1900 Queensland Electoral Roll Qualification Query

[Aussie1947]

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
 

[majm]

Hi there,

I have not found the exact answer, but here's some info from that era 


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

[Aussie1947]

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
 

[majm]

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

[Aussie1947]

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

 

[majm]

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

[Aussie1947]

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

[majm]

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

[majm]

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