WOMEN JUSTICES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19257, 22 August 1924, Page 7

WOMEN JUSTICES.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL DISCUSSION. THE BILL KEJECTED. (Feom Ods Own Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, August 21. The Legislative Council to-day rejected the Women Justices Bill by 17 votes to ti. The Hon. T. W. Hislop. who was in charge of the Bill, said that numerous women’s organisations were in favour of the principle of the Bill. Why, he added, should there ho any refusal to women of privileges granted to men? Why should this privilege be denied them? Women could be made solictors and could attain the Chief Justiceship. They could take, their place in science and art, and they hod done so in Australia. There were* women justices, and they were taking a part in movements to deal with the delinquents of society. He trusted the Council would not follow altogether its own Opinion, but that it would heed public opinion and tae 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 Kopresentativos three times. There had been representations in favour of it, and none against it. 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 a farce to consider seriously whether the Council was entitled further to stand in the way of the measure unless the Government gave an assurance that it would bring in a measure embodying the main features of the Bill.

The Hon. J. P. Campbell mentioned that he had voted against the Bill twice because he had not considered the measure to be in the Interests of the community and the women He still considered that (he Bill was unnecessary and undesirable, and 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 o» signatures attached to the petition, and some of the requests in the petition were for privileges already available to women. He did not wish to see respectable women subjected to the indignity of listening to some of the objectionable cases that came before the courts. Last year there were no fewer than 302 indecent, riotous, or offensive cases, and 173 cases of the use of obscene language. The Bill was merely a political measure, and he 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 laws of Great Britain allowed women to be sovereign and to be members of the House of Commons, and in New Zealand it was open to women to stand fior Parliament. Tet the Council threatened to say there was one position it could never allow women to occupy, and that was the position of Justice of' peace. “If that is not reducing things to an absurdity,’ ’said Mr Malcolm, “I am no judge.” The Bill was rejected by 17 votes to 6 votes. The division list is as follows: —

FOR THIS BILL; Hall-Jones Malcolm His Kip Samuel Izard Triggs. AGAINST THE BILL: Beli Mitchelson Barr Moore Campbell Patuki Earnshnw Rikihana Garland Reed Lang Scott Macgregor Snodgrass Mamlcr Stewart. Michell Pairs: For —Collins. Against—Sinclair.