path: root/67936-0.txt

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 67936 ***

               STUDIES IN ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE

                               Edited by
  The Director of the London School of Economics and Political Science

        No. 56 in the series of Monographs by writers connected
       With the London School of Economics and Political Science

                  ------------------------------------




                       THE WORKING LIFE OF WOMEN

                                 IN THE

                          SEVENTEENTH CENTURY




------------------------------------------------------------------------




                         WORKING LIFE OF WOMEN

                                 IN THE

                          SEVENTEENTH CENTURY




                                   BY

                              ALICE CLARK

 Shaw Research Student of the London School of Economics and Political
                                Science




                                LONDON:
                     GEORGE ROUTLEDGE & SONS, LTD.
                     NEW YORK : E. P. DUTTON & CO.

                                  1919


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                               DEDICATED
                                 TO MY
                           FATHER AND MOTHER




------------------------------------------------------------------------




                                PREFACE


THE investigation, whose conclusions are partly described in the
following treatise, was undertaken with a view to discovering the actual
circumstances of women’s lives in the Seventeenth Century.

It is perhaps impossible to divest historical enquiry from all personal
bias, but in this case the bias has simply consisted in a conviction
that the conditions under which the obscure mass of women live and
fulfil their duties as human beings, have a vital influence upon the
destinies of the human race, and that a little knowledge of what these
conditions have actually been in the past will be of more value to the
sociologist than many volumes of carefully elaborated theory based on
abstract ideas.

The theories with which I began this work of investigation as to the
position occupied by women in a former social organisation have been
abandoned, and have been replaced by others, which though still only
held tentatively have at least the merit of resting solely on
ascertained fact. If these theories should in turn have to be discarded
when a deeper understanding of history becomes possible, yet the picture
of human life presented in the following pages will not entirely lose
its value.

The picture cannot pretend to be complete. The Seventeenth Century
provides such a wealth of historical material that only a small fraction
could be examined, and though the selection has been as representative
as possible, much that is of the greatest importance from the point of
view from which the enquiry has been made, is not yet available. Many
records of Gilds, Companies, Quarter Sessions and Boroughs which must be
studied _in extenso_ before a just idea can be formed of women’s
position, have up to the present been published only in an abbreviated
form, if at all.

Another difficulty has been the absence of knowledge regarding women’s
position in the years preceding the Seventeenth Century. This want has
to some extent been supplied through the kindness of Miss Eileen Power,
who has permitted me to use some of the material collected by her on
this subject, but not yet published.

The Seventeenth Century itself forms a sort of watershed between two
very widely differing eras in the history of Englishwomen—the
Elizabethan and the Eighteenth Century. Thus characteristics of both can
be studied in the women who move through its varied scenes, either in
the pages of dramatists or as revealed by domestic papers or in more
public records.

Only one aspect of their lives has been described in the present volume,
namely their place in the economic organisation of society. This has its
own special bearing on the industrial problems of modern times; but Life
is a whole and cannot safely be separated into watertight departments.

The productive activity which is here described was not the work of
women who were separated from the companionship of married life and the
joys and responsibilities of motherhood. These aspects of their life
have not been forgotten, and will, I hope, be dealt with in a later
volume, along with the whole question of girls’ education.

How inseparably intertwined are these different threads of life will be
shown by the fact that apprenticeship and service are left to be dealt
with in the later volume as links in the educational chain, although in
many respects they were essential features of women’s economic position.

The conception of the sociological importance of past economic
conditions for women I owe to Olive Schreiner, whose epoch-making book
“Women and Labour” first drew the attention of many workers in the
emancipation of women to the difference between reality and the commonly
received generalisations as to women’s productive capacity. From my
friend, Dr. K. A. Gerlach came the suggestion that I, myself, should
attempt to supply further evidence along the lines so imaginatively
outlined by Mrs. Schreiner. To Dr. Lilian Knowles I am indebted for the
unwearied patience with which she has watched and directed my
researches, and to Mrs. Bernard Shaw for the generous scholarship with
which she assists those who wish to devote themselves to the
investigation of women’s historic past.

I should like here to express the deep sense of gratitude which I feel
to those who have helped my work in these different ways, and to Mrs.
George, whose understanding of Seventeenth Century conditions has
rendered the material she collected for me particularly valuable. My
thanks are also due to many other friends whose sympathy and interest
have played a larger part than they know in the production of this book.

    _Mill Field,_

        _Street, Somerset._


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                                CONTENTS


                    I. INTRODUCTORY                  1

                   II. CAPITALISTS                  14

                  III. AGRICULTURE                  42

                   IV. TEXTILES                     93

                    V. CRAFTS AND TRADES           150

                   VI. PROFESSIONS                 236

                  VII. CONCLUSION                  290

                       LIST OF AUTHORITIES         309

                       LIST OF WAGES ASSESSMENTS   320

                       INDEX                       322


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                               CHAPTER I

                              INTRODUCTORY

EFFECT of environment on Women’s development. Possible reaction on men’s
   development—Importance of seventeenth century in historic development
   of English women—Influence of economic position—Division of Women’s
   productive powers into Domestic, Industrial, and Professional—Three
   systems of Industrial Organisation—Domestic Industry—Family
   Industry—Capitalistic Industry or Industrialism—Definition of these
   terms—Historic sequence. Effect of Industrial Revolution on Women—in
   capitalistic class—in agriculture—in textile industries—in crafts and
   other trades. Transference of productive industry from married women
   to unmarried women—with consequent increase of economic independence
   for the latter and its loss for the former. Similar evolution in
   professions shows this was not due wholly to effect of capitalism.


HITHERTO the historian has paid little attention to the circumstances of
women’s lives, for women have been regarded as a static factor in social
developments, a factor which, remaining itself essentially the same,
might be expected to exercise a constant and unvarying influence on
Society.

This assumption has however no basis in fact, for the most superficial
consideration will show how profoundly women can be changed by their
environment. Not only do the women of the same race exhibit great
differences from time to time in regard to the complex social instincts
and virtues, but even their more elemental sexual and maternal instincts
are subject to modification. While in extreme cases the sexual impulses
are liable to perversion, it sometimes happens that the maternal
instinct disappears altogether, and women neglect or, like a tigress in
captivity, may even destroy their young.

These variations deserve the most careful examination, for, owing to the
indissoluble bond uniting the sexes, and the emotional power which women
exert over men, the character of men’s development is determined in some
sort by the development which is achieved by women. In a society where
women are highly developed men’s characters are insensibly modified by
association with them, and in a society where women are secluded and
immature, men lack that stimulus which can only be supplied by the other
sex.

It may be true, as Goethe said, that the eternal feminine leadeth us
onwards, but whether this be upwards or downwards depends upon the
characters of individual women.

Owing to the subtle reactions which exist between men and women and
between the individual and the social organism in which he or she lives,
accurate and detailed knowledge of the historic circumstances of human
life becomes essential for the sciences of Sociology and Psychology. The
investigation, of which the results are described in the following
chapters, was undertaken with the object of discovering these
circumstances as regards women in a limited field and during a short
period.

The economic field has been chosen because, though woman no more than
man lives by bread alone, yet without bread assuredly she cannot live at
all, and without an abundant supply of it she cannot worthily perform
her maternal and spiritual functions. These latter are therefore
dependent upon the source of her food supply. The economic position has
a further attraction to the student because it rests upon facts which
can be elucidated with some degree of certainty. When these have once
been made clear the way will have been prepared for the consideration of
other aspects of women’s lives.

The period under review, namely the seventeenth century, forms an
important crisis in the historic development of Englishwomen. The gulf
which separates the women of the Restoration period from those of the
Elizabethan era can be perceived by the most casual reader of
contemporary drama. To the objection that the heroines of Shakespeare on
the one hand and of Congreve and Wycherley on the other are creations of
the imagination, it must be replied that the dramatic poet can only
present life as he knows it. It was part of Shakespeare’s good fortune
to live in a period so rich and vivid in its social life as was the
reign of Elizabeth; and the objective character of his portraits can be
proved by the study of contemporary letters and domestic papers.
Similarly the characters of the Restoration ladies described in the
diary of Samuel Pepys and by other writers, confirm the picture of
Society drawn by Congreve.

So profound a change occurring in the character of women indicates the
seventeenth century as a period of special interest for social
investigation, and consequently the economic position has been
approached less from its direct effect upon the production of wealth
than from its influence upon women’s development. The mechanical aspect
has in fact only been touched incidentally; an attempt being rather made
to discover how far the extent of women’s productive capacity and the
conditions under which it was exercised affected their maternal
functions and reacted upon their social influence both within and beyond
the limits of the family.

Generalisations are of little service for this purpose. Spinoza has said
that the objects of God’s knowledge are not universals but particulars,
and it is in harmony with this idea that the following chapters consist
chiefly of the record of small details in individual lives which
indicate the actual relation of women to business and production,
whether on a large scale or a small. The pictures given are widely
representative, including not only the women of the upper classes, but
still more important, those of the “common people,” the husbandmen and
tradesmen who formed the backbone of the English people, and also those
of the tragic class of wage-earners, who, though comparatively few in
numbers, already constituted a serious problem in the seventeenth
century.

In the course of the investigation, comparison is frequently made with
the economic position of mediæval women on the one hand, and with
women’s position under modern industrial conditions, on the other. It
must be admitted, however, that comparisons with the middle ages rest
chiefly on conjecture.

Owing to the greater complexity of a woman’s life her productive
capacity must be classified on different lines from those which are
generally followed in dealing with the economic life of men.

For the purposes of this essay, the highest, most intense forms to which
women’s productive energy is directed have been excluded; that is to
say, the spiritual creation of the home and the physical creation of the
child. Though essentially productive, such achievements of creative
power transcend the limitations of economics and one instinctively feels
that there would be something almost degrading in any attempt to weigh
them in the balance with productions that are bought and sold in the
market or even with professional services. Nevertheless it must never be
forgotten that the productive energy which is described in the ensuing
chapters was in no sense alternative to the exercise of these higher
forms of creative power but was employed simultaneously with them. It
may be suspected that the influences of home life were stronger in the
social life of the seventeenth century than they are in modern England,
and certainly the birth-rate was much higher in every class of the
community except perhaps the very poorest.

But, leaving these two forms of creative power aside, there remains
another special factor complicating women’s economic position, namely,
the extent of her production for domestic purposes—as opposed to
industrial and professional purposes. The domestic category includes all
goods and services, either material or spiritual, which are produced
solely for the benefit of the family, while the industrial and
professional are those which are produced either for sale or exchange.

In modern life the majority of Englishwomen devote the greater part of
their lives to domestic occupations, while men are freed from domestic
occupations of any sort, being generally engaged in industrial or
professional pursuits and spending their leisure over public services or
personal pleasure and amusement.

Under modern conditions the ordinary domestic occupations of
Englishwomen consist in tending babies and young children, either as
mothers or servants, in preparing household meals, and in keeping the
house clean, while laundry work, preserving fruit, and the making of
children’s clothes are still often included in the domestic category. In
the seventeenth century it embraced a much wider range of production;
for brewing, dairy-work, the care of poultry and pigs, the production of
vegetables and fruit, spinning flax and wool, nursing and doctoring, all
formed part of domestic industry. Therefore the part which women played
in industrial and professional life was in addition to a much greater
productive activity in the domestic sphere than is required of them
under modern conditions.

On the other hand it may be urged that, if women were upon the whole
more actively engaged in industrial work during the seventeenth century
than they were in the first decade of the twentieth century, men were
much more occupied with domestic affairs then than they are now. Men in
all classes gave time and care to the education of their children, and
the young unmarried men who generally occupied positions as apprentices
and servants were partly employed over domestic work. Therefore, though
now it is taken for granted that domestic work will be done by women, a
considerable proportion of it in former days fell to the share of men.

These circumstances have led to a different use of terms in this essay
from that which has generally been adopted; a difference rendered
necessary from the fact that other writers on industrial evolution have
considered it only from the man’s point of view, whereas this
investigation is concerned primarily with its effect upon the position
of women.

To facilitate the enquiry, organisation for production is divided into
three types:

    (a) Domestic Industry.
    (b) Family Industry.
    (c) Capitalistic Industry, or Industrialism.

No hard-and-fast line exists in practice between these three systems,
which merge imperceptibly into one another. In the seventeenth century
all three existed side by side, often obtaining at the same time in the
same industries, but the underlying principles are quite distinct and
may be defined as follows:

(a) _Domestic Industry_ is the form of production in which the goods
produced are for the exclusive use of the family and are not therefore
subject to an exchange or money value.

(b) _Family Industry_ is the form in which the family becomes the unit
for the production of goods to be sold or exchanged.

The family consisted of father, mother, children, household servants and
apprentices; the apprentices and servants being children and young
people of both sexes who earned their keep and in the latter case a
nominal wage, but who did not expect to remain permanently as
wage-earners, hoping on the contrary in due course to marry and set up
in business on their own account. The profits of family industry
belonged to the family and not to individual members of it. During his
lifetime they were vested in the father who was regarded as the head of
the family; he was expected to provide from them marriage portions for
his children as they reached maturity, and on his death the mother
succeeded to his position as head of the family, his right of bestowal
by will being strictly limited by custom and public opinion.

Two features are the main characteristics of Family Industry in its
perfect form;—first, the unity of capital and labour, for the family,
whether that of a farmer or tradesman, owned stock and tools and
themselves contributed the labour: second, the situation of the workshop
within the precincts of the home.

These two conditions were rarely completely fulfilled in the seventeenth
century, for the richer farmers and tradesmen often employed permanent
wage-earners in addition to the members of their family, and in other
cases craftsmen no longer owned their stock, but made goods to the order
of the capitalist who supplied them with the necessary material.
Nevertheless, the character of Family Industry was retained as long as
father, mother, and children worked together, and the money earned was
regarded as belonging to the family, not to the individual members of
it.

From the point of view of the economic position of women a system can be
classed as family industry while the father works at home, but when he
leaves home to work on the capitalist’s premises the last vestige of
family industry disappears and industrialism takes its place.

(c) _Capitalistic Industry_, or _Industrialism_, is the system by which
production is controlled by the owners of capital, and the labourers or
producers, men, women and children receive individual wages.[1]

Footnote 1:

  The term “individual wages” is used here to denote wages paid either
  to men or women as individuals, and regarded as belonging to the
  individual person, while “family wages” are those which cover the
  services of the whole family and belong to the family as a whole. This
  definition differs from the common use of the terms, but is necessary
  for the explanation of some important points. In ordinary conversation
  “individual wages” indicate those which maintain an individual only,
  while “family wages” are those upon which a family lives. This does
  not imply a real difference in the wages, as the same amount of money
  can be used to support one individual in comfort or a family in
  penury. In modern times the law recognises a theoretic obligation on
  the part of a man to support his children, but has no power to divert
  his wages to that purpose. His wages are in fact recognised as his
  individual property. The position of the family was very different in
  the seventeenth century.

Domestic and family industry existed side by side during the middle
ages; for example, brewing, baking, spinning, cheese and butter making
were conducted both as domestic arts and for industrial purposes. Both
were gradually supplanted by capitalistic industry, the germ of which
was apparently introduced about the thirteenth century, and gradually
developed strength for a more rapid advance in the seventeenth century.

While the development of capitalistic industry will always be one of the
most interesting subjects for the student of political economy, its
effect upon the position and capacity of women becomes of paramount
importance to the sociologist.

This effect must be considered from three stand-points:—

    (1) Does the capitalistic organisation of industry increase or
    diminish women’s productive capacity?

    (2) Does it make them more or less successful in their special
    function of motherhood?

    (3) Does it strengthen or weaken their influence over morals and
    their position in the general organisation of human society?

These three questions were not asked by the men who were actors in the
Industrial Revolution, and apparently their importance has hitherto
escaped the notice of those who have written chapters of its history.

Mankind, lulled by its faith in the “eternal feminine” has reposed in
the belief that women remain the same, however completely their
environment may alter, and having once named a place “the home” thinks
it makes no difference whether it consists of a workshop or a boudoir.
But the effect of the Industrial Revolution on home life, and through
that upon the development and characters of women and upon their
productive capacity, deeply concerns the sociologist, for the increased
productive capacity of mankind may be dearly bought by the
disintegration of social organisation and a lowering of women’s capacity
for motherhood.

The succeeding chapters will show how the spread of capitalism affected
the productive capacity of women:—

(1) In the capitalist class where the energy and hardiness of
Elizabethan ladies gave way before the idleness and pleasure which
characterised the Restoration period.

(2) In agriculture, where the wives of the richer yeomen were
withdrawing from farm work and where there already existed a
considerable number of labourers dependent entirely on wages, whose
wives having no gardens or pastures were unable to supply the families’
food according to old custom. The wages of such women were too irregular
and too low to maintain them and their children in a state of
efficiency, and through semi-starvation their productive powers and
their capacity for motherhood were greatly reduced.

(3) In the Textile Trades where the demand for thread and yarn which
could only be produced by women and children was expanding. The
convenience of spinning as an employment for odd minutes and the
mechanical character of its movements which made no great tax on eye or
brain, rendered it the most adaptable of all domestic arts to the
necessities of the mother. Spinning became the chief resource for the
married women who were losing their hold on other industries, but its
return in money value was too low to render them independent of other
means of support. There is little evidence to suggest that women shared
in the capitalistic enterprises of the clothiers during this period, and
they had lost their earlier position as monopolists of the silk trade.

(4) In other crafts and trades where a tendency can be traced for women
to withdraw from business as this developed on capitalistic lines. The
history of the gilds shows a progressive weakening of their positions in
these associations, though the corporations of the seventeenth century
still regarded the wife as her husband’s partner. In these corporations
the effect of capitalism on the industrial position of the wage-earner’s
wife becomes visible.

Under family industry the wife of every master craftsman became free of
his gild and could share his work. But as the crafts became capitalised
many journeymen never qualified as masters, remaining in the outer
courts of the companies all their lives, and actually forming separate
organisations to protect their interests against their masters and to
secure a privileged position for themselves by restricting the number of
apprentices. As the journeymen worked on their masters’ premises it
naturally followed that their wives were not associated with them in
their work, and that apprenticeship became the only entrance to their
trade.

Though no written rules existed confining apprenticeship to the male
sex, girls were seldom if ever admitted as apprentices in the gild
trades, and therefore women were excluded from the ranks of journeymen.
As the journeyman’s wife could not work at her husband’s trade, she
must, if need be, find employment for herself as an individual. In some
cases the journeyman’s organisations were powerful enough to keep wages
on a level which sufficed for the maintenance of their families; then
the wife became completely dependent on her husband, sinking to the
position of his unpaid domestic servant.

In the Retail and Provision Trades which in some respects were
peculiarly favourable for women, they experienced many difficulties
owing to the restrictive rules of companies and corporations; but where
a man was engaged in this class of business, his wife shared his
labours, and on his death generally retained the direction of the
business as his widow.

The history of brewing is one of the most curious examples of the effect
of capitalism on women’s position in industry, for as the term
“brewster” shows, originally it was a woman’s trade but with the
development of Capitalism it passed completely from the hands of women
to those of men.

The tendency of capitalism to lessen the relative productive capacity of
women might be overlooked if our understanding of the process was
limited to the changes which had actually taken place by the end of the
seventeenth century. No doubt the majority of the population at that
time was still living under conditions governed by the traditions and
habits formed during the period of Family and Domestic Industry. But the
contrast which the life described in the following chapters presents to
the life of women under modern conditions will be evident even to
readers who have not closely followed the later historical developments
of Capitalism.

In estimating the influence of economic changes on the position of women
it must be remembered that Capitalism has not merely replaced Family
Industry but has been equally destructive of Domestic Industry.

One unexpected effect has been the reversal of the parts which married
and unmarried women play in productive enterprise. In the earlier stages
of economic evolution that which we now call domestic work, _viz._,
cooking, cleaning, mending, tending of children, etc., was performed by
unmarried girls under the direction of the housewife, who was thus
enabled to take an important position in the family industry. Under
modern conditions this domestic work falls upon the mothers, who remain
at home while the unmarried girls go out to take their place in
industrial or professional life. The young girls in modern life have
secured a position of economic independence, while the mothers remain in
a state of dependence and subordination—an order of things which would
have greatly astonished our ancestors.

In the seventeenth century the idea is seldom encountered that a man
supports his wife; husband and wife were then mutually dependent and
together supported their children. At the back of people’s minds an
instinctive feeling prevailed that the father furnished rent, shelter,
and protection while the mother provided food; an instinct surviving
from a remote past when the villein owed to his lord the labour of three
or four days per week throughout the year in addition to the boon work
at harvest or any other time when labour was most wanted for his own
crops; surely then it was largely the labour of the mother and the
children which won the family’s food from the yard-land.

The reality of the change which has been effected in the position of
wife and mother is shown by a letter to _The Gentleman’s Magazine_ in
1834 criticising proposed alterations in the Poor Law. The writer
defends the system then in use of giving allowances from the rates to
labourers according to the number of their children. He says that the
people who animadvert on the allowance system “never observe the cause
from which it proceeds. There are, we will say, twenty able single
labourers in a parish; twenty equally able married, with large families.
One class wants 12s. a week, one 20s. The farmer, who has his choice of
course takes the single.” The allowance system equalises the position of
married and single. Formerly this inequality did not exist “_because it
was of no importance to the farmer whether he employed the single or
married labourer, inasmuch as the labourer’s wife and family could
provide for themselves_. They are now dependent on the man’s labour, or
nearly so; except in particular cases, as when women go out to wash, to
nurse, or take in needlework, and so on. The machinery and manufactures
have destroyed cottage labour—spinning, the only resource formerly of
the female poor, who thus were earning their bread at home, while their
fathers and husbands were earning theirs abroad.... In agricultural
parishes the men, the labourers, are not too numerous or more than are
wanted; but the families hang as a dead weight upon the rates for want
of employment. The girls are now not brought up to _spin_—none of them
know the art. They all handle when required, the hoe, and their business
is weeding. Our partial remedy for this great and growing evil is
allotments of land, which are to afford the occupation that the distaff
formerly did; and so the wife and daughters can be cultivating small
portions of ground and raising potatoes and esculents, etc., the while
the labourer is at his work.”[2]

Footnote 2:

  _Gentleman’s Magazine_, 1834, Vol. I., p. 531. _A Letter to Lord
  Althorp on the Poor Laws_, by Equitas.

These far-reaching changes coincided with the triumph of capitalistic
organisation but they may not have been a necessary consequence of that
triumph. They may have arisen from some deep-lying cause, some tendency
in human evolution which was merely hastened by the economic cataclysm.

The fact that the evolution of women’s position in the professions
followed a course closely resembling that which was taking place in
industry suggests the existence of an ultimate cause influencing the
direction in each case.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                               CHAPTER II

                              CAPITALISTS

Term includes aristocracy and _nouveau riche_. Tendency of these two
   classes to approximate in manners—Activity of aristocratic women with
   affairs of household, estate and nation—Zeal for patents and
   monopolies—Money lenders—Shipping trade—Contractors—Joan Dant—Dorothy
   Petty—Association of wives in husbands’ businesses—Decrease of
   women’s business activity in upper classes—Contrast of Dutch
   women—Growing idleness of gentlewomen.


PERHAPS it is impossible to say what exactly constitutes a capitalist,
and no attempt will be made to define the term, which is used here to
include the aristocracy who had long been accustomed to the control of
wealth, and also those families whose wealth had been newly acquired
through trade or commerce. The second group conforms more nearly to the
ideas generally understood by the term capitalist; but in English
society the two groups are closely related.

The first group naturally represents the older traditional relation of
women to affairs in the upper classes, while the second responded more
quickly to the new spirit which was being manifested in English life. No
rigid line of demarcation existed between them, because while the
younger sons of the gentry engaged in trade, the daughters of wealthy
tradesmen were eagerly sought as brides by an impoverished aristocracy.
Therefore the manners and customs of the two groups gradually
approximated to each other.

At the beginning of the seventeenth century it was usual for the women
of the aristocracy to be very busy with affairs—affairs which concerned
their household, their estates and even the Government.

Thus Lady Barrymore writes she is “a cuntry lady living in Ireland and
convercing with none but masons and carpendors, for I am now finishing a
house, so that if my govenour [Sir Edmund Verney] please to build a new
house, that may be well seated and have a good prospect, I will give him
my best advice gratis.”[3]

Footnote 3:

  Verney Family, _Memoirs during the Civil War_, Vol. I., p. 210.

Lady Gardiner’s husband apologises for her not writing personally to Sir
Ralph Verney, she “being almost melted with the double heat of the
weather and her hotter employment, because the fruit is suddenly ripe
and she is so busy preserving.”[4] Their household consisted of thirty
persons.

Footnote 4:

  _Ibid._, Vol. I., p. 12.

Among the nobility the management of the estate was often left for
months in the wife’s care while the husband was detained at Court for
business or pleasure. It was during her husband’s absence that
Brilliana, Lady Harley defended Brampton Castle from an attack by the
Royalist forces who laid siege to it for six weeks, when her defence
became famous for its determination and success. Her difficulties in
estate management are described in letters to her son:

“You know how your fathers biusnes is neglected; and alas! it is not
speaking will sarue turne, wheare theare is not abilltise to doo other
ways; thearefore I could wisch, that your father had one of more
vnderstanding to intrust, to looke to, if his rents are not payed, and I
thinke it will be so. I could desire, if your father thought well of it,
that Mr. Tomas Moore weare intrusted with it; he knows your fathers
estate, and is an honnest man, and not giuen to great expences, and
thearefore I thinke he would goo the most frugally way. I knowe it would
be some charges to haue him and his wife in the howes; but I thinke it
would quite the chargess. I should be loth to haue a stranger, nowe your
father is away.”[5]

Footnote 5:

  Harley, _Letters of Brilliana, the Lady_, pp. 146-7, 1641.

“I loos the comfort of your fathers company, and am in but littell
safety, but that my trust is in God; and what is doun to your fathers
estate pleases him not, so that I wisch meselfe, with all my hart, at
Loundoun, and then your father might be a wittnes of what is spent; but
if your father thinke it beest for me to be in the cuntry, I am every
well pleased with what he shall thinke best.”[6]

Footnote 6:

  Harley, _Letters of Brilliana, The Lady_, p. 167, 1642.

One gathers from these letters that in spite of her devotion and ability
and his constant absence Sir E. Harley never gave his wife full control
of the estate, and was always more ready to censure than to praise her
arrangements; but other men who were immersed in public matters
thankfully placed the whole burthen of family affairs in the capable
hands of their wives.

Lady Murray wrote of her father, Sir George Baillie, “He had no ambition
but to be free of debt; yet so great trust and confidence did he put in
my mother, and so absolutely free of all jealousy and suspicion, that he
left the management of his affairs entirely to her, without scarce
asking a question about them; except sometimes would say to her, ‘Is my
debt paid yet?’ though often did she apply to him for direction and
advice; since he knew enough of the law for the management of his own
affairs, when he would take the time or trouble or to prevent his being
imposed upon by others.”[7]

Footnote 7:

  Murray (Lady), _Memoirs of Lady Grisell Baillie_, p. 13.

Mrs. Alice Thornton wrote of her mother:

“Nor was she awanting to make a fare greatter improvement [than her
dowery of £2000] of my father’s estate through her wise and prudential
government of his family, and by her care was a meanes to give
opportunity of increasing his patrimony.”[8]

Footnote 8:

  Thornton (Mrs. Alice), _Autobiography_, p. 101, (Surtees’ Society Vol.
  lxii.

In addition to the Household Accounts those of the whole of Judge Fell’s
estate at Swarthmore, Lancashire, were kept by his daughter Sarah. The
following entries show that the family affairs included a farm, a forge,
mines, some interest in shipping and something of the nature of a Bank.

July 11, 1676, is entered: “To mᵒ Recᵈ. of Tho: Greaves wife wᶜʰ. I am
to returne to London foʳ her, & is to bee pᵈ, to her sonn Jⁿᵒ. ffellꝑ
Waltʳ. miers in London, 001. 00. 00.”

Jan., 14, 1676-7, by money lent Wiƚƚm Wilson our forge Clarke till hee
gett money in for Ireon sold 10. 0. 0.

Aug. ye 9º 1677 by mᵒ “in expence at adgarley when wee went to chuse
oare to send father 000. 00. 04.”

Other payments are entered for horses to “lead oare.”[9] &c., &c.

Footnote 9:

  Fell (Sarah), _Household Account Book_.

In addition to those of her family Sarah Fell kept the accounts for the
local “Monthly Meeting” of the Society of Friends, making the payments
on its behalf to various poor Friends.

One of the sisters after her marriage embarked upon speculations in
salt; of her, another sister, Margaret Rous, writes to their mother:
“She kept me in the dark and had not you wrote me them few words about
her I had not known she had been so bad. But I had a fear before how she
would prove if I should meddle of her, and since I know her mind wrote
to her, being she was so wickedly bent and resolved in her mind, I would
not meddle of her but leave her to her husbands relations, and her salt
concerns, since which I have heard nothing from her. But I understand by
others she is still in the salt business. I know not what it will
benefit her but she spends her time about it. I have left her at
present.”[10]

Footnote 10:

  Crosfield (H. G.), _Life of Margaret Fox, of Swarthmore Hall_, p. 232,
  1699.

A granddaughter of Oliver Cromwell, the wife of Thos. Bendish, was also
interested in the salt business, having property in salt works at
Yarmouth in the management of which she was actively concerned. It was
said of her that “Her courage and presence of mind were remarkable in
one of her sex, ... she would sometimes, after a hard day of drudgery go
to the assembly at Yarmouth, and appear one of the most brilliant
there.”[11]

Footnote 11:

  Costello, _Eminent Englishwomen_, Vol. III, p. 55.

Initiative and enterprise were shown by Lady Falkland during her
husband’s term of office in Ireland whither she accompanied him.

“The desire of the benefit and commodity of that nation set her upon a
great design: it was to bring up the use of all trades in that country,
which is fain to be beholden to others for the smallest commodities; to
this end she procured some of each kind to come from those other places
where those trades are exercised, as several sorts of linen and woollen
weavers, dyers, all sorts of spinners and knitters, hatters,
lace-makers, and many other trades at the very beginning.”

After a description of her methods for instruction in these arts the
biographer continues: “She brought it to that pass that they there made
broad-cloth so fine ... that her Lord being Deputy wore it. Yet it came
to nothing; which she imputed to a judgment of God on her, because the
overseers made all those poor children go to church; ... and that
therefore her business did not succeed. But others thought it rather
that she was better at contriving than executing, and that too many
things were undertaken at the very first; and that she was fain (having
little choice) to employ either those that had little skill in the
matters they dealt in, or less honesty; and so she was extremely cozened
... but chiefly the ill order she took for paying money in this ...
having the worst memory in such things in the world ... and never
keeping any account of what she did, she was most subject to pay the
same things often (as she hath had it confessed to her by some that they
have in a small matter made her pay them the same thing five times in
five days).”[12]

Footnote 12:

  _Falkland, (The Lady), Her Life_, pp. 18-20.

Lady Falkland received small sympathy from her husband in her dealings
with affairs—and though her methods may have been exasperating, their
unfortunate differences were not wholly due to her temperament. He had
married her for her fortune and when this was settled on their son and
not placed in his control, his disappointment was so great that his
affections were alienated from her.

Of her efforts to further his interests Lord Falkland wrote to Lord
Conway:

    “My very good Lord,

          By all my wife’s letters I understand my obligations to
    your Lordship to be very many; and she takes upon her to have
    received so manifold and noble demonstrations of your favour to
    herself, that she begins to conceive herself some able body in
    court, by your countenance to do me courtesies, if she had the
    wit as she hath the will. She makes it appear she hath done me
    some good offices in removing some infusions which my great
    adversary here (Loftus) hath made unto you ... it was high time;
    for many evil consequences of the contrary have befallen me
    since that infusion was first made, which I fear will not be
    removed in haste; and must thank her much for her careful pains
    in it, though it was but an act of duty in her to see me righted
    when she knew me wronged ... and beseech your Lordship still to
    continue that favour to us both;—to her, as well in giving her
    good counsel as good countenance within a new world and court,
    at such a distance from her husband a poor weak woman stands in
    the greatest need of to dispatch her suits,” ... etc., etc.

        “Dublyn Castle this 26th of July, 1625.”[13]

Footnote 13:

      _Falkland (The Lady), Her Life_, pp. 131-132.

Later he continues in the same strain:

    “... I am glad your Lordship doth approve my wife’s good
    affection to her husband, which was a point I never doubted, but
    for her abilities in agency of affairs, as I was never taken
    with opinion of them, so I was never desirous to employ them if
    she had them, for I conceive women to be no fit solicitors of
    state affairs for though it sometimes happen that they have good
    wits, it then commonly falls out that they have over-busy
    natures withal. For my part I should take much more comfort to
    hear that she were quietly retired to her mother’s in the
    country, than that she had obtained a great suit in the
    court.”[14]

Footnote 14:

      _Ibid._, pp. 132-3.

The sentiments expressed by Lord Falkland were not characteristic of his
time, when husbands were generally thankful to avail themselves of their
wives’ services in such matters.

While Sir Ralph Verney was exiled in France, he proposed that his wife
should return to England to attend to some urgent business. His friend,
Dr. Denton replied to the suggestion:

    “... not to touch upon inconveniences of yʳ comminge, women were
    never soe usefull as now, and though yᵘ should be my agent and
    sollicitour of all the men I knowe (and therefore much more to
    be preferred in yʳ own cause) yett I am confident if yᵘ were
    here, yᵘ would doe as our sages doe, instruct yʳ wife, and leave
    her to act it wᵗʰ committees, their sexe entitles them to many
    priviledges and we find the comfort of them more now than
    ever.”[15]

Footnote 15:

      _Verney Family_, Vol. II., p. 240, 646.

There are innumerable accounts in contemporary letters and papers of the
brave and often successful efforts of women to stem the flood of
misfortune which threatened ruin to their families.

Katharine Lady Bland treated with Captain Hotham in 1642 on behalf of
Lord Savile “and agreed with him for the preservation of my lords estate
and protection of his person for £1,000,” £320 of which had already been
taken “from Lord Savile’s trunk at Kirkstall Abbey ... and the Captain
... promised to procure a protection from the parliament ... for his
lordships person and estate.”[16]

Footnote 16:

  _Calendar State Papers_, Domestic, April 8, 1646.

Lady Mary Heveningham, through her efforts restored the estate to the
family after her husband had been convicted of high treason at the
Restoration.[17]

Footnote 17:

  _Hunter (Joseph), History and Topography of Ketteringham_, p. 46.

Of Mrs. Muriel Lyttelton, the daughter of Lord Chancellor Bromley, it
was said that she “may be called the second founder of the family, as
she begged the estate of King James when it was forfeited and lived a
pattern of a good wife, affectionate widow, and careful parent for
thirty years, with the utmost prudence and economy at Hagley to retrieve
the estate and pay off the debts; the education of her children in
virtue and the protestant religion being her principal employ. Her
husband, Mr. John Lyttelton, a zealous papist, was condemned, and his
estates forfeited, for being concern’d in Essex’s plot.”[18]

Footnote 18:

  Nash, _Hist. and Antiq. of Worcester_, Vol. I., p. 492. It appears by
  depositions in the Court of Chancery that she paid off £25,000 which
  was charged upon the estate, and only sold lands to the value of
  £8,854, _Ibid._, p. 496.

Charles Parker confessed, “Certainly I had starved had I not left all to
my wife to manage, who gets something by living there and haunting some
of her kindred and what wayes I know not but I am sure such as noe way
entangle me in conscience or loyalty nor hinder me from serving the
King.”[19]

Footnote 19:

  _Nicholas Papers_, Vol. I., p. 97. Charles Parker to Lord Hatton.

Lady Fanshawe said her husband “thought it conveniente to send me into
England again, ... there to try what sums I could raise, both for his
subsistence abroad and mine at home.... I ... embarked myself in a hoy
for Dover, with Mrs. Waller, and my sister Margaret Harrison and my
little girl Nan, ... I had ... the good fortune as I then thought it, to
sell £300 a year to him that is now Judge Archer in Essex, for which he
gave me £4,000 which at that time I thought a vast sum; ... five hundred
pounds I carried to my husband, the rest I left in my father’s agent’s
hands to be returned as we needed it.”[20]

Footnote 20:

  _Fanshawe (Lady), Memoirs of_, pp. 80-81.

The Marquis of Ormonde wrote: “I have written 2 seuerall ways of late to
my wife about our domestick affaires, which are in great disorder
betweext the want of meanes to keepe my sonnes abroad and the danger of
leaueing them at home.... I thank you for your continued care of my
children. I haue written twice to my wife to the effect you speake of. I
pray God shee be able to put it in execution either way.”[21]

Footnote 21:

  _Nicholas Papers_, Vol. III., pp. 274-6. Marquis of Ormonde to Sir Ed.
  Nicholas, 1656.

This letter does not breathe that spirit of confidence in the wife’s
ability which was shown in some of the others and it happened sometimes
that the wife was either overwhelmed by procedure beyond her
understanding, or at least sought for special consideration on the plea
of her sex’s weakness and ignorance.

Sarah, wife of Henry Burton, gives an account of Burton’s trial in the
Star Chamber, his sentence and punishment (fine, pillory, imprisonment
for life) and his subsequent transportation to Guernsey, “where he now
is but by what order your petitioner knoweth not and is kept in strict
durance of exile and imprisonment, and utterly denied the society of
your petitioner contrary to the liberties and privileges of this
kingdome ... debarred of the accesse of friends, the use of pen, inck
and paper and other means to make knowne his just complaintes,” and she
petitions the House of Commons “to take her distressed condition into
your serious consideracion and because your peticioner is a woman not
knowing how to prosecute nor manage so great and weighty busines” begs
that Burton may be sent over to prosecute his just complaint.[22]

Footnote 22:

  _State Papers, Domestic_, cccclxxi. 36, Nov. 7, 1640.

Similarly, Bastwick’s wife pleads that he is so closely imprisoned in
the Isle of Scilly “that your petitioner is not permitted to have any
access unto him, so that for this 3 yeares and upward hir husband hath
been exiled from hir, and she in all this time could not obtayne leave,
although she hath earnestly sued for it, neither to live with him nor so
much as to see him, and whereas your peticioner hath many smale children
depending uppon hir for there mauntenance, and she of hir selfe being
every way unable to provide for them, she being thus separated from her
deare and loving husband and hir tender babes from there carefull father
(they are in) great straights want and miserie,” and she begs that her
husband may be sent to England, “your Petitioner being a woman no way
able to follow nor manage so great and weighty a cause....”[23]

Footnote 23:

  _S.P.D._, cccclxxi. 37, 1640.

The above efforts were all made in defence of family estates, but at
this time women were also concerned with the affairs of the nation, in
which they took an active part.

Mrs. Hutchinson describes how “When the Parliament sat again, the
colonel [Hutchinson] sent up his wife to solicit his business in the
house, that the Lord Lexington’s bill might not pass the lower house ...
she notwithstanding many other discouragements waited upon the business
every day, when her adversaries as diligently solicited against her” a
friend told her how “the laste statemen’s wives came and offered them
all the information they had gathered from their husbands, and how she
could not but know more than any of them; and if yet she would impart
anything that might show her gratitude, she might redeem her family from
ruin, ... but she discerned his drift and scorned to become an informer,
and made him believe she was ignorant, though she could have enlightened
him in the very thing he sought for; which they are now never likely to
know much of, it being locked up in the grave.”[24]

Footnote 24:

  _Life of Colonel Hutchinson_, by his Wife, pp. 334-336.

Herbert Morley wrote to Sir William Campion in 1645:

“I could impart more, but letters are subject to miscarriage, therefore
I reserve myself to a more fit opportunity.... If a conference might be
had, I conceive it would be most for the satisfaction of us both, to
prevent of any possible hazard of your person. If you please to let your
lady meet me at Watford ... or come hither, I will procure her a
pass.”[25]

Footnote 25:

  _Sussex Arch. Coll._, Vol. x., p. 5. To Sir William Campion from
  Herbert Morley, July 23rd, 1645.

Sir William replied: “For any business you have to impart to me, I have
that confidence in you, by reason of our former acquaintance, that I
should not make any scruple to send my wife to the places mentioned; but
the truth is, she is at present soe neare her time for lying downe, for
she expects to be brought to bed within less than fourteen days, that
she is altogether unfit to take soe long a journey....”[26]

Footnote 26:

  _Ibid._, Vol. x., p. 6.

A book might be wholly filled with a story of the part taken by women in
the political and religious struggles of this period. They were also
active among the crowd who perpetually beseiged the Court for grants of
wardships and monopolies or patents.

Ann Wallwyn writes to Salisbury soliciting the wardship of the son of
James Tomkins who is likely to die.[27] The petition of Dame Anne
Wigmore, widow of Sir Richard Wigmore, states that she has found out a
suit which will rectify many abuses, bring in a yearly revenue to the
Crown and give satisfaction to the Petitioner for the great losses of
herself and her husband. Details follow for a scheme for a corporation
of carriers and others.[28]

Footnote 27:

  _C.S.P.D._ lxvii, 129, 1611.

Footnote 28:

  _C.S.P.D._ clxii, 8, March 2, 1630.

Dorothy Selkane reminds Salisbury that a patent has been promised her
for the digging of coals upon a royal manor. The men who manage the
business for her are content to undertake all charges for the discovery
of the coal and to compensate the tenants of the manor according to
impartial arbitrators. She begs Salisbury that as she has been promised
a patent the matter may be brought to a final conclusion that she may
not be forced to trouble him further “having alredie bestowed a yeres
solicitinge therein.”[29] In 1610 the same lady writes again:—“I have
bene at gte toyle and charges this yere and a halfe past as also have
bene put to extraordinarie sollicitacion manie and sundry waies for the
Dispatching of my suite ...” and begs that the grant may pass without
delay.[30]

Footnote 29:

  _S.P.D._ xlviii, 119, 22nd October, 1609.

Footnote 30:

  _S.P.D._ liii, 131, April 1610.

A grant was made in 1614 to Anne, Roger and James Wright of a licence to
keep a tennis court at St. Edmund’s Bury, co. Suffolk, for life.[31]
Bessy Welling, servant to the late Prince Henry, petitioned for the
erecting of an office for enrolling the Apprentices of Westminster, etc.
As this was not granted, she therefore begs for a lease of some
concealed lands [manors for which no rent has been paid for a hundred
years] for sixty-one years. The Petitioner hopes to recover them for the
King at her own charges.[32] Lady Roxburgh craves a licence to assay all
gold and silver wire “finished at the bar” before it is worked, showing
that it is no infringement on the Earl of Holland’s grant which is for
assaying and sealing gold and silver after it is made. This, it is
pointed out, will be a means for His Majesty to pay off the debt he owes
to Lady Roxburgh which otherwise must be paid some other way.[33]

Footnote 31:

  _C.S.P.D._ lxxvii, 5 April 5, 1614.

Footnote 32:

  _S.P.D._ cxi, 121, 1619.

Footnote 33:

  _S.P.D._ clxxx, 66, 1624.

A petition from Katharine Elliot “wett nurse to the Duke of Yorke” shows
that there is a moor waste or common in Somersetshire called West Sedge
Moor which appears to be the King’s but has been appropriated and
encroached upon by bordering commoners. She begs for a grant of it for
sixty years; as an inducement the Petitioner offers to recover it at her
own costs and charges and to pay a rent of one shilling per acre, the
King never previously having received benefit therefrom.[34] The
reference by Windebank notes that the king is willing to gratify the
Petitioner. Another petition was received from this same lady declaring
that “Divers persons being of no corporation prefers the trade of buying
and selling silk stockings and silk waistcoats as well knit as woven
uttering the Spanish or baser sort of silk at as dear rates as the first
Naples and also frequently vending the woven for the knit, though in
price and goodness there is almost half in half difference.” She prays a
grant for thirty-one years for the selling of silk stockings, half
stockings and waistcoats, to distinguish the woven from the knit
receiving from the salesmen a shilling for every waistcoat, sixpence per
pair of silk stockings and fourpence for every half pair.[35]

Footnote 34:

  _S.P.D._ cccxxiii, 109, 18th June, 1637.

