and the profits of the small tradesmen had been reduced to a minimum by
unlimited competition, the family depended upon the labour of mother and
children as well as the father for its support. Petitions presented to
the King concerning grievances under which they suffer, generally
include wives and children in the number of those engaged in the trade
in question. On a proposal to tax tobacco pipes, the makers show “that
all the poorer sort of the Trade must be compelled to lay it down, for
want of Stock or Credit to carry it on; and so their Wives and Children,
who help to get their Bread, must of necessity perish, or become a
Charge to their respective Parishes. That when a Gross of Pipes are
made, they sell them for 1s. 6d. and 1s. 10d., out of which 2d. or 3d.
is their greatest Profit. And they not already having Stock, or can make
Pipes fast enough to maintain their Families, how much less can they be
capable, when half the Stock they have, must be paid down to pay the
King his Duty?”[412]
Footnote 412:
_Humble Petition and Case of the Tobacco Pipe Makers of the Citys of
London and Westminster, 1695._
The Glovers prepared a memorandum showing the great grievances there
would be if a Duty be laid on Sheep and Lamb Skins, Drest in Oyl etc.
“The Glovers,” they say, “are many Thousands in Number, in the Counties
of England, City of London and Liberties thereof, and generally so Poor
(the said Trade being so bad and Gloves so plenty) that mear Necessity
doth compel them to Sell their Goods daily to the Glove-sellers, and to
take what Prises they will give them, to keep them and their Children
and Families at Work to maintain them, or else they must perrish for
want of Bred.”[413]
Footnote 413:
_Reasons humbly offered by the Leather-Dressers and Glovers, &c._
The Pin-makers say that their company “consists for the most part of
poor and indigent People, who have neither Credit nor Money to purchase
Wyre of the Merchant at the best hand, but are forced for want thereof,
to buy only small Parcels of the second or third Buyer, as they have
occasion to use it, and to sell off the Pins they make of the same from
Week to Week, as soon as they are made, for ready money, to feed
themselves, their Wives, and Children, whom they are constrained to
imploy to go up and down every Saturday Night from Shop to Shop to offer
their Pins for Sale, otherwise cannot have mony to buy bread.”[414]
Footnote 414:
_Case or Petition of the Corporation of Pin-makers._
A similar picture is given in the “Mournfull Cryes of many thousand
Poore tradesmen, who are ready to famish through decay of Trade.” “Oh
that the cravings of our Stomacks could bee heard by the Parliament and
City! Oh that the Teares of our poore famishing Babes were botled! Oh
that their tender Mothers Cryes for bread to feed them were ingraven in
brasse.... O you Members of Parliament and rich men in the City, that
are at ease, and drink Wine in Bowles ... you that grind our faces and
Flay off our skins ... is there none to Pity.... Its your Taxes Customes
and Excize, that compels the Country to raise the price of Food and to
buy nothing from us but meere absolute necessaries; and then you of the
City that buy our Worke, must have your Tables furnished ... and
therefore will give us little or nothing for our Worke, even what you
please, because you know wee must sell for Monyes to set our Families on
worke, or else wee famish ... and since the late Lord Mayor Adams, you
have put into execution an illegall, wicked Decree of the Common
Counsell; whereby you have taken our goods from us, if we have gone to
the Innes to sell them to the Countrimen; and you have murdered some of
our poor wives, that have gone to Innes to find countrimen to buie
them.”[415]
Footnote 415:
_Mournfull Cryes of many Thousand Poore Tradesmen_, 1647.
In each case it will be noticed that the wife’s activity is specially
mentioned in connection with the sale of the goods. Women were so
closely connected with industrial life in London that when the Queen
proposed to leave London in 1641 it was the women who petitioned
Parliament, declaring, “that your Petitioners, their Husbands, their
Children and their Families, amounting to many thousand soules; have
lived in plentifull and good fashion, by the exercise of severall Trades
and venting of divers workes.... All depending wholly for the sale of
their commodities, (which is the maintenance and very existence and
beeing of themselves, their husbands, and families) upon the splendour
and glory of the English Court, and principally upon that of the Queenes
Majesty.”[416]
Footnote 416:
_Humble Petition of many thousands of Courtiers, Citizens, Gentlemens
and Tradesmens Wives, &c._
In addition to these Trades, skilled and semi-skilled, in which men and
women worked together, certain skilled women’s trades existed in London
which were sufficiently profitable for considerable premiums to be paid
with the girls who were apprenticed to them.[417] These girls probably
continued to exercise their own trade after marriage, their skill
serving them instead of dowry, the Customs of London providing that
“married women who practise certain crafts in the city alone and without
their husbands, may take girls as apprentices to serve them and learn
their trade, and these apprentices shall be bound by their indentures of
apprenticeship to both husband and wife, to learn the wife’s trade as is
aforesaid, and such indentures shall be enrolled as well for women as
for men.”[418] The girls who were apprenticed to Carpenters were
evidently on this footing.
Footnote 417:
Ante, p. 175.
Footnote 418:
Eileen Power, by kind permission, 1419.
References in contemporary documents to women who were following skilled
or semi-skilled trades in London are very frequent. Thus Thomas Swan is
reported to have committed thefts “on his mistress Alice Fox,
Wax-chandler of Old Bailey.”[419] Mrs. Cellier speaks of “one Mrs.
Phillips, an upholsterer,”[420] while the Rev. Giles Moore notes in his
diary “payed Mistress Cooke, in Shoe Lane, for a new trusse, and for
mending the old one and altering the plate thereof, £1 5 0; should shee
dye, I am in future to inquire for her daughter Barbara, who may do the
like for mee.”[421] Isaac Derston was “put an app. to Anthony Watts for
the term of seven years, but turned over to the widow—dwelling near:
palls: who bottoms cane chaires, £2 10 0.”[422] That the bottoming of
cane chairs was a poor trade is witnessed by the meagreness of the
premium paid in this case.
Footnote 419:
_C.S.P.D._ cv. 53, Jan. 19, 1619.
Footnote 420:
Cellier (Mrs.) _Malice Defeated_., p. 25.
Footnote 421:
_Suss. Arch. Coll._, Vol. I., p. 123, _Journal Rev._, 1676.
Footnote 422:
_Monthly Meeting Minute Book, Peele_, Nov. 24, 1687.
No traces can be found of any organisation existing in the skilled
women’s trades, such as upholstery, millinery, mantua-making, but a Gild
existed among the women who sorted and packed wool at Southampton. A
Sisterhood consisting of twelve women of good and honest demeanour was
formed there as a company to serve the merchants in the occupation of
covering pokes or baloes [bales]. Two of the sisters acted as wardens.
In 1554 a court was held to adjudicate on the irregular attendance of
some of the sisters. The names of two wardens and eleven sisters are
given; no one who was absent from her duties for more than three months
was permitted to return to the Sisterhood without the Mayor’s licence.
“Item, yᵗ is ordered by the sayde Maior and his bretherne that all suche
as shall be nomynated and appoynted to be of the systeryd shall make a
brekefaste at their entrye for a knowlege and shal bestowe at the least
xxᵈ or ijˢ, or more as they lyste.”[423]
Footnote 423:
Davies. (J. S.) _Hist. of Southampton_, p. 279.
Possibly when more records of the Gilds and Companies have been
published in a complete form, some of the gaps which are left in this
account of the position of women in the skilled and semi-skilled trades
may be filled in; but the extent to which married women were engaged in
them must always remain largely a matter of conjecture, and
unfortunately it is precisely this point which is most interesting to
the sociologist. Practically all adult women were married, and the
character of the productive work which an economic organisation allots
to married women and the conditions of their labour decide very largely
the position of the mother in society, and therefore, ultimately, the
fate of her children. The fragmentary evidence which has been examined
shows that, while the system of family industry lasted, it was so usual
in the skilled and semi-skilled trades for women to share in the
business life of their husbands that they were regarded as partners.
Though the wife had rarely, if ever, served an apprenticeship to his
trade, there were many branches in which her assistance was of great
value, and husband and wife naturally divided the industry between them
in the way which was most advantageous to the family, while unmarried
servants, either men or women, performed the domestic drudgery. As
capitalistic organisation developed, many avenues of industry were,
however, gradually closed to married women. The masters no longer
depended upon the assistance of their wives, while the journeyman’s
position became very similar to that of the modern artisan; he was
employed on the premises of his master, and thus, though his association
with his fellows gave him opportunity for combination, his wife and
daughters, who remained at home, did not share in the improvements which
he effected in his own economic position. The alternatives before the
women of this class were either to withdraw altogether from productive
activity, and so become entirely dependent upon their husband’s
goodwill, or else to enter the labour market independently and fight
their battles alone, in competition not only with other women, but with
men.
Probably the latter alternative was still most often followed by married
women, although at this time the idea that men “keep” their wives begins
to prevail: but the force of the old tradition maintained amongst women
a desire for the feeling of independence which can only be gained
through productive activity, and thus married women, even when unable to
work with their husbands, generally occupied themselves with some
industry, however badly it might be paid.
