The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1868-09-19 00:00:00

THE REGISTRATION COURTS.

On Monday the new Reform Act was put upon its
trial in the Courts of Registration. Many curious
developments of electoral feelings were manifested in
London; but, on the whole, the most remarkable
fact elicited was, that those who claimed the
lodger franchise had not, in four cues out of fire,
taken the proper steps to secure it.

The revising barrister for Westminster has decided
that ladies have no right to have their names placed
upon the parliamentary register. Putting aside the
language of a former act of parliament, which declared
that in all future statutes the term " man " should be
construed as referring to both sexes unless the con-
trary was stated, the barrister dealt rather with the
intention of the legislature with respect to the en-
franchisement of women. He recalled the fact that
when Mr. Mill proposed to substitute the word " per-
son " for "man" in the enfranchising clauses of the
Reform Act, the House of Commons rejected the pro-
position by a large majority. Clearly, therefore, par-
liament did not intend women to have votes. 'The
name of one Hannah Bainbridge had been inserted in
the overseers' list of voters for the parish of St. Ann's,
and it was ordered to be expunged. A case for the
decision of a superior court was granted.
On Tuesday the barrister receded from the hard and
fast line with respect to the lodger qualification which
he had laid down on the previous day. He then held
that a lodger paying 4s. est a week, inclusive of rates,
was not entitled to vote, on the ground that the sum
would not represent the £lO "clear yearly valise"
required by the act. He has now decided that 4s. a
week was sufficient as a qualification.

In Lambeth the claim of a lady WAS disposed of by
the revising barrister merely saying that he should
take no notice of it.

The following are samples of the "lodger" claims
heard at this court. Many names were expunged, as
the claims did not conform with the terms required by
the Act.
The Revising Barrister pointed out that it was
necessary to give the landlord's name, occupation, and
residence.
Mr. Flower, who was in attendance, claimed a vote, and
sail that he occupied two rooms in his mother's house : he
paid 17s. a week for the use of the rooms, his breakfast, and
tea. He, however, admitted that there was another bed in
the room, which was occasionally used.
The Revising Barrister said he could not admit the claim,
as the claimant must be sole tenant and separate occupier.
Name expunged.
Mr. Holland appeared to defend his claim. He stated that
he had a famished room in his father's house, for which,
with partial board breakfast and supper. he paid £45 per
amiss,. He had the exclusive right to the room, and if he
chose could refuse admittance to his father. Ue could lock
the door, and take away the key when he liked. Ile had no
receipt for rent, neither was it usual in his opinion to give
or take then, between father and child. Claim allowed.
The Revising Barrister ruled that "E 5 was a sufficient
description for a landlord in the case of Mr. Houldsden,
Peekhani.
John Ward, a compositor, claimed on account of a
furnished bed-room, first floor back, at 6, Wren-road. He
paid ss. 6d. a week, and had occupied the same room for live
years.
The Revising Barrister thought it was sailing rather close
to the wind. His bed had as doubt
and other small attendances given it was, therefore, doubt- !
fol whether this room would fetch £lO a year unfurnished. '
Evidence was required of the value of property in the neigh-
bourhood. The application must stand over Until Thursday
for such evidence.
The householder's claims were next revised. Mr Andrews,
a collector, said that he had called on a man named Lan-
caster, who refusml to give hini his Christian name, saying
that Inc had enough to with taxes, without bothering
about a vote which he did not want. Name expunged.
The name of Katherine tint was objected to, and Mr.
Andrews sail that he had been unable to Mid out this person's
Christian nanie until quite lately, when he fotuid that a
W,Olllllll was the tenant.
The Revising Banister asked Mr. Andrews if he were sure
she was a woman Laughter,. Did she wear petticoats h—Yes.
Name expunged.
On the name being called of Mary Thwaites, who claimed
in respect of her occupation of Nn. 2, Hertforvivead, the
Revising Barrister simply said, "I shall take no notice of that

Mr. I losack, the revising barrister, opened his court
at the Manchester Town-hall.
Mr. Cobbett, solicitor, said he appeared on behalf
of 5.750 women who appeared as claimants, being
rests it householders, to be placed upon the register as
voters. In a speech of nearly two limo's' duration, the
learned counsel contended that there was no personal
incapacity on the part of women to be voters. He was
not able to show that from the time of Henry VI. to
the passing of the Reform Act of 1832 women had
voted for the election of members of parliament, but
he quoted a great number of cases where the question
had been raised as to the office of overseer and sexton,
in which great doubt had been expressed by the judges
in the King's Bench as to whether women were in-
capacitated, and in some of which cases the judges had
reserved their opinions. Leaving that part of the
case, Mr. Cobbett proceeded to argue as to the in-
terpretation of the word " man " in the late Reform
Act. There was the word man used in the Reform
Act. What did it mean? It must have one of two
meanings: it was neitherused in the sense of "a man,"
inthe most common sense acceptation as distinguished
from woman, or in the sense of mankind. If it was
used in the sense of man as distinguished from woman,
surely it imported the masculine gender, and if it
it imported the masculine gender then Lord Hominy's
Act of 1850 distinctly said, that being a term im-
porting the masculine gender, it shall be held to import
the feminine also. Give it the other sense. Let it
mean mankind. If it meant mankind it meant both
man and woman. It meant precisely the same thing
as e cry man and every woman; and therefore every
man and every woman having a certain qualification
might have a vote. He submitted, therefore, that there
was no escape from the conclusion that under the act
of 1867 the franchise was conferred on women.
Mr. Robinson, attorney, on behalf of the Conserva-
tive Registration Society, argued that man meant the
same thing as person in the act of 1832, which had been
interpreted to mean male person.
The Revising Barrister said he would reserve his de-
cision until Tuesday.
There was a numerous attendance at the court, and
amongst the gentlemen, Mr. Jacob Bright, M.P.
A number of ladies were also present, including Miss
Lydia Becker and Mrs. Bochin.

On Tuesday, the Revising Barrister decided against
the admission of women on the register, on the ground
that if the Legislature had intended it the qualifica-
tion would have been unequivocally expressed. The
Acts of Henry VI. said " people," and even under
that wide term women were never admitted. The
Revising Barrister granted a ease for appeaL