CRAFTS AND TRADES.
(A) _Crafts._ Influence of Gilds—Inclusion of women—Position of
craftsman’s wife—Purposes of Gilds—The share of women in
religious, social and trading privileges—Admission chiefly by
marriage—Stationer’s Company—Carpenter’s Company—Rules of other
Gilds and Companies—Apprenticeship to women—Exclusion of women did
not originate in sex-jealousy—Position of women in open
trades—Women’s trades.
(B) _Retail Trades._ Want of technical training inclined women towards
retailing—Impediments in their way—Apprenticeship of girls to
shopkeepers—Prosecution of unauthorised traders—Street and market
trading—Pedlars, Regraters, Badgers—Opposition of shopkeepers.
(C) _Provision Trades._
1. _Bakers._ Never specially a woman’s trade—Widows—Share of
married women.
2. _Millers._ Occasionally followed by women.
3. _Butchers._ Carried on by women as widows and by married
women—also independently—Regrating.
4. _Fishwives._ Generally very poor.
5. _Brewers._ Originally a special women’s trade—Use of feminine
form Brewster—Creation of monopoly—Exclusion of women by the
trade when capitalised—retailing still largely in hands of
women.
6. _Vintners._
AGRICULTURE and the textile industries having been considered
separately, owing to their importance and the very special conditions
obtaining in both, the other forms of industry in which women were
employed may be roughly divided into three classes, according to certain
influences which made them more or less suitable for women’s
employment.—(_a_) Skilled Trades. (_b_) Retail Trades. (_c_) Provision
Trades.
(_a_) _The Skilled Trades._ Most characteristic of the skilled trades
are those crafts which became more or less highly organised and
specialised by means of Gilds; though girls were seldom apprenticed to
the gild trades, yet her marriage to a member of the Gild conferred upon
a woman her husband’s rights and privileges; and as she retained these
after his death, she could, as a widow, continue to control and direct
the business which she inherited from her husband. In many trades the
gild organisation broke down, and though the form of apprenticeship was
retained its observance secured few, if any, privileges. Some skilled
trades were chiefly if not wholly, in the hands of women, and these
appear never to have been organised, though long apprenticeships were
served by the girls who entered them.
(_b_) _The Retail Trades._ The classification of retail trades as a
group distinct from the Skilled Trades and the Provision Trades is
somewhat arbitrary, because under the system of Family Industry, the
maker of the goods was often his own salesman, or the middlemen who sold
the goods to the consumers were themselves organised into gilds.
Nevertheless, from the woman’s point of view retailing deserves separate
consideration, because, whether as a branch of Family Industry or as a
trade in itself, the employment of selling was so singularly adapted to
the circumstances of women, that among their resources it may almost
take rank with agriculture and spinning.
(_c_) _The Provision Trades_ also, whether concerned with the production
or only with the sale of Provisions, occupy a special position, because
the provisioning of their households has been regarded from time
immemorial as one of the elementary duties falling to the share of
women, and it is interesting to note how far skill acquired by women in
such domestic work was useful to them in trade.
In all three classes of industry women were employed as their husbands’
assistants or partners, but in the middle ages married women also
engaged in business frequently on their own account. This was so usual
that almost all the early Customs of the Boroughs enable a woman, when
so trading, to go to law as though she were a femme sole, and provide
that her husband shall not be responsible for her debts. For example,
the Customs of the City of London declare that: “Where a woman coverte
de baron follows any craft within the said city by herself apart, with
which the husband in no way intermeddles, such woman shall be bound as a
single woman in all that concerns her said craft. And if the wife shall
plead as a single woman in a Court of Record, she shall have her law and
other advantages by way of plea just as a single woman. And if she is
condemned she shall be committed to prison until she shall have made
satisfaction; and neither the husband nor his goods shall in such case
be charged or interfered with. If a wife, as though a single woman,
rents any house or shop within the said city, she shall be bound to pay
the rent of the said house or shop, and shall be impleaded and sued as a
single woman, by way of debt if necessary, notwithstanding that she was
coverte de baron, at the time of such letting, supposing that the lessor
did not know thereof.... Where plaint of debt is made against the
husband, and the plaintiff declares that the husband made the contract
with the plaintiff by the hand of the wife of such defendant, in such
case the said defendant shall have the aid of his wife, and shall have a
day until the next Court, for taking counsel with his wife.”[293]
Footnote 293:
_Liber Albus_, pp. 181-2. 1419.
The Customal of the Town and Port of Sandwich provides that “if a woman
who deals publickly in fish, fruit, cloth or the like, be sued to the
amount of goods delivered to her, she ought to answer either with or
without her husband, as the plaintiff pleases. But in every personal
plea of trespass, she can neither recover nor plead against any body,
without her husband. If she be not a public dealer, she cannot answer,
being a covert baron.”[294] Similarly at Rye, “if any woman that is
covert baron be impleaded in plea of debt, covenant broken, or chattels
withheld, and she be known for sole merchant, she ought to answer
without the presence of her baron.”[295]
Footnote 294:
Lyon. _Dover_, Vol. II., p. 295.
Footnote 295:
Lyon, _Dover_, Vol. II., p. 359.
In Carlisle it was said that “where a wife that haith a husband use any
craft wiᵗʰin this citie or the liberties of the same besides her husband
crafte or occupation and that he mel not wᵗʰ her sayd craft this wife
shalbe charged as woman sole. And if the husband and the wife be
impledit in such case the wife shall plead as woman sole. And if she be
condempned she shall goe to ward unto she haue mayd agrement. And the
husband nor his guds shal not in this case be charged. And if the woman
refuse to appeare and answere the husband or servand to bryng her in to
answer.”[296]
Footnote 296:
Ferguson, _Carlisle_, p. 79; from _Dormont Book_.
Though examples of the separate trading of women occur frequently in the
seventeenth century, no doubt the more usual course was for her to
assist her husband in his business. When this was transacted at home her
knowledge of it was so intimate that she could successfully carry on the
management during her husband’s absence. How complete was the reliance
which men placed upon their wives under these circumstances is
illustrated by the story of John Adams, a Quaker from Yorkshire, who
took a long journey “in the service of Truth” to Holland and Germany. He
describes how a fearful being visited him by night in a vision, telling
him that he had been deceived, and not for the first time, in
undertaking this service, and that all was in confusion at home. “The
main reason why things are so is, thy wife, that used to be at the helm
in thy business, is dead.” Thoroughly alarmed, he was preparing to hurry
home when a letter arrived, saying that all was well, “whereby I was
relieved in mind, and confirmed I was in my place, and that it was
Satan, by his transformation, who had deceived and disturbed me.”[297]
Footnote 297:
_Irish Friend_, Vol. IV., p. 150.
The understanding and good sense which enabled women to assume control
during the temporary absence of their husbands, fitted them also to bear
the burden alone when widowed. Her capacity was so much taken for
granted that public opinion regarded the wife as being virtually her
husband’s partner, leases or indentures were made out in their joint
names, and on the husband’s death the wife was left in undisturbed
possession of the stock, apprentices and goodwill of the business.
A. _Skilled Trades or Crafts._
The origin of the Craft Gilds is obscure. They were preceded by
Religious Gilds in which men and women who were associated in certain
trades united for religious and social purposes. Whether these Religious
Gilds developed naturally into organisations concerned with the purpose
of trade, or whether they were superseded by new associations whose
first object was the regulation and improvement of the craft and with
whom the religious and social ceremonies were of secondary importance is
a disputed point, which, if elucidated, might throw some light on the
industrial history of women. In the obscurity which envelopes this
subject one certain fact emerges; the earlier Gilds included sisters as
well as brothers, the two sexes being equally concerned with the
religious and social observances which constituted their chief
functions.
As the Gilds become more definitely trade organisations the importance
of the sisters diminishes, and in some, the Carpenters for example, they
appear to be virtually excluded from membership though this exclusion is
only tacitly arrived at by custom, and is not enforced by rules. In
other Gilds, such as the Girdlers and Pewterers, it is evident that
though women’s names do not occur in lists of wardens or assistants, yet
they were actively engaged in these crafts and, like men, were subject
to and protected by the regulations of their Gild or Company.
Very little is yet known of the industrial position of Englishwomen in
the middle ages. Poll-tax returns show, however, that they were engaged
in many miscellaneous occupations. Thus the return for Oxford in 1380
mentions six trades followed by women, viz.—37 spinsters, 11 shapesters
(tailors), 9 tapsters (inn-keepers), 3 sutrices (shoemakers,) 3
hucksters, 5 washerwomen, while in six others both men and women were
employed, namely butchers, brewers, chandlers, ironmongers, netmakers
and kempsters (wool-combers). 148 women were enrolled as ancillæ or
servants, and 81 trades were followed by only men.
A similar return for the West Riding of Yorks in 1379 declares the women
employed in different trades to be as follows:—6 chapmen, 11 inn
keepers, 1 farrier, 1 shoemaker, 2 nurses, 39 brewsters, 2 farmers, 1
smith, 1 merchant, 114 domestic servants and farm labourers, 66
websters, (30 with that surname), 2 listers or dyers, 2 fullers or
walkers, and 22 seamstresses.[298] In every case these would be women
who were carrying on their trade separately from their husbands, or as
widows. During the following centuries women’s names are given in the
returns made of the tradesmen working in different Boroughs, occurring
sometimes in trades which would seem to modern ideas most unlikely for
them. Thus 5 widows and 35 men’s names are given in a list of the smiths
at Chester for the year 1574.[299]
Footnote 298:
By kind permission of Miss Eileen Power.