B. _Retail Trades._
The want of technical skill and knowledge which so often hampered the
position of women in the Skilled Trades, was a smaller handicap in
Retail Trades, where manual dexterity and technical knowledge are less
important than general intelligence and a lively understanding of human
nature. Quick perception and social tact, which are generally supposed
to be feminine characteristics, often proved useful even to the
craftsman, when his wife assumed the charge of the financial side of his
business; it is therefore not surprising to find women taking a
prominent part in every branch of Retail Trade. In fact the woman who
was left without other resources turned naturally to keeping a shop, or
to the sale of goods in the street, as the most likely means for
maintaining her children, and thus the woman shopkeeper is no infrequent
figure in contemporary writings. For example, in one of the many
pamphlets describing the incidents of the Civil War, we read that
“Mistresse Phillips was sent for, who was found playing the good
housewife at home (a thing much out of fashion) ... and committed close
prisoner to castle.” Her husband having been driven before from town,
“She was to care for ten children, the most of them being small, one
whereof she at the same time suckled, her shop (which enabled her to
keep all those) was ransacked,” £14 was taken, and the house plundered,
horse and men billetted with her when she could scarce get bread enough
for herself and her family without charity. She was tried, and condemned
to death, when, the account continues, “Mistress Phillips not knowing
but her turne was next, standing all the while with a halter about her
neck over against the Gallowes, a Souldier would have put the halter
under her Handkerchiefe, but she would not suffer him, speaking with a
very audible voice, ‘I am not ashamed to suffer reproach and shame in
this cause,’ a brave resolution, beseeming a nobler sex, and not unfit
to be registered in the Book of Martyrs.”
The woman shop-keeper is found also among the stock characters of the
drama. In “The Old Batchelor” Belinda relates that “a Country Squire,
with the Equipage of a Wife and two Daughters, came to Mrs. Snipwel’s
Shop while I was there ... the Father bought a Powder-Horn, and an
Almanack, and a Comb-Case; the Mother, a great Fruz-Towr, and a fat
Amber-Necklace; the Daughters only tore two Pair of Kid-leather Gloves,
with trying ’em on.”[424]
Footnote 424:
Congreve (Wm.). _The Old Batchelor_, Act iv., Sc. viii.
Amongst the Quakers, shop-keeping was a usual employment for women.
Thomas Chalkley, soon after his marriage “had a Concern to visit Friends
in the counties of Surrey, Sussex and Kent, which I performed in about
two Weeks Time, and came home and followed my calling, and was
industrious therein; and when I had gotten something to bear my
expenses, and settled my Wife in some little Business I found an
Exercise on my Spirit to go over to _Ireland_.”[425] Another Quaker
describes how he applied himself “to assist my Wife in her Business as
well as I could, attending General, Monthly and other Meetings on public
Occasions for three Years.”[426] The provision of the little stock
needed for a shop was a favourite method of assisting widows.
Footnote 425:
Chalkley, _Journal_, pp. 30-31, 1690.
Footnote 426:
Bownas, Samuel, _Life of_, p. 135.
The frequency with which payments to women are entered in account
books[427] is further evidence of the extent to which they were engaged
in Retail Trades, but this occupation was not freely open to all and any
who needed it. It was, on the contrary, hedged about with almost as many
restrictions as the gild trades. The craftsman was generally free to
dispose of his own goods, but many restrictions hampered the Retailer,
that is to say the person who bought to sell again. The community
regarded this class with some jealousy, and limited their numbers.
Hence, the poor woman who sought to improve her position by opening a
little shop, did not always find her course clear. In fact there were
many towns in which the barriers between her and an honest independence
were insurmountable. Girls were, however, apprenticed to shopkeepers
oftener than to the gild trades, and licences to sell were granted to
freewomen as well as to freemen. At Dorchester, girls who had served an
apprenticeship to shopkeepers were duly admitted to the freedom of the
Borough; we find entered in the Minute Book the names of Celina Hilson,
apprenticed to Mat. Hilson, Governor, haberdasher, and Mary Goodredge,
spinster, haberdasher of small wares; also of James Bun (who had married
Elizabeth Williams a freewoman), haberdasher of small wares; Elizabeth
Williams, apprenticed seven years to her Mother, Mary W., tallow
chaundler, and of William Weare, apprenticed to Grace Lacy, widow,
woolen draper.[428] An order was granted by the Middlesex Quarter
Sessions to discharge Mary Jemmett from apprenticeship to Jane Tyllard,
widow, from whom she was to learn “the trade of keeping a linen
shop,”[429] and an account is given of a difference between Susanna
Shippey, of Mile End, Stepney, widow, and Ann Taylor, her apprentice,
touching the discharge of the said apprentice. It appears that Ann has
often defrauded her mistress of her goods and sold them for less than
cost price.[430]
Footnote 427:
Mayo, _Municipal Records of Dorchester_, p. 428-9.
Footnote 428:
The Churchwardens of St. Margaret’s, Westminster, paid 6d. to
“Goodwyfe Wells for salt to destroy the fleas in the Churchwarden’s
pew.” (Cox. _Churchwardens Accts._, p. 321, 1610.). Among the Cromwell
family receipts is one in 1624 “from ye Right worᵉ ye Lady Carr by the
hands of Henry Hanby, the somme of twenty and one pounds in full
payment of all Reckonings from the beginninge of the world ... by me
ellen Sadler X” (_Cromwell Family Bills and Receipts_, p. 15.) “A bill
for Mrs. Willie of Ramsie the 14 of April 1636
for material and making your daughter petecoat
for material and making your silk grogram coate
for material and making your daughter’s gasson shute
for material and making your daughter’s silke moheare wascote
for material and making your damask coate
Total 7. 17. 9.” (_Ibid._ p. 265).
The Rev. Giles Moore bought “of Widdow Langley 2 more fine sheets, of
Goodwyfe Seamer 9 ells. and a halfe of hempen cloath.” (_Suss. Arch.
Coll._ Vol. I., p. 68, 1656. Rev. Giles Moore’s Journal).
Foulis paid, in Scots money, Jan. 22, 1692 “to Mrs. Pouries lad for
aniseed, carthamums &c. 11s.” (p. 144), and on Aug. 3, 1696 he
“received from Eliz. Ludgate last Whits maill for yᵉ shop at fosters
Wyndhead 25ˡⁱᵇ.” (p. 195). Jan. 14, 1704 “to my douchter Jean be Mrs.
Cuthbertsons paymᵗ for 4 ell & ½ flowered calico to lyne my nightgowne
7. 13. 0.” (p. 339). May 23, 1704 “receaved from Agnes philp Whitsun,
maill for the shop at fosters wyndhead and yᵉ key therof, and given it
to the Candlemakers wife who has taken the shop 25ˡⁱᵇ” (p. 346).
(Foulis _Acct. Book_). Similar entries are in the _Howard Household
Book_, 1619. “To Mrs. Smith for lining [linen] for my Lord, had in
Easter tearm, 5ˡⁱ xˢ. Mrs. Smith for napry had in May vjˡⁱ iiˢ”
(_Howard Household Book_, _pp._ 105 and 161.).
Footnote 429:
_Middlesex County Records_, p. 180, 1698.
Footnote 430:
_Middlesex County Records_, p. 2, 1690.
Little mercy was shown to either man or woman who engaged in the Retail
Trade without having served an apprenticeship. A warrant was only issued
to release “Elizabeth Beaseley from the Hospital of Bridewell on her
brother John Beaseley’s having entered into bond that she shall leave
off selling tobacco in the town of Wigan.”[431] Mary Keeling was
presented at Nottingham “for falowing ye Treaid of a Grocer and Mercer
and kepping open shope for on month last past, _contra Statum_, not
being _aprentice_.”[432] At Carlisle it was ordered that “Isaack Tully
shall submit himself to pay a fine to this trade if they shall think it
fitting for taking his sister to keep & sell waires for him contrary to
our order,”[433] and when it was reported that “Mrs. Studholme hath
employed James Moorehead Scotsman to vend and sell goods in her shop
contrary to an order of this company wee doe order that the wardens of
our company shall fourthwith acquaint Mrs. Studholme yt. she must not be
admitted to entertain him any longʳ in her employmt but that before our
next quarter day she take some other course for keeping her shop and yt.
he be noe longer employed therein till yt. time.”[434] At a later date
Mrs. Sybil Hetherington, Mrs. Mary Nixon, Mrs. Jane Jackson, widow, and
four men, were dealt with for having shops or retailery of goods
contrary to the statute.[435]
Footnote 431:
_C. R._ 18th, August, 1640.
Footnote 432:
_Nottingham Records_, Vol. V., p. 331, 1686.
Footnote 433:
Ferguson, _Municipal Records, Carlisle_, p. 110, 1651.
Footnote 434:
_Ibid._ p. 112, 1668.
Footnote 435:
_Ibid._ p. 115, 1719.
