[392] Friedberg, ii, pp. 782 and 783:  Quum enim secundum legitimas sanctiones, etc.

Lea, in his History of Confession and Indulgences, ii, p. 87, quotes Zanchini, Tract. de Haeret., cap. 33, to the effect that goods of a heretic were confiscated and disabilities inflicted on two generations of descendants.

CHAPTER VII

HISTORY OF WOMEN’S RIGHTS IN ENGLAND

Since I have now given a brief summary of the canon law, which until the Reformation marked the general principles that guided the laws of all Europe on the subject of women, I propose next to consider more particularly the history of women’s rights in England; for the institutions of England, being the basis of our own, will necessarily be more pertinent to us than those of Continental countries, to which I shall not devote more than a passing comment here and there.  My inquiry will naturally fall into certain well-defined parts.  The status of the unmarried woman is different from that of her married sister and will, accordingly, demand separate consideration.  The rights of women, again, are to be viewed both from the legal and the social standpoint.  Their legal rights include those of a private nature, such as the disposal of property, and public rights, such as suffrage, sitting on a jury, or holding office.  Under social rights are included the right to an education, to earn a living, and the like.  Let us glance first at the history of the legal rights of single women.

[Sidenote:  Single women:  Pollock and Maitland i, pp. 482-485.]

From very early times the law has continued to put the single woman of mature age on practically a par with men so far as private single rights are concerned.  She could hold land, make a will or contract, could sue and be sued, all of her own initiative; she needed no guardian.  She could herself, if a widow, be guardian of her own children.

[Sidenote:  Pollock and Maitland, ii, 260-313.  Blackstone, ii, ch. 13.]

In the case of inheritance, however, women have to within extremely recent times been treated less generously than men.  The male sex has been preferred in an inheritance; males excluded females of equal degree; or, in the words of Blackstone:  “In collateral inheritances the male stock shall be preferred to the female; that is, kindred derived from the blood of the male ancestors, however remote, shall be admitted before those from the blood of the female, however near; unless where the lands have, in fact, descended from a female.  Thus the relations on the father’s side are admitted in infinitum before those on the mother’s side are admitted at all.”  Blackstone justly remarks that this harsh enactment of the laws of England was quite unknown to the Roman law “wherein brethren and sisters were allowed to succeed to equal portions of the inheritance.”  As an example, suppose we look for the heir of John Stiles, deceased.  The order of succession would be: