently, that it should be granted to everybody at the age of 25 on equal terms. On these grounds I would strongly urge that the, proposal of the Home Secretary to carry out the pledge of the Prime Minister should be adopted.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Windsor who has just spoken has raised what, I think, is the crux of the question that we are now considering; that is the question of the difference at which an equal vote should be extended—whether to 21 or 25. I am afraid, however, that the hon. Member's recollection is at fault in his reference to the very protracted discussion that took place in Committee last year upon this very point. At that time it was even suggested as a sort of compromise from the Opposition that it might be possible to defend the vote to men between 21 and 25 years of age who had already been granted it, but that in all future Bills men and women should be equally granted the vote at 25 years. That may be all right as a compromise, but it does not fill the position we are putting forward to-day. It is not merely a question of extending the vote to women at the same age as men. The vast majority of women who possess the vote to-day do not possess it in their own right; it has been granted to them because of certain possessions, either the possession of a, husband who has a local qualification through which she is entitled to a Parliamentary vote, or to the fact that she may be a tenant in her own right, or have property through which she can qualify for the vote after 30 years. What we aim at in this Bill, and I think the Mover of the Bill is to be congratulated on simplyfying the Bill to that extent, is the establishment of the very definite principle that women should have the vote equally with men at 21 years of age because they happen to be human beings, not because of any other qualification, but because they are human individuals.

The Home Secretary, as has been mentioned by one or two speakers, was somewhat evasive as to what the actual assurances which were given were, and when they were to be carried out. His actual words were "Wait a year or two," but in an explanatory intervention later on he indicated that the setting up of such a conference to deal with this subject should be put into operation next year, with a possibility of a Bill later on. The very terms of the Amendment put down in the right hon. Gentleman's name are that a considered scheme of franchise reform should be brought before the House. That is probably a considerable extension, to which many of us will agree, but it hardly coincided with his argument. He found fault with the fact that this Bill was a Private Member's Bill, considering that a reform of the franchise ought to be undertaken by a Government Measure. There are so few opportunities for Private Members to introduce Bills which do not interfere with the revenue of the State, that it is only upon such questions as this that we have the opportunity. If a Government Bill is anticipated, we ought, today, to have something more definite, more reassuring and more accurate than we have had yet. Procrastination in political life very often means never, and we must expect something more substantial on this important question, which affects women in their economic and social life. When we have women taking up the professions, holding high positions in legal, medical, scientific and other professions, and showing official capacity there, we are entitled to ask that they should have the opportunity of discharging their duties to the State equally with men.

It has been argued on one or two occasions that we should leave over this Measure until a later period in the life of this Parliament, and yet it is asserted, almost in the same breath, that the women whom we ask should be included in the Bill have no political experience and will probably vote on the spur of the moment in the General Election without having reasoned out what they are doing. Is not that the strongest argument that could be used for passing the Bill now, with the qualification the late Home Secretary made that registration for such a purpose would not he used until a General Election? We should begin to give the younger women an opportunity of studying the political situation and taking a greater interest in political affairs, and they would know accurately and definitely that the franchise was to be established and that they could exercise it in the next election. I appeal to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to give us some more information on this question, to state definitely what the Government intend to do with reference to electoral form, and whether it will be a Bill to deal only with the question of equal franchise or whether some of the other anomalies in electoral representation are also to be tackled. Also, we would like a very definite assurance as to when this conference will be set up, as to what its powers will be, as to when we can expect the Bill, and if it is certain that the Government mean by equal citizenship votes for women at 21 equally with men.

I am absolutely in favour of equality as between men and women. I have not only spoken for it, but I have voted for it; I am pledged to it, and I do not mind being pledged, because I am convinced of its justice. But to-day I am going to vote for the Amendment, and I want to speak for a few minutes in order to explain why I am going to do that. What has struck me most in the discussion to-day is that there have been three points of almost absolute agreement. The first point has been the question of equality, and as it is practically agreed, why argue the point? Here I may say that I believe a great deal of the matter of the speeches delivered has been occupied with arguments on points upon which we are all practically agreed. The second point is that whatever Bill is passed its results should not come into operation until a General Election. The third point is that the Bill under discussion is capable of and requires certain Amendments, as is admitted by all sides. Those are three points upon which I believe there is agreement.

I should like to say now why I do not propose to vote for the Bill, which I supported last time, and why I am going to vote for the Amendment. The first point is that there is time. There may be a difference of opinion between that side of the House and this as to when the next election will come. I am one who believes in the interests of the country and not of the parties, and I think it is best for the country as a whole that the election should not come until it is absolutely necessary in 1929. My other reason is that it will be very much better that whatever Bill is passed should be brought in after full consideration, and as we have time to do it, I think that full consideration should be given.

The second reason I would put is that I am confident it would be the greatest dis-service this House could do to women to bring in a Bill which after passing would require amendment because it was not satisfactory. A state of things like that would do more to prejudice women votes than any other thing. I believe that when the Bill is passed the Conservative party will receive as much benefit from the increase among the electors as any other party in this House. I accept the pledge given by my leader during the election, and I consider it quite unnecessary that it should be repeated, because a pledge which he has given will be kept. One hon. Member said it may be kept, but I say it will be kept, and the pledge ho has given is equality. I thank the Home Secretary for the statement he made with regard to the time. He has not only renewed the pledge, but he has increased it somewhat, and he has endeavoured to allay some of the suspicions which may arise on the other side of the House by giving actual dates. He has told us the date of the conference, the year when we may expect the Bill, and when it will be brought in. I believe it is in the best interest of the women themselves that a Bill dealing with this question should only be brought in after full consideration, and therefore I am going to vote for the Amendment.