There were fewer restrictions on retailing in London than in the
provinces, and trading was virtually free in the streets of London. An
act of the Common Council, passed in 1631, deals with abuses rising from
this freedom, declaring “that of late it is come to passe that divers
unruly people, as Butchers, Bakers, Poulters, Chandlers, Fruiterers,
Sempsters, sellers of Grocery wares, Oyster wives, Herbe wives, Tripe
wives, and the like; who not contented to enjoy the benefit and common
right of Citizens, by holding their market and continual Trades in their
several Shops & houses where they dwell, doe ... by themselves, wives,
children and seruants enter into, and take up their standings in the
said streets and places appointed for the common Markets, unto which the
country people only have in former times used to resort to vend and
utter their victuall and other commodities; in which Markets the said
Freemen doe abide for the most part of the day and that not only upon
Market dayes, but all the weeke long with multitudes of Baskets, Tubs,
Chaires, Boards & Stooles, ... the common Market places by these
disordered people be so taken up, that country people when they come
with victual and provision have no roome left them to set down their ...
baskets.”[436]
Footnote 436:
_Act of Common Council for reformation, etc._
In provincial towns, stalls in the market place were leased to tradesmen
by the Corporation, the rents forming a valuable revenue for the town;
infringements of the monopoly were summarily dealt with and often the
privilege was reserved for “free” men and women. Thus at St. Albans
Richard Morton’s wife was presented because she “doth ordinarilie sell
shirt bands and cuffes, hankerchers, coifes, and other small lynenn
wares openlie in the markett,”[437] not being free. It was as a special
favour that leave was given to a poor woman to sell shoes in Carlisle
market. The conditions are explained as follows:—“Whereas Ann Barrow the
wife of Richard Barrow formerly one that by virtue of the Coldstream Act
brought shoes and exposed them to sell in Carlisle market he being long
abroad and his said wife poor the trade is willing to permit the said
Ann to bring and sell shoes provided always they be the work of one
former servant and noe more and for this permission she owns the trades
favour and is thankful for it ... agreed and ordered that every yeare
she shall pay 2s.”[438]
Footnote 437:
Gibbs, _Corporation Records of St. Albans_, p. 62, 1613.
The Corporation at Reading was occupied for a whole year with the case
of the “Aperne woman.” The first entry in the records states that
“Steven Foorde of Newbery the aperne woman’s husband, exhibited a lettre
from the Lord of Wallingford for his sellerman to shewe and sell
aperninge[439] in towne, in Mr. Mayor’s handes, etc. And thereupon
tollerated to doe as formerly she had done, payeing yerely 10s. to the
Hall.”[440] Next year there is another entry to the effect that “it was
agreed that Steven Foorde’s wief shall contynue sellinge of aperninge,
as heretofore, and that the other woman usinge to sell suche stuffes at
William Bagley’s dore shalbe forbidden, and shall not hencefourth be
permitted to sell in the boroughe etc., and William Bagley shall be
warned.”[441] The other woman proving recalcitrant, “at Steven Foorde’s
wive’s request and complaynte it was grannted that William Bagley’s
stranger, selling aperninge in contempt of the government, shalbe
questioned.”[442] Finally it was “agreed that Steven Foorde’s wife shall
henceforth keepe Markett and sell onely linsey woolsey of their own
making in this markett, according to the Lord Wallingforde’s lettre, she
payeing xs. per annum, and that noe other stranger shall henceforth
keepe markett or sell lynsey and woolsey in this markett.”[443]
Footnote 438:
Ferguson, _Carlisle_, p. 187, 1669.
Footnote 439:
Stuff for Aprons.
Footnote 440:
Guilding. _Reading Records_, Vol. II., p. 171, 1624.
Footnote 441:
_Ibid._ Vol. II., p. 240, 1625.
Footnote 442:
_Ibid._ Vol. II., p. 252.
Footnote 443:
_Guilding, Reading Records_, Vol. II., p. 267.
At this time, when most roads were mere bridle tracks, and few
conveniences for travel existed, when even in towns the streets were so
ill-paved that in bad weather the goodwife hesitated before going to the
market, the dwellers in villages and hamlets were often fain to buy from
pedlars who brought goods to their door and to sell butter and eggs to
anyone who would undertake the trouble of collection. Their need was
recognised by the authorities, who granted a certain number of licences
to Badgers, Pedlars and Regraters, and probably many others succeeded in
trading unlicensed. This class of Dealers was naturally regarded with
suspicion by shopkeepers. A pamphlet demanding their suppression, points
out that “the poor decaying Shopkeeper has a large Rent to pay, and
Family to Support; he maintains not his own Children only, but all the
poor Orphans and Widows in his Parish; nay, sometimes the Widows and
Orphans of the very Pedlar or Hawker, who has thus fatally laboured to
starve him.” As for the Hawkers, “we know they pretend they are shut out
of the great Trading Cities, Towns and Corporations by the respective
Charters and all other settled Privileges of those Places, but we answer
that tho’ for want of legal Introduction they may not be able to set up
in Cities, Corporations, etc., yet there are very many Places of very
great Trade, where no Corporation Privileges would obstruct them ... if
any of them should be reduc’d and ... be brought to the Parish to keep;
that is to say, their Wives and Children, the Manufacturers, the
Shopkeepers who confessedly make up the principal Numbers of those
corporations, and are the chief Supporters of the Parishes, will be much
more willing to maintain them, than to be ruin’d by them.”[444]
Footnote 444:
_Brief State of the Inland and Home Trade._, pp. 59 and 63, 1730.
The terms Badging, Peddling, Hawking and Regrating are not very clearly
defined, and were used in senses which somewhat overlap each other; but
the Badger seems to have been a person who “dealt” in a wholesale way. A
licence was granted in 1630 to “Edith Doddington of Hilbishopps,
widdowe, to be a badger of butter and cheese and to carry the same into
the Counties of Wiltes, Hamsher, Dorsᵗᵗ and Devon, and to retourne
againe with corne and to sell it againe in any faire or markett within
this County during one whole yeare now next ensueing; and she is not to
travell with above three horses, mares or geldings at the most
part.”[445] The authorities, fearing lest corners and profiteering
should result from interference with the supply of necessaries, made
“ingrossing” or anything resembling an attempt to buy up the supply of
wheat, salt, etc., an offence. Amongst the prosecutions which were made
on this account are presentments of “John Whaydon and John Preist of
Watchett, partners, for ingross of salt, Julia Stone, Richard Miles,
Joane Miles als. Stone of Bridgwater for ingross of salte.”[446] of
“Johann Stedie of Fifehead, widdow, ... for ingrossinge of corne
contrary etc,”[447] of “Edith Bruer and Katherine Bruer, Spinsters, of
Halse ... for ingrossinge of corne,”[448] and of “Johann Thorne ...
widow ... for ingrossinge of wheate, Barley, Butter and Cheese.”[449]
Footnote 445:
_Somerset Q.S. Records_, Vol. II., p. 119, 1630.
Footnote 446:
_Ibid._ Vol. II., p. 153, 1631.
Footnote 447:
_Ibid._ Vol. II., p. 161.
Footnote 448:
_Ibid._ Vol. II., p. 165.
Footnote 449:
_Somerset Q.S. Records_, Vol. II., p. 223.
Pedlars and hawkers carried on an extensive trade all over the country.
At first sight this would seem a business ill suited to women, for it
involved carrying a heavy pack of goods on the back over long distances;
and yet it appears as though in some districts the trade was almost
their monopoly. The success that attended Joan Dant’s efforts as a
pedlar has been told elsewhere.[450] How complete was the ascendency
which women had established in certain districts over this class of
trade is shown by the following definition of the term “Hawkers”:—“those
that profer their Wares by Wholesale which are called Hawkers, and which
are not only the Manufacturers themselves, but others besides them, viz.
the Women in _London_, in _Exceter_ and in _Manchester_, who do not only
Profer Commodities at the Shops and Ware houses, but also at Inns to
Countrey-Chapmen. Likewise the _Manchester_-men, the _Sherborn_-men, and
many others, that do Travel from one Market-Town to another; and there
at some Inn do profer their Wares to sell to the Shopkeepers of the
place.”[451]
Footnote 450:
_Ante_, p. 33.
Footnote 451:
_Trade of England_, p. 21, 1681.
Though peddling might in some cases be developed into a large and
profitable concern, more often it afforded a bare subsistence. The
character of a woman engaged in it is given in a certificate brought
before the Hertford Quarter Sessions in 1683 by the inhabitants of
Epping, which states that “Sarah, wife of Richard Young, of Epping,
cooper, who was accused of pocket-picking when she was about her lawfull
and honest imploy of buying small wares and wallnuts” at Sabridgworth
fair, is “a very honest and well-behaved woman, not given to pilfer or
steale,” and that they believe her to be falsely accused.[452]
Footnote 452:
_Hertfordshire County Records_, Vol. I., pp. 347-8.
While the Pedlar dealt chiefly in small wares and haberdashery,
Regraters were concerned with the more perishable articles of food. In
this they were seriously hampered by bye-laws forbidding the buying and
selling of such articles in one day. The laws had been framed with the
object of preventing a few persons buying up all the supplies in the
market and selling them at exorbitant prices, but their application
seems to have been chiefly directed in the interests of the shopkeepers,
to whom the competition of women who hawked provisions from door to door
was a serious matter, the women being contented with very small profits,
and the housewives finding it so convenient to have goods brought to
their very doorstep. The injustice of the persecution of these poor
women is protested against by the writer of a pamphlet, who points out
that “We provide Men shall not be cheated in buying a pennyworth of
Eggs, but make no provision to secure them from the same Abuse in a
hundred pounds laid out in Cloaths. The poor Artizan shall not be
oppressed in laying out his penny to one poorer than himself, but is
without Remedy, shortened by a Company in his Penny as it comes in. I
have heard Complaints of this Nature in greater matters of the publik
Sales of the _East India Company_, perhaps if due consideration were had
of these great Ingrossers, there would be found more Reason to restrain
them, than a poor Woman that travels in the Country to buy up and sell
in a Market a few Hens and Chickens.”[453]
Footnote 453:
_Linnen and Woollen Manufactury_, p. 7, 1681.
Even in the Middle Ages the trade of Regrating was almost regarded as
the prerogative of women. Gower wrote “But to say the truth in this
instance, the trade of regratery belongeth by right rather to women. But
if a woman be at it she in stinginess useth much more machination and
deceit than a man; for she never alloweth the profit on a single crumb
to escape her, nor faileth to hold her neighbour to paying his price;
all who beseech her do but lose their time, for nothing doth she by
courtesy, as anyone who drinketh in her house knoweth well.”[454]
Footnote 454:
Gower, _Le mirour de l’omme_ (trans. from French verse by Eileen
Power).