Footnote 299:
Harl. MSS., 2054. fo. 22., _The Smiths Book of Accts._ Chester, 1574.
It must be remembered that, except those who are classed as servants,
all grown-up women were either married or widows. It was quite usual for
a married woman to carry on a separate business from her husband as sole
merchant, but it was still more customary for her to share in his
enterprise, and only after his death for the whole burden to fall upon
her shoulders. How natural it was for a woman to regard herself as her
husband’s partner will be seen when the conditions of family industry
are considered. Before the encroachments of capitalism the members of
the Craft Gilds were masters, not of other men, but of their craft. The
workshop was part of the home, and in it, the master, who in the course
of a long apprenticeship had acquired the technical mastery of his
trade, worked with his apprentices, one or two journeymen and his wife
and children. The number of journeymen and apprentices was strictly
limited by the Gild rules; the men did not expect to remain permanently
in the position of wage-earners, but hoped in course of time to marry
and establish themselves as masters in their craft. Apart from the
apprentices and journeymen no labour might be employed, except that of
the master’s wife and children; but there are in every trade processes
which do not require a long technical training for their performance,
and thus the assistance of the mistress became important to her husband,
whether she was skilled in the trade or not, for the work if not done by
her must fall upon him. Sometimes her part was manual, but more often
she appears to have taken charge of the financial side of the business,
and is seen in the role of salesman, receiving payments for which her
receipt was always accepted as valid, or even acting as buyer. In either
case her services were so essential to the business that she usually
engaged a servant for household matters, and was thus freed from the
routine of domestic drudgery. Defoe, writing in the first decades of the
eighteenth century, notes that “women servants are now so scarce that
from thirty and forty shillings a Year, their Wages are increased of
late to six, seven and eight pounds _per Annum_, and upwards ... an
ordinary Tradesman cannot well keep one; but his Wife, who might be
useful in his Shop, or Business, must do the Drudgery of Household
Affairs; And all this, because our Servant Wenches are so puff’d up with
Pride now-a-Days that they never think they go fine enough.”[300]
Footnote 300:
Defoe, _Everybody’s Business is No-Body’s Business_, p. 6, 1725.
The position of a married woman in the tradesman class was far removed
from that of her husband’s domestic servant. She was in very truth
mistress of the household in that which related to trade as well as in
domestic matters, and the more menial domestic duties were performed by
young unmarried persons of either sex. To quote Defoe again, “it is but
few Years ago, and in the Memory of many now living, that all the
Apprentices of the Shopkeepers and Warehouse-keepers ... submitted to
the most servile Employments of the Families in which they serv’d; such
as the _young Gentry_, their Successors in the same Station, scorn so
much as the Name of now; such as _cleaning_ their Masters’ Shoes,
bringing _Water_ into the Houses from _the Conduits_ in the Street,
which they carried on their Shoulders in long Vessels call’d Tankards;
also waiting at Table, ... but their Masters are oblig’d to keep Porters
or Footmen to wait upon the apprentices.”[301]
Footnote 301:
Defoe, _Behaviour of Servants_, p. 12, 1724.
The rules of the early Gilds furnish abundant evidence that women then
took an active part in their husbands’s trades; thus in 1297 the Craft
of Fullers at Lincoln ordered that “none [of the craft] shall work at
the wooden bar with a woman, unless with the wife of a master or her
handmaid,”[302] and in 1372, when articles were drawn up for the
Leather-sellers and Pouch-makers of London, and for Dyers serving those
trades, the wives of the dyers of leather were sworn together with their
husbands “to do their calling, and, to the best of their power,
faithfully to observe the things in the said petition contained; namely
John Blakthorne, and Agnes, his wife; John Whitynge, and Lucy, his wife;
and Richard Westone, dier, and Katherine, his wife.”[303]
Footnote 302:
Smith (Toulmin), _English Gilds_, p. 180.
Footnote 303:
Riley (H. T.), _Memorials of London_, p. 365.
The craft Gilds had either disappeared before the seventeenth century or
had developed into Companies, wealthy corporations differing widely from
the earlier associations of craftsmen. But though the Companies were
capitalistic in their tendencies, they retained many traditions and
customs which were characteristic of the Gilds. The master’s place of
business was still in many instances within the precincts of his home,
and when this was the case his wife retained her position as mistress.
Incidental references often show the wife by her husband’s side in his
shop. Thus Thomas Symonds, Stationer, when called as a witness to an
inquest in 1514 describes how “within a quarter of an hower after VII. a
clock in the morning, Charles Joseph came before him at his stall and
said ‘good morow, goship Simondes,’ and the said Simonds said ‘good
morow’ to hym againe, and the wife of the said Simons was by him, and
because of the deadly countenance and hasty goinge of Charles, the said
Thomas bad his wife looke whether Charles goeth, and as she could
perceue, Charles went into an ale house.”[304]
Footnote 304:
Arber, _Stationers_, Vol. III., Intro., p. 19.
Decker describes a craftsman’s household in “A Shoemaker’s Holiday.” The
mistress goes in and out of the workshop, giving advice, whether it is
wanted or not.
_Firk_: “Mum, here comes my dame and my master. She’ll scold, on my
life, for loitering this Monday; ...”
_Hodge_: “Master, I hope you will not suffer my dame to take down your
journeyman....”
_Eyre_: “Peace, Firk; not I, Hodge; ... she shall not meddle with you
... away, queen of clubs; quarrel not with me and my men, with
me and my fine Firk; I’ll firk you, if you do.”[305]
Footnote 305:
Decker (Thos.), _Best Plays_, p. 29.
But the meddling continues to the end of the play.
The same sort of scene is again described in “The Honest Whore,” where
Viola, the Linen Draper’s wife, comes into his shop, and says to the two
Prentices and George the servant, who are at work,
“Come, you put up your wares in good order, here, do you not,
think you? One piece cast this way, another that way! You had
need have a patient master indeed.”
_George replies_ (aside) “Ay, I’ll be sworn, for we have a curst
mistress.”[306]
Footnote 306:
_Ibid._ p. 108.
Comedy is concerned with the foibles of humanity, and so here the faults
of the mistress are reflected, but in real life she is often alluded to
as her husband’s invaluable lieutenant. There can be no doubt that
admission to the world of business and the responsibilities which rested
on their shoulders, often developed qualities in seventeenth century
women which the narrower opportunities afforded them in modern society
have left dormant. The wide knowledge of life acquired by close
association with their husbands’ affairs, qualified mothers for the task
of training their children; but it was not only the mother who benefited
by the incorporation of business with domestic affairs, for while she
shared her husband’s experiences he became acquainted with family life
in a way which is impossible for men under modern conditions. The father
was not separated from his children, but they played around him while he
worked, and his spare moments could be devoted to their education. Thus
the association of husband and wife brought to each a wider, deeper
understanding of human life.
Returning to the position of women in the Craft Gilds and the later
Companies, it must be remembered that originally these associations had
a three-fold purpose, (_a_) the performance of religious ceremonies,
(_b_) social functions, (_c_) the protection of trade interests and the
maintenance of a high standard of technical efficiency.
Women are not excluded from membership by any of the earlier charters,
which, in most cases expressly mention sisters as well as brothers, but
references to them are more frequent in the provisions relating to the
social and religious functions of the Gild than in those concerning
technical matters. Though after the Reformation the performance of
religious ceremonies fell into abeyance, social functions continued to
be an important feature of the Companies.
Entrance was obtained by apprenticeship, patrimony, redemption or, in
the case of women, by marriage. The three former methods though open to
women, were seldom used by them, and the vast majority of the sisters
obtained their freedom through marriage. During the husband’s life time
their position is not very evident, but on his death they were possessed
of all his trade privileges. The extent to which widows availed
themselves of these privileges varied in different trades, but custom
appears always to have secured to the widow, rather than to the son, the
possession of her husband’s business.
Hitherto few records of the Gilds and Companies have been printed _in
extenso_; possibly when others are published more light may be shed on
the position which they accorded to women. The Stationers and the
Carpenters are selected here, not because they are typical in their
dealings with women, but merely because their records are available in a
more complete form than the others.
The Stationers’ Company included Stationers, Booksellers, Binders and
Printers; apprenticeship to either of these trades conferred the right
of freedom in the company, but the position of printer was a prize which
could not be attained purely by apprenticeship; before the Long
Parliament this privilege was confined to twenty-two Printing Houses
only besides the Royal Printers, vacancies being filled up by the Court
of Assistants, with the approval of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Any
stationer who had been made free of his Company might publish books, but
printing was strictly limited to these twenty-two houses. A vacancy
seldom occurred, because, according to the old English custom, on the
printer’s death his rights were retained by his widow, and in this
Company they were not even alienated when she married again, but were
shared by her second husband; thus a printer’s widow, whatever her age
might be, was regarded as a most desirable “partie.” The widow Francis
Simson married in succession Richard Read and George Elde, the business
following her, and Anne Barton married a second, third and fourth
time,[307] none of the later husbands being printers.
Footnote 307:
Arber, _Stationers_, Vol. V., Intro. xxix-xxx.
Though amongst the printers the line of descent appears to have been
more often from husband to wife and wife to husband than from father to
son, a list, giving the names of the master printers as they succeeded
each other from 1575 to 1635 shows that the business was acquired by
marrying the printer’s widow, by purchase from her, and also by descent.
