“Educational endowments founded for both sexes have been limited to boys. The medical profession shuts its doors when women strive to enter in. The Royal Academy shut its doors when women began to distinguish themselves. There is no meaning in the objection that women have no time to attend to politics. Do all enfranchised men take time?” “What is the meaning of political freedom? Is it anything but the control of those that make politics by those who do not?” (p. 7). His Amendment was lost. But so also was the Amendment that the phrase “male persons” of 1832 should be replaced. The Bill enacted that every man of full age, and not subject to legal incapacity, “duly qualified and registered,” should have the right to vote. During the discussion, the Hon. G. Denman, Justice of the Common Pleas, asked the following question—“Why, instead of the words ‘male person’ of the Act of 1832, the word ‘man’ had been substituted in the present Bill? In the fifth clause of the Bill he found that after saying that every ‘man’ should be entitled to be registered, it proceeds to say, ‘_or a male person_ in any university who has passed any senior middle examination.’ In the light of Lord Romilly’s Act, if the Court of Queen’s Bench had to decide to-morrow on the construction of these clauses they _would be constrained_ to hold that they _conferred the_ suffrage on _female persons_ as well as on males.” The Government did not answer the question, but it passed the Bill as it stood. This, therefore, to ordinary, as well as to logical minds, seemed to reinstate women in their ancient though neglected privileges, which the advance of education had taught them now to appreciate. Therefore, next year, 5,347 women had themselves duly registered in the town of Manchester alone, in the neighbouring town of Salford about 1,500, and large numbers in other places. Great uncertainty prevailed as to how to treat them, but most of the revising barristers threw them out. The Manchester women consolidated their claims and appealed against their decision. =The case of Chorlton= _v._ =Lings= was heard before the Court of Common Pleas in Westminster, Nov. 7th and 10th, 1868, Lord Chief-Justice Bovill and Justice Willes, Keating and Byles, sitting on the Bench. The facts can be found in the Law Reports, and it is good that they should be recalled to the minds of the rising generation.