In later times the feminine form of the word is used in the ordinances
of the City of London, clearly showing that the persons who were then
carrying on the trade were women; thus it was said “Let no Regrateress
pass _London Bridge_ towards _Suthwerk_, nor elsewhere, to buy Bread, to
carry it into the City of _London_ to sell; because the Bakers of
_Suthwerk_, nor of any other Place, are not subject to the Justice of
the City.” And again “Whereas it is common for merchants to give Credit,
and especially for Bakers commonly to do the same with Regrateresses ...
we forbid, that no Baker make the benefit of any Credit to a
Regrateress, as long as he shall know her to be involved in her
Neighbour’s Debt.”[455] Moreover a very large proportion of the
prosecutions for this offence were against women. “We Amerce Thomas
Bardsley for his wife buyinge Butter Contrary to the orders of the towne
in xijid.”[456] “Katherine Birch for buyinge and selling pullen
[chicken] both of one day 3s. Thos. Ravald wife of Assheton of Mercy
bancke for sellinge butter short of waight.”[457] “Thomas Massey wife
for buyinge a load of pease and sellinge them the same day. Amerced in
1s.”[458] “Katharine Hall for buyinge and sellinge Cheese both of one
day 6d. Anne Rishton for buyinge and sellinge butter the same day Amercd
in 3. 0.”[459]
Footnote 455:
Stow, _London_, Book V., p. 343. Assize of Bread.
Footnote 456:
_Manchester Court Leet Records_, Vol. IV., p. 110, 1653.
Footnote 457:
_Ibid._ p. 212, 1657.
Footnote 458:
_Ibid._ p. 244, 1658.
Footnote 459:
_Manchester Court Test Records_, p. 243, 1658.
As the Regrater dealt chiefly in food, her business is closely connected
with the provision trades, but enough has been said here to indicate
that of all retailing this was the form which most appealed to poor
women, who were excluded from skilled trades and whose only other
resource was spinning. The number of women in this unfortunate position
was large, including as it did not only widows, whose families depended
entirely upon their exertions, but also the wives of most of the men who
were in receipt of day wages and had no garden or grazing rights. It has
already been shown that wages, except perhaps in some skilled trades,
were insufficient for the maintenance of a family. Therefore, when the
mother of a young family could neither work in her husband’s trade nor
provide her children with food by cultivating her garden or tending cows
and poultry, she must find some other means to earn a little money. By
wages she could seldom earn more than a penny or twopence a day and her
food. Selling perishable articles of food from door to door presented
greater chances of profit, and to this expedient poor women most often
turned. In proportion as the trade was a convenience to the busy
housewife, it became an unwelcome form of competition to the established
shopkeepers, who, being influential in the Boroughs, could persecute and
suppress the helpless, disorganised women who undersold them.
C. _Provision Trades._
Under this head are grouped the Bakers, Millers, Butchers and Fishwives,
together with the Brewers, Inn-keepers and Vintners, the category
embracing both those who produced and those who retailed the provisions
in question.
A large proportion both of the bread and beer consumed at this time was
produced by women in domestic industry. The wages assessments show that
on the larger farms the chief woman servant was expected both to brew
and to bake, but the cottage folk in many cases cannot have possessed
the necessary capital for brewing, and perhaps were wanting ovens in
which to bake. Certainly in the towns both brewing and baking existed as
trades from the earliest times. Though in many countries the grinding of
corn has been one of the domestic occupations performed by women and
slaves, in England women were saved this drudgery, for the toll of corn
ground at the mill was an important item in the feudal lord’s revenue,
and severe punishments were inflicted on those who ground corn
elsewhere. The common bakehouse was also a monopoly of the feudal
lord’s,[460] but his rights in this case were not carried so far as to
penalize baking for domestic purposes.
Footnote 460:
Petronilla, Countess of Leicester, granted to Petronilla, daughter of
Richard Roger’s son of Leicester and her heirs “all the suit of the
men outside the Southgate aforesaid to bake at her bakehouse with all
the liberties and free customs, saving my customary tenants who are
bound to my bakehouses within the town of Leicester,” Bateson, (M.)
_Records, Leicester_, Vol. I.; p. 10.
It might be supposed that industries such as brewing and baking, which
were so closely connected with the domestic arts pertaining to women,
would be more extensively occupied by women than trades such as those of
blacksmith or pewterer or butcher; but it will be shown that skill
acquired domestically was not sufficient to establish a woman’s position
in the world of trade, and that actually in the seventeenth century it
was as difficult for her to become a baker as a butcher.
_Baking._—After the decay of feudal privileges the trade of baking was
controlled on lines similar to those governing other trades, but subject
to an even closer supervision by the local authorities, owing to the
fact that bread is a prime necessity of life. On this account its price
was fixed by “the assize of bread.” The position of women in regard to
the trade was also somewhat different, because while in other trades
they possessed fewer facilities than men for acquiring technical
experience, in this they learnt the art of baking as part of their
domestic duties. Nevertheless, in the returns which give the names of
authorised bakers, those of women do not greatly exceed in number the
names which are given for other trades; of lists for the City of
Chester, one gives thirty names of bakers, six being women, all widows,
while another gives thirty-nine men and no women,[461] and a third
twenty-six men and three women. The assistance which the Baker’s wife
gave to her husband, however, was taken for granted. At Carlisle, the
bye-laws provide that “noe Persons ... shall brew or bayk to sell but
only freemen and thare wifes.”[462] And a rule at Beverley laid down
that “no common baker or other baker called boule baker, their wives,
servants, or apprentices, shall enter the cornmarket any Saturday for
the future before 1 p.m. to buy any grain, nor buy wheat coming on
Saturdays to market beyond 2 bushels for stock for their own house after
the hour aforesaid.”[463]
Footnote 461:
_Harl. MSS._, 2054, fo. 44 and 45, 2105, fo. 301.
Footnote 462:
Ferguson, _Carlisle, Dormont Book_, p. 69, 1561.
Footnote 463:
_Beverley Town Documents_, pp. 39-40.
A writer, who was appealing for an increase in the assize of bread,
includes the wife’s work among the necessary costs of making a loaf;
“Two shillings was allowed by the assize for all maner of charges in
baking a quarter of wheate over and above the second price of wheate in
the market,” but the writer declares that in Henry VII.’s time “the
bakers ... might farre better cheape and with lesse charge of seruantes
haue baked a quarter of Wheate, then now they can.” It was then allowed
for “everie quarter of wheate baking, for furnace and wood vid. the
Miller foure pence, for two journymen and two pages five-pence, for
salt, yest, candle & sandbandes two pence, for himselfe, his house, his
wife, his dog & his catte seven pence, and the branne to his
advantage.”[464]
Footnote 464:
Powell, _Assize of Bread_, 1600.
The baker’s wife figures also in account books, as transacting business
for her husband. Thus the Carpenters’ Company “Resd of Lewes davys wyffe
the baker a fyne for a license for John Pasmore the forren to sette upe
a lytyll shed on his backsyde.”[465]
Footnote 465:
_Records of Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, Vol. IV., p. 69, 1554.
Although conforming in general to the regulations for other trades,
certain Boroughs retained the rights over baking which had been enjoyed
by the Feudal Lord, the Portmote at Salford ordering that “Samell Mort
shall surcease from beakinge sale bread by the first of May next upon
the forfeit of 5ls except hee beake at the Comon beakehouse in
Salford.”[466] In other towns the bakers were sufficiently powerful to
enforce their own terms on the Borough. In York, for instance, the
Corporation of Bakers, which became very rich, succeeded in excluding
the country, or “boule bakers,” from the market, undertaking to sell
bread at the same rates; but the monopoly once secured they declared it
was impossible to produce bread at this price, and the magistrates
allowed an advance.[467] In some cases bakers were required to take out
licences, these being granted only to freemen and freewomen; in others
they were formed into Companies, with rules of apprenticeship. “They
shall receive no man into their saide company of bakeres, nor woman
unles her husband have bene a free burges, and compound with Mr. Maior
and the warden of the company.”[468] At Reading in 1624, “the bakers,
vizt., William Hill, Abram Paise, Alexander Pether, complayne against
bakers not freemen, vizt., Izaak Wracke useth the trade his wief did use
when he marryed. Michaell Ebson saith he was an apprentice in towne and
having noe worke doth a little to gett bread. James Arnold will
surceasse ... Wydowe Bradbury alwayes hath used to bake.”[469]
Footnote 466:
_Salford Portmote Records_, Vol. II., p. 188.
Footnote 467:
_S.P.D._ cxxxiv., 36. November 27, 1622.
Footnote 468:
Lambert, _Two Thousand Years of Gild Life_, p. 307. _Composicion of
Bakers, Hull._, 1598.
Footnote 469:
Guilding, _Reading Records_, Vol. II., p. 181.
