RootsChat.Com
Research in Other Countries => Australia => Topic started by: Aussie1947 on Monday 24 October 11 00:54 BST (UK)
-
Hi,
It looks like that the qualification for entry on the 1900 Queensland State Electoral Roll was by residence, freehold, leasehold or householder but I'm keen to know if one had to be a British Subject.
I have a person whom qualified to be on the 1900 roll by residence in September 1895 but his Queensland Marriage Certificate from 1894 states that he was born in New York so he would not have been a British Subject.
Regards
Gerry
-
Hi there,
I have not found the exact answer, but here's some info from that era ;D
From “Bundaberg in Print 110 years of News” a 2009 tabloid publication published by Bundaberg Newspaper Company, 22-23 Targo Street, Bundaberg, Qld 4670. Each year (1900-2009) is summarised across two pages, and obviously the editor has needed to select some cuttings to include (and thus exclude most) in the 2009 publication. I think it was around $10 to purchase, and may have gone to two or more print runs.
1900
"Residents vote
A poll of residents is held to decide whether to keep parkland on the Esplanade as a reserve or allow half of it to be used for the construction of Customs House. The majority of voters, 232, opted for site at Barolin Street rather than the Targo Street site preferred by the Municipal Council and 155 voters"
1905
“Women on roll
Women’s names are being added to the Queensland electoral roll which closes at the end of July”
1907
“Women join voting
About 85% of eligible voters turned out for the May 18 state election – the first at which women were eligible to vote. George barber led by 62 votes at the close of counting in Bundaberg. John White by 429 in Musgrave and Colin Rankin by 310 in Burrum”
1907
“Population Rises
More than 15,940 residents in the Wide Bay and Burnett are listed on the state electoral roll, a 25.7% increase on the 1906 roll total of 11,853 in Bundaberg, Burnett, Burrum, Musgrave and Wide Bay”
I note the 1900 and 1907 references to “residents” but I cannot say with any confidence if that is significant (residents v British Subjects).
PS, the publication is not focused on electoral roll matters, it has lots of cuttings for family history buffs
Cheers, JM
-
Thanks JM for this information relating to 'residents'.
I see for the 1900 Queensland Electoral Roll.
A qualification was required to be on the roll by way of "residence, freehold, leasehold or householder".
The 1900 Qld State Roll included the date the Electoral Registrar received the the qualification claim by the enrolled person and how they qualified (freehold, leasehold or householder and the roll).
In my GGF case.
Particulars of Qualification: residence.
Date when claim received by Electoral Registrar: 16th September 1895.
From his marriage certificate he was born in New York and to the best of my knowledge not Naturalized in Queensland.
Gerry
-
So it could be that in 1900 in Qld so long as you were a Male with an established address of your own (not a boarder or lodger nor a child etc) then you could apply to be enrolled regardless of which 'power' you owed allegience to (British Empire, the Kaiser, the US Republic etc).
Likely that each state had their own variations along similar theme.
I know that NSW ER from that era contain names of people with addresses "residence Aborignal Camp" what about the people then living in Qld who had been black birded?
I wonder if more than one Male per house/residence could enrol?
I presume all also needed to be 21 yrs or more
Cheers JM
-
JM,
Looking at the 1900 Qld Roll again I can see that persons were qualifying for being resident at a hotel
The Roll is made up across the page as follows
No.
Surname & Christian Names.
Qualification.
Situation of Residence or Property in respect of which Qualification arises.
Age
Place of Abode
Occupation
Particulars of Qualification
Date when claim received by Electoral Registrar.
It could read.
123
Smith, Gerald Edward
Residence
Park Hotel, Mosman Street.
45
Marion St opposite Metropolitan Hotel.
Salesman.
Residence
2nd Nov 1898.
So Gerald Edward Smith, a salesman, residing at the Park Hotel in Mosman St qualified to be on the electoral roll by way of residence on 2nd Nov 1898 when he was 45.
One could qualify by freehold, residence, leasehold or household.
I'll have a look at more than one male per household qualifying or not.
Gerry
-
Gerry,
Resident of Hotel ... I forgot my own Qld forebears, drovers of course, resident at various hotels at different times on the Qld ERs until returning to NSW in time to appear on the NSW ER of 1913.
::) Senior moments !
Cheers, JM
-
JM,
I found a note that I must have written out some time ago re the 1895 Queensland State Electoral Roll relating to the entitlement to vote.
Must be male, 21 years or over, occupy a house, shop or warehouse who earned 25 pound per year or hold a miners licence for 6 months.
Persons in some occupations, including the police, military and naval services were ineligible to vote.
Persons who owned property in several different electoral divisions were entitled to vote in each.
Regards
Gerry
-
Hi Gerry,
I am attaching a pdf file which a kind NON RChatter has sent to me. It does not answer all our questions, but I am sure it will help point to where to look and what to look for.
I am quite sure that municipal elections in NSW permitted ratepayers with holdings in more than one local government area to vote in more than just the one that they resided in, perhaps this was not abolished until into the late 1960s or early 1970s. But I still cannot find where the constitutions expressly allowed non British Subjects to enrol. I feel sure though that question will sort itself out soon. I think the clue could well be in that "miners licence" qualification.
Cheers, JM
http://www.aec.gov.au/voting/indigenous_vote/aborigin.htm
http://www.aec.gov.au/elections/australian_electoral_history/reform.htm
http://www.curriculum.edu.au/cce/default.asp?id=10033
http://www.sag.org.au/helping-you/research-guides/97.html?task=view
http://explore.moadoph.gov.au/subjects/165-the-right-to-vote/list
-
A slight advance!
