BRITISH FREEWOMEN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRITISH FREEWOMEN
_THEIR HISTORICAL PRIVILEGE_
BY
CHARLOTTE CARMICHAEL STOPES
DIPLOMÉE, EDIN. UNIVERSITY
“I do own for myself that Seneca the Declaimer saith, that I take
pleasure in going back to studies of antiquity, and in looking behind me
to our grandsires’ better times.”
As saith another poet:
“Antique, buried in rubbish, old and musty,
Which make one verst in customs old and new,
And of Laws, Gods, and Men giving a view,
Render the careful student skilled and trusty.”
_Inner Temple_ Dec. 25, 1610.
John Selden’s Janus Anglorum, translated by Redman Westcott, _alias_
Littleton.
LONDON
_SWAN SONNENSCHEIN & CO._
PATERNOSTER SQUARE
1894
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS
[Illustration]
CHAP. PAGE
PREFACE vii
I. ANCIENT HISTORY AND BRITISH 1
WOMEN
II. THE MODERN BASES OF PRIVILEGE 15
III. ROYAL WOMEN 27
Queens Consort 27
Queens Regnant 28
Queens Regent 33
IV. NOBLEWOMEN 35
They paid Homage 36
They received Homage 37
They held Courts Baron 37
They held by Military Service 40
They could be Knights 42
They could inherit Public 42
Offices
They could be High Sheriff 43
They could be Earl Marshal 45
They could be High Constable, 47
High Steward, High Chamberlain
They could be Champion, 48
Governor of Royal Castles
They could be appointed to 51
various offices
They could act as Femes Soles 51
when married
They had the Cure of Churches 53
As Peeresses summoned to 53
Parliament in person or in
proxy
V. COUNTY WOMEN 60
Could be Freeholders 61
Could act as Femes Soles when 61
married
Could hold by Military Tenure 62
Paid and received Homage 63
Could present to Churches 63
Could hold Motes and attend 64
Motes
Could be Suitors at County 64
Courts, Pares, Judges or Jury
Could elect Knights of the 67
Shire
Could elect Members of Private 69
Boroughs
VI. FREEWOMEN 77
Could be Members of Guilds 79
Could have Guilds of their own 83
Were free of the City of 84
London
Were free in other Boroughs 86
Could be Members of 90
Corporation
Could vote for Members of 94
Parliament
VII. THE LONG EBB 99
The Errors of Sir Edward Coke 99
A Believer in Coke’s Views 107
Protesting Women 112
Anne Clifford 112
Mary Astell’s Protest 124
Mary Wolstonecroft Godwin 127
Legal Cases decided in their 128
favour
The Reform Bill of 1832 136
The Reform Bill of 1867 139
Chorlton _v._ Lings 140
VIII. THE TURN OF THE TIDE 146
Something has been done 147
Municipal Franchise—School 148
Boards
Married Women’s Property Acts 149
Lady Sandhurst’s Case 150
What a Woman can do 152
Women and the Universities 155
IX. OTHER WOMEN 159
The Test of Civilisation 162
Labour the basis of Property 165
The Unrecorded Increment of 166
Women’s Labour
The Duality of Humanity 176
The Woman God’s Fellow-worker 178
APPENDIX
Eldest Daughters 180
The Countess Lucy 180
Women’s Service 180
Women’s Guilds 181
Free Kent 181
The Learned Selden 181
Sir Edward Coke 181
Judge or Jury 182
Physical Force Argument 182
Women and the Universities 182
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PREFACE
[Illustration]
IN the spring of 1885, when planning to attend the British Association
meeting in Aberdeen that summer, it struck me that I might prepare a
paper on a Woman’s Subject, and try to find an opportunity of reading it
before the Section of Economics and Statistics there. The paper divided
itself into two, which I carefully entitled—I. The History and
Statistics of Woman’s Privilege; and II. The Economic Effects of the
Abstention of Women from Voting.
They were, as might have been expected, both rejected. I was told that,
though they formed valuable contributions to Constitutional History, the
Committee felt they would certainly lead to political discussion, which
must not be risked. At a public meeting in Aberdeen the same week, I
gave a resumé of my arguments, and the materials then collected I have
frequently used since in Drawing-room Addresses, and in private
conversation; in public papers, and in friendly correspondence. So many
have been surprised at the facts, and interested in the results, that,
at the present crisis, I thought it advisable to spend another six
months in careful verification of details, and in grouping apparently
disconnected data, so that their full import might be seen at a glance.
