FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   881   882   883   884   885   886   887   888   889   890   891   892   893   894   895   896   897   898   899   900   901   902   903   904   905  
906   907   908   909   910   911   912   913   914   915   916   917   918   919   920   921   922   923   924   925   926   927   928   929   930   >>   >|  
riously enough, I see that it has been objected to the right of female suffrage within the last few days, that there is this analogy between the right of franchise and the liability to watch and ward. It is because that analogy exists, that I think that the claim of franchise must surely prevail, it being clear that, under the common law, a woman was liable to the former burthen, as she is still liable to serve as a constable, as an overseer of the poor, and the like offices, and, therefore, was rightfully put upon the burgess roll, and voted in the borough court equally with the male burgess. But the matter does not rest there. The Rolls of Parliament, which end with the reign of Queen Mary, certainly contain no notice of the right of women to vote at common law, because they contain no entries relating to the right of suffrage at all, and I, therefore, pass them by. But I make this observation upon them, that they do contain not unfrequent notices of the presence of women in Parliament itself. But the returns to the parliamentary writs of the period are more to the purpose. Take, for instance, those relating to the county of York, collected by Prynne for quite another purpose than the present. He had to show that the lords and esquires of that great county, and not the freeholders at large, had for the long period of time which began with the reign of Henry IV. and ended with that of Edward IV., alone returned the knights of that shire to Parliament, and among those lords and esquires not a few clearly appear to have been of the female sex. But now I pass to the period of the journal. It was said by Mr. Bennett [who argued against woman suffrage], that if a single instance could be shown in which a woman had voted, and not simply claimed the right to vote, then _cadit questio_. But two such cases, Lady Packington's case and Mrs. Copley's case, were admitted by Mr. Bennett himself. I do not think that he explained away the effect of that admission. It was certainly not as a mere returning officer that either of those ladies signed and returned the inde
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   881   882   883   884   885   886   887   888   889   890   891   892   893   894   895   896   897   898   899   900   901   902   903   904   905  
906   907   908   909   910   911   912   913   914   915   916   917   918   919   920   921   922   923   924   925   926   927   928   929   930   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

period

 

Parliament

 
suffrage
 

burgess

 

returned

 

esquires

 

Bennett

 

county

 

instance

 

purpose


relating

 

liable

 

common

 

franchise

 

analogy

 

female

 
journal
 

objected

 

argued

 

Edward


knights

 

freeholders

 

single

 

explained

 
admitted
 

Copley

 

effect

 
admission
 

ladies

 
signed

officer
 
returning
 

riously

 

simply

 

claimed

 

questio

 

Packington

 
matter
 
surely
 

prevail


equally

 
offices
 
overseer
 

constable

 

rightfully

 

borough

 
burthen
 

notice

 

collected

 

present