NAA have digitised nine page document from Jan 1904, "Opinion of Attorney-General re Naturalization Act." (of 1903)... If a person born in USA of British parents who married in America .... "If either his father or his paternal grandfather was a British subject born within the British Dominions, he is deemed to be a natural born British subject by Statute - whatever the place of his birth or the marriage of his parents.... If neither his father nor his paternal grandfather was born within the British dominions, he is not a British Subject"...
I thank a rellie who today gave me the 'heads up' about that decision. They also mentioned that Australian Citizenship Act (1948) and the rest of the Dominions, all used same principles, as ... ie paternal father, paternal grandfather etc, and stressed it was at that time also important that the parents were married prior to birth of the child (legitimacy etc). I knew about the 1948 rules, but not the 1904 decision.
Cheers, JM
-
Thanks JM, this is a very significant find and while my GGF was born in NY it is highly likely that his father or Grandfather was born in England, I have yet to determine this though.
A major advance, thanks again for this information.
Regards
Gerry
-
Hi Gerry,
Just a follow up .... I think the following paragraph establishes that the electors needed to be British Subjects, either natural born or by naturalisation. I do not yet know HOW the administration confirmed if the person seeking to enrol was actually a British Subject.
The following is actually one paragraph is from page 18 (of 502) of A Statistical Account of the Seven Colonies of Australasia 1895-96
T A Coughlan. (he was the NSW Statistician)
I have broken it up into several paragraphs, and put some highlights in there too.
“Queensland, which formed part of New South Wales until the end of the year 1859, was never under the nominee system as a separate colony, but commenced with Responsible Government, under which its first Parliament was opened on the 29th May 1860.
Its Legislative Council consists of members nominated by the Governor. There are thirty-eight at present, but no limit is fixed to the number. The tenure is for life. The qualification for members is that they must be 21 years of age, and natural-born or naturalised subjects. They receive no remuneration.
The Legislative Assembly, of which there are seventy-two members, is elected by the people. Electors are enrolled under what is practically manhood suffrage, the only condition being six months’ residence. Persons who possess freehold property of an annual value of £10, or who hold property on lease at an annual rent of £10, or a pastoral lease or licence from the Crown, are entitled to vote in every district within which such property may be. Any person on the electoral roll is qualified to be a member of the Assembly.
The duration of Parliament is limited to three years, and members of the Assembly receive £150 a year, with a free railway pass, and travelling expenses in the case of those members who are not in receipt of official salary. There have been eleven Parliaments, the average duration of which has been three years and three months.”
Sent to the NSW Government Printers during Sept 1896.
It and many other of Timothy A Coughlan’s books are free for downloading as pdf files at the Australian Bureau of Statistics website here:
http://www.rootschat.com/links/0k5k/
Cheers, JM
-
Hi JM,
Nice find, you have definately answered the question about my GGF being from the USA but being eligable to be on the Queensland State Electoral Roll in 1895. He did own property and had been a resident for more than 6 months.
It appears that having a miners right might have been a qualification as well being a licence from the Crown.
I guess once he was on the pre federation electoral rolls he just continued to be on the Commonwealth Rolls.
Gerry
-
Hi Gerry,
Well, last evening our friends at our dinner table returned a book borrowed some time ago. We share various family history reference books. I can now confirm various significant dates and criteria re eligible to enrol to vote matters !
Source “A Guide to New South Wales State Archives relating to Responsible Government” published November 2005 by The State Records Authority of New South Wales, ISBN 0-9757845-0-1
Dec 1859 Qld formally separated from NSW. So, prior to that the NSW conditions would be significant, and would have carried over into Qld until (or if) Qld altered these.
The (NSW) Electoral Act of 1858 "established manhood suffrage alongside property voting. All adult males who had lived in an electorate at least six months before making of the Electoral List and were either ‘natural born’ or had been naturalised and had lived in the colony for three years were qualified to vote. The property qualifications were retained and allowed an adult male to vote in every electorate where he had the necessary property. Holders of miners’ rights were allowed to vote in the three Gold Fields electorates and electoral qualifications were specified for the election of a member to be returned by the University of Sydney when the number of graduates reached 100. However, no elector could hold a right to vote more than once at any election in an electoral district. Members of the Police and serving members of the naval or military service were barred from voting as well as paupers, prisoners and persons of unsound mind......” (This is part of two paragraphs from page 94 of the above cited book).
Clear as mud perhaps ! But the over-riding criteria was that the electors were British Subjects, either by being born such or by formally becoming such !
Cheers, JM
-
Hi JM,
Thanks for the update, this changes things a bit for my GGF.
If Qld continued on the NSW requirements there were two facets to being able to vote.
Firstly, the qualification to get on an electoral list. by way of 'natuaral born' or 'natuarlised', lived in the colony for 3 years and in the electorate for 6 months.
Secondly, the qualification to get on a specific electoral roll or rolls by way of having roperty or miners right qualification.
My GGF was on the 1900 Qld ER (qualified in 1895) and his marriage certificate says he was from the USA but his death certificate says South Africa. I cant find any naturalisation papers in the QLD Archives so if he was from the USA he shouldn't have qualified assuming Qld followed the NSW requirements.
Maybe the USA birth was made up and he really came from South Africa or England via South Africa.
This adds to the mystery which I hope to solve one day.
Gerry