The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1868-11-14 00:00:00

THE FEMALE SUFFRAGE.

On Saturday the Court of Common Pleas commenced
the hearing of appeals from the decisions of revising
barristers, which both in numbers and importance are
the heaviest that have been lodged for many years.
The first case taken was that which bears upon the
right of women to vote at parliamentary elections, and
was brought from Manchester. The revising barrister
had expunged the names of 5,346 female claimants
from the list, and Mr. Coleridge, the leading
counsel for the appellant, now contended that women
had a right to the franchise, which they exercised in
ancient times, and which modem legislation had not
taken from them. In support of his argument the
learned gentleman quoted a number of ancient
statutes, commencing with one passed in the seventh
year of the reign of Henry IV., maintaining that
whatever, in those olden times, justified men in taking
part in elections, also justified women in doing so. No
doubt they had not exercised their right for centuries
but that non-exercise had not worked a disfranchise-
ment. Mr. Coleridge likewise pointed out that in
Lord Romily's Act it was enacted that in future
statutes the male gender should include the female,
unless the contrary was expressly provided, and that
in the new Reform Act there was no such express pro-
vision.

On Monday the Lord Chief Justice and the other
judges delivered separate judgments, but they all
agreed that there was not sufficient authority for Bay-
ing that by the common law women had had a right
to vote for members of Parliament; 'whilst, on the
other hand, there was the uninterrupted practice of
centuries to show that women had not voted. There
was no reported case in favour of the vote, except
that in a note to Olive v. Ingram there was re-
ference to a manuscript report of a case to show that
women could vote. This note, however, was
only to be found in 7 "Modern Reports," whilst there
was no reference to any such case in Strange ; and
Lord Coke gave his express opinion the other way. In
his (the Chief Justice's) opinion the Reform Act of
1867 in saying that men should vote, although con-
sidered in conjunction with Sir John Romilly's Act,
did not entitle women to vote. The term men in the
Reform Act did not include women; and even if it
did, then women would conic within the term
"incapacitated," For these reasons he thought that
the decision of the revising barrister refusing the vote
should be affirmed, but he also thought that it was a
case in which no costs should be allowed.
Mr. Justice Wines was of the same opinion. His
Lordship, in an elaborate and very learned judgment,
was of opinion that Lord Romilly's Act was wholly in-
applicable, it being plainly the intention of the
Legislature that men only should vote, which tl e
general words of Lord Romilly's Act could not over-
ride, according to the well-understood rules of con-
struction; and further, the Act of 1867 said in se
many words that a person under a legal incapacity
should not have a vote under that Act, and women
were under a legal incapacity to vote. He protested,
however, against its being supposed that he underrated
the capacity of women in point of intellect, or of
capacity t..) work. What he meant was legal in-
capacity. As civilisation increased, and with it the
estimation of the honour and decency of the fair sex, it
had been considered better that they should be re-
moved from scenes of strife and conflict, and more
consistent with decorum and respect to the sex that
they should no longer take part in such proceedings;
though in early Druidical times, and perhaps in Saxon
times, instances might be found of their having done
so. His Lordship referred to many authorities in
support of this view. With regard to the instances
referred to of ladies having signed indentures of
returns of members, he knew that it was not unusual,
from his personal knowledge, to ask persons of note
who happened to be present at an election when the
indentures was signed to sign their names, although,
in fact, they were not electors. He referred to
peeresses in their own right, who yet could not repre-
sent themselves by sitting in the House of Lords.
They could neither vote in person nor by proxy, which
was a stronger case than that of women voting for a
representati' e. He therefore came to the conclusion
that this appeal ought not to prevail.
Mr. Justice Byles was of the same opinion. The
word " man " in the statute was to be construed in its
ordinary and popular sense in contradistinction to
women and children. All doubtas to this was removed
by reference to the Reform Act of 1832, which use the
words "male person." These statutes, being in pan:
=Merril, were to be construed together, and this was
not all, for by the 56th section of the statue of 1867
and the 59th section of this Act was to be construed
with reference to the Acts then in force. To hold
otherwise would be to admit women to the newly-
created franchise, and not to the old franchises.
Without reference to Lord Romilly's Act, the statue
referred to men and not to women. Under the latter
Act, by which the masculine was to include the
feminine, the same difficulty might have been created
if the terms "male person" had been used. He was o
vinion, reading the first Reform Act and the last Act
together, as by section 59 of the last Act they were
directed to do, the word "man "meant "male per-
son." Women for centuries had always been con-
sidered to be incapacitated to vote for members of
Parliament. The expression "legal incapacity"
meant incapacity of voting, otherwise an alien might
vote. In addition to all which, they had the unani-
mous decision of the Scottish Judges. " I trust," said
his Lordship, "that their unanimous decision and our
unanimous decision will for ever lay this ghost of a
doubt which ought never to have arisen."
Mr. Justice Keating was of the same opinion. He
went through the arguments in the case, and said that
the case of "Olive r. Ingram" in 7th Mod., relied on
as an authority by the appellant, when examined into
was an authority the other way, and Lord Coke's
authority that women could not vote had been acted
on for centuries. The question of the injustice of
excluding women from the right of voting was before
the Legislature. His opinion was that the Revising
Barrister was right and that his decision ought to be
affirmed.
Appeal dismissed.

PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE, PARTIES.'
Two roads to Power the Election I pee;
Both end in smoke, as Punch discerns ;
'TM "Short-cut" for which Gladstone hopes,
While Die and Co. Count on Beturns.—Punch.