CHAPTER V.COUNTY WOMEN.

“Earls, Lords, and Ladies, Suitors at the County Courts.”

TheStatutory history of Individual Privilege is not clear in very early times, before the Norman Customs and Saxon Laws coalesced. Magna Charta was wrested from John in 1215, and confirmed by succeeding monarchs. It is written in Latin, and the word Homo is applied throughout to both sexes. When it is intended to distinguish males from females other words are used. The most important clause in that Charter is, “To none will we sell, to none will we deny, to none will we delay the right of Justice.” There were then no doubts in the mind of the people, no quibblings in the courts of law as to whether or not it extended to women. All early laws are couched in general terms, however they may have suffered from later legal and illegal glosses. Coke upon Littleton, Inst. II., 14, 17, 29, and 45, explains that “Counts and Barons” represent all other titles, whether held by men or women; that Liber Homo meantfreemanand freewoman. “Nullus liber homo. Albeithomodoth extend to both sexes, men and women, yet by Act of Parliament it is enacted and declared that this chapter should extend to Duchesses, Countesses, and Baronesses. Marchionesses and Viscountesses are omitted, but, notwithstanding, they are also comprehended within this chapter.”

County women inherited freeholdsunder the same conditions as Noblewomen.

If an heiress married a man of an inferior family or a smaller property, she could, if she chose, raise him to her rank, and make him take her name. Thomas de Littleton, upon whose Digest of English laws Coke exercised his talents, received arms, name, and estate from his mother, “who, being of a noble spirit,whilst it was in her power, provided, by Westcote’s assent, that her children should bear her name.” In other words, the heiress of the Littletons married Westcote, but while she was yet a freewoman imposed conditions. (See“Life of Littleton” prefixed to his works.)

When married could act as femes soles.—Among “ancient deeds and charters, drawn up by landowners in the time of Edward III. and Richard II.” (Harl. MS. 6187), there are many executed by women, many sealed by women alone, their husbands being alive, many sealed by women along with their husbands.

A grant by William Faber de St. Briarville and Sarra his wife is sealed by the name of Sarra Hathwey alone,and another deed by her son is signed by William Faber, son and heir of Sarra Hathwey.

Robert de la Walter de Staunton and his wife Marjory combine in a deed, and both seals affixed. So Thomas Waryn and his wife Julia, daughter of Thomas Baroun, Richard de Pulton and Agnes his wife, and others.

They owed also military serviceeither to their Overlord or to the King directly. We find this abundantly illustrated in Palgrave’s “Parliamentary Writs,” and in any of the Domestic Series of State Papers in the Public Record Office recording service assessed. All names are used in common. For instance, “Names ofgentlemenfurnishing light horses and lances, 1583: Bramber, Dorothy Lewknor, 2; Pevensey, Elizabeth Pankhurst, 1, etc.; Domina Gage, 2;[6]John Gage, 2; Elizabeth Geoffrey, 1” (Harl. MS., 703, f. 87).

6.These were “the two Gages” mentioned in connection with the Copleys of Gatton.

There are many women returned in the “Rotuli Hundredorum,” Ed. I., as holding under military tenures in capite. “Eve de Stopham held her estate by finding for the King one footman, a bow without a string, and an arrow without feathers” (Blount’s “Tenures”). “Lady Custance de Pukelereston holds Pukelereston by finding one man and a horse, with a sack and an axe, at the summons of the King” (“Testa de Nevill,” 252). The Manor of Gatton, known as the scene of contested elections in after years, was held by the service of a knight’s fee and the payment of Castle guard to Dover Castle.

The “Testa de Nevill” compiled in the reign of Henry III. and Edward I., gives the list of many holding in capite and of Overlords by military service.[iii.]

They also paid and received Homage.—In the Harl. MS. (6187) many of the tenements are conveyed by women, on condition of Homage rendered and service given; as, for instance, in the cases of Sibilla de Bruneshope, widow; Johanna de Muchgross, daughter of Willian de Muchgross; Agnes de Bellecores; Agnes, daughter and heir of Henry de Munsterworth; Cecilia Blundell de Teynton.

Among the Records of Banham Marshall, Beckhall and Greyes, there is one transferring lands to a certain Dorothy Gawdy, 31st March, 1659. “At a court held by the Homage”—“to which said Dorothy here in full courte is delivered thereof seisin. To hold to her and to her heires by A Rodd att the will of the Lords, according to the custom of this Manor, by the rents and services therefore due and of right accustomed and she giveth to the Lords a fine. Her fealty is respited for a certain time.” Five days later this Lady died, and a new transfer was made to her heirs male in same form.

