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

.. _ . . .
maintained tliat a -ta-t• ie. del e •t i tiel: di-Iran-
!
chiseweut ; add he 14 I, : :ei.dly relied on the two
facts to which we have referred, in reference to
t Lord Rowilly's Act and the RJorm Act.
After examining Mr. Coleridge's argument. we
must say that he had a very weak case, which
even his great ability conld not make a strong
one; and Mr. Mellish, in fact, had very little to
answer. Referring to the two points we have
just mentioned—and but for which, we may re-
mark in passing this trial would never have been
held—the learned counsel maintained that Lord
Romilly's Act "could not hind a future Parlia-
ment, if the intention of the Legislature was
clear." And then he thus nut what, at the time
point was first mentioned, we felt would be a fatal
objection to women having a vote: 'The Mutiny
Act said that so many men were to be raised, but
would Lord Romilly's Act justify an officer in
raising so many women? There was no clause
in the Mutiny Act that men should not include
women." In deciding the points at issue, their
lordships have taken what may he called the
common-sense view of the case. They have not
adopted the literal, strict, and verbal interpreta-
tion of the Reform Act in conjunction with Lord
Romilly's Act, but have decided on the grounds
of common sense, common justice, and the
common understanding ttf Parliament and Peo-
ple. The judges decide that the law of Eng.
land does not give women the right to vote for
members of Parliament; that there is the unin-
terrupted practice of centuries to show they
have not voted, anti that they have no right to
vote under the new Act. The times, however,
to which the Lord Chief Justice refers to the
latter show that, bearing in mind the existence
and prospective action of Lord Hominy's Act,
onr legislators should be more cautious for the
future than they have been with regard to the
Reform Act of 18a. t• In my opinion," says
hit Lordship, " the Reform Act of 1867, in say-
ing that men shall vote, although considered in
e etjunctien with Slr Joim Rmuilly's Act, does
not entitle women to vottt. The teral men in the
Reform Act does not inelnde women, and even if
it did, tht•e women would come within the term
'incapacitated.'" Mr. Justice Bylee says that
he hopes the unanimous decision of the Conrt
of Common Pleas, coupled with the neanbuons
decision of the Court of Session in S,ettland.
"will for ever exorcise and lay this ghost of a
doubt, which ought never to hest! arisee."
We are not inclined to believe that the idled
which Mr. Jto.tice Byles desiderates will be
achieved, hut undoubtedly it will set the question
at rest for some time. The decision of the
Court of Common Pleas would have been a great
relief to the public mind, had there been any
gener I expectation that the Court would affirm
th- appeal from the Revising Barristers' courts,
hot the expectation seems to have been nearly
all the other way. But we can form little idea
of the excitement that would have seized on the
public mind had the claims of women to vote
loten allowed. It would have introduced a new
feature into political contests, would have upset
the calculations of statesmen of all parties, and
would we have no hesitation in saying it—have
emeited the ridicule, if not the indignation, of
women themselves. In this country at least—
and we believe in every civilized country in the
world—women do not want votes. The advo-
cates of what are called women's rights, are the
exception; the rule being that a true and genu-
ine women knows she has a powerful indirect
in political as well as social altairs. Hundreds
of thousands of women will virtually vote at the
forthcoming general election, though their vote
will not be recorded.

OUR PRINCES ON THEIR TRAVELS. I