New original cover art included with this eBook is granted to the public domain.

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

PREFACE

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

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)....”

[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.

CHAPTER II.
THE MODERN BASES OF PRIVILEGE.

“All rights arise out of justice.... Justice is a constant and perpetual will to award to each his right.... Jurisprudence is the knowledge of divine and human things, the science of what is just and unjust.”—Bracton. De Legibus Angliæ.“Of acquiring the dominion of things.”—Temp. Hen. III.

The relation between property and privilege has been the determining principle in Constitutional Evolution, and the distinction between the sexes in the matter of Property has been the radical cause of the distinction between them in regard to Privilege. It is necessary to trace this. The custom of Military Tenure made male heirs more valuable to the Crown than female heirs, inasmuch as personal service was more effective and reliable than representative service; and, therefore, in early Norman days, when all lands lay in the King’s gift, he was eager to confirm each succeeding son of the last owner in his possessions, before any of the daughters. But the principles of justice, the customs of the land, and the springs of human nature, combined in opposition to a further exercise of the Royal will, so that all the daughters succeeded before any of the collateral heirs, before uncle, cousin, or nephew. Husbands and fathers would not have risked their lives freely in the King’s wars, if they knew that wives and daughters were to lose their estates, at the same time as they lost the protection of their strong right arms. A survival of Saxon opinion strangely affected further the position of daughters, when the chaos of custom took form in law. An eldest-born son could inherit to the detriment of his younger brothers, following the Norman custom of primogeniture, but the eldest-born daughter held no privilege over her younger sisters, who were all co-parceners with her as regarded the inheritance, in the manner that children of both sexes inherited among the Saxons, and among the representatives of the Saxons, the free men of Kent. An indivisible inheritance, such as a title, fell in abeyance among daughters until decided by the selection of the Crown, though it was generally granted to the eldest daughter.[[i].] Unless a woman, therefore, was an only child, she did not succeed to the entire advantages of “the heir,” but as only child, and sole heiress, she inherited to the full the rights and privileges of her father, brother, or ancestor. Sex-in-itself did not disqualify a woman from anything. There was no excusing a woman a duty, and consequently no denying her a privilege. “Essoin de servitio regis lyeth not where the party is a woman” (Statutes 33, Ed. I.). The only advantage granted her, that of “sending a deputy,” she was allowed in common with men, frail or infirm, or over the age of bearing arms.

The Feudal System has been credited with limiting Personality and Privilege to males; therefore it startles some students of history to find that it was only on the extinction of the Feudal System, and the translation of service-payments into money-payments, that women lost the definite place assigned to them. Women’s rights came second in Feudal Times, because they had to be protected by men’s swords; women’s rights came nowhere in later times, when freedom towards property would have made them able to protect themselves. The encroachments naturally took place first in regard to married women. In ancient times even a married woman could be “free,” both as an inheritor and as an earner. In the very highest ranks she remained so. She was free to contract, to sign, to seal, to act as a feme sole. On her marriage she conferred her title on her husband, as men did theirs upon their wives. The lands were held in common. The responsibilities she could not undertake herself, he fulfilled as her representative. When she died he lost his representative character; his tenure of her lands was only “by courtesy,” and that only if he had a child by her; if not, they reverted at her death to the donor. (See “Statutes of Realm,” vol. i., p. 220.) But a widow also could hold her husband’s lands under certain conditions, either by her marriage settlement, her husband’s will, the King’s gift, or “the courtesy of England.” Many examples of widows doing so are given later. Even where there were heirs, and her husband died intestate, a widow had a legal right to the third part of her husband’s property. In Kent she had a right to the half till she married again, as a man held the half of his wife’s property till he married again. (See “The Customal of Kent.”)

The Laws of Chivalry refined the Upper Classes, inculcating Truth, Loyalty, Chastity, Courtesy, Liberality, Reverence for Women and Generosity to the Weak. But the real foundation of Privilege in Chivalric times was practically Strength, Courage and Success among men. Beauty, Grace and Honour among women. These qualities being temporary, were not synonymous with Justice. The position of Divinity is an unstable one, depending on the attitude of the worshippers. When Chivalry faded out of men’s hearts, women felt that the outer shell of custom meant little. It only set them on the shelf.

A tone of Chivalry affected the hearts of the traders and manufacturers of Chivalric Times, a tone healthier, because more founded on justice and equality. There was even then a confusion of ideas between return-value of labour abroad, and labour at home; but there was no confusion about the return-values of similar labour performed by men or by women. Women were equal in all social guilds, and trading women were equal in trading guilds.

The notion that partnership in toil could justify the assumption of the whole proceeds of the common labours to the use and will of one of the partners did not dawn on the simpler minds of our ancestors. It took centuries of mistranslations of the first principles of government to let this partial idea develop into its modern complexity. In Prynne’s “Fundamental Rights of English Freemen,” p. 3, art. 7, we read, “That it is the ancient and undoubted right of every freeman that he hath a full and absolute propriety in his goods and estate. And that no taxes, taillages, loans, benevolences, or other charge ought to be commanded, imposed, or levied by the King or his ministers, without common consent by Act of Parliament.” In order that husbands might have this absolute proprietary right over the whole of the common property, it was gradually extinguished among wives; and the second right for them naturally lapsed in consequence of the other. The absorption of a married woman’s property by her husband developed for her a massive code of legal restrictions, and a stern doctrine of civil disabilities. She was dissociated first from property, thence from privilege, finally she became property. This was but the natural outcome of the non-recognition of her Personal and Proprietary Rights. In any history, therefore, of British Freewomen, we must practically follow legal precedent, in assuming the non-existence of the feme couverte.

Through the different principles of inheritance, there have always been fewer heiresses than heirs; through the success of the various methods of protecting male professional and trade industries against female competition, there have always been fewer female owners of earned property; through the lower rate of women’s wages, and various causes tending to disable single women even in the retention of property, these owners represented smaller incomes than did men of their own class.

Representative Freewomen, therefore, have always been in a small minority. The dominance of a temporary majority sends a minority into the Opposition; in which exile it lays plans for future action, when in the see-saw of political change its turn comes to rise again. The majority has always to consider the minority in its calculations and actions. But a permanent majority, consciously or unconsciously, labours to oust a permanent minority from recognised and recognisable existence even as an Opposition. By always being able to overbear opinion, it makes the expression of opinion futile. Either it is concordant and unnecessary, or discordant and inoperative. The expression of either becomes a waste of time, and is soon denied. And thus women have been ousted by degrees from the building up of the superstructure of the English Constitution, in whose foundations they had been considered. The privilege of British Freewomen remained a recognised quantity for ages. Though that quantity became “small by degrees and beautifully less,” it was not finally annihilated till the heart of the nineteenth century.

The process of diminution was hastened in periods of spasmodic activity through association of principles that should have worked in the opposite direction, had the principles been understood and applied in their purity. No doctrine is more antagonistic to the spirit and teaching of Christ than that of the subjection of women, and yet, though the change from the Druidic religion to the worship of Odin affected them but slightly, the changes within the Christian Creed mark epochs in their gradual enthralment; as, for instance, the sixteenth century Reformation and the seventeenth century Revival On the Suppression of the Monasteries, Abbots and Abbesses were alike extinguished. But the power and privilege of the Abbot in the House of Peers as in the Church, survived in the Bishop. The extinction of the Abbess, without successor either in Church or State, took away finally the right of one class of representative women to sit in the Upper House. The suppression of the Social and Religious Guilds founded and supported by women in common with men, gave a seeming reason for later exclusion of Freewomen from trade guilds.

