FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1299   1300   1301   1302   1303   1304   1305   1306   1307   1308   1309   1310   1311   1312   1313   1314   1315   1316   1317   1318   1319   1320   1321   1322   1323  
1324   1325   1326   1327   1328   1329   1330   1331   1332   1333   1334   1335   1336   1337   1338   1339   1340   1341   1342   1343   1344   1345   1346   1347   1348   >>   >|  
ived. In many cases the women voted: 15 did so in Finsbury (not only was there no disturbance, but hardly any remark was made, and they expressed their surprise that it was so easy a thing to do); 12 in Gordon and 10 in Levenshulme, both little districts in Lancashire, and smaller numbers in other places. In Chester the parliament candidate issued his election placards to "Ladies and Gentlemen." On November 7, the case of the 5,000 Manchester women householders was argued before the Court of Common Pleas. Mr. J. D. Coleridge (now Lord Coleridge, Lord-chief-justice of England) and Dr. Pankhurst were the counsel for the appellants. Mr. John Coleridge in an able argument spoke of the ancient constitutional right of women to take part in elections. He produced copies from the record office of several indentures returning members to parliament, the signatures of which were in the hand-writing of women, or to which women were parties. He argued that the term "man" in the Reform act included woman, not only generally but specifically, under the provisions of Lord Romilly's act. The case was argued before Lord-chief-justice Boville; the decision was given on November 9, and decisively pronounced that the new Reform act had never intended to include women, and that they were incapacitated from voting. This decision did not affect the women who were already on the register, and many voted in the general election which took place afterwards. Thus women have been shut out from electoral rights, not by any decree of parliament, but by this decision of the Court of Common Pleas. However there was no appeal from this Court, except to parliament, and from this time forward the character of the agitation changed. The year 1868 ended with a legal decision which seemed crushing in its finality, while the same year had given the most conclusive proof that women wished to vote, and would do so whenever the opportunity offered. The next year, 1869, gave another convincing proof that women were eager to vote, and brought us the most substantial triumph yet obtained, due to the wisdom and skilful tactics of Mr. Jacob Bright, member of parliament for Manchester. This victory was the municipal franchise for women. Early in 1869 Mr. Hibbert introduced a bill to regulate the conditions of the municipal franchise. By the Municipal Corporation Amendment act, passed in 1835, male persons only were authorized to vote. The present bill was to amen
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1299   1300   1301   1302   1303   1304   1305   1306   1307   1308   1309   1310   1311   1312   1313   1314   1315   1316   1317   1318   1319   1320   1321   1322   1323  
1324   1325   1326   1327   1328   1329   1330   1331   1332   1333   1334   1335   1336   1337   1338   1339   1340   1341   1342   1343   1344   1345   1346   1347   1348   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
parliament
 

decision

 
Coleridge
 

argued

 

election

 

November

 

Manchester

 
Common
 
Reform
 
justice

franchise
 

municipal

 

decree

 

However

 

forward

 

appeal

 

character

 

passed

 
voting
 

agitation


changed
 

affect

 

general

 
authorized
 
register
 

electoral

 

rights

 

persons

 

present

 
crushing

Bright

 

convincing

 

member

 

incapacitated

 

victory

 

tactics

 
obtained
 

wisdom

 

triumph

 

skilful


brought

 

substantial

 
Hibbert
 
introduced
 

Amendment

 
conclusive
 

Corporation

 

finality

 

wished

 

Municipal