On This Day, 7 February 1918

Birmingham Mail

Thursday 7 February 1918

REFORM ACT IN BEING

Notwithstanding the protest of hon. Members, Mr. Bonar Law was probably not far from the truth when he observed, in the course of yesterday’s debate, that the country did not care twopence about either proportional representation or the alternative vote. There are a good many people, of course, who are strongly in favour of, or as strongly opposed to, one or the other, or even to both. The great bulk of the population, however, has been unable so far to comprehend either system, and, since its ignorance is confessedly shared by the Premier, it is presumably unashamed. In these circumstances, the Government probably accepted the best way out of the impasse created by the stubbornness, or firmness, of the Lords in reversing the decision of the Lower Chamber, by the acceptance of what was none the less a compromise, because one party to the dispute made the greater surrender, while the other took whatever there was of triumph to itself. It was a case of “needs must when the devil drives,” and Mr. Austen Chamberlain will have to console himself with the reflection that whirligig of time will bring its revenge. Although he combated, the view that rejection of the Lords’ amendment would be fatal to the Bill, it would undoubtedly have been seriously imperilled; and, while the country is not exciting itself over proportional representation, it does care a great deal about the fate of the Reform Bill. The member for West Birmingham was perhaps a little prone to take matters too seriously in his criticism of the action of hereditary Chamber. It is no doubt annoying that the House which will alone be affected by proportional representation-the function of the Lords being proportional and not proportional representation-should attempt to dictate as to how the Commons shall be elected; but, after all, it is a mere question of punctilio.

The amendment-which has been accepted under the protest-finally commits nobody to anything. The Boundary Commissioners are to draw up a list of 100 constituencies deemed suitable to be experimented upon. When the scheme is complete it is to be submitted to both Houses for approval. In other words, the proposal is to try proportional representation on the dog. If any constituency objects to being the dog, it will be given an opportunity of barking its objection, and should the House of Commons vote against the scheme, it falls to the ground. After all, it is a good deal to have saved the Bill, even at some sacrifice of amour propre. Its provisions are by no means uniformly acceptable. There is strong objection, both to the principle of woman suffrage and its exceedingly partial application in the present measure. The satisfaction due to a wider enfranchisement, which almost doubles the number of voters on the existing register, is tempered by the reflection that of the eight millions of new voters something like three-quarters will be women over 30 years of age, of whom some five millions are the wives of existing voters. On the other hand, recognition of the splendid service of the young manhood of the nation during this great world crisis is to be made by an extension of the franchise to soldiers of 19 and upwards, while facilities will be given for the register of their votes through the post in the event of an election taking place while they are abroad. That Act also provides that all elections shall take place on the same day. Thus, while it gives more of some things and less of others that many people have long advocated, the Act does without question go a long way to widen democracy…’