Four women are mentioned:—William Ells bound to Mrs. East, a printer’s
widow who, having left the trade many years was brought up in the art of
printing by Mr. Fletcher upon composition. Mrs. Griffyn had two
apprentices, Mrs. Dawson had three apprentices and Mrs. Purslow two
apprentices.[308] Another list made in 1630 of the names of the Master
Printers of London gives twenty-one men and three women, namely—Widdow
Alde, Widdow Griffin, and “Widdow Sherleaker lives by printing of
pictures.”[309] In 1634 the names of twenty-two printers are given,
among whom are the following women—“Mr. William Jones succeeded Rafe
Blore and paies a stipend to his wife ... neuer admitted.”
Footnote 308:
_S.P.D._, cccxiv., 127., Feb. 1636.
Footnote 309:
_Ibid._ clxxv., 45., Nov. 12, 1630.
Mistris [ ] Alde, widdowe of Edward Alde [who] deceased about 10 yeeres
since, (but she keepes her trade by her sonne who was Ra[lph] joyners
sonne) neuer Admitted, neither capable of Admittance.
Mistris [ ] Dawson widow of John Dawson deceased about a yeere since
[he] succeeded his vnkle Thomas Dawson about 26 yeers since ... never
admitted neither capeable, (she hath a sonne about 19 yeares old, bredd
to ye trade).
Mistris [ ] Pursloe widdow of George Pursloe who succeeded Simon
Stafford about 5 yeeres since [she was] never admitted neither capeable.
(haviland, Yo[u]ng and fletcher haue this.)
Mistris [ ] Griffin widdow of Edward Griffin [who] succeeded Master
[Melchisedeck] Bradwood about 18 yeeres since [she was] never admitted
neither capable. (she hath a sonne.) (haviland, Yo[u]ng and fletcher
have this yet).[310]
Footnote 310:
Arber, _Transcript_, Vol. III., add, 701.
Men as well as women in the list are noted as “never admitted neither
capable of admittance.”
Whether these women took an active part in the management of the
business which they thus acquired or whether they merely drew the
profits, leaving the management to others, is not clear. From the notes
to the above list it would appear that they often followed the latter
course, but elsewhere women are mentioned who are evidently taking an
active part in the printing business. For example, an entry in the
Stationers Register states at a time when Marsh and Vautrollier had the
sole printing of school books “It is agreed that Thomas Vautrollier his
wife shall finish this present impression which shee is in hand withall
in her husband’s absence, of Tullie’s Epistles with Lambini’s
annotations.”[311]
Footnote 311:
Stopes (Mrs. C. C.) _Shakespeare’s Warwickshire Contemporaries_, p. 7.
After his death Vautrollier’s widow printed one book but immediately
after, on March 4th, 1587-8, the Court of Assistants ordered that “Mrs.
Vautrollier, late wife of Thomas Vautrollier deceased, shall not
hereafter print any manner of book or books whatsoever, as well by
reason that her husband was noe printer at the time of his decease, as
alsoe by the decrees sette downe in the Starre Chamber she is debarred
from the same.” This order is inexplicable, as other printers’ widows
exercised their husbands’ business, and Thomas Vautrollier’s name is
duly given in the order of succession from Master Printers. Possibly the
business had been transferred to her daughter, who married Field, their
apprentice. Field died in 1625, his widow continuing the business.[312]
Footnote 312:
_Ibid._, p. 8. (Some authorities state that Field married the widow,
others the daughter of Vautrollier.)
Among thirty-nine printing patents issued by James I. and Charles II. is
one to “Hester Ogden, als ffulke Henr. Sibbald _et_ Tho. Kenithorpe for
printing a book called The Sincire and True Translation of the Holy
Scripture into the Englishe tounge.” It appears as though Hester Ogden
was no mere figure head, for His Majesty’s Printers appealed against
this licence on the grounds that it infringed their rights, protesting
that “Mistris Ogden a maried woman one of Dr. Fulkes daughters did
lately [sue] his Majestie to haue ye printing of her fathers workes,
which his [Majestie] not knowing ye premises granted, and ye same being
first referred [to the] Archbishop of Canterbury ... their lordships ...
deliuered their opinion against her, since which she hath gotten a new
reference to the Lord Chancellor and Master Secretary Nanton, who not
examining yᵉ title vpon oath and the Stationers being not then able to
produce those materiall proofes which now they can their honors
certified for her, wherevpon her friends hath his Majestie’s grant for
ye printing and selling of the sayed book for xxi. years to her vse....
Mistris Ogden hath gotten by begging from ye clergy and others diuers
great somes of money towards ye printing of her fathers workes. Master
Norton and myself haue for many £1000 bought ye office of his Majesties
printer to which ye printing of ye translacons of the Bible or any parts
thereof sett furth by the State belongs. Now the greatest parte of Dr.
Fulkes worke is the new testament in English sett forth by
authoritie.”[313]
Footnote 313:
Arber, _Transcript_, Vol. III., p. 39.
Another patent was granted to Helen Mason for “printing and selling the
abridgment of the book of martyres,”[314] while Jane, wife of Sir Thomas
Bludder, petitions Archbishop Laud, showing that “She with John Bill an
infant have by grant from the King the moiety of the office of King’s
Printer and amongst other things the printing of Bibles. This is
infringed by a printer in Scotland, who printed many Bibles there and
imported them into England ... she prays the Archbishop to hear the case
himself.”[315]
Footnote 314:
Arber, _Transcript_, Vol. V., lviii.
Footnote 315:
_S.P.D._, cccxxxix., p. 89.
Many of the books printed at this time bear the names of women
printers,[316] but though women might own and direct the printing
houses, there is no indication that they were ever engaged in the manual
processes of printing. The printers’ trade does in fact furnish rather a
good example of the effect upon women’s economic position of the
transition from family industry to capitalistic organisation. It is true
that many links in the evolution must be supplied by the imagination. We
can imagine the master printer with his press, working at home with the
help of his apprentice, his wife and children; then as his trade
prospered he employed journeymen printers who were the real craftsmen,
and it became possible for the owner of the business to be a man or
woman who had never been bred up to the trade.
Footnote 316:
e.g. _An Essay of Drapery_ ... by William Scott, printed by Eliz. Alde
for S. Pennell, London, 1635. Calvin, _Institution of Christian
Religion_. Printed by the widowe of R. Wolfe, London, 1574. The
fourthe edition of _Porta Linguarum_ is printed by E. Griffin for M.
Sparke. London, 1639.
Apprenticeship was still exacted for the journeymen. A Star Chamber
decree in 1637 provides that no “master printer shall imploy either to
worke at the Case, or the Presse, or otherwise about his printing, any
other person or persons, then such only as are Freemen, or Apprentices
to the Trade or mystery of Printing.”[317] While in 1676 the Stationers’
Company ordained that “no master-printer, or other printer or workman
... shall teach, direct or instruct any person or persons whatsoever,
other than his or their own legitimate son or sons, in this Art or
Mystery of Printing, who is not actually bound as an Apprentice to some
lawful authorised Printer.”[318]
Footnote 317:
Arber, _Transcript_, Vol. IV., p. 534.
Footnote 318:
_Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 16.
From the omission here of any mention of daughters it is clear that the
Master Printers’ women-folk did not concern themselves with the
technical side of his trade; but some attempt was evidently made to use
other girls in the unskilled processes, for on a petition being
presented in 1635 by the younger printers, concerning abuses which they
wished removed, the Stationers’ Company adopted the following
recommendation, “That no Master Printer shall hereafter permit or suffer
by themselves or their journeyman any Girles, Boyes, or others to take
off anie sheets from the tinpin of the presse, but hee that pulleth at
the presse shall take off every sheete himself.”[319]
Footnote 319:
_S.P.D._, ccci., 105, Nov. 16, 1635.
The young printers were successful in their efforts to preserve the
monopoly value of their position, and formed an organisation amongst
themselves to protect their interests against the masters; but in this
association the wives of the young printers found no place. They could
no longer help their husbands who were working, not at home, but on the
master’s premises; and as girls were not usually apprenticed to the
printing trade women were now virtually excluded from it.
Some imagination is needed to realise the social results of the change
thus effected by capitalistic organisation on the economic position of
married women, for no details have been discovered of the printers’
domestic circumstances; but as the wife was clearly unable to occupy
herself with her husband’s trade, neither she nor her daughters could
share the economic privileges which he won for himself and his fellows
by his organising ability. If his wages were sufficiently high for her
to devote herself to household affairs, she became his unpaid domestic
servant, depending entirely on his goodwill for the living of herself
and her children; otherwise she must have conducted a business on her
own account, or obtained work as a wage-earner, in neither case
receiving any protection from her husband in the competition of the
labour market.
The wives and widows of the Masters were meanwhile actively engaged in
other branches of the Stationers’ Company. In a list of Publishers
covering the years 1553-1640, nearly ten per cent. of the names given
are those of women, probably all of whom were widows.[320] One of these,
the widow of Francis Coldock, married in 1603 Isaac Binge, the Master of
the Company. “She had three husbands, all Bachelors and Stationers, and
died 1616, and is buried in St. Andrew Undershaft in a vault with Symon
Burton her father.”[321] The names of these women can be found also in
the books they published. For example “The True Watch and Rule of Life”
by John Brinsley the elder, printed by H. Lownes for Joyce Macham, _7th
ed._ 1615, the eighth edition being printed for her by T. Beale in 1619,
and “an Epistle ... upon the present pestilence” by Henoch Clapham, was
printed by T.C. for the Widow Newbery, London, 1603. A woman who was a
Binder is referred to in an order made by the Bishop of London in 1685
“to damask ... counterfeit Primmirs’ seized at Mrs. Harris’s
Binder,”[322] and Women are also met with as booksellers. Anne Bowler
sold the book “Catoes Morall Distichs” ... printed by Annes Griffin. The
Quakers at Horsley Down paid to Eliz. ffoulkes 3s. for their minute
book,[323] while Pepys’ bookseller was a certain Mrs. Nicholls.[324] The
death of Edward Croft, Bookseller, is recorded in Smyth’s _Obituary_,
“his relict, remarried since to Mr. Blagrave, an honest bookseller, who
live hapily in her house in Little Britain.”[325]
Footnote 320:
Arber, _Transcript_, Vol. V., p. lxxxi-cxi.