I am old enough to recall the Debates which took place in this House in the years prior to the War on the question of women's suffrage. Those hon. Members here to-day who were in the House during those years will recall that a very large number of hon. Members, notably on the Front Benches, had a profound and sincere objection to the extension of the franchise to women. Such politicians as Mr. Asquith, Mr. Walter Long and Mr. F. E. Smith were generally opposed to it because they believed that political warfare should be kept outside the scope of women altogether, but those ideas were shattered by the War when women took up men's work and performed it with skill and in a way which received the admiration of the whole country. With this experience in front of them, the present. Earl of Oxford and other well-known politicians got up in this House and declared that their objection to extending the franchise to women had been shattered, and I was hoping that no one in this House had been left who was opposed to women franchise on the ground of sex alone.

I know the junior Member for the University of Oxford (Sir C. Oman) made a speech in opposition, and his whole speech was opposed to the giving of votes to women. He spoke of it as "sinning against nature," and as an "abnormality." I only wish that the senior Member for the University of Oxford (Lord H. Cecil) had been here, for I am sure he would have made a strong speech in favour of this Bill. I remember the senior Member for Oxford University pointing out that the vote is not a privilege but a right, and it is a duty which ought to be entrusted to every citizen. I can understand some hon. Members objecting to 21 as the limit of age. There are hon. Members who do so on both sides, but what I cannot understand is that if hon. Members think 21 is too early for women to have a vote why should they not say that 21 is too early for men as well. By the law of the land a man becomes of age at 21.

And a Prince at one.

The hon. Member for Silvertown must allow me to make my speech in my own way. His scintillating wit we all appreciate at the right time. Why was the age put at 30? Why did the conference presided over by your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, put the age at 30 for women? Simply for the reason that it was in the nature of an experiment. Up to that time women had never had the vote and we had a large number in this House who thought women would be too much swept away by emotions and so forth. Some members of the conference were very nervous and they thought they would put the age of 30 as a tentative experiment, and this was done. I ask any hon. Member now to state how that experiment has worked. Is anyone prepared to say that the women electors have not shown the same amount of intelligence as the men? [HON. MEMBERS: "More."] I agree that they have shown more, and I believe that a woman at 21 has quite as much intelligence as a man at 21. I would rather trust a woman elector any time. I think it is very illogical for anyone to object to the lowering of the age for women and at the same time to maintain that men should have the vote at 21. What I am concerned about is that we should put both on the same footing. The Government do not propose to raise the age from 21 to 25 for men, and no doubt the Home Secretary would be ready to say they have no intention of doing so. I think it is too late in the day to raise the age from 21 to 25 for men. You have to accept that position, and having accepted that the only thing you can do now logically, justly, and wisely is to put women on the same level as men.

I will put another consideration. I think hon. Members opposite will be well-advised to extend the franchise to women as much as possible. Women are the bulwark of the nation, and they are not carried away, at any rate, by any revolutionary tendency. I think all this ought to make hon. Members agree to grant this right to women on the same terms as men. I do not for a moment doubt the pledge of the Prime Minister, because in every part of the House we know him to be a man of honour, and his word is his bond. I suggest to the Government that they ought to agree to the principle of the Bill. Let us agree to the principle, and if we can go no further than that to-day, it will, at any rate, be a great step in advance. I appeal to the House to treat women on the same terms as men. Let the old idea that women are not men's equal be shattered, and let the country realise and recognise their valuable work by giving them the vote.

I am always a little bit suspicious when a Bill like this is fathered by hon. Members opposite, because they are adepts at wrapping up a piece of policy in a cover of sham democracy. This Bill is a very clever tactful move on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite to ensnare into their net those sort of people who are most likely to vote for them at the next election, and it is on that ground that I am going to vote for the Amendment put down by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. We all agree that the vote should be a responsible vote, and I do not think a woman of 21 has either enough intelligence of the world or enough knowledge of the ins and outs of politics to be given the responsibility of the vote. There is one thing that is absolutely certain; that a woman of 21 has come to the stage when she is very apt to be attracted by those glittering prophecies that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are such adepts at dangling in front of the elec- torate to-day. These ladies of 21 would be rather like a moth attracted by a candle. They would undoubtedly be attracted by these prophecies, and I am afraid, like the moth, they would fly into that candle and burn their wings very badly.

No one has more admiration for the common-sense of my fellow men and women in this country than I have, but we have at the moment enough unenlightened people who have the vote. Why add two or three million more to that number before you have adequately educated the present people who have the vote to the responsibility of that vote? I think it was Mr. Disraeli who said: "Trust the people." We trusted the people at the last election, and look at us here; look at the hundreds of us in this House ! Mr. Disraeli was perfectly right. But he would not have said "Trust the people" if he had known that the future of this country was going to be in the hands of girls of 21. I should like to see the age limit up to 25 for both men and women. That may be an unpopular thing to say, but, anyhow, I am going to say it. I think during the War, when boys of 21 were given the vote—[Hoy. MEMBERS: "18."]—that it was a very good thing. Those boys went through the biggest test that human nature can endure, and no youth in the world went through that test more nobly than the youth of this country. Those boys are 25 now, and I think in the interests of the country the vote both for men and women should be limited to 25. This is a great democratic country, but do not let us make a fool of that democracy, because, if we do, we may rue the day when this Bill was ever put on the Statute Book.