Footnote 35:

  _S.P.D._ cccxxiii., 7, _Bk. of Petitioners_, Car. I.

Elizabeth, Viscountess Savage, points out that Freemen of the city enter
into bond on their admittance with two sureties of a hundred marks to
the Chamberlain of London not to exercise any trade other than that of
the Company they were admitted into. Of late years persons having used
other trades and contrived not to have their bonds forfeited, and the
penalty belonging to His Majesty, she begs a grant of such penalties to
be recovered at her instance and charge.[36]

Footnote 36:

  _S.P.D._ ccciii., 65, Dec. 6th, 1635.

The petition of Margaret Cary, relict of Thomas Cary Esquire, one of the
Grooms of the Chamber to the King on the behalf of herself and her
daughters, begs for a grant to compound with offenders by engrossering
and transporting of wool, wool fells, fuller’s earth, lead, leather,
corn and grain, she to receive a Privy Seal for two fourth-parts of the
fines and compositions. Her reasons for desiring this grant are that her
husband’s expense in prosecuting like cases has reaped no benefit of his
grant of seven-eighths of forfeited bonds for the like offences. She
urges the usefulness of the scheme and the existence of similar
grants.[37]

Footnote 37:

  _S.P.D._ cccvi., 27, 1635.

Mistress Dorothy Seymour petitions for a grant of the fines imposed on
those who export raw hides contrary to the Proclamation and thereby make
coaches, boots, etc., dearer. The reference to the Petition states: “It
is His Majesty’s gratious pleasure that the petitioner cause impoundr.
to be given to the Attorney General touching the offences above
mencioned ... and as proffyt shall arise to His Majesty ... he will give
her such part as shall fully satisfy her pains and good endeavours.”[38]

Footnote 38:

  _S.P.D._ cccxlvi., 2, Feb. 1st, 1637.

The projecting of patents and monopolies was the favourite pursuit of
fashionable people of both sexes. Ben Johnson satirises the Projectress
in the person of Lady Tailebush, of whom the Projector, Meercraft says:

                                  ... “She and I now Are on a
    Project, for the fact, and venting Of a new kind of fucus (paint
    for Ladies) To serve the Kingdom; wherein she herself Hath
    travel’d specially, by the way of service Unto her sex, and
    hopes to get the monopoly, As the Reward of her Invention.”[39]

Footnote 39:

      Jonson, (Ben.) _The Devil is an Ass_, Act III., Scene iv.

When Eitherside assures her mistress:

                                              “I do hear
                You ha’ cause madam, your suit goes on.”

Lady Tailebush replies:

    “Yes faith, there’s life in’t now. It is referr’d If we once see
    it under the seals, wench, then, Have with ’em, for the great
    caroch, six horses And the two coachmen, with my Ambler bare,
    And my three women; we will live i’ faith, The examples o’ the
    Town, and govern it. I’ll lead the fashion still.”...[40]

Footnote 40:

      (_Ibid._), Act IV., Scene ii.

From the women who begged for monopolies which if granted must have
involved much worry and labour if they were to be made profitable, we
pass naturally to women who actually owned and managed businesses
requiring a considerable amount of capital. They not infrequently acted
as pawn-brokers and moneylenders. Thus, complaint is made that Elizabeth
Pennell had stolen “two glazier’s vices with the screws and
appurtenances” and pawned them to one Ellianor Troughton, wife of Samuel
Troughton broker.[41]

Footnote 41:

  _Middlesex Co. Rec. Sess. Books_, p. 18, 1690.

Richard Braithwaite tells the following story of a “Useresse” as though
this occupation were perfectly usual for women. “Wee reade in a booke
entituled the _Gift of Feare_, how a Religious Divine comming to a
certaine Vseresse to advise her of the state of her soule, and instruct
her in the way to salvation at such time as she lay languishing in her
bed of affliction; told her how there were three things by her to be
necessarily performed, if ever she hoped to be saved: She must become
_contrite_ in heart ... _confesse_ her sins ... make _restitution_
according to her meanes whereto shee thus replyed, _Two of those first I
will doe willingly: but to doe the last, I shall hold it a difficulty;
for should I make restitution, what would remaine to raise my children
their portion?_ To which the Divine answered; _Without these three you
cannot be saved. Yea but_, quoth shee, _Doe our Learned Men and
Scriptures say so? Yes, surely_ said the Divine. _And I will try_,
(quoth shee) _whether they say true or no, for I will restore nothing_.
And so resolving, fearefully dyed ... for preferring the care of her
posterity, before the honour of her Maker.”[42]

Footnote 42:

  Braithwaite, (Richd.), _The English Gentleman_, p. 300, 1641.

The names of women often occur in connection with the shipping trade and
with contracts. Some were engaged in business with their husbands as in
the case of a fine remitted to Thomas Price and Collet his wife for
shipping 200 dozen of old shoes, with intention to transport them beyond
the seas contrary to a Statute (5th year Edward VI) on account of their
poverty.[43] Others were widows like Anne Hodsall whose husband, a
London merchant, traded for many years to the Canary Islands, the
greatest part of his estate being there. He could not recover it in his
lifetime owing to the war with Spain and therefore his wife was left in
great distress with four children. Her estate in the Canary Islands is
likely to be confiscated, there being no means of recovering it thence
except by importing wines, and it would be necessary to take pipe-staves
over there to make casks to bring back the wines. She begs the council
therefore “in commiseration of her distressed estate to grant a licence
to her and her assignes to lade one ship here with woollen commodities
for Ireland, To lade Pipe staves in Ireland (notwithstanding the
prohibition) and to send the same to the Canary Islands.”[44]

Footnote 43:

  Overall _Remembrancia, Analytical Index to_, p. 519, 1582.

Footnote 44:

  _Council Register_, 8th August, 1628.

Joseph Holroyd employed a woman as his shipping agent; in a letter dated
1706 he writes re certain goods for Holland: that these “I presume must
be marked as usual and forward to Madam Brown at Hull ...” and he
informs Madam Hannah Browne, that “By orders of Mr. John Whittle I have
sent you one packe and have 2 packes more to send as undʳ. You are to
follow Mr. Whittle’s directions in shipping.”[45]

Footnote 45:

  Holroyd, Joseph (Cloth Factor) and Saml. Hill (clothier), _Letter Bks.
  of_, pp. 18-25.

In 1630 Margrett Greeneway, widow of Thos. Greeneway, baker, begged
leave to finish carrying out a contract made by her husband
notwithstanding the present restraint on the bringing of corn to London.
The contract was to supply the East India Company with biscuit. Margrett
Greeneway petitions to bring five hundred quarters of wheat to
London—some are already bought and she asks for leave to buy the rest.
The petition was granted.[46]

Footnote 46:

  _C.R._, 3rd December, 1630.

A Petition of “Emanuell Fynche, Wm. Lewis Merchantes and Anne Webber
Widow on the behalfe of themselves and others owners of the shipp called
the _Benediction_” was presented to the Privy Council stating that the
ship had been seized and detained by the French and kept at Dieppe where
it was deteriorating. They asked to be allowed to sell her there.[47]
The name of another woman ship-owner occurs in a case at Grimsby brought
against Christopher Claton who “In the behalfe of his Mother An Alford,
wid., hath bought one wessell of Raffe of one Laurence Lamkey of Odwell
in the kingdome of Norway, upon wᶜʰ private bargane there appeares a
breach of the priviledges of this Corporation.”[48]

Footnote 47:

  _S.P.D._ ccxxxvi., 45, 12th, April, 1633.

Footnote 48:

  _Hist. MSS. Com._, 14 Rep., VIII., p. 284, 1655.

In 1636 upon the Petition of Susanna Angell “widowe, and Eliz. her
daughter (an orphan) of the cittie of London humbly praying that they
might by their Lordshipps warrant bee permitted to land 14 barrels of
powder now arrived as also 38 barrells which is daily expected in the
_Fortune_ they paying custome and to sell the same within the kingdome
or otherwise to give leave to transport it back againe into Holland from
whence it came” the Officers of the customs were ordered to permit the
Petitioners to export the powder.[49]

Footnote 49:

  _S.P.D._ ccxcii., 24, March 23, 1636/7., _Proceedings of Gunpowder
  Commissioners_.

Women’s names appear also in lists of contractors to the Army and Navy.
Elizabeth Bennett and Thomas Berry contracted with the Commissioners to
supply one hundred suits of apparel for the soldiers at Plymouth.[50]

Footnote 50:

  _S.P.D._ xx., 62, Feb. 9th, 1626.

Cuthbert Farlowe, Elizabeth Harper Widowe, Edward Sheldon and John
Davis, “poore Tradesmen of London” petition “to be paid the £180 yet
unpaid of their accounts” for furnishing the seamen for Rochelle with
clothes and shoes “att the rates of ready money.”[51]

Footnote 51:

  _S.P.D._ cxcvii., 64, July, 1631.

A warrant was issued “to pay to Alice Bearden £100 for certain cutworks
furnished to the Queen for her own wearing.”[52]

Footnote 52:

  _S.P.D._, clix., 27th Jan. 1630.

Edward Prince brought a case in the Star Chamber, v. Thomas Woodward,
Ellenor Woodward, and Georg. Helliar defendants being Ironmongers for
supposed selling of iron at false weights to undersell plaintiff.
“Defendants respectively prove that they ever bought and sold by one
sort of weight.”[53]

Footnote 53:

  _S.P.D._, clxxxi., 138, 1630.

For her tenancy of the Spy-law Paper Mill, Foulis “receaved from Mʳˢ.
lithgow by Wᵐ. Douglas Hands 85 lib. for ye 1704 monie rent. She owes me
3 rim of paper for that yeir, besydes 4 rim she owes me for former
yeirs.”[54]

Footnote 54:

  Foulis, Sir John, _Account Book_, 5th Jan., 1705.

Joan Dant was one of the few women “capitalists” whose personal story is
known in any detail. Her husband was a working weaver, living in New
Paternoster Row, Spital Fields. On his death she became a pedlar,
carrying an assortment of mercery, hosiery, and haberdashery on her back
from house to house in the vicinity of London. Her conduct as a member
of the Society of Friends was consistent and her manners agreeable, so
that her periodic visits to the houses of Friends were welcomed and she
was frequently entertained as a guest at their tables. After some years,
her expenses being small and her diligence great, she had saved
sufficient capital to engage in a more wholesale trade, debts due from
her correspondents at Paris and Brussels appearing in her executor’s
accounts. In spite of her success in trade Joan Dant continued to live
in her old frugal manner, and when she applied to a Friend for
assistance in making her will, he was astonished to find her worth
rather more than £9,000. He advised her to obtain the assistance of
other Friends more experienced in such matters. On their enquiring how
she wished to dispose of her property, she replied, “I got it by the
rich and I mean to leave it to the poor.”

Joan Dant died in 1715 at the age of eighty-four. In a letter to her
executors she wrote, “It is the Lord that creates true industry in his
people, and that blesseth their endeavours in obtaining things necessary
and convenient for them, which are to be used in moderation by all his
flock and family everywhere.... And I, having been one that has taken
pains to live, and have through the blessing of God, with honesty and
industrious care, improved my little in the world to a pretty good
degree; find my heart open in that charity which comes from the Lord, in
which the true disposal of all things ought to be, to do something for
the poor,—the fatherless and the widows in the Church of Christ,
according to the utmost of my ability.”[55]

Footnote 55:

  _British Friend_, II., p. 113.

Another venture initiated and carried on by a woman, was an Insurance
Office established by Dorothy Petty. An account of it written in 1710
states that:—“The said _Dorothy_ (who is the Daughter of a Divine of the
Church of _England_, now deceas’d) did Set up an _Insurance Office_ on
_Births, Marriages, and Services_, in order thereby to serve the
Publick, and get an honest Livelyhood for herself.... The said _Dorothy_
had such Success in her Undertaking, that more Claims were paid, and
more Stamps us’d for Policies and Certificates in her Office than in all
other the like Offices in _London_ besides; which good Fortune was
chiefly owing to the Fairness and Justice of her Proceedings in the said
Business: for all the Money paid into the Office was Entered in one
Book, and all the Money paid out upon Claims was set down in another
Book, and all People had Liberty to peruse both, so that there could not
possibly be the least Fraud in the Management thereof.”[56]

Footnote 56:

  _Case of Dorothy Petty_, 1710.

In 1622 the names of Mary Hall, 450 coals, Barbara Riddell, 450 coals,
Barbara Milburne, 60 coals, are included without comment among the
brothers of the fellowship of Hostmen (coal owners) of Newcastle who
have coals to rent.[57] The name of Barbara Milburne, widow, is given in
the Subsidy Roll for 1621 as owning land.[58] That these women were
equal to the management of their collieries is suggested by the fact
that when in 1623 Christopher Mitford left besides property which he
bequeathed direct to his nephews and nieces, five salt-pans and
collieries to his sister Jane Legard he appointed her his executrix,[59]
which he would hardly have done unless he had believed her equal to the
management of a complicated business.

Footnote 57:

  _Newcastle and Gateshead, History of_, Vol. III., p. 242.

Footnote 58:

  _Ibid._, p. 237.

Footnote 59:

  _Ibid._, p. 252.

The frequency with which widows conducted capitalistic enterprises may
be taken as evidence of the extent to which wives were associated with
their husbands in business. The wife’s part is sometimes shown in
prosecutions, as in a case which was brought in the Star Chamber against
Thomas Hellyard, Elizabeth his wife and John Goodenough and Hugh
Nicholes for oppression in the country under a patent to Hellyard for
digging saltpetre ... “in pursuance of his direction leave and authority
... Nicholes Powell, Defendants servant, and the said Hellyard’s wife,
did sell divers quantities of salt petre. More particularly the said
Hellyard’s wife did sell to Parker 400 lbs. at Haden Wells, 300 or 400
lbs. at Salisbury and 300 or 400 lbs. at Winchester at £9 the hundred.”
Hellyard was sentenced to a fine of £1,000, pillory, whipping and
imprisonment.

“As touching the other defendant Elizabeth Hellyard the courte was fully
satisfyed with sufficient matter whereupon to ground a sentence against
the defendant Eliz. but shee being a wyfe and subject to obey her
husband theyr Lord ships did forbeare to sentence her.”[60]

Footnote 60:

  _S.P.D._, cclx., 21, 1634.

Three men, “artificers in glass making,” beg that Lady Mansell may
either be compelled to allow them such wages as they formerly received,
or to discharge them from her service, her reduction of wages disabling
them from maintaining their families, and driving many of them away.[61]
Lady Mansell submits a financial statement and account of the rival
glassmakers’ attempts to ruin her husband’s business, one of whom “hath
in open audience vowed to spend 1000li, to ruine your petitioners
husband joyninge with the Scottish pattentie taking the advantage of
your petitioners husbands absence, thinckinge your petitioner a weake
woman unable to followe the busines and determininge the utter ruine of
your petitioner and her husband have inticed three of her workemen for
windowe glasse, which shee had longe kepte att a weeklie chardge to her
great prejudice to supplie the worke yf there should be anie necessitie
in the Kingdome,” etc., etc., she begs justice upon the rivals, “your
petitioner havinge noe other meanes nowe in his absence (neither hath he
when he shall returne) but onelie this busines wherein he hath engaged
his whole estate.”[62]

Footnote 61:

  _S.P.D._, cxlviii., 52, 1623.

Footnote 62:

  _S.P.D._, dxxi., 147. Addenda Charles I., 1625.

Able business women might be found in every class of English society
throughout the seventeenth century, but their contact with affairs
became less habitual as the century wore away, and expressions of
surprise occur at the prowess shown by Dutch women in business. “At
_Ostend_, _Newport_, and _Dunkirk_, where, and when, the _Holland_ pinks
come in, there daily the Merchants, that be but Women (but not such
Women as the Fishwives of _Billingsgate_; for these _Netherland_ Women
do lade many Waggons with fresh Fish daily, some for _Bruges_, and some
for _Brussels_, etc., etc.) I have seen these Women-merchants I say,
have their Aprons full of nothing but _English Jacobuses_, to make all
their Payment of.”[63]

Footnote 63:

  _England’s Way_, 1614. _Harleian Misc._, Vol. III., p. 383.

Sir J. Child mentions “the Education of their Children as well Daughters
as Sons; all which, be they of never so great quality or estate, they
always take care to bring up to write perfect good Hands, and to have
the full knowledge and use of Arithmetick and Merchant Accounts,” as one
of the advantages which the Dutch possess over the English; “the well
understanding and practise whereof doth strangely infuse into most that
are the owners of that Quality, of either Sex, not only an Ability for
Commerce of all kinds, but a strong aptitude, love and delight in it;
and in regard the women are as knowing therein as the Men, it doth
incourage their Husbands to hold on in their Trades to their dying days,
knowing the capacity of their Wives to get in their Estates, and carry
on their Trades after their Deaths: Whereas if a Merchant in England
arrive at any considerable Estate, he commonly with-draws his Estate
from Trade, before he comes near the confines of Old Age; reckoning that
if God should call him out of the World while the main of his Estate is
engaged abroad in Trade, he must lose one third of it, through the
unexperience and unaptness of his Wife to such Affairs, and so it
usually falls out. Besides it hath been observed in the nature of
Arithmetick, that like other parts of the Mathematicks, it doth not only
improve the Rational Faculties, but inclines those that are expert in it
to Thriftiness and good Husbandry, and prevents both Husbands and Wives
in some measure from running out of their estates.”[64]

Footnote 64:

  Child, Sir J., _A New Discourse of Trade_, pp. 4-5. 1694.

This account is confirmed by Howell who writes of the Dutch in 1622 that
they are “well versed in all sorts of languages.... Nor are the Men only
expert therein but the Women and Maids also in their common Hostries; &
in Holland the Wives are so well versed in Bargaining, Cyphering &
Writing, that in the Absence of their Husbands in long sea voyages they
beat the Trade at home & their Words will pass in equal Credit. These
Women are wonderfully sober, tho’ their Husbands make commonly their
Bargains in Drink, & then are they more cautelous.”[65]

Footnote 65:

  Howell, (Jas.), _Familiar Letters_, p. 103.

This unnatural reversing of the positions of men and women was censured
by the Spaniard Vives who wrote “In Hollande, women do exercise
marchandise and the men do geue themselues to quafting, the which
customes and maners I alowe not, for thei agre not with nature, yᵉ which
hath geuen unto man a noble, a high & a diligent minde to be busye and
occupied abroade, to gayne & to bring home to their wiues & families to
rule them and their children, ... and to yᵉ woman nature hath geuen a
feareful, a couetous & an humble mind to be subject unto man, & to kepe
yᵗ he doeth gayne.”[66]

Footnote 66:

  Vives, _Office and Duties of a Husband_, trans. by Thos. Paynell.

The contrast which had arisen between Dutch and English customs in this
respect was also noticed by Wycherley, one of whose characters, Monsieur
Paris, a Francophile fop, describes his tour in Holland in the following
terms: “I did visit, you must know, one of de Principal of de State
General ... and did find his Excellence weighing Sope, jarnie ha, ha,
ha, weighing sope, ma foy, for he was a wholesale Chandeleer; and his
Lady was taking de Tale of Chandels wid her own witer Hands, ma foy; and
de young Lady, his Excellence Daughter, stringing Harring, jarnie ...
his Son, (for he had but one) was making the Tour of France, etc. in a
Coach and six.”[67]

Footnote 67:

  Wycherley, _The Gentleman Dancing Master_, p. 21.

The picture is obviously intended to throw ridicule on the neighbouring
state, of whose navy and commercial progress England stood at that time
in considerable fear.

How rapidly the active, hardy life of the Elizabethan gentlewoman was
being transformed into the idleness and dependence which has
characterised the lady of a later age may be judged by Mary Astell’s
comment on “Ladies of Quality.” She says, “They are placed in a
condition which makes that which is everyone’s chief business to be
their only employ. They have nothing to do but to glorify God and to
benefit their neighbours.”[68] After a study of the Restoration Drama it
may be doubted whether the ladies of that period wished to employ their
leisure over these praiseworthy objects. But had they the will,
ignorance of life and inexperience in affairs are qualifications which
perhaps would not have increased the effectiveness of their efforts in
either direction.

Footnote 68:

  Astell, (Mary), _A Serious Proposal_, p. 145, 1694.

The proof of the change which was taking place in the scope of
upper-class women’s interests does not rest only upon individual
examples such as those which have been quoted, though these instances
have been selected for the most part on account of their representative
character.

It is quite clear that the occupation of ladies with their husband’s
affairs was accepted as a matter of course throughout the earlier part
of the century, and it is only after the Restoration that a change of
fashion in this respect becomes evident. Pepys, whose milieu was typical
of the new social order, after a call upon Mr. Bland, commented with
surprised pleasure on Mrs. Bland’s interest in her husband’s affairs.
“Then to eat a dish of anchovies,” he says “and drink wine and syder and
very merry, but above all things, pleased to hear Mrs. Bland talk like a
merchant in her husband’s business very well, and it seems she do
understand it and perform a great deal.”[69] The capacity of a woman to
understand her husband’s business seldom aroused comment earlier in the
century, and would have passed unnoticed even by many of Pepys’
contemporaries who lived in a different set. Further evidence of women’s
business capacity is found in the fact that men generally expected their
wives would prove equal to the administration of their estates after
their death, and thus the wife was habitually appointed executrix often
even the sole executrix of wills. This custom was certainly declining in
the latter part of the century. The winding up of a complicated estate
and still more the prosecution of an extensive business, could not have
been successfully undertaken by persons who hitherto had led lives of
idleness, unacquainted with the direction of affairs.

Footnote 69:

  Pepys, (Sam.), _Diary_, Vol. II., p. 113, Dec. 31, 1662.

That men did not at this time regard marriage as necessarily involving
the assumption of a serious economic burden, but on the contrary, often
considered it to be a step which was likely to strengthen them in life’s
battles, is also significant. This attitude was partly due to the
provision of a dot by fathers of brides, but there were other ways in
which the wife contributed to the support of her household. Thus in a
wedding sermon woman is likened to a merchant’s ship, for “She bringeth
her food from far” ... not meaning she is to be chosen for her dowry,
“for the worst wives may have the best portions, ... a good wife tho’
she bring nothing in with her, yet, thro’ her Wisdom and Diligence great
things come in by her; she brings in with her hands, for, _She putteth
her hands to the wheel_.... If she be too high to stain her Hands with
bodily Labour, yet she bringeth in with her Eye, for, _She overseeth the
Ways of her Household_, ... and eateth not the Bread of _Idleness_.” She
provides the necessities of life. “If she will have Bread, she must not
always buy it, but she must sow it, and reap it and grind it, ... She
must knead it, and make it into bread. Or if she will have Cloth, she
must not always run to the Shop or to the score but she begins at the
seed, she carrieth her seed to the Ground, she gathereth Flax, of her
Flax she spinneth a Thread, of her Thread she weaveth Cloth, and so she
comes by her coat.”[70]

Footnote 70:

  Wilkinson, (Robert), _Conjugal Duty_, pp. 13-17.

The woman here described was the mistress of a large household, who
found scope for her productive energy within the limits of domestic
industry, but it has been shown that the married woman often went
farther than this, and engaged in trade either as her husband’s
assistant or even on her own account.

The effect of such work on the development of women’s characters was
very great, for any sort of productive, that is to say, creative work,
provides a discipline and stimulus to growth essentially different from
any which can be acquired in a life devoted to spending money and the
cultivation of ornamental qualities.

The effect on social relations was also marked, for their work implied
an association of men and women through a wide range of human interests
and a consequent development of society along organic rather than
mechanical lines. The relation between husband and wife which obtained
most usually among the upper classes in England at the opening of the
seventeenth century, appears indeed to have been that of partnership;
the chief responsibility for the care of children and the management and
provisioning of her household resting on the wife’s shoulders, while in
business matters she was her husband’s lieutenant. The wife was subject
to her husband, her life was generally an arduous one, but she was by no
means regarded as his servant. A comradeship existed between them which
was stimulating and inspiring to both. The ladies of the Elizabethan
period possessed courage, initiative, resourcefulness and wit in a high
degree. Society expected them to play a great part in the national life
and they rose to the occasion; perhaps it was partly the comradeship
with their husbands in the struggle for existence which developed in
them qualities which had otherwise atrophied.

Certainly the more circumscribed lives of the Restoration ladies show a
marked contrast in this respect, for they appear but shadows of the
vigorous personalities of their grandmothers. Prominent amongst the many
influences which conspired together to produce so rapid a decline in the
physique, efficiency and morale of upper-class women, must be reckoned
the spread of the capitalistic organisation of industry, which by the
rapid growth of wealth made possible the idleness of growing numbers of
women. Simultaneously the gradual perfecting by men of their separate
organisations for trade purposes rendered them independent of the
services of their wives and families for the prosecution of their
undertakings. Though the stern hand of economic necessity was thus
withdrawn from the control of women’s development in the upper classes,
it was still potent in determining their destiny amongst the “common
people,” whose circumstances will be examined in detail in the following
chapters.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                              CHAPTER III

                              AGRICULTURE

Agriculture England’s leading Industry—Has provided the most vigorous
   stock of English race—Division into three classes:—

   (A) _Farmers._ Portraits of Farmers’ Wives—Fitzherbert’s
   “Prologue for the Wyves Occupacyon.” Size of household—The Wife
   who “doth not take the pains and charge upon her.” Financial
   aptitude—Market—Occupation of gentlewomen with Dairy and
   Poultry—Expectation of the wife’s ability to work and do service.

   (B) _Husbandmen._ Economy of their Small Holding—The more they worked
   for wages the greater their poverty—Strenuous but healthy life of the
   women—Extent to which they worked for wages—Character of work—Best’s
   account of Yorkshire Farms—other descriptions. Spinning—The wife’s
   industry no less constant when not working for wages, but more
   profitable to her family, whom she clothed and fed by domestic
   industry.

   (C) _Wage-earners._ Maximum rates of wages fixed at Assizes represent
   generally those actually paid. Common labourers’ wage, winter and
   summer—Women’s wages seasonal—Not expected when married to work week
   in, week out. Cost of living—Cost of labourers’ diet—Pensions and
   Allowances—Poor Relief—Cost of clothes and rent—Joint wages of father
   and mother insufficient to rear three children—Recognised insolvency
   of Labourers’ Family—Disputes concerning labourers’ settlements.
   Farmers’ need for more labourers—Demoralisation—Demand for sureties
   by the Parish. Infant mortality—Life history of labourers’
   wives—Explanation for magistrates’ action in fixing maximum wages
   below subsistence level—Proportion of wage-earning families.


ALTHOUGH the woollen trade loomed very large upon the political horizon
because it was a chief source of revenue to the Crown and because
rapidly acquired wealth gave an influence to clothiers and wool
merchants out of proportion to their numbers, agriculture was still
England’s chief industry in the seventeenth century.

The town population has had a tendency to wear out and must be recruited
from rural districts. The village communities which still persisted at
this period in England, provided a vigorous stock, from which the men
whose initiative, energy and courage have made England famous during the
last two centuries were largely descended. Not only were the farming
families prolific in numbers but they maintained a high standard of
mental and moral virtue. It must be supposed therefore that the
conditions in which they lived were upon the whole favourable to the
development of their women-folk, but investigation will show that this
was not the case for all members alike of the agricultural community,
who may be roughly divided into three classes:

(a) Farmers. (b) Husbandmen. (c) Wage-earners.

(a) _Farmers_ held sufficient land for the complete maintenance of the
family. Their household often included hired servants and their methods
on the larger farms were becoming capitalistic.

(b) _Husbandmen_ were possessed of holdings insufficient for the
complete maintenance of the family and their income was therefore
supplemented by working for wages.

(c) _Wage-earners_ had no land, not even a garden, and depended
therefore completely on wages for the maintenance of their families.

In addition to the above, for whom agriculture was their chief business,
the families of the gentry, professional men and tradesmen who lived in
the country and smaller towns, generally grew sufficient dairy and
garden produce for domestic consumption.

The above classification is arbitrary, for no hard-and-fast division
existed. Farmers merged imperceptibly into husbandmen, and husbandmen
into wage-earners and yet there was a wide gulf separating their
positions. As will be shown, it was the women of the first two classes
who bore and reared the children who were destined to be the makers of
England, while few children of the wage-earning class reached maturity.


                             A. _Farmers._

However important the women who were the mothers of the race may appear
to modern eyes, their history was unnoticed by their contemporaries and
no analysis was made of their development. The existence of vigorous,
able matrons was accepted as a matter of course. They embodied the
seventeenth century idea of the “eternal feminine” and no one suspected
that they might change with a changing environment. They themselves were
too busy, too much absorbed in the lives of others, to keep journals and
they were not sufficiently important to have their memoirs written by
other people.

Perhaps their most authentic portraits may be found in the writings of
the Quakers, who were largely drawn from this class of the community.
They depict women with an exalted devotion, supporting their families
and strengthening their husbands through the storms of persecution and
amidst the exacting claims of religion.

John Banks wrote from Carlisle Prison in 1648 to his wife, “No greater
Joy and Comfort I have in this world ... than to know that thou and all
thine are well both in Body and Mind ... though I could be glad to see
thee here, but do not straiten thyself in any wise, for I am truly
content to bear it, if it were much more, considering thy Concerns in
this Season of the Year, being Harvest time and the Journey so
long.”[71] After her death he writes, “We Lived Comfortably together
many Years, and she was a Careful Industrious Woman in bringing up of
her Children in good order, as did become the Truth, in Speech,
Behaviour and Habit; a Meet-Help and a good Support to me, upon the
account of my Travels, always ready and willing to fit me with
Necessaries, ... and was never known to murmur, tho’ I was often
Concerned, to leave her with a weak Family,... She was well beloved
amongst good Friends and of her Neighbours, as witness the several
hundreds that were at her Burial ... our Separation by Death, was the
greatest Trial that ever I met with, above anything here below. Now if
any shall ask, Why I have writ so many Letters at large to be Printed
... how can any think that I should do less than I have done, to use all
Endeavours what in me lay, to Strengthen and Encourage my Dear Wife,
whom I so often, and for so many Years was made to leave as aforesaid,
having pretty much concerns to look after.”[72]

Footnote 71:

  Banks (John), _Journal_, p. 101, 1684.

Footnote 72:

  Banks, (John), _Journal_, pp. 129-30.

Of another Quaker, Mary Batt, her father writes in her testimony that
she was “Married to _Phillip Tyler_ of _Waldon_ in the County of
_Somerset_ before she attained the age of twenty years.... The Lord
blessed her with Four Children, whereof two dyed in their Infancy, and
two yet remain alive: at the Burial of her Husband, for being present,
she had two Cows valued at Nine Pounds taken from her, which, with many
other Tryals during her Widowhood, she bore with much Patience,... After
she had remained a Widow about four Years, the Lord drew the affection
of _James Taylor_ ... to seek her to be his Wife, and there being an
answer in her, the Lord joyned them together. To her Husband her Love
and Subjection was suitable to that Relation, being greatly delighted in
his Company, and a Meet-Help, a faithful Yoak-fellow, ... and in his
Absence, not only carefully discharging the duty as her Place as a Wife,
but diligent to supply his Place in those affairs that more immediately
concerned him.”[73] And her husband adds in his testimony, “My outward
Affairs falling all under her charge (I, being absent, a Prisoner for my
Testimony against Tythes) she did manage the same in such care and
patience until the time she was grown big with Child, and as she thought
near the time of her Travail (a condition much to be born with and
pittyed) she then desired so much Liberty as to have my Company home two
Weeks, and went herself to request it, which small matter she could not
obtain, but was denyed; and as I understood by her, it might be one of
the greatest occasions of her grief which ever happened unto her, yet in
much Meekness and true Patience she stooped down, and quietly took up
this her last Cross also, and is gone with it and all the rest, out of
the reach of all her Enemies, ... Three Nights and Two Days before her
Death, I was admitted to come to her, though I may say (with grief) too
late, yet it was to her great joy to see me once more whom she so dearly
loved; and would not willingly suffer me any more to depart out of her
sight until she had finished her days, ... Her Sufferings (in the
condition she was in) although I was a Prisoner, were far greater then
mine, for the whole time that she became my Wife, which was some Weeks
above Three Years, notwithstanding there was never yet man, woman, nor
child, could justly say, she had given them any offence ... yet must ...
unreasonable men cleanse our Fields of Cattle, rummage our House of
Goods, and make such havock as that my Dear Wife had not wherewithal to
dress or set Food before me and her Children.”[74]

Footnote 73:

  Batt (Mary), _Testimony of the Life and Death of_, pp. 1-3, 1683.

Footnote 74:

  Batt (Mary), _Testimony to Life and Death of_, pp. 5-7, 1683.

The duties of a Farmer’s wife were described a hundred years earlier by
Fitzherbert in the “Boke of Husbandrie.” He begins the “Prologue for the
wyves occupacyon,” thus, “Now thou husbande that hast done thy diligence
and laboure that longeth to a husband to get thy liuing, thy wyues, thy
children, and thy seruauntes, yet is there other thynges to be doen that
nedes must be done, or els thou shalt not thryue. For there is an olde
common saying, that seldom doth ye husbande thriue without leue of his
wyf. By thys saying it shuld seem that ther be other occupaciõs and
labours that be most cõvenient for the wyfes to do, and how be it that I
haue not the experience of all their occupacyions and workes as I haue
of husbandry, yet a lytel wil I speake what they ought to do though I
tel thẽ not how they should do and excersyse their labour and
occupacions.

“_A lesson for the wyfe_ ... alway be doyng of some good workes that the
deuil may fynde the alway occupied, for as in a standyng water are
engendred wormes, right so in an idel body are engendered ydel
thoughtes. Here maie thou see yᵗ of idelnes commeth damnatiõ, & of good
workes and labour commeth saluacion. Now thou art at thy libertie to
chose whither waye thou wilte, wherein is great diversite. And he is an
unhappye man or woman that god hath given both wit & reason and putteth
him in choise & he to chose the worst part. Nowe thou wife I trust to
shewe unto the diuers occupacions, workes and labours that thou shalt
not nede to be ydel no tyme of yᵉ yere. What thinges the wife is bounde
of right to do. Firste and principally the wyfe is bound of right to
loue her husband aboue father and mother and al other men....

“What workes a wyfe should do in generall. First in the mornyng when
thou art wakéd and purpose to rise, lift up thy hãd & blis the & make a
signe of the holy crosse ... and remembre thy maker and thou shalte
spede muche the better, & when thou art up and readye, then firste swepe
thy house; dresse up thy dyscheborde, & set al thynges in good order
within thy house, milke yᵉ kie, socle thy calues, sile up thy milke,
take up thy children & aray thẽ, & provide for thy husbandes
breakefaste, diner, souper, & for thy children & seruauntes, & take thy
parte wyth them. And to ordeyne corne & malt to the myll, to bake and
brue withall whẽ nede is. And mete it to the myll and fro the myll, & se
that thou haue thy mesure agayne besides the tole or elles the mylner
dealeth not truly wyth the, or els thy corne is not drye as it should
be, thou must make butter and chese when thou may, serue thy swine both
mornyng and eueninge, and giue thy polen meate in the mornynge, and when
tyme of yeare cometh thou must take hede how thy henne, duckes, and
geese do ley, and to gather up their egges and when they waxe broudy to
set them there as no beastes, swyne, nor other vermyne hurte them, and
thou must know that all hole foted foule wil syt a moneth and al clouen
foted foule wyl syt but three wekes except a peyhen and suche other
great foules as craynes, bustardes, and suche other. And when they haue
brought forth theyr birdes to se that they be well kepte from the gleyd,
crowes, fully martes and other vermyn, and in the begynyng of March, of
a lytle before is time for a wife to make her garden and to get as manye
good sedes and herbes as she can, and specyally such as be good for the
pot and for to eate & as ofte as nede shall require it muste be weded,
for els the wede wyll ouer grow the herbes, and also in Marche is time
to sowe flaxe and hempe, for I haue heard olde huswyues say, that better
is Marche hurdes then Apryll flaxe, the reason appereth, but howe it
shoulde be sowen, weded, pulled, repealed, watred, washen, dried, beten,
braked, tawed, hecheled, spon, wounden, wrapped, & ouen. It nedeth not
for me to shewe for they be wyse ynough, and thereof may they make
shetes, bord clothes, towels, shertes, smockes, and suche other
necessaryes, and therfore lette thy dystaffe be alwaye redy for a
pastyme, that thou be not ydell. And undoubted a woman cannot get her
livinge honestly with spinning on the dystaffe, but it stoppeth a gap
and must nedes be had. The bolles of flaxe whan they be rypled of, muste
be rediled from the wedes and made dry with the sunne to get out the
seedes. How be it one maner of linsede called lokensede wyll not open by
the sunne, and therefore when they be drye they must be sore bruien and
broken the wyves know how, & then wynowed and kept dry til peretime cum
againe. Thy femell hempe must be pulled fro the chucle hẽpe for this
beareth no sede & thou muste doe by it as thou didest by the flaxe. The
chucle hempe doth beare seed & thou must beware that birdes eate it not
as it groweth, the hempe thereof is not so good as the femel hẽpe, but
yet it wil do good seruice. It may fortune sometime yᵗ thou shalte haue
so many thinges to do that thou shalte not wel know where is best to
begyn. Thẽ take hede whiche thinge should be the greatest losse if it
were not done & in what space it would be done, and then thinke what is
the greatest loss & there begin.... It is cõvenient for a husbande to
haue shepe of his owne for many causes, and then may his wife have part
of the wooll to make her husbande and her selfe sum clothes. And at the
least waye she may haue yᵉ lockes of the shepe therwith to make clothes
or blankets, and couerlets, or both. And if she haue no wol of her owne
she maye take woll to spynne of cloth makers, and by that meanes she may
have a conuenient liuing, and many tymes to do other workes. It is a
wiues occupacion to winow al maner of cornes, to make malte wash and
wring, to make hey, to shere corne, and in time of nede to helpe her
husbande to fyll the mucke wayne or donge carte, dryve the plough, to
lode hey, corne & such other. Also to go or ride to the market to sell
butter, chese, mylke, egges, chekens, kapons, hennes, pygges, gees, and
al maner of corne. And also to bye al maner of necessary thinges
belonging to a houshold, and to make a true rekening & accompt to her
husband what she hath receyued and what she hathe payed. And yf the
husband go to the market to bye or sell as they ofte do, he then to shew
his wife in lyke maner. For if one of them should use to disceiue the
other, he disceyveth him selfe, and he is not lyke to thryve, & therfore
they must be true ether to other.”[75]

Footnote 75:

  Fitzherbert (Sir Anth.), _Boke of Husbandrye_.

Fitzherbert’s description of the wife’s occupation probably remained
true in many districts during the seventeenth century. The dairy,
poultry, garden and orchard were then regarded as peculiarly the domain
of the mistress, but upon the larger farms she did not herself undertake
the household drudgery. Her duty was to organise and train her servants,
both men and women.

The wages assessments of the period give some idea of the size of
farmers’ households, fixing wages for the woman-servant taking charge of
maulting in great farms, every other maulster, the best mayde servant
that can brewe, bake and dresse meate, the second mayd servant, the
youngest mayd servant, a woman being skilful in ordering a house, dayry
mayd, laundry mayd, and also for the men servants living in the house,
the bailiff of husbandry, the chief hinde, and the common man-servant,
the shepherd, and the carter.

That some women already aspired to a life of leisure is shown in an
assessment for the East Riding of Yorkshire, which provides a special
rate of wages for the woman-servant “that taketh charge of brewing,
baking, kitching, milk house or malting, that is hired with a gentleman
or rich yeoman, whose wife doth not take the pains and charge upon
her.”[76]

Footnote 76:

  Rogers (J. E. Thorold), _Hist. Agric. and Prices_, Vol. VI., pp.
  686-9, assess. for Yorks, East Riding, Ap. 26, 1593.

In addition to the management of the dairy, etc., the farmer’s wife
often undertook the financial side of the business. Thus Josselin notes
in his Diary: “This day was good wife Day with mee; I perceive she is
resolved to give mee my price for my farme of Mallories, and I intend to
lett it goe.” A few days later he enters “This day I surrendered
Mallories and the appurtenances to Day of Halsted and his daughter.”[77]

Footnote 77:

  Josselin (R), _Diary_, p. 86, April 9th, and 30th, 1650.

The farmer’s wife attended market with great regularity, where she
became thoroughly expert in the art of buying and selling. The journey
to market often involved a long ride on horseback, not always free from
adventure as is shown by information given to the Justices by Maud, wife
of Thomas Collar of Woolavington, who stated that as she was returning
home by herself from Bridgwater market on or about 7th July, Adrian
Towes of Marke, overtook her and calling her ugly toad demanded her
name; he then knocked her down and demanded her purse, to which, hiding
her purse, she replied that she had bestowed all her money in the
market. He then said, ‘I think you are a Quaker,’ & she denied it, he
compelled her to kneel down on her bare knees and swear by the Lord’s
blood that she was not, which to save her life she did. Another woman
then came up and rebuked the said Towes, whereupon he struck her down
‘atwhart’ her saddle into one of her panniers.[78]

Footnote 78:

  _Somerset Quarter Sessions Records_, Vol. III, pp. 370-1, 1659.

Market was doubtless the occasion of much gossip, but it may also have
been the opportunity for a wide interchange of views and opinions on
subjects important to the well-being of the community. While market was
frequented by all the women of the neighbourhood it must certainly have
favoured the formation of a feminine public opinion on current events,
which prevented individual women from relying exclusively upon their
husbands for information and advice.

The names of married women constantly appear in money transactions,
their receipt being valid for debts due to their husbands. Thus Sarah
Fell enters in her Household Book, “Pd. Bridget Pindʳ in full of her
Husband’s bills as appeares £3. 17s. 6d.”[79] by mᵒ pᵈ Anthony Towers
wife in pᵗ foʳ manneʳ wee are to have of heʳ 1.00[80] to mᵒ Recᵈ. of
Myles Gouth wife foʳ ploughing for her 1.04”[81]

Footnote 79:

  _Fell (Sarah) Household Accounts_, p. 317, 1676.

Footnote 80:

  _Fell (Sarah)_, _Household Accounts_, p. 339, 1676.

Footnote 81:

  _Ibid._, p. 386, 1677.

Arithmetic was not considered a necessary item in the education of
girls, though as the following incident shows, women habitually acted in
financial matters.

Samuel Bownas had been sent to gaol for tithe, but the Parson could not
rest and let him out, when he went to Bristol on business and spent two
weeks visiting meetings in Wiltshire. After his return, while away from
home a distant relation called and asked his wife to lend him ten pounds
as he was going to a fair. She not thinking of tithe which was much
more, lent it and he gave her a note, which action was approved by her
husband on his return; but the relation returned again in Samuel
Bownas’s absence to repay, and tore the note as soon as he received it,
giving her a quittance for the tithe instead. She was indignant, saying
it would destroy her husband’s confidence in her. The relation assured
her that he would declare her innocence, but he could not have persuaded
her husband, for “he would have started so many questions that I could
not possibly have affected it any other way than by ploughing with his
heifer.”[82]

Footnote 82:

  _Bownas (Samuel)_, _Life_, pp. 116-17.