Footnote 321:
_Ibid._, Vol. V., p. lxiii.
Footnote 322:
Arber, _Transcript_, Vol. V., p. lv.
Footnote 323:
Monthly Meeting Minutes. Horsleydown, 13 iᵐᵒ 167⅞.
Footnote 324:
Pepys, _Diary_, Vol. I., p. 26.
Footnote 325:
Smyth’s _Obituary_, P. 77.
The trade of a bookseller was followed by women in the provinces as well
as in London, the Howards paying “For books bought of Eliz. Sturton
iijs.”[326] and Sir John Foulis enters in his account book “To Ard.
Hissops relict and hir husband for 3 paper bookes at 10 gr. p. peice and
binding other 4 bookes, 18. 14. 0 [Scots money], to them for a gramer
and a salust to the bairns, 1.2.0. She owes me 6/8. of change.”[327]
Footnote 326:
Howard, _Household Books_, p.161, 1622.
Footnote 327:
Foulis, Sir John, _Acct. Book_, p. 22, 1680.
Presumably all the women who were engaged in either of these allied
trades in London were free of the Stationers’ Company, and in most cases
they were widows. Many apprentices were made free on the testimony of a
woman,[328] and though these in some cases may have almost completed
their servitude before the death of their master, “Mistris Woolff” gives
testimony for one apprentice in 1601, and for another in 1603, showing
that she at least continued the management of her husband’s business for
some years, and as she received a new apprentice during this time,[329]
it is evident that she had no intention of relinquishing it.
Footnote 328:
“Mistres Gosson. Stephan Coxe, Sworne and Admytted a Freeman of this
Companie iijs, iiijid. Note that master Warden White Dothe Reporte,
for mistres Gosson’s Consent to the makinge of this prentice free.
(Arbers, _Transcript_, Vol. II., p. 727, 1600.) Alice Gosson Late wyfe
of Thomas Gosson. Henry Gosson sworne and admitted A ffreeman of this
company per patrimonium iijs. iiijid. (_Ibid._ p. 730, 1601.) Mistres
Woolff. John Barnes sworne and admitted A freeman (_Ibid._ p. 730,
1601.) Jane proctor, Wydowe of William proctor. Humfrey Lympenny
sworne and admitted A ffreeman of this Companye iijs. iiijd, (_Ibid._
p. 730, 1601.) Mystris Conneway Nicholas Davyes sworn and admitted A
freeman of this company per patrimonium iijs. iiijid. (_Ibid._ p. 732,
1602.)”
Footnote 329:
Johne Adams of London (stationer’s son) apprenticed to Alice Woolff of
citie of London widowe for 8 years 2s. 6d. (Arber, _Transcript_, Vol.
II., p. 253, 1601.) Other instances of apprentices being bound to
women occur as for example “Wm. Walle apprenticed to Elizabeth Hawes
Widow for 8 years,” (_Ibid._, Vol. II., p. 287, 1604.) “Thomas
Richardson of York apprenticed to Alice Gosson, of citie of London
wydowe for 7 years, 2s. 6d.” (_Ibid._, Vol. II., p. 249, 1600).
When on her husband’s death the widow transferred an apprentice to some
other master we may infer that she felt unable to take the charge of
business upon her. This happened not infrequently, “Robert Jackson late
apprentise with Raffe Jackson is putt ouer by consent of his mystres
unto master Burby to serve out the Residue of his terms of apprentishood
with him, the Last yere excepted.... Anthony Tomson ... hath putt him
self an apprentice to master Gregorie Seton ... for 8 yeres.... Eliz.
Hawes shall haue the services and benefit of this Apprentise during her
wydohed or marrying one of the Company capable of him.”[330] “John
leonard apprentise to Edmond Bolifant deceased is putt ouer by the
consent of the said mary Bolyfant unto Richard Bradocke ... to serue out
the residue of his apprentiship.”[331] But whether the widow wished to
continue the business as a “going concern” or not, she, and she only,
was in possession of the privileges connected therewith, for she was
virtually her husband’s partner, and his death did not disturb her
possession. The old rule of copyright recognised her position, providing
“that copies peculiar for life to any person should not be granted to
any other but the Widow of the deceased”, she certifying the title of
the book to the Master and Wardens, and entering the book in the “bookes
of thys Company.”[332]
Footnote 330:
_Ibid._, p. 260, 1602.
Footnote 331:
_Ibid._, p. 262, 1602.
Footnote 332:
Arber _Transcript_, Vol. V., p. 11, 1560.
The history of the Carpenters’ Company resembles that of the Stationers’
in some respects, though the character of a carpenter’s employment,
which was so often concerned with building operations, carried on away
from his shop, did not favour the continuance of his wife in the
business after his death. The “Boke” of the ordinances of the
Brotherhood of the Carpenters of London, dated 1333, shows the Society
to have been at that time a Brotherhood formed “of good men carpenters
of men and women” for common religious observances and mutual help in
poverty and sickness, partaking of the nature of a Benefit Society
rather than a Trade Union. The Brotherhood was at the same time a
Sisterhood, and Brethren and Sisters are mentioned together in all but
two of its articles. In the later code of ordinances, of which a copy
has been preserved dated 1487, sisters are but twice mentioned, when
tapers are prescribed at the burying of their bodies and prayers for the
resting of their souls.[333] Women’s names seldom occur in the Records,
apart from entries connected with those who were tenants, or charitable
grants to widows fallen into poverty, or with payments to the Bedell’s
wife for washing tablecloths and napkins.[334] In one instance
considerable trouble was experienced because the Bedell’s wife would not
turn out of their house after the Bedell’s death. In September, 1567,
“it is agreed and fullie determyned by the Mʳ wardeins & assystaunce of
this company that Syslie burdon wydowe late wife of Richard burdon
dwelling wᵗʰin this house at the will & pleasure of the foresaid Mʳ &
wardeins shall quyetlye & peaceablye dept out of & from her now
dwellinge at Xpistmas next or before & at her departure to have the some
of Twentie six shillinges & eight pence of Lawfull money of England in
reward.”[335] Syslie Burdon however did not wish to move, and in the
following February another entry occurs “at this courte it is agreed
further that Cysley burdon wydowe at the feast daye of thannunciacon of
oʳ Ladie Sᵗ marye the virgin next ensueng the date abovesayd shall dept.
& goe from her nowe dwellinge house wherein she now dwelleth wᵗʰ in this
hall & at the same tyme shall have at her deptur if she doethe of her
owne voyd wᵗʰout anye further troublynge of the Mʳ and wardeins of this
house at that p’sent tyme the some of Twentie six shillinges eightpense
in reward.”[336] Cyslie Burdon may have believed that as a widow she had
a just claim to the house, for leases granted by the Company at this
time were usually for the life of the tenant and his wife.[337]
Footnote 333:
_Records of the Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, Vol. II., Intro.,
p. ix.
Footnote 334:
For example “Itm payd to the bedells wyffe for kepyng of the gardyn
vijs.” _Ibid._ Vol. IV., p. 2. _Warden’s Acct. Book_, 1546. She had
besides iiijs. “for her hole yeres wasschyng the clothes” (p. 11) and
iiijid. “for skoryng of the vessell,” (p. 13) this payment was later
increased to xijid. and she had “for bromes for Oʳ Hall every quarter
a jid.” (p. 33) in Reward for her attendance ijs, (p. 114). Burdons
wyffe for dressing your dinner xiiijid. (p. 129).
Footnote 335:
_Records of the Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, Vol. III., _Court
Book_, p. 97.
Footnote 336:
_Ibid._ p. 103.
Footnote 337:
_Ibid._ Vol. III., pp. 10-11, March 15, 1544-5. “agreyed and
codyssendyd thatt frances pope and hys wyffe schall have and hold a
gardyn plott lyeng be oure hall in the prysche of alhallouns at london
Wall for the tyme of the longer lever of them bothe payeing viijs: be
the yere ... the sayd [ ]pope nor hys wyffe schall not take dowene no
palles nor pale postes nor Raylles In the garden nor no tres nor
bussches schall nott plucke upe be the Rootes nor cutte theme downe
nor no maner of erbys ... wᵗowt the lycens of the Master and Wardyns
of the mystery of Carpenters” Aug. 10, 1564, “agreed and condissendid
that Robart masckall and Elyzabeth his wiffe shall have and hold the
Howse which He now occupieth duryng his lyffe and after the deseese of
the said Robart to Remayne to Elizabeth his wyffe duryng her wyddohed
paying yerlye xls of lawfull mony of England” etc., _Ibid._ Vol. III.,
p. 78.