They could present to Churches.—In 16 Edward II. Eleanor, wife of Thomas Multon of Egremond, petitions the King and Parliament against the Bishop for interfering with her appointment of a clerk, as she was endowed with the advowson of the Church of Natlugh in Ireland. Order that justice be done to the said Eleanor (Tower Rolls).

Matilda de Walda was patron by inheritance of Saint Michael’s of Canterbury. (See “Rotuli Hundredorum,” Edward I., vol. ii., 392.)

The Lady Copley presented to Gatton living in 1552.

The list, however, of ladies holding advowsons and gifts of churches, is so long, that more need not be noted, especially as this right is not denied to-day.

They could hold Motes.—We may find the local duties of County women illustrated in the “Rotuli Hundredorum,” and other authorities already quoted.

“Benedicta, widow of Sir Thomas Uvedale, granted a lease to Thomas Brown of 2½ acres and fouredayewarcsof land ... by the yearly rent of 2s. 6d., and suit at her court of Wadenhalle every three weeks” (“Surrey Archæological Collection,” vol. iii., p. 82).

They could attend Motes.

They could be free Suitors to the County Courts, and there act as Pares or Judges.

Women combined with men to elect Knights of the Shire to defend in Parliament the rights of their property and themselves from unequal assessment of subsidy and undue exactions of the King.

In Sir Walter Raleigh’s treatise on the Prerogative of Parliaments, he traces back the origin of the House of Commons to 18 Henry I. on rather slender bases. At the time of the struggle with John it was clearly perceived that irresponsible kings could not be trusted to observe all the clauses of Magna Charta, and general councilswere provided for. John promised to summonall classesto consult with him when it was necessary to assess aids and scutage. But John’s word was not worth much.

The firstclearSummons appears to be that of 38 Henry III. (1254), when a Writ was issued requiring the Sheriff of each County to “cause to come before the King’s Council two good and discreet Knights of the Shire, whom themenof the County shall have chosen for this purpose in the stead of all and of each of them, to consider, along with Knights of other Shires, what aid they will grant the King.”

In 49 Henry III. (1265), writs were issued for “two Knights of the Shire to be chosen bythe annual suitors at the County Courts,” and two Citizens from each Borough. Their expenses were to be paid by those who sent them.

The Statute passed in the Parliament of Marlebridge (52 Henry III.) by members elected in this manner, more clearly defined this method of election, and confirmed the more ancient Statutes regardingthe County Courts. Hallam and Lewis trace their origin to the Anglo-Saxon Shiregemote, Folkmote, or Revemote, and prove that the Sheriffs and dignitaries possessed only directory and regulative powers; that the Freeholders, who were obliged to do “suit and service,” were the Pares or Judges, as well as the Electors of the Knights of the Shire, and of the Sheriffs themselves.

Concerning this court, it had been provided (43 Henry III.), “that Archbishops, Bishops, Earls, Barons, or any religious Men or Women, shouldnot be forced to come thither unless their presence was especially required.” Their goods could not be distrained for non-attendance. That this was intended as a Franchise of Privilege, not inducing a penalty of exclusion, is perfectly clear, not only in the reading of the Act itself, but in its effect upon later laws.

So Coke, (Inst. II., 119,) elucidating the laws of Marlebridge, made three years later, says, “Note. A woman may be a free Suitor to the Courts of the Lord, but though it be generally said that the free suitors be Judges in these courts, it isintended of men and not of women.”