The loudest Puritan cry of the seventeenth century was, it is true, “No Bishop;” but the practical work Puritanism was really allowed to do in politics was to make the representation of women in the Lower House theoretically impossible.

As antagonistic to the doctrine of the subjection of women are the Principles of Liberty. How can men become truly free that ignore, for others, the liberties founded on the same reasonings by which they enfranchised themselves? Yet every great era in the Evolution of so-called Popular Liberty has been marked by contemporary restrictions of Feminine Freedom. Hence, in the seventeenth century, when hereditary serfdom was finally abolished, and when slavery, by purchase, became impossible in Britain, we first find the doctrine promulgated that tended to disfranchise women. When outbursts of fervid eloquence on “Liberty” were preparing the nation to lay out its millions in enfranchising even its colonial slaves, in 1832, the disfranchisement of women was effected by the use of a single statutory word. When, on the 29th of June, 1867, William Lloyd Garrison, the champion of Negro Emancipation, was receiving an ovation at St. James’ Hall, men were discussing in St. Stephen’s whether to give women political existence or not. Though the single excluding word was erased from the statute book, the House and the Courts of Law next year determined that its spirit lingered there. When a new extension of the Suffrage took place in 1884, the claims of women were again disallowed. The new rights of men emphasised more strongly the old wrongs of women. A lowered qualification for the Franchise protected property, not only inherited or earned, but that which was only in the process of earning. This privilege of prospective property increased the opportunities of earning enormously. But only when its possession was vested in a man. Women’s possession of property, more difficult to acquire through laws of nature, custom, inheritance, marriage, and the protection of male industries, was further rendered less stable by their exclusion from the faintest voice in determining laws, taxation, and home and foreign policy. The progress of education has enriched public ideas, has altered the Content of public Conscience, has facilitated public discussion of facts and theories. The relations of representation to taxation are assailed. New bases of privilege are being proposed. There are those who hold that Property is no sound foundation on which to build a Constitution. Some would put in its place the notion of Justice, which others name the right of the Individual. But those who accept this are divided into two great classes, the first considering Justice in its own nature, and treating Individuals as the indivisible units to which Justice is to be applied, units not to be segregated by any test into groups receiving Justice or no Justice. The second class also considers Justice applicable to all individuals, but adds a rider, that, in their opinion, individuals can be only masculine. Something in the construction of their minds permits them to harmonise, to their own satisfaction, two discordant ideas. Masculinity seems to them a natural basis of privilege—a solid foundation of Justice.

Others hold the older doctrines in a modified form, believing that individuality without qualification of individuals cannot provide a stable basis. If the idle and improvident, by mere force of numbers, are to dominate the industrious and the provident, the ends of justice would be defeated. By property or industry tests those are included who have interests to preserve. Those who help to support the State should have a voice in determining its action. No one is excluded from Enfranchisement thereby. A very moderate degree of industry or success will make it possible to any one to attain the franchise. A worthy incentive to labour is a moral good. Amidst these thinkers there are also two classes: those who consider that the rights of women in themselves, and in the property they inherit or acquire, are as important as those of men, and should be made as stable; and those that, by combining two principles of Enfranchisement, make a logical cross division, importing the totally unconnected dividing principle of sex into the consideration of the rights of property. What is simply unjust, when individuals are selected on the basis of sex, becomes both illogical and unjust when questions of sex are imposed on those of property. Sex is an inseparable accident, and when accepted as the Basis of Justice, closes the question; property is a separable accident, and must be considered upon different lines. The various objections to any simple, logical, homogeneous, and just arrangement of the Bases of Privilege, while depending on the doctrine of sex, are worked out by two sub-sections of thinkers upon different lines. One section says boldly, “when persons qualified by property are also qualified by masculinity, we grant them privilege.” The other section analyses the attributes of masculinity, and apply each as a separate test to the person qualified by property. “The physical force argument is the foundation of government, most men are stronger than most women, therefore no women must interfere in government.” Women would “require an improved understanding to vote for a member of Parliament.” “Women cannot understand mathematics, nor master the classics,” and when they proved they could, the principle was sent back further into statements that “their brains were not heavy enough,” “their moral force not strong enough.” “Women have not written Shakespeare, composed Beethoven, painted Raphael, built St. Peter’s.” The understanding of proportional representation, and the far-reaching economic results of bi-metallism, have been seriously proposed as tests for women. But have the whole series, or any one of them, ever been applied to the mere male electors of the realm? When pressed hard on this point, these objectors, in their confusion, fall back upon precedent and on authority to prove that to be legal which they cannot prove to be just or reasonable. It is no argument in favour of anything that it has been, or else reformation would be impossible. But when the sole argument against its being is that it has not been, the consideration of Legality and of Precedent becomes a necessity to the advocates of Justice. Many mistakes have been taken for facts, many fallacious arguments based upon erroneous premises. A Review of the History of Women that have hitherto ever exercised any privilege is necessary for generalisations to be based thereon. For by this process we may unite the followers of Legality and Precedent with the worshippers of Justice and Equality, and the union of the two forces, like those of the sun and moon upon the sea, may raise the high “tide in the affairs of women that leads on to fortune.”

The Review is encouraging in two aspects. In the light of the modern doctrine of Heredity, we see that our far-away ancestors held opinions to which we may hope that our successors may yet revert; and from Ancient History we find that a recognition of the existence of women in the State, far from being novel or revolutionary, would only be the fulfilling of the fundamental principles of the English Constitution.

CHAPTER III.
ROYAL WOMEN.

“The country prospers when a woman rules.”

In order to simplify and classify the mass of material at hand, it is advisable to take by their degree the ranks of women among the Anglo-Normans. Among the Queens, only because they precede in order of time and of number, we may take first

Queens Consort.—In Doomsday Book, Matilda, the wife of the Conqueror, is entered as holding of the King, many lands forfeited by the Saxons. “She was made the feudal possessor of the lands of Beortric, Earl of Gloucester, hence the practice of settling the Lordship of Bristol on the Queen generally, prevailed for centuries. On her death in 1083, her lands went back to the King by feudal tenure. The Conqueror kept them in his own hands, meaning them for his and her youngest son Henry, who afterwards succeeded.” (Seyer’s “Memoirs of Bristol,” chap. iv., p. 318). Later queens had separate establishments, officers and privy purse. “The Aurum Reginæ, or Queen’s Gold, is distinguished from all other debts and duties belonging to the Queen of this Realme. All other revenues proceed to her from the grace of the King, this by the common law ... which groweth upon all fines paid to the King, licenses, charters, pardons, of which she receives one-tenth part. After her death the King recovers his right to hold this tenth. This duty hath been enjoyed by the Queens from Eleanor, wife of Henry II. to Anne, second wife of Henry VIII.” (Hakewell’s speech in Parliament on Aurum Reginæ. Addit. MSS., Brit. Mus. 25, 255.)

Even to our own days Queens Consort have had the privilege of acting as femes soles. But in early times they exercised considerably more power in the State than we realise to-day. They sat in the Councils, even in the presence of the Kings, and gave their consent to measures along with Kings and Nobles. “The Queen-wife of England also superscribed her name over their warrants or letters of public direction or command, although in the time of Henry VIII. the fashion was that the queens wrote their names over the left side of the first line of such warrants, and not over them as the Kings do” (Selden’s “Titles of Honour”). But as many of the Queens Consort, though thus entitled to be ranked among “Freewomen,” were not of native extraction; we do not dwell upon all their privileges, preferring to hasten on to those that indubitably were British Freewomen.