My first authorities were Sydney Smith’s “Enfranchisement of Woman the
Law of the Land” (1876), and Mr. Chisholm Anstey’s Book and Papers on
“The Representation of the People’s Acts” (1876).
Thence I went through the materials of Constitutional History, the
Statutes, Rolls of Parliament, State Papers, Parliamentary Writs,
Journals of the House of Commons, Reports of Cases, Works on Law,
History, and Archæology, both printed and manuscript.
Just as my paper was complete enough for the purpose in hand, M.
Ostrogorski’s book upon “Women’s Rights” appeared. But he had considered
the question in regard to all women, I, only in regard to British
Freewomen. He was the more general, I the more special, and I had noted
several points which had escaped him in regard to the prime question of
the day.
I consulted Miss Helen Blackburn, Editor of the _Englishwoman’s Review_,
and she urged me to bring out what I had prepared. She had always
thought the work necessary, had intended to undertake it herself, when
she could find leisure, and thought that now was the most fitting time
to publish.
She generously placed her notebooks at my disposal, whence I have
gleaned many interesting facts in support of my own. Therefore this
little book may be taken as her voice as well as mine. The points I
specially wish to be considered, are:—
1st, The Ethnological.—The racial characteristics of our ancestors. They
reverenced women.
2nd, The Philological.—All old Statutes are couched in _general_ terms.
Through a deficiency in the English language, the word “man” is a common
term, including woman as well as man, even by Statute.
3rd, The Legal.—The Late Laureate speaks of the liberties of men as
widening down from precedent to precedent. We find that the liberties of
women have, on the other hand, been narrowed down from precedent to
precedent. Sir Edward Coke, the technical cause of this limitation, is
only a fellow mortal, liable to error.
4th, The Historical, in which facts speak for themselves.
5th, The Biblical, in which prejudice and mistranslation have confused
the ideas of readers on this point. Some may disagree with my
conclusions, but I trust they may accept the facts, and do what they can
with them.
No one can deny that it is _just_ to grant women the Suffrage, no one
can deny that it would be _advantageous for them_ to receive it. There
is no reason that a thing should be because it has been, but when the
only objection brought against a thing is, that it has not been, it is
time to test if that statement be really true. We have not found the
received assertions true in regard to this subject. Hence the
publication of this little book.
Thus far I had written as Preface to the little Brochure that I printed
for the use of the Women’s Suffrage Societies a month ago. But as the
whole Thousand was ordered before it came from the printers, it was
evident that I ought to publish my work formally, with the many
additions I had held back from lack of space, and with the article from
the _Athenæum_, No. 3475, which I had been permitted to incorporate.
Amongst the Labour-saving appliances of the day, may be classified
collections of verified facts. I trust these may reach the hands of
those for whom I write, _brave women_ and _fair men_.
CHARLOTTE CARMICHAEL STOPES,
31 TORRINGTON SQUARE, W.C.
_6th June, 1894._
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRITISH FREEWOMEN
THEIR HISTORICAL PRIVILEGE
[Illustration]
CHAPTER I.
__PRELIMINARY.__
ANCIENT HISTORY AND BRITISH WOMEN.
“Let us look at the beginnings of things, for they help us to
understand the ends.”
THOUGH early British traditions may survive in later Literature, we
cannot accept them for critical purposes. The century of the birth of
Christ is the earliest date of our authentic history. The words of the
Romans, strangers and enemies, are unexceptionable witnesses. Nothing
impressed the Romans more than the equality of the sexes among the
Northern nations; the man’s reverence for womanhood, the woman’s
sympathy with manhood, and the high code of morality that was the
natural outcome of this well-balanced society.