That women were members of the Bakers’ Companies is shown by rules which
refer to sisters as well as brothers. In 1622 the Corporation at
Salisbury ordained that “no free brother or free sister shall at any
time hereafter make, utter, or sell bread, made with butter, or milk,
spice cakes, etc ... except it be before spoken for funerals, or upon
the Friday before Easter, or at Christmas.... No free brother or free
sister shall sell any bread in the market. No free brother or free
sister shall hereafter lend any money to an innholder or victualler, to
the intent or purpose of getting his or their custom.”[470] It is not
likely that many women served an apprenticeship, but the frequency with
which they are charged with offences against the Bye-Laws is some clue
to the numbers engaged in the trade. For instance, in Manchester, Martha
Wrigley and nine men were presented in 1648 “for makeinge bread above &
vnder the size & spice bread.”[471] In 1650, twenty-five men and no
women were charged with a similar offence,[472] in 1651 eleven men and
no women[473] and in 1652 are entered the names of five men and ten
women[474].
Footnote 470:
Hoare, (Sir. R. C.). _Hist. of Wiltshire_, Vol. VI., p. 342.
Footnote 471:
_Manchester Court Leet Records_, Vol. IV., p. 31.
Footnote 472:
_Ibid._ p. 47.
Footnote 473:
_Ibid._ p. 51.
Footnote 474:
_Manchester Court Leet Records_, p. 70.
The constant complaints brought against people who were using the trade
“unlawfully” show how difficult it was to enforce rules of
apprenticeship in a trade which was so habitually used by women for
domestic purposes. Information was brought that “divers of the inhabᵗˢ
of Thirsk do use the trade of baking, not having been apprentices
thereof, but their wives being brought up and exercised therein many
yeares have therefore used it ... and the matter referred to the
Justices in Qʳ Sessions to limitt a certain number to use that trade
without future trouble of any informers and that such as are allowed by
the said Justices, to have a tolleration to take apprentices ... the
eight persons, viz., Jaˢ. Pibus, Anth. Gamble, John Harrison, Widow
Watson, Jane Skales, Jane Rutter, Tho. Carter and John Bell, shall onlie
use and occupie the said trade of baking, and the rest to be
restrayned.”[475] The insistence upon apprenticeship must have been
singularly exasperating to women who had learnt to bake excellent bread
from their mothers, or mistresses, and it was natural for them to evade,
when possible, a rule which seemed so arbitrary; but they could not do
so with impunity. Thus the Hertfordshire Quarter Session was informed
“One Andrew Tomson’s wife doth bake, and William Everite’s wife doth
bake bread to sell being not apprenticed nor licensed.”[476] How heavily
prosecutions of this character weighed upon the poor, is shown by a
certificate brought to the same Quarter Sessions nearly a hundred years
later, stating that “William Pepper, of Sabridgworth, is of honest and
industrious behaviour, but in a poor and low condition, and so not able
to support the charge of defending an indictment against him for baking
for hire (he having once taken a halfpenny for baking a neighbour’s
loaf) and has a great charge of children whom he has hitherto brought up
to hard work and industrious labour, who otherwise might have been a
charge to the parish, and will be forced to crave the relief of the
parish, to defray the charge that may ensue upon this trouble given him
by a presentment.”[477]
Footnote 475:
Atkinson, (J. C.), _Yorks. N. R. Q.S. Records_, Vol. I., p. 81. July
8, 1607.
Footnote 476:
_Hertford Co. Records_, Vol. I, p. 32, 1600.
Footnote 477:
_Hertford County Records_, Vol. I., p. 365, 1686.
The line taken by the authorities was evidently intended to keep the
trade of baking in a few hands. The object may have been partly to
facilitate inspection and thereby check short measure and adulteration;
whatever the motive the effect must certainly have tended to discourage
women from developing the domestic art of baking into a trade.
Consequently in this, as in other trades, the woman’s contribution to
the industry generally took the form of a wife helping her husband, or a
widow carrying on her late husband’s business.
_Millers_:—It was probably only as the wife or widow of a miller that
women took part in the business of milling. An entry in the Carlisle
Records states “we amercye Archilles Armstronge for keeping his wief to
play the Milner, contrary the orders of this cyttie.”[478] But it is not
unusual to come across references to corn mills which were in the hands
of women; a place in Yorkshire is described as being “near to Mistress
Lovell’s Milne.”[479] “Margaret Page, of Hertingfordbury, widow,” was
indicted for “erecting a mill house in the common way there,”[480] and
at Stockton “One water corne milne ... is lett by lease unto Alice
Armstrong for 3 lives.”[481]
Footnote 478:
Ferguson, _Carlisle_, p. 278. April 21, 1619.
Footnote 479:
J. C. Atkinson, _Yorks. N. R. Q.S. Records_, Vol. II., p. 8, 1612.
Footnote 480:
_Hertford County Records_, Vol. II., p. 25, 1698.
Footnote 481:
Brewster, _Stockton-on-Tees_, p. 42.
Such instances are merely a further proof of the activity shown by
married women in the family business whenever this was carried on within
their reach.
_Butchers_:—The position which women took in the Butchers’ trade
resembled very closely their position as bakers, for, as has been shown,
the special advantages which women, by virtue of their domestic
training, might have enjoyed when trading as bakers, were cancelled by
the statutes and bye-laws limiting the numbers of those engaged in this
trade. As wife or widow women were able to enter either trade equally.
Both trades were subject to minute supervision in the interests of the
public, and as a matter of fact, from the references which happen to
have been preserved, it might even appear that the wives of butchers
were more often interested in the family business than the wives of
bakers. An Act of Henry VIII. “lycensyng all bochers for a tyme to sell
vytell in grosse at theyr pleasure” makes it lawful for any person “to
whom any complaynt shuld be made upon any Boucher his wyff servaunte or
other his mynysters refusing to sell the said vitayles by true and
lawfull weight ... to comytt evry such Boucher to warde,”[482] shows an
expectation that the wife would act as her husband’s agent. But the
wife’s position was that of partner, not servant. During the first half
of the century, certainly, leases were generally made conjointly to
husband and wife; for example, “Phillip Smith and Elizabeth, his wife”
appeared before the Corporation at Reading “desiringe a new lease of the
Butcher’s Shambles, which was granted.”[483]
Footnote 482:
Statutes 27, Henry VIII., c. 9.
Footnote 483:
Guilding, _Reading Records_, Vol. IV., p. 122.
Customs at Nottingham secured the widow’s possession of her husband’s
business premises even without a lease, providing that “when anie
Butcher shall dye thatt holds a stall or shopp from the towne, thatt
then his wyefe or sonne shall hould the same stall or shopp, they vsinge
the same trade, otherwaies the towne to dispose thereof to him or them
thatt will give moste for the stall or shopp: this order to bee lykewise
to them thatt houlds a stall in the Spice-chambers.”[484]
Footnote 484:
_Nottingham Records_, Vol. V., p. 284, 1654.
The names of women appear in lists of butchers in very similar
proportions to the lists of bakers. Thus one for Chester gives the names
of twenty men followed by three women,[485] and in a return of sixteen
butchers licensed to sell meat in London during Lent, there is one
woman, Mary Wright, and her partner, William Woodfield.[486] Bye-laws
which control the sale of meat use the feminine as well as the masculine
pronouns, showing that the trade was habitually used by both sexes. The
“Act for the Settlement and well ordering of the several Public Markets
within the City of London” provides that “all and every Country butcher
... Poulterer ... Country Farmers, Victuallers Laders or Kidders ... may
there sell, utter and put to open shew or sale his, her or their Beef,
Mutton, etc., etc.”[487] It may be supposed that these provisions relate
only to the sale of meat, and that women would not often be associated
with the businesses which included slaughtering the beasts, but this is
not the case. Elizabeth Clarke is mentioned in the Dorchester Records as
“apprenticed 7 years to her father a butcher,”[488] and other references
occur to women who were clearly engaged in the genuine butcher’s trade.
For example, a licence was granted “to Jane Fouches of the Parish of St.
Clement Danes, Butcher to kill and sell flesh during Lent,”[489] and
among eighteen persons who were presented at the Court Leet, Manchester,
“for Cuttinge & gnashing of Rawhides for their seuerall Gnashinge of
evry Hyde,” two were women, “Ellen Jaques of Ratchdale, one hyde, Widdow
namely Stott of Ratchdale, two hydes.”[490]
Footnote 485:
_Harl. MSS._, 2105 fo., 300 b., 1565.
Footnote 486:
_S.P.D._ cxix. 107., February 24, 1621.
Footnote 487:
_Act for the Settlement and well Ordering of the Several Publick
Markets within the City of London_, 1674.
Footnote 488:
Mayo, _Municipal Records of Dorchester_, p. 428, 1698.
Footnote 489:
_S.P.D._ 1. clxxxviii., James I., undated.
Footnote 490:
_Manchester Court Leet Records_, Vol. V., p. 236, 1674.
Beside these women, who by marriage or apprenticeship had acquired the
full rights of butchers and were acknowledged as such by the Corporation
under whose governance they lived, a multitude of poor women tried to
keep their families from starvation by hawking meat from door to door.
They are often mentioned in the Council Records, because the very nature
of their business rendered them continually liable to a prosecution for
regrating. Thus at the Court Leet, Manchester, Anne Costerdyne was fined
1s. “for buyinge 4 quarters of Mutton of Wᵐ. Walmersley & 1 Lamb of
Thomas Hulme both wᶜʰ shee shold the one & same day.”[491] Their
position was the more difficult, because if they did not sell the meat
the same day sometimes it went bad, and they were then prosecuted on
another score. Elizabeth Chorlton, a butcher’s widow, was presented in
1648 “for buieing and sellinge both on one day” and was fined 3s.
4d.[492] She was again fined with Mary Shalcross and various men in 1650
for selling unlawful meat and buying and selling on one day.[493]
Footnote 491:
_Ibid._ p. 221, 1674.
