FREEWOMEN.
“Preserve your Loyalty, defend your Rights.”
—_Anne Clifford’s Sundial Motto._
IN days when the word “Free” had no doubtful signification, women could
be “Free” in several different ways. They could be Freeholders in towns
by inheritance or by purchase. They could be Free of “Companies,” in
some of them by patrimony, service, or payment; in others through being
widows of Freemen only. In some cases a widow’s “Freedom” was limited by
the conditions of her husband’s will, but in almost all of the
Companies, at least, in London, _some_ women could be Free. They could
be Free in Boroughs, under the same conditions as men, by paying
brotherhood money, and by sharing in the common duties of Burgesses, as
“Watch and Ward,” “Scot and Lot,” and the service of the King; they
could be “Free” as regards the Corporation, and they could be “Free” as
regards voting for members of Parliament.
I have preferred to use the word “Freewomen” as more definite than any
other. The “Widows and Spinsters” phrase of to-day does not carry back
to old history. Under certain limited conditions married women could be
“Free”; under certain other conditions they could be “Spinsters.”
“The case of a wife trading alone. And where a woman coverte de Baron
follows any craft within the city by herself apart, with which the
husband in no way interferes, such woman shall be bound as a single
woman as to all that concerns her craft. And if the husband and wife are
impleaded in such case, the wife shall plead as a single woman in a
Court of Record, and shall have her law and other advantages by way of
plea just as a single woman.” She has her duties and penalties as well
as her privileges, can be imprisoned for debt, etc. (_See_ “The Liber
Albus of London,” compiled 1419, translated by J. Riley, Book III., p.
39.)
(_See_ also “Historical Manuscripts Commission,” vol. x., appendix iv.,
p. 466, _et. seq._ Report on papers found in Town Hall, Chelmsford.)
There, among several lists of women, wives, and mothers, are many
designated “Spinsters.” Among “presentments for neglecting to attend
church” (23 Eliz.) were ten women—“Margareta Tirrell, spinster, alias
dicta Margaretta Tirrell uxor Thomae Tirrell armigeri”: “Maria Lady
Petre, spinster, alias dicta Maria Domina Petre uxor Johannis Petre de
Westhornden prædicta Milites.” Many others appear as “wife of” at the
same time as “spinster.” The writer of the Report believes that
“spinster” in these cases was equivalent to “generosa,” and notes that
it is insisted on when women have married men of meaner descent. I
myself am inclined to think that a Guild of women had arisen out of the
silk-spinning industries of Essex, and that the word “Spinster” implied
membership of that Guild.
=Members of Guilds.=—In the old social and religious guilds which seem
to have been established for good fellowship during life, for due
burial, prayers and masses after death, and for charitable assistance of
needy survivors, there was perfect equality between the sexes.
Brotherhood money is exacted from “the sustren” as well as from the
brethren. In 1388 (12 Richard II.) an order was given that all Guilds
and Brotherhoods should give “returns of their foundation.” Women appear
as the Founders of some of these. The Guild of the Blessed Virgin Mary,
Kingston-upon-Hull, was founded by 10 men and 12 women (p. 155). The
Guild of Corpus Christi, Hull, founded in 1358, by 18 women and 25 men
(p. 160, “Early English Gilds,” J. Toulmin Smith). The Guild of the Holy
Cross, Stratford-on-Avon, had half of its members women, as also the
Guild of Our Lady, in the Parish of St. Margaret’s, Westminster, whose
original manuscripts I have read. Even when the guild was managed by
priests, as in the Guild of Corpus Christi, York, women were among the
members. In St. George’s Guild, Norwich, men were charged 6s. 8d. and
women only 3s. 4d. for brotherhood. These guilds had “Livery” of their
own in some cases. They had a beneficial effect on society, moral good
conduct being necessary to membership, and a generous rivalry in
self-improvement a condition of distinction. They taught an equal moral
standard for both sexes. Hence the treatment of vicious men and vicious
women was the same. (_See_ “Liber Albus,” p. 179, 180, etc.)
They also did many good works towards the public weal.
