British freewomen : $b Their historical privilegeStopes, C. C. (Charlotte Carmichael)
History
British freewomen : $b Their historical privilege
Stopes, C. C. (Charlotte Carmichael)
Women -- Great Britain; Women -- History
Yet they are treated in a more lively manner in the pages of _The
Times_. Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., and Dr. Pankhurst appeared on behalf of the
women, Mr. Mellish against. Miss Becker, the woman’s champion, was
present, and many other ladies. Mr. Coleridge stated that there were
5,347 women duly registered in the town of Manchester, qualified _except
by sex_ to be electors. The Chief-Justice asked him if he had found any
cases of women exercising political privileges before then? He said he
had not![18] But he added that the Statute for the County Courts _might_
have included both sexes. The Chief-Justice interpolated, “The Common
Law existed before the Statute Law. There is no trace, so far as I know,
of women having been admitted to the assemblies of the wise men of the
land!”[19] (Laughter.) Mr. Coleridge gave the examples of the Countess
of Westmoreland voting by attorney and Mrs. Copley signing the
indenture. Justice Willes interposed, “She might have been a returning
officer, which office she unquestionably might fill!”[20] Mr. Coleridge
then quoted Luders as to the women burgesses of Lyme Regis; the Statute
of Henry VI., which limited suitors to forty shilling freeholders and
the citizen burgesses, as all being enacted of “chusers” or “electors”
in common terms. Hallam (ch. xiii.), states that “all Householders
paying Scot and Lot, and Local Rates, voted for members of Parliament.”
Women could be freeholders, householders, citizens, burgesses, suitors,
taxpayers, therefore they could vote. It is true that the Reform Bill of
1832 read these as only applied to “male persons,” but the Bill of 1867
used the term “man,” while Lord Romilly’s Act had decided the term “man”
should include woman, unless where it was otherwise expressly stated. It
was not “otherwise expressly stated” in the Statute of 1867. There was
no legal restraint against women voting, and he quoted the case of Holt
_v._ Lyle, which affirmed that a _feme sole_ had a right to vote for a
Parliament man.
Footnote 18:
_See_ Ante to the contrary p. 64.
Footnote 19:
P. 10.
Footnote 20:
P. 70.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account