I rise to support this Bill in virtue of promises made to the electorate of my Division during three contests. On two of those three occasions I was opposed by the combined forces of the Liberals and Conservatives. I have always promised to support a Bill in favour of giving the vote to women at 21 on the same terms as to men, but, in addition to that, I have been an advocate of this principle in all parts of the country for the past 30 years. My hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. PethickLawrence) has just referred to some of the causes of the decline of the Liberal party in this House and in the country. On the other hand, we on the Labour Benches have been greatly indebted in days gone by to the work of the women of the Labour party when our cause was small and insignificant. They have rendered very magnificient service to our cause in the past. We have only to think of the names of people like Miss Enid Stacy, Miss Caroline Martyn and Miss Mary MacArthur who rendered magnificient service to our cause and helped to make the Labour party what it is in this House and country to-day.

If the argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite, on the question of courage, is sound, I suppose, were there to be another shipwreck off Fame Island, they would deny to the modern Grace Darling, who helped to rescue shipwrecked sailors when she was a young girl, the right to take her part as a voter of this country. Reference has been made to the men who exposed their lives during the War. Men are exposing their lives to a considerable extent in the industrial world every day of the week, and they are rendering equal, if not superior, service to the community than the men, often in questionable wars, have in days gone by. The women are exposing their lives in renewing the generation of the world to an equal extent that men are exposing their lives, either in the industrial world or on the battlefield. Therefore there is not much in that argument.

I want to make a special appeal this afternoon from another point of view. We have in Scotland at present a very acute unemployment problem. There are something like 186,000 people unemployed at the present time in Scotland, including nearly 40,000 women and girls. That is a very important point in connection with this question of the women's franchise. It is a very acute problem. We have more destituiton, I venture to think, in the West of Scotland than there is in any other part of Great Britain. It is not a simple matter; it is a matter that comes very closely to the homes and lives of the working people. A return supplied by my right hon. Friend who was Secretary for Scotland in the last Government, shows that, during the four years, 1920–21 to 1922–23, there were on the average, each year in the city of Glasgow over 31,000 people who, from sheer destitution—not as prisoners, not as people who had committed any kind of offence in the community—were compelled to seek the shelter of the prison cells because of the destitution they were suffering. Are not they entitled to alter the laws of the land by the exercise of their vote, in order to destroy these terrible industrial conditions and the destitution which exists in those parts? In my own Division we are suffering in the same way, and, therefore, we are entitled to ask that women shall have the vote on the same terms as men and at 21 years of age.

There is another point that I should like to emphasise, particularly as regards the industrial areas. It has often happened in days gone by that around the cottage home of a miner, the workmen—brothers and fathers—have been discussing the well-known dangers which exist in the coal-mining areas of this country, and it may be that, as has often happened in the past, a young wife with two or three children may hear her father, her brothers, or her husband discussing the possibility that some terrible colliery explosion may take place, because of the dangers which are known to exist, which miners' leaders and men from every mining county in the country have known to exist during the last 50 years, and which I myself, as an official in some of the largest coal mines in this country, have personally seen. This poor girl, this poor young mother between 25 and 30 Tears of age, with three or four children, may find herself widowed and left to be both the father and the mother of those children; and yet she has no right to alter those very conditions which are sending hundreds of men to an untimely grave from preventable causes. Is not that a justification for giving these people, and particularly the working women of our land, the vote on the same terms as men? I have pledged myself to it on three previous occasions, when, as it may interest some hon. Members opposite to know, I have stood as an avowed Socialist in a division that is by no means an industrial division. On each occasion I have pledged my word, and now I am redeeming it, that I would do everything is possibly could to enable women of 21 to exercise the same rights on the same terms as men.

I wish very much that the Government had not had anything to do with this Debate. As a rule they do not generally, as one may say, butt in on a private Member's Bill, and by doing so they make it very awkward for many of their followers. I agree that you cannot expect a Government to pass a private Member's Bill. Very few Governments do; it is very unusual. I think, however, that they would have made it much easier for a large number of their followers who are pledged to an equal franchise, to which they themselves are also pledged, if they had allowed a free vote of the House. Even if this Bill did pass this afternoon, I do not see what difference it would make in the general trend of the legislation of the Government. It would not cause an election. Nobody really believes that it would. There is really no precedent for saying that it would, as far as votes for women are concerned, because in 1917 women w ere given the vote and there was not an election for nearly two years. It may be said that the War was on. That is very well, but you might have said: "Wait till the War is over and we will give you the vote." I am very sorry myself, as a Member who believes in the Government and will accept their word, that they should have put us in this very awkward position.

The Prime Minister has pledged himself to equal rights as between men and women, and the Home Secretary has given us an assurance that the Committee will be set up next year and will be ready to come into operation the year after. I agree with that, and am very grateful. It satisfies me completely. There is only one point on which I am not satisfied, and I am less satisfied when I hear some hon. Members on this side speak. That is the question of giving women votes at 21. They say, Why not give everyone the vote at 25? Really, let them be practical, Women are practical. There is not a man or woman in this House who thinks that you can take the vote away from men of 21. You cannot do it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, you try it; try and take it away from them until they are 25. That means that women will have to get it at 21. I agree that people should be of a certain age before they vote, but you have to face this fact, that the vast majority of people go into work at the age of 14, and you cannot possibly ask them to work for 16 years without having a vote. It is not practical politics, and it is not right, because we all know what the pressure becomes when people have the vote. Women are not organised. They have far less effect on the trade unions and on all parties than the men, because they are not organised, and until they get the vote they will have less and less influence. I deplore the fact that we have in our party a few people—I should like to state before the whole country that they are only a very few—who think you can take the vote away from a man of 21 and make him wait until he is 25. I do beg members of my party not to put themselves in the position of saying that the reforms are wrung from them. We ought to be taking the lead, and that is why I regret some of the things that have been said this afternoon. It looks as though we were reluctant [ Interruption. ] But hon. Members opposite were just as reluctant; do not make any mistake about that. Women know it, and they have been so let down by all parties that they are justly suspicious when it comes to this question of the vote.