Women’s names frequently occur in presentments at Quarter Sessions for
infringements of bye-laws. The Salford Portmote “p’sent Isabell the wyef
of Edmunde Howorthe for that she kept her swyne unlawfull, and did
trespas to the corn of the said Raphe Byrom.”[83]

Footnote 83:

  _Salford Portmote Records_, Vol. I, p. 3, 1597.

Katharine Davie was presented “for not paving before her doore.” Mrs.
Elizabeth Parkhurst for “layinge a dunghill anenst her barne and not
makinge the street cleane.” Isabell Dawson and Edmund Cowper for the
like and Mrs. Byrom and some men “for letting swyne go unringed and
trespassinge into his neighbors corne & rescowinge them when they have
beene sent to the fould.”[84] “Charles Gregorie’s wife complained that
shee is distrained for 3s. for an amerciament for hoggs goeing in the
Streete whereupon, upon her tendring of 3s. xijd is restored with her
flaggon.”[85] The owner of the pig appears very often to be a married
woman. At Carlisle in 1619: “We amarye the wief of John Barwicke for
keping of swine troughes in the hye streyt contrary the paine and
therefore in amercyment according to the orders of this cyttie,
xiiid.”[86]

Footnote 84:

  _Salford Portmote Records_, Vol. II., pp. 6-7, 1633.

Footnote 85:

  Guilding, _Reading Records_, Vol. IV., p. 512, 1653.

Footnote 86:

  Ferguson, _Municipal Records of Carlisle_, p. 278.

Such women may often not have been farmers in the full sense of the
word, but merely kept a few pigs to supplement the family income. Even
the gentry were not too proud to sell farm and garden produce not needed
for family consumption, and are alluded to as “... our Country Squires,
who sell Calves and Runts, and their Wives perhaps Cheese and
Apples.”[87]

Footnote 87:

  Howell, _Familiar Letters_, p. 290, 1644.

Many gentlewomen were proficient in dairy management. Richard
Braithwaite writes of his wife:

                “Oft have I seen her from her Dayrey come
                 Attended by her maids, and hasting home
                 To entertain some Guests of Quality
                 Shee would assume a state so modestly
                 Sance affectation, as she struck the eye
                 With admiration of the stander-by.”

The whole management of the milch cows belonged to the wife, not only
among farming people but also among the gentry. The proceeds were
regarded as her pin-money, and her husband generally handed over to her
all receipts on this account, Sir John Foulis for example entering in
his account book: “June 30 1693. To my wife yᵉ pryce of yᵉ gaird kowes
Hyde, £4 0 0.”[88]

Footnote 88:

  Foulis (Sir John, of Ravelston), _Acct. Bk._, p. 158.

Sometimes when the husband devoted himself to good fellowship, the farm
depended almost entirely on his wife; this was the case with Adam Eyre,
a retired Captain, who enters in his Dyurnall, _Feb. 10, 1647_, “This
morning Godfrey Bright bought my horse of my wife, and gave her £5, and
promised to give her 20s. more, which I had all but 20s. and shee is to
take in the corne sale £4.” _May 18, 1647_, “I came home with Raph
Wordsworth of the Water hall who came to buy a bull on my wife, who was
gone into Holmefrith.”[89]

Footnote 89:

  Eyre, (Capt. Adam), _A Dyurnall_, p. 16, p. 36.

The business capacity of married women was even more valuable in
families where the father wished to devote his talents to science,
politics, or religion, unencumbered by anxiety for his children’s
maintenance. It is said in Peter Heylin’s Life that “Being deprived of
Ecclesiastical preferments, he must think of some honest way for a
livelihood. Yet notwithstanding he followed his studies, in which was
his chief delight.... In which pleasing study while he spent his time,
his good wife, a discreet and active lady, looked both after her
Housewifery within doors, and the Husbandry without; thereby freeing him
from that care and trouble, which otherwise would have hindered his
laborious Pen from going through so great a work in that short time. And
yet he had several divertisements by company, which continually resorted
to his house; for having (God be thanked) his temporal Estate cleared
from Sequestration, by his Composition with the Commissioners at
_Goldsmith’s Hall_, and this Estate which he Farmed besides, he was able
to keep a good House, and relieve his poor brethren.”[90]

Footnote 90:

  _Heylin, (Peter)_, pp. 18-19.

Gregory King’s father was a student of mathematics, “and practised
surveying of land, and dyalling, as a profession; but with more
attention to _good-fellowship_, than mathematical studies generally
allow: and, the care of the family devolved of course on the mother,
who, if she had been less obscure, had emulated the most eminent of the
Roman matrons.”[91]

Footnote 91:

  King (Gregory), _Natural and Political Observations, etc._

Adam Martindale’s wife was equally successful. He writes “about
Michaelmas, 1662, removed my family from the Vicarage to a little house
at Camp-greene, ... where we dwelt above three years and half.... I was
three score pounds in debt, ... but (God be praised) while I staid there
I paid off all that debt and bestowed £40 upon mareling part of my
ground in Tatton.... If any aske how this could be without a Miracle, he
may thus be satisfied. I had sent me ... £41 ... and the £10 my wife
wrangled out of my successor, together with a table, formes and ceiling,
sold him for about £4 more.”[92] Later on he adds “My family finding
themselves straitened for roome, and my wife being willing to keep a
little stock of kine, as she had done formerly, and some inconvenience
falling out (as is usual) by two families under a roofe, removed to a
new house not completely furnished.”[93]

Footnote 92:

  _Martindale, (Adam),_ _Life_, p. 172.

Footnote 93:

  _Ibid._, p. 190.

That in the agricultural community women were generally supposed to be,
from a business point of view, a help and not a hindrance to their
husbands—that in fact the wife was not “kept” by him but helped him to
support the family is shown by terms proposed for colonists in Virginia
by the Merchant Taylors who offer “one hundred acres for every man’s
person that hath a trade, or a body able to endure day labour as much
for his wief, as much for his child, that are of yeres to doe service to
the Colony.”[94]

Footnote 94:

  Clode, (C.M.) _Merchant Taylors_, Vol. I., p. 323.


                            B. _Husbandmen._

Husbandmen were probably the most numerous class in the village
community. Possessed of a small holding at a fixed customary rent and
with rights of grazing on the common, they could maintain a position of
independence.

Statute 31 Eliz., forbidding the erection of cottages without four acres
of land attached, was framed with the intention of protecting the
husbandman against the encroachments of capitalists, for a family which
could grow its own supply of food on four acres of land would be largely
independent of the farmer, as the father could earn the money for the
rent, etc., by working only at harvest when wages were highest. As
however this seasonal labour was not sufficient for the farmers’
demands, such independence was not wholly to their mind, and they
complained of the idleness of husbandmen who would not work for the
wages offered. Thus it was said that “In all or most towns, where the
fields lie open there is a new brood of upstart intruders or inmates ...
loiterers who will not work unless they may have such excessive wages as
they themselves desire.”[95] “There is with us now rather a scarcity
than a superfluity of servants, their wages being advanced to such an
extraordinary height, that they are likely ere long to be masters and
their masters servants, many poor husbandmen being forced to pay near as
much to their servants for wages as to their landlords for rent.”[96]

Footnote 95:

  Pseudonismus, _Considerations concerning Common Fields and
  Enclosures_, 1654.

Footnote 96:

  Pseudonismus, _A Vindication of the Considerations concerning Common
  Fields and Enclosures_, 1656.

The holdings of the husbandmen varied from seven acres or more to half
an acre or even less of garden ground, in which as potatoes[97] were not
yet grown in England the crop consisted of wheat, barley, rye, oats, or
peas. Very likely there was a patch of hemp or flax and an apple-tree or
two, a cherry tree and some elder-berries in the hedge, with a hive or
two of bees in a warm corner. Common rights made it possible to keep
sheep and pigs and poultry, and the possession of a cow definitely
lifted the family above the poverty line.

Footnote 97:

  Potatoes were already in use in Ireland, but are scarcely referred to
  during this period by English writers.

Dorothy Osborne describing her own day to her lover, gives an idyllic
picture of the maidens tending cows on the common: “The heat of the day
is spent in reading or working, and about six or seven o’clock I walk
out into a common that lies hard by the house, where a great many young
wenches keep sheep and cows, and sit in the shade singing of ballads. I
go to them and compare their voices and beauties to some ancient
shepherdesses that I have read of, and find a vast difference there; but
trust me, I think these are as innocent as those could be. I talk to
them and find they want nothing to make them the happiest people in the
world but the knowledge that they are so. Most commonly, when we are in
the midst of our discourse, one looks about her, and spies her cows
going into the corn, and then away they all run as if they had wings at
their heels. I, that am not so nimble, stay behind, and when I see them
driving home their cattle, I think ’tis time for me to retire too.”[98]

Footnote 98:

  _Osborne (Dorothy), Letters_, pp. 103, 4. 1652-1654.

Husbandmen have been defined as a class who could not subsist entirely
upon their holdings, but must to some extent work for wages. Their need
for wages varied according to the size of their holding and according to
the rent. For copy-holders the rent was usually nominal,[99] but in
other cases the husbandman was often forced to pay what was virtually a
rack rent. Few other money payments were necessary and if the holding
was large enough to produce sufficient food, the family had little cause
to fear want.

Footnote 99:

  30s. Susanna Suffolke a young maid holds a customary cottage, ... and
  renteth per annum 2d.

  £28 Eliz. Filoll (widdow) holdeth one customary tenement. Rent per
  annum 26s. 8d.

  £2 Mary Stanes holdeth one customary cottage (late of Robert Stanes)
  and renteth per annum 7d.

  £12 Margaret Dowe (widdow) holdeth one customary tenement (her eldest
  son the next heir) rent 7s. 8d.

  Among freeholders. Johan Mathew (widow) holdeth one free tenement and
  one croft of land thereto belonging ... containing three acres and a
  half and renteth 3d.

  (Stones, Jolley. 1628. From a List of Copyholders in West & S.
  Haningfield, Essex.)

Randall Taylor wrote complacently in 1689 that in comparison with the
French peasants, “Our _English_ husbandmen are both better fed and
taught, and the poorest people here have so much of brown Bread, and the
Gospel, that by the Calculations of our _Bills_ of _Mortality_ it
appears, that for so many years past but One of Four Thousand is
starved.”[100]

Footnote 100:

  Taylor. (Randall), _Discourse of the Growth of England, etc._, p. 96,
  1689.

The woman of the husbandman class was muscular and well nourished.
Probably she had passed her girlhood in service on a farm, where hard
work, largely in the open air, had sharpened her appetite for the
abundant diet which characterised the English farmer’s housekeeping.
After marriage, much of her work was still out of doors, cultivating her
garden and tending pigs or cows, while her husband did his day’s work on
neighbouring farms. Frugal and to the last degree laborious were her
days, but food was still sufficient and her strength enabled her to bear
healthy children and to suckle them. It was exactly this class of woman
that the gentry chose as wet nurses for their babies. Their lives would
seem incredibly hard to the modern suburban woman, but they had their
reward in the respect and love of their families and in the sense of
duties worthily fulfilled.

The more prosperous husbandmen often added to their households an
apprentice child, but in other cases the holdings were too small to
occupy even the family’s whole time.

At harvest in any case all the population of the village turned out to
work; men, women, and children, not only those belonging to the class of
husbandmen, but the tradesmen as well, did their bit in a work so
urgent; for in those days each district depended on its own supply of
corn, there being scarcely any means of transport.

Except during the harvest, wages were so low that a man who had a
holding of his own was little tempted to work for them, though he might
undertake some special and better-paid occupation, such as that of a
shepherd. Pepys, describing a visit to Epsom, writes: “We found a
shepherd and his little boy reading, far from any houses or sight of
people, the Bible to him, I find he had been a servant in my Cozen
Pepys’s house ... the most like one of the old patriarchs that ever I
saw in my life ... he values his dog mightily, ... about eighteen score
sheep in his flock, he hath four shillings a week the year round for
keeping of them.”[101]

Footnote 101:

  Pepys, Vol. IV, p. 428. 14 July, 1667.

Probably this picturesque shepherd belonged to the class of husbandmen,
for the wages paid are higher than those of a household servant. Four
shillings a week comes to £10.8.0 by the year, whereas a Wiltshire wages
assessment for 1685 provided that a servant who was a chief shepherd
looking after 1,500 sheep or more was not to receive more than £5 by the
year.[102] On the other hand, four shillings a week would not maintain
completely the shepherd, his boy and a dog, not to speak of a wife and
other children. Thus, while the shepherd tended his sheep, we may
imagine his wife and children were cultivating their allotment.

Footnote 102:

  _Hist. MSS. Miss. Com. Var. Coll._, Vol. I. p. 170.

The wages for the harvest work of women as well as men, were fixed by
the Quarter Sessions.[103] References to their work may be found in
account books and diaries. Thus Dame Nicholson notes: “_Aug. 13, 1690_,
I began to sher ye barin croft about 11 o’clock, ther was Gordi Bar and
his wife—also Miler’s son James and his sister Margit also a wife called
Nieton—they sher 17 threv and 7 chivis.”[104]

Footnote 103:

  A comparison of the assessments which have been preserved, in the
  different counties shows that men’s earnings varied in the hay harvest
  from:—

  4d. and meat and drink, or 8d. without, to
  8d. and meat and drink, or 1s. 4d. without

  and in the corn harvest from:—

  5d. and meat and drink, or 10d. without, to
  1s. and meat and drink, or  2s. without

  Women’s wages varied in the hay harvest from:—

  1d. and meat and drink, or 4d. without, to
  6d. and meat and drink, or 1s. without

  and in the corn harvest from:—

  2d. and meat and drink, or 6d. without, to
  6d. and meat and drink, or 1s. without

  The variations in these wages correspond with the price of corn in
  different parts of England and must not be regarded as necessarily
  representing differences in the real value of wages.

Footnote 104:

  Society of Antiquarians of Scotland, vol. xxxix, p. 125. _Dame
  Margaret Nicholson’s Account Book._

Best gives a detailed account of the division of work between men and
women on a Yorkshire farm: “Wee have allwayes one man, or else one of
the ablest of the women, to abide on the mowe, besides those that goe
with the waines.[105] The best sort of men-shearers have usually 8d. a
day and are to meate themselves; the best sorte of women shearers have
(most commonly) 6d. a day.[106] It is usuall in some places (wheare the
furres of the landes are deepe worne with raines) to imploy women, with
wain-rakes, to gather the corne out of the said hollow furres after that
the sweath-rakes have done.[107] ... We use meanes allwayes to gett
eyther 18 or else 24 pease pullers, which wee sette allways sixe on a
lande, viz., a woman and a man, a woman and a man, a woman or boy and a
man, etc., the weakest couple in the fore furre ... it is usuall in most
places after they gette all pease pulled, or the last graine downe, to
invite all the worke-folkes and wives (that helped them that harvest) to
supper, and then have they puddinges, bacon, or boyled beefe, flesh or
apple pyes, and then creame brought in platters, and every one a spoone;
then after all they have hotte cakes and ale; some will cutte theire
cake and putte into the creame and this feaste is called the
creame-potte or creame-kitte ... wee send allwayes, the daye before wee
leade, [pease] two of our boys, or a boy and one of our mayds with each
of them a shorte mowe forke to turn them.”[108]

Footnote 105:

  Best, _Rural Economy_, p. 36.

Footnote 106:

  _Ibid._ p. 42.

Footnote 107:

  Best, _Rural Economy_, p. 59.

Footnote 108:

  _Ibid._ pp. 93-4.

For thatching, Best continues: “Wee usually provide two women for helpes
in this kinde, _viz._, one to drawe thacke, and the other to serve the
thatcher; she that draweth thacke hath 3d. a day, and shee that serveth
the thatcher 4d. a day, because shee also is to temper the morter, and
to carry it up to the toppe of the howse.... Shee that draweth thatch
shoulde always have dry wheate strawe ... whearewith to make her bandes
for her bottles. She that serveth will usually carry up 4 bottles at a
time, and sometimes but 3 if the thatch bee longe and very wette.”[109]

Footnote 109:

  _Ibid._, pp. 138-9. “The thatchers,” Best says, “have in most places
  6d. a day & theire meate in Summer time, ... yett we neaver use to
  give them above 4d ... because their dyett is not as in other places;
  for they are to have three meale a day, viz. theire breakfaste att
  eight of the clocke, ... theire dinner about twelve and theire supper
  about seaven or after when they leave worke; and att each meale fower
  services, viz. butter, milke, cheese, and either egges, pyes, or
  bacon, and sometimes porridge insteade of milke: if they meate
  themselves they have usually 10d. a day.”

“Spreaders of mucke and molehills are (for the most parte) women, boyes
and girles, the bigger and abler sorte of which have usually 3d. a day,
and the lesser sorte of them 2d. a day.”[110] “Men that pull pease have
8d. women 6d. a day.”[111]

Footnote 110:

  Best, _Rural Economy_, p. 140.

Footnote 111:

  _Ibid._ p. 142.

A picture of hay-harvesting in the West of England given by Celia
Fiennes suggests that in other parts of England to which she was
accustomed, the labour, especially that of women, was not quite so
heavy. All over Devon and Cornwall she says, hay is carried on the
horses’ backs and the people “are forced to support it wᵗʰ their hands,
so to a horse they have two people, and the women leads and supports
them, as well as yᵉ men and goe through thick and thinn.... I wondred at
their Labour in this kind, for the men and the women themselves toiled
Like their horses.”[112]

Footnote 112:

  Fiennes (Celia), _Through England on a Side-saddle_, p. 225.

There was hardly any kind of agricultural work from which women were
excluded. Everenden “payed 1s. 2d. to the wife of Geo. Baker for
shearing 28 sheep.”[113] In Norfolk the wages for a “woman clipper of
sheepe” were assessed at 6d. per day with meat and drink, 1s. without,
while a man clipper was paid 7d. and 14d. It is noteworthy that only 4d.
per day was allowed in the same assessment for the diet of “women and
such impotent persons that weed corn and other such like Laborers” and
2d. per day for their wages.[114] Pepys on his visit to Stonehenge “gave
the shepherd-woman, for leading our horses, 4d.,”[115] while Foulis
enters, “Jan. 25, 1699 to tonie to give ye women at restalrig for making
good wailings of strae, 4s. (Scots money).”[116]

Footnote 113:

  Suss. Arch. Coll. Vol. IV., p. 24. _Everendon Account Book._

Footnote 114:

  Tingye (J. C.), _Eng. Hist. Rev._, Vol. XIII., pp. 525-6.

Footnote 115:

  Pepys, Vol. V., p. 302. (11th June, 1668).

Footnote 116:

  Foulis (Sir John) _Acct. Bk._, p. 246.

But the wives of husbandmen were not confined to agricultural work as is
shown by many payments entered to them in account books:[117] Thus the
church wardens at Strood, in Kent, paid the widow Cable for washing the
surplices 1s.[118]; and at Barnsley they gave “To Ricard Hodgaris wife
for whipping dogs” (out of the Church) 2s.[119] while “Eustace Lowson of
Salton (a carrier of lettres and a verie forward, wicked woman in that
folly)” and Isabell her daughter are included in a Yorkshire list of
recusants.[120]

Footnote 117:

  “Aug. 7th., 1701 to my wife, to a Bleicher wife at bonaley for
  bleitching 1. 3. 4.” (Scots)

  “Jan. 28th, 1703 to my good douchter jennie to give tibbie tomsome for
  her attendance on my wife the time of her sickness 5.16.0 (Scots).
  (_Foulis (Sir John) Acct. Bk._ p. 295, 314.)

  “Sep. 11th, 1676, pd. her (Mary Taylor) more for bakeing four days.
  Mothers Acct. 8d. (_Fell, (Sarah) Household Accts._ p. 309.)

  “Pd. Widow Lewis for gathering herbs two daies 6d. (Sussex, Arch.
  Coll. xlviii. p. 120. _Extracts from the Household Account Book of
  Herstmonceux Castle._)

  “Paid to goodwife Stopinge for 2 bundles of Rushes at Whitsuntide for
  the Church, iiijid. (_Churchwarden’s Account Book, Strood_, p. 95,
  1612.”

Footnote 118:

  _Churchwarden’s Account Book, Strood_, p. 197. 1666.

Footnote 119:

  Cox (J. C.) _Churchwarden’s Accts._, p. 309.

Footnote 120:

  _Yorks. North Riding, Q.S. Rec._, Vol. I., p. 62, Jan. 8., 1606-7.

No doubt the mother with young children brought them with her to the
harvest field, where they played as safely through the long summer day
as if they and she had been at home. But at other times she chose work
which did not separate her from her children, spinning being her
unfailing resource. It is difficult living in the age of machinery to
imagine the labour which clothing a family by hand-spinning involved,
though the hand-spun thread was durable and fashions did not change.

In spite of the large demand the price paid was very low, but when not
obliged to spin for sale, time was well spent in spinning for the
family. The flax or hemp grown on the allotment, was stored up for
shirts and house-linen. If the husbandman had no sheep, the children
gathered scraps of wool from the brambles on the common, and thus the
only money cost of the stuff worn by the husbandman’s household was the
price paid to the weaver.

The more prosperous the family, the less the mother went outside to
work, but this did not mean, as under modern conditions, that her share
in the productive life of the country was less. Her productive energy
remained as great, but was directed into channels from which her family
gained the whole profit. In her humble way she fed and clothed them,
like the wise woman described by Solomon.

The more she was obliged to work for wages, the poorer was her family.


                           C. _Wage-earners._

In some respects it is less difficult to visualise the lives of women in
the wage-earning class than in the class of farmers and husbandmen. The
narrowness of their circumstances and the fact that their destitution
brought them continually under the notice of the magistrates at Quarter
Sessions have preserved data in greater completeness from which to
reconstruct the picture. Had this information been wanting such a
reconstruction would have demanded no vivid imagination, because the
results of the semi-starvation of mothers and small children are very
similar whether it takes place in the seventeenth or the twentieth
century; the circumstances of the wives of casual labourers and men who
are out of work and “unemployable” in modern England may be taken as
representing those of almost the whole wage-earning class in the
seventeenth century.

The most important factors governing the lives of wage-earning women
admit of no dispute. First among these was their income, for
wage-earners have already been defined as the class of persons depending
wholly upon wages for the support of their families.

Throughout the greater part of the seventeenth century the rate of wages
was not left to be adjusted by the laws of supply and demand, but was
regulated for each locality by the magistrates at Quarter Sessions.
Assessments fixing the maximum rates were published annually and were
supposed to vary according to the price of corn. Certainly they did vary
from district to district according to the price of corn in that
district, but they were not often changed from year to year.

Prosecutions of persons for offering and receiving wages in excess of
the maximum rates frequently occurred in the North Riding of Yorkshire,
but it is extremely rare to find a presentment for this in other Quarter
Sessions. The Assessments were generally accepted as publishing a rate
that public opinion considered fair towards master and man, and outside
Yorkshire steps were seldom taken to prevent masters from paying more to
valued servants. That upon the whole the Assessments represent the rate
ordinarily paid can be shown by a comparison with entries in
contemporary account books.

The Assessments deal largely with the wages of unmarried farm servants
and with special wages for the seasons of harvest, intended for the
occasional labour of husbandmen, but in addition there are generally
rates quoted by the day for the common labourer in the summer and winter
months. Even when meat and drink is supplied, the day-rates for these
common labourers are higher than the wages paid to servants living in
the house and are evidently intended for married men with families.

In one Assessment different rates are expressly given for the married
and unmarried who are doing the same work,[121] a married miller
receiving with his meat and drink, 4d. a day which after deducting
holidays would amount to £500 by the year, while the unmarried miller
has only 46s. 8d. and a pair of boots.

Footnote 121:

  A shoemaker servant of the best sorte being married, to have without
  meate and drinke for every dosin of shoes —— xxijid.

  ditto unmarried to have by the yeare with meat and drink and withowte
  a leverye —— liijs.

  Millers and drivers of horses beinge batchelors then with meate and
  drinke and without a liverye and a payre of boots —— xlvis viijid.

  Millers and drivers of horses beinge married men shall not take more
  by the daye then with meate and drinke —— ivid. and without viijid.

  a man servant of the best sorte shall not have more by the yeare then
  with a levereye —— xls. and without xlvjs viiid.

  the same, of the thirde sorte has only with a leverye xxvjs viiid. and
  without —— xxxiijs iiijd.

  while any sort of labourer, from the Annunciation of our Ladye until
  Michellmas has with meat and drink by the day —— ivd. and without
  viijd.

  From Michellmas to the Annunciation —— iiid. and without vijd.

  The best sorte of women servants shall not have more by the yeare than
  with a liverye —— xxjs. and without —— xxvjs viijd.

  while “a woman reaping of corne” shall not have “more by the daye then
  —— vd with meat and drink.”

                   (_Hertfordshire Assessment_, 1591).

  Every man-servant serving with any person as a Comber of Wooll to have
  by the yeare —— 40s.

  Every such servant being a single man and working by yᵉ pound to have
  by yᵉ pound —— 1ᵈ.

  Every such servant being a marryed man and having served as an
  apprentice thereto according to the statute to have by yᵉ pound —— 2ᵈ.

                    (_Assessment for Suffolk_, 1630).

Assessments generally show a similar difference between the day wages of
a common labourer and the wages of the best man-servant living in the
house, and it may therefore be assumed that day labourers were generally
married persons.

Day rates were only quoted for women on seasonal jobs, such as harvest
and weeding. It was not expected that married women would work all the
year round for wages, and almost all single women were employed as
servants.

The average wage of the common agricultural labourer as assessed at
Quarter Sessions was 3½d. per day in winter, and 4½d. per day in summer,
in addition to his meat and drink. Actual wages paid confirm the truth
of these figures, though it is not always clear whether the payments
include meat and drink.[122]

Footnote 122:

  Paid to a shovele man for 2 days to shovell in the cart rakes, 2s.
  (_Hertford Co. Rec._, Vol. I, p. 233, 1672.) 2½ days’ work of a
  labourer, 2s. 6d. (_ibid._, p. 130, 1659).

  For one daies work for one labourer, 1s. (_Strood Churchwarden’s Acc._
  p. 182, 1662.)

  pᵈ. to James Smith for one days’ work thatching about Widow Barber’s
  house, she being in great distress by reason she could not lie down in
  her bed and could get no help to do the same. 1s. 2d. (_Cratford
  Parish Papers_, p. 152, 1622.) Thatchers were paid more than ordinary
  labourers, being generally assessed at the same rate as a carpenter,
  or a mower in the harvest.

  _July 15, 1676._ Tho. Scott for workeinge hay 2 dayes, 4d.

  Tho. Greaves youngeʳ for workeinge hay 2 dayes, 4d.

  _May 5, 1678_, Will Braithwᵗ foʳ threshing 6 dayes 1.00.

  _April 27, 1676_, by mᵒ. pᵈ. him for thatching 2 days at Petties
  Tenemᵗ, 8d.

  _August 2, 1676._ pᵈ Margᵗ Dodgson foʳ workinge at hay & otheʳ worke 5
  weekes 03. 06.

  pᵈ Mary Ashbrner for workinge at hay & other worke 4 weekes & 3 dayes,
  03. 0. 0.

  _Sept 4._ pᵈ. Will Nicholson wife foʳ weedinge in yᵉ garden & pullinge
  hempe 12 dayes 01. 0. 0.

  _Oct. 2._ pᵈ. Issa. Atkinson for her daughtʳ Swingleinge 6 dayes 01.
  0. 0.

  _May 7, 1677._ pᵈ. Will Ashbrner for his daughteʳ harrowing here 2
  weekes 01. 0. 0. (_Fell (Sarah), House Acct._)

  Labourers’ wages 4d. per day.

  (_Hist. MSS. Comm. Var. Coll._, Vol. IV. 133, 1686. Sir Jno. Earl’s
  Inventory of goods.)

  Weeks’ work common labourer, 3s. Thos. West, 1 week’s haying 2s.
  (_Sussex Arch. Coll._, Vol. IV, p. 24, _Everendon Acc. Book_, 1618.)

  Paid for a labourer 3 dayes to hoult the alees and carrying away the
  weedes, 1s. 6d. (_Cromwell Family, Bills and Receipts_, Vol. II, p.
  233, 1635.)

  _Jan. 26, 1649._ Payd. to John Wainwright for 5 days worke 1s. 8d.
  [Yorkshire].

  (_Eyre (Capt. Adam) Dyurnall_, p. 117.)

  Thos. Hutton, xiiij days work ijs. iiijd, his wyfe xij dayes iiijs.
  Thos. Hutton xiij dayes at hay vid, his wyfe 4 dayes xvjid. Leonell
  Bell, xiij dayes about hay, vjs. vjid.

  Tho. Bullman the lyke. iiijs. iiijd, Thos. Hutton 4 dayes at mowing
  corne, xvjid.

  _Howard Household Book_, p. 40-41).

If we accept the Assessments as representing the actual wages earned by
the ordinary labourer we can estimate with approximate accuracy the
total income of a labourer’s family, for we have defined the wage-earner
as a person who depended wholly upon wages and excluded from this class
families who possessed gardens. Taking a figure considerably higher than
the one at which the Assessment averages work out, namely 5d. per day
instead of 4d. per day, to be the actual earnings of a labouring man in
addition to his meat and drink, and doubling that figure for the three
months which include the hay and corn harvests, his average weekly
earnings will amount to 3s. 2d. Except in exceptional circumstances his
wife’s earnings would not amount to more than 1s. a week and her meat
and drink. The more young children there were, the less often could the
wife work for wages, and when not doing so her food as well as the
children’s must be paid for out of the family income.

In a family with three small children it is unlikely that the mother’s
earnings were more than what would balance days lost by the father for
holidays or illness, and the cost of his food on Sundays, but allowing
for a small margin we may assume that 3s. 6d. was the weekly income of a
labourer’s family, and that this sum must provide rent and clothing for
the whole family and food for the mother and children.

A careful investigation of the cost of living is necessary before we can
test whether this amount was adequate for the family’s maintenance.

There is no reason to suppose that a diet inferior to present standards
could maintain efficiency in the seventeenth century. On the contrary,
the English race at that time attributed their alleged superiority over
other nations to a higher standard of living.[123]

Footnote 123:

  The dietary in charitable institutions gives an idea of what was
  considered bare necessity.

           (_Children’s Diet in Christ Church Hospital_, 1704.)

  For breakfast, Bread and Beer. For dinner, Sunday, Tuesday, and
  Thursday, boiled beef and pottage. Monday, milk pottage, Wednesday,
  furmity. Friday old pease & pottage. Saturday water gruel. For supper
  bread and cheese or butter for those that cannot eat cheese. Sunday
  supper, legs of mutton. Wednesday and Friday, pudding pies.

                    (_Stow, London, Book_ I, p. 182.)
            _Diet for Workhouse, Bishopsgate Street, London._

  They have Breakfasts, dinners, and suppers every day in the week. For
  each meal 4 oz. bread, 1½ oz. cheese, 1 oz. butter, 1 pint of beer.
  Breakfast, four days, bread and cheese or butter and beer. Mondays a
  pint of Pease Pottage, with Bread and Beer. Tuesdays a Plumb Pudding
  Pye 9 oz. and beer. Wednesdays a pint of Furmity. On Friday a pint of
  Barley Broth and bread. On Saturdays, a plain Flower Sewet Dumpling
  with Beer. Their supper always the same, 4 oz. bread, 1½ of cheese or
  1 oz. of butter, and beer sufficient. (Stow, _London_, Book I, p.
  199).

             _Lady Grisell Baillie gives her servant’s diet_:

  Sunday they have boild beef and broth made in the great pot, and
  always the broth made to serve two days. Monday, broth made on Sunday,
  and a Herring. Tuesday, broth and beef. Wednesday, broth and two eggs
  each. Thursday, broth and beef. Friday, Broth and herring. Saturday,
  broth without meat, and cheese, or a pudden or blood-pudens, or a
  hagish, or what is most convenient. Breakfast and super, half an oat
  loaf or a proportion of broun bread, but better set down the loaf, and
  see non is taken or wasted, and a muchkin of beer or milk whenever
  there is any. At dinner a mutchkin of beer for each. _Baillie (Lady
  Grisell). Household Book_, pp. 277-8. 1743.

A comparison between the purchasing power of money in the seventeenth
and twentieth centuries is unsatisfactory for our purpose, because the
relative values of goods have changed so enormously. Thus, though rent,
furniture and clothes were much cheaper in the seventeenth century,
there was less difference in the price of food. Sixpence per day is
often given in Assessments as the cost of a labourer’s meat and drink
and this is not much below the amount spent per head on these items in
wage-earners’ families during the first decade of the twentieth century.

One fact alone is almost sufficient to prove the inadequacy of a
labourer’s wage for the maintenance of his family. His money wages
seldom exceeded the estimated cost of his own meat and drink as supplied
by the farmer, and yet these wages were to supply all the necessaries of
life for his whole family. Some idea of the bare cost of living in a
humble household may be gained by the rates fixed for pensions and by
allowances made for Poor Relief. From these it appears that four
shillings to five shillings a week was considered necessary for an
adult’s maintenance.

The Cromwell family paid four shillings weekly “to the widd. Bottom for
her bord.”[124] Pensions for maimed soldiers and widows were fixed at
four shillings per week “or else work to be provided which will make
their income up to 4s. per week. Sick and wounded soldiers under cure
for their wounds to have 4s. 8d. per week.”[125]

Footnote 124:

  _Cromwell Family, Bills and Receipts_, Vol. II., p. 233, 1635.

Footnote 125:

  _Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum_, II., p. 556. (For Maimed
  Soldiers and Widows of Scotland and Ireland, Sept 30, 1651.)

The Justices in the North Riding of Yorkshire drew up a scale of
reasonable prices for billeted soldiers by which each trooper was to pay
for his own meat for each night—6d; dragoon, 4½d; foot soldier, 4d.[126]

Footnote 126:

  _Yorks. North Riding, Q.S. Rec._, Vol. VII., p. 106, 1690.

“Edward Malin, blacksmith, now fourscore and three past and his wife
fourscore, wanting a quarter” very poor and unable “to gett anything
whereby to live,” complained to the Hertfordshire Quarter Sessions that
they receive only 1s. 6d. a week between them; “others have eighteen
pence apiece single persons” and desire that an order be made for them
to have 3s. together which is but the allowance made to other
persons.[127]

Footnote 127:

  _Hertfordshire, Co. Rec._, Vol. I., p. 258, 1675.

In cases of Poor Relief where payments were generally intended to be
supplementary to other sources of income, the grants to widows towards
the maintenance of their children were often absurdly small; in
Yorkshire, Parish officers were ordered to “provide convenient
habitation for a poor woman as they shall think fit and pay her 4d.
weekly for the maintenance of herself and child.”[128] In another case
to pay a very poor widow 6d. weekly for the maintenance of herself and
her three children.[129] The allowance of 12d. weekly to a woman and her
small children was reduced to 6d., “because the said woman is of able
body, and other of her children are able to work.”[130] On the other
hand when an orphan child was given to strangers to bring up, amounts
varying from 1s. to 5s. per week were paid for its maintenance.[131]

Footnote 128:

  _Yorks. N.R. Q.S. Rec._, Vol. VI., p. 242, 1675.

Footnote 129:

  _Ibid._ p. 217, 1674.

Footnote 130:

  _Ibid._ p. 260, 1674.

Footnote 131:

  Joane Weekes ... “hadd a maide childe placed to her to bee kept &
  brought upp, the mother of which Childe was executed at the Assizes,
  six pounds per ann, proporconed toward the keepinge of the said childe
  ... besides she desireth some allowance extraordinary for bringinge
  the said Childe to bee fitt to gett her livinge.” (_Somerset, Q.S.
  Rec._, Vol. III, p. 28-9, 1647).

  In 1663 a woman who was committed to the Castle of Yorke for felony
  and afterwards executed, was while there delivered of a male child,
  which was left in the gaol, and as it was not known where the woman
  was last an inhabitant the child could not be sent to the place of her
  settlement, Sir Tho. Gower was desired by Justices of Assize to take a
  course for present maintenance of the child. He caused it to be put
  unto the wife of John Boswell to be nursed and provided for with other
  necessaries. John Boswell and his wife have maintained the child ever
  since and have hitherto received no manner of allowance for the same.
  Ordered that the several Ridings shall pay their proportions to the
  maintenance past and present, after the rate of £5 per annum. (_Yorks.
  N.R. Q.S. Rec._, Vol. VI, pp. 102-3, 1666.)

  Marmaduke Vye was only to have £4 a year for keeping the child born in
  the gaol of Ivelchester whose mother was hanged for cutting of purses.
  (_Somerset Q.S. Rec._, Vol. I, p. 101., 1613.)

  Item payd to the said widowe Elkyns for Dyett and keeping of a poore
  child leafte upon the chardge of the parish at 11d. the weecke from
  the 14th of August, 1599, till this secound of Sept., 1601, every
  Saturday, being two yeres and three weeckes, videlicet 107 weeckes in
  toto vˡⁱ vijs. (_Ch. Accs., St. Michael’s in Bedwendine, Worcester_,
  p. 147.)

  Itm pd. to Batrome’s wife of Linstead for keeping of Wright’s child 52
  weeks £3 0s. 8d. (Cratfield _Parish Papers_, p. 129, 1602.)

  Pd to Geo. Cole to take and bring up Eliz. Wright, the daughter of Ann
  Wright according to his bond, £4. 0s. 0d. More towards her apparell
  5s. (_Ibid._ p. 137. 1609.)

  Item paide Chart’s Child’s keeping by the week £4. 11s. 8d. Item for
  apparrell £1. 18s. 2d. Item paid to the surgeon for her. 3s. 6d.
  (_Suss. Arch. Coll._, Vol. xx., p. 101, _Acct. Bk of Cowden_. 1627.)
  for apparrelling Wm. Uridge and for his keeping this yeare £5. 12s.
  9d.

  (_Ibid._ p. 103, 1632.)

  For the keep of William Kemsing 14 weeks £1. 2s. 8d. and 23 weeks at
  2s. per week, £2. 6s. 0d. and for apparrelling of him; and for his
  indentures; and for money given with him to put him out apprentice;
  and expended in placing him out £11. 17s. 9d.

  (_Ibid._ p. 107, 1650.)

  John Mercies wief for keeping Buckles child, weekly, 1s. 6d.

  John Albaes wief for keeping Partickes child, 1s. 4d.

  (_S.P.D._, cccxlvii., 67, 1. Feb, 1637. Answer of Churchwardens to
  Articles given by J.P.’s for St. Albans).

  George Arnold and Jas. Michell late overseers of the poore of the
  parishe of Othery ... had committed a poore child to the custody,
  keepinge and maintenance of ... Robert Harris promising him xijid.
  weekly. (_Somerset, Q.S. Rec._, Vol. III, p. 1, 1646.) Order for Thos.
  Scott, a poor, lame, impotent child, to be placed with Joanna Brandon;
  She to be paid 5s. a week for his maintenance. (_Middlesex Co. Rec._,
  p. 180, _Sess. Book_, 1698).

Thus the amount paid by the Justices for maintaining one pauper child
sometimes exceeded the total earnings of a labourer and his wife. Other
pauper children were maintained in institutions. The girls at a
particularly successful Industrial School in Bristol were given an
excellent and abundant diet at a cost of 1s. 4d. per head per week.[132]
At Stepney, the poor were maintained at 2s. 10d or 3s. per week,
including all incidental expenses, firing and lodging. At Strood in
Kent, 2s. was paid for children boarded out in poor families, while the
inmates of the workhouse at Hanstope, Bucks, were supposed not to cost
the parish more than 1s. 6d. a week per head.[133] At Reading it was
agreed “that Clayton’s wief shall have xiiiiid. a weeke for every poore
childe in the hospitall accomptinge each childe’s worke in parte of
payment.”[134]

Footnote 132:

  Cary, _Acc. Proceedings of the Corporation of Bristol_. 1700. “Their
  diets were made up of such provisions as were very wholesome, viz.
  Beef, Pease, Potatoes, Broath, Pease-porridge, Milk-porridge, Bread
  and Cheese, good Beer, Cabage, Carrots, Turnips, etc. it stood us
  (with soap to wash) in about sixteen pence per week for each of the
  one hundred girls.”

Footnote 133:

  _Account Workhouses_, 1725, p. 13, p. 37, p. 79.

Footnote 134:

  Guilding, _Reading_, Vol. II., p. 273, Jan. 16, 1625-6.

These and many other similar figures show that a child must have cost
from 1s. to 1s. 6d. a week for food alone, the amount varying according
to age. Above seven years of age, children began to contribute towards
their own support, but they were not completely self-supporting before
the age of thirteen or fourteen.

According to the wages assessments, a woman’s diet was reckoned at a
lower figure than a man’s, but whenever they are engaged on heavy work
such as reaping corn or shearing sheep, 6d. or 8d. a day is allowed for
their “meate and drinke.” On other work, such as weeding or spinning,
where only 2d. a day is reckoned for wages, their food also is only
estimated as costing 2d. to 4d. As in such cases they are classed with
“other impotent persons” it must not be supposed that 2d. or 3d.
represents the cost of the food needed by a young active woman; it may
even have been prolonged semi-starvation that had reduced the woman to
the level of impotency. Unfortunately, there is often a wide difference
between the cost of what a woman actually eats and what is necessary to
maintain her in efficiency. Probably the woman who was doing ordinary
work while pregnant or suckling a baby may have needed as much food as
the woman who was reaping corn; but in the wage-earner’s family she
certainly did not get it; thus when a writer[135] alleges that a man’s
diet costs 5d. a day and a woman’s 1s. 6d per week, his statement may be
correct as to fact, though the babies have perished for want of
nourishment and the mother has been reduced to invalidism.

Footnote 135:

  Dunning, R. _Plain and Easie Method_, p. 5, 1686.

Another writer gives 2s. as being sufficient to “keep a poor man or
woman (with good husbandry) one whole week.”[136] Certainly 2s. is the
very lowest figure that can have sufficed to keep up the mother’s
strength. The bare cost of food for a mother and three children must
have amounted to at least 5s. 6d. per week, but there were other
necessaries to be provided from the scanty wages. The poorest family
required some clothes, and though these may have been given by
charitable persons, rent remained to be paid. Building was cheap. In
Scotland, the “new house” with windows glazed with “ches losens” only
cost £4 12s. 3d. to build, while a “cothouse” built for Liddas “the
merchant” cost only £1 0 0;[137] other cots were built for 4s., 11s.
1d,, 5s. and 14s. 4d. These Scottish dwellings were mud hovels, but in
England the labourers’ dwellings were not much better.

Footnote 136:

  _Trade of England_, p. 10, 1681.

Footnote 137:

  Baillie (Lady Grisel), _House Book_, Introd. Ixiv.

Celia Fiennes describes the houses at the Land’s End as being “poor
Cottages, Like Barns to Look on, much Like those in Scotland, but to doe
my own country its right yᵉ Inside of their Little Cottages are Clean
and plaister’d and such as you might Comfortably Eat and drink in, and
for curiosity sake I dranck there and met with very good bottled
ale.”[138]

Footnote 138:

  Fiennes (Celia), _Through England on a Side-saddle_, p. 224.

In some places the labourers made themselves habitations on the waste,
but this was strictly against the law, such houses being only allowed
for the impotent poor.

Many fines are entered in Quarter Sessions Records for building houses
without the necessary quantity of land. By 39 Eliz. churchwardens and
overseers were ordered, for the relief of the impotent poor, to build
convenient houses at the charges of the Parish, but only with the
consent of the Lord of the Manor. 43 Eliz. added that such buildings
were not at any time after to be used for other inhabitants but only for
the impotent poor, placed there by churchwardens and overseers.