The Guild of the Holy Cross in Birmingham, to which belonged the
well-disposed men and women of Birmingham and the neighbouring towns,
had Letters Patent in 1392. The Report of its Condition in the reign of
Edward VI. says, “It kept in good reparacions two great stone Bridges
and divers foule and dangerous wayes, the charge whereof the town, of
hitselfe ys not hable to manteign, so that the lacke thereof will be a
great noysaunce to the Kinges Majesties subjects passing to and from the
marches of Wales, and an utter ruyne to the same towne, being one of the
largest and most profitable townes to the Kinges Highness in all the
Shyre” (Toulmin Smith’s “English Gilds,” pp. 244-249).
These might have weathered the storms of the Reformation by giving up
candles and masses, had not Henry seized their revenues and revoked
their foundations.
The Trades Guilds in early days were also semi-religious in their
character, and also admitted women as sisters.
William Herbert’s “History of the Twelve Great Livery Companies” gives
many details interesting to us. All the Charters of the Drapers’ Company
expressly admit Sisters with full rights; the wearing of the Livery, the
power of taking apprentices, sitting at the election feasts, making
ordinances among themselves for better governance, etc. (vol. i., p.
422). So also did the Clothworkers.
So also the Brewers’ Company. In 5 Henry V. there were 39 women on the
Company’s Livery paying full quarterage money. In 9 Henry V. there are
entries in the books, of the purchase of cloth for the clothing of the
Brethren and Sistern of the Fraternity of the Brewers’ Craft. So also
the Fishmongers (p. 59), the Weavers,[13] and other companies. “The
office of Plumber of the Bridge granted to the Widow Foster, 1595.”
(Guildhall Records.)
Footnote 13:
_See_ “Liber Customarum,” p. 544, etc.
The Clockmakers’ Company, though only founded in 1632, had female
apprentices sanctioned by the company so late as 1715, 1725, 1730, 1733,
1734, 1747.
Among the Memoranda of the Grocers’ Company, 1345, we may note “each
member of the fraternity shall bring his wife or his companion to the
dinner.” “And that all the wives that now are, and afterward shall
become married to any of our Fraternitie; they shall be entered and
esteemed as belonging to the Fraternitie _for ever_ to assist them and
treat them as one of us, and after the decease of her husband the widowe
shall still come to the said election dinner, and shall pay 40d. _if she
be able_. And if the said widow is married to some other, who is not of
our Fraternitie, she shall not come to the said dinner so long as she be
‘couverte de Baroun,’ nor ought any of us to meddle with her in
anything, nor interfere on account of the Fraternitie so long as she is
‘couverte de Baroun’” (_see_ Mr. Kingdon’s translation of the Books of
the Grocers’ Company, 1341-1463, printed in 1886). On a second widowhood
she might return to the company. At a later date they did not seem to be
so severe. One widow, interesting to me on other literary grounds, made
her second and third husbands free of the company through the rights she
gained from her first. Widows paid Brotherhood money, held Apprentices,
traded and received all benefits of the Guild.
The Company of Stationers seems to have followed similar customs. Many
women carried on their husband’s business, and received apprentices, as
Widow Herforde, Widow Alldee, Widow Vautrollier. (_See_ Arber’s reprint
of “Stationer’s Registers” and Ames’ “Typographical Antiquities.”)
In the “Journal of the House of Commons,” vol. ii., p. 331, December
3rd, 1641, we find two entries, “Ordered that the Committee for printing
do meet to-morrow at eight of the clock in the Inner Court of Wards, and
the printing of the Book of Queries is referred to that Committee.”
“Ordered that Elizabeth Purslow, who, as this House is informed, printed
the pamphlet entitled ‘Certain Queries of some Tender-Conscienced
Christians,’ be summoned to attend the Committee appointed to examine
the business.”
In Timperley’s “Cyclopædia of Literary Typographical Anecdote” we find:
In 1711 died Thomas James, a noted printer in London, according to
Dunton, “something the better known for being husband to that She-State
politician, Mrs. Eleanor James.” This extraordinary woman wrote two
letters to printers, one to Masters, and one to Journeymen, the first
beginning, “I have been in the element of printing above forty years,”
and ending, “I rest your sister, and soul’s well-wisher, Eleanor James.”
