Mr. Mellish, in opposition, said that Manchester was a new Borough in 1832, and claimed by its Charter the franchise for “male persons.” The Bill of 1867 stated that it would not alter existing franchises. The ground of women being excluded was their _legal incapacity_. It is true no statute took their right away, because they never had it! “As well suitors as others,” of 52 Henry III., did not necessarily mean women. “They could not be Esquires or Knights.” Justice Willes interposing—“Not only in Books of Romance but in Books of Chivalry we see they can!” “The case quoted by Mr. Coleridge is valueless. If a lady were not present to vote, it was clearly illegal for her to do so by attorney. Mrs. Copley was Patron of the Borough, and probably acted as returning officer. In Olive _v._ Ingram the majority of the Judges were against the woman’s claim.[21] Peeresses could not sit in the House of Lords.” Justice Willes interposing—“Yet peeresses marrying commoners, the commoners became Peers, and sat _jure mariti_. Is not that, at least, representative of a woman?” Mr. Mellish then referred to the parallel case that had been tried in Scotland. Judgment was against the women, first, because they were legally incapacitated; and second, because to _give_ them a vote would be against public policy, as it was a premium on ladies to remain unmarried in order to retain their votes, and a premium to them to desire that their husbands might die in order that they might become enfranchised as widows.” Mr. Coleridge said that the Scotch case had no bearing on this. Lord Chief-Justice Bovill was obliged to concede that “it is quite true that a few women being parties to indentures of returns of members of Parliament have been shown, and it is quite possible that there may have been some other instances in early times of women having voted and assisted in legislation. Indeed, such instances are mentioned by Selden. Yet the fact of the right not having been asserted for centuries raises a very strong presumption against its ever having had legal existence.”[22] And though he acknowledged that in many statutes “man” may be properly held to include women, he decided against this interpretation here. The rest of the judges agreed with him. Footnote 21: He could only have read the short and misleading report by Strange, the counsel for the opposition, as the assertion does not seem borne out by the case _in extenso_. As Strange also affirmed that women could not hold by military tenure, his judgment regarding them on other points may well be doubted. Footnote 22: The last recorded example of women proffering their vote was in 1640, less than 260 years before, p. 99. While Amersham and other towns had not voted for 321 years, p. 92.