The Committee will be set up, and I hope and pray that Mr. Speaker will be its Chairman. I think it would satisfy the whole country if it were felt that Mr. Speaker would be the Chairman. There are some chairmen with whom the whole country would be dissatisfied. I should like to say this for our party, that there are as many men in other parties who are against women having the vote as there are in our party. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !"] Yes, absolutely. Look at the way in which the trade unions treat women. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) has herself protested against this, and has been a voice crying in the wilderness. That is why I admire her. So we face the facts. But certainly the party are very unfortunate, when they come to a Debate like this, in having people get up and put a point of view which is absolutely antiquated and out-of-date and which they could not carry in a live constituency. Unfortunately for us we have a good many dead constituencies. [ Interruption. ] So have you—plenty of dead constituencies. Look at the last Election. We won vigorous industrial constituencies because they thought, quite rightly, that we were going to have a progressive programme, and we are. So I deplore the fact that members of our party who do not repre- sent live constituencies should get up on occasions like this and put the whole party in the soup.

My advice to hon. Members is this. If they vote for the principle of 21 they will help the party on. I do not want anyone to think that if we vote for the principle of 21 it is because we do not absolutely trust the Prime Minister. We do trust him, but we are pledged to the principle and it is very difficult for us to vote against it. The Prime Minister is not only trusted by his own party but by the whole country and I deplore the fact that anyone should have thought that if he once gave his word it would be broken. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough said her party was willing to take a leap in the dark. I want my party to take a leap in the light towards trusting women more and more and more. An hon. Member below me asked why should women outvote men. That is an unfortunate provision of nature. It has nothing to do with justice. Women do not vote with sex bias, but even if they did you have to face up to the fact. You cannot change nature but lieu have to change your laws. I hope the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary will realise that in reforms like this the whole country is looking towards them, and we who believe in reforms and believe that the party has a chance it has never had before and never will get again—[ Interruption ]. They will never get it again unless they put into practice what they have preached throughout the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "They will not do that."] Yes, they will. I admit that all parties make a lot of pledges which they do. not keep, but hon. Members opposite have no ground to stand on any firmer than ours. If I were they I would keep quiet. I beg the Home Secretary to hurry up with his committee and get it in order and bear in mind that it is not practical politics to talk about giving the vote at 25. The industrial people of the country will not stand it, and you cannot expect them to. You cannot go into a factory at 14 and wait for 16 years. It is not practical politics. I do not think it is really showing any disloyalty to the word of the Prime Minister or the Home Office if we vote for the principle of 21. I hope no one will think that in doing so I am showing in any way distrust in my leaders. If I distrusted them I should not, follow them.

But I want them to lead us not into the dark but into the light.

3.0 P.M.

If the House desires a forecast of what will be the consequence of passing legislation on these lines we can with confidence turn to Australia, and observe what happens there, where the qualifications of the woman's vote is exactly on a parity with those of the men. In the British communities of Australia the vote is exercised by women at 21 and there is no property qualification, and the result is that you give votes to women but women candidates do not get them and there are no women in Parliament. [ Interruption. ] An hon. Member has said that no one can prophesy, but you can go close to prophesy in politics if you observe what happens under equal conditions elsewhere. It is a case that the proof of the pudding is in the eating—we had a measure of proof in the last Election. The number of women voters on the register had not been greatly increased, and the consequence has been a marked diminution in the number of lady Members now in this House. If the franchise is further extended the number of the fair sex returned to this House will arrive at the zero stage. We can trust human nature to repeat itself and it is the younger women electors and not the old women who are more interested in keeping out of Parliament those above twenty-five. British women voters, whatever may he the reason will be following inevitably the example of their sisters in Australia and not vote for the women if tolerable men candidates come forward. Where should we be in this House without the Noble Lady who has just sat down, and without the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough? [ Interruption. ]

I should like this interesting conversation to be addressed to me.

I should like to refute in a, few words the contention that this is not a party move on the part of hon. Members who sit on my right. They are endeavouring by this Bill to steal a march on their victorious opponents: they wish to accelerate a General Election by every possible means. I am no believer in suspensory Clauses in Bills when those Clauses deal with matters of politics and not of administration. It may be taken for certain that should this Bill, good in itself, be passed prematurely, we would simply be supplying ammunition to the enemy, in order to furnish a sound claim on which to ask for a General Election today, to-morrow and the day it may be convenient to the Labour party. There is a Conservative majority of 200, which is so priceless a blessing to the country and to the Empire and to the world it ought not to be endangered in any direction whatever. This solid majority has to restore to England the prosperity and the stability which has been taken away by long periods of perpetual compromise indulged in by Governments with small majorities behind them. The fact is that this Bill is the only weapon which the party in Opposition has for immediately striking the Government, should be the strongest reason for not falling into that trap by placing it in their hands. I therefore trust that apart from the sacred principle of equality this Bill will be postponed, even by straining the forms of this House, and even by moving that it be read a Second time, this day four years and six months.

The strongest argument in favour of extending the vote to the younger women of this country has come from those hon. Members who have been willing to wound and yet afraid to strike this Bill. Members of the House who between every line of their utterances were obviously opposed to giving the vote to any women, and especially young women, were afraid to put their opposition to the principle into actual operation because of the efficiency of the very section of the population whom they have been declaring are not efficient enough to have the vote: a portion of the population so efficient that, according to a message which I have had sent to me, 17 per cent. of hon. Members opposite have given to the women's organisations unqualified pledges, which can be produced, that they will support the principle of equal franchise at 21 for men and women. [HON. MEMBERS "We are going to support that."] I hope you are.

