This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Master: servant as employer:employee:) funny analogy. Me like.
Um it's the law, not a joke.
It should be noted, when he discusses the Rights of Husbands and Wives, it's really the Rights of Husbands until they're passing... Then it's the Rights of the King. (Pg. 139) Pseymour24 (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
It would be interesting if the article could provide more context on Blackstone's explanation of British laws on recusant Catholics. ADM (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
As to papists, what has been said of the Protestant dissenters would hold equally strong for a general toleration of them; provided their separation was founded only upon difference of opinion in religion, and their principles did not also extend to a subversion of the civil government. If once they could be brought to renounce the supremacy of the pope, they might quietly enjoy their seven sacraments, their purgatory, and auricular confession; their worship of relics and images; nay even their transubstantiation. But while they acknowledge a foreign power, superior to the sovereignty of the kingdom, they cannot complain if the laws of that kingdom will not treat them upon the footing of good subjects..