Women accompanied their husbands to the Company dinners as a matter of
course. In 1556 “the clothyng” are ordered to pay for “ther dynner at
the Dynner day ijs. vjid. a man whether ther wyffes or they themselves
come or no.”[338] But the entries do not suggest that the position of
equal sisters which they held in the days of the old “Boke” was
maintained. Women made presents to the Company. “Mistrys ellis,” the
wife of one of the masters of the Company, presented “a sylv̄ pott ꝑsell
gylt the q̄ter daye at candylmas wayeing viij ozes & a qter.”[339] This
apparently was in memory of her deceased husband, for in the same year
she “turned over” an apprentice, and in 1564 a fine was paid by Richard
Smarte “for not comyng at yᵉ owre appoynted to mistris Ellis
beriall—xijid.”[340] Neither the existence of these two instances, which
show a lively interest in the Company, nor the absence of other
references can be taken as conclusive evidence one way or another
concerning the social position of the sisters in the Company. Among the
many judgments passed on brothers for reviling each other, using
“ondecent words,” etc., etc., only once is a woman fined for this
offence, when in 1556 the warden enters in his account book “Resd of
frances stelecrag a fyne for yll wordes that his wyffe gave to John
Dorrant ijˢ—Resd of John Dorrant for yll wordes that he gave to Mystris
frances xvjᵈ—Resd of Wyllam Mortym̃ a fyne for callyng of Mystris
frances best ijˢ.”[341]
Footnote 338:
_Records of Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, Vol. III., p. 58.
Footnote 339:
_Ibid._ Vol. IV., p. 99, _Wardens Acct. Book_, 1558.
Footnote 340:
In 1563 xxs. was “Resd of Wyllym barnewell at yᵉ buryall of his wiffe
yᵗ she dyd wyll to be gyven to yᵉ Cōpany.” (_Ibid._ Vol. IV., p. 147)
“Payd at the buryall of barnewell’s wyffe at yᵉ kyges hedd. xiiijs.
iiijid. Paid to the bedle for Redyng of yᵉ wyll viijid.” (_Ibid._ Vol.
IV., p. 149.)
Footnote 341:
_Ibid._ Vol. IV., p. 84.
It is certain that the wives of carpenters, like the wives of other
tradesmen, shared the business anxieties of their husbands, the help
they rendered being most often in buying and selling. This activity is
reflected in some rules drawn up to regulate the purchase of timber. In
1554 “yᵗ was agreyd be the Master & wardyns and the moste parte of the
assestens that no woman shall come to the waters to by tymber bourde
lath q̄ters ponchons gystes & Raffters ther husbandes beyng in the town
uppon payne to forfyt at ëvry tyme so fownd.”[342] The Company’s
decision was not readily obeyed, for on March 8th, 1547, “the Master and
the Wardyns wᵗ partt of the Assestens went to the gyldehall to have had
a Redresse for the women that came to the watersyde to by stuffe,”[343]
and on March 10th “was called in John Armestrong, Wyllyam boner, Wyllyam
Watson, John Gryffyn and Henry Wrest there having amonyssion to warne
ther wyffes that they schulde not by no stuffe at the waters syd upone
payne of a fyne.”[344]
Footnote 342:
_Records of Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, Vol. III., p. 15,
_Court Book_.
Footnote 343:
_Ibid._ Vol. III., p. 30.
Footnote 344:
_Ibid._ Vol. III., p. 31.
On her husband’s death the carpenter’s wife generally retired from
business, transferring her apprentices for a consideration to another
master. That this practice was not universal is shown in the case of a
boy who had been apprenticed to Joseph Hutchinson and was “turned over
to Anne Hayward, widow, relict of Richard Hayward Carpentar.”[345] Mrs.
Hayward must clearly have been actively prosecuting her late husband’s
business. The women who “make free” apprentices seem generally to have
done so within a few months of their husband’s deaths. That the Company
recognised the right of women to retain apprentices if they chose is
shown by the following provision in Statutes dated November 10th, 1607.
“If any Apprentice or Apprentices Marry or Absent themselves from their
Master or Mistress During their Apprenticehood, then within one month
the Master or Mistress is to Bring their Indentures to the hall to be
Registered and Entered, etc.” “None to Receive or take into their
service or house any Man or Woman’s Apprentice Covenant Servant or
Journeyman within the limits aforesaid, etc.”[346]
Footnote 345:
_Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 136.
Footnote 346:
_Records of the Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, Vol. I., Intro.
vii-viii.
When a carpenter’s widow could keep her husband’s business together, no
one disputed her right to receive apprentices. Several instances of
their doing so are recorded towards the end of the century.[347] The
right to succeed her husband in his position as carpenter and member of
the worshipful company was immediately allowed when claimed by a widow;
thus the court “agreed ... that Johan burton wydowe late wife of [ ]
burton citezein and Carpenter of London for that warninge hathe not ben
goven unto her from tyme to tyme at the Quarterdaies heretofore From
henseforthe shall have due warninge goven unto her everye Quarterdaye
and at the next Quarterdaie she shall paye in discharge of tharrerages
behind Twelve pence & so shall paye her Quateridge (pᵈ xijid.)”[348]; a
year later “burtons widow” makes free an apprentice Mighell
Pattinson.[349]
Footnote 347:
_Ibid._ p. 137, May 2, 1671. Richardus Read filius Thome Read de Chart
Magna in Com. Kanc. Shoemaker po: se appren Josepho Hutchinson Bedello
Hujus Societat pro Septem Ann a die dat Indre Dat die et ann ult pred
(Assign immediate Susanne Catlin vid nuper uxor. Johannis Catlin nuper
Civis et Carpenter London defunct uten etc).
_Ibid._ p. 153. Dec. 5, 1676. Johannes Keyes filius Willi. Keyes nuper
de Hampsted in Com. Middx. Milwright ed Elizabetham Davis vid. willi
Davis nuper Civi & Carpentar de London a die date pred etc (sic).
_Ibid._ p. 158. July 1, 1679. Samuell Goodfellow filius Johanni of
Rowell in Com. Northton Corwayner pon se Martha Wildey relict of
Robert pro septem annis a dat etc.
_Ibid._ p. 161. Ap. 5, 1681. Georg Thomas filius Thome nuper de
Carlyon in Com Monmouth gent pon se Apprenticum Elizabeth Whitehorne
of Aldermanbury vid. Johis. pro septem Annis a dat.
_Ibid._ p. 164. Oct. 4, 1681. Richard Lynn sonn of William Lynn decd.
pon se Apprenticum Marie Lynn widdow Relict of the said William C: C:
pro septem annis a dat.
_Ibid._ p. 165. March 7, 1681-2. John Whitehorne son of John
Whitehorne C: C: Ld, pon se apprenticum Elizabethe Relict. ejusdem
Joh’s Whitehorne pro septem annis a dat.
_Ibid._ p. 171. Apr. 5, 1686. Richard Sᵗevenson sonne of Robᵗ
Stevenson late of Dublin in the Kingedome of Ireland Pavier bound to
Anne Nicholson Widowe the Relict of Anthony Nicholson, for eight
yeares.
_Ibid._ p. 189. June 7, 1692. Robert Harper sonne of William Harper of
Notchford in the county of Chesheire, bound to Abigail Taylor for
Seaven Yeares.
Curiously enough, during the period 1654 to 1670, twenty-one girls were
bound apprentice at Carpenters’ Hall. Probably none of these expected to
learn the trade of a carpenter.[350] Nine were apprenticed to Richard
Hill and his wife, who lived first near St. Michael’s, Cornehill,[351]
and afterwards against Trinity Minories.[352] They were apprenticed for
seven years to learn the trade of a sempstress, and probably in each
case a heavy premium was paid, a note being made against the name of
Prudentia Cooper, who was bound in 1664 “(obligatur Pater in 50ˡ pro
ventute apprenticij).”[353]
Footnote 348:
_Records of Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, Vol. III., p. 102,
_Court Book_, 1567.
Footnote 349:
_Ibid._ Vol. III., p. 200.
Footnote 350:
_Ibid._ Vol. I., Intro. p. x-xi. Apprentice Entry Book.
Footnote 351:
_Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 62.
Footnote 352:
_Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 125.
Footnote 353:
_Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 78.
Richard Hill’s wife’s name is included in the Indentures three times,
and in 1672 a boy was apprenticed to “Ric. Hill Civi _et_ Carpenter
London necnon de little Minories Silk Winder.”[354] We may infer that
Mrs. Hill had founded the business before or after her marriage with the
carpenter, and that hers proving profitable the husband had been
satisfied with working for wages, while retaining the freedom of the
Company, or had transferred his services to his wife’s business, adding
that of a Silk winder to it. One girl originally apprenticed to Henry
Joyse was “turned over to Anne Joyse sempstress & sole merchant without
Thomas Joyse her husband,”[355] five were apprenticed to Henry Joyce to
learn the trade of a milliner. No mention is made of his wife, but as he
received boy apprentices also,[356] it may be supposed that in fact the
two trades of a carpenter and a milliner were carried on in this case
simultaneously by him and his wife. The blending of these two trades is
noted again in the case of Samuel Joyce;[357] the trade the other girls
were to learn is not generally specified, but Rebecca Perry was
definitely apprenticed to William Addington “to learne the Art of a
Sempstress of his wife.”[358] Two girls were apprenticed to “Thome
Clarke ... London Civi et Carpenter ad discend artem de Child’s Coate
seller existen. art. uxoris sue pro septem annis.”[359]
Footnote 354:
_Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 145.
Footnote 355:
_Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 136.
Footnote 356:
_Records of the Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, Vol. I., p. 65,
e.g. Brewin Radford (obligatur Maria Radford de Perpole in Com Dorsett
vid. in 100ˡ pro ventut apprentice).