The housing problem was so acute that many orders were made by the
justices sanctioning or ordering the erection of these cottages. “Rob.
Thompson of Brompton and Eliz. Thompson of Aymonderby widow, stand
indicted for building a cottage in Aymonderby against the statute, etc.,
upon a piece of ground, parcell of the Rectorie of Appleton-on-the
street, and in which the said Eliz. doth dwell by the permission of John
Heslerton, fermour of the said Rectorie, and that the same was so
erected for the habitation of the said Elizᵗʰ. being a poore old woman
and otherwise destitute of harbour and succour ... ordered that the said
cottage shall continue ... for the space of twelve yeares, if the said
Elizᵗʰ. live so long, or that the said Heslerton’s lease do so long
endure.”[139] In another case, Nicholas Russell, the wife of Thomas
Waterton, and Robert Arundell, were presented for erecting cottages upon
the Lord’s waste ... at the suit of parishioners these cottages are
allowed by Mr. Coningsby, lord of the manor.[140]

Footnote 139:

  _Yorks. N.R. Q.S. Rec._, Vol. I., p. 29. 1605-6.

Footnote 140:

   _Hertfordshire Co. Rec._, Vol. I., p. 63. 1639-41.

It was often necessary to compel unwilling overseers to build cottages
for the impotent poor, and for widows. “A woman with three children
prays leave for the erection of a cottage in East Bedwyn, she having no
habitation, but depending upon alms; from lying in the street she was
conveyed into the church where she remained some small time, but was
then ejected by the parish.” The overseers are ordered to provide for
her.[141]

Footnote 141:

  _Hist., MSS. Com. Var. Coll._, Vol. I, p. 113, _Wilts. Q.S. Rec._
  1646.

The overseers at Shipley were ordered to build a house on the waste
there for Archelaus Braylsford, to contain “two chambers floored fit for
lodgings” or in default 5s. a week. At the following sessions his house
was further ordered to be “a convenient habitation 12 feet high upon the
side walls soe as to make 2 convenient chambers.”[142]

Footnote 142:

  Cox, _Derbyshire Annals_, Vol. II, p. 176, 1693.

  The following cases are representative of an immense number of
  petitions from widows and the impotent poor:

  1608. Margaret Johns having dwelt in Naunton Beauchamp for 55 years
  has now no house or room but dwells in a barn, she desires to have
  house room and will not charge the parish so long as she is able to
  work.

  1620. Eleanor Williams charged with keeping of young child is now
  unprovided with house room for herself and her poor child, her husband
  having left the soile where they lately dwelled and is gone to some
  place to her unknown. She is willing “to relieve her child by her
  painful labour but wanteth a place for abode” prays to be provided
  with house room.

  (Bund, J. W. Willis, _Worcestershire Co. Records_, Vol. I., pp. 116-7,
                                  337).

  1621. Overseers of Uggliebarbie to provide a suitable dwelling for 2
  women (sisters) if they refuse them a warrant, etc. (_Yorks. North
  Riding Q.S. Recs._, Vol. III., p. 118.)

  1672. Parish Officers of Scruton to provide a convenient habitation
  for Mary Hutchinson and to set her on work, and provide for her, etc.,
  until she shall recover the possession of certain lands in Scruton.
  (_Ibid._ Vol. VI., p. 175).

  1684. Mary Marchant ... livinge in good estimation And repute for many
  years together; being very Carefull to maintaine herself And family
  for being prejudice to ye sd. Towne; ye petitioners husbande beinge
  abroad and driven Away; and returninge not backe Againe to her
  leaveinge ye petitioner with a little girle; being In want was put
  into a little cottage by & with ye consent of ye sd. Towne; ye sd.
  Owner of ye sd. Tenement comeinge when ye petitioner was gon forth to
  worke leavinge her little girle in ye sd. house; ye sd. Owner get a
  locke And Key upp on ye door, where as your petitioner cannot Injoy
  her habitation wth peace and quietness; soe yt your petitioner is
  likely to starve for want of A habitation and child, etc.

   (Cox. J. C., _Derbyshire Annals_, Vol. II., pp. 175-6, _Q.S. Recs._,
                                  1684).

The housing problem however could not be settled by orders instructing
the overseers to build cottages for the impotent poor alone. Petitions
were received as often from able-bodied labourers and for them the law
forbade the erection of a cottage without four acres of land attached.
The magistrates had no power to compel the provision of the land and
thus they were faced with the alternatives of breaking the law and
sanctioning the erection of a landless cottage on the waste or else
leaving the labourer’s family to lie under hedges. The following
petitions illustrate the way in which this situation was faced:

George Grinham, Norton-under-Hambton, “in ye behalfe of himselfe, his
poore wife and famelye” begged for permission “for my building yᵉʳ, of a
little poor house for ye comfort of my selfe, my poore wife and children
betwixt those other 2 poore houses erected on the glebe ... being a
towne borne childe yᵉʳ myselfe.”[143]

Footnote 143:

  _Somerset, Q.S. Rec._, Vol. I., p. 41, 1609.

Another from William Dench, “a very poor man and having a wife and seven
children all born at Longdon,” who was destitute of any habitation,
states that he was given by William Parsons of Longdon, yeoman, in
charity, “a little sheep-cote which sheep cote petitioner, with the
consent of the churchwardens and overseers converted to a dwelling.
Afterwards he having no licence from Quarter Sessions, nor under the
hands of the Lord of the Manor so to do, and the sheep-cote being on the
yeoman’s freehold and not on the waste or common, contrary to Acts 43
Eliz. c. 2 and 31 Eliz. c. 7 he was indicted upon the Statute against
cottages and sued to an outlawry. He prays the benefit of the King’s
pardon and for licence in open session for continuance of his
habitation.”[144]

Footnote 144:

  _Hist. MSS. Com. Var. Coll._, Vol. I., p. 296, _Worcestershire, Q.S.
  Rec._, 1617.

Eliz. Shepperd of Windley alleged she “was in possession of a Certayne
cottage situate in Chevin, which was pulled downe and taken away by the
Inhabitants of Dooeffield, shee left without habitation and hath soe
Continued Twelve months at the least, shee being borne in Windley, and
hath two small children” prayed the inhabitants should find her a
homestead—the case was adjourned because the overseers raised a
technical objection; that Eliz. Shepherd was married, & a woman’s
petition could only proceed from a spinster or widow—meanwhile another
child was born, and at the Michaelmas Sessions a joint petition was
presented by Ralph Shepherd and Eliz. his wife, with the result that
“the overseers are to find him habitation or show cause.”[145]

Footnote 145:

  Cox, J. C. _Derbyshire Annals_, Vol. II., pp. 173-4, 1649.

Joseph Lange of Queene Camell “being an honest poore laborer and havinge
a wife and 2 smale Children” prayed that he “might haue libertie to
erect a Cottage uppon a wast ground”.... This was assented to “for the
habitacon of himselfe for his wife and afterwards the same shall be
converted to the use of such other poore people etc.”

Order that Robert Morris of Overstowey, husbandman, a very poor man
having a wife and children, and no place of habitation “soe that hee is
like to fall into greate misery for want thereof” may erect and build
him a cottage on some part of the “wast” of the manor of Overstowey ...
(subject to the approbation of the Lord of the said Manor).[146]

Footnote 146:

  _Somerset Q.S. Rec._, Vol. III., pp. 29, 58.

The predicament of married labourers is shown again in the following
report to the Hertfordshire Quarterly Sessions: “John Hawkins hath
erected a cottage on the waste of my mannour of Benington, in
consideration of the great charge of his wife and children that the said
Hawkins is to provide for, I do hereby grant and give leave to him to
continue the said cottage during his life and good behaviour.”[147]

Footnote 147:

  _Hertford Co. Rec._, Vol. I., p. 100, 1652.

Labourers naturally were unwilling to hire cottages while there was a
possibility of inducing the justices to provide one on the waste rent
free. The churchwardens of Great Wymondley forwarded a certificate
stating “that the poor people of the said parish that are old and not
able to work are all provided for and none of the poor people of the
said parish have been driven to wander into other unions to beg or ask
relief, for this thirty years last past. This Nathaniel Thrussel, which
now complains, is a lusty young man, able to work and always brought up
to husbandry, his wife, a young woman, always brought up to work, and
know both how to perform their work they are hired to do, and have at
present but one child, but did not care to pay rent for a hired house
when he had one nor endeavour to hire a house for himself when he
wants.”[148]

Footnote 148:

  _Hertford Co. Rec._, Vol. I., p. 370, 1687.

The scarcity of cottages resulted in extortionate rents for those that
existed; Best noted that in his district “Mary Goodale and Richard
Miller have a cottage betwixt them; Mary Goodale hath two roomes, and
the orchard and payeth 6s. per annum; and Richard Miller, hayth one
roomestead and payeth 4s. per annum.... They usually lette their
cottages hereaboutes, for 10s. a piece, although they have not soe much
as a yard, or any backe side belonging to them.”[149]

Footnote 149:

  Best, _Rural Econ._, p. 125.

The rents paid elsewhere are shown in the returns made in 1635 by the
Justices of the Peace for the Hundreds of Blofield and Walsham in
Norfolk concerning cottages and inmates:

Thos. Waters hath 3 inmates:

      Wm. Wyley     pays  £1. per annum
      Anthony Smith pays  £1. per annum
      Roger Goat    pays 12s. per annum

“which are all poore labourers and have wifes and severall children and
if they be put out cannot be provided in this towne and by reason of
their charge and poverty are not likely to be taken elsewhere.”

“Wm. Browne hath 2 inmates:

      Edmund Pitt       14s. per annum
      Wm. Jostling      14s. per annum

that are very poor and impotent and take colleccion.

Wm. Reynoldes hath 2 inmates:

      Anthony Durrant      £1 16s. per annum
      Wm. Yurely              16s. per annum

both are very poore labourers and have wifes and small children. Jas.
Candle owner of a cottage [has] Robert Fenn, 13s. a poore man. Anne
Linckhorne 1 inmate Philip Blunt that pay £1. 17. 0 that is a poore man
and hath wife and children.”[150]

Footnote 150:

  _S.P.D._, cccx., 104, 1635. Returns made by Justices of the Peace.

Thus it appears that while a labourer who obtained a cottage on the
waste lived rent free, twenty or thirty shillings might be demanded from
those who were less fortunate.

Whatever money was extorted for rent meant so much less food for the
mother and children, for it has been shown that the family income was
insufficient for food alone, and left no margin for rent or clothes.

The relation of wages to the cost of living is seldom alluded to by
contemporary writers, but a pamphlet published in 1706 says of a
labourer’s family, “a poor Man and his Wife may have 4 or 5 children, 2
of them able to work, and 3 not able, and the Father and Mother not able
to maintain themselves and Families in Meat, Drink, Cloaths and House
Rent under 10s. a week.”[151]

Footnote 151:

  Haynes, (John.), _Present State of Clothing_, p. 5, 1706.

A similar statement is made by Sir Matthew Hale, who adds “and so much
they might probably get if employed.”[152] But no evidence has been
found from which we can imagine that an agricultural labourer’s family
could possibly earn as much as 10s. a week in the seventeenth century.
Our lower estimate is confirmed by a report made by the Justices of the
Peace for the half hundred of Hitching concerning the poor in their
district; “when they have worke the wages geven them is soe small that
it hardlye sufficeth to buy the poore man and his familye breed, for
they pay 6s. for one bushell of mycelyn grayne and receive but 8d. for
their days work. It is not possible to procure mayntenance for all these
poore people and their famylyes by almes nor yet by taxes.”[153]

Footnote 152:

  Hale, (Sir Matt). _Discourse touching Provision for the Poor_, p. 6,
  1683.

Footnote 153:

  _S.P.D._ ccclxxxv., 43. Mar. 8, 1638.

The insolvency of the wage-earning class is recognized by Gregory King
in his calculations of the income and expense of the several Families of
England, for the year 1680. All other classes, including artisans and
handicrafts show a balance of income over expenditure but the families
of seamen, labourers and soldiers show an actual yearly deficit.[154]

Footnote 154:

  King (Gregory). _Nat. and Political Observations_, pp. 48-9.

   NO. OF FAMILIES.                   YEARLY
                                    INCOME PER  EXPENSE     LOSS PER
                          PERSONS.    HEAD.     PER HEAD.    HEAD.

   50,000 Common Seamen    150,000     £7.      £7. 10s.      10s.

   364,000 Labouring     1,275,000   £4. 10s.   £4. 12s.      2s.
     people &
     outservants

   400,000 Cottagers &   1,300,000     £2.      £2. 5s.       5s.
     Paupers

   35,000 Common            70,000     £7.      £7. 10s.      10s.
     soldiers

A still more convincing proof of the universal destitution of
wage-earners is shown in the efforts made by churchwardens and overseers
in every county throughout England to prevent the settlement within the
borders of their parish of families which depended solely on wages.

Their objection is not based generally upon the ground that the labourer
or his wife were infirm, or idle, or vicious; they merely state that the
family is likely to become chargeable to the parish. Each parish was
responsible for the maintenance of its own poor, and thus though farmers
might be needing more labourers, the parish would not tolerate the
settlement of families which could not be self-supporting.

The disputes which arose concerning these settlements contain many
pitiful stories.

“Anthony addams” tells the justices that he was born in Stockton and
bred up in the same Parish, most of his time in service and has “taken
great pains for my living all my time since I was able and of late I
fortuned to marry with an honest young woman, and my parishioners not
willing I should bring her in the parish, saying we should breed a
charge amongst them. Then I took a house in Bewdley and there my wife
doth yet dwell and I myself do work in Stockton ... and send or bring my
wife the best relief I am able, and now the parish of Bewdley will not
suffer her to dwell there for doubt of further charge.... I most humbly
crave your good aid and help in this my distress or else my poor wife
and child are like to perish without the doors: ... that by your good
help and order to the parish of Stockton I may have a house there to
bring my wife & child unto that may help them the best I can.”[155]

Footnote 155:

  _Hist. MSS. Com. Var. Coll._, Vol. I., p. 298, _Worcestershire Q.S.
  Rec._, 1618.

Another petition was brought by Josias Stone of Kilmington ... “shewinge
that he hath binn an Inhabitant and yet is in Kilmington aforesaid and
hath there continued to and fro these five yeares past and hath donn
service for the said parishe and hath lately married a wife in the said
parish intendinge there to liue and reside yet since his marriage is by
the said parishe debarred of any abidinge for him and his said wife
there in any howse or lodginge for his mony.”[156]

Footnote 156:

  _Somerset, Q.S. Rec._, Vol. III., p. 15, 1647.

Another dispute occurred over the case of Zachary Wannell and his wife
who came lately from Wilton “into the towne of Taunton where they haue
been denyed a residence and they ly upp and downe in barnes and hay
lofts, the said Wannell’s wife being great with child; the said Wannell
and his wife to be forthwith set to Wilton and there to continue until
the next General Sessions. The being of the said Wannell and his wife at
Wilton not to be interpreted as a settlement of them there.”[157]

Footnote 157:

  _Somerset Q.S. Rec._, Vol. III., p. 246, 1654.

There were endless examples of these conflicts often attended as in the
above case with great cruelty.[158]

Footnote 158:

  “One Humfrey Naysh, a poore man hath ben remayning and dwellinge
  within the pish of Newton St. Lowe by the space of five years or
  thereabouts and now being maryed and like to haue charge of children,
  the pishioners Do endeuor to put the said Naishe out of their pish by
  setting of amcents and paynes in their Courts on such as shall give
  him house-roome, or suffer him to liue in their houses which he doth
  or offereth to rent for his money which the court conceiveth to be
  vnjust and not accordinge to lawe.” Overseers ordered to provide him a
  house for his money. (_Ibid._, Vol. II, p. 19, 1626.)

  The petition of the “overseer of the poore of the parishe of East
  Quantoxhead ... that one Richard Kamplyn late of Kilve with his wife
  and three small children are late come as Inmates into the Parish of
  East Quantoxhead which may hereafter become very burdensome and
  chargeable to the said parish if tymley prevention bee not taken
  therein.” (_Ibid._, Vol. III, p. 9, 1646.)

  “John Tankens, his wife and three children ... had lived twoe yeares
  in Chewstoake undisturbed and from thence came to Chew Magna and there
  took part of a Cottage for their habitation for one yeare ... whereof
  the parishe of Chew Magna taking notice found themselves aggrieved
  thereatt, and brought the same in question both before the next
  Justice of the peace of Chew Magna and att the Leete or Lawday, and
  yett neither the said Tankens, his wife or children, had beene
  actually chardgeable to the said parishe of Chew Magna. This Court in
  that respect thinketh not fitt to disturbe the said Tankens, his wife
  or children duringe the said terme, but doth leave them to thend of
  the same terme to bee settled accordinge by lawe they ought. And
  because the parishioners of Chew Magna haue been for the most parte of
  the tyme since the said Tankens, his wife and Children came to Chew
  Magna complayninge against them, This court doth declare that the
  beinge of them att Chew Magna aforesaid duringe the said terme shall
  not bee interpreted to bee a settlement there.” (_Ibid._, Vol. III,
  pp. 94-5, 1649).

  “Pet. of Richard Cookesley of Ashbrettle shewing that he is married in
  the said parish and the said parish endeavour to haue him removed from
  thence although hee is no way chargeable, this court doth see noe
  cause but that the said Cookesley may remaine att Ashbrittle
  aforesaid; provided that his being there shall not be interpretted to
  bee a settlement of him there.” (_Ibid._, Vol. III., p. 248, 1654).

  James Hurde a poor labourer stated that for these two years last past
  he had dwelt in the parish of Westernemore “In a house wch he hired
  for his monie” and had taken great pains to maintain himself, his wife
  and two children, wherewith he never yet charged the said parish nor
  hopeth ever to do. And yet the parishioners and churchwardens there,
  do “indeavour” and threaten to turn him out of the parish unless he
  will put in sufficient sureties not to charge the said parish which he
  cannot by reason he is but a poor labourer; he humbly requests that he
  may quietly inhabit in the said parish so long as he doth not charge
  the same, otherwise he and his family are like to perish. (_Ibid._,
  Vol. I, p. 94, 1612.)

The Justices were shocked at the consequent demoralization and generally
supported the demands of the labourers as regards their settlement and
housing. One writes to the clerk of the Peace: “I have sent you enclosed
the recognizance of William Worster and William Smith, of Bovindon, for
contempt of an order of sessions ... in the behalfe of one, John Yorke,
formerly a vagrant, but now parishionir of Bovingdon. Yet I believe the
rest of the inhabitants will doe their utmost to gett him thence though
they force him to turn vagrant againe. Yorke will be with you to prove
that he was in the parish halfe-a-year or more before they gave him any
disturbance, and that not privately, for he worked for severall
substantiall men and was at church, and paid rent.”[159]

Footnote 159:

  _Hertford Co. Rec._, Vol. I., p. 321, 1681. Letter from Francis Leigh
  to Clerk of Peace.

But the Justices never suspected that the rate of wages which they
themselves had fixed below subsistence level was at the root of the
settlement difficulty. The overseers believed that all the troubles
might be solved if only young people would not marry imprudently, and
they petitioned the Justices begging that overseers of parishes might
not be compelled to provide houses for such young persons “as will marry
before they have provided themselves with a settling.”[160]

Footnote 160:

  _Hist. MSS. Com. Var. Coll._, Vol. I., p. 322. _Worcestershire Q.S.
  Rec._, 1661.

While the overseers were seeking to exclude all wage earners from the
parish, individual farmers, perchance the overseers themselves wanted
more labourers. To meet this difficulty, the overseers discovered an
ingenious device. Before granting a settlement, they required the
labourer to find sureties to save the parish harmless from his becoming
chargeable to it. Obviously a labourer could not himself find sureties,
but the farmer who wished to employ him was in a position to do so, and
thus the responsibility for the wage-earner’s family would be laid upon
the person who profited by his services. Petitions against this demand
for sureties came before the Quarter Sessions. One from Robert Vawter
stated that he was “a poore Day labourer about a quarter of a yere
sithence came into the said parish of Clutton, and there marryed with a
poore Almesmans Daughter, now liveing with her said father in the
Almeshouse of Clutton aforesaid, and would there settle himselfe with
his said wife.” He was ordered to find sureties or to go to gaol.[161]

Footnote 161:

  _Somerset Q.S. Rec._, Vol. II., p. 292, 1637-8.

It was reported at Salford “Whereas Rich. Hudson is come lately into the
towne with his wife and ffoure children to Remaine that the Burrow-reeve
and Constables of this towne shall give notice unto Henry Wrigley, Esq.,
upon whose land he still remaynes that hee remove him and his wife and
children out of this Towne within this moneth unlesse hee give
sufficient security upon the paine of ffive pounds.”[162]

Footnote 162:

  _Salford Portmote Records_, Vol. II., p. 144, 1655.

Similar orders were made re Nathan Cauliffe, his wife and three
children, Robert Billingham with wife and two children, Peter ffarrant
and his wife, & Roger Marland and wife. Later the record continues, “and
yet the said parties are not removed” order was therefore made “that
this order shalbee put in execution.”[163] Another step in the
proceedings is recorded in the entry, “Whereas James Moores, George
Moores and Adam Warmeingham stand bound unto Henry Wrigling Esq. in £20
for the secureinge the Towne from any poverty or disability which should
or might befall unto the said James, his wife, children, or family or
any of them. And whereas it appeares that the said James Moores hath
been Chargeable whereby the said bond is become forfeit yet this Jury
doth give the said George Moores and Adam Warmeingham this libtie that
the said James shall remove out of this towne before the next Court
Leet.”[164]

Footnote 163:

  _Ibid._, p. 151, 1656.

Footnote 164:

  _Salford Portmote Rec._, Vol. II., p. 150.

Fines were exacted from those who harboured unfortunate strangers
without having first given security for them, and no exception was made
on the score of relationship. James Meeke of Myddleton was presented
“for keeping of his daughter Ellen Meeke, having a husband dwelling in
another place, and having two children borne forth of the parishe.”[165]

Footnote 165:

  _Yorks. N.R. Q.S. Rec._, Vol. I., p. 170, 1609.

Rules made at Steeple Ashton by the Churchwardens declare: “There hath
much povertie happened unto this p’ish by receiving of strangers to
inhabit there and not first securing them ag’st such contingencies and
avoyding the like occasions in tyme to come, It is ordered by this
vestrie that ev’ry p’son or p’sons whatsoev’r w’ch shall lett or sett
any houseinge or dwellinge to any stranger and shall not first give good
securite for defending and saving harmeless the said inhabitants from
the future charge as may happen by such stranger comeing to inhabite
w’thin the said p’ish and if any p’son shall doe to the contrary Its
agreed that such p’son soe receiving such stranger shal be rated to the
poor to 20s. monethlie over and above his monethlie tax.”[166]

Footnote 166:

  _Wilts. Notes and Queries_, Vol. VII., p. 281, 1664. _Churchwarden’s
  Acct. Book. Steeple Ashton._

The penalties at Reading were higher. “At this daye Wm. Porter, th’elder
was questioned for harboringe a straunger woman, and a childe, vizᵗ, the
wief of John Taplyn; he worketh at Mr. Ed. Blagrave’s in Early:
Confesseth. The woman saith she hath byn there ever syns Michaellmas
last, and payed rent to goodman Porter, xxs a yeare; her kinsman
Faringdon did take the house for them. Wm. Porter was required to paye
xs a weeke accordinge to the orders and was willed to ridd his tenant
with all speed upon payne of xs a weeke and to provide suretyes to
discharge the towne of the childe.”[167]

Footnote 167:

  Guilding, _Reading Records_, Vol. II., p. 181, 1624.

The starvation and misery described in Quarter Sessions Records were not
exceptional calamities, but represent the ordinary life of women in the
wage earning class. The lives of men were drab and monotonous, lacking
pleasure and consumed by unending toil, but they did not often suffer
hunger. The labourer while employed was well fed, for the farmer did not
grudge him food, though he did not wish to feed his family. There was
seldom want of employment for agricultural labourers, and when their
homes sank into depths of wretchedness and the wife’s attractiveness was
lost through slow starvation, the men could depart and begin life anew
elsewhere.

The full misery of the labourer’s lot was only felt by the women; if
unencumbered they could have returned, like the men, to the comfortable
conditions of service, but the cases of mothers who deserted their
children are rare.

The hardships suffered by the women of the wage-earning class proved
fatal to their children. Gregory King estimated that there were on an
average only 3½ persons, including father and mother in a labourer’s
family though he gives 4.8 as the average number of children for each
family in villages and hamlets.[168] Another writer gives 3 persons as
the average number for a labourer’s family.[169] The cases of disputed
settlements which are brought before Quarter Sessions confirm the
substantial truth of these estimates. It is remarkable that where the
father is living seldom more than two or three children are mentioned,
often only one, though in cases of widows where the poverty is recent
and caused as it were by the accidental effect of the husband’s
premature death, there are often five to ten children. In Nottingham, of
seventeen families, who had recently come to the town and been taken in
as tenants, and which the Council wanted to eject for fear of
overcrowding, only one had four children, one three, and the rest only
two or one child apiece.[170]

Footnote 168:

  King (Gregory), _Natural and Political Observations and Conclusions_,
  p. 44, pp. 48-9.

Footnote 169:

  _Grasier’s Complaint_, p. 60.

Footnote 170:

  _Nottingham, Records of the Borough of_, Vol. IV., pp. 312-5, 1613.

In fact, however large the birth-rate may have been, and this we have no
means of ascertaining, few children in the wage-earning class were
reared. Of those who reached maturity, many were crippled in mind or
body, forming a large class of unemployables destined to be a burthen
instead of strength to the community.

This appalling loss and suffering was not due to the excessive work of
married women but to their under-feeding and bad housing. Probably the
women of the wage-earning class actually accomplished less work than the
women of the husbandman class; but the latter worked under better
conditions and were well nourished, with the result that their sons and
daughters have been the backbone of the English nation.

The sacrifice of the wage-earners’ children was caused by the mother’s
starvation; vainly she gave her own food to the children for then she
was unable to suckle the baby and grew too feeble for her former work.
Probably she had herself been the daughter of a husbandman and was
inured to labour from child hood. “Sent abroad into service and hardship
when but 10 years old” as Oliver Heywood wrote of a faithful servant,
she met the chances which decide a servant’s life. The work on farms was
rough, but generally healthy. At first the child herded the pigs or the
geese and followed the harrow and as she grew older the poultry yard and
the cows divided her attention with the housework. Sometimes she was
brutally treated and often received little training in her work, but
generosity in meat and drink has always been characteristic of the
English farmer, and during the hungry years of adolescence the average
girl who was a servant in husbandry was amply nourished. Then came
marriage. The more provident waited long in the hope of securing
independence, and one of those desirable cottages with four acres of
land, but to some the prospect seemed endless and at last they married
hoping something would turn up; or perhaps they were carried away by
natural impulses and married young without any thought for the future.
Such folly was the despair of Churchwardens and Overseers, yet the folly
need not seem so surprising when we consider that delay brought the
young people no assurance of improvement in their position. Church and
State alike taught that it was the duty of men and women to marry and
bring forth children, and if for a large class the organisation of
Society made it impossible for them to rear their children, who is to
blame for the fate of those children, their parents or the community?

After one of these imprudent marriages the husband sometimes continued
to work on a farm as a servant, visiting his wife and children on
Sundays and holidays. By this means he, at least, was well fed and well
housed. The woman with a baby to care for and feed, could not leave her
home every day to work and must share the children’s food. In
consequence she soon began to practise starvation. Her settlement was
disputed, and therefore her dwelling was precarious. Nominally she was
transferred on marriage to the parish where her husband was bound as
servant for the term of one year, but the parish objected to the
settlement of a married man lest his children became a burden on them.

No one doubted that it was somebody’s duty to care for the poor, but
arrangements for relief were strictly parochial and the fear of
incurring unlimited future responsibilities led English parishioners to
strange lengths of cruelty and callousness. The fact that a woman was
soon to have a baby, instead of appealing to their chivalry, seemed to
them the best reason for turning her out of her house and driving her
from the village, even when a hedge was her only refuge.

The once lusty young woman who had formerly done a hard day’s work with
the men at harvesting was broken by this life. It is said of an army
that it fights upon its stomach. These women faced the grim battle of
life, laden with the heavy burden of child-bearing, seldom knowing what
it meant to have enough to eat. Is it surprising that courage often
failed and they sank into the spiritless, dismal ranks of miserable
beings met in the pages of Quarter Sessions Records, who are constantly
being forwarded from one parish to another.

Such women, enfeebled in mind and body, could not hope to earn more than
the twopence a day and their food which is assessed as the maximum rate
for women workers in the hay harvest. On the contrary, judging from the
account books of the period, they often received only one penny a day
for their labour. Significant of their feebleness is the Norfolk
assessment which reads, “Women and such impotent persons that weed
corne, or other such like Labourers 2d with meate and drinke, 6d
without.”[171] Such wages may have sufficed for the infirm and old, but
they meant starvation for the woman with a young family depending on her
for food. And what chance of health and virtue existed for the children
of these enfeebled starving women?

Footnote 171:

  _Eng. Hist. Rev._, Vol. xiii., p. 522.

On the death or desertion of her husband the labouring woman became
wholly dependent on the Parish for support. The conduct of the
magistrates in fixing maximum wages at a rate which they knew to be
below subsistence level seems inexplicable; is in fact inexplicable
until it is understood that these wages were never intended to be
sufficient for the support of a family. Statute 31 Eliz. and others,
show that the whole influence of the Government and administration was
directed to prevent the creation of a class of wage-earners. It was an
essential feature of Tudor policy to foster the Yeomanry, from whose
ranks were recruited the defenders of the realm. Husbandmen were
recognised as “the body and stay” of the kingdom.[172] They made the
best infantry when bred “not in a servile or indigent fashion, but in
some free and plentiful manner.”[173] If the depopulation of the
country-side went on unchecked, there would come to pass “a mere
sollitude and vtter desolation to the whole Realme, furnished only with
shepe and shepherdes instead of good men; wheareby it might be a prey to
oure enymies that first would sett vppon it.”[174]

Footnote 172:

  Lipson, _Economic Hist. of England_, p. 153.

Footnote 173:

  Bacon, _Works_, Vol. VI., p. 95.

Footnote 174:

  Lamond (Eliz.) _Discourse of the Common weal_, 1581.

Probably the consideration of whether a family could be fed by a
labourer’s wage, seldom entered the Justices’ heads. They wished the
family to win its food from a croft and regarded the wages as merely
supplementary. The Justices would like to have exterminated
wage-earners, who were an undesirable class in the community, and they
might have succeeded as the conditions imposed upon the women made the
rearing of children almost impossible, had not economic forces
constantly recruited the ranks of wage-earners from the class above
them.

The demands of capital however for labour already exceeded the supply
available from the ranks of husbandmen, and could only be met by the
establishment of a class of persons depending wholly on wages. The
strangest feature of the situation was the fact that the magistrates who
were trying to exterminate wage-earners were often themselves
capitalists creating the demand.

The actual proportion of wage-earners in the seventeenth century can
only be guessed at. The statement of a contemporary[175] that Labourers
and Cottagers numbered 2,000,000 persons, out of a population of only
5,000,000 must be regarded as an exaggeration; in any case their
distribution was uneven.

Footnote 175:

  _Grasier’s Complaint_, p. 60.

Complaints are not infrequently brought before Quarter Sessions from
parishes which say they are burdened with so great a charge of poor that
they cannot support it; to other parishes the Justices are sometimes
driven to issue orders on the lines of a warrant commanding “the
Churchwardens of the townes of Screwton and Aynderby to be more diligent
in relieving their poore, that the court be not troubled with any
further claymours therein.”[176]

Footnote 176:

  _Yorks. N.R. Q.S. Rec._, Vol. I., p. 22-3, 1605.

On the other hand there were many districts where the wage-earner was
hardly known and the authorities, like the Tithing men of Fisherton
Delamere could report that they “have (thanks to the Almighty God
theirfor) no popish recusants; no occasion to levy twelvepence, for none
for bear to repair to divine service; no inns or alehouses licensed or
unlicensed, no drunken person, no unlawful weights or measures, no
neglect of hues and cries, no roads out of repair, no wandering rogues
or idle persons, and no inmates of whom they desire information.”[177]
Or the Constable of Tredington who declared that “the poor are weekly
relieved, felons none known. Recusants one Bridget Lyne, the wife of
Thos. Lyne. Tobacco none planted. Vagrants Mary How, an Irish woman and
her sister were taken and punished according to the Statute and sent
away by pass with a guide towards Ireland in the County of Cork.”[178]
or as in another report “We have no bakers or alehouses within our
parish. We cannot find by our searches at night or other time that any
rogues or vagabonds are harboured saving Mr. Edward Hall who lodged a
poor woman and her daughter. We do not suffer any vagrants which we see
begging in our parish but we give them punishment according as we
ought.”[179]

Footnote 177:

  _Hist. MSS. Com. Var. Coll._, Vol. I., p. 93. _Wilts Q.S. Rec._, 1621.
  A similar detailed return was made from the Hundred of Wilton in 1691.
  Many often return ‘omnia bene’ and the like in brief.

Footnote 178:

  Bund (J. W. Willis) _Worcestershire Co. Rec._, Vol. I., p. 564, 1634.

Footnote 179:

  _Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 571, 1634.

A review of the whole position of women in Agriculture at this time,
shows the existence of Family Industry at its best, and of Capitalism at
its worst. The smaller farmers and more prosperous husbandmen led a life
of industry and independence in which every capacity of the women,
mental, moral and physical had scope for development and in which they
could secure the most favourable conditions for their children—while
among capitalistic farmers a tendency can already be perceived for the
women to withdraw from the management of business and devote themselves
to pleasure. At the other end of the scale Capitalism fed the man whom
it needed for the production of wealth but made no provision for his
children; and the married woman, handicapped by her family ties, when
she lost the economic position which enabled her through Family Industry
to support herself and her children, became virtually a pauper.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                               CHAPTER IV

                               TEXTILES.

    (A) _Introductory._ Historical importance in women’s economic
    development—Predominance of women’s labour—Significance in
    development of Industrialism—Low wages.

    (B) _Woollen Trade._ Historical importance—Proportions of men
    and women employed—Early experiments in factory system
    abandoned—Declining employment of women in management and
    control—Women Weavers—Burling—Spinning—Organization of spinning
    industry—Women who bought wool and sold yarn made more profit
    than those who worked for wages—Methods of spinning—Class of
    women who span for wages—Rates of wages—Disputes between
    spinsters and employers—Demoralisation of seasons of
    depression—Association of men and women in trade disputes.

    (C) _Linen._ Chiefly a domestic industry—Introduction of
    Capitalism—Increased demand caused by printing
    linens—Attempt to establish a company—Part taken by
    women—weaving—bleaching—spinning—Wages below subsistence
    level—Encouragement of spinning by local authorities to
    lessen poor relief—Firmin.

    (D) _Silk._ _Gold and Silver._ Silk formerly a monopoly of
    gentlewomen—In seventeenth century virtually one of the pauper
    trades. Gold and Silver furnished employment to the poorest
    class of women—Factory system already in use.

    (E) _Conclusion._


FROM the general economic standpoint, the textile industries rank second
in importance to agriculture during the seventeenth century, but in the
history of women’s economic development they hold a position which is
quite unique. If the food supply of the country depended largely on the
work of women in agriculture, their labour was absolutely indispensable
to the textile industries, for in all ages and in all countries spinning
has been a monopoly of women. This monopoly is so nearly universal that
we may suspect some physiological inability on the part of men to spin a
fine even thread at the requisite speed, and spinning forms the greater
part of the labour in the production of hand-made textile fabrics.

It requires some effort of the imagination in this mechanical age to
realize the incessant industry which the duty of clothing her own family
imposed on every woman, to say nothing of the yarn required for the
famous Woollen Trade. The service rendered by women in spinning for the
community was compared by contemporaries to the service rendered by the
men who ploughed. “Like men that would lay no hand to the plough, and
women that would set no hand to the wheele, deserving the censure of
wise Solomon, Hee that would not labour should not eat.”[180]

Footnote 180:

  _Declaration of the Estate of Clothing_, p. 2, 1613.

Textile industries fall into three groups: Woollen, Linen, and
Miscellaneous, comprising silk, etc. Cotton is seldom mentioned although
imported at this time in small quantities for mixture with linen.

The predominance of women’s labour in the textile trades makes their
history specially significant in tracing the evolution of women’s
industrial position under the influences of capitalism; for the woollen
trade was one of the first fields in which capitalistic organization
achieved conspicuous success.

The importance of the woollen trade as a source of revenue to the Crown
drew to it so much attention that many details have been preserved
concerning its development; showing with a greater distinctness than in
other and more obscure trades, the steps by which Capitalistic
Organization ousted Family Industry and the Domestic Arts. It is surely
not altogether accidental that Industrialism developed so remarkably in
two trades where the labour of women predominated—in the woollen trade
which in the seventeenth century was already organized on capitalistic
lines, and, one hundred years later, in the cotton trade.

Some characteristic features of modern Industrialism were absent from
the woollen trade in the seventeenth century. The work of men and women
alike was carried on chiefly at home, and thus the employment of married
women and children was unimpeded; nor are there any signs of industrial
jealousy between men and women, who on the contrary, stand by each other
during this period in all trade disputes. Nevertheless, the position of
the woman wage-earner in the textile trades was extraordinarily bad, and
this in spite of the fact that the demand for her labour appears nearly
always to have exceeded the supply. The evidence contained in the
following chapter shows that the wages paid to women in the seventeenth
century for spinning linen were insufficient, and those paid for
spinning wool, barely sufficient, for their individual maintenance, and
yet out of them women were expected to support, or partly support, their
children.

Possibly the persistence of such low wages throughout the country was
due in a measure to the convenience of spinning as a tertiary occupation
for married women. She who was employed by day in the intervals of
household duties with her husband’s business or her dairy and garden,
could spin through the long winter evenings when the light was too bad
for other work. The mechanical character of the movements, and the small
demand they make on eye or thought, renders spinning wonderfully adapted
to women whose serious attention is engrossed by the care or training of
their children. A comparison of spinster’s wages with those of
agricultural labourers, which were also below subsistence level, will
show however that such an explanation does not altogether meet the case.

The fact is that far from underselling the spinsters[181] who were
wholly dependent on wages for their living, it seems probable that the
women who only span for sale after the needs of their own households had
been supplied, received the highest rates of pay, just as the
husbandman, who only worked occasionally for wages, was paid better than
the labourer who worked for them all the year round, and whose family
depended exclusively on him. Disorganization and lack of bargaining
power, coupled with traditions founded upon an earlier social
organization, were responsible for the low wages of the spinsters. The
agricultural labourer was crippled in his individual efforts for a
decent wage because society persisted in regarding him as a household
servant. The spinster was handicapped because in a society which began
to assert the individual’s right to freedom, she had from her infancy
been trained to subjection.

Footnote 181:

  Spinster in the seventeenth century is used in its technical sense and
  refers equally to women who are married, unmarried or widows.

It must however be remembered that though a large part of the ensuing
chapter is concerned with spinsters and their wages, much, perhaps most,
of the thread spun never came into the market, but was produced for
domestic consumption. Thus we find all three forms of industrial
organisation existing simultaneously in these trades—Domestic Industry,
Family Industry, and Capitalistic Industry.

Domestic Industry lingered especially in the Linen Trade until machinery
made the spinning wheel obsolete, and Family Industry was still
extensively practised in the seventeenth century; but Capitalistic
Industry, already established in the Woollen Trade, was making rapid
inroads on the other branches of the Textile Trades.

Although Capitalism undermined the position of considerable economic
independence enjoyed by married women and widows in the tradesman and
farming classes, possibly its introduction may have improved the
position of unmarried women, and others who were already dependent on
wages; but such improvements belong to a later date. Their only
indication in the seventeenth century is the clearly proved fact that
wages for spinning were higher in the more thoroughly capitalistic
woollen trade, than in the linen trade. Further evidence is a suggestion
by Defoe that wages for spinning in the woollen trade were doubled, or
even trebled, in the first decade of the eighteenth century, but no sign
of this advance can be detected in our period.


                          B. _Woollen Trade._

The interest of the Government and of all those who studied financial
and economic questions, was focussed upon the Woollen Trade, owing to
the fact that it formed one of the chief sources of revenue for the
Crown. At the close of the seventeenth century woollen goods formed a
third of the English exports.[182]

Footnote 182:

  Davenant (Inspector-General of Exports and Imports). _An account of
  the trade between Greate Britain, France, Holland, Spain, Portugal,
  Italy, Africa, Newfoundland etc., with the importations and
  exportations of all Commodities, particularly of the Woollen
  Manufactures, delivered in his reports made to the Commissioners for
  Publick Accounts._ 1715, p. 71. Our general exports for the year 1699
  are valued at £6,788,166, 17s. 6¼d. Whereof the Woollen Manufacture
  for the same year are valued at £2,932,292, 17s. 6½d.

Historically the Woollen Trade has a further importance, due to the part
which it played in the development of capitalism. The manufacture of
woollen materials had existed in the remote past as a family industry,
and even in the twentieth century this method still survives in the
remoter parts of the British Isles; but the manufacture of cloth for
Foreign trade was from its beginning organized on Capitalistic lines,
and the copious records which have been preserved of its development,
illustrate the history of Capitalism itself.

It was estimated that about one million men, women and children were
exclusively employed in the clothing trade,—“all have their dependence
solely and wholly upon the said _Manufacture_, without intermixing
themselves in the labours of _Hedging_, _Ditching_, _Quicksetting_, and
others the works belonging to Husbandry.”[183]

Footnote 183:

  _Proverb Crossed_, p. 8, 1677. See also _Case of the Woollen
  Manufacturers of Great Britain_ which states that they are “the
  subsistance of more than a Million of Poor of both sexes, who are
  employed therein.”

In 1612 eight thousand persons, men, women and children were said to be
employed in the clothing trade in Tiverton alone.[184] While giving
933,966 hands as the number properly employed in woollen manufacture,
another writer says that women and children (girls and boys) were
employed in the proportion of about eight to one man.[185]

Footnote 184:

  Dunsford. _Hist. Tiverton_, p. 408.

Footnote 185:

  _Short Essay upon Trade_, p. 18, 1741.

Such figures must be taken with reserve, for the proportions of men and
women employed varied according to the quality of the stuff woven, and
pamphleteers of the seventeenth century handled figures with little
regard to scientific accuracy.[186] But the uncertainty only refers to
the exact proportion; there can be no doubt that the Woollen Trade
depended chiefly upon women and children for its labour supply.

Footnote 186:

  The following estimates were made by different writers: out of 1187
  persons supposed to be employed for one week in making up 1200 lbs.
  weight of wool, 900 are given as spinners. (_Weavers True Case_, p.
  42, 1714.)

  One pack of short wool finds employment for 63 persons for one week,
  viz: 28 men and boys: 35 women and girls who are only expected to do
  the carding and spinning.

  A similar pack made into stockings would provide work for 82 men and
  102 spinners and if made up for the Spanish trade, a pack of wool
  would employ 52 men and 250 women.

  (Haynes (John) _Great Britain’s Glory_, p. 6, p. 8. 1715.)

For the student of social organization it is noteworthy that in the two
textile trades through which capitalism made in England its most
striking advances—the woollen trade, and in later years, the cotton
trade, the labour of women predominated,—a fact which suggests obscure
actions and reactions between capitalism and the economic position of
women, worthy of more careful investigation than they have as yet
received.

