New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-09-16

Of female suffrage She says that the women have
quite sufficient influence it is; that they ito not
want votes: and she said that she W0ud not leu me
vote next time for female suffrage lLaughterI
Mr. Goldsmid said he quite agreed with the lady and
portlv bocouse among women themselves opinions
differed 50 widely But / suspect that Mr.. Mill will
find his supporters greatly increased in number when
vote is taken next session. II is possible that
the courts may decide that women under the existing
law are entitled, if hOuSehoders to the franchise.
in that case the attack would be shifted and Parlla-
ment wOuld have to pass law to exclude them. IN
stead Of law TO admit them, thing which last SEES
it distinctly refused to do, as is shown III MI
Paukhurs's article In The tOrtRigbHy.
That article is noteworthy. Mr.. Pankhurst has col
lCcted the existing authorities on the law as IL now
stands, and asserts absolutely The Right OF "oneh
to Vote under the Reform Act 1861" Part OF his
reasoning is already familiar but the ola ana lhe
new are welded into a most compact and loglcai
statement The franchise is granted by the act not
rs in the act of 1882 to every male person., but to
every man." The word man includes women by
evnrss statutory enactment unless the contrary as
10 gender is expressly provided which 1t Is not IN
The Reform bill Of 1867. The argument from the re-
lection Of Mr.. Mills amendment to substitute per
SON" for imam would not be conclusive as to the
LEGAL meaning Of the act even if it stood alone. But
there is a fact of equal value on the other side:
before the bin went into committee, the attention OF
Parliament was called TO the terms of Lord ROlnillys
net above inferred tol and the 2Sth Of March Mr.
Denan, QOd asked whether, having regard to that act
il was the Intention of Government To CONFER ue H,
elise upon women well men. In reply Nr DsTaeli
Romillys act BIZ there such pr0riso Ia ne PIX
and there is none IN He act On the 2oth Of May MI MN
moved that the word person shoud ne suosiluleu 40.
tbe word man." hut 10 was rejected ftHditV on VIC
l2b Of J,Iy Parliament refused 10 adopt M P0iret
amendment 10 substitute the expression maze person Jo'
ne term man" , A., 80.
the case stands thus The Legislature being IN posses
sion OF the EXPRESSION male person employed m hG
act Of 1882 rejected H. and dcibcrdfeV, ana run JH
gOirleige icJ1 rdlc. used the term num- bul ne
clned cOnstrue the term in express words us thtf
WOuld have done by adopting Mr. Mllls umchdmeulI,
leaving that point II II should become doubtful 20 the
decision Of the ordinary tribunals OF tho land guided by
the common rules Of Interpretation
Mr. PankhurSt then argues that as women are within
the intention and within the technical meaning OF the
act they cannot be excluded from the franchise unless
they are actually and in legal sense incompetent
like infants and lunatics to exercise their nights.
But a franchise granted is thing that whoever Is
within the description is entitled absolutely To eXer-
else As the electoral right, they did actually eN-
ercise it in former times by voting for members of
Parliament Tho assertion of incOmpetency rests on
a dictum of Lord Coke, Just. 3. which is not even
judicial and is the sole authority for the position that
by the law of England women are under disability
of voting for members Of Parliament. The only
other ground is the presumption of natural inca
plcity, and that only bo maintained on the same
ground that excludes lunatcs and infants mental
imbecility-whch / think Mr.. Pankhurst need
scarcely have discussed seriously. q. W.. =