Queens Regnant.—The first critical moment in the History of Queens Regnant occurs at the death of Henry I., who had, as he considered, arranged satisfactorily for the succession of his daughter Matilda. His attempt proved that the French Salic Law had not been made law in England. A quaint account of his proceeding occurs in the “Lives of the Berkeleys,” published by the Gloucester Archæological Society, 1835, p. 2. “King Harri the first, third sonne of King William the Conqueror, had issue remaining one daughter named Maude ... the sayd King Harri send for his foresayd daughter Maude the Emparice into England, and in open Parliament declared and ordeyned her to bee his eire. To whom then and there were sworen all the lordes of England, and made unto her sewte, admittinge her for his eire. Amongs whom principally and first was sworen Stephen Earle of Boleyn, nevowe of the sayd King Harri the first.” But as Selden says, “I do very well know, that our perjured barons, when they resolved to exclude Queen Maud from the English throne, made this shameful pretence, ‘that it would be a shame for so many nobles to be subject to one woman.’ And yet you shall not read, that the Iceni, our Essex men got any shame by that Boadicea, whom Gildas terms a lioness” (Janus Anglorum). The same author, in noting the laws made by various kings, enters the reign of Stephen as that of an unrighteous king who had no time to make laws for the protection of the kingdom, because he had to fight in defence of his own unjust claim. “In 1136 Henry of England died, and Stephen Earl of Boulogne succeeded. At Mass on the Day of his Coronation, by some mistake, the peace of God was forgotten to be pronounced on the people” (“Antiquitates,” Camden). Prynne calls him “the perjured usurping King Stephen.” The general uncertainty of the succession is betokened in the struggle. Very probably had there not been a Stephen to stir up the nobles, the country might have rested peaceably under the rule of Matilda.

It seems strange that the oldest Charters of the express Creation of the title of Comes (Count or Earl) are those of Queen Maud, who first created the Earldom of Essex and the Earldom of Hereford. To Aubrey de Vere also she granted the Earldom of Cambridge, or another title if he preferred it, and he chose the Earldom of Oxford. A struggle like the Wars of the Roses was closed by the death of Stephen and the peaceable succession of Matilda’s son, Henry II.

Another lady of the family was supplanted by the proverbially “cruel uncle.” King John in 1202 made prisoners of his nephew, Arthur, Duke of Brittany, and the Princess Eleanor, his sister, called “The Beauty of Brittany.” Arthur is supposed to have been murdered by his uncle, and Eleanor was confined for forty years in Bristol Castle. A true daughter of Constance, she is said to have possessed a high and invincible spirit, and to have constantly insisted on her right to the throne, which was probably the reason that she spent her life in captivity. (See the close Rolls of the Tower of London, and the Introduction xxxv.)

But the second real crisis was that which closed the Wars of the Roses. Another Stephen appeared in Henry VII., who, fortunately for the people, simplified matters by marrying Elizabeth of York, the rightful heir. Jealous in the extreme of his wife’s prerogative, he used his high hand as the conqueror of Richard and the Kingdom, delayed her coronation as long as he dared, ignored her in his councils, and magnified his relation as husband, to the extinction of her glory as Queen.

Henry VIII. enjoyed to the full the advantage of an undisputed succession. He restricted the rights of Queens Consort, as his father had ignored the rights of Queens Regnant. A strange Nemesis followed, foretold in the so-called prophecies of Merlin. That these really were talked of, before the events occurred, can be proved by MSS. among the uncalendared papers temp. Henry VIII. Public Record Office. There is in full “the Examination of John Ryan of St. Botolphs, Fruiterer, concerning discourses which he heard at the Bell on Tower Hill, Prophecies of Merlin, that there never again would be King crowned of England after the King’s son Prince Edward, 22nd August, 1538.” James V. of Scotland had sadly said on his death-bed, “The Kingdom came with a lass, and it will go with a lass.” So was it to be in England. The pale sickly youth who succeeded, third of the Tudors, died without wife or child, and on the steps of the throne stood four royal women, whose lives form the most interesting period of national history. Each of them had a special claim. Mary, pronounced illegitimate by the Protestant party, and by statute of Parliament, inherited through her father’s will alone; Elizabeth, pronounced illegitimate by the Catholic party, and by a similar statute, stood second in that will; Mary, Queen of Scotland and of France, showed flawless descent from Margaret, the elder sister of Henry VIII.; and Lady Jane Grey proved like flawless descent from Mary, Henry’s younger sister.

Henry, a despot even “by his dead hand,” had, failing Edward, left the crown to Mary, then to Elizabeth, then to Lady Jane Grey. Edward VI., not a minor by the laws of England that allowed Government to commence at fourteen years, considered both his sisters illegitimate under his father’s statutes, preferring of the two Elizabeth’s claim. But for the peace of the kingdom he left by will the crown to Lady Jane Grey, ignoring, as his father had done, the prior claims of Mary, Queen of Scotland and of France. The results of the complication are too well known to be here rehearsed.

The first act of Mary was to establish her own legitimacy, the honour of her mother, and the power of the Pope; her second was to establish the office of Queen Regnant “by Statute to be so clear that none but the malitious and ignorant could be induced and persuaded unto this Error and Folly to think that her Highness coulde ne should have enjoye and use such like Royal Authoritie ... nor doo ne execute and use all things concerning the Statute (in which only the name of the King was expressed) as the Kinges of this Realme, her most noble Progenitours have heretofore doon, used and exercised” (1 Mar., c. iii.)

Both she and her sister, at their coronations, were girt with the sword of State, and invested with the spurs of knighthood, to show that they were military as well as civil rulers. Fortunately for her country, and for herself, Elizabeth lived and died a maiden Queen. The bitter consequences of her sister’s Spanish alliance taught her the importance of independence as a ruler. Whatever we may individually think of her character, all must allow her reign to have been in every way the most brilliant in the history of our country, only equalled in our own times by that of a Matron Queen, who has held the reins of Government in her own hand and whose husband came to the land but as Prince Consort. Queen Anne’s reign is also worthy of note, and can bear comparison with that of most Kings, for its military successes, and its literary activities.

Queens Regent.—Selden argues against Bodin of Anjou, who upheld the Salic Law, “are not discretion and strength, courage, and the arts of Government more to be desired and required in those who have the tuition of kings in their minority, than in the kings themselves till they are come of age?” He considers the French use of Queens as Regents to be destructive of their own theories.

Queens as Regent-Tutors of young kings have not held the same position in England as they did in France or in Scotland. But as governing Regents and Viceroys they have often done good service. William of Normandy more than once left the country in charge of his Queen. Richard I., by commission, appointed his mother, Eleanor, to be Regent of the Kingdom in his absence, and wrote to her to find the money for his ransom when imprisoned abroad. She sat as Judge in the Curia Regis, taking her seat on the King’s Bench by right of her office. She granted concessions to the inhabitants of Oléron (to women as to men) even down to the reign of John (1 John; see “Rymer’s Fœdera”). Edward III. found his Queen Philippa a Queen Regent worthy of himself. Henry V. appointed his mother as Regent in his absence, and even Henry VIII., when he went abroad on his last French War, left his Queen, Catherine Parr, Governor of the Kingdom. I have gone through their correspondence in the Public Record Office, and it bears ample testimony to her capability and his trust in her judgment. In “Olive versus Ingram,” 1739, it is noted, “Queen Caroline was once appointed Regentor of the Kingdom.”