Her husband, Thomas James, left his fine library to the use of the
public, and the President and Fellows of Sion College were indebted to
Mrs. James for giving them the preference. She also presented them with
her own portrait, with that of her husband, and his grandfather, Thomas
James, first librarian to Bodleian Library. “Her son, George James, who
died in 1735, was City Printer. His widow carried on the business for
some time, when the office was conferred on Henry Kent.” (Timperley;
_see_ also Reading’s “Catalogue of Sion College Library.”)
=Women could also have Guilds of their own.=—[iv.] In 3 and 4 Edward
IV., there was a “Petition from the Silkewomen and Throwsters of the
Craft and occupation of Silkework within the cite of London, which be,
and have been craftes of women within the same cite of tyme that noo
mynde renneth to the contrarie, nowe more than a M” (_i.e._, 1000 in
number), praying protection against the introduction of foreign
manufactured silk goods. (Parliamentary Rolls, 1463.) And various Acts
for their protection are passed, down to 19 Henry VII., c. xxi.
There seems also to be somewhat of the nature of a Guild among the
Midwives of London, who had a certain social standing and certain laws
and conditions of office. Many of the Royal Midwives received annuities.
One appears in Rot. Parl. XIII., Ed. IV., Vol. VI., p. 93. Among the
exclusions from the Act of Resumption we find, “Provided alwey that this
Act extend not, nor in any wise be prejudiciall to Margery Cobbe, late
the wyf of John Cobbe being midwyf to our best-beloved wyfe Elizabeth
Queen of England, unto any graunte by us, by owre Letters Patentes of
£40 by year, during the Life of the said Margery.” Even in early times,
their male rivals tried to limit the extent of their professional
activities. Among the Petitions to Parliament is one from Physicians who
pray that “no woman be allowed to intermeddle with the practice of
Physic.” I. Rot. Parl., 158.^a
The Rolls of the Hundreds make mention of women among the great Wool
Merchants of London, “Widows of London who make great trade in Wool and
other things, such as Isabella Buckerell and others.” Vol. I., pp.
403-4.
=They might be Free of the City of London.=—The freedom of the city of
London became vested in those that paid Scot and Lot, as women did. The
Jews were not allowed to pay Scot and Lot, and were never “free of the
city.” “And the King willeth that they shall not, by reason of their
Merchandize, be put to Scot or Lot, or in any taxes with the men of the
cities or Boroughs where they abide; for that they are taxable to the
King as his bondmen, and to none other but the King” (Statutes, vol. i.,
page 221). “That all Freemen shall make contribution unto taxes and
taillage in the city” (Liber Albus III., pt. i., 235). “For watch and
ward. Let all such make contribution as shall be hostelers and
housekeepers in each ward” (p. 102). “And deeds and indentures, and
other writings under seal may be received; and cognizances and
confessions of women as to the same recorded before the Mayor and one
Alderman” (p. 16). “Where women in such cases (_i.e._, of debts) are
impleaded and wage their law,” they make their law with men or women at
their will (p. 37).
Waller _v._ Hanger. Moore’s Cases, 832. Pasch. 9, Jac. I. Frances
Hanger. “El plead que el fuit libera fœmina de London, and plead le
Charter” that “the Freemen of London should pay no dues upon their
wines.” These points are important to remember in the light of a
petition presented by the widows of London (17 Richard II.) to be freed
from taxes and taillage made in the city without authority of
Parliament; praying the King to remember that it had been granted them
that no such tax would be imposed; and asking him to see that this
present Parliament would prevent the Mayor and Sheriff of London from
levying on them this new imposition not levied by Act of Parliament.
(Rot. Parl., vol. iii., 325.) The Mayor and Aldermen present a counter
petition saying that the tax was for restorations, and praying that the
present Parliament should ordain that the widows may be contributors
according to proportion of the aforesaid fine, for their tenements and
rents in the city and suburbs according to right and reason, ancient
custom and charters of the city, that those who _per commune_ have
advantage of the restoration ought by right to be contributors in cost,
etc. (_Ibid._).
That women were no indifferent and over-timid members of the community,
we may see in the petition of the Mercers of London to the King against
the oppressions of Nicholas Brember, Grocer and Mayor of London, 1386,
10 Richard II.:—
“Also we have be comaunded ofttyme up owre ligeance to unnedeful and
unleweful loose doynges. And also to withdrawe us be the same
comandement fro things nedeful and leeful, as was shewed when a company
of gode women, there men dorst nought, travailled en barfote to owre
lige Lorde to seeke grace of hym for trewe men as they supposed, for
thanne were such proclamacions made that no man ne woman shold approche
owre lige Lorde for sechynge of grace, etc.” (Rot. Parl., vol. iii., p.