The woollen trade passed through a period of rapid progress and
development in the sixteenth century. It was then that the Clothiers of
Wiltshire and Somerset acquired wealth and fame, building as a memorial
for posterity the Tudor houses and churches which still adorn these
counties. Leland, writing of a typical clothier and his successful
enterprises and ambitions, describes at Malmesbury, Wiltshire “a litle
chirch joining to the South side of the _Transeptum_ of thabby chirch,
... Wevers hath now lomes in this litle chirch, but it stondith ... the
hole logginges of thabbay be now longging to one Stumpe, an exceding
riche clothiar that boute them of the king. This Stumpes sunne hath
maried Sir Edward Baynton’s doughter. This Stumpe was the chef causer
and contributer to have thabbay chirch made a paroch chirch. At this
present tyme every corner of the vaste houses of office that belongid to
thabbay be fulle of lumbes to weve clooth yn, and this Stumpe entendith
to make a stret or 2 for clothier in the bak vacant ground of the abbay
that is withyn the toune waulles.”[187]

Footnote 187:

  Leland (John), _Itinerary_, 1535-1543; Part II, pp. 131-2.

There must have been a marked tendency at this time to bring the
wage-earners of the woollen industry under factory control, for a
description which is given of John Winchcombe’s household says that

              “Within one room being large and long
               There stood two hundred Looms full strong,
               Two hundred men the truth is so
               Wrought in these looms all in a row,
               By evry one a pretty boy
               Sate making quills with mickle joy.
               And in another place hard by,
               An hundred women merrily,
               Were carding hard with joyful cheer
               Who singing sate with voices clear.
               And in a chamber close beside,
               Two hundred maidens did abide,
               In petticoats of Stammell red,
               And milk-white kerchers on their head.”[188]

Footnote 188:

  Lipson, _Econ. Hist. of England_, p. 420.

These experiments were discontinued, partly because they were
discountenanced by the Government, which considered the factory
system rendered the wage-earners too dependent on the clothiers; and
also because the collection of large numbers of workpeople under one
roof provided them with the opportunity for combination and
insubordination.[189] Moreover the factory system was not really
advantageous to the manufacturer before the introduction of power,
because he could pay lower wages to the women who worked at home
than to those who left their families in order to work on his
premises. Thus the practice was dropped. In 1603 the Wiltshire
Quarter Sessions published regulations to the effect that “Noe
Clotheman shall keepe above one lombe in his house, neither any
weaver that hath a ploughland shall keepe more than one lombe in his
house. Noe person or persons shall keepe any lombe or lombs goeinge
in any other house or houses beside their owne, or mayntayne any to
doe the same.”[190]

Footnote 189:

  See _Weavers’ Act_, 1555.

Footnote 190:

  _Hist. MSS. Com. Var. Coll._, Vol. I., p. 75, _Wilts. Q.S. Rec._,
  1603.

Few references occur to the wives of successful clothiers or
wool-merchants who were actively interested in their husband’s business,
though no doubt their help was often enlisted in the smaller or more
struggling concerns. Thus the names of three widows are given in a list
of eleven persons who were using handicrafts at Maidstone. “The better
sorte of these we take to bee but of meane ability and most of them
poore but by theire trade the poore both of the towne and country
adjoyning are ymploied to spynnyng.”[191]

Footnote 191:

  _S.P.D._, cxxix, 45, Ap. 10, 1622, _Return of the Mayor_.

A pamphlet published in 1692 describes how in former days “the Clothier
that made the cloth, sold it to the merchant, and heard the faults of
his own cloth; and forc’d sometimes not only to promise amendment
himself, but to go home and tell _Joan_, to have the Wool better pick’d,
and the Yarn better spun.”[192]

Footnote 192:

  _Clothier’s Complaint, etc._, p. 7, 1692.

A certain Rachel Thiery applied for a monopoly in Southampton for the
pressing of serges, and having heard that the suit had been referred by
the Queen to Sir J. Cæsar, the Mayor and Aldermen wrote, July 2, 1599,
to let him know how inconvenient the granting of the suit would be to
the town of Southampton.

I. Those strangers who have presses already would be ruined.

II. Many of their men servants (English and strangers) bred up to the
trade would be idle.

III. “The woeman verie poore and beggarlie, altogether unable to
performe it in workmanshipp or otherwise.... Againe she is verie idle, a
prattling gossipp, unfitt to undertake a matter of so great a charge,
her husband a poore man being departed from her and comorant in Rochell
these 11 yeres at least. She is verie untrustie and approoved to have
engaged mens clothes which in times past have been putt to her for
pressinge. Verie insufficient to answer of herself men’s goodes and
unable to procure anie good Caution to render the owners there goodes
againe, havinge not so much as a howse to putt her head in, insomuch as
(marvellinge under what coullour she doth seeke to attaine to a matter
of such weight) we ... should hold them worsse than madd that would
hazzard or comitt there goodes into her handes. And to conclude she is
generallie held amongest us an unfitt woeman to dwell in a well governed
Commonwealth.”[193]

Footnote 193:

  Lansdowne, 161, fo. 127, 2nd July, 1599.

An incident showing the wife as virtual manager of her husband’s
business is described in a letter from Thomas Cocks of Crowle to Sir
Robert Berkely, Kt., in 1633. He writes complaining of a certain
Careless who obtained a licence to sell ale “because he was a surgeon
and had many patients come to him for help, and found it a great
inconvenience for them to go to remote places for their diet and drink,
and in that respect obtained a licence with a limitation to sell ale to
none but his patients ... but now of late especially he far exceeds his
bounds.... A poor fellow who professed himself an extraordinary carder
and spinner ... was of late set a work by my wife to card and spin
coarse wool for blankets and when he had gotten some money for his work
to Careless he goes.” Having got drunk there and coming back in the
early hours of the morning he made such a noise in the churchyard “being
near my chamber I woke my wife who called up all my men to go into the
churchyard and see what the matter was.”[194]

Footnote 194:

  Bund (J. W. W.), _Worcestershire Records_, Vol. I., p. 530.

That Mrs. Cocks should engage and direct her husband’s workpeople would
not be surprising to seventeenth century minds, for women did so
naturally in family industry; but when capitalized, business tended to
drift away beyond the wife’s sphere, and thus even then it was unusual
to find women connected with the clothing trade, except as wage-earners.

Of the processes involved in making cloth, weaving was generally done by
men, while the spinning, which was equally essential to its production,
was exclusively done by women and children.

In earlier days weaving had certainly been to some extent a woman’s
trade. “Webster” which is the feminine form of the old term “Webber” is
used in old documents, and in these women are also specifically named as
following this trade; thus on the Suffolk Poll-Tax Roll are entered the
names of

                    “John Wros, shepherd.
                     Agneta his wife, webster.
                     Margery, his daughter, webster.
                     Thomas his servant and
                     Beatrice his servant.”

It appears also that there were women among the weavers who came from
abroad to establish the cloth making in England, for a Statute in 1271
provides that “all workers of woollen cloths, male and female, as well
of Flanders as of other lands, may safely come into our realm there to
make cloths ... upon the understanding that those who shall so come and
make such cloths, shall be quit of toll and tallage, and of payment of
other customs for their work until the end of five years.”[195]

Footnote 195:

  Riley, _Chronicles of London_, p. 142.

Later however, women were excluded from cloth weaving on the ground that
their strength was insufficient to work the wide and heavy looms in use;
thus orders were issued for Norwich Worsted Weavers in 1511 forbidding
women and maids to weave worsteds because “thei bee nott of sufficient
powre to werke the said worsteddes as thei owte to be wrought.”[196]

Footnote 196:

  Tingye, _Norwich Records_, Vol. II., p. 378.

Complaint was made in Bristol in 1461 that weavers “puttyn, occupien,
and hiren ther wyfes, doughters, and maidens, some to weve in ther owne
lombes and some to hire them to wirche with othour persons of the said
crafte by the which many and divers of the king’s liege people, likely
men to do the king service in his wars and in defence of this his land,
and sufficiently learned in the said craft, goeth vagrant and
unoccupied, and may not have their labour to their living.”[197]

Footnote 197:

  _Little Red Book of Bristol_, Vol. II., p. 127.

At Kingston upon-Hull, the weavers Composition in 1490, ordained that
“ther shall no woman worke in any warke concernyng this occupacon wtin
the towne of Hull, uppon payn of xls. to be devyded in forme by fore
reherced.”[198]

Footnote 198:

  Lambert, _2000 years of Gild Life_, p. 6.

A prohibition of this character could not resist the force of public
opinion which upheld the woman’s claim to continue in her husband’s
trade. Widow’s rights are sustained in the Weaver’s Ordinances
formulated by 25 Charles II. which declare that “it shall be lawfull for
the Widow of any Weaver (who at the time of his death was a free
Burgesse of the said Town, and a free Brother of the said Company) to
use and occupy the said trade by herselfe, her Apprentices and Servants,
so long as shee continues a Widow and observeth such Orders as are or
shalbe made to be used amongst the Company of Weavers within this Town
of Kingston-upon-Hull.”[199]

Footnote 199:

  Lambert, 2000 _Years of Gild Life_, p. 210.

Even when virtually excluded from the weaving of “cloaths” women
continued to be habitually employed in the weaving of other materials. A
petition was presented on their behalf against an invention which
threatened a number with unemployment: “Also wee most humbly desire your
worship that you would have in remembrance that same develishe invention
which was invented by strangers and brought into this land by them,
which hath beene the utter overthrowe of many poore people which
heretofore have lived very well by their handy laboure which nowe are
forced to goe a begginge and wilbe the utter Destruccion of the trade of
weaving if some speedy course be not taken therein. Wee meane those
looms with 12, 15, 20, 18, 20, 24, shuttles which make tape, ribbon,
stript garteringe and the like, which heretofore was made by poore aged
woemen and children, but none nowe to be seene.”[200]

Footnote 200:

  _S.P.D._, cxxi, 155, 1621.

The Rules of the Society of Weavers of the “Stuffs called Kiddirminster
Stuffes” required that care should be taken to have apprentices “bound
according to ye Lawes of ye Realme ... for which they shall be allowed
2s. 6d. and not above, to be payd by him or her that shall procure the
same Apprentice to be bound as aforesayd.”[201]

Footnote 201:

  Burton, J. R., _Hist. of Kidderminster_, p. 175, _Borough Ordinances_,
  1650.

John Grove was bound about the year 1655 to “the said George and Mary to
bee taught and instructed in the trade of a serge-weaver,” and a
lamentable account is given of the inordinate manner in which the said
Mary did beat him.[202]

Footnote 202:

  _Somerset Q.S. Rec._, Vol. III., pp. 268-9. 1655.

It is impossible from the scanty information available to arrive at a
final conclusion concerning the position of women weavers. Clearly an
attempt had been made to exclude them from the more highly skilled
branches of the trade, but it is also evident that this had not been
successful in depriving widows of their rights in this respect. Nor does
the absence of information concerning women weavers prove that they were
rarely employed in such work. The division of work between women and men
was a question which aroused little interest at this time and therefore
references to the part taken by women are accidental. They may have been
extensively engaged in weaving for they are mentioned as still numerous
among the handloom weavers of the nineteenth century.[203] Another
process in the manufacture of cloth which gave employment to women was
“Burling.” The minister and Mayor of Westbury presented a petition to
the Wiltshire Quarter Sessions in 1657 on behalf of certain poor people
who had obtained their living by the “Burling of broad medley clothes,”
three of whose daughters had now been indicted by certain persons
desirous to appropriate the said employment to themselves; they show
“that the said employment of Burling hath not been known to be practised
among us as any prentice trade, neither hath any been apprentice to it
as to such, but clothiers have ever putt theyr clothes to Burling to any
who would undertake the same, as they doe theyr woolles to spinning.
Also that the said imployment of Burling is a common good to this poore
town and parish, conducing to the reliefe of many poore families therein
and the setting of many poore children on work. And if the said
imployment of Burling should be appropriated by any particular persons
to themselves it would redound much to the hurt of clothing, and to the
undoing of many poore families there whoe have theyre cheife
mainteynance therefrom.”[204]

Footnote 203:

  _Report of the Commissioners on the condition of the Handloom
  Weavers_, 1841. x p. 323, _Mr. Chapman’s report_.

  “The young weaver just out of his apprenticeship is perhaps as well
  able to earn as he will be at any future period setting aside the
  domestic comforts incidental to the married state, his pecuniary
  condition is in the first instance improved by uniting himself with a
  woman capable of earning perhaps nearly as much as himself, and
  performing for him various offices involving an actual pecuniary
  saving. A married man with an income, the result of the earnings of
  himself and wife of 20s. will enjoy more substantial comfort in every
  way than he alone would enjoy with an income of 15s. a week. This
  alone is an inducement to early marriage. In obedience to this primary
  inducement the weaver almost invariably marries soon after he is out
  of his apprenticeship. But the improvement of comfort which marriage
  brings is of short duration;.... About the tenth year the labour of
  the eldest child becomes available.... Many men have depended on their
  wives & their children to support themselves by their own earnings,
  independent of his wages. The wives and children consequently took to
  the loom, or sought work in the factories; and now that there is
  little or no work in the district, the evil is felt, and the husband
  is obliged to maintain them out of his wages.”

Footnote 204:

  _Hist. MSS. Com. Var. Coll._, Vol. I., p. 135, _Wilts. Q.S. Rec._,
  1657.

It was not however the uncertain part they played in the processes of
weaving, burling or carding, which constituted the importance of the
woollen trade in regard to women’s industrial position. Their employment
in these directions was insignificant compared with the unceasing and
never satisfied demand which the production of yarn made upon their
labour. It is impossible to give any estimate of the quantity of wool
spun for domestic purposes. That this was considerable is shown by a
recommendation from the Commission appointed to enquire into the decay
of the Cloth Trade in 1622, who advise “that huswyves may not make cloth
to sell agayne, but for the provision of themselves and their famylie
that the clothiers and Drapers be not dis-coraged.”[205]

Footnote 205:

  _Report of Commission of Decay of Clothing Trade_, 1622, Stowe, 554,
  fo. 48b.

The housewife span both wool and flax for domestic use, but this aspect
of her industry will be considered more fully in connection with the
linen trade, attention here being concentrated on the condition of the
spinsters in the woollen trade. Their organization varied widely in
different parts of the country. Sometimes the spinster bought the wool,
span it, and then sold the yarn, thus securing all the profit of the
transaction for herself. In other cases she was supplied with the wool
by the clothier, or a “market spinner” and only received piece wages for
her labour. The system in vogue was partly decided by the custom of the
locality, but there was everywhere a tendency to substitute the latter
for the former method.

Statute I. Edward VI. chap. 6 recites that “the greatest and almost the
whole number of the poor inhabitants of the county of Norfolk and the
city of Norwich be, and have been heretofore for a great time maintained
and gotten their living, by spinning of the wool growing in the said
county of Norfolk, upon the rock [distaff] into yarn, and by all the
said time have used to have their access to common markets within the
said county and city, to buy their wools, there to be spun as is
aforesaid, of certain persons called retailers of the said wool by eight
penny worth and twelve penny worth at one time, or thereabouts, and
selling the same again in yarn, and have not used to buy, ne can buy the
said wools of the breeders of the said wools by such small parcels, as
well as for that the said breeders of the said wools will not sell their
said wools by such small parcels, as also for that the most part of the
said poor persons dwell far off from the said breeders of the said
wools.”[206]

Footnote 206:

  James (John) _Hist. of Worsted_, p. 98.

During a scarcity of wool the Corporation at Norwich compelled the
butchers to offer their wool fells exclusively to the spinsters during
the morning hours until the next sheep-shearing season, so that the
tawers and others might not be able to outbid them.[207]

Footnote 207:

  Tingye, _Norwich_, Vol II. xcvii, 1532.

It is suggested that nearly half the yarn used in the great clothing
counties at the beginning of the seventeenth century was produced in
this way: “Yarn is weekly broughte into the market by a great number of
poor people that will not spin to the clothier for small wages, but have
stock enough to set themselves on work, and do weekly buy their wool in
the market by very small parcels according to their use, and weekly
return it in yarn and make good profit, having the benefit both of their
labour and of their merchandize and live exceeding well.... So many that
it is supposed that more than half the cloth of Wilts., Gloucester and
Somersetshire is made by means of these yarnmakers and poor clothiers
that depend wholly on the wool chapman which serves them weekly for
wools either for money or credit.”[208]

Footnote 208:

  _S.P.D._ lxxx., 13., Jan. 1615. _General Conditions of Wool and Cloth
  Trade._

Apparently this custom by which the spinsters retained in their own
hands the merchandize of their goods still prevailed in some counties at
the beginning of the following century, for it is said in a pamphlet
which was published in 1741 “that poor People, chiefly Day Labourers,
... whilst they are employed abroad themselves, get forty or fifty
Pounds of Wool at a Time, to employ their Wives and Children at home in
Carding and Spinning, of which when they have 10 or 20 pounds ready for
the Clothier, they go to Market with it and there sell it, and so return
home as fast as they can ... the common way the poor women in
_Hampshire_, _Wiltshire_, and _Dorsetshire_, and I believe in other
counties, have of getting to Market (especially in the Winter-time) is,
by the Help of some Farmers’ Waggons, which carry them and their yarn;
and as soon as the Farmers have set down their corn in the Market, and
baited their Horses, they return home.... During the Time the waggons
stop, the poor Women carry their Yarn to the Clothiers for whom they
work; then they get the few Things they want, and return to the Inn to
be carried home again.... Many of them ten or twelve miles ... there
will be in Market time 3 or 400 poor People (chiefly Women) who will
sell their Goods in about an Hour.”[209]

Footnote 209:

  _Remarks upon Mr. Webber’s scheme_, pp. 21-2, 1741.

According to this writer other women worked for the “rich clothier” who
“makes his whole year’s provision of wool beforehand ... in the winter
time has it spun by his own spinsters ... at the lowest rate for wages,”
or they worked for the “market spinner” or middleman who supplied them
with wool mixed in the right proportions and sold their yarn to the
clothiers. In either case the return for their labour was less than that
secured by the spinsters who had sufficient capital to buy their wool
and sell the yarn in the dearest market. When the Staplers tried to
secure a monopoly for selling wool, the Growers of wool, or Chapmen
petitioned in self-defence explaining “that the clothier’s poor are all
servants working for small wages that doth but keepe them alive, whereas
the number of people required to work up the same amount of wool in the
new Drapery is much larger. Moreover, all sorts of these people are
masters in their trade and work for themselves, they buy and sell their
materials that they work upon, so that by their merchandize and honest
labour they live very well. These are served of their wools weekly by
the wool-buyer.”[210]

Footnote 210:

  _S.P.D._, lxxx., 15-16, Jan, 1615.

Opinion was divided as to whether the spinster found it more
advantageous to work direct for the Clothier or for the Market Spinner.
A proposal in 1693 to put down the middle-man, was advised against by
the Justices of Assize for Wiltshire, on the ground that it was “likely
to cause great reduction of wages and employment to the spinners and the
poor, and a loss to the growers of wool, and no advantage in the quality
of the yarn.”

The Justices say in their report: “We finde the markett spinner who
setts many spinners on worke spinnes not the falce yarn, but the poorer
sorte of people (who spinne theyr wool in theyr owne howses) for if the
markett spinners who spinne greate quantitys and sell it in the markett
should make bad yarne, they should thereby disable themselves to
maynetayne theyre creditt and livelyhood. And that the more spinners
there are, the more cloth will be made and the better vent for Woolls
(which is the staple commodity of the kingdome) and more poor will be
set on worke. The markett spinners (as is conceived) are as well to be
regulated by the lawe, for any falcity in mixing of theyr woolles as the
Clothier is, who is a great markett spinner himselfe and doth both make
and sell as falce yarne as any market spinner.... We finde the markett
spinner gives better wages than the Clothier, not for that reason the
Clothier gives for the falcity of the yarne, but rather in that the
markett spinners vent much of their yarne to those that make the dyed
and dressed clothes who give greater prizes than the white men do.”[211]

Footnote 211:

  _S.P.D._, ccxliii., 23, July 23, 1633.

The fine yarn used by the Clothiers required considerable skill in
spinning, and the demand for it was so great in years of expansion that
large sums of money were paid to persons able to teach the mysteries of
the craft in a new district. Thus the Earl of Salisbury made an
agreement in 1608 with Walter Morrell that he should instruct fifty
persons of the parish of Hatfield, chosen by the Earl of Salisbury, in
the art of clothing, weaving, etc. He will provide work for all these
persons to avoid idleness and for the teaching of skill and knowledge in
clothing will pay for the work at the current rates, except those who
are apprentices. The Earl of Salisbury on his part will allow Walter
Morrell a house rent free and will pay him £100 per annum “for
instructing the fifty persons, to be employed in:—the buying of wool,
sorting it, picking it, dying it, combing it, both white and mingle
colour worsted, weaving and warping and quilling both worsted of all
sorts, dressing both woollen and stuffes, spinning woollen (wofe and
warpe), spinning all sortes of Kersey both high wheel and low wheel,
knitting both woollen and worsted.”[212]

Footnote 212:

  _S.P.D._, xxxviii., 72, 73, Dec., 1608.

A similar agreement is recorded in 1661-2 between the Bailiffs and
Burgesses of Aldeburgh and “Edmund Buxton of Stowmarket, for his coming
to set up his trade of spinning wool in the town and to employ the poor
therein, paying him £50—for 5 years and £12—for expense of removing,
with a house rent free and the freedom of the town.”[213]

Footnote 213:

  _Hist. MSS. Com. Var. Coll._, Vol. IV., p. 311.

The finest thread was produced on the distaff, but this was a slow
process, and for commoner work spinning wheels were in habitual use—

            “There are, to speed their labor, who prefer
            “Wheels double spol’d, which yield to either hand
            “A sev’ral line; and many, yet adhere
            “To th’ ancient distaff, at the bosom fix’d,
            “Casting the whirling spindle as they walk.”[214]

Footnote 214:

  Dyer John., _The Fleece_, 1757.

The demands made on spinning by this ever expanding trade were supplied
from three sources: (1) the wives of farmers and other well to do
people, (b) the wives of husbandmen and (c) women who depended wholly on
spinning for their living, and who are therefore called here spinsters.
The first care of the farmers’ wives was to provide woollen stuffs for
the use of their families, but a certain proportion of their yarn found
its way to the market. The clothiers at Salisbury who made the better
grades of cloth were said to “buy their yarn of the finer kinds that
come to the market at from 17d the lb. to 2s. 4d, made all of the finer
sortes of our owne Welshire wool, and is spun by farmers’ wives and
other of the better sorte of people within their owne houses, of whose
names wee keep due Register and do write down with what cardes they
promise us their several bundles of yarne are carded, and do find such
people just in what they tell us, or can otherwise controule them when
wee see the proofe of our cloth in the mill, ... and also some very few
farmers’ wives who maie peradventure spinne sometimes a little of those
sortes in their own houses and sell the same in the markett and is verie
current without mixture of false wooll grease, etc.”[215]

Footnote 215:

  _S.P.D._, cclxvii., 17, May 2, 1634. Certificate from Anthony Wither,
  Commissioner of reformation of clothing.

Probably a larger supply of yarn came from the families of husbandmen
where wife and children devoted themselves to spinning through the long
winter evenings. Children became proficient in the art at an early age,
and could often spin a good thread when seven or eight years old. This
subsidiary employment was not sufficient to supply the demand for yarn,
and in the clothing counties numbers of women were withdrawn from
agricultural occupations to depend wholly upon their earnings as
spinsters.

The demand made by the woollen trade on the labour of children is shown
by a report from the Justices of the Peace of the Boulton Division of
the Hundred of Salford, ... “for apprentices there hath beene few found
since our last certificate by reason of the greate tradeing of fustians
and woollen cloth within the said division, by reason whereof the
inhabitants have continuall employment for their children in spinning
and other necessary labour about the same.”[216]

Footnote 216:

  _S.P.D._, ccclxiv., 122, July, 1637.

Those who gave out the wool and collected the yarn were called market
spinners, but the qualifying term “market” is sometimes omitted, and
when men are referred to as spinners it may be assumed that they are
organising the work of the spinsters, and not engaged themselves in the
process of spinning.[217] Though the demand for yarn generally exceeded
the supply, wages for spinning remained low throughout the seventeenth
century. A writer in the first half of the eighteenth century who urges
the establishment of a nursery of spinners on the estate of an Irish
landlord admits that their labour is “of all labour on wools the most
sparingly paid for.”[218]

Footnote 217:

  _Somerset Q.S. Rec._, Vol. III., p. 56, 1648. _Complaint ... by ...
  Thos Chambers, Randall Carde, Dorothy Palmer, Stephen Hodges and Wm.
  Hurman, persons ymployed by Henry Denmeade servant to Mr. Thos. Cooke,
  Clothier for the spinning of certen wool and convertinge it into yarne
  and twistinge it thereof for the benefitt of the said Mr. Cooke that
  theire wages for the same spinninge and twistinge had been deteyned
  from them by the said Mr. Cooke ... it is ordered that the said Mr. C.
  doe forthwith pay to the said Thos. Chambers the some of ffowerteene
  shillings to the said Randall Carde the some of nyne shillings and
  fower pence, to the said Dorothy Palmer the some of eighteen shillings
  and one penny to the said Stephen Hodges the some of nyne shillings
  and four pence and to the said Wm. Hurman the some of nyne shillings._

Footnote 218:

  _Scheme to prevent the running of Irish wools to France_, p. 19.

Wages for spinning are mentioned in only three of the extant Quarter
Sessions’ Assessments, and it is not specified whether the material is
wool or flax:

1654. Devon. 6d. per week with meat and drink, or 1s. 4d. without them.

1688. Bucks. Spinners shall not have by the day more than 4d. without
      meat and drink.

1714. Devon. 1s. per week with meat and drink, 2s. 6d. without them.

These rates are confirmed by entries in account books,[219] but it was
more usual to pay by the piece. Though it is always more difficult to
discover the possible earnings per day of women who are working by a
piece rate in their own homes, it so happens that several of the writers
who discuss labour questions in the woollen trade specially state that
their estimates of the wages of spinners are based on full time. John
Haynes quoted figures in 1715 which work out at nearly 1s. 6d. per week
for the spinners of wool into stuffs for the Spanish Trade, and about
2s. 11d. for stockings,[220] another pamphlet gives 24s. as the wages of
9 spinsters for a week,[221] while in 1763 the author of the “Golden
Fleece” quotes 2s. 3d. a week for Spanish wools.[222] Another pamphlet
says that the wages in the fine woollen trade “being chiefly women and
children, may amount, one with another to £6 per annum.”[223] A petition
from the weavers, undated, but evidently presented during a season of
bad trade, declares that “there are not less than a Million of poor
unhappy objects, _women and children only_, who ... are employed in
Spinning Yarn for the Woollen Manufacturers; Thousands of these have now
no work at all, and all of them have suffered an Abatement of Wages; so
that now a Poor Woman, perhaps a Mother of many Children, must work very
hard to gain Three Pence or Three Pence Farthing per Day.”[224]

Footnote 219:

  (_Howard Household Book_, p. 63, 1613.) “Widow Grame for spinning ij
  stone and 5ˡ of wooll vjs. To the wench that brought it iijid. To
  Ellen for winding yarn iij weekes xviijid.”

  (Fell, Sarah; _Household Accounts_, Nov. 28, 1677, p. 439.) “Pd. Agnes
  Holme of Hawxhead foʳ spininge woole here 7 weeks 02.04.”

Footnote 220:

  Haynes, _Great Britain’s Glory_, pp. 8, 9.

Footnote 221:

  _Weavers’ True Case_, p. 43, 1719.

Footnote 222:

  James, John, _Hist. of the Worsted Manufacture_, p. 239.

Footnote 223:

  _Further considerations for encouraging the Woollen Manufactures._

Footnote 224:

  _Second Humble Address from the Poor Weavers._

Though these wages provided no margin for the support of children, or
other dependants, it was possible for a woman who could spin the better
quality yarns to maintain herself in independence.

John Evelyn describes “a maiden of primitive life, the daughter of a
poore labouring man, who had sustain’d her parents (some time since
dead) by her labour, and has for many years refus’d marriage, or to
receive any assistance from the parish, besides yᵉ little hermitage my
lady gives her rent free: she lives on fourepence a day, which she gets
by spinning; says she abounds and can give almes to others, living in
greate humility and content, without any apparent affectation or
singularity; she is continualy working, praying, or reading, gives a
good account of her knowledge in religion, visites the sick; is not in
the least given to talke; very modest, of a simple not unseemly
behaviour, of a comely countenance, clad very plaine, but cleane and
tight. In sum she appeares a saint of an extraordinary sort, in so
religious a life as is seldom met with in villages now-a-daies.”[225]

Footnote 225:

  Evelyn (John) _Diary_, Vol. III., p. 7, 1685.

It is probable that the wages for spinning were advanced soon after this
date, for Defoe writes in 1728 that “the rate for spinning, weaving and
all other Manufactory-work, I mean in Wool, is so risen, that the Poor
all over _England_ can now earn or gain near twice as much in a Day, and
in some Places, more than twice as much as they could get for the same
work two or three Years ago ... the poor women now get 12d. to 15d. a
Day for spinning, the men more in proportion, and are full of
work.”[226] “The Wenches ... wont go to service at 12d. or 18d. a week
while they can get 7s. to 8s. a Week at spinning; the Men won’t drudge
at the Plow and Cart &c., and perhaps get £6 a year ... when they can
sit still and dry within Doors, and get 9s. or 10s. a Week at
Wool-combing or at Carding.”[227] “Would the poor Maid-Servants who
choose rather to spin, while they can gain 9s. per Week by their Labour
than go to Service at 12d. a week to the Farmers Houses as before; I say
would they sit close to their work, live near and close, as labouring
and poor People ought to do, and by their Frugality lay up six or seven
shillings per Week, none could object or blame them for their
Choice.”[228] Defoe’s statement as to the high rate of wages for
spinning is supported by an account of the workhouse at Colchester where
the children’s “Work is Carding & Spinning Wool for the Baymakers; some
of them will earn 6d. or 7d. a Day.”[229] But there is no sign of these
higher wages in the seventeenth century.

Footnote 226:

  Defoe, _Behaviour_, p. 83.

Footnote 227:

  Defoe, _Behaviour_, pp. 84-5.

Footnote 228:

  _Ibid._ p. 88.

Footnote 229:

  _Acc. of several Workhouses_, p. 59, 1725.

Continual recriminations took place between clothiers and spinsters, who
accused one another of dishonesty in their dealings. A petition of the
Worsted Weavers of Norwich and Norfolk, and the Bayes and Sayes makers
of Essex and Suffolk, to the Council proposes: “That no spinster shall
winde or reele theire yarne upon shorter reeles (nor fewer thriddes)
than have bene accustomed, nor ymbessell away their masters’ goodes to
be punished by the next Justices of the Peace.”[230]

Footnote 230:

  _S.P.D._, civ. 97, 1618. _Petition for regulation._

And again in 1622 the Justices of the Peace of Essex inform the Council:
“Moreover wee understand that the clothiers who put forthe their woolle
to spinne doe much complaine of the spinsters that they use great deceit
by reason they doe wynde their yarne into knottes upon shorter reeles
and fewer threedes by a fifth part than hath beene accustomed. The which
reeles ought to be two yardes about and the knottes to containe
fowerscore threedes apeece.”[231]

On the other hand in Wiltshire the weavers, spinners and others
complained that they “are not able by their diligent labours to gett
their livinges, by reason that the Clothiers at their will have made
their workes extreme hard, and abated wages what they please. And some
of them make such their workfolkes to doe their houshold businesses, to
trudge in their errands, spoole their chains, twist their list, doe
every command without giving them bread, drinke or money for many days
labours.”[232]

Footnote 231:

  _S.P.D._, cxxx., 65, May 13, 1662.

Footnote 232:

  _Hist. MSS. Com. Var. Coll._, Vol. I., p. 94, _Wilts. Q.S. Rec._,
  1623.

Report was made to the Council in 1631-2 that the reele-staffe in the
Eastern Counties “was enlarged by a fift or sixt part longer than have
bene accustomed and the poores wages never the more encreased.”
Whereupon the magistrates in Cambridge agreed “that all spinsters shall
have for the spinning and reeling of six duble knots on the duble reele
or 12 on the single reele, a penny, which is more by 2d. in the shilling
than they have had, and all labourers and other artificers have the like
increase. Essex and Suffolk are ready to make the same increase provided
that the same reel and rate of increase is used in all other counties
where the trade of clothing and yarn-making is made, otherwise one
county will undersell another to the ruin of the clothiers and the poor
dependent on them. Therefore the Council order that a proportional
increase of wages is paid according to the increase of the reel and the
officers employed for keeping a constant reel to give their accounts to
the Justices of the Assize.”[233]

Footnote 233:

  _Council Register_, 2nd March, 1631-2.

Other complaints were made of clothiers who forced their workpeople to
take goods instead of money in payment of wages. At Southampton in 1666
thirty-two clothiers, beginning with Joseph Delamot, Alderman, were
presented for forcing their spinners “to take goods for their work
whereby the poor were much wronged, being contrary to the statute, for
all which they were amerced severally.” The records however do not state
that the fine was exacted.[234]

Footnote 234:

  Davies (J. S.) _Southampton_, p. 272.

Low as were the spinster’s wages even in seasons of prosperity, they, in
common with the better-paid weavers endured the seasons of depression,
which were characteristic of the woollen industry. The English community
was as helpless before a period of trade depression as before a season
of drought or flood. Employment ceased, the masters who had no sale for
their goods, gave out no material to their workers, and men and women
alike, who were without land as a resource in this time of need, were
faced with starvation and despair.[235] The utmost social demoralisation
ensued, and family life with all its valuable traditions was in many
cases destroyed.

Footnote 235:

  A report to the council from the High Sheriff of Somerset says: “Yet I
  thincke it my duty to acquaynt your Lordshipps that there are such a
  multytude of poore cottages builte upon the highwaies and odd corners
  in every countrie parishe within this countye, and soe stufte with
  poore people that in many of those parishes there are three or fower
  hundred poore of men and women and children that did gett most of
  their lyvinge by spinnyng, carding and such imployments aboute wooll
  and cloath. And the deadness of that trade and want of money is such
  that they are for the most parte without worke, and knowe not how to
  live. This _is_ a great grievance amongst us and tendeth much to
  mutinye.”

  (_S.P.D._, cxxx., 73, May 14, 1622, High Sheriff of Somersetshire to
  the Council.)

Complaints from the clothing counties state “That the Poor’s Rates are
doubled, and in some Places trebbled by the Multitude of Poor Perishing
and Starving Women and Children being come to the Parishes, while their
Husbands and Fathers _not able to bear the cries which they could not
relieve_, are fled into _France_ ... to seek their Bread.”[236]

Footnote 236:

  _Second Humble Address from the poor Weavers._

These conditions caused grave anxiety to the Government who attempted to
force the clothiers to provide for their workpeople.[237]

Footnote 237:

  The Council ordered the Justices of the Peace for the counties of
  Wilts, Somerset, Dorset, Devon, Gloucester, Worcester, Oxford, Kent
  and Suffolk, to summon clothiers and “deale effectually with them for
  the employment of such weavers, spinners and other persons, as are now
  out of work.... We may not indure that the cloathiers ... should att
  their pleasure, and without giving knowledge thereof unto this Boarde,
  dismisse their workefolkes, who being many in number and most of them
  of the poorer sort are in such cases likely by their clamour to
  disturb the quiet and government of those partes wherein they live.”
  (_C.R._, 9th Feb., 1621-2.)

Locke reported to Carleton, Feb. 16th, 1622: “In the cloathing counties
there have bin lately some poore people (such chieflie as gott their
living by working to Clothiers) that have gathered themselves together
by Fourty or Fifty in a company and gone to the houses of those they
thought fittest to relieve them for meate and money which hath bin given
more of feare than charitie. And they have taken meate openly in the
markett without paying for it. The Lords have written letters to ten
Counties where cloathing is most used, that the Clothier shall not put
off his workemen without acquainting the Councill, signifying that order
is taken for the buying off their cloathes, and that the wooll grower
shall afford them his wooll better cheape but yet the cloathiers still
complaine that they can not sell their cloath in Blackwell
Hall....”[238]

Footnote 238:

  _S.P.D._, cxxvii., 102, Feb. 16, 1622.

The Justices of Assize for Gloucester reported March 13, 1622, that they
have interviewed the Clothiers who have been forced to put down looms
through the want of sale for their cloth. The Clothiers maintain that
this is due to the regulations and practices of the Company of Merchant
Adventurers. They say that they, the Clothiers, have been working at a
loss since the deadness of trade about a year ago, “their stocks and
credits are out in cloth lying upon their hands unsold, and that albeit
they have bought their woolles at very moderate prices, being such as do
very much impoverish the grower, yet they cannot sell the cloth made
thereof but to their intolerable losses, and are enforced to pawne
theire clothes to keepe theire people in work, which they are not able
to indure ... that there are at the least 1500 loomes within the County
of Gloucester and in ... the Citie and that xxs. in money and sixteene
working persons and upwards doe but weekly mainteyne one loome, which
doe require 1500li. in money, by the weeke to mainteyne in that trade
24000 working people besides all others that are releeved thereby, and
so the wages of a labouring person is little above xiid. the week being
much too little.”[239]

Footnote 239:

  _S.P.D._, cxxviii, 49, March 13, 1622.

In June of the same year the Justices of Gloucester wrote to the
Council: “The distress of those depending on the Cloth trade grows worse
and worse. Our County is thereby and through want of money and means in
these late tymes growne poore, and unable to releeve the infynite nomber
of poore people residinge within the same (drawne hither by meanes of
clothing) ... therefore very many of them doe wander, begg and steale
and are in case to starve as their faces (to our great greefes) doe
manifest.... The peace is in danger of being broken.”[240]

Footnote 240:

  _S.P.D._, cxxxi., 4, June 1, 1622.

The distress was not limited to the rural districts; the records of the
Borough of Reading describe efforts made there for its alleviation. “At
this daye the complainte of the poore Spynners and Carders was agayne
heard etc. The Overseers and Clothiers apoynted to provide and assigne
them worke apeared and shewed their dilligence therein, yett the
complaint for lacke of worke increaseth; for a remedye is agreed to be
thus, viz: every Clothier according to his proportion of ... shall
weekly assigne and put to spynning in the towne his ordinarye and course
wooffe wooll, and shall not send it unto the country and if sufficient
be in the towne to doe it.”[241] At another time it is recorded that “In
regard of the great clamour of divers poore people lackinge worke and
employment in spynninge and cardinge in this Towne, yt was this daye
thought fitt to convent all the undertakers of the stocke given by Mr.
Kendricke, and uppon their appearaunce it was ordered, and by themselves
agreed, that every undertaker, for every 300li. shall put a woowf a
weeke to spyninge within the Towne, as Mr. Mayour shall apoynt, and to
such spynners as Mr. Mayour shall send to them[242]....”

Footnote 241:

  Guilding, _Reading_, Vol. II., p. 159, 1623.

Footnote 242:

  _Ibid._, Vol. III., p. 7, Mar. 3, 1629-30.

In these times of distress and in all disputes concerning wages and the
exactions of the employers, men and women stood together, supporting
each other in their efforts for the improvement of their lot. Thus the
Justices of the Peace of Devonshire reported that “complaints were made
by the most parte of the clothiers weavers, spinsters and fullers
between Plymouth and Teignmouth,”[243] and the Council is informed that
at the last Quarter Sessions in Wilts, many “weavers, spinners, and
fullers for themselves and for manie hundreds more ... complained of
distress by increasing want of work.... Clothiers giving up their trade,
etc.”[244]

Footnote 243:

  _S.P.D._, xcvii., 85, May 25, 1618. J.P.s of Devonshire to Council.

Footnote 244:

  _Ibid._, cxv., 20, May 11, 1620. J.P.s of Wiltshire to Council.

Sometimes the petitions, though presented on behalf of spinners as well
as weavers, were actually signed only by men. This was the case with the
Weavers, Fullers and Spinners of Leonard Stanley and King Stanley in
Gloucestershire, who petitioned on behalf of themselves and others, 800
at the least, young and old, of the said parishes, “Whereas your poore
petitioners have heretofore bene well wrought and imployed in our sayd
occupations belonging to the trade of clothing whereby we were able in
some poore measure and at a very lowe rate to maintaine ourselves and
families soe as hitherto they have not suffered any extreme want. But
now soe it is that we are likely for the time to come never to be
imployed againe in our callinges and to have our trades become noe
trades, whereunto we have bene trained up and served as apprentices
according to the lawe, and wherein we have always spent our whole time
and are now unfitt for ... other occupations, neither can we be received
into worke by any clothiers in the whole countrey.”[245]

Footnote 245:

  _S.P.D._, ccxliv., 1, Aug. 1, 1633.

At other times women took the lead in demanding the redress of
grievances from which all were suffering. When the case of the
say-makers abating the wages of the spinsters, weavers and combers of
Sudbury was examined by the Justices, the Saymakers alleged that all
others did the same, but that they were content to give the wages paid
by them if these were extended by proclamation or otherwise throughout
the kingdom. “But if the order is not general it will be their undoing
...” Whereupon the Justices ordered the Saymakers to pay spinsters “for
every seaven knottes one penny, the reel whereon the yarne is reeled to
be a yard in length—no longer,” and to pay weavers “12d. a lb. for
weaving thereof for white sayes under 5 lbs. weight.”[246]

Footnote 246:

  _S.P.D._, clxxxix., 40, Ap. 27, 1631. J.P.s of Essex to Council.

Shortly afterwards the Council received a petition from the Mayor asking
to be heard by the Council or Commissioners to answer the complaint made
against them. “by Silvia Harber widow set on worke by Richard Skinnir of
Sudbury gent ... for abridging and wronging of the spinsters and weavers
of the said borough in their wages and for some other wrongs supposed to
bee done to the said Silvia Harber,” followed by an affidavit stating
“Wee whose names are hereunder written doe testifye as followeth with
our severell handes to our testification.

“1. That one Silvia Harber of our Towne of Sudbury comonly called Luce
Harbor did say that shee had never undertaken to peticion the Lordes of
the Counsell in the Behalfe of the Spinsters of Sudbury aforesaid but by
the inducement of Richard Skinner gentleman of the Towne aforesaid who
sent for her twoe or three times before shee would goe unto him for that
purpose, and when shee came to him hee sent her to London and bare her
charges. Witness, Daniel Biat Clement Shelley.

“2. That having conference with Richard Skinner aforesaid Gentleman, hee
did confesse that hee would never have made any stir of complaint
against the saymakers in behalf of weavers and spinsters, but that one
Thomas Woodes of the towne abovesaid had given him Distaystfull wordes.”
Witness, Vincent Cocke.[247]

Footnote 247:

  _S.P.D._, cxcvii., 72, July, 1631. Affidavit about Saymakers in County
  of Suffolk.

No organisation appears to have been formed by the wage-earners in the
woollen Trade. Their demonstrations against employers were as yet local
and sporadic. The very nature of their industry and the requirements of
its capitalistic organisation would have rendered abortive on their part
the attempt to raise wages by restricting the numbers of persons
admitted into the trade; but the co-operation in trade disputes between
the men and women engaged in this industry, forms a marked contrast to
the conditions which were now beginning to prevail in the apprentice
trades and which will be described later. Though without immediate
result in the woollen trade, it may be assumed that it was this habit of
standing shoulder to shoulder, regardless of sex-jealousy, which ensured
that when Industrialism attained a further development in the closely
allied cotton trade, the union which was then called into being embraced
men and women on almost equal terms.

The broad outline of the position of women in the woollen trade as it
was established in the seventeenth century shows them taking little, if
any, part in the management of the large and profitable undertakings of
Clothiers and Wool-merchants. Their industrial position was that of
wage-earners, and though the demand for their labour generally exceeded
the supply, yet the wages they received were barely sufficient for their
individual maintenance, regardless of the fact that in most cases they
were wholly or partly supporting children or other dependants.