It was with little less than Vice Regal splendour and power that Joan, Dowager Countess of Pembroke, ruled the Palatinate for nine years in the reign of Edward I.; or Isabel de Burgo in that of Edward II., or Agnes de Hastings in that of Edward III.; ruling in the stead of their sons until the youths attained majority at the age of twenty-one.

CHAPTER IV.
NOBLEWOMEN.

“Noblesse Oblige.”

In Selden’s “Titles of Honour,” iii., 890, he says, “Of feminine titles some are immediately created in women, some are communicated by their husbands, others are transmitted to them from their ancestors, and some also are given them as consequents only of the dignity of their husbands and parents.” Of “immediate creation” he gives the example of Margaret, Countess of Norfolk, created by Richard II. Duchess of Norfolk, wherein the investiture is mentioned by the patent to be by putting on her the cap of honour “recompensatio meritorum.” Henry VIII. created Anne Boleyn Marchioness of Pembroke. James I. created Lady Mary Compton the Countess of Buckingham in her husband’s lifetime, without permitting him to share the honour. He also created Lady Finch, first Viscountess of Maidstone, and afterwards Countess of Winchilsea, limiting inheritance to heirs of her body.

Anne Bayning, wife of James Murray, was created Viscountess Bayning of Foxley in 1674. Several titles have been granted for discreditable causes, too few for “recompensatio meritorum.” Men that were merely rich have been made peers. Women that have been truly noble have not been made Noble by Letters Patent. The Baroness Burdett Coutts is the only modern example I can recal.

The titles that women received from their husbands were doubtless intended more as an honour to their husbands than to themselves, though they carried, at times, considerable privileges along with them. They bore them as widows until their death, sometimes with the full honours and powers their husbands had borne.

There are some curious cases of titles being assigned. Randol, Earl of Chester and Lincoln, granted the Earldom of Lincoln to his sister, the Lady Hawise de Quency. She afterwards granted the title to John de Lacy, who had married her daughter Margaret, a grant confirmed by the King in a charter, limiting the inheritance to the heirs of Margaret.

I have already noted the two limitations of a daughter’s inheritance of property. The same affected titles. But having inherited, she became endowed with every privilege to the full; and every duty was exacted of her to the utmost.

Women paid Homage.—In spite of many careless remarks to the contrary, women paid homage. “John, heir of the Devereux, died under age; his sister Joane, making proof of her age, and doing her homage, had Livery of the Lands of her Inheritance” (2 Ric. II., Dugdale, 117).

The summons to Ladies as well as to Lords for aids to the King was “de fide et homagio.”

It is true that at some periods widows did not pay Homage for the lands of their deceased husbands; but neither then did men pay Homage for the lands of their deceased wives, holding only by “the Courtesy of England.” “Because if Homage be given, it might never return to the lawful heir” (“Statutes of the Realm, Lands held by Courtesy,” vol. i., p. 220).

Received Homage.—Many examples are given in the “Rotuli Hundredorum,” “Testa de Nevil” and “Kirkby’s Inquest.” Isabella and Idonea de Veteripont insisted on Fealty and Homage from the inhabitants of Appleby. 4 Edward I., as did Anne Clifford later (Nicholson’s “History of Westmoreland,” v. 2). One curious distinction comes in here between the sexes, as a result of the system of coparceny among sisters. A brother might pay Homage to his brother, but not a sister to her sister. The statute of 20 Henry III. (1236) enacted that “the law regarding sisters, co-heirs, be used for Ireland as in England, that the eldest sister only pay Homage to the Overlord or to the King in her own name and that of her sisters, but that the sisters do not pay Homage to the sister for that would be to make her Seigneuress over the other sisters” (Rot. Parl., 20 Henry III.).

They could hold Courts Baron.—A petition, 16 Richard II., appears, praying that no Liegeman should be compelled to appear at the Courts and Councils of the Lord or of the Lady to reply for his freehold.

In Rot. Hundred, Edward I., many women were entered as holding Courts of Frank-pledge and Assizes of Bread and Ale, and as having a Gallows in their Jurisdiction, as Johanna de Huntingfeud held view of Frank-pledge in the Hundred of Poppeworth, Canterbury, vol. i., p. 53. Elena de la Zouche also, Agnes de Vescy, and Elena de Valtibus in Dorsetshire, the Countess of Leycester at Essedon in Buckinghamshire. (“Relation of Women to the State in past times.” Helen Blackburn, National Review, Nov., 1886.)

The Countess Lucy kept her Courts at Spalding during the banishment of her first husband, Yvo de Taillebois. (Selby’s “Genealogist,” 1889, p. 70.) The Pipe Roll of 31 Hen. I. shows that she had agreed to pay the King 100 marks for the privilege of administering justice among her tenants (homines).

In Anne Clifford’s Diary, Harl. M.S., 6177, appears: “1650. This time of my staying in Westmoreland, I employed myself in building and reparation at Skipton and Barden Towers, and in causing ye bounds to be ridden and my Courts kept in my sundry mannors in Craven....”

“1653. In the beginning of this year did I cause several Courts to be kept in my name in divers of my mannors in this Country.”

“1659. And ye Aprill after, did I cause my old decayed Castle of Brough to be repaired, and also the Tower called the Roman Tower in ye said Castle, and a Court-House for keeping of my Courts.”

There is preserved in Swansea a charter granted, 2 Edward III., to Aliva, wife of John de Mowbray, of the land of Gower. It recites and confirms various previous charters of the land of Gower, with the appurtenances, and all manner of Jurisdictions, and all Royal Liberties, and free customs which Gilbert de Clare the son of Richard de Clare theretofore Earl of Gloucester and Hertford had, in his land of Glamorgan. (Report of Municipal Corporations, 1835, p. 383.)

This practice seems to have long survived in modified forms. In same Report, p. 2850, regarding the Borough of Ruthin, “It was in evidence, and was indeed frankly admitted by the deputy-steward, that, upon impanelling the jury at the Borough Court Leet it is the uniform practice for some agent of the Lady of the Manor to address a letter, which is delivered to the foreman of the jury in their retiring-room, recommending two persons as aldermen, who are invariably elected. As a part of this system, it was proved that in many instances the duties and fees payable on the admission of burgesses to their freedom had been defrayed by the Lady of the Manor; and that the uncontrolled power of impanelling the jury was left to her agent. The only answer furnished by the deputy-steward was that he had taken for his guide the usage of the place, as pursued by his predecessors, without reference to charters, which had only of late years come under discussion.” Also in page 2840, regarding Rhuddlan, “As far as any ruling body or corporation can be said to subsist in a borough thus circumstanced, the Lady of the Manor must be considered to elect that body; for the Steward of the Court Leet is appointed by her during pleasure; and he gives the constables a list of the persons who are to serve on the jury by whom the two bailiffs, the only subsisting officers of the corporation, are chosen.” The Lady of the Manor there also paid the Constables.