Footnote 357:
_Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 149, 1674. “Edmundus Wilstead filius Henrici
Wilstead de Thetford in Com Norfolcie yeoman po: se appren. Samueli
Joyse Civi et Carpenter London necnon de Exambia Regali London miliner
pro septem annis” etc.
Footnote 358:
_Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 162.
Footnote 359:
_Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 148.
Elizabeth Lambert, the daughter of Thomas Lambert, formerly of London,
silkeman, was apprenticed in 1678 to Rebecca Cooper, widow of Thomas
Cooper, “Civis Carpenter London,” for seven years.[360] Another girl who
had been apprenticed to this same woman in 1668 applied for her freedom
in 1679, which was granted, though apparently her request was an unusual
one, the records stating that “Certaine Indentures of Apprentiship were
made whereby Rebecca Gyles, daughter of James Gyles of Staines, ... was
bound Apprentice to Rebecca Cooper of the parish of St. Buttolph without
Aldgate widdow for seaven yeares ... this day att a Court of assistants
then holden for this Company came Rebecca Gylles Spinster sometime
servant to Rebecca Cooper a free servant of this Company, and complained
that haveing served her said Mistres faithfully a Terme of seaven years
whᶜʰ expired the twenty-fourth day of June, 1675, and often desired of
her said Mistris Testimony of her service to the end shee might bee made
free, her said Mistres had hitherto denyed the same; & then presented
credible persons within this Citty to testifie the truth of her said
service, desireing to bee admitted to the freedome of this Company,
which this Table thought reasonable, vnlesse the said Rebecca Cooper,
her said Mistres on notice hereof to bee given, shall shew reasonable
cause to the contrary, etc.”[361] Encouraged by the success of this
application, two other girls followed Rebecca Gyles’ example, one being
presented for her freedom at Carpenters’ Hall by Thomas Clarke in 1683
and another by Henry Curtis in 1684.[362]
Footnote 360:
_Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 156.
Footnote 361:
Jupp, _Carpenters_, p. 161, 1679.
Footnote 362:
_Records of Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, Vol. I., p. 198.
Thus it may be presumed that apprenticeship to a brother or sister of
the Carpenters’ Company conferred the right of freedom upon any girls
who chose to avail themselves of the privilege, even when the trade
actually learnt was not that of carpentry. Amongst the girl apprentices
only one other was directly bound to a woman, namely “Elizabetha filia
Hester Eitchus ux. Geo. Eitchus nuper Civi et Carpentar. pon se dict
Hester matri pro septem ann a dat etc.”[363] Although Hester Eitchus is
here called “uxor” she must really have been a widow, for her name would
not have appeared alone on the indenture during her husband’s lifetime;
boy apprentices had previously been bound to him, and no doubt as in the
other cases husband and wife had been prosecuting their several trades
simultaneously, the wife retaining her membership in the Carpenters’
Company when left a widow. An independent business must have been very
necessary for the wife in cases where the husband worked for wages, and
not on his own account, for in 1563 carpenter’s wages were fixed “be my
lorde mayors commandement ... yf they dyd fynde themselves meat and
drynke at xiiijᵈ the day and their servants xijᵈ. Itm otherwises the
sayd carpynters to have viijᵈ the day wayges meat & drynke & their
servants vjᵈ meat & drynke.”[364] These wages would have been inadequate
for the maintenance of a family in London, and therefore unless the
carpenter was in a position to employ apprentices and enter into
contracts, in which case he could find employment also for his wife, she
must have traded in some way on her own account.
Footnote 363:
_Ibid._ Vol. I., _App. Entry Book_, p. 159, Feb. 3, 1679.
Footnote 364:
_Records of the Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, Vol. III., p. 75,
_Court Book_.
It is difficult to say how far the position of women in the Stationers’
and Carpenters’ Companies was typical of their position in the other
great London Companies and in the Gilds and Companies which flourished
or decayed in the provinces. All these organisations resembled each
other in certain broad outlines, but varied considerably in details. All
seem to have agreed in the early association of brothers and sisters on
equal terms for social and religious purposes. Thus the Carpenters’ was
“established one perpetual brotherhood, or guild ... to consist of one
master, three wardens, and commonalty of freemen, of the Mystery of
Carpentry ... and of the brethren and sisters of freemen of the said
mystery.”[365] The charter granted by Henry VI. to the Armourers and
Braziers provided “that the brethren and sisters of that ffraternity or
guild, ... should be of itself one perpetual community ... and have
perpetual sucession. And that the brothers and sisters of the same
ffraternity or guild, ... might choose and make one Master and two
Wardens from among themselves; and also elect and make another Master
and other Wardens into the office aforesaid, according to the ordinances
of the better and worthier part of the same brethren and
sisters....”[366] In this case the sisters were regarded as active and
responsible members but of the Merchant Taylors Clode says “It is clear
that women were originally admitted as members and took apprentices;
that it was customary in later years for women to dine or be present at
the quarterly meetings is evidenced by a notice of their absence in
1603, ‘the upper table near to the garden, commonly called the _Mistris
Table_, was furnished with sword bearer and gentlemen strangers, there
being no gentlewomen at this Quarter Day.’ In many of the wills of early
benefactors, sisters as well as brethren are named as ‘devisees.’ Thus
in Sibsay’s (1404) the devise is ‘to the Master and Wardens and brethren
and sisters’.... When an Almsman of the Livery married with the
Company’s consent his widow remained during her life an almswoman, and
was buried by the Company. In that sense she was treated as a sister of
the fraternity, but she probably exercised no rights as a member of
it.”[367]
Footnote 365:
Jupp, _Carpenters_, p. 12.
Footnote 366:
_Armourers and Braziers._, _Charter and By-laws of the Company_, p. 4.
Footnote 367:
Clode, _History of the Merchant Taylors_, London, Vol. I., p. 42.
The sisters are often referred to in the rules relating to the dinners,
which were such an important feature of gild life. The “Grocers”
provided that “Every one of the Fraternity from thenceforward, that has
a wife or companion, shall come to the feast, and bring with him a lady
if he pleases; [et ameyne avec luy une demoiselle si luy plest] if they
cannot come, for the reasons hereafter named, that is to say, sick, big
with child, and near deliverance, without any other exception; and that
every man shall pay for his wife 20d.; also, that each shall pay 5s.,
that is to say, 20d. for himself, 20d. for his companion, and 20d. for
the priest. And that all women who are not of the Fraternity, and
afterwards should be married to any of the Fraternity, shall be entered
and looked upon as of the Fraternity for ever, and shall be assisted and
made as one of us; and after the death of her husband, the widow shall
come to the dinner, and pay 40d. if she is able. And if the said widow
marries any one not of the Fraternity, she shall not be admitted to the
said feast, nor have any assistance given her, as long as she remains so
married, be whom she will; nor none of us ought to meddle or interfere
in anything with her on account of the Fraternity, as long as she
remains unmarried.”[368]
Footnote 368:
Heath, _Acct. of the Worshipful Company of Grocers_, p. 53, memo.
1348.
The Wardens of the Merchant Gild at Beverley were directed to make in
turn yearly “one dinner for all his bretherne and theire wieves.”[369]
The Pewterers decided that “every man and wif that comyth to the
yemandries dynner sholde paye xvjid. And every Jorneyman that hath a wif
... xvjᵈ. And every lone man beinge a howsholder that comyth to dynner
shall paye xijᵈ. and every Jorneyman having no wif and comyth to dynner
shall paye viijᵈ. ... every man that hath bynne maryed wᵗʰin the same ij
years shall geve his cocke or eƚƚe paye xijᵈ.... Provided always that
none bringe his gest wᵗʰ him wᵗʰowt he paye for his dynner as moch as he
paith for hymself and that they bring no childerne wᵗʰ them passing one
& no more.”[370] In 1605 it was agreed that “ther shalbe called all the
whole clothyng and ther wyves and the wydowes whose husbandes have byne
of the clothynge and that shalbe payed ijs. man & wyffe and the wydowes
xijid. a peece.”[371] In 1672, the expense of entertaining becoming
irksome, “an order of Coʳᵗ for ye abateing extraoʳdinary Feasting” was
made, requiring the “Master & Wardens ... to deposit each 12li & spend
yᵉ one half thereof upon the Masters & Wardens ffeast this day held, and
the Other moyety to be and remain to yᵉ Compᵃ use. Now this day the sᵈ
Feast was kept but by reason of the women being invited yᵉ Charge of yᵉ
Feast was soe extream that nothing could be cleered to yᵉ house
according to yᵉ sᵈ order. There being Spent near 90li.”[372]
Footnote 369:
Leach, _Beverley Town Documents_, p. 95, 1582.
Footnote 370:
Welch, _History of Pewterers Company_, Vol. I., p. 201, 1559.
Footnote 371:
_Ibid._ Vol. II., p. 47.
Footnote 372:
Welch, _Hist. of Pewterers’ Company_, Vol. II., p. 145.
Sisters are also remembered in the provisions made for religious
observances and assistance in times of sickness. The ordinances of the
Craft of the Glovers at Kingston-upon-Hull required that “every brother
and syster of ye same craffᵗᵗ be at every offeryng within the sayd town
with every brother or syster of the same crafftt as well at weddynges as
at beryalles.” Brethren and sisters were to have lights at their
decease, and if in poverty to have them freely.[373] The “yoman
taillours” made application “that they and others of their fraternity of
yomen yearly may assemble ... near to Smithfield and make offerings for
the souls of brethren and sister etc.”[374] In the city of Chester, when
a charter was given to joiners, carvers and turners to become a separate
Company, not part of the Carpenters’ as formerly, to be called the
Company of the Joiners, it is said “Every brother of the said
occupacions shall bee ready att all times ... to come unto ... the
burial of every brother and sister of the said occupacions.”[375]
Footnote 373:
Lambert, _Two Thousand Years of Gild Life_, p. 217, 1499.