Footnote 492:
_Manchester Court Leet Records_, Vol. IV., p. 31.
Footnote 493:
_Ibid._ p. 40.
She was presented yet again in 1653 for selling “stinking meate,” and
fined 5s.[494] Evidently Elizabeth Chorlton was an undesirable
character, for she had previously been convicted of selling by false
weights;[495] nevertheless it seems hard that when it was illegal to
sell stinking meat women should also be fined for selling it on the same
day they bought it, and though this particular woman was dishonest no
fault is imputed to the character of many of the others who were
similarly presented for regrating.
Footnote 494:
_Manchester Court Leet Records_, Vol. IV., p. 68.
Footnote 495:
_Ibid._ p. 15, 1648.
There remains yet another class of women who were connected with the
Butchers’ trade, namely the wives of men who were either employed by the
master butchers, or who perhaps earned a precarious living by
slaughtering pigs and other beasts destined for domestic consumption. In
such work there was no place for the wife’s assistance, and, like other
wage-earners, in spite of any efforts she might make in other
directions, the family remained below the poverty line. An instance may
be quoted from the Norwich Records where, in a census of the poor (i.e.
persons needing Parish Relief) taken in 1570, are given the names of
“John Hubbard of the age of 38 yeres, butcher, that occupie slaughterie,
and Margarit his wyfe of the age of 30 yeres that sell souce, and 2
young children, and have dwelt here ever.”[496]
Footnote 496:
Tingey, J. C., _Records of the City of Norwich_, Vol. II., p. 337.
_Fishwives._—There is no reason to suppose that women were often engaged
in the larger transactions of fishmongers. Indeed an English writer,
describing the Dutchwomen who were merchants of fish, expressly says
that they were a very different class from the women who sold fish in
England, and who were commonly known as fisherwives.[497] Nevertheless
that in this, as in other trades, they shared to some extent in their
husband’s enterprises, is shown by the presentment of “John Frank of New
Malton, and Alice his wife, for forestalling the markett of divers
paniers of fishe, buying the same of the fishermen of Runswick or
Whitbye ... before it came into the markett.”[498]
Footnote 497:
Ante., p. 36.
Footnote 498:
Atkinson, J. C. _Yorks. N. R. Q.S. Records_, Vol. I., p. 121, 1698.
The position of the sisters of the Fishmongers’ Company, London, was
recognised to the extent of providing them with a livery, an ordinance
of 1426 ordaining that every year, on the festival of St. Peter, “alle
the brethren and sustern of the same fratʳnite” should go in their new
livery to St. Peters’ Church, Cornhill.[499] An ordinance dated 1499
however, requires that no fishmonger of the craft shall suffer his wife,
or servant, to stand in the market to sell fish, unless in his
absence.[500] An entry in the Middlesex Quarter Sessions Records notes
the “discharge of Sarah, daughter of Frances Hall. Apprenticed to
Rebecca Osmond of the Parish of St. Giles’ Without, Cripplegate,
‘fishwoman’.”[501] A member of the important Fishmongers’ Company would
hardly be designated in this way, and Rebecca Osmond must be classed
among the “Fishwives” who are so often alluded to in accounts of London.
Their business was often too precarious to admit of taking apprentices,
and their credit so low that a writer in the reign of Charles I., who
advocated the establishment of “Mounts of Piety” speaks of the high rate
of interest taken by brokers and pawn-brokers “above 400 in the hundred”
from “fishwives, oysterwomen and others that do crye thinges up and
downe the streets.”[502] It was in this humble class of trade rather
than in the larger transactions of fishmongers, that women were chiefly
engaged. In London no impediments seem to have been placed in the way of
their business, but in the provinces they, like the women who hawked
meat, were persecuted under the bye-laws against regrating. At
Manchester, the wife of John Wilshawe was amerced “for buyinge Sparlings
[smelts] and sellinge them the same day in 6d.”[503], while at the same
court others were fined for selling unmarketable fish.
Footnote 499:
Herbert, _Livery Companies of London_, Vol. II., p. 44.
Footnote 500:
_Ibid._ Vol. II., p. 35.
Footnote 501:
_Middlesex County Records_, p. 160, 1696.
Footnote 502:
_A Project for Mounts of Piety, Lansdowne MSS._, 351 fo., 18b.
Footnote 503:
_Manchester Court Leet Records_, Vol. IV., p. 112, 1654.
_Brewers_:—It has been shown that the position which women occupied
among butchers and bakers did not differ materially from their position
in other trades; that is to say, the wife generally helped her husband
in his business, and carried it on after his death; but the history of
brewing possesses a peculiar interest, for apparently the art of brewing
was at one time chiefly, if not entirely, in the hands of women. This is
indicated by the use of the feminine term brewster. Possibly the use of
the masculine or feminine forms may never have strictly denoted the sex
of the person indicated in words such as brewer, brewster, spinner,
spinster, sempster, sempstress, webber, webster, and the gradual disuse
of the feminine forms may have been due to the grammatical tendencies in
the English language rather than to the changes which were driving women
from their place in productive industry; but the feminine forms would
never have arisen in the first place unless women had been engaged to
some extent in the trades to which they refer, and it often happens that
the use of the feminine pronoun in relation to the term “brewster” and
even “brewer” shows decisively that female persons are indicated. At
Beverley a bye-law was made in 1364 ordaining that “if any of the
community abuse the affeerers of Brewster-gild for their affeering, in
words or otherwise, he shall pay ... to the community 6s. 8d.”[504] In
this case Brewster might no more imply a woman’s trade than it does in
the modern term “Brewster-Sessions,” but in 1371 a gallon of beer was
ordered to “be sold for 1½d. ... and if any one offer 1½d. for a gallon
of beer anywhere in Beverley and the ale-wife will not take it, that the
purchaser come to the Gild Hall and complain of the brewster, and a
remedy shall be found,”[505] while a rule made in 1405 orders that “no
brewster or female seller called tipeler” shall “permit strangers to
remain after 9 p.m.”[506] Similar references occur in the Records of
other Boroughs. At Bury the Customs provided in 1327 that “if a woman
Brewer (Braceresse) can acquit herself with her sole hand that she has
not sold contrary to the assize [of ale] she shall be quit”[507]; at
Torksey “when women are asked whether they brew and sell beer outside
their houses contrary to the assize or no, if they say no, they shall
have a day at the next court to make their law with the third hand, with
women who live next door on either side or with others.”[508]
Footnote 504:
_Beverley Town Documents_, p. 41.
Footnote 505:
_Ibid._ p. 41.
Footnote 506:
_Ibid._ p. lv.
Footnote 507:
Bateson, (M.), _Borough Customs_, Vol. I., p. 185.
Footnote 508:
_Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 185, 1345.
It was ordered at Leicester in 1335 that “no breweress, sworn inn-keeper
or other shall be so bold as to brew except (at the rate of) a gallon of
the best for 1d,”[509] and though the feminine form of the noun has been
dropped, the feminine pronoun is still used in 1532 when “hytt is
enacteyd yᵃᵗ no brwar yᵃᵗ brwys to sell, sell aboffe iid the gallan &
sche schall typill be no mesure butt to sell be yᵉ dossyn & yᵉ halfe
dossyn.”[510]
Footnote 509:
Bateson, (M.), _Records of Leicester_, Vol. II., p. 21.
Footnote 510:
Bateson, (M.), _Records of Leicester_, Vol. III., p. 33.
The exclusive use of the feminine in these bye-laws differs from the
expressions used in regard to other trades when both the masculine and
feminine pronouns are habitually employed, suggesting that the trade of
brewing was on a different basis.
It must be remembered that before the introduction of cheap sugar, beer
was considered almost equally essential for human existence as bread.
Beer was drunk at every meal, and formed part of the ordinary diet of
even small children. Large households brewed for their own use, but as
many families could not afford the necessary apparatus, brewing was not
only practised as a domestic art, but became the trade of certain women
who brewed for their neighbours. It is interesting to note the steps
which led to their ultimate exclusion from the trade, though many links
in the chain of evidence are unfortunately missing. In 1532 brewers in
Leicester are referred to as “sche,” but an Act published in 1574 shows
that the trade had already emerged from petticoat government. It
declares that “No inhabitantes what soeuer that nowe doe or hereafter
shall in theire howsses vse tiplinge and sellinge of ale or beare, shall
not brewe the same of theare owne, but shall tunne in the same of the
common brewars therfore appoynted; and none to be common brewars but
such as nowe doe vse the same, ... and non of the said common brewars to
sell, or ... to tipple ale or beare by retayle ... the Brewars shall
togeyther become a felloweship. etc.”[511] This separation of brewing
from the sale of beer was a policy pursued by the government with the
object of simplifying the collection of excise, but it was also defended
as a means for maintaining the quality of the beer brewed. It was
ordayned in the Assize for Brewers, Anno 23, H. 8, that “Forasmuch as
the misterie of brewing as a thing very needfull and necessarie for the
common wealth, hath been alwaies by auncient custom & good orders
practised & maintained within Citties, Corporate Boroughs and market
Townes of this Realm, by such expert and skilfull persons, as eyther
were traded and brought up therein, by the space of seuen yeares, and as
prentizes therin accepted: accordingly as in all other Trades and
occupations, or else well knowne to be such men of skill and honestie,
in that misterie, as could and would alwaie yeeld unto her Maiesties
subiects in the commonwealth, such good and holsome Ale and Beere, as
both in the qualitie & for the quantitie thereof, did euer agree with
the good lawes of the Realme. And especiallie to the comfort of the
poorer sort of subiectes, who most need it, untill of late yeares,
sondrie persons ... rather seeking their owne private gaine, then the
publike profite of their countrie, haue not onelie erected and set uppe
small brewhouses at their pleasures: but also brew and utter such Ales
and Beere, for want of skill in that misterie as both in the prices &
holesomnes thereof, doth utterlie disagree with the good lawes and
orders of this Realm; thereby also ouerthrowing the greater and more
auncient brewhouses.” It is therefore recommended that these modern
brewhouses should be suppressed in the interest of the old and better
ones.[512]
Footnote 511:
_Ibid._ Vol. III., p. 153.