Held by Military Service.—There were 15 ladies summoned for military service against Wales “de fide et homagio,” in 5 Edward I., and again in 10 Edward I. Among these were Devorgilla de Balliol, Agnes de Vescy, Dionysia de Monte Canisio, and Margaret de Ros. A writ was issued to Isabella de Ros, commanding her “in fide et homagio” to send her service to the muster at Portsmouth for the King’s expedition to Gascony, 14th June, 1234. Elena de Lucy was summoned from the county of Northampton “to perform military service in parts beyond the sea. Muster at London, 7th July, 25 Edward I.” Joan Disney of Lincoln was summoned “to perform military service against the Scots. Muster at London, 7th July, 25 Edward I.” These are but a few selected from many others that appear in Palgrave’s Parliamentary Writs. It is true that a substitute might be sent by anyone, male or female, with reasonable excuse. “On 16th April, 1303, proclamation was made that all prelates, persons of religion, women and persons who were unfit for military service, who were willing to commute their service by fines, might appear before the Barons of the Exchequer at York on 17th May ensuing. Otherwise they, or their substitutes, must appear at the muster at Berwick on the 26th May.”

Palgrave’s Parliamentary Writs give long lists of women holding castles, towns, and military feods in 9 Edward II., and Harl. MS., 4219, in “Hundreds, Civitates, Burgi, and Villæ in Comitatu Norfolk et Domini eorundem,” gives many names of women.

Margaret, widow of Lord Edmund Mortimer, was charged with providing one hundred men for the wars in Scotland out of her lands at Key and Warthenon. Dugdale’s “Peerage and Baronetage,” vol. i., p. 173.

In 3 Edward II. writs docketed “De summonicione servicii Regis” were issued to Abbots and Abbesses alike for military aid against the Scots, “de fide et dilectione;” and to Nobles, Lords and Ladies alike in “fide et homagio.” On the 13th September following Domina Maria de Graham proffers the service of two knights’ fees for all her lands in England, performed by four servants with four barded horses; and many noble ladies offer equivalent service.

Joane Plantagenet, the Fair Maid of Kent, inherited from her brother the Earldom of Kent, and from her mother the Barony of Wake, by which she was styled the Lady of Wake. She married Sir Thomas de Holland, who, through her, became Earl of Kent without creation. Her son Thomas succeeded both. His widow Alicia died possessed of 27 manors held by direct feudal or military tenure, beside many freeholds. (See “Inquisitions Post Mortem”; 4 Henry IV.)

They could be Knights.—Not only in Romances, not only in Spenser’s “Faery Queene,” but in books of Chivalry, we may see that women could be knights. Mary and Elizabeth were made knights before they were made Queens. Abergavenny Castle was held by knight’s service. William, Baron Cantilupe, by marrying Eva, daughter and co-heir of William, Lord Braose, obtained the Castle and Lands. Her tomb in St. Mary’s Church, Abergavenny, 1246, is of interest as being the earliest stone effigy of a woman known in England. Her daughter, Eva de Cantilupe, succeeded to the barony and the castle, and was a knight. Her tomb is the only instance known of the stone effigy of a woman adorned with the insignia of knighthood, 1247. In 1589, Edward Neville sued for the Barony against Mary, Lady Fane, as being entailed in the Heir Male. His suit was refused. The Lord Chief-Justice Popham determined “that there was no right at all in the Heir Male; the common Custom of England doth wholly favour the Heir General ... and Her Majesty would require to make a new creation to prefer the Heir Male to the Heir Female” (Sir Harris Nicolas’ “Historic Peerages,” p. 15).

Inherited Public Office associated with the Title or Property.—The story of Ela of Salisbury illustrates the views with which the early Normans regarded heiresses. She was born in 1188. Her father, the Earl of Salisbury, died 1196, leaving her sole heir. She inherited both title and lands before his three brothers. Her mother conveyed her away secretly to a castle in Normandy, to save her from possible dangers during her minority. An English knight, William Talbot, romantically undertook, as a troubadour, to discover her whereabouts, and, after two years, brought her back to England. King Richard betrothed her as a royal ward to his half-brother, William Longespée, son of Fair Rosamund, who became, through her, Earl of Salisbury. At King John’s coronation at Westminster, William, Earl of Salisbury, is noted as being present among the throng of nobility. (See “Roger Hoveden.”) He died 1226, leaving four sons and four daughters. Though besieged with suitors, Ela preferred a “free widowhood” to selecting another Earl Salisbury. When her son came of age he claimed investiture of the Earldom, but the King refused it judicialiter, by the advice of the Judges, and according to the dictates of Law. The Earldom and the government of the Castle of Sarum were vested in Ela, not in her dead husband.

The office of Sheriff of Wiltshire, her right by inheritance, she exercised in person until 21 Hen. II., when, probably to facilitate her son’s entrance into the Earldom, she retired as Abbess to the Abbey of Lacock, founded by herself. Even then, however, the youth did not receive the title, and she survived both son and grandson. The note to this Biography adds, “Though the law of female descent, as applied to baronies by writ, has long ceased to govern the descent of earldoms, it certainly did during the first centuries after the Norman conquest.” (Bowle’s “History of Lacock Abbey.”)

Isabella and Idonea de Veteripont, who afterwards married Roger de Clifford, and Roger de Leybourn jointly held the office of High Sheriff of Westmoreland, and insisted on the Burghers bringing their cases to them personally, 15 Ed. I. The office was held afterwards, also in person, during the reigns of the Stuarts, by the brave Anne de Clifford, Countess of Dorset, Pembroke, and Montgomery, and Baroness of Westmoreland. In virtue of her office, she sat on the Bench of Justices in the Court of Assizes at Appleby. (Durnford and East’s “Term Reports,” p. 397; Nicholson’s “History of Westmoreland,” vol. ii., p. 20.) “As the King came out of Scotland, when he lay at York, there was a striffe between my father and my Lord Burleigh, who was then President, who should carie the sword; but it was adjudged to my father’s side, because it was his Office by Inheritance, and so it is lineally descended on me” (Anne Clifford’s Diary, Harl. MSS., 6177). We may add here, though belonging properly to the following chapter, a parallel case:

“William Balderstone had two co-heiresses, Isabel and Jane. Isabel married Sir Robert Harrington of Hornby, and Jane, first Sir Ralph Langton, and second Sir John Pilkington. When Jane was “the young widow” of Sir Ralph Langton, in 1462, she, along with her sister Isabella and Sir Robert Harrington, her sister’s husband, appeared in court to vindicate their right to the offices of the Baylywicks of the Wapentakes of Amoundernes and Blakeburnshire, peacefully occupied by their ancestors time out of mind, and claimed by one Giles Beeston, on the plea of Letters Patent. Giles not appearing, judgment was given in their favour, and a precept issued accordingly to the Sheriff at the Castle of Leicester, 28th May, 2 Ed. IV. (Townley MSS.; “History of Whalley,” vol. ii., p. 358, 4th edition, 1876, by Whittaker.)

The word, Bailiwick, was then applied to the office of a Sheriff. (See 4 Henry IV., c. v.; Statutes, vol. ii.) “Every Sheriff of England shall reside within his Bailiwick.”

“Guy de Beauchamp, late Earl of Warwick, held the manor of Southanton as of inheritance from his deceased wife, Alicia, by the Sergeanty of bearing a Rod before the Justices in Eyre in the county. (9 Edward II.; Blount’s Tenures.”)

