=The Errors of Sir Edward Coke.=—In a historical treatise it is not necessary fully to analyse causes. Facts must be left to speak for themselves. It is a patent fact that, early in the seventeenth century, men’s views regarding women became much altered, and the liberties of women thereby curtailed. But there is generally one voice that in expressing seems to lead the opinion of an age. The accepted voice of this period, on this subject, was not that of the “learned Selden” [vi.], but of the “legal Coke.” He first pronounced an opinion on the disability of women, and, as every other _so-called authority_ depends upon his, it is necessary to examine the grounds of his opinion first, as with him all his followers must stand or fall. When he was speaking against the Procuratores Cleri having a voice in Parliament, it was urged on him that it was unjust that persons should have to be bound by laws which they had had no voice in making. To this he replied, “In many cases multitudes are bound by Acts of Parliament which are not parties to the elections of knights, citizens or burgesses, as all they that have no freehold, or have freehold in ancient demesne; and _all women having freehold or no freehold_, and men within the age of one and twenty years” (“Fourth Institute,” 5). He quotes no record, he suggests no authority, he adduces no precedent. He could not. Yet from this one _obiter dictum_ of his, uttered in the heat of his discussion against clergymen, recorded in loose notes, and published without correction after his death, has arisen all consequent opinion, custom and _law_ against the Woman’s Franchise. So terrible can be the consequences of the by-utterances of a Judge when _careless, prejudiced, or wilfully ignorant_. That Coke could be all three it is easy to prove. (1) In Prynne’s “Introduction to the Animadversions on the Fourth Part of the Lawe of England,” he says, “My ardent desires and studious endeavours to benefit the present age and posterity to my power by advancing learning ... by discovering sundry misquotations, mistakes of records in our printed law books reports, especially in the Institute of that eminent pillar of the Common Law, Sir Edward Coke, published, with some disadvantage to him and his readers since his death, whose quotations (through too much credulity and supineness) are generally received, relied on, by a mere implicit faith, as infallible Oracles, without the least examination of their originals.”