WOMEN AND THE VOTE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXV, Issue 3952, 7 June 1913, Page 4

WOMEN AND THE VOTE.

FOR AND AGAINST.

Not the least interesting feature in the March ‘Pall Mall Magazine’ is a collection of reasons by well-known men why women should have the vote. Mr Bernard Shaw writes:—•

Far from being prepared to do so, I defy you to give me three logical reasons, or even one logical reason, why men should have the vote. A person demanding the vote is not asking for the completion of a syllogism, but claiming a right; and a right is by definition independent by logic and generally defiant of it. It is against all reason that the average Englishman, who is incapable of governing a cowshed properly, should be given a vote which affects the Government of our Empire. But he demands it and gets it because it is a violation of his rights to treat him as a means to any other ends save his own, however idiotic his own may be, or however sagacious those of a dictator or despot. If he alleges that . women are still more imbecile politically, lie alleges an impossibility which is, anyhow, beside the point. Mr Zangwill expresses himself thus: —■

1. Because there' is no logical reason why women should not have it. 2. Because many women want it, some even more than life, and those who don’t want it needn’t exercise it. 3. Because women’s place being the home, she must have a voice in all that affects the home, e.g., divorce laws and food taxes. .As a set-off to the above, the opinions of women who are opposed to

female franchise are given. The Duchess of Montr-ose says: 1. Our Imperial policy grows daily more intricate in character and farreaching in scope. The electorate, as at present constituted, contains many voters incapable of grasping the far-reaching issues presented to them. This ignorant vote would be doubled by the inclusion of women, many of whom are debarred by the limitations of their daily Jives from any practical knowledge of Imperial problems. 2. The larger preponderance of women in the population of this country makes its position on this question of woman suffrage unique, and no analogy can therefore be drawn from experiences in the colonies or elsewhere. The franchise is likely to be lowered in the future, and were women admitted to the electorate, Great Britain would ultimately be governed by women. 3. Once remove the barrier of sex, and there is no logical reason why women should not be members of Parliament, judges, magistrates, etc., —a step which, in my opinion, would be disastrous in its consequences. These are the arguments given by the Countess of Jersey against women suffrage: 1. If women duly fulfil their important duties of the world, it is impossible that they should devote sufficient attention to Imperial politics to justify their assumption of that direct share in the government entailed bv selecting members of Parliament,

■2. A limited franchise for women is outside the range of practical politics; and adult franchise for both sexes would result in from a million to a million and a. half more female than male voters in the United Kingdom. 3. To confer a vote upon women would not be legislation which, if found detrimental, could be subsequently rescinded ; it would be to tamper with the very, body corporate of the State, and it would be a constitutional crime to effect such a revolution without first placing the whole issue before the country, and giving the electors an opportunity of expressing an unbiassed opinion. This has never been done. s$