HEARD IN PARLIAMENT.

White Ribbon, Volume 21, Issue 244, 18 October 1915, Page 5

HEARD IN PARLIAMENT.

When our legislators sit in council assembled to discuss the weighty affairs of the nation, it is permitted to the gentler sex to sit and listen to the words of wisdom which fall from their lips. And truly “The House” viewed from the ladies’ gallery presents a marvellous sight at times. One favour is granted to lady visitors. They are allowed in for prayers, while gentlemen are not allowed in till prayers are over. One’s first thought is why do members “air so much eloquence when apparently nobody is listening to them.” Members wander to and fro, and hold confer-

ences with their friends, not always “sotto voce.” When these asides become* so pronounced that one cannot hear the member who is supposed to have the floor, then the voice of Mr Speaker is heard, “Too much conversation," and for a time the buzz ceases. A young collegian remarked, after his first visit to the gallery, “They behave worse than a lot of schoolboys when the master is out of the room.” One thing always strikes a woman in listening to their debates, and that is how differently an assembly of men view many questions from what women do. As a case in point, during a discussion on the registration of illegitimate children, the suggestion was made that it be compulsory to register the name of the father as well as that of the mother. At once several members protested vigorously, pointing to the fact that in many of the cases alluded to the father was a married man, and what a wicked thing it would be to place his name on a register, where his wife could find out the fact. Now, how differently a woman would have viewed this question. She would see that in the case of a married man and a young girl the greater fault was the man’s, and there would be no justice in compelling her name to be placed upon the register and not his. Then the injury done to the wife was quite overlooked. She is to be treated like a child, kept in ignorance of her husband’s crime, both against her and against another woman, in order “that the home might not be broken up.” We wonder were these members practising the golden rule? Would they, as husband's, like* to be* treated as they were pleading for these wives to be treated? Would they like to be kept in the dark by legal enactment in order that they might continue to live with an immoral wife? A wife has a right to know the character of her husband, and the right of choice should be hers as to whether she forgives him or separates from him. Moreover, would not the knowledge that his name would be registered cause such men to take a more serious view of a crime like this, and so act as a deterrent? Is it not time that women were heard in Parliament, and their views placed before members, instead of having only one side of the question stated ?