Marshal.—Isabel de Clare, only daughter of Richard de Clare, Earl of Pembroke, brought the Earldom into the family of the Marshals of England by marrying William le Marshal. She had five sons (each of whom succeeded to the Office, without leaving an heir) and five daughters. The eldest of these, Maud, Countess of Norfolk, received as her share of the family property the Castles of Strigail and Cuniberg, and, with them, the office of Marshal, and in the 30th Hen. III. “received Livery by the King himself of the Marshal’s Rod, being the eldest who by inheritance ought to enjoy that great Office by descent from Walter Marischal sometime the Earl of Pembroke. Whereupon the Lord Treasurer and the Barons of the Exchequer had command to cause her to have all rights thereto belonging and to admit of such a deputy to sit in the Exchequer for her as she should assign.” (Dugdale Peerage, vol. i., p. 77.) Her son Roger exercised it during the remainder of her life and succeeded her.

Alicia de Bigod, his widow, succeeded him in his honour. I find among the petitions to the Council of 35 Edward I, held in Carlisle, one of “Alicia de Bygod Comitissa Mareschall” to be allowed to send two proxies to the Parliament of the King, “posuit loco suo, Johem Bluet militem, vel Johem de Fremlingham ad sequend pro dote sua coram Rege et consilio suo.” This must have been granted, for these proxies do appear in her name in the Parliament Roll of 35 Edward I. But she was summoned by writ personally (22nd January), in right of her office, to meet Edward II. and his bride at Dover on or about 4th February. (1 Edward II.; Palgrave’s “Parliamentary Writs.”)

The office of Marshal and title of Earl of Norfolk were afterwards given “in tail general” to Thomas Brotherton, son of Edward I. and brother of Edward II. His daughter, Margaret, inherited the office with the title and arms, as she appears as “Margaret Countess Marshal” in the Parliament Roll of 1 Richard II. (Rot. Parl., 713.)

In the petition of John, Earl Marshal, for precedence over Earl Warwick, he says that “Thomas of Brotherton was son of Edward I., and bore the Royal arms. Of him came Margaret, of whom came Elizabeth, of whom came Thomas, of whom came John, now Erle Mareschal, and so apperteneth ye said place in yis Riall court to this Lord Earl Mareschal by cause of the blode and armes Riall with ye said possession” (Rot Parl., iii. Henry VI.). The office afterwards fell to the Mowbrays. Anne Mowbray, heiress, married the young Duke of York, second son of Edward IV., at the age of four years. She carried the office of Marshal to him, but he died in the Tower with his brother, Edward V., and his uncle seized the title.

“Adeline de Broc held possession of her Guildford estates by the service of being Marshal in the King’s court. (Temp. Henry II.; Blount’s Tenures.”) “It was adjudged in B.R., Car I., that the Office of Marshal of that Court well descended to a feme, and that she might exercise it by deputy if she pleased.” (Callis, 250.)

High Constable.—Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford and Essex, held the manors of Harlefield, Newnam, and Whytenhurst, County Gloucester, by the service of High Constable. He left two daughters, but the elder, Eleanor, succeeded to the office, which she conveyed to her husband, Thomas of Woodstock, who exercised it for her; the younger sister, Mary, marrying Henry Plantagenet of Bolingbroke, afterwards Henry IV.

High Steward.—Henry, Earl of Leicester, through the Barony of Hinckley held the office of High Steward of England. He died, leaving two daughters, the elder of whom, having married abroad, left the dignity free to her sister, who married John of Gaunt, fourth son of Edward III. Through her right he exercised the office of Steward, which their son, Henry IV., carried back to the Crown.

High Chamberlain.—Justice Ashurst, from the King’s Bench in 1788, notes that women have served the office of High Chamberlain (Rex v. Stubbs). I have not yet found the name of the lady that he refers to; but we all know that the Baroness Willoughby d’Eresby held the Office down to our own times, though she allowed her son to exercise it as her deputy. “Catherine, sole daughter and heir to the last Lord Willoughby d’Eresby, became 4th wife to Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. She afterwards married Thomas Bertie, and her son was Peregrine, Lord Willoughby d’Eresby, who married Mary, daughter of the Earl of Oxford, whose son Robert (1 Jac. I.) inherited the title and Office of High Chamberlain.” (Dugdale.)

“The Manor of Hornmede, Hertforde, the Lady Lora de Laundford holds as a Serjeanty of our Lord the King by being Chamberlain to our Lady the Queen.” (7 Edward I., Rot., 39.)

Ela, third daughter of Ela of Salisbury, foundress of Lacock, in 1285 was returned as holding the Manor of Hoke-Norton in Oxfordshire in capite by the Serjeanty of carving before our Lord the King on Christmas Day, when she had for her fee the King’s knife with which she cut. (Placit Coron., 13 Edward I., Rot., 30. Bowle’s “Annals of Lacock Abbey,” p. 160.)

Champion.—The Manor of Scrivelby was held by the Dymocks on condition of the possessor acting as King’s Champion. When the heiress, Margaret, inherited the property, she inherited the Office, which her son, Thomas Dymock, performed for her at the coronation of Henry IV.

“The office of Champion at the last coronation was in a woman, who applied in that case to make a deputy.” (See “Olive versus Ingram,” 1739, and Co. Litt, 107.)

They could be Governors of Royal Castles.—Isabella de Fortibus held the Borough and Camp of Plympton, and governed the Isle of Wight. In 8 and 9 Edward II. there was a settlement of Hugo de Courtenay’s petition to succeed to his kinswoman Isabella de Fortibus in governance of the Isle of Wight, etc. Isabella de Vesci held the Castles of Bamborough and Scarborough.

Nicholaa de la Haye held Lincoln for the King. “And after the war it befell that the Lord the King (John) came to Lincoln, and the Lady Nicholaa came forth from the western gate of the castle, carrying the keys of the castle in her hand, and met the said Lord King John and offered him the keys as Lord; and said she was a woman of great age, and had endured many labours and anxieties in that castle, and she could bear no more. And the Lord the King returned them to her sweetly, and said. Bear them, if you please, yet awhile.” This story appears in that Royal Commission of Inquiry into the condition of the country named the “Rotuli Hundredorum.” The King was desirous to persuade so steadfast an adherent to continue to hold “in time of peace and in time of war” what, in those disturbed days, was one of the most important fortresses of the kingdom. For Nicholaa de la Haye and Gerard de Camville her husband had stood by King John in all his troubles; their attachment to him before he was King had brought suspicions and confiscations upon them. Gerard had to pay a heavy sum to Richard I. to be repossessed of his own estate, while Nicholaa paid the King three hundred marks for leave to marry her daughter to whom she would, provided it was not to an enemy of the King. After the death of Richard, Gerard de Camville was reinstated as Governor of Lincoln Castle, during the remainder of his life, and at his death John transferred the appointment to his wife, “a lady eminent in those days,” says Dugdale. She continued at her post, and the King also appointed her Sheriff of Lincoln. In 1217 the partisans of Louis the Dauphin laid siege to Lincoln. Though the town sided with the besiegers, though 600 knights and 20,000 foot soldiers came to reinforce them, Nicholaa continued her defence of the castle till the Earl of Pembroke arrived with an army to her relief. In the next year she was again appointed Sheriff of Lincoln by Henry III. But this closed her public career, and she died in peace at Swaynston in 1229. (“Sketches from the Past,” Women’s Suffrage Journal, March, 1888.)

