WOMEN'S NATIONALITY.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 26, 1 February 1932, Page 10

WOMEN'S NATIONALITY.

HARDSHIP CAUSED. The subject of the subordinate position of women and the fact that they have to take the nationality of their husbands was fully discussed at the conferencc of the New Zealand Federation of University Women held in Christcliurch. Dr. Jessie Scott presided, and introduced Mrs. T. E. Taylor to tlio delegates, saying that the question had been seriously taken up by the federation since 1928.

"We often hear people asking what is in this ,question of the nationality of women," said Mrs. Taylor. "That is merely a reflection of the general attitude of men and women who have not come into contact with the question. When they have seen what tremendous disadvantages are forced upon women, they will realise the all-import' anee of the matter.

"The rule by which a woman follows the nationality of her husband is of comparatively recent origin, dating from the French Civil Code, which was formulated after the Revolution. It was not until 1844 that a foreign woman who married an Englishman became English, and further developments in all countries have manifested themselves since. Right back to Plantagcnet times there was no imposition of nationality on married women, and the practice of not allowing women to choose their own nationality is a modern phenomenon."

Mrs. Taylor enumerated several specific cases of hardship. An intolerable position, she said, was forced on an English woman who married an American in the United States. She had lost her English nationality, and could not attain American citizenship for 12 months, so that she was Stateless. She had enjoyed no rights whatever at Home or abroad for a considerable period.

International organisations of women had not ceased to work for the equitable I codification of the laws of nationalityMarried women should be able to choose their nationality —this choice was the crux of the whole matter. The question had been raised twice at Imperial Conferences, and twice New Zealand Prime Ministers had been approached and asked to support the women s demands. The Imperial Conference had refused to deal with the matter, and had handed it back to the British Parliament. Since 1922 tlio same bill had been discussed in the House of Commons, but it had never succeeded in passing the sccond reading. International questions had always cropped up, and prevented the passage of the bill. Responsibility nad been thrown back on the Dominions and, although Canada, Australia, and South Africa had shown themselves favourable to the proposition, nothing had evef come of it.