THE FIRST LADY CANDIDATE FOR PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 704, 28 August 1885, Page 7

THE FIRST LADY CANDIDATE FOR PARLIAMENT.

It is not quite so certain as the Camberwell Radicals appear to be taking for granted (says the Law Times), that there is no law to prevent a lady sitting and voting in Parliament. Historically, the right which Mis* Helen Taylor proposes to vindicate is ab ■ solutely without foundation. Whatever obscurity may surround the origin of onr representative institution, it is perfectly certain that the law will admit no other origin for the right of the Commons to ait at Westminster than the writs of the early Plantagenet Kings commanding thesheriff* to return a certain number of knights from each county and of burgesses from each town. There is no difficulty in fixing the first constitution of a representation of the Commons in this form at some date between>the years 1265 and 1295, and from that date to this therepressntat TcS of the people ha veremained “knights” and “burgesses.” They are still so styled in Royal proclamations proroguing and reassembling Parliament, and, to the best of our belief, they were so styled in writs for th«f election of new members down to 1872. It is quite certain that no woman could have been lawfully returned in 1295-to a writsummoning “duos milites,” “duos cives,” and “duo* burgensesand it appears scarcely less certain that, when the writs ran in English, the words “ knights, citizens, and burgesses” were equally limited to what is styled by grammar, but not by courtesy, the more worthy gender. By the statute 35 & 36 Viet. c. 33, a form of writ was provided in. which the returning officer is bidden to causeelection to be made “ according to law” of. a member or members ; but it can hardly be argued that the mere introduction of this ’ ambiguou3 word would confer the requisite qualification upon women, if it be held that they were previously disqualified. We are-. inclined to think that, when thi3 interesting constitutional question is threshed out,, the conclusion will be that by the original - ,con-, stitution of Parliament men only were qualified to sit ; that this rule has been confirmed by the unvaried practice of six centuries ; and that it can only be modified by express enactment. Miss Taylor appears to rely on the fact that no legal authority can be cited against her, and to this ex*, tent she is right ; for direct legal authority there is none. But neither is. there any direct legal authority to the effect that, women cannot be jurors, or that they cannot be drawn for the militia. The famous case of Ohorlton v. Lings (17 : L. T. RepN.S. 634), however, in which it was held that a women could not vote, is a very strong indirect authority against Miss Taylor’s legal position. “Take the case, a peeress in her own right,” says Mr Justice Willes in delivering judgment; “can she appear and take her seat in the House of 1 Lords ? No ; it is unquestionable that she can neither sit herself nor vote by proxy. The absence of such a right is referable to the fact that in. this country in modern times, chiefly out of. respect for women and a sense of decorum* and not from their want of i»-

tellect or their being for any other reason unfit to take part in the government of the country, they have been excused from taking any share in this department of public affairs.” There appears, however, to be no doubt that the legal question is to be fought, and that another solemn judicial decision ■will be necessary in order, as was said by Mr. Justice Byles in Chorlton v. Lings, “ for ever to exorcise and lay this ghost ofa doubt ■which ought never to have arisen.” The Law Journal says on this subject: “We fear that Miss Helen Taylor’s gallant resolve to represent North Camberwell in Parliament will lead to no practical result except trouble to herself and her friends. It is true that there is no statutory prohibition against women as members of Parliament, but an unbroken immemorial usage in reference to more than half of Her Majesty’s subjects is quite as strong as a statute. Selden says that among the ancient Britons women ‘had prerogative in deliberative sessions, 1 but whatever may have been the law in the days of Boadicea, or in regard to the Witenagemot, women are disqualified from sitting in the House of Commons. A woman returned to Parliament will not even have the melancholy satisfaction of Air. Bradlaugh, of being a member without a seat, if she should obtain a majority in the ballot, because those who vote for her will vote for a notoriously disqualified person ; their votes will be thrown away, and the candidate next in numbers will, on petition, obtain the seat. On the other hand, there is nothing to prevent a woman from going to the poll. The returning officer cannot safely interfere,, and if a woman should head the poll a petition claiming the seat would in ordinary course be presented. It is usual for a member petitioned against to take his seat meanwhile, but if that member is disqualified the House of Commons itself may interfere to prevent the seat being taken.”