THE RIGHT OF PEERESSES TO RECEIVE THE WRIT OF SUMMONS
AND TO SIT IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS. (To Tag EDITOR OY THE " SPECTATOR.") SIR, I have carefully read the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act of December 23rd, 1919, 9 and 10 Geo.V. (Vol. 88,L.J. Rep., 1919), and am impressed with the dissenting views of Lord Haldane. The Act was intended to remove the general disqualification which the law had theretofore imposed on the mere ground of sex or marriage. Though a striking departure from the system theretofore prevailing, it is hard to understand how a person is declared not to be " disqualified by sex or marriage from the exercise of any public function, or from being appointed to or holding any civil or judicial office or post, or from entering or assuming or carrying on any civil profession or vocation, or for admission to any incorporated society," and to be subject under the Act to liability for jury service in its provision that " a person shall not be exempted by sex or marriage from liability to serve as a juror," and yet be held to deny to a peeress the benefit of the Act, and subject her to the disqualification by reason of sex for the holding or exercise of one of the highest offices in the realm. I trust it may not be improper to make the foregoing suggestion as an individual, and not as an official, now that the matter has been closed by the Committee for Privileges of the House of Lords, and to say further that I am in nowise related or connected with Lady Rhondda, whose petition for a writ of summons has been rejected.—I am, Sir, &c., WILLIAM H. THOMAS.
Supreme Court of Alabama, Montgomery.
Previous page