The higher rates of pay for spinning appear to have been secured by the
women who did not depend wholly upon it for their living, but could buy
wool, spin it at their leisure, and sell the yarn in the dearest market;
while those who worked all the year round for clothiers or middlemen,
were often beaten down in their wages and were subject to exactions and
oppression.


                              C. _Linen._

While the woollen trade had for centuries been developing under the
direction of capitalism, it was only in the seventeenth century that
this influence begins to show itself in the production of linen.
Following the example of the clothiers, attempts were then made to
manufacture linen on a large scale. For example, Celia Fiennes describes
Malton as a “pretty large town built of Stone but poor; ... there was
one Mr. Paumes that marry’d a relation of mine, Lord Ewers’ Coeheiress
who is landlady of almost all yᵉ town. She has a pretty house in the
place. There is the ruins of a very great house whᶜʰ belonged to yᵉ
family but they not agreeing about it Caused yᵉ defaceing of it. She now
makes use of yᵉ roomes off yᵉ out-buildings and gate house for weaving
and Linning Cloth, haveing set up a manuffactory for Linnen whᶜʰ does
Employ many poor people.”[248]

Footnote 248:

  Fiennes (Celia) p. 74. _Through England on a Side-saddle._

In spite of such innovations the production of linen retained for the
most part its character as one of the crafts “yet left of that innocent
old world.” The housewife, assisted by servants and children span flax
and hemp for household linen, underclothes, children’s frocks and other
purposes, and then took her thread to the local weaver who wove it to
her order. Thus Richard Stapley, Gent., enters in his Diary: “A weaver
fetched 11 pounds of flaxen yarn to make a bedticke; and he brought me
ten yds of ticking for yᵉ bed, 3 yds and ¾ of narrow ticking for yᵉ
bolster & for yᵉ weaving of which I paid him 10s. and ye flax cost 8d.
per pound. My mother spun it for me, and I had it made into a bed by
John Dennit, a tailor, of Twineham for 8d. on Wednesday, July 18th, and
it was filled on Saturday, August 4th by Jonas Humphrey of Twineham for
6d.” The weaver brought it home July 6th.[249] Similarly Sarah Fell
enters in her Household book: “Nov. 18th, 1675, by mᵒ. pᵈ. Geo. ffell
weaver foʳ workeinge 32: ells of hempe tow cloth of Mothrs. at ld½ ell.
000.04.00.”[250]

Footnote 249:

  _Suss. Arch. Coll._, Vol. II., p. 121. _Extracts from the Diary of
  Richard Stapley, Gent._, 1682-1724.

Footnote 250:

  Fell (Sarah) _Household Accts._, p. 233.

By the industry and foresight of its female members the ordinary
household was supplied with all its necessary linen without any need for
entering the market, the expenses of middlemen and salesmen being so
avoided. Nevertheless, it is evident that a considerable sale for linen
had always existed, for the linen drapers were an important corporation
in many towns. This sale was increased through an invention made about
the middle of the century: By printing patterns on linen a material was
produced which closely imitated the costly muslins, or calicoes as they
were then called, imported from India; but at so reasonable a price that
they were within the reach of a servant’s purse. Servants were therefore
able to go out in dresses scarcely distinguishable from their
mistresses’, and the sale of woollen and silk goods was seriously
affected. The woollen trade became alarmed; riots took place; weavers
assaulted women who were wearing printed linens in the streets, and
finally, Parliament, always tender to the woollen trade, which furnished
so large a part of the national revenue, prohibited their use
altogether. The linen printers recognising that “the Reason why the
_English_ Manufacture of linnen is not so much taken notice of as the
_Scotch_ or _Irish_, is this, the _English_ is mostly consumed in the
Country, ... whereas the _Scotch_ and _Irish_ must come by sea and make
a Figure at our custom’s house,”[251] urged in their defence that “the
linens printed are chiefly the Growth and Manufacture of _North Britain_
pay 3d. per Yard to the Crown, ... and Employ so many Thousands of
_British_ poor, as will undoubtedly entitle them to the Care of a
British Parliament.”[252]

Footnote 251:

  _Case of British and Irish Manufacture of Linnen._

Footnote 252:

  _Case of the Linen Drapers._

But even this argument was unavailing against the political influence of
the woollen trade. The spirit of the time favouring the spread of
capitalistic enterprise from the woollen trade into other fields of
action, an attempt was now made to form a Linen Company. Pamphlets
written for and against this project furnish many details of the
conditions then prevailing in the manufacture of linen. “How,” it was
said, will the establishment of a Linnen Company “affect the Kingdom in
the two Pillars that support it, that of the Rents of Land and the
imploying our Ships and Men at Sea, which are thought the Walls of the
Nation. For the Rents of Land they must certainly fall, for that one
Acre of Flax will imploy as many Hands the year round, as the Wooll of
Sheep that graze twenty Acres of Ground. The Linnen Manufactory imploys
few men, the Woollen most, Weaving, Combing, Dressing, Shearing, Dying,
etc. These Eat and Drink more than Women and Children; and so as the
Land that the Sheep graze on raiseth the Rent, so will the Arable and
Pasture that bears Corn, and breeds Cattle for their Subsistence. Then
for the Employment of our Shipping, it will never be pretended that we
can arrive to Exportation of Linnen; there are others and too many
before us in that.... That Projectors and Courtiers should be inspired
with New Lights, and out of love to the Nation, create new Methods in
Trades, that none before found out; and by inclosing Commons the Liberty
of Trade into Shares, in the first place for themselves, and then for
such others as will pay for both, is, I must confess, to me, a Mystery I
desire to be a Stranger unto.... The very Name of a Company and
Joint-Stock in Trade, is a spell to drive away, and keep out of that
place where they reside, all men of Industry.... The great motive to
Labour and Incouragement of Trade, is an equal Freedom, and that none
may be secluded from the delightful Walks of Liberty ... a Subjection in
Manufactories where a People are obliged to one Master, tho’ they have
the full Value of their Labour, is not pleasing, they think themselves
in perpetual Servitude, and so it is observed in _Ireland_, where the
_Irish_ made a Trade of Linnen Yarn, no Man could ingage them, but they
would go to the Market and be better satisfied with a less price, than
to be obliged to one master.... There was much more Reason for a Company
and Joint-stock to set up the Woollen Manufactory, in that ignorant Age,
than there is for this of the Linnen Manufactory; that of the Woollen
was a new Art not known in this Kingdom, it required a great Stock to
manage, there was required Foreign as well as Native Commodities to
carry it on ... and when the Manufactory was made, there must be Skill
and Interest abroad to introduce the Commodity where others had the
Trade before them; but there is nothing of all this in the Linnen
Manufactory; Nature seems to design it for the weaker Sex. The best of
Linnen for Service is called House Wife’s Cloth, here then is no need of
the Broad Seal, or Joint-Stock to establish the Methods for the good
Wife’s weeding her Flax-garden, or how soon her Maid shall sit to her
Wheel after washing her Dishes; the good Woman is Lady of the Soil, and
holds a Court within herself, throws the Seed into the Ground, and works
it till she brings it there again, I mean her Web to the bleaching
Ground.... To appropriate this which the poorest Family may by Labour
arrive unto, that is, finish and bring to Market a Piece of Cloth, to me
seems an infallible Expedient to discourage universal Industry.... The
Linnen Manufactory above any Trade I know, if (which I must confess I
doubt) it be for the Good of the Nation, requires more Charity than
Grandeur to carry it on, the poor Spinner comes as often to her Master
for Charity to a sick Child, or a Plaister for a Sore, as for Wages; and
this she cannot have of a Company, but rather less for her labour, when
they have beat all private Undertakers out. These poor Spinners can now
come to their Master’s Doors at a good time, and eat of their good tho’
poor master’s Chear; they can reason with him, if any mistake, or
hardship be put upon them, and this poor People love to do, and not be
at the Dispose of Servants, as they must be where their Access can only
be by Doorkeepers, Clerks, etc., to the Governors of the Company.”[253]

Footnote 253:

  Linnen and Woollen Manufactory, p. 4-8, 1691.

On the other side it was urged that “All the Arguments that can be
offer’d for Encouraging the woollen manufacture in _England_ conclude as
strongly in proportion for Encouraging the linnen manufacture in
_Scotland_. ’Tis the ancient Staple Commodity there, as the Woollen is
here.”[254]

Footnote 254:

  _True case of the Scots Linen Manufacture._

The part taken by women in the production of linen resembled their share
in woollen manufactures. Some were weavers; thus Oliver Heywood says
that his brother-in-law, who afterwards traded in fustians, was brought
up in Halifax with Elizabeth Roberts, a linen weaver.[255] Entries in
the Foulis Account Book show that they were sometimes employed in
bleaching but spinning was the only process which depended exclusively
on their labour.

Footnote 255:

  Heywood (Rev. Oliver) _Autobiography_, Vol. I., p. 36.

The rates of pay for spinning flax and hemp were even lower than those
for spinning wool. Fitzherbert expressly says that in his time no woman
could get her living by spinning linen.[256] The market price was of
little moment to well-to-do women who span thread for their family’s use
and who valued the product of their labour by its utility and not by its
return in money value; but the women who depended on spinning for their
living were virtually paupers, as is shown by the terms in which
reference is made to them:—“shee beeinge very poore, gettinge her
livinge by spinninge and in the nature of a widowe, her husband beeinge
in the service of His Majesty.”[257]

Footnote 256:

  Ante, p. 48.

Footnote 257:

  _S.P.D._, cccclvii., 3., June 13, 1640.

Yet the demand for yarn and thread was so great that if spinners had
been paid a living wage there would have been scarcely any need for poor
relief.

The relation between low wages and pauperism was hardly even suspected
at this time, and though the spinsters’ maximum wages were settled at
Quarter Sessions, no effort was made to raise them to a subsistence
level. Instead of attempting to do so Parish Authorities accepted
pauperism as “the act of God,” and concentrated their attention on the
task of reducing rates as far as possible by forcing the pauper women
and children, who had become impotent or vicious through neglect and
under-feeding, to spin the thread needed by the community. Schemes for
this purpose were started all over the country; a few examples will show
their general scope. At Nottingham it was arranged for Robert Hassard to
“Receave pore children to the number of viij. or more, ... and to haue
the benefitt of theire workes and labours for the first Moneth, and the
towne to allowe him towards their dyett, for everie one xijid. a Weeke,
and theire parents to fynde them lodginge; and Robert Hassard to be
carefull to teache and instructe them speedyly in the spyninge and
workinge heare, to be fitt to make heare-cloth, and allsoe in cardinge
and spyninge of hards to make candle weeke, and hee to geue them
correccion, when need ys, and the greate wheeles to be called in, and to
be delivered for the vse of these ymployments.”[258]

Footnote 258:

  _Ibid._, pp. 259-60, 1649.

A few years later in the scheme “for setting the poore on worke” the
following rates of pay were established:—

6d. per pound for cardinge and spinning finest wool.

5d. per pound for ye second sort.

4d. ob. (＝ _obolus_, ½d.) for ye third sorte.

1d. per Ley [skein] for ye onely spinninge all sortes of linen, the
reele beeing 4 yards.

ob. per pound for cardinge candleweake.

1d. per pound for pulling midling [coarser part] out of it.

1d. per pound for spininge candleweake.[259]

Footnote 259:

  _Nottingham Records_, Vol. V., pp. 174-5, 1636.

Orders for the Workhouse at Westminster in 1560, read that “old Women or
middle-Aged that might work, and went a Gooding, should be Hatchilers of
the Flax; and one Matron over them. That common Hedges, and such like
lusty naughty Packs, should be set to spinning; and one according to be
set over them. Children that were above Six and not twelve Years of Age
should be sent to winde Quills to the Weavers.”[260]

Footnote 260:

  Stow, _London_, Book VI., p. 60.

At a later date in London “Besides the relieving and educating of poor
friendless harborless children in Learning and in Arts, many hundreds of
poor Families are imployed and relieved by the said Corporation in the
Manufactory of Spinning and Weaving: and whosoever doth repair either to
the Wardrobe near Black-friars, or to Heiden-house in the Minories, may
have materials of Flax, Hemp, or Towe to spin at their own houses ...
leaving so much money as the said materials cost, until it be brought
again in Yarn; at which time they shall receive money for their work ...
every one is paid according to the fineness or coarseness of the Yarn
they spin ... so that none are necessitated to live idly that are
desirous or willing to work. And it is to be wished and desired, that
the Magistrates of this city would assist this Corporation ... in
supressing of Vagrants and common Beggars ... that so abound to the
hindrance of the Charity of many pious people towards this good
work.”[261]

Footnote 261:

  _Poor Out-cast Children’s Song and Cry._

The Cowden overseers carried out a scheme of work for the poor from 1600
to 1627, buying flax and having it spun and woven into canvas. The work
generally paid for itself; only one year is a loss of 7s. 8d. entered,
and during the first seventeen years the amount expended yearly in cash
and relief did not exceed £6 11s. rising then in 1620 to £28 5s. 10d.,
after which it fell again. The scheme was finally abandoned in 1627, the
relief immediately rising to £43 7s. 6d.[262]

Footnote 262:

  _Suss. Arch. Coll._, Vol. xx., pp. 99-100, _Acct. Book of Cowdon_.

Richard Dunning describes how in Devon “for Employing Women, ... We
agreed with one Person, who usually Employed several _Spinsters_, ... he
was to employ in _Spinning_, _Carding_, etc., all such Women as by
direction of the Overseers should apply to him for Work, to pay them
such Wages as they should deserve.”[263]

Footnote 263:

  Dunning, _Plain and Easie Method_, p. 8, 1686.

“Mary Harrison, daughter of Henry Harrison, was comited to the hospitall
at Reading to be taught to spyn and earne her livinge.”[264] Similarly
at Dorchester “Sarah Handcock of this Borough having this day been
complayned of for her disorderly carriage and scolding in the work house
... ... among the spinsters, is now ordered to come no more to the work
house to work there, but is to work elsewhere and follow her work, or to
be further delt withall according to the lawe.”[265]

Footnote 264:

  Guilding, _Reading_, Vol. II., p. 294.

Footnote 265:

  Mayo (C.H.) _Municipal Records of Dorchester_, p. 667, 1635.

At Dorchester a school was maintained for some years in which poor
children were taught spinning: “This day John Tarrenton ... is agreed
withall to vndertake charge and to be master of the Hospitall to employ
halfe the children at present at burlinge,[266] and afterwards the
others as they are willing and able, To have the howse and Tenne per
annum: wages for the presente, and yf all the Children come into
burlinge, and ther be no need of the women that doe now teach them to
spinne, then the Towne to consyder of Tarrington to giue him either part
or all, that is ix pownd, the women now hath....”[267]

Footnote 266:

  To burl, “to dress cloth as fullers do.”

Footnote 267:

  Mayo (C. H.), _Municipal Records of Dorchester_, p. 515, 1638.

Another entry, February 3rd, 1644-5, records that “Mr. Speering doth
agree to provide spinning work for such poore persons that shall spin
with those turnes as are now there [in the hospital house] ... and to
pay the poore for their spinning after the vsual rates for the worke
they doe.”[268]

Footnote 268:

  _Ibid._ p. 521.

In 1649 it is entered “This day Thos. Clench was here, and demanded 10
_li._ per ann. more than the stocke of the Hospital, which is 150 _li._
lent him for the furnishing of the house with worke for spinners, and
for the overlooking to the children ... the spinners shall have all the
yeare 3½d. a _li._ for yearne ... and that there be as many children
kept aworke as the roomes will hold ... wee shall take into
consideracion the setting of the poore on worke in spinning of worsted,
and knitting of stockins, and also of setting vp a trade of making
sackcloth.”[269]

Footnote 269:

  _Ibid._ pp. 517-8.

Schemes for teaching spinning were welcomed with enthusiasm by the
economists of the period, because in many districts the poor rates had
risen to an alarming height. They believed that if only the poor would
work all would be well. One writer urged “That if the Poor of the Place
do not know how to spin, or to do the Manufacture of that Place, that
then there be Dames hired at the Parish-Charge to teach them; and Men
may learn to spin as well as Women, and Earn as much money at it as they
can at many other employments.”[270] Another writer calculated that if
so employed “ixcl children whᶜʰ daielie was ydle may earne one wᵗ
another vjid. a weke whᶜʰ a mownte in the yere to jMiijcxxxvˡⁱ. Also
that jciiijxx women ... ar hable to earne at lest some xijid., some
xxd., and some ijs. vjid. a weeke.”[271]

Footnote 270:

  _Trade of England_, p. 10, 1681.

Footnote 271:

  Tingey, _Norwich_, Vol. II., p. 355.

This zest for teaching spinning was partly due to the fact that the
clothiers were represented on the local authorities, and often the
extending of their business was hampered by the shortage of spinsters.
But the flaw in all these arrangements was the fact that spinning
remained in most cases a grant in aid, and could not, owing to the low
wages paid, maintain a family, scarcely even an individual, on the level
of independence.

Children could not live on 6d. a week, or grown women on 1s. or 1s. 8d.
a week. And so the women, when they depended wholly upon spinning flax
for their living, became paupers, suffering the degradation and loss of
power by malnutrition which that condition implies.

In a few cases this unsatisfactory aspect of spinning was perceived by
those who were charged with relieving the poor. Thus, when a workhouse
was opened in Bristol in 1654, the spinning scheme was soon abandoned as
unprofitable.[272] Later, when girls were again taught spinning, the
managers of the school “soon found that the great cause of begging did
proceed from the low wages for Labour; for after about eight months time
our children could not get half so much as we expended in their
provisions. The manufacturers ... were always complaining the Yarn was
spun couarse, but would not advance above eightpence per pound for
spinning, and we must either take this or have no work.” Finally the
Governor took pains therefore to teach them to produce a finer yarn at
2s. to 3s. 6d. per pound. This paid better, and would have been more
profitable still if the girls as they grew older had not been sent to
service or put into the kitchen.[273]

Footnote 272:

  Latimer, _Annals of Bristol_, p. 249.

Footnote 273:

  Cary, (John) _Proceedings of Corporation of Bristol_, p. 13, 1700.

Thomas Firmin, after a prolonged effort to help the poor in London, came
to a similar conclusion. He explains that “the Poor of this Parish, tho’
many, are yet not so many as in some others; yet, even here there are
many poor people, who receive Flax to spin, tho’ they are not all
Pensioners to the Parish, nor, I hope, ever will be, it being my design
to prevent that as much as may be; ... there are above 500 more out of
other Parishes in and about the City of _London_; some of which do
constantly follow this Employment, and others only when they have no
better; As, suppose a poor Woman that goes three dayes a Week to Wash or
Scoure abroad, or one that is employed in Nurse-keeping three or four
Months in a Year, or a poor Market-woman, who attends three or four
Mornings in a Week with her Basket, and all the rest of the time these
folks have little or nothing to do; but by means of this spinning are
not only kept within doors ... but made much more happy and
chearful.”[274]

Footnote 274:

  Firmin, _Some Proposals_, p. 19, 1678.

Firmin began his benevolent work in an optimistic spirit, “had you seen,
as I have done many a time, with what joy and satisfaction, many Poor
People have brought home their Work, and received their money for it,
you would think no Charity in the World like unto it. Do not imagine
that all the Poor People in _England_, are like unto those Vagrants you
find up and down in the Streets. No, there are many Thousands whose
necessities are very great, and yet do what they can by their Honest
Labour to help themselves; and many times they would do more than they
do but for want of Employment. Several that I have now working to me do
spin, some fifteen, some sixteen, hours in four and twenty, and had much
rather do it than be idle.”[275]

Footnote 275:

  Firmin, Thomas, _Life_, pp. 31-32, 1698.

The work developed until “He employed in this manufacture some times
1600, some times 1700 Spinners, besides Dressers of flax, Weavers and
others. Because he found that his Poor must work sixteen hours in the
day to earn sixpence, and thought their necessities and labour were not
sufficiently supplied or recompensed by these earnings; therefore he was
wont to distribute Charity among them ... without which Charity some of
them had perished for want, when either they or their children fell
ill.... Whoever of the Spinners brought in two pound of Yarn might take
away with ’em a Peck of Coals. Because they soiled themselves by
carrying away Coals in their Aprons or Skirts ... he gave ’em canvass
bags. By the assistance and order of his Friends he gave to Men, Women
and Children 3,000 Shirts and Shifts in two years.”[276]

Footnote 276:

  _Ibid._ pp. 31-2, 1698.

“In above £4000, laid out the last Year, reckning House-rent, Servants
wages, Loss by Learners, with the interest of the Money, there was not
above £200 lost, one chief reason of which was the kindness of several
Persons, who took off good quantities ... at the price they cost me to
spin and weave ... and ... the East India Co., gave encouragement to
make their bags.” But the loss increased as time went on.... “In 1690
his design of employing the poor to spin flax was taken up by the
Patentees of the Linen Manufacture, who made the Poor and others, whom
they employed, to work cheaper; yet that was not sufficient to encourage
them to continue the manufacture.... The poor spinners, being thus
deserted, Mr. _Firmin_ returned to ’em again; and managed that trade as
he was wont; But so, that he made it bear almost its own Charges. But
that their smaller Wages might be comfortable to them he was more
Charitable to ’em, and begged for ’em of almost all Persons of Rank with
whom he had intimacy, or so much as Friendship. He would also carry his
Cloth to divers, with whom he scarce had any acquaintance, telling ’em
_it was the Poor’s cloth, which in conscience they ought to buy at the
Price it could be afforded_.”[277] ... Finally, “he was persuaded by
some, to make trial of the _Woollen Manufacture_; because at this, the
Poor might make better wages, than at Linen-work. But the price of wool
advancing very much, and the _London_-Spinsters being almost wholly
unskilful at Drawing a Woollen-Thread, after a considerable loss ... and
29 months trial he gave off the project.”[278]

Footnote 277:

  Firmin (Thomas) _Life_, pp. 33-6.

Footnote 278:

  _Ibid._ pp. 39-40.

Firmin’s experiment, corroborating as it does the results of other
efforts at poor relief, shows that at this time women could not maintain
themselves by the wages of flax spinning; still less could they, when
widows, provide for their children by this means.

But though the spinster, when working for wages received so small a
return for her labour, it must not be forgotten that flax spinning was
chiefly a domestic art, in which the whole value of the woman’s labour
was secured to her family, unaffected by the rate of wages. Therefore
the value of women’s labour in spinning flax must not be judged only
according to the wages which they received, but was more truly
represented by the quantity of linen which they produced for household
use.


                    D. _Silk, and Gold and Silver._

The history of the Silk Trade differs widely from that of either the
Woollen or Linen Trades. The conditions of its manufacture during the
fifteenth century are described with great clearness in a petition
presented to Henry VI. by the silk weavers in 1455, which “Sheweth unto
youre grete wisdoms, and also prayen and besechen the Silkewymmen and
Throwestres of the Craftes and occupation of Silkewerk within the Citee
of London, which be and have been Craftes of wymmen within the same
Citee of tyme that noo mynde renneth unto the contrarie. That where it
is pleasyng to God that all his Creatures be set in vertueux occupation
and labour accordyng to their degrees, and convenient for thoo places
where their abode is, to the nourishing of virtue and eschewyng of vices
and ydelness. And where upon the same Craftes, before this tyme, many a
wurshipfull woman within the seid Citee have lyved full hounourably, and
therwith many good Housholdes kept, and many Gentilwymmen and other in
grete noumbre like as there nowe be moo than a M., have been drawen
under theym in lernyng the same Craftes and occupation full vertueusly,
unto the plesaunce of God, whereby afterward they have growe to grete
wurship, and never any thing of Silke brought into yis lande concerning
the same Craftes and occupation in eny wise wrought, but in rawe Silk
allone unwrought”; but now wrought goods are introduced and it is
impossible any longer to obtain rawe material except of the worst
quality ... “the sufferaunce whereof, hath caused and is like to cause,
grete ydelness amongs yonge Gentilwymmen and oyer apprentices of the
same Craftes within ye said Citee, and also leying doun of many good and
notable Housholdes of them that have occupied the same Craftes, which be
convenient, worshipfull and accordyng for Gentilwymmen, and oyer wymmen
of wurship, aswele within ye same Citee as all oyer places within this
Reaume.” The petitioners assumed that “Every wele disposed persone of
this land, by reason and naturall favour, wold rather that wymmen of
their nation born and owen blode hadde the occupation thereof, than
strange people of oyer landes.”[279]

Footnote 279:

  _Rolls of Parliament_, V., 325. _A Petition of Silk Weavers_, 34 Henry
  VI., c. 55.

The petition received due attention, Statute 33, Henry VI enacting that
“Whereas it is shewed to our Sovereign Lord the King in his said
parliament, by the grevous complaint of the silk women and spinners of
the mystery and occupation of silk-working, within the city of London,
how that divers Lombards and other strangers, imagining to destroy the
said mystery, and all such virtuous occupations of women in the said
Realm, to enrich themselves ... have brought ... such silk so made,
wrought, twined, ribbands, and chains falsely and deceitfully wrought,
all manner girdels and other things concerning the said mystery and
occupation, in no manner wise bringing any good silk unwrought, as they
were wont.” Therefore the importation of “any merchandise ... touching
or concerning the mystery of silk women, (girdels which come from Genoa
only excepted,)” is forbidden.[280]

Footnote 280:

  _Statutes_, II., p. 374, 33 Henry VI., c. 5.

This statute was re-enacted in succeeding reigns with the further
explanation that “as well men as women” gained their living by this
trade.

Few incidents reveal more clearly than do these petitions the gulf
separating the conception of women’s sphere in life which prevailed in
mediæval London, from that which governed society in the first decade of
the twentieth century. The contrast is so great that it becomes
difficult to adjust one’s vision to the implications which the former
contains. Other incidents can be quoted of the independence, enterprise,
and capacity manifested by the prosperous women of the merchant class in
London during the Middle Ages. Thus Rose de Burford, the wife of a
wealthy London merchant, engaged in trading transactions on a large
scale both before and after her husband’s death. She lent money to the
Bishop in 1318, and received 100 Marks for a cope embroidered with
coral. She petitioned for the repayment of a loan made by her husband
for the Scottish wars, finally proposing that this should be allowed her
off the customs which she would be liable to pay on account of wool
about to be shipped from the Port of London.[281]

Footnote 281:

  By kind permission of Miss Eileen Power.

It is, however, a long cry from the days of Rose de Burford to the
seventeenth century, when “gentilwymmen and other wymmen of worship” no
longer made an honourable living by the silk trade; which trade, in
spite of protecting statutes, had become the refuge of paupers. To
obviate the difficulties of an exclusive reliance on foreign supplies
for the raw material of the silk trade, James I. ordered the planting of
10,000 mulberry trees so that “multitudes of persons of both sexes and
all ages, such as in regard of impotence are unfitted for other labour,
may bee set on worke, comforted and releved.”[282]

Footnote 282:

  _S.P.D._, xxvi., 6. Jan. 1607.

The unsatisfactory state of the trade is shown in a petition from the
merchants, silk men, and others trading for silk, asking for a charter
of incorporation because “the trade of silke is now become great whereby
... customes are increased and many thousands of poore men, women and
children sett on worke and mayntayned. And forasmuch as the first
beginning of this trade did take its being from women then called
silkwomen who brought upp men servants, that since have become free of
all or moste of the severall guilds and corporacions of London, whose
ordinances beeing for other particular trades, meet not with, nor have
power to reprove such abuses and deceipts as either have or are likely
still to growe upon the silk trade.”[283]

Footnote 283:

  _S.P.D._, clxxv., 102, Nov. 25, 1630.

A petition from the Master, Wardens and Assistants of the Company of
Silk Throwers, shows that by this “Trade between Forty and Fifty
thousand poor Men, Women and Children, are constantly Imployed and
Relieved, in and about the City of _London_ ... divers unskilful
Persons, who never were bred as Apprentices to the said Trade of
_Silk-throwing_, have of _Late years_ intruded into the said Trade, and
have Set up the same; and dwelling in Places beyond the Bounds and
Circuit of the Petitioners Search by their Charter, do use Divers
Deceits in the _Throwing_ and _Working_ of the Manufacture of Silk, to
the great Wrong and Injury of the Commonwealth, and the great
Discouragement of the Artists of the said Trade.”[284]

Footnote 284:

  _Humble Petition of the Master, Wardens and Assistants of the Company
  of Silk Throwers._

An act of Charles II. provided that men, women and children, if native
subjects, though not apprentices, might be employed to turn the mill,
tie threads, and double and wind silk, “as formerly.”[285]

Footnote 285:

  Statutes 13 and 14, Charles II., c. 15.

“There are here and there,” it was said, “a Silk Weaver or two (of late
years) crept into some cities and Market Towns in _England_, who do
employ such people that were never bound to the Trade ... in all other
Trades that do employ the poor, they cannot effect their business
without employing such as were never apprentice to the Trade ... the
Clothier must employ the Spinner and Stock-carder, that peradventure
were never apprentices to any trade, else they could never accomplish
their end. And it is the same in making of Buttons and Bone-lace, and
the like. But it is not so in this Trade; for they that have been
apprentices to the Silk-weaving Trade, are able to make more commodities
than can be easily disposed of ... because there hath not been for a
long time any other but this, to place forth poor men’s Children, and
Parish Boyes unto; by which means the poor of this Trade have been very
numerous.”[286]

Footnote 286:

  _Trade of England_, p. 18.

During this period all the references to silk-spinning confirm the
impression that it had become a pauper trade. A pamphlet calling for the
imposition of a duty on the importation of wrought silks explains that
“The Throwsters, by reason of this extraordinary Importation of raw
Silk, will employ several hundred persons more than they did before, as
Winders, Doublers, and others belonging to the throwing Trade, who for
the greatest part are poor Seamen and Soldier’s wives, which by this
Increase of Work will find a comfortable Subsistence for themselves and
Families, and thereby take off a Burthen that now lies upon several
Parishes, which are at a great charge for their Support.”[287] The
“comfortable subsistence” of these poor seamen’s wives amounted to no
more than 1s. 6d. or 1s. 8d. per week.[288]

Footnote 287:

  _Answer to a Paper of Reflections, on the Project for laying a Duty on
  English Wrought Silks._

Footnote 288:

  _Case of the Manufacturers of Gilt and Silver Wire_, 1714.

There seems here no clue to explain the transition from a monopoly of
gentlewomen conducting a profitable business on the lines of Family
Industry to a disorganised Capitalistic Trade, resting on the basis of
women’s sweated labour. The earlier monopoly was, however, probably
favoured by the expensive nature of the materials used, and the
necessity for keeping in touch with the merchants who imported them,
while social customs secured an equitable distribution of the profits.
With the destruction of these social customs and traditions, competition
asserted its sway unchecked, till it appeared as though there might even
be a relation between the costliness of the material and the
wretchedness of the women employed in its manufacture; for the women who
span gold and silver thread were in the same stage of misery.

Formerly women had been mistresses in this class of business as well as
in the Silk Trade, but a Proclamation of June 11th, 1622, forbade the
exercise of the craft by all except members of the Company of Gold Wire
Drawers.

Under this proclamation the Silver thread of one Anne Twiseltor was
confiscated by Thomas Stockwood, a constable, who entered her house and
found her and others spinning gold and silver thread. “The said Anne
being since married to one John Bagshawe hath arrested Stockwood for the
said silver upon an action of £10, on the Saboth day going from Church,
and still prosecuteth the suite against him in Guild Hall with much
clamor.”[289] Bagshawe and his wife maintained that the silver was
sterling, and therefore not contrary to the Proclamation. Stockwood
refused to return it unless he might have some of it. Therefore they
commenced the suit against him.

Footnote 289:

  _C.R._, June 16, 1624.

Probably few, if any, women became members of the Company of Gold Wire
Drawers, and henceforward they were employed only as spinners. Their
poverty is shown by the frequency with which they are mentioned as
inmates of tenement houses, which through overcrowding became dangerous
to the public health. It was reported to the Council for example, that
Katherine Barnaby “entertayns in her house in Great Wood Streate, divers
women kinde silver spinners.”[290]

Footnote 290:

  _S.P.D._, ccclix., Returns to Council ... of houses, etc., 1637.

These poor women worked in the spinning sheds of their masters, and thus
the factory system prevailed already in this branch of the textile
industry; the costliness of the fabrics produced forbade any great
expansion of the trade, and therefore the Masters were not obliged to
seek for labour outside the pauper class.

The Curate, Churchwardens, Overseers and Vestrymen of the parish of St.
Giles, Cripplegate, drew up the following statement: “There are in the
said Parish, eighty five sheds for the spinning Gilt and Silver Thread,
in which are 255 pair of wheels.”

       The Masters with their Families amount unto           581

       These imploy poor Parish-Boys and Girls to the       1275
         number of

       There are 118 master Wire-Drawers, who with their     826
         wives, Children and Apprentices, make

       Master weavers of Gold and Silver Lace and Fringes    106

       Their Wives, Children, Apprentices and Journey Men   2120
         amount unto

       Silver and Gold Bone-Lace makers, and Silver and     1000
         Gold Button makers with their Families

       Windsters, Flatters of Gold and Silver and Engine     300
         Spinners with their Families

                                                            ────

       Total                                                6208

They continue: “The Poor’s Rate of the Parish amounts to near Four
Thousand Pounds per annum.... The Parish ... at this present are
indebted One Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Pounds. Persons are daily
removing out of the Parish, by Reason of this heavy Burthen, empty
Houses increasing. If a Duty be laid on the manufacture of Gold and
Silver wyres the Poor must necessarily be increased.”[291]

Footnote 291:

  _Case of the Parish of St. Giles, Cripplegate._

Such a statement is in itself proof that Gold and Silver Thread making
ranked among the pauper trades in which the wages paid must needs be
supplemented out of the poor rates.


                             E. CONCLUSION.

IT has been shown that in textile industries all spinning was done
exclusively by women and children, while they were also engaged to some
extent in other processes, such as weaving, burling, bleaching, fulling,
etc. The fact that the nation depended entirely upon women for the
thread from which its clothing and household linen was made must be
remembered in estimating their economic position. Even if no other work
had fallen to their share, they can hardly have been regarded as mere
dependants on their husbands when the clothing for the whole family was
spun by their hands; but it has been explained in the previous chapter
that in many cases the mother, in addition to spinning, provided a large
proportion of the food consumed by her family. If the father earned
enough money to pay the rent and a few other necessary expenses, the
mother could and did, feed and clothe herself and her children by her
own labours when she possessed enough capital to confine herself wholly
to domestic industry. The value of a woman’s productive capacity to her
family was, however, greatly reduced when, through poverty, she was
obliged to work for wages, because then, far from being able to feed and
clothe her family, her wages were barely adequate to feed herself.

This fact indicates the weakness of women’s position in the labour
market, into which they were being forced in increasing numbers by the
capitalistic organisation of industry. In consequence of this weakness,
a large proportion of the produce of a woman’s labour was diverted from
her family to the profit of the capitalist or the consumer; except in
the most skilled branches of the woollen industry, spinning was a pauper
trade, a “sweated industry,” which did not provide its workers with the
means for keeping themselves and their families in a state of
efficiency, but left them to some extent dependent on other sources for
their maintenance.

Comparing the various branches of textile industry together, an
interesting light is thrown upon the reactions between capitalistic
organisation of labour and women’s economic position.

Upper-class women had lost their unique position in the silk trade, and
the wives of wealthy clothiers and wool-merchants appear to have seldom
taken an active interest in business matters. Thus it was only as
wage-earners that women were extensively employed in the textile trades.

Their wages were lowest in the luxury trades i.e., silk, silver and
gold, and in the linen trade. The former were now wholly capitalistic,
but the demand for luxuries being limited and capable of little
expansion, the labour available in the pauper classes was sufficient to
satisfy it. The situation was different in the linen and allied trades,
where the demand for thread, either of flax or hemp, appears generally
to have been in excess of the supply. Although the larger part of the
linen manufactured in England was still produced under the conditions of
domestic industry, the demand for thread for trade purposes was steady
enough to suggest to Parish Authorities the value of spinning as a means
of reducing the poor rates. It did not occur to them, however, that if
the wages paid for spinning were higher the poor would have been as
eager to learn spinning as to gain apprenticeship in the skilled trades,
and thus the problem of an adequate supply of yarn might have been
solved at one stroke with the problem of poverty itself; no attempt was
made to raise the wages, and the production of thread for trade purposes
continued to be subsidised out of the poor rates. The consequent
pauperisation of large numbers of women was a greater disaster than even
the burthen of the poor rates. Instead of the independence and
self-reliance which might have been secured through adequate wages,
mothers were not only humiliated and degraded, but their physical
efficiency and that of their children was lowered owing to the
inadequacy of the grudging assistance given by the Churchwardens and
Overseers.

The woollen trade, in which capitalistic organisation had attained its
largest development, presents a more favourable aspect as regards
women’s wages. Already in the seventeenth century a spinster could earn
sufficient money to maintain her individual self. In spite of periodic
seasons of depression, the woollen trade was rapidly expanding; often
the scope of the clothiers was limited by the quantity of yarn
available, and so perforce they must seek for labour outside the pauper
class. Possibly a rise was already taking place in the spinsters’ wages
at the close of the century, and it is interesting to note that during
this period the highest wages were earned, not by the women whose need
for them was greatest, that is to say the women who had children
depending exclusively on their wages, but rather by the well-to-do women
who could afford to buy the wool for their spinning, and hold the yarn
over till an advantageous opportunity arose for selling it.

Spinning did not present itself to such women as a means of filling up
vacant hours which they would otherwise have spent in idleness, but as
an alternative to some other profitable occupation, so numerous were the
opportunities offered to women for productive industry within the
precincts of the home. Therefore to induce women of independent position
to work for him, the Clothier was obliged to offer higher wages than
would have been accepted by those whose children were suffering from
hunger.

Somewhat apart from economics and the rate of wages, is the influence
which the developments of the woollen trade exercised on women’s social
position, through the disintegration of the social organisation known as
the village community. The English village had formed a social unit
almost self-contained, embracing considerable varieties of wealth,
culture and occupation, and finding self-expression in a public opinion
which provided adequate sanction for its customs, and determined all the
details of manners and morals. In the formation of this public opinion
women took an active part.

The seasons of depression in the Woollen Trade brought to such
communities in the “Clothing Counties” a desolation which could only be
rivalled by Pestilence or Famine. Work came to a standstill, and
wholesale migrations followed. Many fathers left their starving
families, in search of work elsewhere and were never heard of again. The
traditions of family life and the customs which ruled the affairs of the
village were lost, never to be again restored, and with them
disappeared, to a great extent, the recognised importance of women in
the life of the community.

The social problems introduced by the wages system in its early days are
described in a contemporary pamphlet. It must be remembered that the
term “the poor” as used at this time signified the pauper class,
hard-working, industrious families who were independent of charity or
assistance from the poor rates being all included among the “common
people.” “I cannot acknowledge,” the writer says, “that a Manufacture
maketh fewer poor, but rather the contrary. For tho’ it sets the poor on
work where it finds them, yet it draws still more to the place; and
their Masters allow wages so mean, that they are only preserved from
starving whilst they can work; when Age, Sickness, or Death comes,
themselves, their wives or their children are most commonly left upon
the Parish; which is the reason why those Towns (as in the _Weald of
Kent_) whence the clothing is departed, have fewer poor than they had
before.”[292]

Footnote 292:

  _Reasons for a Limited Exportation of Wooll_, 1677.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                               CHAPTER V

                           CRAFTS AND TRADES.

(A) _Crafts._ Influence of Gilds—Inclusion of women—Position of
craftsman’s wife—Purposes of Gilds—The share of women in
religious, social and trading privileges—Admission chiefly by
marriage—Stationer’s Company—Carpenter’s Company—Rules of other
Gilds and Companies—Apprenticeship to women—Exclusion of women did
not originate in sex-jealousy—Position of women in open
trades—Women’s trades.

(B) _Retail Trades._ Want of technical training inclined women towards
retailing—Impediments in their way—Apprenticeship of girls to
shopkeepers—Prosecution of unauthorised traders—Street and market
trading—Pedlars, Regraters, Badgers—Opposition of shopkeepers.

(C) _Provision Trades._

     1. _Bakers._ Never specially a woman’s trade—Widows—Share of
        married women.

     2. _Millers._ Occasionally followed by women.

     3. _Butchers._ Carried on by women as widows and by married
        women—also independently—Regrating.

     4. _Fishwives._ Generally very poor.

     5. _Brewers._ Originally a special women’s trade—Use of feminine
        form Brewster—Creation of monopoly—Exclusion of women by the
        trade when capitalised—retailing still largely in hands of
        women.

     6. _Vintners._


AGRICULTURE and the textile industries having been considered
separately, owing to their importance and the very special conditions
obtaining in both, the other forms of industry in which women were
employed may be roughly divided into three classes, according to certain
influences which made them more or less suitable for women’s
employment.—(_a_) Skilled Trades. (_b_) Retail Trades. (_c_) Provision
Trades.

(_a_) _The Skilled Trades._ Most characteristic of the skilled trades
are those crafts which became more or less highly organised and
specialised by means of Gilds; though girls were seldom apprenticed to
the gild trades, yet her marriage to a member of the Gild conferred upon
a woman her husband’s rights and privileges; and as she retained these
after his death, she could, as a widow, continue to control and direct
the business which she inherited from her husband. In many trades the
gild organisation broke down, and though the form of apprenticeship was
retained its observance secured few, if any, privileges. Some skilled
trades were chiefly if not wholly, in the hands of women, and these
appear never to have been organised, though long apprenticeships were
served by the girls who entered them.

(_b_) _The Retail Trades._ The classification of retail trades as a
group distinct from the Skilled Trades and the Provision Trades is
somewhat arbitrary, because under the system of Family Industry, the
maker of the goods was often his own salesman, or the middlemen who sold
the goods to the consumers were themselves organised into gilds.
Nevertheless, from the woman’s point of view retailing deserves separate
consideration, because, whether as a branch of Family Industry or as a
trade in itself, the employment of selling was so singularly adapted to
the circumstances of women, that among their resources it may almost
take rank with agriculture and spinning.

(_c_) _The Provision Trades_ also, whether concerned with the production
or only with the sale of Provisions, occupy a special position, because
the provisioning of their households has been regarded from time
immemorial as one of the elementary duties falling to the share of
women, and it is interesting to note how far skill acquired by women in
such domestic work was useful to them in trade.

In all three classes of industry women were employed as their husbands’
assistants or partners, but in the middle ages married women also
engaged in business frequently on their own account. This was so usual
that almost all the early Customs of the Boroughs enable a woman, when
so trading, to go to law as though she were a femme sole, and provide
that her husband shall not be responsible for her debts. For example,
the Customs of the City of London declare that: “Where a woman coverte
de baron follows any craft within the said city by herself apart, with
which the husband in no way intermeddles, such woman shall be bound as a
single woman in all that concerns her said craft. And if the wife shall
plead as a single woman in a Court of Record, she shall have her law and
other advantages by way of plea just as a single woman. And if she is
condemned she shall be committed to prison until she shall have made
satisfaction; and neither the husband nor his goods shall in such case
be charged or interfered with. If a wife, as though a single woman,
rents any house or shop within the said city, she shall be bound to pay
the rent of the said house or shop, and shall be impleaded and sued as a
single woman, by way of debt if necessary, notwithstanding that she was
coverte de baron, at the time of such letting, supposing that the lessor
did not know thereof.... Where plaint of debt is made against the
husband, and the plaintiff declares that the husband made the contract
with the plaintiff by the hand of the wife of such defendant, in such
case the said defendant shall have the aid of his wife, and shall have a
day until the next Court, for taking counsel with his wife.”[293]

Footnote 293:

  _Liber Albus_, pp. 181-2. 1419.