225).
=They could be Free in other Boroughs.=—The female burgesses of Tamworth
are recorded in Domesday Book as having been free before the conquest,
and as being still free in later times. If they took it upon them to
trade as _femes soles_, they made themselves liable to all the common
burdens of the “mercheta,” over and above their proper borough duties of
watch and ward.
The Ipswich Domesday Book gives more than one instance of a woman having
“hominal rights,” and as being liable to the “hominal duties”
corresponding thereto. To any _feme sole_ the Franchise and even the
Guild was open on the same terms as to the men of the place. There was
no essoign of female burgesses whereby to decline attendance at the
motes (30 Edward I.).
Amongst liberi homines, liberi homines tenentes, or liberi homines sub
regia, in every English shire, the Domesday Book records the names of
_Freewomen_. (_See_ Chisholm Anstey’s “Supposed Restraints.”)
I have personally searched the records of Stratford-upon-Avon. There
women could be burgesses. One entry, noted for another purpose, I may
here quote: “At a Hall holden in the Gildehall, 9th September, 1573,
Adrian Queeney and John Shakespeare being present, the town council
received of Christian White for her sisterhood, 6s. 8d.; Robert Wright
for his brotherhood, 6s. 8d.”
York. “Women being free of the city, on marrying a man who is not free,
forfeit their freedom. Persons are entitled to become free by birth, by
apprenticeship, or by gift or grant. Every person who has served an
apprenticeship for seven years under a binding by indentures for that
period to a freeman or freewoman inhabiting and carrying on trade in the
city is entitled to become free. The indentures may be assigned to
another master or mistress being free. The privileges of freemen are
extended to the partners of freemen and to their widows.” (“Report of
Municipal Corporation Committee, 1835,” p. 1741.)
The customs of Doncaster seem somewhat similar. (_See_ same report, p.
1497.)
The City of Chester followed the custom of London. (_See_ “The Mayor’s
Book of Chester, 1597-8.”)
Letter from Lord Burleigh to the officers of the Port of Chester,
authorising them to enter without tax the Gascony wines of a city
merchant’s widow:—
“After my hartie commendacions, Whereas I understand that you
have made scruple to take entrie of certeine Tonnes of Gascoigne
wynes brought into that port in december laste, being the proper
goodes of Ales Massy, wydowe, late wife of William Massy,
merchant, of that cittie, deceased, as also of certeine other
Tonnes of Gascoign wynes, brought in thither by William Massey,
his sonne, late merchant and free citesin of that cittie, also
deceased, whose administratrix the said Ales Massy is.
For-as-much as I fynde by a graunte by privy scale, from hir
Majestie, dated the 21st daye of Maye, in the ninth yere of hir
raigne, that her pleasure is (for good consideracion in the said
pryvye scale specified) That all merchants, inhabitants, and
Free Citizens of that Cittie shal be freed and discharged from
payment of any Imposte for such wynes as they bring into that
port. And forasmuch as also I have receyved a Lettre from the
Maior and Aldermen of that cittie, whereby they doe certifye
unto me that all Freemen’s wydowes of that cittie, during their
wydowehood, by the Custome of the said Cittie, have used, and
ought to have and enioie all such trades, Fredomes and Liberties
as their husbandes used in their life tyme, which custome hath
bene used and allowed of tyme out of mynde. Therefore, these are
to will and require you to take entrie of all the aforesaid
wynes of the said Wydow Massies as well those that she hath as
administratrix to Wm. Massey, as of hir owne proper wynes,
without taking or demaundinge Impost for the same wynes. And
this shal be your discharge in that behalf. From my house at
Westminster, the xiiith of April, 1598.
“Your lovinge frende,
“W. BURGHLEY.
“To my loving frendes, ye Officers of ye Port of Chester.”
“Recepta per nos viii. die Maii per manus Richardi Massy.
THO. FLETCHER, Maior.”[14]
Footnote 14:
Transcribed by Dr. Furnival for his present work on Chester MSS.
In 1597, by the same books, some money was distributed to twenty poor
people, having been free of the city twenty years at least; among these
were five women.