“Several Charters in one of the Duchy of Lancaster’s Cowcher Books, prove that the Constableship of Lincolnshire, the Wardenship of Lincoln Castle, and the Barony of Eye or Haia, always went together. They belonged successively to Robert de Haia, Richard de Haia, and Nicholaa de Haia, who became the wife of Gerarde de Camville.” (Selby’s “Genealogist,” 1889, p. 170.)

They could also be appointed to various Offices.—As Nicholaa de la Haye was made Sheriff, so was the wise and renowned Lady Margaret, Countess of Richmond, made Justice of the Peace in the reign of Henry VII.; and the Lady of Berkeley under Queen Mary held the same office. Lady Russell had been appointed Custodian of Donnington Castle for her life, at a Salary of one pound and twopence halfpenny a day, but for Contempt of her Overlord, she was tried in the Star Chamber, Mich., 4 James I. (See “Moore’s Law-Cases.”)

They could act as Femes Soles when married, or as Partners.—The Countess Lucy [[ii].] was one of the few Saxon heiresses that carried her property down into Norman times. She had three Norman husbands, Ivo de Tailleboys, Earl of Anjou, Roger Fitzgerald de Romar, and Ranulph, Earl of Chester. Among the various Charters to the Monastery of Spalding are two, granting and confirming the grant of the Manor of Spalding to the Monks there. The exact words of the second Charter are these, “I, Lucy Countess of Chester, give and grant to the Church and Monks of St. Nicholas of Spallingis with Soc and Sac, and Thol and Them, with all its Customs, and with the liberties with which I best and most freely held in the time of Ivo Tailleboys and Roger Fitzgerald and the Earl Ranulph my Lords in almoign of my soul, for the Redemption of the soul of my father and of my mother, and of my Lords and relatives,” etc. “Inspeximus by Oliver Bishop of London 1284.” (Selby’s “Genealogist,” p. 70, 71.) In the lives of the Berkeleys, from the Berkeley MSS., 1883, published for the Bristol and Gloucester Archæological Society, some interesting particulars are given of the Lady Joane, daughter of Earl Ferrars and Derby, and wife of Lord Thomas of Berkeley, second of the name. “It appears by divers deeds that in the xxvith yeare of Edward the first, as in other yeares, this lady by hir deeds contracted with Richard de Wike and others as if she had been a feme sole; and for her seale constantly used the picture of herself holding in her right hand the escutcheon of her husband’s arms, the chevron without the crosses; and in her left hand the escutcheon of her father’s family, circumscribed Sigilla Johannæ de Berklai,” vol i., p. 206.

Elizabeth, Lady of Clare, had buried three husbands, and had retained her maiden name through their time as holding the honour and the Castle of Clare,[^[2]] which she inherited on the death of her brother, the last Earl of Gloucester and Hereford, at Bannockburn. Her daughter, Elizabeth de Burgh, married her cousin Lionel, third son of Edward III., in whom the Earldom of Clare became the Dukedom of Clarence.

[2]. The petition of her “humble Chapeleyns Priour et chanoyns de sa priourie de Walsingham,” that she would not allow the Franciscan friars to settle in their neighbourhood, is communicated by the Rev. James Lee-Warner of Norwich to the Archæological Journal, vol. xxvi., p. 167 (1869). One reason they bring forward is that if the intruders were to propose an indemnity, it could only be “par serment, ou par gages, ou par plegges,” and that such security is of no avail, as the claims of the apostolic See are beyond computation.

In the Act of Resumption of 1 Henry VII., the King excludes the lands of his wife, his mother, Cecile, Duchess of York, and others. And in the Act of Restitution of Margaret, Countess of Richmond, “she was to hold her lands as any other sole person, not wife, may do,” though she was married at the time to the Earl of Derby.

Had the Cure of Churches.—The Abbesses of certain convents inherited the right of dominating the religious succession in some churches (see “Dyer on Grendon’s Case”), “divers churches were appropriated to prioresses and nunneries, whereof women were the governesses” (Callis, 250). In Colt and Glover v. Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield about a presentation to a church, the evidence shews that many women before the Reformation had the Cure of Churches; that an Archbishop could not legally appropriate a benefice with the Cure to a nunnery between 25 H. 8., and the dissolution of monasteries, though the Pope did.

“Mrs. Foulkes is the Lay-rector of Stanstey, and takes the tithes. She pays one shilling a year as quit-rent to the Lord of the Manor of Stanstey, County Denbigh” (Blount’s “Tenures”).

“That all appropriated churches shall have secular vicars” (see “Statutes,” vol. ii., Henry IV., c. 13).

They could be Peeresses in their own Right, and liable to Summons to Parliament in Person.—Sir Harris Nicolas says, “The usual form of a writ of summons to Parliament is common. There is one solitary instance, however, of an express limitation of the dignity to heirs male, i.e., in the Barony of Vesci”[^[3]] (“Historic Peerages and Baronies by Writ”). In Lady Spenser’s case (M. 11, Henry IV., f. 15) it was decided that it was clear law at all times that a Dame might be “Peer de Realm and entitled to all the privileges of such.”[^[4]] “All peers of the realm are looked on as the King’s Hereditary Councillors” (see Jacob’s “Law Dictionary”).

[3]. It is strange that this unique exception should have occurred in this barony, which had come through a woman, and had been held by a woman. Yvo de Vesci came over with William the Conqueror, and married Alda Tyson, daughter and heir of the Lord of Alnwick. Their daughter Beatrix was sole heir, and married Eustace of Knaresborough, their son taking his mother’s name of De Vesci.

[4]. See also “Statutes,” vol. ii., p. 321. Noble ladies shall be tried as peers of the realm are tried, when they are indicted of treason or felony, 20 Henry VI.

The opinions of Peeresses as representing property, were always considered in the councils of the King. In the early Norman days they sat among “The Magnates Regni” in right of their fees and communities. “In the Constitutions of Clarendon, Henry II., we find that ‘Universe Persona Regni, qui de Rege tenent in Capite’ were to attend the King’s Court and Council.” (Report of the Lord’s Committee on the Dignity of a Peer of the Realm.) The Abbesses, especially those of Shaftesbury, Barking, Wilton and St. Mary of Winchester, holding directly of the King, were summoned to Anglo-Norman Parliaments, as they had been summoned to Anglo-Saxon Witenagemots. Selden mentions their Summons of 5 Edward I. as being extant in his time; their Summons, twenty-nine years later, to the Parliament of 34 Edward I. is still extant, written in the same manner and terms as those of the other clergy. (Palgrave’s “Parliamentary Writs”; 34 Edward I.)

Other Peeresses were summoned according to their inheritance, which, we have seen, followed different lines from what it does to-day, or by proxy. By an exemption, intended as a privilege in these days of rough travelling and dangers, a peeress was permitted “to chuse and name her lawful proxy to appear for her ad colloquimn et tractatium coram rege on her behalf.”

Alicia de Bigod sent her two proxies to Parliament, 35 Edward I. (See Rot. Parl., 189.) Selden and Gurden mention “nine peeresses so summoned to the Parliament of 35 Edward III.” There were in reality ten. But there was not a Parliament proper that year, no writs having been issued for the Commons. It was rather a council of Peers and Peeresses, especially of those holding lands in Ireland, who were summoned to consult with the King what should be done in that country, and what aid they would grant the King. “Anno 35 Edward III., null summoniciones but summons to council 11 Comitissæ summonitæ at mittend. sede dagnos ad. colloq.” (Harl. MS., 6204).