The Customal of the Town and Port of Sandwich provides that “if a woman
who deals publickly in fish, fruit, cloth or the like, be sued to the
amount of goods delivered to her, she ought to answer either with or
without her husband, as the plaintiff pleases. But in every personal
plea of trespass, she can neither recover nor plead against any body,
without her husband. If she be not a public dealer, she cannot answer,
being a covert baron.”[294] Similarly at Rye, “if any woman that is
covert baron be impleaded in plea of debt, covenant broken, or chattels
withheld, and she be known for sole merchant, she ought to answer
without the presence of her baron.”[295]

Footnote 294:

  Lyon. _Dover_, Vol. II., p. 295.

Footnote 295:

  Lyon, _Dover_, Vol. II., p. 359.

In Carlisle it was said that “where a wife that haith a husband use any
craft wiᵗʰin this citie or the liberties of the same besides her husband
crafte or occupation and that he mel not wᵗʰ her sayd craft this wife
shalbe charged as woman sole. And if the husband and the wife be
impledit in such case the wife shall plead as woman sole. And if she be
condempned she shall goe to ward unto she haue mayd agrement. And the
husband nor his guds shal not in this case be charged. And if the woman
refuse to appeare and answere the husband or servand to bryng her in to
answer.”[296]

Footnote 296:

  Ferguson, _Carlisle_, p. 79; from _Dormont Book_.

Though examples of the separate trading of women occur frequently in the
seventeenth century, no doubt the more usual course was for her to
assist her husband in his business. When this was transacted at home her
knowledge of it was so intimate that she could successfully carry on the
management during her husband’s absence. How complete was the reliance
which men placed upon their wives under these circumstances is
illustrated by the story of John Adams, a Quaker from Yorkshire, who
took a long journey “in the service of Truth” to Holland and Germany. He
describes how a fearful being visited him by night in a vision, telling
him that he had been deceived, and not for the first time, in
undertaking this service, and that all was in confusion at home. “The
main reason why things are so is, thy wife, that used to be at the helm
in thy business, is dead.” Thoroughly alarmed, he was preparing to hurry
home when a letter arrived, saying that all was well, “whereby I was
relieved in mind, and confirmed I was in my place, and that it was
Satan, by his transformation, who had deceived and disturbed me.”[297]

Footnote 297:

  _Irish Friend_, Vol. IV., p. 150.

The understanding and good sense which enabled women to assume control
during the temporary absence of their husbands, fitted them also to bear
the burden alone when widowed. Her capacity was so much taken for
granted that public opinion regarded the wife as being virtually her
husband’s partner, leases or indentures were made out in their joint
names, and on the husband’s death the wife was left in undisturbed
possession of the stock, apprentices and goodwill of the business.


                     A. _Skilled Trades or Crafts._

The origin of the Craft Gilds is obscure. They were preceded by
Religious Gilds in which men and women who were associated in certain
trades united for religious and social purposes. Whether these Religious
Gilds developed naturally into organisations concerned with the purpose
of trade, or whether they were superseded by new associations whose
first object was the regulation and improvement of the craft and with
whom the religious and social ceremonies were of secondary importance is
a disputed point, which, if elucidated, might throw some light on the
industrial history of women. In the obscurity which envelopes this
subject one certain fact emerges; the earlier Gilds included sisters as
well as brothers, the two sexes being equally concerned with the
religious and social observances which constituted their chief
functions.

As the Gilds become more definitely trade organisations the importance
of the sisters diminishes, and in some, the Carpenters for example, they
appear to be virtually excluded from membership though this exclusion is
only tacitly arrived at by custom, and is not enforced by rules. In
other Gilds, such as the Girdlers and Pewterers, it is evident that
though women’s names do not occur in lists of wardens or assistants, yet
they were actively engaged in these crafts and, like men, were subject
to and protected by the regulations of their Gild or Company.

Very little is yet known of the industrial position of Englishwomen in
the middle ages. Poll-tax returns show, however, that they were engaged
in many miscellaneous occupations. Thus the return for Oxford in 1380
mentions six trades followed by women, viz.—37 spinsters, 11 shapesters
(tailors), 9 tapsters (inn-keepers), 3 sutrices (shoemakers,) 3
hucksters, 5 washerwomen, while in six others both men and women were
employed, namely butchers, brewers, chandlers, ironmongers, netmakers
and kempsters (wool-combers). 148 women were enrolled as ancillæ or
servants, and 81 trades were followed by only men.

A similar return for the West Riding of Yorks in 1379 declares the women
employed in different trades to be as follows:—6 chapmen, 11 inn
keepers, 1 farrier, 1 shoemaker, 2 nurses, 39 brewsters, 2 farmers, 1
smith, 1 merchant, 114 domestic servants and farm labourers, 66
websters, (30 with that surname), 2 listers or dyers, 2 fullers or
walkers, and 22 seamstresses.[298] In every case these would be women
who were carrying on their trade separately from their husbands, or as
widows. During the following centuries women’s names are given in the
returns made of the tradesmen working in different Boroughs, occurring
sometimes in trades which would seem to modern ideas most unlikely for
them. Thus 5 widows and 35 men’s names are given in a list of the smiths
at Chester for the year 1574.[299]

Footnote 298:

  By kind permission of Miss Eileen Power.

Footnote 299:

  Harl. MSS., 2054. fo. 22., _The Smiths Book of Accts._ Chester, 1574.

It must be remembered that, except those who are classed as servants,
all grown-up women were either married or widows. It was quite usual for
a married woman to carry on a separate business from her husband as sole
merchant, but it was still more customary for her to share in his
enterprise, and only after his death for the whole burden to fall upon
her shoulders. How natural it was for a woman to regard herself as her
husband’s partner will be seen when the conditions of family industry
are considered. Before the encroachments of capitalism the members of
the Craft Gilds were masters, not of other men, but of their craft. The
workshop was part of the home, and in it, the master, who in the course
of a long apprenticeship had acquired the technical mastery of his
trade, worked with his apprentices, one or two journeymen and his wife
and children. The number of journeymen and apprentices was strictly
limited by the Gild rules; the men did not expect to remain permanently
in the position of wage-earners, but hoped in course of time to marry
and establish themselves as masters in their craft. Apart from the
apprentices and journeymen no labour might be employed, except that of
the master’s wife and children; but there are in every trade processes
which do not require a long technical training for their performance,
and thus the assistance of the mistress became important to her husband,
whether she was skilled in the trade or not, for the work if not done by
her must fall upon him. Sometimes her part was manual, but more often
she appears to have taken charge of the financial side of the business,
and is seen in the role of salesman, receiving payments for which her
receipt was always accepted as valid, or even acting as buyer. In either
case her services were so essential to the business that she usually
engaged a servant for household matters, and was thus freed from the
routine of domestic drudgery. Defoe, writing in the first decades of the
eighteenth century, notes that “women servants are now so scarce that
from thirty and forty shillings a Year, their Wages are increased of
late to six, seven and eight pounds _per Annum_, and upwards ... an
ordinary Tradesman cannot well keep one; but his Wife, who might be
useful in his Shop, or Business, must do the Drudgery of Household
Affairs; And all this, because our Servant Wenches are so puff’d up with
Pride now-a-Days that they never think they go fine enough.”[300]

Footnote 300:

  Defoe, _Everybody’s Business is No-Body’s Business_, p. 6, 1725.

The position of a married woman in the tradesman class was far removed
from that of her husband’s domestic servant. She was in very truth
mistress of the household in that which related to trade as well as in
domestic matters, and the more menial domestic duties were performed by
young unmarried persons of either sex. To quote Defoe again, “it is but
few Years ago, and in the Memory of many now living, that all the
Apprentices of the Shopkeepers and Warehouse-keepers ... submitted to
the most servile Employments of the Families in which they serv’d; such
as the _young Gentry_, their Successors in the same Station, scorn so
much as the Name of now; such as _cleaning_ their Masters’ Shoes,
bringing _Water_ into the Houses from _the Conduits_ in the Street,
which they carried on their Shoulders in long Vessels call’d Tankards;
also waiting at Table, ... but their Masters are oblig’d to keep Porters
or Footmen to wait upon the apprentices.”[301]

Footnote 301:

  Defoe, _Behaviour of Servants_, p. 12, 1724.

The rules of the early Gilds furnish abundant evidence that women then
took an active part in their husbands’s trades; thus in 1297 the Craft
of Fullers at Lincoln ordered that “none [of the craft] shall work at
the wooden bar with a woman, unless with the wife of a master or her
handmaid,”[302] and in 1372, when articles were drawn up for the
Leather-sellers and Pouch-makers of London, and for Dyers serving those
trades, the wives of the dyers of leather were sworn together with their
husbands “to do their calling, and, to the best of their power,
faithfully to observe the things in the said petition contained; namely
John Blakthorne, and Agnes, his wife; John Whitynge, and Lucy, his wife;
and Richard Westone, dier, and Katherine, his wife.”[303]

Footnote 302:

  Smith (Toulmin), _English Gilds_, p. 180.

Footnote 303:

  Riley (H. T.), _Memorials of London_, p. 365.

The craft Gilds had either disappeared before the seventeenth century or
had developed into Companies, wealthy corporations differing widely from
the earlier associations of craftsmen. But though the Companies were
capitalistic in their tendencies, they retained many traditions and
customs which were characteristic of the Gilds. The master’s place of
business was still in many instances within the precincts of his home,
and when this was the case his wife retained her position as mistress.
Incidental references often show the wife by her husband’s side in his
shop. Thus Thomas Symonds, Stationer, when called as a witness to an
inquest in 1514 describes how “within a quarter of an hower after VII. a
clock in the morning, Charles Joseph came before him at his stall and
said ‘good morow, goship Simondes,’ and the said Simonds said ‘good
morow’ to hym againe, and the wife of the said Simons was by him, and
because of the deadly countenance and hasty goinge of Charles, the said
Thomas bad his wife looke whether Charles goeth, and as she could
perceue, Charles went into an ale house.”[304]

Footnote 304:

  Arber, _Stationers_, Vol. III., Intro., p. 19.

Decker describes a craftsman’s household in “A Shoemaker’s Holiday.” The
mistress goes in and out of the workshop, giving advice, whether it is
wanted or not.

_Firk_: “Mum, here comes my dame and my master. She’ll scold, on my
          life, for loitering this Monday; ...”

_Hodge_: “Master, I hope you will not suffer my dame to take down your
          journeyman....”

_Eyre_: “Peace, Firk; not I, Hodge; ... she shall not meddle with you
          ... away, queen of clubs; quarrel not with me and my men, with
          me and my fine Firk; I’ll firk you, if you do.”[305]

Footnote 305:

  Decker (Thos.), _Best Plays_, p. 29.

But the meddling continues to the end of the play.

The same sort of scene is again described in “The Honest Whore,” where
Viola, the Linen Draper’s wife, comes into his shop, and says to the two
Prentices and George the servant, who are at work,

          “Come, you put up your wares in good order, here, do you not,
          think you? One piece cast this way, another that way! You had
          need have a patient master indeed.”

_George replies_ (aside) “Ay, I’ll be sworn, for we have a curst
          mistress.”[306]

Footnote 306:

  _Ibid._ p. 108.

Comedy is concerned with the foibles of humanity, and so here the faults
of the mistress are reflected, but in real life she is often alluded to
as her husband’s invaluable lieutenant. There can be no doubt that
admission to the world of business and the responsibilities which rested
on their shoulders, often developed qualities in seventeenth century
women which the narrower opportunities afforded them in modern society
have left dormant. The wide knowledge of life acquired by close
association with their husbands’ affairs, qualified mothers for the task
of training their children; but it was not only the mother who benefited
by the incorporation of business with domestic affairs, for while she
shared her husband’s experiences he became acquainted with family life
in a way which is impossible for men under modern conditions. The father
was not separated from his children, but they played around him while he
worked, and his spare moments could be devoted to their education. Thus
the association of husband and wife brought to each a wider, deeper
understanding of human life.

Returning to the position of women in the Craft Gilds and the later
Companies, it must be remembered that originally these associations had
a three-fold purpose, (_a_) the performance of religious ceremonies,
(_b_) social functions, (_c_) the protection of trade interests and the
maintenance of a high standard of technical efficiency.

Women are not excluded from membership by any of the earlier charters,
which, in most cases expressly mention sisters as well as brothers, but
references to them are more frequent in the provisions relating to the
social and religious functions of the Gild than in those concerning
technical matters. Though after the Reformation the performance of
religious ceremonies fell into abeyance, social functions continued to
be an important feature of the Companies.

Entrance was obtained by apprenticeship, patrimony, redemption or, in
the case of women, by marriage. The three former methods though open to
women, were seldom used by them, and the vast majority of the sisters
obtained their freedom through marriage. During the husband’s life time
their position is not very evident, but on his death they were possessed
of all his trade privileges. The extent to which widows availed
themselves of these privileges varied in different trades, but custom
appears always to have secured to the widow, rather than to the son, the
possession of her husband’s business.

Hitherto few records of the Gilds and Companies have been printed _in
extenso_; possibly when others are published more light may be shed on
the position which they accorded to women. The Stationers and the
Carpenters are selected here, not because they are typical in their
dealings with women, but merely because their records are available in a
more complete form than the others.

The Stationers’ Company included Stationers, Booksellers, Binders and
Printers; apprenticeship to either of these trades conferred the right
of freedom in the company, but the position of printer was a prize which
could not be attained purely by apprenticeship; before the Long
Parliament this privilege was confined to twenty-two Printing Houses
only besides the Royal Printers, vacancies being filled up by the Court
of Assistants, with the approval of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Any
stationer who had been made free of his Company might publish books, but
printing was strictly limited to these twenty-two houses. A vacancy
seldom occurred, because, according to the old English custom, on the
printer’s death his rights were retained by his widow, and in this
Company they were not even alienated when she married again, but were
shared by her second husband; thus a printer’s widow, whatever her age
might be, was regarded as a most desirable “partie.” The widow Francis
Simson married in succession Richard Read and George Elde, the business
following her, and Anne Barton married a second, third and fourth
time,[307] none of the later husbands being printers.

Footnote 307:

  Arber, _Stationers_, Vol. V., Intro. xxix-xxx.

Though amongst the printers the line of descent appears to have been
more often from husband to wife and wife to husband than from father to
son, a list, giving the names of the master printers as they succeeded
each other from 1575 to 1635 shows that the business was acquired by
marrying the printer’s widow, by purchase from her, and also by descent.
Four women are mentioned:—William Ells bound to Mrs. East, a printer’s
widow who, having left the trade many years was brought up in the art of
printing by Mr. Fletcher upon composition. Mrs. Griffyn had two
apprentices, Mrs. Dawson had three apprentices and Mrs. Purslow two
apprentices.[308] Another list made in 1630 of the names of the Master
Printers of London gives twenty-one men and three women, namely—Widdow
Alde, Widdow Griffin, and “Widdow Sherleaker lives by printing of
pictures.”[309] In 1634 the names of twenty-two printers are given,
among whom are the following women—“Mr. William Jones succeeded Rafe
Blore and paies a stipend to his wife ... neuer admitted.”

Footnote 308:

  _S.P.D._, cccxiv., 127., Feb. 1636.

Footnote 309:

  _Ibid._ clxxv., 45., Nov. 12, 1630.

Mistris [ ] Alde, widdowe of Edward Alde [who] deceased about 10 yeeres
since, (but she keepes her trade by her sonne who was Ra[lph] joyners
sonne) neuer Admitted, neither capable of Admittance.

Mistris [ ] Dawson widow of John Dawson deceased about a yeere since
[he] succeeded his vnkle Thomas Dawson about 26 yeers since ... never
admitted neither capeable, (she hath a sonne about 19 yeares old, bredd
to ye trade).

Mistris [ ] Pursloe widdow of George Pursloe who succeeded Simon
Stafford about 5 yeeres since [she was] never admitted neither capeable.
(haviland, Yo[u]ng and fletcher haue this.)

Mistris [ ] Griffin widdow of Edward Griffin [who] succeeded Master
[Melchisedeck] Bradwood about 18 yeeres since [she was] never admitted
neither capable. (she hath a sonne.) (haviland, Yo[u]ng and fletcher
have this yet).[310]

Footnote 310:

  Arber, _Transcript_, Vol. III., add, 701.

Men as well as women in the list are noted as “never admitted neither
capable of admittance.”

Whether these women took an active part in the management of the
business which they thus acquired or whether they merely drew the
profits, leaving the management to others, is not clear. From the notes
to the above list it would appear that they often followed the latter
course, but elsewhere women are mentioned who are evidently taking an
active part in the printing business. For example, an entry in the
Stationers Register states at a time when Marsh and Vautrollier had the
sole printing of school books “It is agreed that Thomas Vautrollier his
wife shall finish this present impression which shee is in hand withall
in her husband’s absence, of Tullie’s Epistles with Lambini’s
annotations.”[311]

Footnote 311:

  Stopes (Mrs. C. C.) _Shakespeare’s Warwickshire Contemporaries_, p. 7.

After his death Vautrollier’s widow printed one book but immediately
after, on March 4th, 1587-8, the Court of Assistants ordered that “Mrs.
Vautrollier, late wife of Thomas Vautrollier deceased, shall not
hereafter print any manner of book or books whatsoever, as well by
reason that her husband was noe printer at the time of his decease, as
alsoe by the decrees sette downe in the Starre Chamber she is debarred
from the same.” This order is inexplicable, as other printers’ widows
exercised their husbands’ business, and Thomas Vautrollier’s name is
duly given in the order of succession from Master Printers. Possibly the
business had been transferred to her daughter, who married Field, their
apprentice. Field died in 1625, his widow continuing the business.[312]

Footnote 312:

  _Ibid._, p. 8. (Some authorities state that Field married the widow,
  others the daughter of Vautrollier.)

Among thirty-nine printing patents issued by James I. and Charles II. is
one to “Hester Ogden, als ffulke Henr. Sibbald _et_ Tho. Kenithorpe for
printing a book called The Sincire and True Translation of the Holy
Scripture into the Englishe tounge.” It appears as though Hester Ogden
was no mere figure head, for His Majesty’s Printers appealed against
this licence on the grounds that it infringed their rights, protesting
that “Mistris Ogden a maried woman one of Dr. Fulkes daughters did
lately [sue] his Majestie to haue ye printing of her fathers workes,
which his [Majestie] not knowing ye premises granted, and ye same being
first referred [to the] Archbishop of Canterbury ... their lordships ...
deliuered their opinion against her, since which she hath gotten a new
reference to the Lord Chancellor and Master Secretary Nanton, who not
examining yᵉ title vpon oath and the Stationers being not then able to
produce those materiall proofes which now they can their honors
certified for her, wherevpon her friends hath his Majestie’s grant for
ye printing and selling of the sayed book for xxi. years to her vse....
Mistris Ogden hath gotten by begging from ye clergy and others diuers
great somes of money towards ye printing of her fathers workes. Master
Norton and myself haue for many £1000 bought ye office of his Majesties
printer to which ye printing of ye translacons of the Bible or any parts
thereof sett furth by the State belongs. Now the greatest parte of Dr.
Fulkes worke is the new testament in English sett forth by
authoritie.”[313]

Footnote 313:

  Arber, _Transcript_, Vol. III., p. 39.

Another patent was granted to Helen Mason for “printing and selling the
abridgment of the book of martyres,”[314] while Jane, wife of Sir Thomas
Bludder, petitions Archbishop Laud, showing that “She with John Bill an
infant have by grant from the King the moiety of the office of King’s
Printer and amongst other things the printing of Bibles. This is
infringed by a printer in Scotland, who printed many Bibles there and
imported them into England ... she prays the Archbishop to hear the case
himself.”[315]

Footnote 314:

  Arber, _Transcript_, Vol. V., lviii.

Footnote 315:

  _S.P.D._, cccxxxix., p. 89.

Many of the books printed at this time bear the names of women
printers,[316] but though women might own and direct the printing
houses, there is no indication that they were ever engaged in the manual
processes of printing. The printers’ trade does in fact furnish rather a
good example of the effect upon women’s economic position of the
transition from family industry to capitalistic organisation. It is true
that many links in the evolution must be supplied by the imagination. We
can imagine the master printer with his press, working at home with the
help of his apprentice, his wife and children; then as his trade
prospered he employed journeymen printers who were the real craftsmen,
and it became possible for the owner of the business to be a man or
woman who had never been bred up to the trade.

Footnote 316:

  e.g. _An Essay of Drapery_ ... by William Scott, printed by Eliz. Alde
  for S. Pennell, London, 1635. Calvin, _Institution of Christian
  Religion_. Printed by the widowe of R. Wolfe, London, 1574. The
  fourthe edition of _Porta Linguarum_ is printed by E. Griffin for M.
  Sparke. London, 1639.

Apprenticeship was still exacted for the journeymen. A Star Chamber
decree in 1637 provides that no “master printer shall imploy either to
worke at the Case, or the Presse, or otherwise about his printing, any
other person or persons, then such only as are Freemen, or Apprentices
to the Trade or mystery of Printing.”[317] While in 1676 the Stationers’
Company ordained that “no master-printer, or other printer or workman
... shall teach, direct or instruct any person or persons whatsoever,
other than his or their own legitimate son or sons, in this Art or
Mystery of Printing, who is not actually bound as an Apprentice to some
lawful authorised Printer.”[318]

Footnote 317:

  Arber, _Transcript_, Vol. IV., p. 534.

Footnote 318:

  _Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 16.

From the omission here of any mention of daughters it is clear that the
Master Printers’ women-folk did not concern themselves with the
technical side of his trade; but some attempt was evidently made to use
other girls in the unskilled processes, for on a petition being
presented in 1635 by the younger printers, concerning abuses which they
wished removed, the Stationers’ Company adopted the following
recommendation, “That no Master Printer shall hereafter permit or suffer
by themselves or their journeyman any Girles, Boyes, or others to take
off anie sheets from the tinpin of the presse, but hee that pulleth at
the presse shall take off every sheete himself.”[319]

Footnote 319:

  _S.P.D._, ccci., 105, Nov. 16, 1635.

The young printers were successful in their efforts to preserve the
monopoly value of their position, and formed an organisation amongst
themselves to protect their interests against the masters; but in this
association the wives of the young printers found no place. They could
no longer help their husbands who were working, not at home, but on the
master’s premises; and as girls were not usually apprenticed to the
printing trade women were now virtually excluded from it.

Some imagination is needed to realise the social results of the change
thus effected by capitalistic organisation on the economic position of
married women, for no details have been discovered of the printers’
domestic circumstances; but as the wife was clearly unable to occupy
herself with her husband’s trade, neither she nor her daughters could
share the economic privileges which he won for himself and his fellows
by his organising ability. If his wages were sufficiently high for her
to devote herself to household affairs, she became his unpaid domestic
servant, depending entirely on his goodwill for the living of herself
and her children; otherwise she must have conducted a business on her
own account, or obtained work as a wage-earner, in neither case
receiving any protection from her husband in the competition of the
labour market.

The wives and widows of the Masters were meanwhile actively engaged in
other branches of the Stationers’ Company. In a list of Publishers
covering the years 1553-1640, nearly ten per cent. of the names given
are those of women, probably all of whom were widows.[320] One of these,
the widow of Francis Coldock, married in 1603 Isaac Binge, the Master of
the Company. “She had three husbands, all Bachelors and Stationers, and
died 1616, and is buried in St. Andrew Undershaft in a vault with Symon
Burton her father.”[321] The names of these women can be found also in
the books they published. For example “The True Watch and Rule of Life”
by John Brinsley the elder, printed by H. Lownes for Joyce Macham, _7th
ed._ 1615, the eighth edition being printed for her by T. Beale in 1619,
and “an Epistle ... upon the present pestilence” by Henoch Clapham, was
printed by T.C. for the Widow Newbery, London, 1603. A woman who was a
Binder is referred to in an order made by the Bishop of London in 1685
“to damask ... counterfeit Primmirs’ seized at Mrs. Harris’s
Binder,”[322] and Women are also met with as booksellers. Anne Bowler
sold the book “Catoes Morall Distichs” ... printed by Annes Griffin. The
Quakers at Horsley Down paid to Eliz. ffoulkes 3s. for their minute
book,[323] while Pepys’ bookseller was a certain Mrs. Nicholls.[324] The
death of Edward Croft, Bookseller, is recorded in Smyth’s _Obituary_,
“his relict, remarried since to Mr. Blagrave, an honest bookseller, who
live hapily in her house in Little Britain.”[325]

Footnote 320:

  Arber, _Transcript_, Vol. V., p. lxxxi-cxi.

Footnote 321:

  _Ibid._, Vol. V., p. lxiii.

Footnote 322:

  Arber, _Transcript_, Vol. V., p. lv.

Footnote 323:

  Monthly Meeting Minutes. Horsleydown, 13 iᵐᵒ 167⅞.

Footnote 324:

  Pepys, _Diary_, Vol. I., p. 26.

Footnote 325:

  Smyth’s _Obituary_, P. 77.

The trade of a bookseller was followed by women in the provinces as well
as in London, the Howards paying “For books bought of Eliz. Sturton
iijs.”[326] and Sir John Foulis enters in his account book “To Ard.
Hissops relict and hir husband for 3 paper bookes at 10 gr. p. peice and
binding other 4 bookes, 18. 14. 0 [Scots money], to them for a gramer
and a salust to the bairns, 1.2.0. She owes me 6/8. of change.”[327]

Footnote 326:

  Howard, _Household Books_, p.161, 1622.

Footnote 327:

  Foulis, Sir John, _Acct. Book_, p. 22, 1680.

Presumably all the women who were engaged in either of these allied
trades in London were free of the Stationers’ Company, and in most cases
they were widows. Many apprentices were made free on the testimony of a
woman,[328] and though these in some cases may have almost completed
their servitude before the death of their master, “Mistris Woolff” gives
testimony for one apprentice in 1601, and for another in 1603, showing
that she at least continued the management of her husband’s business for
some years, and as she received a new apprentice during this time,[329]
it is evident that she had no intention of relinquishing it.

Footnote 328:

  “Mistres Gosson. Stephan Coxe, Sworne and Admytted a Freeman of this
  Companie iijs, iiijid. Note that master Warden White Dothe Reporte,
  for mistres Gosson’s Consent to the makinge of this prentice free.
  (Arbers, _Transcript_, Vol. II., p. 727, 1600.) Alice Gosson Late wyfe
  of Thomas Gosson. Henry Gosson sworne and admitted A ffreeman of this
  company per patrimonium iijs. iiijid. (_Ibid._ p. 730, 1601.) Mistres
  Woolff. John Barnes sworne and admitted A freeman (_Ibid._ p. 730,
  1601.) Jane proctor, Wydowe of William proctor. Humfrey Lympenny
  sworne and admitted A ffreeman of this Companye iijs. iiijd, (_Ibid._
  p. 730, 1601.) Mystris Conneway Nicholas Davyes sworn and admitted A
  freeman of this company per patrimonium iijs. iiijid. (_Ibid._ p. 732,
  1602.)”

Footnote 329:

  Johne Adams of London (stationer’s son) apprenticed to Alice Woolff of
  citie of London widowe for 8 years 2s. 6d. (Arber, _Transcript_, Vol.
  II., p. 253, 1601.) Other instances of apprentices being bound to
  women occur as for example “Wm. Walle apprenticed to Elizabeth Hawes
  Widow for 8 years,” (_Ibid._, Vol. II., p. 287, 1604.) “Thomas
  Richardson of York apprenticed to Alice Gosson, of citie of London
  wydowe for 7 years, 2s. 6d.” (_Ibid._, Vol. II., p. 249, 1600).

When on her husband’s death the widow transferred an apprentice to some
other master we may infer that she felt unable to take the charge of
business upon her. This happened not infrequently, “Robert Jackson late
apprentise with Raffe Jackson is putt ouer by consent of his mystres
unto master Burby to serve out the Residue of his terms of apprentishood
with him, the Last yere excepted.... Anthony Tomson ... hath putt him
self an apprentice to master Gregorie Seton ... for 8 yeres.... Eliz.
Hawes shall haue the services and benefit of this Apprentise during her
wydohed or marrying one of the Company capable of him.”[330] “John
leonard apprentise to Edmond Bolifant deceased is putt ouer by the
consent of the said mary Bolyfant unto Richard Bradocke ... to serue out
the residue of his apprentiship.”[331] But whether the widow wished to
continue the business as a “going concern” or not, she, and she only,
was in possession of the privileges connected therewith, for she was
virtually her husband’s partner, and his death did not disturb her
possession. The old rule of copyright recognised her position, providing
“that copies peculiar for life to any person should not be granted to
any other but the Widow of the deceased”, she certifying the title of
the book to the Master and Wardens, and entering the book in the “bookes
of thys Company.”[332]

Footnote 330:

  _Ibid._, p. 260, 1602.

Footnote 331:

  _Ibid._, p. 262, 1602.

Footnote 332:

  Arber _Transcript_, Vol. V., p. 11, 1560.

The history of the Carpenters’ Company resembles that of the Stationers’
in some respects, though the character of a carpenter’s employment,
which was so often concerned with building operations, carried on away
from his shop, did not favour the continuance of his wife in the
business after his death. The “Boke” of the ordinances of the
Brotherhood of the Carpenters of London, dated 1333, shows the Society
to have been at that time a Brotherhood formed “of good men carpenters
of men and women” for common religious observances and mutual help in
poverty and sickness, partaking of the nature of a Benefit Society
rather than a Trade Union. The Brotherhood was at the same time a
Sisterhood, and Brethren and Sisters are mentioned together in all but
two of its articles. In the later code of ordinances, of which a copy
has been preserved dated 1487, sisters are but twice mentioned, when
tapers are prescribed at the burying of their bodies and prayers for the
resting of their souls.[333] Women’s names seldom occur in the Records,
apart from entries connected with those who were tenants, or charitable
grants to widows fallen into poverty, or with payments to the Bedell’s
wife for washing tablecloths and napkins.[334] In one instance
considerable trouble was experienced because the Bedell’s wife would not
turn out of their house after the Bedell’s death. In September, 1567,
“it is agreed and fullie determyned by the Mʳ wardeins & assystaunce of
this company that Syslie burdon wydowe late wife of Richard burdon
dwelling wᵗʰin this house at the will & pleasure of the foresaid Mʳ &
wardeins shall quyetlye & peaceablye dept out of & from her now
dwellinge at Xpistmas next or before & at her departure to have the some
of Twentie six shillinges & eight pence of Lawfull money of England in
reward.”[335] Syslie Burdon however did not wish to move, and in the
following February another entry occurs “at this courte it is agreed
further that Cysley burdon wydowe at the feast daye of thannunciacon of
oʳ Ladie Sᵗ marye the virgin next ensueng the date abovesayd shall dept.
& goe from her nowe dwellinge house wherein she now dwelleth wᵗʰ in this
hall & at the same tyme shall have at her deptur if she doethe of her
owne voyd wᵗʰout anye further troublynge of the Mʳ and wardeins of this
house at that p’sent tyme the some of Twentie six shillinges eightpense
in reward.”[336] Cyslie Burdon may have believed that as a widow she had
a just claim to the house, for leases granted by the Company at this
time were usually for the life of the tenant and his wife.[337]

Footnote 333:

  _Records of the Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, Vol. II., Intro.,
  p. ix.

Footnote 334:

  For example “Itm payd to the bedells wyffe for kepyng of the gardyn
  vijs.” _Ibid._ Vol. IV., p. 2. _Warden’s Acct. Book_, 1546. She had
  besides iiijs. “for her hole yeres wasschyng the clothes” (p. 11) and
  iiijid. “for skoryng of the vessell,” (p. 13) this payment was later
  increased to xijid. and she had “for bromes for Oʳ Hall every quarter
  a jid.” (p. 33) in Reward for her attendance ijs, (p. 114). Burdons
  wyffe for dressing your dinner xiiijid. (p. 129).

Footnote 335:

  _Records of the Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, Vol. III., _Court
  Book_, p. 97.

Footnote 336:

  _Ibid._ p. 103.

Footnote 337:

  _Ibid._ Vol. III., pp. 10-11, March 15, 1544-5. “agreyed and
  codyssendyd thatt frances pope and hys wyffe schall have and hold a
  gardyn plott lyeng be oure hall in the prysche of alhallouns at london
  Wall for the tyme of the longer lever of them bothe payeing viijs: be
  the yere ... the sayd [ ]pope nor hys wyffe schall not take dowene no
  palles nor pale postes nor Raylles In the garden nor no tres nor
  bussches schall nott plucke upe be the Rootes nor cutte theme downe
  nor no maner of erbys ... wᵗowt the lycens of the Master and Wardyns
  of the mystery of Carpenters” Aug. 10, 1564, “agreed and condissendid
  that Robart masckall and Elyzabeth his wiffe shall have and hold the
  Howse which He now occupieth duryng his lyffe and after the deseese of
  the said Robart to Remayne to Elizabeth his wyffe duryng her wyddohed
  paying yerlye xls of lawfull mony of England” etc., _Ibid._ Vol. III.,
  p. 78.

Women accompanied their husbands to the Company dinners as a matter of
course. In 1556 “the clothyng” are ordered to pay for “ther dynner at
the Dynner day ijs. vjid. a man whether ther wyffes or they themselves
come or no.”[338] But the entries do not suggest that the position of
equal sisters which they held in the days of the old “Boke” was
maintained. Women made presents to the Company. “Mistrys ellis,” the
wife of one of the masters of the Company, presented “a sylv̄ pott ꝑsell
gylt the q̄ter daye at candylmas wayeing viij ozes & a qter.”[339] This
apparently was in memory of her deceased husband, for in the same year
she “turned over” an apprentice, and in 1564 a fine was paid by Richard
Smarte “for not comyng at yᵉ owre appoynted to mistris Ellis
beriall—xijid.”[340] Neither the existence of these two instances, which
show a lively interest in the Company, nor the absence of other
references can be taken as conclusive evidence one way or another
concerning the social position of the sisters in the Company. Among the
many judgments passed on brothers for reviling each other, using
“ondecent words,” etc., etc., only once is a woman fined for this
offence, when in 1556 the warden enters in his account book “Resd of
frances stelecrag a fyne for yll wordes that his wyffe gave to John
Dorrant ijˢ—Resd of John Dorrant for yll wordes that he gave to Mystris
frances xvjᵈ—Resd of Wyllam Mortym̃ a fyne for callyng of Mystris
frances best ijˢ.”[341]

Footnote 338:

  _Records of Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, Vol. III., p. 58.

Footnote 339:

  _Ibid._ Vol. IV., p. 99, _Wardens Acct. Book_, 1558.

Footnote 340:

  In 1563 xxs. was “Resd of Wyllym barnewell at yᵉ buryall of his wiffe
  yᵗ she dyd wyll to be gyven to yᵉ Cōpany.” (_Ibid._ Vol. IV., p. 147)
  “Payd at the buryall of barnewell’s wyffe at yᵉ kyges hedd. xiiijs.
  iiijid. Paid to the bedle for Redyng of yᵉ wyll viijid.” (_Ibid._ Vol.
  IV., p. 149.)

Footnote 341:

  _Ibid._ Vol. IV., p. 84.

It is certain that the wives of carpenters, like the wives of other
tradesmen, shared the business anxieties of their husbands, the help
they rendered being most often in buying and selling. This activity is
reflected in some rules drawn up to regulate the purchase of timber. In
1554 “yᵗ was agreyd be the Master & wardyns and the moste parte of the
assestens that no woman shall come to the waters to by tymber bourde
lath q̄ters ponchons gystes & Raffters ther husbandes beyng in the town
uppon payne to forfyt at ëvry tyme so fownd.”[342] The Company’s
decision was not readily obeyed, for on March 8th, 1547, “the Master and
the Wardyns wᵗ partt of the Assestens went to the gyldehall to have had
a Redresse for the women that came to the watersyde to by stuffe,”[343]
and on March 10th “was called in John Armestrong, Wyllyam boner, Wyllyam
Watson, John Gryffyn and Henry Wrest there having amonyssion to warne
ther wyffes that they schulde not by no stuffe at the waters syd upone
payne of a fyne.”[344]

Footnote 342:

  _Records of Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, Vol. III., p. 15,
  _Court Book_.

Footnote 343:

  _Ibid._ Vol. III., p. 30.

Footnote 344:

  _Ibid._ Vol. III., p. 31.

On her husband’s death the carpenter’s wife generally retired from
business, transferring her apprentices for a consideration to another
master. That this practice was not universal is shown in the case of a
boy who had been apprenticed to Joseph Hutchinson and was “turned over
to Anne Hayward, widow, relict of Richard Hayward Carpentar.”[345] Mrs.
Hayward must clearly have been actively prosecuting her late husband’s
business. The women who “make free” apprentices seem generally to have
done so within a few months of their husband’s deaths. That the Company
recognised the right of women to retain apprentices if they chose is
shown by the following provision in Statutes dated November 10th, 1607.
“If any Apprentice or Apprentices Marry or Absent themselves from their
Master or Mistress During their Apprenticehood, then within one month
the Master or Mistress is to Bring their Indentures to the hall to be
Registered and Entered, etc.” “None to Receive or take into their
service or house any Man or Woman’s Apprentice Covenant Servant or
Journeyman within the limits aforesaid, etc.”[346]

Footnote 345:

  _Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 136.

Footnote 346:

  _Records of the Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, Vol. I., Intro.
  vii-viii.

When a carpenter’s widow could keep her husband’s business together, no
one disputed her right to receive apprentices. Several instances of
their doing so are recorded towards the end of the century.[347] The
right to succeed her husband in his position as carpenter and member of
the worshipful company was immediately allowed when claimed by a widow;
thus the court “agreed ... that Johan burton wydowe late wife of [ ]
burton citezein and Carpenter of London for that warninge hathe not ben
goven unto her from tyme to tyme at the Quarterdaies heretofore From
henseforthe shall have due warninge goven unto her everye Quarterdaye
and at the next Quarterdaie she shall paye in discharge of tharrerages
behind Twelve pence & so shall paye her Quateridge (pᵈ xijid.)”[348]; a
year later “burtons widow” makes free an apprentice Mighell
Pattinson.[349]

Footnote 347:

  _Ibid._ p. 137, May 2, 1671. Richardus Read filius Thome Read de Chart
  Magna in Com. Kanc. Shoemaker po: se appren Josepho Hutchinson Bedello
  Hujus Societat pro Septem Ann a die dat Indre Dat die et ann ult pred
  (Assign immediate Susanne Catlin vid nuper uxor. Johannis Catlin nuper
  Civis et Carpenter London defunct uten etc).

  _Ibid._ p. 153. Dec. 5, 1676. Johannes Keyes filius Willi. Keyes nuper
  de Hampsted in Com. Middx. Milwright ed Elizabetham Davis vid. willi
  Davis nuper Civi & Carpentar de London a die date pred etc (sic).

  _Ibid._ p. 158. July 1, 1679. Samuell Goodfellow filius Johanni of
  Rowell in Com. Northton Corwayner pon se Martha Wildey relict of
  Robert pro septem annis a dat etc.

  _Ibid._ p. 161. Ap. 5, 1681. Georg Thomas filius Thome nuper de
  Carlyon in Com Monmouth gent pon se Apprenticum Elizabeth Whitehorne
  of Aldermanbury vid. Johis. pro septem Annis a dat.

  _Ibid._ p. 164. Oct. 4, 1681. Richard Lynn sonn of William Lynn decd.
  pon se Apprenticum Marie Lynn widdow Relict of the said William C: C:
  pro septem annis a dat.

  _Ibid._ p. 165. March 7, 1681-2. John Whitehorne son of John
  Whitehorne C: C: Ld, pon se apprenticum Elizabethe Relict. ejusdem
  Joh’s Whitehorne pro septem annis a dat.

  _Ibid._ p. 171. Apr. 5, 1686. Richard Sᵗevenson sonne of Robᵗ
  Stevenson late of Dublin in the Kingedome of Ireland Pavier bound to
  Anne Nicholson Widowe the Relict of Anthony Nicholson, for eight
  yeares.

  _Ibid._ p. 189. June 7, 1692. Robert Harper sonne of William Harper of
  Notchford in the county of Chesheire, bound to Abigail Taylor for
  Seaven Yeares.

Curiously enough, during the period 1654 to 1670, twenty-one girls were
bound apprentice at Carpenters’ Hall. Probably none of these expected to
learn the trade of a carpenter.[350] Nine were apprenticed to Richard
Hill and his wife, who lived first near St. Michael’s, Cornehill,[351]
and afterwards against Trinity Minories.[352] They were apprenticed for
seven years to learn the trade of a sempstress, and probably in each
case a heavy premium was paid, a note being made against the name of
Prudentia Cooper, who was bound in 1664 “(obligatur Pater in 50ˡ pro
ventute apprenticij).”[353]

Footnote 348:

  _Records of Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, Vol. III., p. 102,
  _Court Book_, 1567.

Footnote 349:

  _Ibid._ Vol. III., p. 200.

Footnote 350:

  _Ibid._ Vol. I., Intro. p. x-xi. Apprentice Entry Book.

Footnote 351:

  _Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 62.

Footnote 352:

  _Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 125.

Footnote 353:

  _Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 78.

Richard Hill’s wife’s name is included in the Indentures three times,
and in 1672 a boy was apprenticed to “Ric. Hill Civi _et_ Carpenter
London necnon de little Minories Silk Winder.”[354] We may infer that
Mrs. Hill had founded the business before or after her marriage with the
carpenter, and that hers proving profitable the husband had been
satisfied with working for wages, while retaining the freedom of the
Company, or had transferred his services to his wife’s business, adding
that of a Silk winder to it. One girl originally apprenticed to Henry
Joyse was “turned over to Anne Joyse sempstress & sole merchant without
Thomas Joyse her husband,”[355] five were apprenticed to Henry Joyce to
learn the trade of a milliner. No mention is made of his wife, but as he
received boy apprentices also,[356] it may be supposed that in fact the
two trades of a carpenter and a milliner were carried on in this case
simultaneously by him and his wife. The blending of these two trades is
noted again in the case of Samuel Joyce;[357] the trade the other girls
were to learn is not generally specified, but Rebecca Perry was
definitely apprenticed to William Addington “to learne the Art of a
Sempstress of his wife.”[358] Two girls were apprenticed to “Thome
Clarke ... London Civi et Carpenter ad discend artem de Child’s Coate
seller existen. art. uxoris sue pro septem annis.”[359]

Footnote 354:

  _Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 145.

Footnote 355:

  _Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 136.

Footnote 356:

  _Records of the Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, Vol. I., p. 65,
  e.g. Brewin Radford (obligatur Maria Radford de Perpole in Com Dorsett
  vid. in 100ˡ pro ventut apprentice).

Footnote 357:

  _Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 149, 1674. “Edmundus Wilstead filius Henrici
  Wilstead de Thetford in Com Norfolcie yeoman po: se appren. Samueli
  Joyse Civi et Carpenter London necnon de Exambia Regali London miliner
  pro septem annis” etc.

Footnote 358:

  _Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 162.

Footnote 359:

  _Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 148.

Elizabeth Lambert, the daughter of Thomas Lambert, formerly of London,
silkeman, was apprenticed in 1678 to Rebecca Cooper, widow of Thomas
Cooper, “Civis Carpenter London,” for seven years.[360] Another girl who
had been apprenticed to this same woman in 1668 applied for her freedom
in 1679, which was granted, though apparently her request was an unusual
one, the records stating that “Certaine Indentures of Apprentiship were
made whereby Rebecca Gyles, daughter of James Gyles of Staines, ... was
bound Apprentice to Rebecca Cooper of the parish of St. Buttolph without
Aldgate widdow for seaven yeares ... this day att a Court of assistants
then holden for this Company came Rebecca Gylles Spinster sometime
servant to Rebecca Cooper a free servant of this Company, and complained
that haveing served her said Mistres faithfully a Terme of seaven years
whᶜʰ expired the twenty-fourth day of June, 1675, and often desired of
her said Mistris Testimony of her service to the end shee might bee made
free, her said Mistres had hitherto denyed the same; & then presented
credible persons within this Citty to testifie the truth of her said
service, desireing to bee admitted to the freedome of this Company,
which this Table thought reasonable, vnlesse the said Rebecca Cooper,
her said Mistres on notice hereof to bee given, shall shew reasonable
cause to the contrary, etc.”[361] Encouraged by the success of this
application, two other girls followed Rebecca Gyles’ example, one being
presented for her freedom at Carpenters’ Hall by Thomas Clarke in 1683
and another by Henry Curtis in 1684.[362]

Footnote 360:

  _Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 156.