We have had various subsidiary reasons given why it would not be advisable to give votes to women of 21. One of the reasons was that there are more women than men, and that the vote of the women would outweigh the vote of the men. I hope that this House will try not to think about the question in that way. That is entirely the wrong way of looking at it, whether you happen to be what is called a feminist or whether you are opposed to the principle. We must not think about the population as one section female and the other section male. There are people in both sexes who are not fit to vote, and people in both sexes who ought to have the vote. It is absurd to suggest that because there would be more women on the register than men that that would give women authority over the men in the councils of the nation. It does not work out in that way. There are some women, as the right hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) mentioned, old women, who are afraid of the bogey of Bolshevism which hon. Members trot out. There are other women who are afraid of the bogies of profiteering, so well represented between elections by some hon. Members opposite. The electors vote according to their convictions, not because they are women and not because they are men.

The crowning arguments of the day were given by the Noble Lord the Member for Newark (Marquess of Titchfield). He said that votes should not be given to any persons until they were 25 years of age. I hope the House will not think that I am hinting at or desiring any mortality in the Noble Member's family, which we should much regret, but had such mortality occurred a few years ago, when the Noble Lord was below the age of 25, he would have been in another place, where he would have been able to overrule the decision of the more mature members of the democracy in this country, and it, was a very eloquent plea for the abolition of the Second Chamber, which I hope the Noble Member's friends will take seriously to heart. But leaving out sex prejudices, which are expressed either by opposition, or by what is to me the objectionable middle-aged jocularity to which some Members referred, you are driven to another argument, because you are afraid of the women who have already got the vote, and who are fighting for their younger friends. You have gone in for another argument. The history of the Conservative party has been to raise scares about what will happen if something takes place, and, when it does take place, these things never do happen. So you have gone back to the suggestion that you may be able to evoke a Bill which, while not taking anybody off who is on the Register at present, will make it impossible in future for either a man or woman under 25 years to get the vote.

I did not are happening at present than the say that.

No, but that appears that there should be an arbitrary age to be the only point in the suggestion of 25 before which men should not he made by the right hon. Gentleman and allowed to vote. A few generations ago by hon. Members opposite.

I beg the hon. Member to believe that I said nothing of the kind in my speech. The age which might be selected was left perfectly open. It might be 2 1 just as much as 31.

If the right hon. Member had said that earlier, it would have made the discussion somewhat simpler. The right hon. Gentleman, when asked by the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) and hon. Members on these benches, refused to commit himself in that way. [HON MEMBERS: "No !"] But he said that he was not prejudiced against women voting, but against youth voting. All that talk about this being a non-party question has been rather ridiculed to-day on both sides of the House, but I do believe honestly that it is a non-party issue. If I were a woman instead of man I should not yet have had the privilege of voting at a Parliamentary Election in this country, and I feel very strongly on that point. I believe that there are many young men on the opposite benches who disagree violently with me in regard to a large number of subjects, and there may be many things in which we have got to disagree and to fight for the views which we hold, but I do not see why this particular matter should be a party issue.

It seems to me that the elder statesmen of both parties are rather inclined almost naturally—almost all middle-aged elder people are: the junior Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) has pointed out very clearly—to be opposed to change. I meet dozens of young women of the age to whom this Bill would give votes every day—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame !"]—I am sorry that hon. Members opposite are so jealous—and also a fair number of the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman and other Gentlemen in similar contituencies, and I can assure you that in the majority of cases the young women whom this Bill would enfranchise have more knowledge of real living things that are happening at present than the majority of Members returned to this House, and it is a most serious suggestion that there should be an arbitrary age of 25 before which men should not be allowed to vote. A few generations ago men of 21 were grown up. They were generals commanding armies of all sorts, and they were Prime Ministers. Youth has something to contribute to the government of this country. The elder states-man, in respect for whom I yield to no one, give to the country great experience. In the majority of cases they come to their conclusions by an intellectual process. With all deference I would say to them, that while youth, generally speaking, does not come to decisions with the same intellectual precision, it is more guided in its decisions by a spirtual apprehenson which is often lacking after 20 or 30 years of public life in this country. The elder statesmen know so much that they have always a reason for doing nothing; whatever is suggested they know so much that they know something which makes it impossible for that thing to be done.

I am trying to be as impartial as possible. I am trying not to offend the Government Front Bench or my own Front Bench. But youth and the youthful electorate are always going to be pushing on. The Prime Minister has said in many of his speeches—I admire very much the way in which he expresses the sentiment—that he desires younger blood in the party opposite. I know that my own leaders on this side are anxious about and interested in the growth of the young organisations of our party. The younger people in both parties want their leaders often to do impossible and absurd things. The leaders do not do them, but if the young were not there pressing they might not do anything at all. I appeal to Members on the other side, and especially the younger Members of the House, quite irrespective of party, not to let themselves support anything which would tend to political stagnation in both parties by depriving young people of the right to express their will. The old people have made a mess of the world. Do not stop the young people from mending it.

The very grave picture drawn by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), when he told us that the day of judgment would come down on us if we did not keep our pledge to the women, and pass this Measure at once, I think was very much overstated. In the little experience I have had of women, I have invariably found that if you play the game with them you run no risk of recrimination. The Noble Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) said she very much regretted that the Home Secretary had butted into the Debate. I totally disagree with her. This is a very far-reaching reform, and it is a great thing that the Government should take a part in it. I think also that the Home Secretary was most statesmanlike in the reasons which he gave, because he proved that he was looking forward, not to the next Election, but to the next generation. In such a matter as this we must really consider all the factors. It is for that reason that I consider the suggested conference is the one thing that we should have, so that we can do away with any anomalies and injustices that exist. A great feature has been made of the public indignation of the women. I have looked to the Ladies' Gallery, and for a long time I saw only five ladies there. The Liberal party, hose case was so ably put by the hon. and gallant Member for Leigh Burghs (Captain Benn), said that the whole Liberal party was anxious that the proposals of this Bill should be carried out. Just before the hon. and gallant Member came in one noticed that the only Member on the Liberal Benches was the hon. Member for Montrose (Major-General Sir R. Hutchison). I do not know whether he is another leader of that party or not, but it rather appeared to me as though the hon. and gallant Member for Leith felt that unless this reform were carried out, there was no possible chance that his party would ever get into power again. The days celebrated in the Gilbert and Sullivan lyric, when children came into the world either Liberals or Conservatives, have gone by. There are no Liberals born nowadays, and no futile methods of this kind can save the remnant of that party from being washed away.