Footnote 512:
Powell, John. _The Assize of Bread._
The argument reads curiously when one reflects how universal had been
the small brewhouses in former days. The advantages from the excise
point of view which would be gained by the concentration of the trade in
a few hands is discussed in a pamphlet which remarks that “there is much
Mault made in private Families, in some Counties half, if not two thirds
of the Maults spent, are privately made, and undoubtedly as soon as an
Imposition is laid upon it, much more will, for the advantage they shall
gain by saving the Excise ... if Mault could be forbidden upon a great
penalty to be made by any persons, but by certain publick Maulsters,
this might be of availe to increase the Excise.”[513] The actual
conditions prevailing in the brewing industry at this time are described
as follows in another pamphlet. Brewers are divided into two classes,
“The Brewer who brews to sell by great measures, and wholly serves other
Families by the same; which sort of Brewers are only in some few great
Cities and Towns, not above twenty through the land.... The Brewers who
brews to sell by retail ... this sort of Brewers charges almost only
such as drink the same in those houses where the same is brewed and sold
... and therefore supplies but a small proportion of the rest of the
land, being that in almost all Market Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and
private houses in the Countrey throughout the land, all the Inhabitants
brew for themselves, at least by much the greatest proportion of what
they use.”[514]
Footnote 513:
_Considerations Touching the Excise_, p. 7.
Footnote 514:
Rockley, Francis.
In order to extend and strengthen their monopoly the “Common Brewers”
brought forward a scheme in 1620, asking for a certain number of common
brewers to be licensed throughout the kingdom, to brew according to
assize. All other inn-keepers, alehouse keepers and victuallers to be
forbidden to brew, “these brew irregularly without control,” and
“offering to pay the King 4d. on every quart of malt brewed.” The scheme
was referred to the Council who recommended “that a proclamation be
issued forbidding ‘taverners, inn-keepers, etc. to sell any beer but
such as they buy from the brewers.’” To the objections “that brewers who
were free by service or otherwise to use the trade of brewing would
refuse to take a licence, and when apprentices had served their time
there would be many who might do so,” it was replied that it was “not
usual for Brewers to take any apprentices but hired servants and the
stock necessary for the trade is such as few apprentices can
furnish.”[515] Thus the rise of the “common brewer” signalises the
complete victory of capitalistic organisation in the brewing trade. In
1636 Commissioners were appointed to “compound with persons who wished
to follow the trade of common Brewers throughout the Kingdom.”[516] The
next year returns were received by the Council, giving the names and
other particulars of those concerned in various districts. The list for
the “Fellowshipp of Brewers now living in Newcastle-upon-Tyne with the
breath and depth of their severall mash tunns” gives the names of
fifty-three men and three women, widows.[517] A list of such brewers in
the County of Essex “as have paid their fines and are bound to pay their
rent accordingly”[518] (i.e. were licensed by the King’s Commissioners
for brewing) includes sixty-three men and four women, while the names of
one hundred and twenty-four men and eight women are given in other
tables containing the amounts due from brewers and maultsters in certain
other counties,[519] showing that the predominance of women in the
brewing trade had then disappeared, the few names appearing in the lists
being no doubt those of brewers’ widows.
Footnote 515:
_S.P.D._, cxii., 75., February 9, 1620.
Footnote 516:
_C. R._ November 9, 1636.
Footnote 517:
_S.P.D._ ccclxxvii., 62, 1637.
Footnote 518:
_S.P.D._ ccclxxvii., 64, 1637.
Footnote 519:
_S.P.D._ ccclxxxvii., 66.
The creation of the common brewers’ monopoly was very unpopular. At Bury
St. Edmunds a petition was presented by “a great no. of poor people” to
the Justices of Assize, saying that for many years they had been
relieved “by those inn-keepers which had the liberty to brew their beer
in their own houses, not only with money and food, but also at the
several times of their brewing (being moved with pity and compassion,
knowing our great extremities and necessities) with such quantities of
their small beer as has been a continual help and comfort to us with our
poor wives and children: yet of late the common brewers, whose number is
small and their benefits to us the poor as little notwithstanding in
their estate they are wealthy and occupy great offices of malting, under
pretence of doing good to the commonwealth, have for their own lucre and
gain privately combined themselves, and procured orders from the Privy
Council that none shall brew in this town but they and their
adherents.”[520] At Tiverton the Council was obliged to make a
concession to popular feeling and agreed that “every person being a
freeman of the town and not prohibited by law might use the trade of
Common Brewer as well as the four persons formerly licensed by the
Commissioners,” but the petition that the alehouse keepers and
inn-keepers might brew as formerly they used was refused, “they might
brew for their own and families use; otherwise to buy from the Common
Brewers.”[521]
Footnote 520:
_Hist. MSS. Com._, 14 Rep. App., VIII., p. 142.
Footnote 521:
_C. R._ June 12, 1640. Order concerning the Brewers of Tiverton.
The monopoly involved the closing of many small businesses. Sarah Kemp a
widow, petitioned the Council because she had “been forced to give up
brewing in Whitefriars, and had been at gᵗ loss both in removing her
implements and in her rents,” asking “that in consideration of her loss
she might have license to erect brick houses on her messuage in
Whitefriars.” This was granted on conditions.[522] A married woman, Mary
Arnold, was committed to the Fleet on March 31st, 1639, “for continuing
to brew in a house on the Millbank in Westminster, contrary to an order
against the brewers in Westminster and especially against Michael
Arnold.” The Council ordered her to be discharged, on her humble
admission to brew no more in the said house, but to remove within ten
days; and on bond from her husband that neither he nor she nor any other
shall brew in the said house, and that he will remove his brewing
vessels within ten days.[523]
Footnote 522:
_C. R._ 22nd March, 1638-9.
Footnote 523:
_C. R._ May 8, 1639.
The closing of the trade of brewing to women must have seriously reduced
their opportunities for earning an independance; that they had hitherto
been extensively engaged in it is shown by frequent references to women
who were brewsters; for example, Mrs. Putland was rated 5s. on her
brew-house;[524] Jennet Firbank, wife of Steph. Firbank, of Awdbroughe,
a recusant, was presented at Richmond for brewing, a side note adding
“she to be put down from brueing.”[525] Margaret, the wife of Ambrose
Carleton and Marye Barton were presented at Carlisle for “brewing (being
foryners) and therefore we doe emercye either of them viˢ 8d.”[526] At
Thirske, Widow Harrington, of Hewton, Chr. Whitecake, of Bransbie, Rob.
Goodricke, of the same (for his wife’s offence) were presented, all for
brewing.[527] And at Malton, a few years later, “Rob. Driffeld, a
brewster of Easingwold, was presented for suffering unlawful games att
cardes to be used at unlawful times in the night in his house ... and
the wife of the said Driffeld for that she will not sell anie of her ale
forth of doores except it be to those whom she likes on and makes her
ale of 2 or thre sortes, nor will let anie of her poore neighbours have
anie of her drincke called small ale, but she saith she will rather give
it to her Swyne then play it for them.”[528] Isabell Bagley and Janyt
Lynsley “both of Cowburne bruesters” were fined 10s. each “for suffering
play at cardes in their houses, &c,”[529] and at Norwich, Judith Bowde,
brewer, was fined 2s. 9d.[530]
Footnote 524:
_Strood Churchwardens’ Accounts_, Add. MSS., 36937, p. 263., 1683.
Footnote 525:
Atkinson, (J. C.), _Yorks. N. R. Q.S. Records_, Vol. I., p. 95., 1607.
Footnote 526:
Ferguson, _Carlisle_, p. 280, _Court Leet Rolls_,. October 21, 1625.
Footnote 527:
Atkinson, (J. C.), _Yorks. N. R. Q.S. Records_, Vol. I., p. 159, 1609.
Footnote 528:
Atkinson, (J. C.), _Yorks. N. R. Q.S. Records_, Vol. II., pp. 53-54,
1614.
Footnote 529:
_Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 93, 1607.
Footnote 530:
Tingey, (J. C.), _Records of City of Norwich_, Vol. I., p. 388, 1676.
Although women had lost their position in the brewing trade by the end
of the seventeenth century, they were still often employed in brewing
for domestic purposes. Sometimes one of the women servants on a large
farm, brewed for the whole family, including all the farm servants.[531]
In other cases a woman made her living by brewing for different families
in their own houses. Thus in the account of a fire on the premises of a
certain Mr. Reading it is described how his “Family were Brewing within
this Place.... The Servants who were in the House perceiving a great
smoak rose out of Bed, and the Maid running out cried Fire and said _Wo
worth this Bookers wife_ (who was the Person whom Mr. _Reading_ imployed
to be his Brewer) _she hath undone us_.”[532] Lady Grizell Baillie
enters in her Household Account Book, “For Brewing 7 bolls Malt by Mrs.