Plutarch (“de Virtut Mul.”) says, “Concerning the virtues of women, I am
not of the same mind with Thucydides. For he would prove that she is the
best woman concerning whom there is least discourse made by people
abroad, either to her praise or dispraise; judging that as the person,
so the very name of a good woman ought to be retired and not to gad
abroad.... And seeing that many worthy things, both public and private,
have been done by women, it is not amiss to give a brief historical
account of those that are public in the first place.” Among the examples
he cites, there is that of the continental Celts, kindred to the
British. Some of these wandered north-west, and some due south. “There
arose a very grievous and irreconcilable contention among the Celts
before they passed over the Alps to inhabit that tract of Italy which
now they inhabit, which proceeded to a civil war. The women, placing
themselves between the armies, took up the controversies, argued them so
accurately, and determined them so impartially that an admirable
friendly correspondence and general amity ensued, both civil and
domestic. Hence the Celts made it their practice to take women into
consultation about peace or war, and to use them as mediates in any
controversies that arose between them and their allies. In the league,
therefore, made with Hannibal, the writing runs thus—If the Celts take
occasion of quarrelling with the Carthaginians, the governors and
generals of the Carthaginians in Spain shall decide the dispute; but if
the Carthaginians accuse the Celts, the Celtic women shall decide the
controversy.” The Romans were much struck by the similar position of
women among the Britons, Belgic and Celtic alike. Elton, on the
authority of Ammianus Marcellinus, says of the women, “that their
approximation to the men in stature was the best evidence that the
nation had advanced out of barbarism.” Cæsar tells us (“Eng.” 117) that
the British women were made use of in Court, in Council, and in Camp,
and that no distinction of sex was made in places of command or
government. Selden, in his chapter on “Women” in the “Janus Anglorum,”
reminds us, that “Boadicea so successfully commanded the British armies
as to beat and conquer the Roman Viceroy, and no doubt that noble lady
was a deliberative member of the Council where the resolution was taken
to fight, and that she should command the forces.” Tacitus (“Vita
Agric.,” c. xv.) says, “Under the leadership of Boadicea, a woman of
kingly descent (for they admit of no distinction of sex in their royal
successions), they all rose to arms. Had not Paulinus, on hearing of
this outbreak, rendered prompt succour, Britain would have been lost.”
He owns elsewhere that had the Britons but been able to unite among
themselves, the Romans could not have conquered them; and he more than
once notes the bravery of the women in stimulating the warriors.
More fully in his “Annals” (B. xiv.), Tacitus describes how Suetonius
Paulinus attacked Mona (Anglesea) the stronghold of the Druids; and how
the women priestesses dashed about clothed in black, like furies, with
dishevelled hair, and with torches in their hands, encouraging and
threatening the soldiers, and when all was lost, perishing bravely among
the flames kindled by the conqueror. This is told, not in the tones with
which one belauds compatriot heroines, but in those of an enemy, to whom
these women added new terrors and increased troubles. Meanwhile, in the
East, the Roman statue of Victory had fallen from its place in the
temple of Claudius at Camalodunum; evil signs and omens weakened the
hearts of the Roman soldiers, and frantic Priestesses encouraged the
hopes of the British force thereby. Boadicea, having succeeded in
uniting some of the neighbouring tribes, had driven Catus over the sea,
had subdued Petelius Cerialus, had destroyed the Colonia at Camalodunum,
had sacked Verulam, and marched on London, building an intrenched camp
near what we now call Islington. Suetonius Paulinus, fresh from the
slaughter of the sacred Druid host, advanced to meet her. Tacitus
describes the position of the armies, and reports her speech. Not being
“unaccustomed to address the public,” she called her army to witness
“that it was usual for the Britons to war under the conduct of women,
but on that occasion she entered the field, not as one descended from
ancestors so illustrious to recover her kingdom and her treasure, but as
one of the humblest among them, to take vengeance for liberty
extinguished, her own body lacerated with stripes, and the chastity of
her daughters defiled.... They would see that in that battle they must
conquer or perish. Such was the fixed resolve of a woman; the men might
live if they pleased and be the slaves of the Romans.” “Neither was
Suetonius silent at so perilous a juncture, for though he confided in
the bravery of his men, yet he mingled exhortations with entreaties. ‘In
that great host were to be seen more women than efficient men.
Unwarlike, unarmed, they would give way the instant they felt the sword
and valour of those victorious troops, etc.’” Then follows the account
of the battle. “The soldiers spared not even the lives of the women, nay
the very beasts, pierced with darts, seemed to swell the heaps of the
slain. The glory gained that day was signal indeed, and equal to the
victories of ancient times, for there are authors who record that of the
Britons were slain almost 80,000, of our men about 400, with not many
more wounded.”
