CHAPTER VI.FREEWOMEN.

“Preserve your Loyalty, defend your Rights.”—Anne Clifford’s Sundial Motto.

“Preserve your Loyalty, defend your Rights.”

—Anne Clifford’s Sundial Motto.

Indays 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,somewomen 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.)

(Seealso “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 thesilk-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 thetreatment 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.)

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 Fraternitiefor everto 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’” (seeMr. Kingdon’s translation ofthe 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. (SeeArber’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 extraordinarywoman 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;seealso 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. Oneappears 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” (LiberAlbus 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).

Wallerv.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 whoper communehave advantageof 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 asfemes 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 anyfeme solethe Franchise and even the Guild was open on the same terms as to the men of theplace. 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 ofFreewomen. (SeeChisholm 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. (Seesame 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 thosethat 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]

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 corporaconpayinge 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 thisillustration 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 theyoungest, 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 yesixteenswho 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 theInhabitantsof 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.”

“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 habuissentsimul 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 Coltv.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 wasgivento 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 fraunchesand 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 inBurgessespaying 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 Holtv.Lyle or Coatsv.Lisle in 14 James I., in discussing the right of a clergyman to vote, affirms as a side issue that “afeme 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 expressedin Catherinev.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 wereallowed 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. (SeeCommons 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.” (SeeAddit. MS., Brit. Mus. 8980.) Thus the doctrine that the right to the Franchise never lapses, and thatnon-usernever deprives an Elector of this privilege, was affirmed by the Committee of Privileges in the Parliament of which Coke and Hakewell were members.

Back to Index Next