I think when the Socialist party had the opportunity of bringing forward a Measure they should have availed themselves of that opportunity, in order to further one of those measures of social reform to which they pay such lip-service during and between elections. The public will, possibly, wonder why they should have utilised their chance to bring in a Measure like the present one. In a matter such as this, the Government should bring forward a Bill dealing comprehensively with this subject, embodying all the provisions which would have to be considered. I make bold to say there is not a Member in this House who does not believe that the Prime Minister intends to redeem his pledge that women should have equal rights with men. I would ask him, however, to consider the suggestion, that those equal rights should apply at the age of 25 in the case of both men and women. That could be done quite easily; the Bill could be made inoperative for four years, so as to allow those who are 21 at present to reach the age of 25, and I trust the Home Secretary will consider some method of increasing the age limit in this way. [Hoy. MEMBERS: "Why 25?"] Because I think many of our boys at 21 do not realise the great responsibility which attaches to the vote. There are, I agree, those who do realise their responsibility, but the vast majority do not. I heartily support the reasoned Amendment submitted by the Government, who have given a good lead in this matter, and I am sure the people of the country will be grateful to them for doing so.

I desire to support the Bill and, in doing so, I suggest that no legical reason has been placed before the House as to why we should decline to extend the vote to women on the same terms as it is now enjoyed by men. It is extraordinary that, whilst a woman is considered to be fit and eligible to sit in this House and make laws at the age of 21, there are still some people who argue that there is a difference in mental quality as between the sexes. Possibly there is; but it has occurred to me, after listening to one or two speeches from the back benches on the Government side of the House, in which the truth escaped by accident, that it would be an exceedingly good thing for the Government and the Conservative party to consider the advisability of extending the age for Members of Parliament and Parliamentary candidates to 25 or even 30. The Noble Lord the Member for Newark (Marquess of Titchfield) was good enough to tell us that one of the reasons why he was going to vote against the Bill was because he did not consider that women of 21 were intelligent enough to record their votes. He did not think they had the necessary political knowledge, and he said: "Look at us here. We trusted the women electorate at the last Election. Here we are. Look at us." I did look at them, and I came to the conclusion that the average woman of 21 is quite as much entitled to a voice in the affairs of this country, which affect her, as are some of the young gentlemen who have been fortunate in the choice of their parents.

My reasons for supporting this Bill are the same reasons as led myself and most of my colleagues on these benches to support the agitation for woman's suffrage when most of the hon. Members opposite were fighting against it 15 or 20 years ago, and we look at this problem from the point of view of the status of women as citizens. We believe in the sanctity of each individual human personality, and it is because a woman is a human personality that we consider that she is entitled to the vote on the same terms as men enjoy it. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary told us of a pledge that was made by the Prime Minister during the Election campaign. The Prime Minister is represented to us as a very honest man who never betrays a pledge, who never gives a pledge without careful consideration, and who, when he has given it, honours it. Most of us on these benches will accept that interpretation of the Prime Minister's position in relation to this question, but to portray the Prime Minister as a sort of simple Simon will not do when you consider two of the pledges that have already been before this House for discussion, namely, the pledge in relation to the extension of the franchise and the pledge in relation to Protection. It is perfectly true that the policy of the Government is keeping within the terms of that pledge, but it is only fair to say, I think, that the majority of the electors would interpret the meaning of the Prime Minister's pledge to be that he would extend the franchise to women on the same terms as men. That would be the natural interpretation that would be put upon the pledge in the circumstances existing at the time when it was given. Therefore, I trust that the Government will get on with this Bill without any unnecessary delay.

Why not get this Committee together, and get this issue out of the way, in order that these measures of social reform which were promised by the Government to the people, and were responsible for many of the people supporting them, can be proceeded with? Why not get this question, on which all sides are agreed, out of the way, in order that we may get down to the more difficult problems that confront this nation? My view is, that the real reasons for the attitude of the Government with regard to this Bill are, first, the fact, that owing to the luck of the ballot, they do not want the Labour party to have the credit of getting this issue out of the way. The second reason is that there are still a large number in the Conservative party who opposed women's suffrage for years before it was granted, who have opposed every extension of the franchise, who have always said, when any extension of the franchise was proposed, that it was an unwise thing, and that it would lead to the ruin and degradation of the country. What these people inside the Conservative party suggest the raising of the age to 25, it is a fair indication, to me at any rate, that they are not so much concerned about democracy, as they are about maintaining the privileges that the employing and monopolist class enjoys to-day.

I think that is the position, because the Noble Lord the Member for Newark was good enough to tell us, that one of the reasons he was going to vote against the Bill was that the Socialists would be more likely to attract these young women by the promises they held out. That seems to me to be one of the real reasons for this group of back-benchers throughout the Debate signifying an uncompromising hostility to the extension of the franchise to women at the age of 21, and who have raised this issue of increasing the age for both men and women to 25, in order to queer the pitch. Looking at the records of Conservative Governments in the past, looking at what they have done in relation to this problem and other problems, I do not believe the Government are going to deal with this problem honestly and straightforwardly, as the women of the country desire.