In the Town of Winchester women could be free. In an old Customary of
that town we may find “Every woman selling Bread in the High Street, not
having the freedom, pays to the King 2s. 5d. a year, and to the City
Clerk 1d., if she sells by the year, if less, in proportion. Every woman
who brews for sale is to make good beer. No Brewer not free of the City
(nul Brasceresse hors de Franchise) can brew within the City
jurisdiction without compounding with the Bailiff.” (_Archæological
Journal_, vol. iv., 1852.)
In the Hall-book of the corporation of Leicester 1621:
“It is agreed by a generall consent that Wm. Hartshorne, husbandman,
shall be made ffreeman of corporacon payinge such ffine as Mr. Maiour
and the Chambleyns that now be shall assess. But he is not allowed any
freedom or privilege by reason that his mother was a ffreewoman. Neither
is it thought fit that any woman be hereafter made free of this
corporacon.” (_Notes and Queries_, vol. v., 5th series, p. 138.)
This note is important as showing the period of the change of tone and
spirit.
=Women could be on the Corporation.=—In 1593, in the Archives of the
Borough of Maidstone, Kent, appears, “That the 11th of September, 1593,
Rose Cloke, single woman, (according to the order and constitutions of
the town and parish of Maidstone aforesaid) was admitted to be one of
the corporation and body politique of the same town and parish, from
henceforth to enjoy the liberties and franchises of the same in every
respect, as others the freemen of the said town and parish. And she was
also then sworn accordingly, and for some reasonable causes and
considerations then stated she was released from paying any fine, other
than for her said oath, which she then paid accordingly” (_Notes and
Queries_, vol. xii., 5th series, 318). The transcriber doubts the
“legality” of Miss Rose Cloke’s election. But it was not till a very
long time after this date that any attempt was made to interfere with
the liberty of the electors in choosing whom they would.
Queen Elizabeth is said to have reproached the women of Kent for not
more fully exercising their privileges. It may have been in connection
with this illustration as to what their privileges might be. I had long
meditated on the inner meaning of this reproach, before I came upon the
elucidation. The freemen of Kent alone, in England, rose in arms against
William the Conqueror, and would not lay them down until their ancient
laws and customs were confirmed to them. The Custumal of Kent,
therefore, based on the ancient Saxon laws, gave wider privilege to
women than the Normanised laws of the rest of the country. Inheritance
was equal and independent of sex, either in relations of descent or of
marriage. The children all inherited equally, with a certain special
tender consideration for the _youngest_, male or female. A widow had the
half of her husband’s property till she married again; a widower had the
half of his wife’s property, _while he remained single_. This equality
in property necessarily gave the women of Kent fuller privilege. The
recognition of the freedom of womanhood naturally made the men of Kent
more free. “Of all the English shires, be ye surnamed the Free.”
(Drayton’s “Poly-Olbion, 18.”) [v.]
Yet some of the English shires did not lag far behind Kent. We may note
“A customary or note of such customes as hath bin used, time out of mind
in Aston and Coat in ye parish of Bampton in ye county of Oxon, and is
att this time used and kept as appeareth by ye _sixteens_ who hath
hereunto, with ye consent of ye inhabitants of ye said Aston and Coat,
sett their hands and seals the sixt September, in ye 35th yeare of Queen
Elizabeth, Anno Dom. 1593.” The “customary” contains twelve articles
regulating the election and duties of the sixteens, of which the first
is: “The Custome is that upon our Lady-day Eve every yeere, all the
_Inhabitants_ of Aston and Coat shall meet at Aston Crosse about three
of ye clock in ye afternoone, or one of everye House to understand who
shall serve for ye sixteen for that year coming, and to choose other
officers for ye same yeere. (2) Ye said sixteens being known, ye hundred
tenants of ye same sixteens doe divide themselves some distance from ye
Lords Tenants of ye said sixteens. And ye Hundreds Tenants do chuse one
grasse Steward and one Water Hayward, and the Lords Tennants do choose
two Grasse stewards and one Water Hayward, etc. This antient custome
have ben confirmed in ye 35th yeare of Queen Elizabeth, 1593, by most of
ye substantiall inhabitants of Aston and Coat, videl:
“Roger Medhop (gent).
