WOMEN JUSTICES’ BILL.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 2775, 23 August 1924, Page 3

WOMEN JUSTICES’ BILL.

REJECTED BY UPPER HOUSE. ■ %- Wellington, August 22. . -The Legislative Council to-day rejected the Women Justices Bill by seventeen votes to six. The Hon. T. W. Hislop who was in charge, of the Bill, said that nu-merous-women’s organisations were in favour, of the principle of the Bill. Why, he asked, should there be any refusal to women or the privilege be denied them? The women could be made solicitors and could attain the Chief Justiceship. They could take their places in Science, and Art, and they had done so. In Australia there were women justices and th'ey were taking a part in the movement to deal with the delin quents of society. He .-trusted the Council would not follow altogether its own opinion, but heed public opinion and the opinion of the House of Representatives. The Bill had been favoured by two successive Parliaments, and the Council ought to yield to that opinion. The Hon. W. H. Triggs said he was concerned most with the constitutional position. The Bill had passed the'House of Representatives three times. There had been representations in favour of it and none against it. That fact made out a case that there was a large body of opinion in favour of the Bill. He thought the Bill ought to have been brought in by the Government, if it came in at; all. However, when a Bill was passed three times by the House, it was for the Council to consider seriously whether it was entitled further to stand in the way of the measure, unless the Government could give an assurance that ic would bring in a measure embodying the main objects of the Bill. The Hon. J. C. Campbell mention ed that he had voted against the Bill twice because lie had not considered the measure to be in tlie interests of the community or of the women thejnselves. He still considered this Bill unnecessary, and undesirable. If women justices were appointed they would have few opportunities of functioning on the Magisterial bench. A petition had been presented as from women’s organisations but the Council must regard it as a petition from three women, as that was the total number of signatures attached to . it. Rome of the requests iu the petition were for privileges already avail able to women. He did not. wish to see responsible women subjected to the indignity of listening to some of the objectionable cases that come before the Courts. Last year there were no fewer than 102 indecent, riotous or offensive eases, and 173 eases of the use of obscene language. The Bill was merely a political measure and be would have no hesitation in voting against it.

The Hon. A. S. Malcolm contended* that if the Council threw out the Bill it would tend to make its position farcical. The law s of Britain allowed women to. he the sovereign and to be members of the House of Commons and.in New Zealand it" was open to women to staiid for Parliament, yet the Council threatened to say there was one position it could never allow women to occupy, and that was the position of Justice of the Peace. “If that is not reducing things to an absurdity,” said Mr Malcolm, “1 am no judge.” The Bill was rejected as stated, by 17 votes to 6.