This “priestly intention” sprang only from Coke’s own mind. He cites no authority for his opinion, nor could he have found one. To have deprived a female “Suitor” of her right to express her opinion and thereby help to determine the questions brought before the Court, in the light of her own interests, inclinations, or opinions, would have taken away her primeraison d’être. Her second privilege was that of giving her voice, with other freeholders, towards the election of a knight, “in the stead of all and of each of them,” to go to the King’s parliament,[7]and defend her interests there. Upon the petition of the Commons that proclamation should be made of the day and place of the meeting of the County Court, it was decreed, “All they that be there present, as wellsuitorsduly summoned, asothers, shall attend to the election of the Knights of Parliament.... Andafter they be chosen, the names of the persons so chosen shall be written in anIndenture,[8]under thesealesof all them that did chuse them, and tacked to the said writ of Parliament” (7 Henry IV., c. xiii.). A certain limitation, therefore, of electors, must have been caused through the necessity of possessing seals. In 8 Henry VI. the suitors at the County Court were limited to those who had not less than a 40s. freehold. It was soon made clear that the House of Commons was only intended to represent those not eligible in person or in representation to the Upper House; so that the county elections became limited to county freeholders below the rank of Peers. But there is no question, at any time, of altering the Franchise from the general terms to others that would limit it to the masculine being. That women did frequent the courts in person is proved in Prynne’s “Brevia Parliamentaria Rediviva” (p. 152,et seq.), where he refers to “sundry Earls, Lords and Ladies who were annual suitors to the County Courts of Yorkshire.” That women recorded these votes, and sealed the indentures of the Knights elected, is also proved by Prynne. The two points that surprised Prynne were, that the earliest preserved indentures wereallsigned by the Nobility of the County, and by them alone, and also that they were all sealed by attorney, by Lords, or by Ladies alike, down to 7 Henry VI., after which they were signed by all Freeholders personally. He does not seemto remember that these were the classes privileged by Act 43 Henry III., to absent themselves from the County Courts; and that acting by proxy was considered a privilege of the nobility. It might very well have been considered that Archbishops, Earls, Lords, and Ladies were “especially required” at the County Court to hear and decide on some important territorial dispute, and yet that they could decide on the merits of a candidate at home, and send their Attorneys to the County Court to seal for them there in the presence of the Sheriff. One such indenture (2 Henry V.) is signed by Robert Barry, the Attorney of Margaret, widow of Sir Henry Vavasour. In another return from the County of York, one Attorney signs for the Earl of Westmoreland, and another for the Countess, for the lands each held as freeholds in that neighbouring county.

7.The first use of the word “Parliamentum” occurs in the Prologue to the Statutes of Westminster in 1 Edward I.

8.Prynne notes that only Cedules have been preserved of the returns of the knights before the Statute of 7 Henry IV., c. xiii.

Prynne also preserves an Indenture signed by the attorney of Lucia, the widowed Countess of Kent (13 Hen. IV.). This lady was an Italian, a Visconti, the daughter of the Duke of Milan, and her foreign extraction, or her failing fortunes at the time,[9]may have induced her to exercise her privilege as regards the Member of Parliament, while she preserved the dignity of her nobility by voting by Attorney.

9.SeePetitions to Parliament (Hen. IV.), Burke’s “Extinct Peerages,” “InquisitionsPost-Mortem.” (Hen. V.)

I have not found any example of a lady “Knight of the Shire,” but neither have I found the shadow of alawagainst their existence beyond that of the electors’ choice,or the ladies’ convenience. Anne Clifford said that if her candidate did not come forward “she would stand herself.” (Dr. Smith to Williamson, Jan. 1668. Dom. Ser. State Papers, Public Record Office.) But as women summoned to do military service wereallowedto send a substitute, as women summoned to the County Courts wereallowedto absent themselves, andallowedto send an Attorney, so were they allowed to send their knights to the House of Commons.

If women of the Middle Ages had but realised what their ancestresses did before them, “that they were receiving what they must hand down to their children neither tarnished nor depreciated, what future daughters-in-law may receive, and may so pass on to their grandchildren” (Tacitus Germ., c. viii.), the needs of litigation on this point might not have arisen later.

Could Nominate to Private Boroughs.—Certain Boroughs formerly held by military tenure seemed to have been included in those permitted to return burgesses to Parliament, though belonging to one owner. When women inherited the property and held the Borough, they returned their one or two members, as the custom might be, in their own name. “The members of many ancient Boroughs were often returned by the Lords, and sometimes by the Ladies of the Manors or Boroughs” (Plowden’s “Jura Anglorum,” p. 438). Many cases are doubtless lost among the piles of missing records. But two very illustrative examples have been preserved for us, just sufficient to clear away all doubts from the minds ofstudents of history that women sometimes exercised the privileges they possessed.

