ble by the female no less than by the male
"inhabitants" or "residants." It is believed that in not one
of the boroughs where the suffrage was said to be regulated
by "charter," or by "custom," or by "prescription" or even
where it was regulated by a local act of Parliament, there
can be found one instance of any provision or usage
whatsoever whereby any voter was excluded from the enjoyment
of the suffrage by reason of sex. That a woman may be a
householder, or freeholder, or burgage tenant, parishioner,
is plain enough. That she may answer the description of "a
person paying scot and lot" within the "city of London," has
been solemnly decided by the Court of King's Bench (Olive
_vs._ Ingram, 7 Mod. 264, 267, 270, 271,) and that
determination was expressly grounded by their Lordships
"singly upon the foot of the common law, without regard to
the usages of the parishes in London," which usage,
nevertheless, had been also shown to be in favor of the same
construction. In all cases, whether of statutory, of
customary, or of common law qualification for the suffrage,
the general rule is that which was laid down by the Court of
King's Bench with respect to the choice of parochial
officers under the first "Act for the Relief of the Poor,"
which directed them to be made from among the "substantial
householders" of the place. The court held (Rex. _vs._
Stubbs, 2 T. R., 395)--overruling a dictum in Viner's
Abridgment to the contrary--that a woman, being a
"substantial householder," was properly chosen under that
act to the office of overseer of the poor, notwithstanding
the objections raised at the bar that it was a burthensome
office and one of which, being once appointed to it, she
would be called upon to perform duties some of which were
above the bodily and mental powers, and others were
inconsistent with the morality, or, at least, the decency of
that sex.--(Id. 400.)

And so again on pages 90 and 91:

That there are some offices as to which it is the practice,
by the "custom of England," to exclude them, is undoubtedly
the fact. But it has been well said, as to