I think the last speaker has not given due historical credit to the Tory party, because he ought to know that they were the democratic people who passed the first franchise Measure. I have been a consistent exponent of the right of women to vote, because I think they are likely to vote just as wisely and just as foolishly as the men. I do not think the Act of 1919 should have been passed. It certainly should not have been passed in the form it was passed, fixing a different age for the two sexes. It was particularly foolish, and it never could last. Parliament then had no mandate for any Franchise Bill at all. Both parties had been in the Coalition, had forgotten all about the electorate and, for the time being, had got intoxicated with despotism, and could do what they like. So they passed the Bill without reference to the constituencies at all, and they fixed the age of women at the absurd age of 30. I think 21 is too young for anyone. It is too young for all purposes. It is too young for a man to consent to dispose of property, and otherwise. As the hon. Gentleman opposite said, in clays gone by men matured very early. There were generals at 21.

Privates, too, at 21.

Yes, that is all right. Finally, it may be urged that young mankind does not grow up with anything like the speed that it used to do. The reason for that is that you have a system of education which dulls the faculties of the rising generation, and it takes about 10 years to get over the dismal effects of it. It may be said, for instance, as one hon. Member did say, that women are emotional and sentimental. On that I would only point to the fact of the result of the last election to show that they exercise good sense as well. In all seriousness I think that for all purposes the age should be raised to 25, because, if at 21 a young man gets married, after 12 months has elapsed he will be at least 25—and the woman will be about 30. I should like to see more responsibility on the part of the electors, and young men and young women at 21 normally ought only to be thinking about one thing, and that is about one another. We want a sounder system in these matters. I know that the women electors are a stabilising power in the country. I am perfectly sure that nobody is more interested in the stability of our institutions and in the sanctity of our hearths and homes than are the women voters. At all events, it was the women voters that carried the majority of the Unionist Members to the poll.

They had to be carried!

If they had to be carried, some in the South of England, perhaps, went in a wheel-barrow !

Never in our lives; we always go in a taxi.

I think it would really be a very gracious compliment to do as suggested. I am not at all afraid of the idea that women would be in a majority, or that the sexes would be divided. They are not politically divided. It is absurd to say that women will all vote on one side and men on the other. I do think that for the sake of getting more steady electorate that cares more and thinks more about politics, it would be better to postpone the age of voting for both sexes for a few years. It would be for the benefit of the whole lot of us. It would be something to look forward to. A young person who gets married and gets a home, however small, and settles down, comes under a stabilising influence, and that would have its influence upon the political world. They would have a better stake in the country. I do not think you will have a sound and satisfactory electorate unless you have got some provision of the nature suggested.

I think it is quite unnecessary at this late hour of the day for anyone to intervene on the merits of the Bill. Very, few have ventured to doubt its merits. Even from the hon. Member who has just spoken we have had a tribute to the women electors after the usual inconsistency in opposing their entry on the register.

No.

The fact of the matter is this, that all these prophecies that something in the nature of Bolshevik revolutions would take place when women were allowed to vote, of the unsexing effect of the franchise, of the disruption of the home, and so on, have, in a brief period of two or three years, been shown to be absolutely without foundation. There is nobody here, and there are very few people in this country, who would venture to suggest that the step that was taken when women were enfranchised should be reversed, and that the names of women should disappear from the electoral roll. What this Bill proposes to do is to equalise the franchise.

I will address myself to what the Government has said regarding our proposal. We are told that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has declared in favour of equality. What equality? Equality At 90 years of age—equality at 50—equality at 40—at 30? What? I venture to suggest to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that in putting emphasis on faith in pledges he should try to make the pledges a little bit more definite than the pledge the Prime Minister has given in that respect. The most pathetic figure in the House is my Noble Friend (Viscountess Astor) marooned, as it were, on a small rock of confidence, and surrounded, as she herself said, by a sea of dead-heads.

Oh, no!

It awakens one's lively imagination to think of the Noble Member struggling against the evil designs of the Prime Minister to push her, against her will, into the soup into which she has said he has already pushed his more docile followers. The Government have taken a most unusual line to-day, a line to which, though I do not like to call myself an old Parliamentarian, I object as one who has had some experience of Parliamentary privileges. The practice has always been that Friday was Private Members' Day. Governments have intervened to explain their position regarding Bills, and that was quite right; but beyond that the attitude of the Government and the place of the Government—and I hope to-day's experience is not going to be a precedent—is to keep as far in the background as it possibly can, and allow an unfettered House to use its right to declare whether certain Bills are to get a Second Reading or not in order that they may be discussed in Committee upstairs. The Government itself has put down an Amendment, and the Government's Amendment being put down, loyal supporters of the Government, although like the Noble Lady they are very deluded, will have to exercise an unusual amount of courage and character in order to go into the Lobby against the official Amendment. I say that is not fair on a Friday. What have they done besides this? They have tried to pacify the consciences of their supporters who wish to vote for this principle and be loyal supporters of the Government, and they say to them, "Vote against this Bill, wipe it out, and next year we promise to give you a chance of doing something." Nobody knows better than the occupants of the Front Bench that even with a majority of 200 behind them there is nothing less substantial than next year in the political life of the Government.

Next year we are promised, not a Bill, not a principle, not a declaration of policy, but simply an inquiry, upon what we do not know. How is that inquiry to be composed? We cannot say. Will Mr. Speaker take the chair? As a matter of fact the Government have not consulted him. They say, "There are many things we hope to consider, but as to which of them we shall select we have not yet made up our minds, but there will be an inquiry upon something which may lead to something else." By the luck of the ballot this Bill is before us for a Second Reading Division, and there is now a chance of getting this Bill upstairs in order that its details may be thoroughly discussed. There the relative merits of 21 and 25 can be discussed and voted upon, and yet hon. Members opposite are asked by the Government to show their loyalty by dropping this bone in order to snatch at the shadow contained in the statement of the Home Secretary.