In a bundle of Returns for 14 and 18 Eliz., Brady has preserved, and Heywood, in his “County Elections,” has quoted, that of Dame Dorothy Packington, the owner of the private Borough of Aylesbury. In days when military service might have been demanded of her, she would have sent her “substitute” to defend her sovereign; in days when subsidy service was expected of her, she sent a “substitute” to Parliament to defend her interests there, and she paid for both her military and civil representatives. “To all Christian people to whom this present writing shall come, I, Dame Dorothy Packington, widow, late wife of Sir John Packington, Knight, Lord and Owner of the Town of Aylesbury, sendeth greeting. Know ye me, the said Dame Dorothy Packington, to have shown, named, and appointed my trusty and well-beloved Thomas Lichfield and John Burden, Esquires, to be my burgesses of my said town of Aylesbury. And whatsoever the said Thomas and George, burgesses, shall do in the service of the Queen’s highness in that present parliament to be holden at Westminster the 8th day of May next ensuing the date hereof, I, the same Dame Dorothy Packington, do ratify and approve to be my own act, as fully and wholly as if I were, or might be present myself.” She signed their indentures, sealed them, paid “their wages” and their expenses in whole, as others did in part. That the return was held good is sufficient to prove itslegality.[10]There is not the shadow of grounds for a belief that she “acted as returning officer,” as some have said who have not studied the case. Later on, when the population of Aylesbury increased, and the ambitions of Aylesbury extended, there was an appeal by the inhabitants for permission to share in the Returns.[11]But the objection to the monopoly of the Family-Return did not include an objection to the woman that exercised it.

10.SeeList of Parliamentary Returns, vol. i., p. 487.

11.A trial in Aylesbury because some inhabitants brought a case against the revising barrister for refusing their vote, saying that “refusing to take the plaintiffs’ vote was an injury and damage.” (Jacob’s “Law Dictionary.”)

Another memorable instance is preserved for us in the Journals of the House of Commons itself.

I have found out so many curious, hitherto un-noted details about it, that I thought it advisable fully to illustrate the conditions of the case, so that it may not again be mistranslated, as it has so often been. On March 25th, 1628, there was a contested election for the Borough of Gatton. There weretwoindentures returned, one by the inhabitants of the borough, and the other by Mr. Copley. Though he returned Sir Thomas Lake, and Mr. Jerome Weston, “it was held not good that he should have returned alone.” The case was argued out before the Committee of privileges in the House of Commons, of which Glanvil, Hakewell, and Sir Edward Coke were members. Mr. Copley based his claim on returns made by Roger Copley, as thesole inhabitantin 33 Henry VIII.; andby Mr. Copley in 1 and 2 Phil. and Mary, 2 and 3 Phil. and Mary. “On the other part, in 7 Edward VI., Mrs. Copley et omnes inhabitantes returned. In 28º, 43º Eliz. 1º, 18º Jac., the return was made by the inhabitants, and in all later parliaments Mr. Copley joined with the other inhabitants.”

The Committee and the other members of the House decided that “Mrs. Copley and the other inhabitants” was the true and legal Precedent for the form of Return. And that is the last word Parliament has had to say upon a Woman-Elector. (See Commons Journalof date.) But the side-lights of the story are interesting. In the first place, theCommons Journalhas a misprint of an “s” in two cases. Roger Copley died in 1550-1; and from the manuscript copies of theCommons Journalwe may see thatMrs.Copley is entered as returning alone in 1 and 2 Philip and Mary, and 2 and 3 Philip and Mary. (SeeLansdowne MS., 545.) Further, both the printed and the MS. copy are wrong about her title, as she was the Lady Elizabeth Copley, or “Elizabeth Copley Domina de Gatton.” This mistake shows that her ownsealwas affixed to the indenture with her Christian name, to which the Committee added “Mrs.” instead of “Lady.” Further, she must also have returned in 4 and 5 Philip and Mary, and must have returned her son.[12]On the 5th March young Copley of Gatton was committedto the sergeant for irreverent words spoken of Her Majesty, and on 7th March Parliament was prorogued till 5th November. (Commons Journal.) This receives further explanation in additional MS. 24, 278, collected by Sir Richard St. George Norroy:—“Sat., 5th March, 4 and 5 Philip and Mary. For that Mr. Copley, a member of this house, hath spoken irreverent words of the Queenes Majestie, concerning the Bill for confirmacion of pattents, saying that he feared the Queene might thereby give away the Crowne from the right inheritor, the house commanded, by Mr. Speaker, that Copley should absent himself until consultation more had thereof. And after consultation had and agreed to be a grievous fault, Copley was called in and required this House to consider his youth, and that if it be an offence it might be imputed to his young yeares. The House referred the offence by the Speaker to the Queene with a plea for mercy, and Mr. Copley committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-arms. Monday, 7th March, Mr. Speaker declared that he had declared to the Queenes Majestie the matter touching Copley, wherein hir pleasure was that he should be examined whereof fresh matter did spring. Nevertheless, Her Majestie would well consider the request of the House in his favour. In the afternoon Parliament prorogued” (Commons Journal). “Elizabeth, the second wife and widow of Sir Roger Copley, daughter of Sir William Shelley, Justice of the Common Pleas, presented to the Church of Gatton in 1552, as did her son Thomas in 1562; butafter that time, the family, being Roman Catholics, it was vested in trustees, 1571” (Manning and Bray’s “Surrey”). The troubles of the Copleys and Gatton arose fromrecusancy, not women’s elections. Elizabeth died in 1560, “seized of Gatton,” held of the Queen in fealty for 1d. rent, and 20s. castleguard to Dover Castle. (See“InquisitionPost-Mortem,” 29 April, 2 Eliz.) It must, therefore, have been settled on herself. The daughter of Sir William Shelley would surely be well advised of her legal rights, and, perhaps, her association of the other inhabitants with herself in her election of 7 Edward VI., arose from an appreciation of the tendency of popular opinion in favour of an inhabitant suffrage, instead of a freeholding one.

