WOMEN IN PARLIAMENT

 The influence which the female vote may exercise upon the result of the forthcoming Federal elections is at present a matter of interesting speculation. The announcement that Miss Vida Goldstein has been asked to seek election to the Senate has, of course, served to intensify the interest, and if, as many of our most eminent lawyers consider, the word "he” in an Act of Parliament must be interpreted to include "she”—or to "embrace 'she,' ” as one has humorously put it—it is more than possible that advanced womanhood may secure a representation of its own sex in the Federal legislative halls. The Prime Minister is judiciously silent upon the meaning which must be attached to the Federal Constitution in this respect; it will require to be determined in due time by the High Court, and as the Constitution Act is an Imperial statute, the Imperial Interpretation Act will need to be consulted and explained by the judiciary before Miss Goldstein's candidature is placed beyond question. The granting of the suffrage to women in Federal affairs is regarded by many as the culminating point in the evolution of womankind, and in some respects it may be so; while, at the same time, and without expressing any decided upon the expediency or legality of the claim to a seat in the legislature, it would be altogether difficult to conjecture what new and unexpected results may possibly follow the descent of women into the arena of fighting politics. Certain it is, at least, that the eyes of the world will be upon this latest Australian experiment in advanced legislation; and there are those of us disposed to think that the female portions of the electorates would be wise to postpone their claim to a female candidate until their general position and power in the Commonwealth are more clearly defined. The double-barrelled experiment of a female vote and a Senate candidate is calculated to stagger the most ardent woman suffragist; so that, if they should decide to "hasten slowly,” and discharge one barrel at a time, their decision would, in the novel conditions which now obtain, be deemed in every way discreet.

 To trace the rise of womankind would well repay the research of the studiously inclined. From ancient times, when the “weaker vessel” was in a position of abject servility, "the soulless toy for tyrant’s play,”'and when her Roman lord and master possessed even the power of life and death over his wife, to the present day, when women, by a gradual process have acquired the powers and responsibilities of free and independent agents, is indeed a far cry. Nor has civilisation anything to reproach itself with in consequence of the change. There are, unfortunately, those who still hold that women are quite unqualified from “mental inferiority,” and from “excessive emotionalism,” as Mr Seddon would have us believe, to take an active part in the administration of public affairs. To be sure, it has happened that some of the most famous rulers of nations, and even warriors, like Boadicea of early Britain, Semiramis, of Assyria; Zenobia of Palmyra, Catherine II. of Russia; Marie Teresa of Austria, Elizabeth and Victoria of England, have been women; but history is seldom regarded by those who dispute woman's right to act as a free agent on the ground that she is mentally inferior to man. Pushed to its logical conclusion such a contention would imply that the most intelligent and intellectual among our women folks are incapable of pronouncing an opinion upon political and social questions, which are assumed to lie within the mental grasp of the most illiterate male member of the community.
Only fifty years ago the position of women, and particularly married women, was one of strict subordination to the rights of men. A married woman, for example, could not hold real property, while her personal property, outside what was known in law as her “paraphenalia,” passed to her husband, and was at his sole disposition. But since then a great wave of emancipation has swept across the civilised world, and, amongst many other abiding changes, it has established them in the absolute enjoyment and control of their property of whatever nature or kind. It has given to them the power of disposing of it either in their lifetime or by testamentary disposition, it has given them freedom of contract in reference to it, and has conferred on them a limited power of voting in respect of it. In this latter respect we may examine the matter a little more closely. It is a fundamental principle of all government that there can be no taxation of property without representation, and that no representation can be complete which does not include the elected of those whose rights and property are to be controlled or interfered with by the civil power. "Men," says Locke, and the term may under modern conditions be held to include women, “being by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of his estate and subjected to the political power without his own consent.” It is easy enough to understand the disabilities which in earlier days attached to women as property holders; all land was held by a feudal tenure, the main incident of which was “military service,” whilst other similar services rendered the possession equally impossible to women. The relations between the Crown and the lord, and between the lord and his vassal had its basis in military service, aids, wardships, escheats, and the like. But in succeeding ages these feudal incidents were commuted by payment of a monetary equipment. The King received contributions from his people, and in course of time he consulted them, or their representatives, concerning the amount of the levy and the means of raising it. These were important steps towards popular government, and when at length the English Revolution in 1688 overturned the exclusive prerogative of the Crown, and established the long reign of constitutional government, the liberties of Englishmen were not only extended, but the right of taxation became indissolubly linked with the right of Parliamentary representation. It matters nothing in principle in whom the property, in respect of which the taxation is levied, is vested ; the possession of property carries the right to representation. These principles have, we know, been recognised and applied in more modern times in the case of women holders of property. They have exercised the franchise in municipal elections for many years with credit to themselves and distinct advantage to the municipalities; and, although they are still excluded from exercising a vote in our State elections, the Federal franchise has been conferred upon them. There are some who hold that the woman will not exercise the franchise; there are others who claim that they are unfit to exercise it; but both classes of objectors may be passed over, until the forthcoming Federal elections have told their tale. To very many women life nowadays is a field of battle, and not a playground; an arena upon which they must struggle incessantly for the bare means of subsistence, a hard material scene of strife and competition, in which the weakest must go to the wall. Their political education has been received in the stern and convincing school of experience. Adam Smith, Mill, Ricardo and Marx are unknown names to them; but they know all about supply and demand, capital and labor, and the economic and social forces which are at work around them. In this view it is more than likely that they will make their influence very specially and speedily felt in the selection of the lawgivers and statesmen responsible for their future welfare. The broadening of woman’s sphere of usefulness and her wider control of the national affairs, may do much to elevate and purify the political life of the community as the years advance, and as people grow accustomed to the change; but it would probably be more discreet to forego for the present their claim to a Parliamentary candidate of their own sex.

Ballarat Star (Vic. : 1865 - 1924), Monday 17 August 1903, page 2