“De consilio summonite pro Terras habentibus in Hibernia 35 Edward III., Maria Comitissa Norfolk, Elianora Comitissa Ormond, Anna le Despencer, Pha. Comitissa de la Marche, Johanna Fitz Walter, Agnes Comitissa Pembroch, Maria de Sco Paulo Comitissa Pembroch, Margeria de Ros, Matilda Comitissa Oxon, Katherina, Com. Atholl, Nulla summonitii Parliamenti” (Harl., 778). Dugdale gives the same names (“Summons to Parliament,” p. 263) as summoned by their faith and allegiance to send a deputy to consult with the King and his council at Westminster. “Consimiliæ Brevia diriguntur subscriptis, sub eadam Data, de essendo coram Rege and consulo suo ad dies subscriptos viz., Ad Quindenam Paschæ Mariæ Comitissa Norfolciæ, Alianora Comitissa de Ormond, Annæ le Despenser, Ad tres Septimanas Paschæ Philippæ Comitissæ de la March, Johannæ Fitz-Wauter, Agneti Comitissa Pembrochiæ, Mariæ de S. Paulo Comitissa Pembroc., Margeria de Roos, Matildæ Comitissæ Oxon, Katarinæ Comitissæ Atholl,” 35 Edward III., claus in dorso m. 36. These because they had property in Ireland.”

The proxies,[^[5]] however, do not imply that the ladies themselves would not have been admitted had they chosen to appear, as the special summons of Margaret, Countess Marshall, in 1 Richard II., clearly proves. Men also were allowed to send proxies. “The Bishop of Bath and Wells being infirm and old is allowed to send a proxy to Parliament.” “Ralph Botiller Miles, Lord of Sudeley, has the same permission” (6 Rot. Parl., app., ex Rot. Parl., 1 Edward IV., p. 1, m. [19] 227, a. b.).

[5]. Plowden notes on this, that the privilege of voting by proxy is a privilege of the House of Lords. (“Jura Anglorum,” p. 384.)

The husband’s succession to his wife’s titles was in order to grant her a permanent and interested “proxy.” In Dugdale’s “Summons to Parliament,” p. 576, there is “A catalogue of such noble persons as have had their summons to Parliament in right of their wives.”

This proves:—

(1) That a man not entitled to be summoned in his own right could be summoned in his wife’s right, but that in doing so he must take her name and title, whether higher or lower than his own: “George, son and heir to Thomas Stanley, Earl of Derby, having married Joane, the daughter and heir to John, Lord Strange of Knockin, had summons to the Parliament under the title of Lord Strange” (22 Edward IV., 1 Richard III., 3, 11, 12 Henry VII.).

(2) That a woman held her husband’s titles and possessions till her death by “the courtesy of England,” and could even transfer these while she was alive to another husband. “Ralphe de Monthermer, having married Joane of Acre, daughter of King Edward I. and widow of Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, possessing lands of great extent in her right, which belonged to these earldoms, had summons to Parliament from 28 Edward I. to 35 Edward I. by the title of Earl of Gloucester and Hertford. But after her death, which happened in the first year of King Edward the Second, he never had the title of Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, and was summoned to Parliament as a Baron only from the second to the eighteenth of that King’s reign” (Dugdale’s “Summons to Parliament”). There are twenty other cases of nobles summoned in the name of their wives. This, therefore, may be taken to illustrate the representative power in Peers. At the period of Ela of Salisbury the heiress of the Albemarles had conferred her title on three husbands, by the second of whom, William de Fortibus, she had an heir.

“Isobel of Gloucester likewise had two Earls” (Bowle’s “History of Lacock Abbey”).

Margaret de Newburgh, Countess of Warwick, married John Marshall of the Pembroke family, and he became Earl of Warwick, Jure Uxoris. She re-married John de Plessetis, who also bore her title. Her cousin, William Mauduit, succeeded her, and then Isabel, his sister, who married William de Beauchamp, making him Earl of Warwick. Their daughter, Anne de Beauchamp, succeeded as Countess of Warwick. (Burke’s “Extinct Peerages.”)

Dugdale also mentions “the names of such noble persons whose titles are either the names of such heirs female, from whom they be descended, or the names of such places whence these heirs female assumed their titles of dignity: of whose summons to Parliament by these titles the general index will show the respective times.” There are twenty-eight of them. The eldest sons of earls were sometimes summoned to Parliament by their father’s second title in their father’s lifetime, and these titles were often inherited from an ancestress.

That the right of Peeresses to be consulted in relation to aids or subsidies assessed on their property, was acknowledged, can be learned from an interesting document still preserved.

The Commons in 1404 voted a grant to the King (Rot. Parl., iii., 546). “La grante faite au Roy en Parlement. Vos pauvres Commons ... par assent des Seigneurs Spirituelx et Temporels ... grauntont à vous, en cest present parlement deux Quinzismes et deux Dismes pour estre levez des laie gentz, en manere accustume ... Et les Seigneurs Temporelx pur eux, et les Dames Temporelx, et toutz autres persones temporelx pour la depens suis dit grauntont ... Et purtant que cestes subside soit grantez à vous ... lesqueux die soient executy ne mys en œuvre avant la dit Quinzisme de Seint Hiller q’alors ceste graunt entier soit voide et tenue pur null ne levable, ne paiable en null manere ... Protestantz que ceste graunt en temps à venir ne soit pris en ensample de charger les ditz Seigneurs et Communes de Roialme ... sil ne soit par les voluntées des Seigneurs et Communes de vostre Roiaume et ces de nouvell graunt a faire en plein Parlement.”

This, therefore, affirmed not only the rights of the Ladies Temporal to be considered at the time, but the grand principle of non tallagio, non concedendo, to all time for all classes.

CHAPTER V.
COUNTY WOMEN.

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

The Statutory 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 meant freeman and freewoman. “Nullus liber homo. Albeit homo doth 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 freeholds under 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 service either 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 of gentlemen furnishing 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 foure dayewarcs of 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 councils were provided for. John promised to summon all classes to consult with him when it was necessary to assess aids and scutage. But John’s word was not worth much.

The first clear Summons 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 the men of 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 by the 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 regarding the 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, should not 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 is intended 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 prime raison 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 well suitors duly summoned, as others, shall attend to the election of the Knights of Parliament.... And after they be chosen, the names of the persons so chosen shall be written in an Indenture,[^[8]] under the seales of 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 were all signed 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 seem to 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]. See Petitions to Parliament (Hen. IV.), Burke’s “Extinct Peerages,” “Inquisitions Post-Mortem.” (Hen. V.)

I have not found any example of a lady “Knight of the Shire,” but neither have I found the shadow of a law against 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 were allowed to send a substitute, as women summoned to the County Courts were allowed to absent themselves, and allowed to 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 of students 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 its legality.[^[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]. See List 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 were two indentures 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 the sole inhabitant in 33 Henry VIII.; and by 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 Journal of date.) But the side-lights of the story are interesting. In the first place, the Commons Journal has a misprint of an “s” in two cases. Roger Copley died in 1550-1; and from the manuscript copies of the Commons Journal we may see that Mrs. Copley is entered as returning alone in 1 and 2 Philip and Mary, and 2 and 3 Philip and Mary. (See Lansdowne 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 own seal was 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 committed to 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; but after 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 from recusancy, 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 “Inquisition Post-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 been nominated 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 Busshop had 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 being freeholders. 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). (See also 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.

CHAPTER VI.
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.)

[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]]

[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.”