12.“Thomas Copley Armiger, Thomas Norton Armiger, Gatton.” Names supplied from the Crown Office in place of original returns. (Parliamentary Returns, vol. i., p. 398.)

In Harl. MS., 703, Burghley writes to the Sheriff of Surrey:—“Whereas there are to be returned by you against the Parliament two Burgesses for Gatton in that Countie of Surrey, which,heretofore, have beennominated by Mr. Coplie, for that there are no Burgesses in the Borough there to nominate them, for as much as by the death of the said Mr. Copley and minoritie of his sonne, the same which his lands are within the survey and rule of the Court of Wards, whereof I am her Majestie’s chiefe officer, you shall, therefore, forbeare to make returne of anie for the saide towne, without direction first had from me therein, whereof I praie you not to faile” (St. James, 13th Nov., 1584). Sir Thomas died abroad, 1584, aged 49, leaving William, his son and heir. Apparently Francis Bacon and Thomas Busshophad been nominated by Burghley; because the next letter preserved, dated 24th Nov., 1584, tells the Sheriff to appoint Edward Browne, Esq., in the place of Bacon, who had been returned for another borough. In 11th Sept., 1586, Walsingham instructs the Sheriff of Sussex to send up Mrs. Copley of Rossey to the charge of the Warden of the Fleet, and the two Gages, and they are to have no conference. Jan. 29th, 1595, Buckhurst writes to Sir Walter Covert and Harry Shelley, Esq., to apprehend “the Lady Copley and certaine other daungerous persons remayning with her as it is enformed, where very dangerous practizes are in hande” (Harl. 703, f. 87).

“The Queen, by reason of —— Copley, Esq, going beyond sea and not returning according to Parliament, presented Ralph Rand, M.A., to the Church of Gatton, 8th Feb., 1598.”

On 7th Feb., 1620, the House considered the return of Gatton in Surrey. One Smith, a burgess for that town, and a son of Mr. Copley appeared. Mr. Copley, lord of the town, a recusant convict, with six of his lessees, no freeholders, made their choice the Tuesday before; the freeholders made their choice, on the Wednesday, of Sir Thomas Gresham and Sir Thomas Bludder. The first return held void. Sir Henry Brittayne asked leave to speak; he said “the writ was directed Burgensibus, and delivered to Mr. Copley. The town was but of seven houses, all but one Copley’s tenants. That the election by them good not beingfreeholders. That all the freeholders, except one, dwelt out of the town, and only held of the manor in the town.” “Sir Edward Coke spoke against Copley’s return, and moved for a new election,in case of danger from Copley” (Commons Journal). (Seealso Lansd. MS., 545; Hakewell’s “Report of the Gatton Case.”)

This, therefore, makes the controversy comprehensible that, in 1628, was illustrated by the records.

Mr. William Copley was not inclined tamely to resign the ancient privilege of his family of sending up Burgesses for their own Borough; he attempted to do so again, in spite of the decision of 1620, and through the adverse decision in his case, Parliament affirmed, and Sir Edward Coke with it, the right of a woman to vote.

Back to Index Next