Footnote 374:
_Ibid._ p. 229, 1415.
Footnote 375:
Harl. MSS., 2054, fo. 5. _Charter of the Joiner’s Co._
Sisters must have played an important part in the functions of the
Merchant Taylors of Bristol, for an order was made in 1401 that “the
said maister and iiii wardeyns schall ordeyne every yere good and
convenient cloth of oon suyt for all brothers and sisters of the said
fraternity....”[376] The Charter of this Company provided that “ne man
ne woman be underfange into the fraternite abovesaid withoute assent of
the Keper and maister etc. ... and also that hit be a man or woman y
knowe of good conversation and honeste.... Also y^f eny brother other
soster of thys fraternite above sayde that have trewly y payed hys
deutes yat longeth to ye fraternite falle into poverte other into
myschef and maie note travalle for to he be releved, he schal have of ye
comune goodes every weke xxiᵈ of monei ... and yf he be a man yat hath
wyfe and chylde he schal trewly departe alle hys goodes bytwyne heir and
hys wyfe and children; and ye partie that falleth to hym he schal trewly
yeld up to ye mayster and to ye wardynes of the fraternite obove sayde,
in ye maner to fore seide....” The brothers and sisters shall share in
the funeral ceremonies, etc., “also gif eny soster chyde with other
openly in the strete, yat eyther schalle paye a pounde wex to ye lighte
of the fraternite; and gif they feygte eyther schall paie twenty pounde
wex to ye same lyte upon perryle of hir oth gif thei be in power. And
gif eny soster by y proved a commune chider among her neygbourys after
ones warnyng other tweies at the (delit) ye thridde tyme ye maister and
ye wardeynes of ye fraternite schulle pute her out of ye compaynye for
ever more.”[377]
Footnote 376:
Fox (F. F.) _Merchant Taylors, Bristol_, p. 31.
Footnote 377:
_Ibid._ p. 26-9.
Chiding and reviling were failings common to all gilds, and were by no
means confined to the sisters. The punishments appointed by the Merchant
Gild at Beverley for those “who set up detractions, or rehearse past
disputes, or unduly abuse”[378] are for brothers only. And though it was
“Agreed by the Mʳ Wardens and Assystaunce” of the Pewterers that “Robert
west sholde bringe in his wif vpon ffrydaye next to reconsile her self
to Mʳ Cacher and others of the Company for her naughty mysdemeanoʳ of
her tonge towarde them,”[379] the quarrelling among the Carpenters seems
to have been almost confined to the men.
Footnote 378:
Leach, _Beverley Town Documents_, p. 78, 1494.
Footnote 379:
Welch, Charles, _Hist. of Pewterers Company_, Vol. I., p. 200, 1558.
There can be no doubt that the sisters shared fully in the social and
religious life of the Gilds; it is also perfectly clear that the wife
was regarded by the Gild or Company as her husband’s partner, and that,
after his death she was confirmed in the possession of his business with
his leases and apprentices at least during the term of her widowhood.
But the extent to which she really worked with him in his trade and was
qualified to carry it on as a going concern after his death is much more
difficult to determine, varying as it did from trade to trade and
depending so largely in each case upon the natural capacity of the
individual woman concerned. The extent to which a married woman could
work with her husband depended partly upon whether his trade was carried
on at home or abroad. It has been suggested that the carpenters who
often were engaged in building operations could not profit much by their
wives’ assistance, but many trades which in later times have become
entirely closed to women were then so dependent on their labour that
sisters are mentioned specifically in rules concerning the conditions of
manufacture. Thus the charter of the Armourers and Brasiers was granted
in the seventeenth year of James I. “to the Master and Wardens and
Brothers and Sisters of the ffraternity ... that from thenceforth All &
all manner of brass and copper works ... edged tools ... small guns ...
wrought by any person or persons being of the same ffraternity ...
should be searched and approved ... by skilful Artificers of the said
ffraternity.”[380] Rules which were drawn up at Salisbury in 1612
provide that no free brother or sister shall “rack, set, or cause to be
racked or set, any cloth upon any tenter, on the Sabbath day, under the
forfeiture of 2s.” The Wardens of the Company of Merchants, Mercers,
Grocers, Apothecaries, Goldsmiths, Drapers, Upholsterers, and
Embroiderers were ordered to search the wares, merchandise, weights and
measures of sisters as well as brothers.[381] “No free brother or sister
is at any time to put any horse leather into boots or shoes or any
liquored calves leather into boots or shoes, to be sold between the
feast of St. Bartholomew the Apostle and the Annunciation of the Virgin
Mary.... No free brother or sister is to keep or set up any standing in
the market place, except in fair times. No brother or sister is to set
open his or her shop, or to do any work, in making or mending of boots
and shoes on the Sabbath day, on pain of twelve pence forfeit.”[382]
Footnote 380:
_Armourers and Brasiers, Charter and Bye laws of Company of._, p. 5.
See also Johnson, _Ordinances of the Drapers of London_, Vol. I., p.
280, 1524).
“(it shall not be lawful unto any brother or sister freed in this
fellyship to take mo. apprentices than may stand in good order for
their degree) ... every brother being in the master’s livery shall pay
6s. 8d. and every sister whose husband has been of the aforesaid
livery shall pay for every apprentice 6s. 8d. and every other brother
or sister not being of the master’s livery shall pay for every
apprentice 3s. 4d.”
Footnote 381:
Hoare, Sir R. C., _Hist. of Modern Wilts_, Vol. VI., p. 340.
Footnote 382:
_Ibid._ Vol. VI., p. 343.
Rules which specifically permit the employment of the master’s wife or
daughter in his trade while excluding other unapprenticed persons, are
in themselves evidence that they were often so employed. Thus the
Glovers allowed “noe brother of this ffraternity” to “take an apprentice
vnder the full end and tearme of seaven years ffuly to be compleat ...
excepting brothers son or daughter....”[383] No leatherseller might “put
man, child or woman to work in the same mistery, if they be not bound
apprentice, and inrolled in the same mistery; excepting their wives and
children.”[384] Similarly the Girdlers in 1344 ordered that “no one of
the trade shall get any woman to work other than his wedded wife or
daughter”[385] while by a rule of the Merchant Taylors, Bristol “no
person ... shall cutt make or sell any kynde of garment, garments, hose
or breeches within ye saide cittie ... unles he be franchised and made
free of the saide crafte (widdowes whose husbandes were free of ye saide
crafte duringe the tyme of their wyddowhedd vsinge ye same with one
Jorneyman and one apprentice only excepted).”[386]
Footnote 383:
Ferguson, _Carlisle_, p. 212, _Glover’s Gild_, 1665.
Footnote 384:
Black, W. H., _Articles of the Leathersellers_, p. 21, 1398.
Footnote 385:
Smythe, W. D., _Hist. of Worshipful Co. of Girdlers, London_, p. 63.
Footnote 386:
Fox, F. F., _Merchant Taylors, Bristol_, pp. 64-65.
The association of women with their husbands in business matters is
often suggested by the presence of both their names on indentures.
Walter Beemer, for example, was apprenticed to John Castle of Marke and
Johane his wife to be instructed and brought up in the trade of a
tanner.[387] Sometimes it is shown by the indifference with which money
transactions are conducted either with husband or with wife. When the
Corporation at Dorchester purchased a new mace in 1660, Mr. Sam White’s
wife appears to have acted throughout in the matter. An entry in the
records for 1660 states that “the silver upon the old maces ... comes
unto iijˡⁱ.xviijˢ.iijᵈ, which was intended to bee delivered to Mr. Sam:
White’s wife towards payment for the new Maces.... Mr. White hath it the
18th of January, 1660.” (Inserted later).
July 3rd, 1661.—pd. Mrs. White as appeareth forward — 5 0 0
October 4th, 1661.—pd. Mrs. White more as appeareth forward — 4 10 0
About Michaelmas, Mr. Sauage pd Mrs. White in dollers— 7 7 0
April 26th, 1661.—It is ordered and agreed that twenty shillings a
man, which shall be lent and advanced to Mr. Samuel White’s wife by
any of this Company towards payment for the Maces shall be repayed
back to them.”[388]
Footnote 387:
_Somerset Quarter Sessions Records_, Vol. III., p. 165, 1652.
Footnote 388:
Mayo, G. H., _Municipal Records, Dorchester_, p. 466.
An equal indifference is shown by the Carpenters’ Company in making
payments for their ale. Sometimes these are entered to William Whytte,
but quite as often to “his wyffe.” For example in 1556 “Itm payd for
Yest to Whytte’s wyffe iiijᵈ.”[389] “Resd of Whytte’s wyffe her hole
yere’s Rent in ale xxixˢ iiijᵈ.”[390] “Itm payd to whytte’s wyffe for
ale above the rent of hyr howsse iijˢ.vjᵈ.” “Itm payd to whytte’s wyffe
for hopyng of tobbis xvjᵈ.”[391] Finally, in 1559, when perhaps William
Whytte had departed this life, it is entered “Resd of Mother whytte hole
yeres rent xxixˢ vijᵈ.”[392]
Footnote 389:
_Rec. of Worshipful Co. of Carpenters_, Vol. IV., p. 56, _Warden’s
Acct. Book_, 1556.