Ainsly 10s. For a ston hopes to the said Malt out of which I had a
puntion very strong Ale 10 gallons good 2nd ale and four puntions of
Beer. 14s.”[533]
Footnote 531:
Ante., p. 50.
Footnote 532:
_True Account how Mr. Reading’s House._
Footnote 533:
Baillie, Lady Grizell, _Household Book_. p. 91., 1714.
Naturally the women who brewed for domestic purposes sometimes wished to
turn an honest penny by selling beer to thirsty neighbours at Fairs and
on Holidays, but attempts to do so were severely punished. Annes Nashe
of Welling, was presented “for selling beer by small jugs at Woolmer
Grene and for laying her donng in the highway leading from Stevenage to
London.”[534] A letter to a Somerset Magistrate pleads for another
offender:—“Good Mr. Browne, all happiness attend you. This poor woman is
arrested with Peace proces for selling ale without lycense and will
assure you shee hath reformed it and that upon the first warning of our
officers ever since Easter last, which is our fayre tyme, when most
commonly our poore people doe offend in that kinde; I pray you doe her
what lawful kindness you may, and hope she will recompense you for your
paynes, and I shall be ready to requite it in what I may, for if she be
committed she is absolutely undone. Thus hoping of your favour I leave
you to God and to this charitable work towards this poor woman. Your
unfeined friend, Hum. Newman.”[535]
Footnote 534:
_Hertford County Records_, Vol. I., p. 68., 1641.
Footnote 535:
_Somerset Q.S. Records_, Vol. II., pp. 40-1, 1627.
Though with the growth of capitalism and the establishment of a monopoly
for “Common Brewers” women were virtually excluded from their old trade
of brewing, they still maintained their position in the retail trade,
their hold upon which was favoured by the same circumstances which
turned their energies to the retail side of other businesses.
A tendency was shown by public opinion to regard licences as suitable
provision for invalids and widows who might otherwise require assistance
from the rates. Thus an attempt made at Lincoln in 1628 to reduce the
numbers of licences was modified, “for that it appeareth that divers
poor men and widows, not freemen, have no other means of livelihood but
by keeping of alehouses, it is agreed that such as shall be approved by
the justices may be re-admitted, but that none hereafter be newly
admitted untill they be first sworn freemen.”[536] According to a
pamphlet published early in the next century, “Ale-houses were
originally Accounted Neusances in the _Parish’s_ where they were, as
tending to Debauch the Subject, and make the People idle, and therefore
Licences to sell Beer and Ale, where allow’d to none, but Ancient People
past their Labours, and Invalides to keep them from Starving, there
being then no _Act of Parliament_ that _Parishes_ should Maintain their
own Poor. But the Primitive Intention in granting Licences being now
perverted, and all sorts of People Admitted to this priviledge, it is
but reason the Publick should have some Advantage by the Priviledges it
grants....”[537] Many examples of this attitude of mind can be observed
in the Quarter Sessions Records. For instance, Mary Briggs when a widow
was licensed by the Hertfordshire Quarter Sessions to sell drink, and by
the good order she kept in her house and the goodness of the drink she
uttered and sold she got a good livelihood, and brought up three
children she had by a former husband. She married John Briggs, woodard
and servant to Lord Ashton, she continuing her business and he his. Her
husband was returned as a papist recusant, and on his refusing to take
oaths the court suppressed their alehouse. Mrs. Briggs appealed on the
ground that her business was carried on separately and by it she
maintained her children by her former husband. Her claim was supported
by a petition from her fellow parishioners, declaring that John Briggs
was employed by Lord Ashton and “meddles not with his wife’s trade of
victualling and selling drink.”[538] Other examples may be found in an
order for the suppression of Wm. Brightfoot’s licence who had “by
surprize” obtained one for selling beer ... showing that he was a young
man, and capable to maintain his family without keeping an
alehouse,[539] and the petition of John Phips, of Stondon, labourer,
lately fallen into great need for want of work. He can get very little
to do among his neighbours, “because they have little for him to do,
having so many poore laborious men besides within the said parish.” He
asks for a licence to sell beer “for his better livelihood and living
hereafter, towards the mayntenance of himself, his poor wife and
children.”[540] Licences were refused at Bristol to “John Keemis,
Cooper, not fit to sell ale, having no child; he keeps a tapster which
is no freeman that have a wife and child,” and also to “Richard Rooke,
shipwright, not fit to sell ale, having no child, and brews themselves.”
A Barber Surgeon was disqualified, having no child, “and also for
entertaining a strange maid which is sick.”[541]
Footnote 536:
_Hist. MSS. Com._, 14 Rep., app. viii., p. 99, 1629.
Footnote 537:
Phipps, (Thomas), _Proposal for raising £1,000,000 Sterling yearly_.
Footnote 538:
_Hertford County Records_, Vol. I., p. 289, 1678.
Footnote 539:
_Middlesex Sessions Book_, p. 23, 1690.
Footnote 540:
_Hertford County Records_, Vol. I., p. 174, 1665.
Footnote 541:
Latimer, _Bristol_, p. 359, 1670. _Court Leet for St. Stephen’s
Parish._
Very rarely were doubts suggested as to the propriety of the trade for
women, though a bye-law was passed at Chester ordaining that “no woman
between the age of xiii & xl yeares shall kepe any taverne or
ale-howse.”[542] At times complaints were made of the conduct of
alewives, as in a request to the Justices of Nottingham “that your
Worshipps wyll take some order wythe all the alewyfes in this towne, for
we thinke that never an alewyfe dothe as hir husband is bownd to,”[543]
but there is no evidence of any marked difference in the character of
the alehouses kept by men and those kept by women. The trade included
women of the most diverse characters. One, who received stolen goods at
the sign of the “Leabord’s Head” in Ware, had there a “priviye place”
for hiding stolen goods and suspicious persons “at the press for
soldiers she hid five men from the constables, and can convey any man
from chamber to chamber into the backside. There is not such a house for
the purpose within a hundred miles.”[544] In contrast to her may be
quoted the landlady of the Inn at Truro, of whom Celia Fiennes wrote,
“My Greatest pleasure was the good Landlady I had, she was but an
ordinary plaine woman but she was understanding in the best things as
most—yᵉ Experience of reall religion and her quiet submission and
self-Resignation to yᵉ will of God in all things, and especially in yᵉ
placeing her in a remoteness to yᵉ best advantages of hearing, and being
in such a publick Employment wᶜʰ she desired and aimed at yᵉ discharging
so as to adorn yᵉ Gospel of her Lord and Saviour, and the Care of her
children.”[545]
Footnote 542:
_Harl. MSS._, 2054 (4), fo., 6.
Footnote 543:
_Nottingham Records_, Vol. IV., p. 325, 1614.
Footnote 544:
_Hertford County Records_, Vol. I., p. 59, 1626.
Footnote 545:
Fiennes, (Celia), p. 226, _Through England on a Side-Saddle._
_Vintners_:—The trade of the Vintner had no connection with that of the
Brewer. Wine was sold in Taverns. In London the Vintners’ Company, like
the other London Companies, possessed privileges which were continued to
the wife upon her husband’s death, but women were probably not concerned
in the trade on their own account. A survey of all the Taverns in London
made in 1633 gives a total of 211, whereof six are licensed by His
Majesty, 203 by the Vintners’ Company and two are licensed by neither,
one is unlicensed, “inhabited by An Tither, whoe lately made a tavern of
the Starr on Tower Hill where shee also keepes a victualling house
unlicensed.” One licensed by the Earl of Middlesex. Amongst those duly
licensed are the names of a few widows. In Cordwainer Street Ward, there
was only one Tavern, “kept by a widdowe whose deceased husband was bound
prentice to a Vintener and so kept his taverne by vertue of his freedome
of that companye after his termes of apprentizhood expired.”[546]
Footnote 546:
_S.P.D._ ccl., 22, November 6, 1633. Lord Mayor and others to the
Council.
_Conclusion._
The foregoing examination of the relation of women to the different
crafts and trades has shown them occupying an assured position wherever
the system of family industry prevailed. While this lasted the
detachment of married women from business is nowhere assumed, but they
are expected to assist their husband, and during his absence or after
his death to take his place as head of the family and manager of the
business.
The economic position held by women depended upon whether the business
was carried on at home or elsewhere, and upon the possession of a small
amount of capital. The wives of men who worked as journeymen on their
masters’ premises could not share their husbands’ trade, and their
choice of independent occupations was very limited. The skilled women’s
trades, such as millinery and mantua-making, were open, and in these,
though apprenticeship was usual, there is no reason to suppose that
women who worked in them without having served an apprenticeship, were
prosecuted; but as has been shown the apprenticeship laws were strictly
enforced in other directions, and in some cases prevented women from
using their domestic skill to earn their living.
While women could share their husbands’ trades they suffered little from
these restrictions, but with the development of capitalistic
organisation the numbers of women who could find no outlet for their
productive activity in partnership with their husbands were increasing
and their opportunities for establishing an independent industry did not
keep pace; on the contrary, such industry became ever more difficult.
The immediate result is obscure, but it seems probable that the wife of
the prosperous capitalist tended to become idle, the wife of the skilled
journeyman lost her economic independence and became his unpaid domestic
servant, while the wives of other wage-earners were driven into the
sweated industries of that period. What were the respective numbers in
each class cannot be determined, but it is probable that throughout the
seventeenth century they were still outnumbered by the women who could
find scope for productive activity in their husbands’ business.
------------------------------------------------------------------------