female suffrage without coming into collision with the law,
which had been declared but a few years previously by the
judges. (Holt _vs._ Lyle and Coates _vs_. Lyle, 14 Jac., 1
and Catherine _vs_. Surrey, (Hakewell MSS.,) Append., 7
Mod., 264-5.) "The opinion of the judges," it was said by
Sir William Lee, a chief justice of the King's Bench in
1739, "was that a _feme-sole_, if she has a freehold," in a
county (as it seems) "may vote for members of Parliament,"
and that women when sole had a power to vote.... In Lady
Packington's case (she) returns to Parliament; that the
sheriff made a precept to her, as lady of the manor, to
return two members to Parliament.... In the case of Holt
_vs_. Lyle it is determined that a _feme-sole_ freeholder,
in counties, may claim a vote for Parliament men, but, if
married, her husband must vote for her.... I only mention
what I found in a manuscript by the famous Hakewell.

CHIEF-JUSTICE--Coverture then incapacitated a woman from voting?

Mr. RIDDLE.--No, your honor; the right to vote attached to the
freehold, and by the old law that by marriage vested in the
husband.

In the case of Olive _vs._ Ingram, 7th Mod. Reps., already
recited by the author, it was urged that the right of woman
suffrage was lost by _non-user_, which is thus disposed of. I
quote from page 97:

The same can not be said of the learned Solicitor General's
objection of _non-user_. "As their claim," he argued, "is at
common law, and usage is the only evidence of right at
common law, they ought to show it, or else _non-user_ shall
be evidence of a waiver of the right, if they ever had any."
The reply was conclusive enough. "There was a difference
between being exempted and being incapacitated." But there
was another and a not less conclusive reply. The franchise
was a public, not a private right--_omnis libertas regia
est, et ad coronam pertinet_--[every liberty is royal and
pertinent to the crown]--and of such there can be no waiver,
for the right implies a duty, and the duty is co-equal and
co-extensive with the right.

I now ask your attention to the case of Jane Allen, which came
bef