The mark of Richard Stacy.
The mark of Eliz. Alder.
The mark of John Humphries.
The mark of Margery Young.
The mark of John Bricklande.
The mark of Will. Young.
The mark of Thos. Walter.
The mark of Will. Wagh.
The mark of John Newman.
The mark of Richard Thynne.
The mark of Robt. Carter.
The mark of Will. Haukes.
The mark of Ann Startupp.
The mark of Will. Tisbee.
The mark of John Pryor.
The mark of John Church.”
(_Archæologia_, vol. xxxv., p. 472), which adds, “Similar customs were
formerly practised in Sussex, and may be found in the Sussex
Archæological Collections.”
We find another case in “Grant’s Treatise of the Law of Corporations,”
p. 6.
“In general women cannot be corporators, although in some hospitals they
may be so, and there is one instance in the books of a Corporation
consisting of Brethren and Sisters and invested with municipal powers to
a certain extent, in The Pontenarii of Maidenhead (vid Rep. 30).
(Palmer’s “Cases,” p. 77, 17 Jac., B.R.) Quo Warranto vers Corporation
de Maydenhead in Berkshire, pur claymer de certaine Franchises and
Liberties, un Market, chescun Lundie, Pickage, Stallage, Toll, etc.”
(Rot. Cor. 106.) They pleaded that the Bridge had been repaired by a
Fraternitie, time out of mind, which was dissolved, and that the King by
Letters Patent, on condition that they repaired the Bridge, granted them
a market every Monday with all Liberties.... “Et le veritie fuit que
Hen. 6 ad incorporate un Corporation la per nomen Gardianorum Fratrum et
Sororum Pontenariorum, and concessit al eux and leur Successors quod
ipsi and Successores sui haberent mercatum quolibet die lunae prout ante
habuissent simul cum Tolneto, Pickagio, Stallagio, etc.” The opinion of
three Judges were “que Toll fuit bien grant non obstant que le quantitie
de Argent d’estre pay pur Toll pur chescun chose ne fuit expresse, Mes
Montague Ch. Justice fuit cont. Mes que le Corporation enjoyera les
Privileges non obstant cest action port.” In page 626 of Grant’s
Treatise, we see “A Corporation Sole is a Body Politic having perpetual
succession, and being constituted in a single person.... Corporations
Sole are chiefly Ecclesiastical, one or two instances only of Lay
Corporations Sole occurring in the Books.... The most important
Corporation of this nature that claims attention is the King.... It is
as a Body Corporate that the King is said to be immortal (Howell’s
“State Trials,” 598).... A Queen Regnant is precisely and in the same
way and to all intents a Corporation, and, indeed, there is nothing
inconsistent with the principles of the old Law in this; it was
everyday’s experience before the Reformation to find female subjects as
Corporations Sole, as Lady Abbesses, etc., but since that era it is
superfluous to observe, females cannot be invested with this description
of incorporation, though, as we have seen, they may be Corporators of
Hospitals, Railways, and other trading bodies.” (Note. _See_ “Abbess of
Brinham’s Case.” Yearbook, Ed. III., vol. xxiii.; 2 Rol. Abr. 348, l.
33; and Colt _v._ Bishop of Coventry, Hob. 148, 149.)
=They could vote for Members of Parliament.=—To their Municipal Rights
were added, in the reign of Henry III., their Parliamentary Rights.
In 25 Edward II., De tallagio non concedendo, “It was there declared
that no tallage or aid shall be levied by us, or by our heirs in the
realm, without the goodwill and assent of ... Knights, Burgesses, and
other Freemen of the Land.”
As women were Burgesses and Liberi Homines, the right was _given_ to
them as well as to men. Plowden (“Jura Anglorum,” p. 438) remarks that
“the Knights of the Shire represented landed property, the Burgesses the
interests of manufacture or trade”; as women could be Traders they were
recognised as having the rights of Traders.
The qualifications of Electors in Boroughs were very far from uniform or
certain, as may have been noted in the Gatton case.
In Bath the Franchise was limited to the Mayor and Corporation.
Sometimes it was limited to freeholders, sometimes to freeholders
resident, at other times to inhabitants, in other cases to inhabitants
paying Scot and Lot.
In London the Franchise was exercised by all paying Scot or Lot.
