Leading Articles in the Reviews. 



565 



WOMAN'S WORK. 



WOMEN IN LOCAL 



GOVERNMENT. 



Too little attention has been paid to the effect 

 of the Reform Bill on the position of women in 

 Local Government, says a writer in the English- 

 woman for November. 



THE EXISTING LAWS. 



In the Manhood Suffrage Bill women are not 

 mentioned at all, except in connection with the 

 municipal franchise, and then only to take away 

 something" which some women now enjoy and to 

 perpetuate in England and Wales certain dis- 

 abilities which do not exist in London, Scotland, 

 and Ireland. Since 1894 qualified married 

 women have been able to vote in district and 

 parish council elections and also for guardians 

 of the poor, but the Acts of both 1888 and 1894 

 disqualified married women from voting for 

 county and town councils. In 1907, however, the 

 Qualification of Women (County and Borough 

 Councils) Act contained provisions that a woman 

 should not be disqualified by marriage from 

 being elected as a town or county councillor. 

 Since electors only are eligible to these councils 

 some revising barristers have held that by neces- 

 sary implication the Act of 1907 enabled qualified 

 married women to have their names included in 

 the burgess roll and in the list of county electors. 

 In Birmingham, in particular, this point of law 

 has been upheld in their favour. There the 

 names of qualified married women are on the 

 register, and Mrs. Hume Pinsent is a member 

 of the City Council. The Reform Bill now 

 determines this point of law against women. 



DECREEING DISABILITIES. 



Thus the Bill which professes to sweep away 

 all anomalies and inequalities of the existing 

 Franchise Law decrees disabilities for married 

 women in England and Wales and makes their 

 status different from that of women in Scotland, 

 Ireland, and London. A memorial on the sub- 

 ject to the Prime Minister submits that there is 

 no good reason why the local government fran- 

 chise in England and Wales should be more 

 restricted than that for women in Scotland, Ire- 

 land, or London, where the disabilities of sex 

 and marriage do not exist, and prays that the 

 Local Government Franchise for Women be 

 placed on a just and uniform basis throughout 

 the country. Should the clause in the Bill pass 

 as it now stands, Mrs. Hume Pinsent would be 

 disqualified from continuing her services on the 

 Birmingham City Council. 



The writer also points out the heavy disabili- 



ties under which women stand for election on 

 local bodies. They are seldom adopted as party 

 candidates, and it is seldom they have funds at 

 command to carry an independent campaign to 

 a successful conclusion. Yet no local body in 

 these days can dispense with the assistance of 

 women members ; their place cannot be taken by 

 any man, however efficient and fair-minded he 

 may be. It is therefore the duty of the locality 

 not only to invite suitable qualified women to 

 stand, but to be ready to support those who are 

 willing to come forward. 



WOMEN AND THE REFORM BILL. 



Writing in the Englishwoman for November, 

 Mr. H. N. Brailsford claims to have found a 

 precedent for the attitude of the Cabinet to the 

 Enfranchisement of Women in the religious con- 

 troversy over the emancipation of the Noncon- 

 formists and the Catholics in 1828 and 1829. 



PARALLEL CASES. 



Early in 1828, when the Tories, under Wel- 

 lington and Peel, were in office, Lord John 

 Russell introduced a motion in favour of legisla- 

 tion to repeal the Test and Corporation Acts. 

 The Ministry was divided on the question, but 

 refrained from making the motion a party issue. 

 Peel, who was leader of the House, spoke 

 strongly against it, but it was nevertheless 

 carried by a majority of forty. The Govern- 

 ment bowed to the will of the House, facilities 

 were given for a private Members Bill, and the 

 Bill became law. In the same session another 

 resolution in favour of the removal of Catholic 

 disabilities was moved from the Opposition 

 benches by Sir Francis Burdett and carried by a 

 small majority on a non-party vote. Again the 

 Ministry was divided, but Peel and Wellington 

 were satisfied once more that it was their duty to 

 bow to the will of the Commons. This time, 

 however, they introduced a Bill of their own in 

 the following year. The two cases have fre- 

 quently been quoted as parallels to the present 

 situation. 



WITH DIFFERENCES. 



The question is. Will Mr. Asquith act as did 

 his predecessors. Peel and Wellington? Mr. 

 Brailsford would have liked to see a resolution 

 or a series of resolutions calling for the 

 enfranchisement of women moved before the 

 introduction of the Reform Bill, on the under- 

 standing that the Government would itself pro- 

 pose and defend their enfranchisement in its 

 own Bill, should the resolutions have been 

 carried. That is surely an important difference 