That Boadicea’s defeat was gloried in as being such a triumph to the
Roman arms is in itself a witness to her prowess. The numbers of the
slain did not likely represent warriors alone. The carriages with their
wives and children lined the field. The Romans thought that the defeated
Britons _could not_ fly past these. They _would not_. Husbands, wives,
and babes were slain together, and reckoned together, perhaps the very
beasts of burden among the heaps of the slain were reckoned too.
Anything to increase the Roman “glory.”
There is no picture more touching in the history of our country! The
forces of oppression and lust, the spirit of Nero himself, then Emperor,
were ranged against this woman. With superhuman energy, as patriot, as
mother, and as _individual_, she struggled against these in defence of
country, home, and honour. And _she failed_! Had circumstances been but
slightly altered, had the brave Caractacus been but able to hold out a
little longer, and take shelter with her, instead of trusting the rival
Queen Cartismandua, how differently might our British history have read
to-day.
Cartismandua was a Queen, too, in her own right, wedded freely to the
neighbouring Prince Venutius, but nevertheless personally elected as the
supreme ruler and leader of the united tribes of the Brigantes, making
contracts and treaties for all. Caractacus, after his nine years’
struggle, had fled for shelter and for help to her in the year 50 A.D.
But as Elton says in his “Origin of English History,” “she was farseeing
enough to see the hopelessness of contest with the Romans.” Already
Romanised in heart and spirit, she betrayed her countryman, cast off her
husband, forfeited her honour, and finally lost the crown of her
inheritance.
The blameless Boadicea suffered for her sins twelve years later, in that
sad year of 62 A.D. That defeat rang the death-knell of the freedom of
British womanhood, and of the spirit of British manhood. In such a
crisis it is _not_ the fittest who survive. They who lived to tread upon
her grave were born of lower possibilities. Yet she _has lived_, the
typal woman of the British past.
I know that I may be expected to speak of the Empress Helena, claimed by
Camalodunum (now Colchester) as the only daughter of its Coel II., the
wife of Constantius, the mother of Constantine, the Christian convert,
the finder of the true cross. Good as she was, refined and cultivated
too, she was, nevertheless, but a Romanised Briton, a Roman wife, a
Roman mother, under Roman Law. And the Roman Law was a meaner
foster-mother for feminine virtues than the free old British Law.
The withdrawal of the Roman troops for home affairs hastened a new
crisis, in which the Britons, made limp by protection and an alien
government, were unable to hold their own against invading tribes. No
longer was the British wife the brave help-meet, the counsellor, the
inspirer of the British man. Roman customs had completed what the Roman
arms and the Roman laws had begun, and the spirit of British Womanhood
had no reserve force in itself to spare. Then came an infusion of new
blood into the land, fortunately not of Latin Race, but of a good
northern stock, that reverenced woman still. Speaking of that stock in
earlier times, Tacitus (“Germ.” c. viii.) says, “The women are the most
revered witnesses of each man’s conduct, and his most liberal
applauders. To their mothers and their wives they bring their wounds for
relief, who do not dread to count or search out the gashes. The women
also administer food and encouragement to those who are fighting.” “They
even suppose somewhat of sanctity and prescience to be inherent in the
female sex, and, therefore, neither despise their counsels nor disregard
their responses. We have beheld, in the reign of Vespasian, Veleda, long
reverenced by many as a deity. Aurima, moreover, and several others,
were formerly held in similar veneration, but not with a similar
flattery, nor as though they had been goddesses (c. xviii). Almost alone
among barbarians they are content with one wife.... The wife does not
bring a dower to the husband, but the husband to the wife.... Lest the
woman should think herself to stand apart from aspirations after noble
deeds, and from the perils of war, she is reminded by the ceremony which
inaugurates marriage (in which she is handed a spear) that she is her
husband’s partner in toil and danger, destined to suffer and to dare
with him alike in peace and in war....” “She must live and die with the
feeling that she is receiving what she must hand down to her children,
neither tarnished, nor depreciated, what future daughters-in-law may
receive, and may so pass on to her grandchildren” (c. xix). “Thus with
their virtue protected, they live uncorrupted by the allurements of
public shows or the stimulant of feastings. Clandestine correspondence
is equally unknown to men and women. The young men marry late, and their
vigour is unimpaired. Nor are the maidens hurried into marriage.
