WOMEN AND THE VOTE

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 8, 4 October 1918, Page 2

WOMEN AND THE VOTE

ANOMALIES IN BRITAIN - THE RIGHT TO SIT IN PARLIAMENT / "" London, July 23. An interesting contrast in regard to the operation of an old law and a new one, as they affect women, lias come to light. At the Central Criminal Court in London a man who was charged with "publishing a defamatory libel" concerning his wife, was acquitted by tho. jury on the direction of the Judge, who railed that under tho old common law of England a man and his wi'fo are one, and that, as a man cannot libel himself, ho cannot libel his wife.' Counsol for the prosecution contended tliat the foundation for « prosecution for criminal libel is the liability of the libel to causo a breach of the peace, and that a breach of tho peace is extremely likely where a mini libels bis wife. ■ But tho, Judge refused to depart from the ruling ho had laid down. In contrast to tin's unjust treatment of a wife under the common law of England, take the favoured treatment of a wife under the operation of the Representation of the People Act, which was passed by tho British Parliament this year. It is truo that Parliament did not intend to give women favoured treatment under this Act, but it has been found that there are anofnalies. in the working of the Act, which favour women. The Act introduces a number of reforms in the British electoral system, and gives tho Parliamentary "franchise . to over six million women.The franchise is given to a woman if she is over thirty ''.years of agp, and if -she is the wife of a man registered, as n local government elector, in respective of the occupation of land or premises ,in a constituency. For various reasons a man. whose namo is. on the local government 'register as a voter may bo struck off the Parliamentary register. He may bo disqualified because the land or premises lie occupies, aro not df sufficient value to entitle him to be on'the local government register, or because lie does not occupy tho land or premises for residential purposes, or fqr his business profession or trade. Such disqualification would prevent him exercising the Parlamentarv fvanchiso for a particular constituency,, but it would not immediately remove him from the local government' 'register, and as long as his naino appears on that register his wife, ifi entitled to the Parliamentary franchise. .It might thus happen that a man, would be. prevented ifrom voting at an election in his constituency, but his wife, who derives her qualifications through him, would have the right to vote.

Tlio same interesting anomalous position exists ip the peerage. "Under an ancient law peers are prevented from voting in any constituency-for the election of a member of the House of Commons. But under the Representation of tho People Act, 1918, which gave women the vote, the wife of a peer has the right to voto at an election for a member of the House of Commons, provided she is over 30 years of

age. ' ' J _ . . Has .this new Act, which has given women'the vOte also given her tho right to sit in the House of Commons as tlio representative of a constituency? Opinions differ on the point, but at the .present time no one can say for certain. Tho election ( of a woman candidate at the next general election, which is to be held at the close of the present year, is within the. bounds of possibility, for it appears that there is nothing to prevent a returning officer accepting the nomination of a woman candidate. At. tho ,-rodent by-election- for Keighly hi vision',-Miss Nina Boyle, who took a prominent part in the suffragette campaign before the'war, was nominated as- a voandidoto.- Unfortunately her nomination paper..included among its signatories n man who was.not on the electoral roll for-tho constituency, ond for this reason the returning officer rejected the nomination. But he stated that but-for this, informality he would have had no hesitation in accepting the nomination, as he knew of no taw which prevented women being nominated as Parliamentary candidates. Though a woman might be duly elected'to the House of Commons, it does not follow that sho would be allowed to take her. seat in that Chamber. It is generally believed that sho would be prevented from doing so on the grounds that there is no precedent for her preseneo there. If the matter wont to the Courts judgment would probably be given against her under the common law ol" England. Because woman have never been allowed to sit in Parliament com moil law would seem to impose r.n 'them tho' disability of doing so. But in order that thciposition may be quite clear before the general election the Government has asked tho Crown Law officers to inquire into the matter. IF they report that women are -not eligible as mombers of tho House of .Commons there will he a demand for the introduction of a Bill empowering women to become members of Parliament.

It is probable that the right of women to sit in the House of Lords will bo tested at au'early date. According to political gossip, Lady Rhondda, daughter of the late Lord Ilhondda, the Food Controller, intends to put forward her claim to sit in the Houso of Lords. She is a woman of conspicuous business ability, which she inherits from h?r 'father, who was one of the ablest and most successful business men in England, When he accepted office in Mr. Lloyd George's Government lie resigned from the directorates of numerous companies, in whirl? he bold large numbers of shares, and his (laughter, who was then Lady Maekworth. was appointed to the vacancies on the directorates. Although she took no part in'-the suffragette agitation, she is a staunch believer in the equality of the sexes, 'lly "special remainder," her father's title passed to Iter at his death, and therefore she is p. in her own right, which is quite a different thing ifrom being the wife of a peer. If she desires to assert; her'right to sit'in the House of Lords, her first step will be to prove formally, to ! the satisfaction of the. Lord Chancellor, hot' succession to the title, and then apply-to the Crown office/for a writ iff summons to Parliament. If this is refused, the matter will bn referral _ jiiitoniafieally to llie committee for privileges.

If the enni> , uttec. decides in favour ef liiitly Rlmnd*i. tlio derision will a (Feet 'rbont a dozen ladies, who arc peeresses ))i their own ritflit. Included anions them arc Coniitoss Roberts .((laughter of tlie Inte Fiokl-llnrshal Karl Roberts), Viscountess .Wolscley, Lady Stratheona, Lady. Amherst, Lady Deannioiit, Lady Tierltelcy, Lady ISerners, Lady liurton, Lady Clifton, Lady do Ros, Lady Knniivnl, and Lady AVciitworth.

Miss Mnltnnprp, nf Mis.-; van Uraliel'n, Sydney, arrived lust m:ok to hiko i.-liiirsc of Ihi! liuinvoi'k '(leiiiirhnonl j>l Mil. Ro'.lestonV, 2"ifi T.ambloi! Quay.' Viisl uiiprovcmenLs have heen made in tliis branch, and as Mrs. Kullcstoii i.-> one (if iflm largest importers of Knplish hair Indira itru assured every salisfacliun.--Advt.