In Newcastle-on-Tyne, the Parliamentary Franchise devolved on a
Freeman’s widow, who could also carry on his business. (Brand’s “History
and Antiquities of Newcastle,” vol. ii., p. 367.)
The ordinances of Worcester (6 Edward IV., 49)—“Also that every eleccion
of citizens for to come to the Parliament, that they be chosen openly in
the gelde Halle of such as ben dwellynge within the fraunches and by the
moste voice, accordinge to the lawe and to the statutes in such cases
ordayned and not privily” (“Early English Gilds,” J. Toulmin Smith).
In Shrewsbury, prior to the Reform Act, the right of returning members
of Parliament for the Borough was vested exclusively in _Burgesses_
paying Scot and Lot. (“Mun. Com.,” p. 2014.)
Rhuddlan—“Here, as in the other contributory boroughs to Flint, the
franchise is exercised by all resident inhabitants paying Scot and Lot.”
(“Mun. Com.,” p. 2840.)
In the Reports of Controverted Elections, Luders mentions that of Lyme
Regis, 1789. The dispute was whether non-resident burgesses could record
their vote. Among the old burgess lists brought forward to elucidate the
qualifications for electors, that of 29 Sept., 19 Eliz., was produced.
The first three names on the list were of three women—“Burgenses sive
liberi tenentes Elizabetha filiæ Thomæ Hyatt, Crispina Bowden Vidua,
Alicia Toller Vidua,” then follow the names of several men. To these
were added in 21 Eliz. two names of “liberi burgenses jure uxoris.”
Later records show an increased number of women’s names on the register
of this borough.
The case of Holt _v._ Lyle or Coats _v._ Lisle in 14 James I., in
discussing the right of a clergyman to vote, affirms as a side issue
that “a _feme sole_, if she have a freehold, can vote for a Parliament
man, but if she is married, her husband must vote for her.” A limitation
again expressed in Catherine _v._ Surrey, preserved in Hakewell’s
“Manuscript Cases.”
As some have attempted to throw doubts on the authenticity of these
cases, quoted as they were by the Lord Chief-Justice from the Bench in
1739, it may be well to note here that “William Hakewell was a great
student of legal antiquities, and a Master of Precedents” (“Dictionary
of National Biography”). He left parliamentary life in 1629, the year
after he had, in the Committee of Parliamentary Privileges, helped to
decide on the Gatton case. He was one of the six lawyers appointed to
revise the Laws, and was thereafter created Master of Chancery. So one
might be tempted to consider him rather an exceptionally good and
trustworthy witness. He helped to decide other points in connection with
the Franchise, which it is important for us to remember. He not only
decided that inhabitant suffrage must supersede freeholding, that
taxation gave the right to representation, but that, from its very
nature, no desuetude could take away the right of voting. “On 9th April,
1614, it was pleaded, Sithence Durham last drawn in to charge to join in
petition to the King that Durham may have writs for Knights and
Burgesses. Said to be dumb men because no voices. Mr. Ashley said, They
of Durham had held it a privilege not to be bound to attendance to
Parliament. On 31st May was read An Act for Knights and Burgesses to
have places in Parliament, for the County Palatine, City of Durham and
the Borough of Castle Barnard.” “On 14th March, 1620, members were
allowed for the Palatinate of Durham, which had hitherto sat free from
taxation, and consequently sent no members to the House of Commons. It
was allowed without discussion by the House,” taxation and
representation being constitutionally inseparable. (_See_ _Commons
Journal_, 14th March, 1620.)
“Regarding towns that had discontinued long sending of any burgesses,
and yet were allowed.” Hakewell had discovered this of “Millborne Port,
County Somerset, and Webly, County Hereford, that, either from poverty
or ignorance of their right, or neglect of the Sheriff, had ceased
voting. After 321 years they elected again.” “In 21 Jac. I. also,
Amersham, Wendover, Great Marlowe, in Buckinghamshire, were in the same
condition, but received writs for return upon application.” (_See_
Addit. MS., Brit. Mus. 8980.) Thus the doctrine that the right to the
Franchise never lapses, and that _non-user_ never deprives an Elector of
this privilege, was affirmed by the Committee of Privileges in the
Parliament of which Coke and Hakewell were members.
------------------------------------------------------------------------