Well-matched and vigorous they wed, and the offspring reproduce the
strength of their parents” (Church’s Translation).
These racial peculiarities also marked the early Saxon invaders, though
there were no foreign witnesses to note them with surprise. The native
writers took them too much as a matter of course to consider them worth
noting. It is only indirectly that we can glean the state of affairs
from public records. Samuel Heywood, in his “Ranks of the People among
the Anglo-Saxons,” says (p. 2), “The word Cwen[1] originally signified a
wife in general, but was by custom converted into a title for the wife
of a king.... It was customary for Saxon monarchs to hold their courts
with great solemnity three times a year. The Queen Consort, at these
assemblies, wore her crown also, and was seated on a throne near the
King. When an assembly of the nobles met at Winchester to adjust the
complaints of the secular clergy against St. Dunstan, the King presided,
having his Queen seated by his side (“Eadmer de Vita St. Dunstan,” 2
Aug. Sacra., 219)....”
Footnote 1:
“Cwen” originally meant a wife, but it also meant a _companion_ or
_peer_, hence in old French Histories we see it used instead of Count,
as “Thibaut Cwens de Champagne.” In a roll in the Tower of London,
Simon de Montfort is called “Quens of Leycester” (Selden’s “Titles of
Honour”).
“The Queen Consort had her separate household and attendants....” “It is
highly probable that in ancient as well as modern times the Queen
Consort was considered as _feme sole_ in all legal proceedings. Sir
Edward Coke being called on to prove that this was the common law before
the Conquest, produced a charter made by Ethelswurth, Queen of the
Mercians, in the lifetime of her husband, giving away the lands in her
own power, her husband being only an attesting witness. We find Queens
Consort acting in all other respects as _femes soles_ in tenure,
management, and alienation of real property. Emma, Ethelred’s Queen,
gave a munificent grant to St. Swithins, Winchester. Alswythe, the Queen
of King Alfred, began to erect a house for nuns at Winchester, finished
by her son Edward. Queens attested their husband’s grants, and recorded
their assents to acts done and engagements made. Queens Dowager were
also present, and subscribed their names to Royal grants as being
content with them.”
Though, of course, the Royal rank increased the woman’s power, the law
and custom for Queens was but the reflex of the common law and custom of
the time for all women. Selden says, “Ladies of birth and quality sat in
the Saxon Witenagemot,” and Gurdon, in his “Antiquities of Parliament,”
vol. i., p. 164, adds, “Wightred, the next Saxon legislator, summoned
his Witas to the Witenagemot at Berghamstead, where his laws were made
with the advice and consent of his Witas (which is a _general_ term for
the nobility), for the laws were signed by the King, Werburg his Queen,
the Bishops, Abbots, Abbesses, and the _rest_ of the Witas” (_see_ “Sax.
Chron.,” 48). In Spelman’s “Concilia Britannica,” p. 190, we find also
that Wightred’s council at Beconceld (694) included women, for the Queen
and Abbesses signed the decisions along with the King and the Abbots (p.
192). The charter to Eabba the Abbess is granted by Wightred and his
Queen (p. 486).
The charter to Glastonbury is signed, after the name of the King, “Ego
Eilfgiva ejusdem Regis Mater cum gaudio consensi” (p. 533). In the
“Diploma Comiti, Regis Angliæ,” after the King’s name, “Ego Emma Regina
signo crucis confirmo.”
The second charter of Edward the Confessor to St. Peter’s at Westminster
contains not only the signature of the sainted King, but “Ego Editha
Regina huic donationi Regiæ consentiens subscripsi” (p. 631). And at the
council summoned to consider the Bull of Nicholas the Pope to Edward the
Confessor, after the King, signs “Ego Edgida Regina omni alacritate
mentis hoc corroboravi.” The different expressions used, show that the
signatures were no mere accident, no vapid formality.
In the council held to grant privileges to the Church “præsentibus etiam
clarissimis Abbattissis, hoc est, Hermehilda, Truinberga and Ataba
reverenda, ut subscriberent rogavi” (p. 198).