It is no use the Government asking for an agreement on this subject if its own mind is so unformed, and so open, regarding matters which we regard as absolutely essential to a democratic franchise. Let the Government make no mistake about this. I do not know what hon. Members on the Liberal Benches will do, but we shall not yield one single shadow of an inch on a privilege which democracy has gained by years of agitation. So essential is this to the democratic position that it would be a waste of time and a farce for two or three people to go into consultation with a principle like this left open in this way. My hon. Friend behind me, in an unguarded moment, expressed satisfaction at an interruption made by the Home Secretary when he said, "It is all open."

I have never said it is going to be 25.

Has he said it is going to be 21?

No.

Then it may be anything, and thirty is quite as open as both those ages. That is the position the Government take up, and they are asking us to throw away our specific opportunity of getting this House to declare itself in favour of the removal of inequalities which every speaker admits exist in our franchise law. If that is the attitude the Government asks its large majority to take up, then I wish to warn the Prime Minister that his 200 majority will not carry him within many miles of 1928. Moreover, are we to understand that in removing those inequalities in the interests of the women they are going to limit the franchise as now enjoyed by men? Are they going to use the lowering of the age of women from 30 to 25, because that is what it amounts to, in order to raise the age from 21 to 25 so far as the men are concerned? I do not believe that any women's franchise organisation would do anything but condemn the Government for mixing them up in such an unholy transaction.

Therefore, we are not going to accept the suggestion or the advice of the Government in this respect. We want to warn the House, we want to warn hon. Members opposite, that if they think that upon this basis they are going to have a Conference in 1926 and it in the expectation of such a Conference they are going to help this House to lose the opportunity that the ballot has given it now, then they are very much mistaken, and the consequences of their action must rest upon their own shoulders. We shall ask the House to divide upon this Bill. If we carry it, it goes upstairs. That has always been the way. Why this new procedure. The fact is that everything that has been done to-day justifies a very serious suspicion in our minds that the Government are going to wangle the franchise. Therefore, I beg this House to consider very seriously what vote it is going to give. As a private Member, I appeal to my fellow private Members to give this Bill a Second Reading, so that it may be discussed adequately, properly, and fully in Committee upstairs.

I think that one or two remarks that fell from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman opposite deserve a reply. He said that Friday was a private Members' day and that it was very unusual for Governments to intervene. I agree entirely with him. But when private Members try to introduce Government Bills, it becomes the Government's business. I am glad to have this opportunity of reminding the House, because I think the fact escaped the right hon. Gentleman's notice, that every extension of the franchise given in this country has added to the strength of the party to which I belong. When a General Election takes place, the two sides who are competing for the favour of the electorate each put forward a programme. The party that is returned to power becomes the Government, and they have to put their programme into force. But no Government has ever declared either the details of the various items in that programme or the time at which they would bring the details of that programme forward. I remember that no less a person who used to stand at this Box than the Leader of the Liberal party, the Earl of Oxford, whenever he was asked, too soon as he thought, the details of what he was going to do, or what his intentions were, invariably replied in three monosyllables.

Only once.

I have heard it a hundred times. By no rule of precedents can a Government be compelled to state, before it is ready for its legislation, exactly what that legislation is going to contain. It is perfectly open to hon. Members to ask; it is equally open to Governments to decline. When the time comes, when we are ready to put our considered proposals forward in accordance with the pledge that we have made, we shall do that, and in the meantime we cannot accept, on a subject with which the Government is going itself to deal, a private Member's Bill at this period of the Parliamentary life of the Government.

It is a curious feature that, of all the items in political programmes, there is none but this that I can think of that is brought forward again and again by a private Member on a private Member's day. Whether it be the divine conviction that lies in their breasts, or whether it be some hope that they may acquire merit in the eyes of the new voters by the step they are taking, or whether it be that they have been persecuted beyond endurance by societies, I cannot say; but the fact remains that, of all the items which we put forward at the time of the General Election, the only one which is seized upon by private Members to introduce in advance of the Government programme has been this particular measure of reform. For the reasons that have been made so clear to the House by the Home Secretary, and for the one or two reasons which I venture to think I have adduced in the few minutes that have been left to me, I consider that the Government have taken the only attitude they can be, the straightforward and fair attitude at this stage, in moving the Amendment that they have put down, and I hope my party will support it.

There is just enough time to say enough to settle the right hon. and honest Gentleman. Some of us take our minds back to the days of 1914, when you wanted help to win the War, and to make the peace—and the pieces—for the big business people. Then you accepted young men of 18—you even accepted boys of 16—to go and fight for the country that they did not have; and when the boys went, you asked girls to go into the factories to produce the stuff for them to fight with. Now we are told by patriotic people, by people who waived the Union Jack in front of our faces then, that all that we gave in the years 1914 to 1918 is now forgotten. "You are good enough to fight," they say, "but you are not good enough to vote." I want the Prime Minister to remember that, although he may have a majority on those benches, he has a minority of 300,000 in the country. You may defy us in this House, but you will not be able to defy us outside. We are asking for equality. We of the Labour party are not afraid of the competition of women in industry; we want women to have equal rights.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 153; Noes, 220.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

"That this House declines in the early stages of a new Parliament to accord a Second Reading to a Franchise Bill, involving as it would a General Election with the consequent interruption of important legislative and administrative work, and records its opinion that a considered scheme of franchise reform should be brought before this House at a suitable opportunity within the lifetime of the present Parliament."