Footnote 390:
_Ibid._ Vol. IV., p. 86.
Footnote 391:
_Ibid._ Vol. IV., p. 88.
Footnote 392:
_Ibid._ Vol. IV., p. 101.
The Pewterers, in order to check stealing, ordered that “none of the
sayde Crafte shall bye anye Leade of Tylers, Laborers, Masons, boyes,
nor of women Nor of none such as shall seme to be a Suspect pson,”
adding “that none of the sayde companye shalbe excusyd by his wif or
servannte nor none other suche lyk excuse.”[393]
Footnote 393:
Welch, _Hist. of Pewterers’ Company_, Vol. I., pp. 180-181.
Gild rules recognise the authority of the mistress over apprentices, the
Clockmakers ordaining that “no servant or apprentice that ... hath
without just and reasonable cause, departed from his master, mistress or
dame, ... shall be admitted to work for himself,”[394] while the charter
of the Glass-sellers provides suitable punishment “if any apprentice ...
shall misbehave himself towards his master or mistress ... or shall lie
out of his master or mistress’s house without his or her privity.”[395]
Footnote 394:
Overall, _Company of Clockmakers_, London, p. 43, 1632.
Footnote 395:
Ramsay, Wm., _Hist. of the Glass-Sellers_, p. 125.
When a man who belonged to Gild or Company died, his wife was free to
continue his business under her own management, retaining her position
as a free sister, or she might withdraw from trade and transfer her
apprentices to another brother. In the Carpenters’ and some other trades
the latter was the more usual course to follow; thus Thomas Mycock, a
cutler, on taking over an apprentice who had served John Kay, deceased,
six years, covenanted to pay Kay’s widow 20s. a year for the three
remaining years,[396] but on the other hand the widow Poynton was paid
15s. 7d. “for glass worke” by the Burgery of Sheffield;[397] showing
that she had not withdrawn from business on her husband’s death. It is
clear that widows often lost their rights as sisters, if they took, as a
second husband, a man who was not and did not become a brother of the
same Gild. Thus there is an entry in the “Pewterers’ Records,” 1678,
concerning “Mrs. Sicily Moore, formerly the wife of Edward Fish, late
member of this Compᵃ decđ, and since marryed to one Moore, a fforeignir,
now also decđ, desired to be admitted into the ffreedome of this Compᵃ.
After some debate the Court agreed and soe Ordered that she shall be
received into the ffreedom of the Compᵃ Gratis, onely paying usuall
ffees and this Condition that she shall not bind any app’ntice by virtue
of the sᵈ Freedom.”[398]
Footnote 396:
Leader, _Hist. of Company of Cutlers_, Vol. I., p. 47, 1696.
Footnote 397:
Leader, _Records of the Burgery of Sheffield_, p. 227, 1685.
Footnote 398:
Welch, _Hist. of Pewterers’ Company_, Vol. II., p. 153.
Instances occur in which an apprentice was discharged because “the wife,
after the death of her Husband, taught him not.”[399] The apprentice
naturally brought forward this claim if by so doing there was a chance
of shortening the term of his service, but he was not always successful.
The Justices dismissed a case brought by Edward Steel, ordering him to
serve Elizabeth Apprice, widow, the remainder of his term. He was
apprenticed in 1684 to John Apprice Painter-Stainer for nine years; he
had served seven years when his master died, and he now declares that
Elizabeth, the widow, refuses to instruct him. She insists that since
her husband’s death she has provided able workmen to instruct this
apprentice, and that he was now capable of doing her good service.[400]
When the “widowe Holton prayed that she [being executor to her husband]
maye have the benefitt of the service of Roger Jakes, her husband’s
apprentice by Indenture, for the residue of the years to come, which he
denyeth to performe, it was ordered that th’apprentice shall dwell and
serve his dame duringe the residue of his terme, she providing for him
as well work as other things fitt for him.”[401] The Gilders having
accused Richard Northy of having more than the just number of
apprentices, he stated in his defence that the apprentice “was not any
that was taken or bound by him, but was left unto him by express words
in the will of his deceased mother-in-law whᶜʰ will, wᵗʰ the probate
thereof, he now produced in court.”[402]
Footnote 399:
Stow, _London_, Book V., p. 335.
Footnote 400:
_Middlesex Sessions Book_, p. 47, 1691.
Footnote 401:
Guilding, _Reading Records_, Vol. II., p. 362.
Footnote 402:
Smythe, _Company of Girdlers_, p. 133, 1635.
The occurrence of widows’ names among the cases which came before the
Courts for infringements of the Company’s rules is further evidence that
they were actively engaged in business. “Two bundles of unmade girdles
were taken from widows Maybury and Bliss, young widows they were ordered
to pay 5s. each by way of fine for making and selling unlawful
wares.”[403] Richard Hewatt, of Northover in Glastonbury, fuller, when
summoned to appear before the Somerset Quarter Sessions as a witness,
refers to his dame Ursula Lance who had “lost 2 larrows worth five
shillings and that Robert Marsh, one of the constables of Somerton
Hundred, found in the house of William Wilmat the Larrows cloven in
pieces and put in the oven, and the Rack-hookes that were in the larrows
were found in the fire in the said house.”[404]
Footnote 403:
_Ibid._ p. 87, 1627.
Footnote 404:
_Somerset Q.S. Rec._, Vol. III., pp. 365-6, 1659.
Widows were very dependent upon the assistance of journeymen, and often
chose a relation for this responsible position. At Reading “All the
freeman Blacksmiths in this Towne complayne that one Edward Nitingale, a
smith, beinge a forreynour, useth the trade of a blacksmith in this
Corporacion to the great dammage of the freemen: it was answered that he
is a journeyman to the Widowe Parker, late wife to Humfrey Parker, a
blacksmith, deceassed, and worketh as her servant at 5s. a weeke, she
being his aunt, and was advised to worke in noe other manner but as a
journeyman.”[405] The connection often ended in marriage; it was brought
to the notice of one of the Quaker’s Meetings in London that one of
their Members, “Will Townsend ... card maker proposes to take to wife
Elizabeth Doshell of ye same place to be his wife, and ye same Elizabeth
doth propose to take ye said Will to be her husband, the yonge man
liveing with her as a journey-man had thought and a beliefe that she
would come to owne ye truth and did propose to her his Intentions
towards her as to marige before she did come to owne the truth which
thinge being minded to him by ffriends ... he has acknowledged it soe
and sayes it had been beter that he had waited till he had had his hope
in some measure answered.”[406]
Footnote 405:
Guilding, _Reading Records_, Vol. III., p. 502, 1640.
Footnote 406:
_Horsleydown Monthly Meeting Minute Book_, 19 11mo., 1675.
Such marriages, though obviously offering many advantages, were not
always satisfactory. A lamentable picture of an unfortunate one is given
in the petition of Sarah Westwood, wife of Robert Westwood, Feltmaker,
presented to Laud in 1639, showing that “your petitioner was (formerly)
the wife of one John Davys, alsoe a Feltmaker, who dying left her a
howse furnished with goodes sufficient for her use therein and charged
with one childe, as yet but an infant, and two apprentices, who, for the
residue of their termes ... could well have atchieved sufficient for the
maynetenance of themselves and alsoe of your petitioner and her child.
That being thus left in good estate for livelyhood, her nowe husband
became a suitor unto her in the way of marriage, being then a journeyman
feltmaker....”
Soon after their marriage, “Westwood following lewde courses, often
beate and abused your petitioner, sold and consumed what her former
husband left her, threatened to kill her and her child, turned them out
of dores, refusing to afford them any means of subsistance, but on the
contrary seekes the utter ruin of them both and most scandelously has
traduced your petitioner giving out in speeches that she would have
poysoned him thereby to bring a generall disgrace upon her, ... and
forbiddes all people where she resortes to afford her entertaignment,
and will not suffer her to worke for the livelyhood of her and her
child, but will have accompt of the same.... Albeit he can get by his
labour 20/- a weeke, yet he consumes the same in idle company ... having
lewdlie spent all he had with your petitioner.”[407]
Footnote 407:
_S.P.D._, ccccxxxv. 42, Dec. 6, 1639.
Though their entrance to the Gilds and Companies was most often obtained
by women through marriage, it has already been shown that their
admission by apprenticeship was not unknown, and they also occasionally
acquired freedom by patrimony; thus “Katherine Wetwood, daughter of
Humphrey Wetwood, of London, Pewterer, was sworn and made free by the
Testimony of the Master and Wardens of the Merchant Taylors’ Co., and of
two Silk Weavers, that she was a virgin and twenty-one years of age. She
paid the usual patrimony fine of 9s. 2d.”[408] More than one hundred
years later Mary Temple was made free of the Girdlers’ Company by
patrimony.[409] No jealousy is expressed of the women who were members
of the Companies, but all others were rigorously excluded from
employment. Complaints were brought before the Girdlers’ that certain
Girdlers in London “set on worke such as had not served 7 years at the
art, and also for setting forreigners and maids on worke.”[410] Rules
were made in Bristol in 1606, forbidding women to work at the trades of
the whitawers (white leather-dressers), Point-makers and Glovers.[411]
Footnote 408:
Welch, _Pewterers_, Vol. II., p. 92, 1633-4.
Footnote 409:
Smythe, _Company of Girdlers_, p. 128, 1747.
Footnote 410:
_Ibid._ p. 88, 1628.
Footnote 411:
Latimer, _Annals of Bristol_, p. 26, 1606.