“King Edgar’s charter to the Abbey of Crowland (961) was signed with the
consent of the nobles and abbesses, for many Abbesses were formerly
summoned to Parliament” (Plowden’s “Jura Anglorum,” p. 384. Also William
Camden’s “Antiquity of Parliament”).
“Ego Ælfrith Regina” signs the Charter that the King of Mercia grants to
the Abbey of Worcester. “Ethelswith Regina” subscribes with Burghred,
King of Mercia or Mercland, in the Register of Worcester.
Edward the Confessor’s charter to Agelwin is confirmed by his wife, “Ego
Edgith Regina consentio.”
So in a charter of King Knut to St. Edmundesbury, his wife, Alfgwa,
signs, “Ego Alfgifa Regina” (Selden’s “Titles of Honour”).
There had been amid the Saxons, Queens Regnant as well as Queens
Consort. William of Malmesbury writes in admiration of Sexburga, the
Queen Dowager of Cenwalch, King of the West Saxons, 672, A.D., “that
there was not wanting to this woman a great spirit to discharge the
duties of the kingdom. She levied new armies, kept the old ones to duty,
governed her subjects with clemency, kept her enemies quiet with
threats, in a word, did everything at that rate that there was no other
difference between her and any King in management except her sex”
(“Malmesb. Gest. Reg.,” b. i.). Ethelfleda, too, the daughter of the
great Alfred, called the Lady of Mercia, ruled that kingdom after the
death of her father and her husband for eight years, and completed the
work that her great father had begun in finally defeating and
subjugating the intruding Danes. Women landowners sat in the Shire
Gemote, or held Motes of their own; women Burgesses were present at
Folkmotes, or at Revemotes. In short, the privileges of women in the
Saxon times were nearly equal to those they held in British times.
The Abbess Hilda presided over the monastery at Streneshalh, Whitby,
where was a man’s wing, and a woman’s wing, the church coming between
them. Among her disciples were educated many learned bishops. An
ecclesiastical synod met at her abbey (664), at which she presided, that
the calm of her presence and the influence of her control might soothe
excitement on the vexed questions of the day, chiefly those regarding
Easter. There were delegates from Rome, from the Scots, from the Angles,
and the Britons (_see_ lib. 3, c. xxv., and lib. 4, c. xxiii., xxiv.).
Also Spelman’s “Concilia” (p. 145) describes “Synodis Pharensis rogatu
Hildæ illic Abbatissæ celebratæ.” The earliest British writer still
extant, Gildas of Alcluid (now Dumbarton), reports this fact without
comment or surprise. Spelman preserves also (p. 205) “Epistola Johannis
Pa. VII.,” to “Ethelredum Regem Merciorum.” “Episcopus suo more
obnitentibus beatissima virgo Elfleda soror Alfridi, Abbattissa post
Hildam de Streneshalh, terminum negotio fixit dicens Dimissus ambagibus
testamentum fratris mei, cui præsens interfui, profero,” etc. Other
women held similar positions in England, as well as St. Bridget of the
Abbey of Kildare in Ireland.
The Norman invaders swept like a whirlwind over old institutions, yet
some of the strongest stood firm. They were, after all, of the same
Church, and Church and Cloister preserved the records of Saxon
liberties, and the customs of Saxon times. The clerical and lay powers
of many Abbesses were handed down unimpaired to their successors in
Norman times. The conquest was not one of extermination but of
superposition. The great mass of the _people_ remained Saxon in heart.
The Normans were, too, of a kindred race, though they had come from a
long sojourn in a land where language, thought, and custom had become
Latinised, a land that already held the principles of the Salic Law.
William promised to respect the laws of the country, but there is no
appeal against a conqueror’s will, or a soldier’s sword.
The lands they wrested from the Saxons, the Normans held of the King by
Feudal Tenure or by Military Service. Their laws, customs, and language
dominated the Saxons, as did their swords. But only for a time. The
struggles with France formed, through a common antagonism, a united
nation of the varying races in the island. To complete the union, the
nation went back to the language of the Saxons, and, when opportunity
for freedom called, went back to their old laws as a basis of the new.
That women suffered more than men did from the Norman invasion might
only have been expected. But that they did not do so nearly to the
extent that it is commonly supposed, can be proved by reference to
competent authorities, by whom the limitations of their privileges are
shown to proceed on definite and comprehensible lines.
------------------------------------------------------------------------