Footnote 361:

  Jupp, _Carpenters_, p. 161, 1679.

Footnote 362:

  _Records of Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, Vol. I., p. 198.

Thus it may be presumed that apprenticeship to a brother or sister of
the Carpenters’ Company conferred the right of freedom upon any girls
who chose to avail themselves of the privilege, even when the trade
actually learnt was not that of carpentry. Amongst the girl apprentices
only one other was directly bound to a woman, namely “Elizabetha filia
Hester Eitchus ux. Geo. Eitchus nuper Civi et Carpentar. pon se dict
Hester matri pro septem ann a dat etc.”[363] Although Hester Eitchus is
here called “uxor” she must really have been a widow, for her name would
not have appeared alone on the indenture during her husband’s lifetime;
boy apprentices had previously been bound to him, and no doubt as in the
other cases husband and wife had been prosecuting their several trades
simultaneously, the wife retaining her membership in the Carpenters’
Company when left a widow. An independent business must have been very
necessary for the wife in cases where the husband worked for wages, and
not on his own account, for in 1563 carpenter’s wages were fixed “be my
lorde mayors commandement ... yf they dyd fynde themselves meat and
drynke at xiiijᵈ the day and their servants xijᵈ. Itm otherwises the
sayd carpynters to have viijᵈ the day wayges meat & drynke & their
servants vjᵈ meat & drynke.”[364] These wages would have been inadequate
for the maintenance of a family in London, and therefore unless the
carpenter was in a position to employ apprentices and enter into
contracts, in which case he could find employment also for his wife, she
must have traded in some way on her own account.

Footnote 363:

  _Ibid._ Vol. I., _App. Entry Book_, p. 159, Feb. 3, 1679.

Footnote 364:

  _Records of the Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, Vol. III., p. 75,
  _Court Book_.

It is difficult to say how far the position of women in the Stationers’
and Carpenters’ Companies was typical of their position in the other
great London Companies and in the Gilds and Companies which flourished
or decayed in the provinces. All these organisations resembled each
other in certain broad outlines, but varied considerably in details. All
seem to have agreed in the early association of brothers and sisters on
equal terms for social and religious purposes. Thus the Carpenters’ was
“established one perpetual brotherhood, or guild ... to consist of one
master, three wardens, and commonalty of freemen, of the Mystery of
Carpentry ... and of the brethren and sisters of freemen of the said
mystery.”[365] The charter granted by Henry VI. to the Armourers and
Braziers provided “that the brethren and sisters of that ffraternity or
guild, ... should be of itself one perpetual community ... and have
perpetual sucession. And that the brothers and sisters of the same
ffraternity or guild, ... might choose and make one Master and two
Wardens from among themselves; and also elect and make another Master
and other Wardens into the office aforesaid, according to the ordinances
of the better and worthier part of the same brethren and
sisters....”[366] In this case the sisters were regarded as active and
responsible members but of the Merchant Taylors Clode says “It is clear
that women were originally admitted as members and took apprentices;
that it was customary in later years for women to dine or be present at
the quarterly meetings is evidenced by a notice of their absence in
1603, ‘the upper table near to the garden, commonly called the _Mistris
Table_, was furnished with sword bearer and gentlemen strangers, there
being no gentlewomen at this Quarter Day.’ In many of the wills of early
benefactors, sisters as well as brethren are named as ‘devisees.’ Thus
in Sibsay’s (1404) the devise is ‘to the Master and Wardens and brethren
and sisters’.... When an Almsman of the Livery married with the
Company’s consent his widow remained during her life an almswoman, and
was buried by the Company. In that sense she was treated as a sister of
the fraternity, but she probably exercised no rights as a member of
it.”[367]

Footnote 365:

  Jupp, _Carpenters_, p. 12.

Footnote 366:

  _Armourers and Braziers._, _Charter and By-laws of the Company_, p. 4.

Footnote 367:

  Clode, _History of the Merchant Taylors_, London, Vol. I., p. 42.

The sisters are often referred to in the rules relating to the dinners,
which were such an important feature of gild life. The “Grocers”
provided that “Every one of the Fraternity from thenceforward, that has
a wife or companion, shall come to the feast, and bring with him a lady
if he pleases; [et ameyne avec luy une demoiselle si luy plest] if they
cannot come, for the reasons hereafter named, that is to say, sick, big
with child, and near deliverance, without any other exception; and that
every man shall pay for his wife 20d.; also, that each shall pay 5s.,
that is to say, 20d. for himself, 20d. for his companion, and 20d. for
the priest. And that all women who are not of the Fraternity, and
afterwards should be married to any of the Fraternity, shall be entered
and looked upon as of the Fraternity for ever, and shall be assisted and
made as one of us; and after the death of her husband, the widow shall
come to the dinner, and pay 40d. if she is able. And if the said widow
marries any one not of the Fraternity, she shall not be admitted to the
said feast, nor have any assistance given her, as long as she remains so
married, be whom she will; nor none of us ought to meddle or interfere
in anything with her on account of the Fraternity, as long as she
remains unmarried.”[368]

Footnote 368:

  Heath, _Acct. of the Worshipful Company of Grocers_, p. 53, memo.
  1348.

The Wardens of the Merchant Gild at Beverley were directed to make in
turn yearly “one dinner for all his bretherne and theire wieves.”[369]
The Pewterers decided that “every man and wif that comyth to the
yemandries dynner sholde paye xvjid. And every Jorneyman that hath a wif
... xvjᵈ. And every lone man beinge a howsholder that comyth to dynner
shall paye xijᵈ. and every Jorneyman having no wif and comyth to dynner
shall paye viijᵈ. ... every man that hath bynne maryed wᵗʰin the same ij
years shall geve his cocke or eƚƚe paye xijᵈ.... Provided always that
none bringe his gest wᵗʰ him wᵗʰowt he paye for his dynner as moch as he
paith for hymself and that they bring no childerne wᵗʰ them passing one
& no more.”[370] In 1605 it was agreed that “ther shalbe called all the
whole clothyng and ther wyves and the wydowes whose husbandes have byne
of the clothynge and that shalbe payed ijs. man & wyffe and the wydowes
xijid. a peece.”[371] In 1672, the expense of entertaining becoming
irksome, “an order of Coʳᵗ for ye abateing extraoʳdinary Feasting” was
made, requiring the “Master & Wardens ... to deposit each 12li & spend
yᵉ one half thereof upon the Masters & Wardens ffeast this day held, and
the Other moyety to be and remain to yᵉ Compᵃ use. Now this day the sᵈ
Feast was kept but by reason of the women being invited yᵉ Charge of yᵉ
Feast was soe extream that nothing could be cleered to yᵉ house
according to yᵉ sᵈ order. There being Spent near 90li.”[372]

Footnote 369:

  Leach, _Beverley Town Documents_, p. 95, 1582.

Footnote 370:

  Welch, _History of Pewterers Company_, Vol. I., p. 201, 1559.

Footnote 371:

  _Ibid._ Vol. II., p. 47.

Footnote 372:

  Welch, _Hist. of Pewterers’ Company_, Vol. II., p. 145.

Sisters are also remembered in the provisions made for religious
observances and assistance in times of sickness. The ordinances of the
Craft of the Glovers at Kingston-upon-Hull required that “every brother
and syster of ye same craffᵗᵗ be at every offeryng within the sayd town
with every brother or syster of the same crafftt as well at weddynges as
at beryalles.” Brethren and sisters were to have lights at their
decease, and if in poverty to have them freely.[373] The “yoman
taillours” made application “that they and others of their fraternity of
yomen yearly may assemble ... near to Smithfield and make offerings for
the souls of brethren and sister etc.”[374] In the city of Chester, when
a charter was given to joiners, carvers and turners to become a separate
Company, not part of the Carpenters’ as formerly, to be called the
Company of the Joiners, it is said “Every brother of the said
occupacions shall bee ready att all times ... to come unto ... the
burial of every brother and sister of the said occupacions.”[375]

Footnote 373:

  Lambert, _Two Thousand Years of Gild Life_, p. 217, 1499.

Footnote 374:

  _Ibid._ p. 229, 1415.

Footnote 375:

  Harl. MSS., 2054, fo. 5. _Charter of the Joiner’s Co._

Sisters must have played an important part in the functions of the
Merchant Taylors of Bristol, for an order was made in 1401 that “the
said maister and iiii wardeyns schall ordeyne every yere good and
convenient cloth of oon suyt for all brothers and sisters of the said
fraternity....”[376] The Charter of this Company provided that “ne man
ne woman be underfange into the fraternite abovesaid withoute assent of
the Keper and maister etc. ... and also that hit be a man or woman y
knowe of good conversation and honeste.... Also y^f eny brother other
soster of thys fraternite above sayde that have trewly y payed hys
deutes yat longeth to ye fraternite falle into poverte other into
myschef and maie note travalle for to he be releved, he schal have of ye
comune goodes every weke xxiᵈ of monei ... and yf he be a man yat hath
wyfe and chylde he schal trewly departe alle hys goodes bytwyne heir and
hys wyfe and children; and ye partie that falleth to hym he schal trewly
yeld up to ye mayster and to ye wardynes of the fraternite obove sayde,
in ye maner to fore seide....” The brothers and sisters shall share in
the funeral ceremonies, etc., “also gif eny soster chyde with other
openly in the strete, yat eyther schalle paye a pounde wex to ye lighte
of the fraternite; and gif they feygte eyther schall paie twenty pounde
wex to ye same lyte upon perryle of hir oth gif thei be in power. And
gif eny soster by y proved a commune chider among her neygbourys after
ones warnyng other tweies at the (delit) ye thridde tyme ye maister and
ye wardeynes of ye fraternite schulle pute her out of ye compaynye for
ever more.”[377]

Footnote 376:

  Fox (F. F.) _Merchant Taylors, Bristol_, p. 31.

Footnote 377:

  _Ibid._ p. 26-9.

Chiding and reviling were failings common to all gilds, and were by no
means confined to the sisters. The punishments appointed by the Merchant
Gild at Beverley for those “who set up detractions, or rehearse past
disputes, or unduly abuse”[378] are for brothers only. And though it was
“Agreed by the Mʳ Wardens and Assystaunce” of the Pewterers that “Robert
west sholde bringe in his wif vpon ffrydaye next to reconsile her self
to Mʳ Cacher and others of the Company for her naughty mysdemeanoʳ of
her tonge towarde them,”[379] the quarrelling among the Carpenters seems
to have been almost confined to the men.

Footnote 378:

  Leach, _Beverley Town Documents_, p. 78, 1494.

Footnote 379:

  Welch, Charles, _Hist. of Pewterers Company_, Vol. I., p. 200, 1558.

There can be no doubt that the sisters shared fully in the social and
religious life of the Gilds; it is also perfectly clear that the wife
was regarded by the Gild or Company as her husband’s partner, and that,
after his death she was confirmed in the possession of his business with
his leases and apprentices at least during the term of her widowhood.

But the extent to which she really worked with him in his trade and was
qualified to carry it on as a going concern after his death is much more
difficult to determine, varying as it did from trade to trade and
depending so largely in each case upon the natural capacity of the
individual woman concerned. The extent to which a married woman could
work with her husband depended partly upon whether his trade was carried
on at home or abroad. It has been suggested that the carpenters who
often were engaged in building operations could not profit much by their
wives’ assistance, but many trades which in later times have become
entirely closed to women were then so dependent on their labour that
sisters are mentioned specifically in rules concerning the conditions of
manufacture. Thus the charter of the Armourers and Brasiers was granted
in the seventeenth year of James I. “to the Master and Wardens and
Brothers and Sisters of the ffraternity ... that from thenceforth All &
all manner of brass and copper works ... edged tools ... small guns ...
wrought by any person or persons being of the same ffraternity ...
should be searched and approved ... by skilful Artificers of the said
ffraternity.”[380] Rules which were drawn up at Salisbury in 1612
provide that no free brother or sister shall “rack, set, or cause to be
racked or set, any cloth upon any tenter, on the Sabbath day, under the
forfeiture of 2s.” The Wardens of the Company of Merchants, Mercers,
Grocers, Apothecaries, Goldsmiths, Drapers, Upholsterers, and
Embroiderers were ordered to search the wares, merchandise, weights and
measures of sisters as well as brothers.[381] “No free brother or sister
is at any time to put any horse leather into boots or shoes or any
liquored calves leather into boots or shoes, to be sold between the
feast of St. Bartholomew the Apostle and the Annunciation of the Virgin
Mary.... No free brother or sister is to keep or set up any standing in
the market place, except in fair times. No brother or sister is to set
open his or her shop, or to do any work, in making or mending of boots
and shoes on the Sabbath day, on pain of twelve pence forfeit.”[382]

Footnote 380:

  _Armourers and Brasiers, Charter and Bye laws of Company of._, p. 5.
  See also Johnson, _Ordinances of the Drapers of London_, Vol. I., p.
  280, 1524).

  “(it shall not be lawful unto any brother or sister freed in this
  fellyship to take mo. apprentices than may stand in good order for
  their degree) ... every brother being in the master’s livery shall pay
  6s. 8d. and every sister whose husband has been of the aforesaid
  livery shall pay for every apprentice 6s. 8d. and every other brother
  or sister not being of the master’s livery shall pay for every
  apprentice 3s. 4d.”

Footnote 381:

  Hoare, Sir R. C., _Hist. of Modern Wilts_, Vol. VI., p. 340.

Footnote 382:

  _Ibid._ Vol. VI., p. 343.

Rules which specifically permit the employment of the master’s wife or
daughter in his trade while excluding other unapprenticed persons, are
in themselves evidence that they were often so employed. Thus the
Glovers allowed “noe brother of this ffraternity” to “take an apprentice
vnder the full end and tearme of seaven years ffuly to be compleat ...
excepting brothers son or daughter....”[383] No leatherseller might “put
man, child or woman to work in the same mistery, if they be not bound
apprentice, and inrolled in the same mistery; excepting their wives and
children.”[384] Similarly the Girdlers in 1344 ordered that “no one of
the trade shall get any woman to work other than his wedded wife or
daughter”[385] while by a rule of the Merchant Taylors, Bristol “no
person ... shall cutt make or sell any kynde of garment, garments, hose
or breeches within ye saide cittie ... unles he be franchised and made
free of the saide crafte (widdowes whose husbandes were free of ye saide
crafte duringe the tyme of their wyddowhedd vsinge ye same with one
Jorneyman and one apprentice only excepted).”[386]

Footnote 383:

  Ferguson, _Carlisle_, p. 212, _Glover’s Gild_, 1665.

Footnote 384:

  Black, W. H., _Articles of the Leathersellers_, p. 21, 1398.

Footnote 385:

  Smythe, W. D., _Hist. of Worshipful Co. of Girdlers, London_, p. 63.

Footnote 386:

  Fox, F. F., _Merchant Taylors, Bristol_, pp. 64-65.

The association of women with their husbands in business matters is
often suggested by the presence of both their names on indentures.
Walter Beemer, for example, was apprenticed to John Castle of Marke and
Johane his wife to be instructed and brought up in the trade of a
tanner.[387] Sometimes it is shown by the indifference with which money
transactions are conducted either with husband or with wife. When the
Corporation at Dorchester purchased a new mace in 1660, Mr. Sam White’s
wife appears to have acted throughout in the matter. An entry in the
records for 1660 states that “the silver upon the old maces ... comes
unto iijˡⁱ.xviijˢ.iijᵈ, which was intended to bee delivered to Mr. Sam:
White’s wife towards payment for the new Maces.... Mr. White hath it the
18th of January, 1660.” (Inserted later).

  July 3rd, 1661.—pd. Mrs. White as appeareth forward — 5 0 0

  October 4th, 1661.—pd. Mrs. White more as appeareth forward — 4 10 0

  About Michaelmas, Mr. Sauage pd Mrs. White in dollers— 7 7 0

  April 26th, 1661.—It is ordered and agreed that twenty shillings a
    man, which shall be lent and advanced to Mr. Samuel White’s wife by
    any of this Company towards payment for the Maces shall be repayed
    back to them.”[388]

Footnote 387:

  _Somerset Quarter Sessions Records_, Vol. III., p. 165, 1652.

Footnote 388:

  Mayo, G. H., _Municipal Records, Dorchester_, p. 466.

An equal indifference is shown by the Carpenters’ Company in making
payments for their ale. Sometimes these are entered to William Whytte,
but quite as often to “his wyffe.” For example in 1556 “Itm payd for
Yest to Whytte’s wyffe iiijᵈ.”[389] “Resd of Whytte’s wyffe her hole
yere’s Rent in ale xxixˢ iiijᵈ.”[390] “Itm payd to whytte’s wyffe for
ale above the rent of hyr howsse iijˢ.vjᵈ.” “Itm payd to whytte’s wyffe
for hopyng of tobbis xvjᵈ.”[391] Finally, in 1559, when perhaps William
Whytte had departed this life, it is entered “Resd of Mother whytte hole
yeres rent xxixˢ vijᵈ.”[392]

Footnote 389:

  _Rec. of Worshipful Co. of Carpenters_, Vol. IV., p. 56, _Warden’s
  Acct. Book_, 1556.

Footnote 390:

  _Ibid._ Vol. IV., p. 86.

Footnote 391:

  _Ibid._ Vol. IV., p. 88.

Footnote 392:

  _Ibid._ Vol. IV., p. 101.

The Pewterers, in order to check stealing, ordered that “none of the
sayde Crafte shall bye anye Leade of Tylers, Laborers, Masons, boyes,
nor of women Nor of none such as shall seme to be a Suspect pson,”
adding “that none of the sayde companye shalbe excusyd by his wif or
servannte nor none other suche lyk excuse.”[393]

Footnote 393:

  Welch, _Hist. of Pewterers’ Company_, Vol. I., pp. 180-181.

Gild rules recognise the authority of the mistress over apprentices, the
Clockmakers ordaining that “no servant or apprentice that ... hath
without just and reasonable cause, departed from his master, mistress or
dame, ... shall be admitted to work for himself,”[394] while the charter
of the Glass-sellers provides suitable punishment “if any apprentice ...
shall misbehave himself towards his master or mistress ... or shall lie
out of his master or mistress’s house without his or her privity.”[395]

Footnote 394:

  Overall, _Company of Clockmakers_, London, p. 43, 1632.

Footnote 395:

  Ramsay, Wm., _Hist. of the Glass-Sellers_, p. 125.

When a man who belonged to Gild or Company died, his wife was free to
continue his business under her own management, retaining her position
as a free sister, or she might withdraw from trade and transfer her
apprentices to another brother. In the Carpenters’ and some other trades
the latter was the more usual course to follow; thus Thomas Mycock, a
cutler, on taking over an apprentice who had served John Kay, deceased,
six years, covenanted to pay Kay’s widow 20s. a year for the three
remaining years,[396] but on the other hand the widow Poynton was paid
15s. 7d. “for glass worke” by the Burgery of Sheffield;[397] showing
that she had not withdrawn from business on her husband’s death. It is
clear that widows often lost their rights as sisters, if they took, as a
second husband, a man who was not and did not become a brother of the
same Gild. Thus there is an entry in the “Pewterers’ Records,” 1678,
concerning “Mrs. Sicily Moore, formerly the wife of Edward Fish, late
member of this Compᵃ decđ, and since marryed to one Moore, a fforeignir,
now also decđ, desired to be admitted into the ffreedome of this Compᵃ.
After some debate the Court agreed and soe Ordered that she shall be
received into the ffreedom of the Compᵃ Gratis, onely paying usuall
ffees and this Condition that she shall not bind any app’ntice by virtue
of the sᵈ Freedom.”[398]

Footnote 396:

  Leader, _Hist. of Company of Cutlers_, Vol. I., p. 47, 1696.

Footnote 397:

  Leader, _Records of the Burgery of Sheffield_, p. 227, 1685.

Footnote 398:

  Welch, _Hist. of Pewterers’ Company_, Vol. II., p. 153.

Instances occur in which an apprentice was discharged because “the wife,
after the death of her Husband, taught him not.”[399] The apprentice
naturally brought forward this claim if by so doing there was a chance
of shortening the term of his service, but he was not always successful.
The Justices dismissed a case brought by Edward Steel, ordering him to
serve Elizabeth Apprice, widow, the remainder of his term. He was
apprenticed in 1684 to John Apprice Painter-Stainer for nine years; he
had served seven years when his master died, and he now declares that
Elizabeth, the widow, refuses to instruct him. She insists that since
her husband’s death she has provided able workmen to instruct this
apprentice, and that he was now capable of doing her good service.[400]
When the “widowe Holton prayed that she [being executor to her husband]
maye have the benefitt of the service of Roger Jakes, her husband’s
apprentice by Indenture, for the residue of the years to come, which he
denyeth to performe, it was ordered that th’apprentice shall dwell and
serve his dame duringe the residue of his terme, she providing for him
as well work as other things fitt for him.”[401] The Gilders having
accused Richard Northy of having more than the just number of
apprentices, he stated in his defence that the apprentice “was not any
that was taken or bound by him, but was left unto him by express words
in the will of his deceased mother-in-law whᶜʰ will, wᵗʰ the probate
thereof, he now produced in court.”[402]

Footnote 399:

  Stow, _London_, Book V., p. 335.

Footnote 400:

  _Middlesex Sessions Book_, p. 47, 1691.

Footnote 401:

  Guilding, _Reading Records_, Vol. II., p. 362.

Footnote 402:

  Smythe, _Company of Girdlers_, p. 133, 1635.

The occurrence of widows’ names among the cases which came before the
Courts for infringements of the Company’s rules is further evidence that
they were actively engaged in business. “Two bundles of unmade girdles
were taken from widows Maybury and Bliss, young widows they were ordered
to pay 5s. each by way of fine for making and selling unlawful
wares.”[403] Richard Hewatt, of Northover in Glastonbury, fuller, when
summoned to appear before the Somerset Quarter Sessions as a witness,
refers to his dame Ursula Lance who had “lost 2 larrows worth five
shillings and that Robert Marsh, one of the constables of Somerton
Hundred, found in the house of William Wilmat the Larrows cloven in
pieces and put in the oven, and the Rack-hookes that were in the larrows
were found in the fire in the said house.”[404]

Footnote 403:

  _Ibid._ p. 87, 1627.

Footnote 404:

  _Somerset Q.S. Rec._, Vol. III., pp. 365-6, 1659.

Widows were very dependent upon the assistance of journeymen, and often
chose a relation for this responsible position. At Reading “All the
freeman Blacksmiths in this Towne complayne that one Edward Nitingale, a
smith, beinge a forreynour, useth the trade of a blacksmith in this
Corporacion to the great dammage of the freemen: it was answered that he
is a journeyman to the Widowe Parker, late wife to Humfrey Parker, a
blacksmith, deceassed, and worketh as her servant at 5s. a weeke, she
being his aunt, and was advised to worke in noe other manner but as a
journeyman.”[405] The connection often ended in marriage; it was brought
to the notice of one of the Quaker’s Meetings in London that one of
their Members, “Will Townsend ... card maker proposes to take to wife
Elizabeth Doshell of ye same place to be his wife, and ye same Elizabeth
doth propose to take ye said Will to be her husband, the yonge man
liveing with her as a journey-man had thought and a beliefe that she
would come to owne ye truth and did propose to her his Intentions
towards her as to marige before she did come to owne the truth which
thinge being minded to him by ffriends ... he has acknowledged it soe
and sayes it had been beter that he had waited till he had had his hope
in some measure answered.”[406]

Footnote 405:

  Guilding, _Reading Records_, Vol. III., p. 502, 1640.

Footnote 406:

  _Horsleydown Monthly Meeting Minute Book_, 19 11mo., 1675.

Such marriages, though obviously offering many advantages, were not
always satisfactory. A lamentable picture of an unfortunate one is given
in the petition of Sarah Westwood, wife of Robert Westwood, Feltmaker,
presented to Laud in 1639, showing that “your petitioner was (formerly)
the wife of one John Davys, alsoe a Feltmaker, who dying left her a
howse furnished with goodes sufficient for her use therein and charged
with one childe, as yet but an infant, and two apprentices, who, for the
residue of their termes ... could well have atchieved sufficient for the
maynetenance of themselves and alsoe of your petitioner and her child.
That being thus left in good estate for livelyhood, her nowe husband
became a suitor unto her in the way of marriage, being then a journeyman
feltmaker....”

Soon after their marriage, “Westwood following lewde courses, often
beate and abused your petitioner, sold and consumed what her former
husband left her, threatened to kill her and her child, turned them out
of dores, refusing to afford them any means of subsistance, but on the
contrary seekes the utter ruin of them both and most scandelously has
traduced your petitioner giving out in speeches that she would have
poysoned him thereby to bring a generall disgrace upon her, ... and
forbiddes all people where she resortes to afford her entertaignment,
and will not suffer her to worke for the livelyhood of her and her
child, but will have accompt of the same.... Albeit he can get by his
labour 20/- a weeke, yet he consumes the same in idle company ... having
lewdlie spent all he had with your petitioner.”[407]

Footnote 407:

  _S.P.D._, ccccxxxv. 42, Dec. 6, 1639.

Though their entrance to the Gilds and Companies was most often obtained
by women through marriage, it has already been shown that their
admission by apprenticeship was not unknown, and they also occasionally
acquired freedom by patrimony; thus “Katherine Wetwood, daughter of
Humphrey Wetwood, of London, Pewterer, was sworn and made free by the
Testimony of the Master and Wardens of the Merchant Taylors’ Co., and of
two Silk Weavers, that she was a virgin and twenty-one years of age. She
paid the usual patrimony fine of 9s. 2d.”[408] More than one hundred
years later Mary Temple was made free of the Girdlers’ Company by
patrimony.[409] No jealousy is expressed of the women who were members
of the Companies, but all others were rigorously excluded from
employment. Complaints were brought before the Girdlers’ that certain
Girdlers in London “set on worke such as had not served 7 years at the
art, and also for setting forreigners and maids on worke.”[410] Rules
were made in Bristol in 1606, forbidding women to work at the trades of
the whitawers (white leather-dressers), Point-makers and Glovers.[411]

Footnote 408:

  Welch, _Pewterers_, Vol. II., p. 92, 1633-4.

Footnote 409:

  Smythe, _Company of Girdlers_, p. 128, 1747.

Footnote 410:

  _Ibid._ p. 88, 1628.

Footnote 411:

  Latimer, _Annals of Bristol_, p. 26, 1606.

In the unprotected trades where the Gild organisation had broken down,
and the profits of the small tradesmen had been reduced to a minimum by
unlimited competition, the family depended upon the labour of mother and
children as well as the father for its support. Petitions presented to
the King concerning grievances under which they suffer, generally
include wives and children in the number of those engaged in the trade
in question. On a proposal to tax tobacco pipes, the makers show “that
all the poorer sort of the Trade must be compelled to lay it down, for
want of Stock or Credit to carry it on; and so their Wives and Children,
who help to get their Bread, must of necessity perish, or become a
Charge to their respective Parishes. That when a Gross of Pipes are
made, they sell them for 1s. 6d. and 1s. 10d., out of which 2d. or 3d.
is their greatest Profit. And they not already having Stock, or can make
Pipes fast enough to maintain their Families, how much less can they be
capable, when half the Stock they have, must be paid down to pay the
King his Duty?”[412]

Footnote 412:

  _Humble Petition and Case of the Tobacco Pipe Makers of the Citys of
  London and Westminster, 1695._

The Glovers prepared a memorandum showing the great grievances there
would be if a Duty be laid on Sheep and Lamb Skins, Drest in Oyl etc.
“The Glovers,” they say, “are many Thousands in Number, in the Counties
of England, City of London and Liberties thereof, and generally so Poor
(the said Trade being so bad and Gloves so plenty) that mear Necessity
doth compel them to Sell their Goods daily to the Glove-sellers, and to
take what Prises they will give them, to keep them and their Children
and Families at Work to maintain them, or else they must perrish for
want of Bred.”[413]

Footnote 413:

  _Reasons humbly offered by the Leather-Dressers and Glovers, &c._

The Pin-makers say that their company “consists for the most part of
poor and indigent People, who have neither Credit nor Money to purchase
Wyre of the Merchant at the best hand, but are forced for want thereof,
to buy only small Parcels of the second or third Buyer, as they have
occasion to use it, and to sell off the Pins they make of the same from
Week to Week, as soon as they are made, for ready money, to feed
themselves, their Wives, and Children, whom they are constrained to
imploy to go up and down every Saturday Night from Shop to Shop to offer
their Pins for Sale, otherwise cannot have mony to buy bread.”[414]

Footnote 414:

  _Case or Petition of the Corporation of Pin-makers._

A similar picture is given in the “Mournfull Cryes of many thousand
Poore tradesmen, who are ready to famish through decay of Trade.” “Oh
that the cravings of our Stomacks could bee heard by the Parliament and
City! Oh that the Teares of our poore famishing Babes were botled! Oh
that their tender Mothers Cryes for bread to feed them were ingraven in
brasse.... O you Members of Parliament and rich men in the City, that
are at ease, and drink Wine in Bowles ... you that grind our faces and
Flay off our skins ... is there none to Pity.... Its your Taxes Customes
and Excize, that compels the Country to raise the price of Food and to
buy nothing from us but meere absolute necessaries; and then you of the
City that buy our Worke, must have your Tables furnished ... and
therefore will give us little or nothing for our Worke, even what you
please, because you know wee must sell for Monyes to set our Families on
worke, or else wee famish ... and since the late Lord Mayor Adams, you
have put into execution an illegall, wicked Decree of the Common
Counsell; whereby you have taken our goods from us, if we have gone to
the Innes to sell them to the Countrimen; and you have murdered some of
our poor wives, that have gone to Innes to find countrimen to buie
them.”[415]

Footnote 415:

  _Mournfull Cryes of many Thousand Poore Tradesmen_, 1647.

In each case it will be noticed that the wife’s activity is specially
mentioned in connection with the sale of the goods. Women were so
closely connected with industrial life in London that when the Queen
proposed to leave London in 1641 it was the women who petitioned
Parliament, declaring, “that your Petitioners, their Husbands, their
Children and their Families, amounting to many thousand soules; have
lived in plentifull and good fashion, by the exercise of severall Trades
and venting of divers workes.... All depending wholly for the sale of
their commodities, (which is the maintenance and very existence and
beeing of themselves, their husbands, and families) upon the splendour
and glory of the English Court, and principally upon that of the Queenes
Majesty.”[416]

Footnote 416:

  _Humble Petition of many thousands of Courtiers, Citizens, Gentlemens
  and Tradesmens Wives, &c._

In addition to these Trades, skilled and semi-skilled, in which men and
women worked together, certain skilled women’s trades existed in London
which were sufficiently profitable for considerable premiums to be paid
with the girls who were apprenticed to them.[417] These girls probably
continued to exercise their own trade after marriage, their skill
serving them instead of dowry, the Customs of London providing that
“married women who practise certain crafts in the city alone and without
their husbands, may take girls as apprentices to serve them and learn
their trade, and these apprentices shall be bound by their indentures of
apprenticeship to both husband and wife, to learn the wife’s trade as is
aforesaid, and such indentures shall be enrolled as well for women as
for men.”[418] The girls who were apprenticed to Carpenters were
evidently on this footing.

Footnote 417:

  Ante, p. 175.

Footnote 418:

  Eileen Power, by kind permission, 1419.

References in contemporary documents to women who were following skilled
or semi-skilled trades in London are very frequent. Thus Thomas Swan is
reported to have committed thefts “on his mistress Alice Fox,
Wax-chandler of Old Bailey.”[419] Mrs. Cellier speaks of “one Mrs.
Phillips, an upholsterer,”[420] while the Rev. Giles Moore notes in his
diary “payed Mistress Cooke, in Shoe Lane, for a new trusse, and for
mending the old one and altering the plate thereof, £1 5 0; should shee
dye, I am in future to inquire for her daughter Barbara, who may do the
like for mee.”[421] Isaac Derston was “put an app. to Anthony Watts for
the term of seven years, but turned over to the widow—dwelling near:
palls: who bottoms cane chaires, £2 10 0.”[422] That the bottoming of
cane chairs was a poor trade is witnessed by the meagreness of the
premium paid in this case.

Footnote 419:

  _C.S.P.D._ cv. 53, Jan. 19, 1619.

Footnote 420:

  Cellier (Mrs.) _Malice Defeated_., p. 25.

Footnote 421:

  _Suss. Arch. Coll._, Vol. I., p. 123, _Journal Rev._, 1676.

Footnote 422:

  _Monthly Meeting Minute Book, Peele_, Nov. 24, 1687.

No traces can be found of any organisation existing in the skilled
women’s trades, such as upholstery, millinery, mantua-making, but a Gild
existed among the women who sorted and packed wool at Southampton. A
Sisterhood consisting of twelve women of good and honest demeanour was
formed there as a company to serve the merchants in the occupation of
covering pokes or baloes [bales]. Two of the sisters acted as wardens.
In 1554 a court was held to adjudicate on the irregular attendance of
some of the sisters. The names of two wardens and eleven sisters are
given; no one who was absent from her duties for more than three months
was permitted to return to the Sisterhood without the Mayor’s licence.
“Item, yᵗ is ordered by the sayde Maior and his bretherne that all suche
as shall be nomynated and appoynted to be of the systeryd shall make a
brekefaste at their entrye for a knowlege and shal bestowe at the least
xxᵈ or ijˢ, or more as they lyste.”[423]

Footnote 423:

  Davies. (J. S.) _Hist. of Southampton_, p. 279.

Possibly when more records of the Gilds and Companies have been
published in a complete form, some of the gaps which are left in this
account of the position of women in the skilled and semi-skilled trades
may be filled in; but the extent to which married women were engaged in
them must always remain largely a matter of conjecture, and
unfortunately it is precisely this point which is most interesting to
the sociologist. Practically all adult women were married, and the
character of the productive work which an economic organisation allots
to married women and the conditions of their labour decide very largely
the position of the mother in society, and therefore, ultimately, the
fate of her children. The fragmentary evidence which has been examined
shows that, while the system of family industry lasted, it was so usual
in the skilled and semi-skilled trades for women to share in the
business life of their husbands that they were regarded as partners.
Though the wife had rarely, if ever, served an apprenticeship to his
trade, there were many branches in which her assistance was of great
value, and husband and wife naturally divided the industry between them
in the way which was most advantageous to the family, while unmarried
servants, either men or women, performed the domestic drudgery. As
capitalistic organisation developed, many avenues of industry were,
however, gradually closed to married women. The masters no longer
depended upon the assistance of their wives, while the journeyman’s
position became very similar to that of the modern artisan; he was
employed on the premises of his master, and thus, though his association
with his fellows gave him opportunity for combination, his wife and
daughters, who remained at home, did not share in the improvements which
he effected in his own economic position. The alternatives before the
women of this class were either to withdraw altogether from productive
activity, and so become entirely dependent upon their husband’s
goodwill, or else to enter the labour market independently and fight
their battles alone, in competition not only with other women, but with
men.

Probably the latter alternative was still most often followed by married
women, although at this time the idea that men “keep” their wives begins
to prevail: but the force of the old tradition maintained amongst women
a desire for the feeling of independence which can only be gained
through productive activity, and thus married women, even when unable to
work with their husbands, generally occupied themselves with some
industry, however badly it might be paid.


                          B. _Retail Trades._

The want of technical skill and knowledge which so often hampered the
position of women in the Skilled Trades, was a smaller handicap in
Retail Trades, where manual dexterity and technical knowledge are less
important than general intelligence and a lively understanding of human
nature. Quick perception and social tact, which are generally supposed
to be feminine characteristics, often proved useful even to the
craftsman, when his wife assumed the charge of the financial side of his
business; it is therefore not surprising to find women taking a
prominent part in every branch of Retail Trade. In fact the woman who
was left without other resources turned naturally to keeping a shop, or
to the sale of goods in the street, as the most likely means for
maintaining her children, and thus the woman shopkeeper is no infrequent
figure in contemporary writings. For example, in one of the many
pamphlets describing the incidents of the Civil War, we read that
“Mistresse Phillips was sent for, who was found playing the good
housewife at home (a thing much out of fashion) ... and committed close
prisoner to castle.” Her husband having been driven before from town,
“She was to care for ten children, the most of them being small, one
whereof she at the same time suckled, her shop (which enabled her to
keep all those) was ransacked,” £14 was taken, and the house plundered,
horse and men billetted with her when she could scarce get bread enough
for herself and her family without charity. She was tried, and condemned
to death, when, the account continues, “Mistress Phillips not knowing
but her turne was next, standing all the while with a halter about her
neck over against the Gallowes, a Souldier would have put the halter
under her Handkerchiefe, but she would not suffer him, speaking with a
very audible voice, ‘I am not ashamed to suffer reproach and shame in
this cause,’ a brave resolution, beseeming a nobler sex, and not unfit
to be registered in the Book of Martyrs.”

The woman shop-keeper is found also among the stock characters of the
drama. In “The Old Batchelor” Belinda relates that “a Country Squire,
with the Equipage of a Wife and two Daughters, came to Mrs. Snipwel’s
Shop while I was there ... the Father bought a Powder-Horn, and an
Almanack, and a Comb-Case; the Mother, a great Fruz-Towr, and a fat
Amber-Necklace; the Daughters only tore two Pair of Kid-leather Gloves,
with trying ’em on.”[424]

Footnote 424:

  Congreve (Wm.). _The Old Batchelor_, Act iv., Sc. viii.

Amongst the Quakers, shop-keeping was a usual employment for women.
Thomas Chalkley, soon after his marriage “had a Concern to visit Friends
in the counties of Surrey, Sussex and Kent, which I performed in about
two Weeks Time, and came home and followed my calling, and was
industrious therein; and when I had gotten something to bear my
expenses, and settled my Wife in some little Business I found an
Exercise on my Spirit to go over to _Ireland_.”[425] Another Quaker
describes how he applied himself “to assist my Wife in her Business as
well as I could, attending General, Monthly and other Meetings on public
Occasions for three Years.”[426] The provision of the little stock
needed for a shop was a favourite method of assisting widows.

Footnote 425:

  Chalkley, _Journal_, pp. 30-31, 1690.

Footnote 426:

  Bownas, Samuel, _Life of_, p. 135.

The frequency with which payments to women are entered in account
books[427] is further evidence of the extent to which they were engaged
in Retail Trades, but this occupation was not freely open to all and any
who needed it. It was, on the contrary, hedged about with almost as many
restrictions as the gild trades. The craftsman was generally free to
dispose of his own goods, but many restrictions hampered the Retailer,
that is to say the person who bought to sell again. The community
regarded this class with some jealousy, and limited their numbers.
Hence, the poor woman who sought to improve her position by opening a
little shop, did not always find her course clear. In fact there were
many towns in which the barriers between her and an honest independence
were insurmountable. Girls were, however, apprenticed to shopkeepers
oftener than to the gild trades, and licences to sell were granted to
freewomen as well as to freemen. At Dorchester, girls who had served an
apprenticeship to shopkeepers were duly admitted to the freedom of the
Borough; we find entered in the Minute Book the names of Celina Hilson,
apprenticed to Mat. Hilson, Governor, haberdasher, and Mary Goodredge,
spinster, haberdasher of small wares; also of James Bun (who had married
Elizabeth Williams a freewoman), haberdasher of small wares; Elizabeth
Williams, apprenticed seven years to her Mother, Mary W., tallow
chaundler, and of William Weare, apprenticed to Grace Lacy, widow,
woolen draper.[428] An order was granted by the Middlesex Quarter
Sessions to discharge Mary Jemmett from apprenticeship to Jane Tyllard,
widow, from whom she was to learn “the trade of keeping a linen
shop,”[429] and an account is given of a difference between Susanna
Shippey, of Mile End, Stepney, widow, and Ann Taylor, her apprentice,
touching the discharge of the said apprentice. It appears that Ann has
often defrauded her mistress of her goods and sold them for less than
cost price.[430]

Footnote 427:

  Mayo, _Municipal Records of Dorchester_, p. 428-9.

Footnote 428:

  The Churchwardens of St. Margaret’s, Westminster, paid 6d. to
  “Goodwyfe Wells for salt to destroy the fleas in the Churchwarden’s
  pew.” (Cox. _Churchwardens Accts._, p. 321, 1610.). Among the Cromwell
  family receipts is one in 1624 “from ye Right worᵉ ye Lady Carr by the
  hands of Henry Hanby, the somme of twenty and one pounds in full
  payment of all Reckonings from the beginninge of the world ... by me
  ellen Sadler X” (_Cromwell Family Bills and Receipts_, p. 15.) “A bill
  for Mrs. Willie of Ramsie the 14 of April 1636

      for material and making your daughter petecoat
      for material and making your silk grogram coate
      for material and making your daughter’s gasson shute
      for material and making your daughter’s silke moheare wascote
      for material and making your damask coate
                          Total 7. 17. 9.” (_Ibid._ p. 265).

  The Rev. Giles Moore bought “of Widdow Langley 2 more fine sheets, of
  Goodwyfe Seamer 9 ells. and a halfe of hempen cloath.” (_Suss. Arch.
  Coll._ Vol. I., p. 68, 1656. Rev. Giles Moore’s Journal).

  Foulis paid, in Scots money, Jan. 22, 1692 “to Mrs. Pouries lad for
  aniseed, carthamums &c. 11s.” (p. 144), and on Aug. 3, 1696 he
  “received from Eliz. Ludgate last Whits maill for yᵉ shop at fosters
  Wyndhead 25ˡⁱᵇ.” (p. 195). Jan. 14, 1704 “to my douchter Jean be Mrs.
  Cuthbertsons paymᵗ for 4 ell & ½ flowered calico to lyne my nightgowne
  7. 13. 0.” (p. 339). May 23, 1704 “receaved from Agnes philp Whitsun,
  maill for the shop at fosters wyndhead and yᵉ key therof, and given it
  to the Candlemakers wife who has taken the shop 25ˡⁱᵇ” (p. 346).
  (Foulis _Acct. Book_). Similar entries are in the _Howard Household
  Book_, 1619. “To Mrs. Smith for lining [linen] for my Lord, had in
  Easter tearm, 5ˡⁱ xˢ. Mrs. Smith for napry had in May vjˡⁱ iiˢ”
  (_Howard Household Book_, _pp._ 105 and 161.).

Footnote 429:

  _Middlesex County Records_, p. 180, 1698.

Footnote 430:

  _Middlesex County Records_, p. 2, 1690.

Little mercy was shown to either man or woman who engaged in the Retail
Trade without having served an apprenticeship. A warrant was only issued
to release “Elizabeth Beaseley from the Hospital of Bridewell on her
brother John Beaseley’s having entered into bond that she shall leave
off selling tobacco in the town of Wigan.”[431] Mary Keeling was
presented at Nottingham “for falowing ye Treaid of a Grocer and Mercer
and kepping open shope for on month last past, _contra Statum_, not
being _aprentice_.”[432] At Carlisle it was ordered that “Isaack Tully
shall submit himself to pay a fine to this trade if they shall think it
fitting for taking his sister to keep & sell waires for him contrary to
our order,”[433] and when it was reported that “Mrs. Studholme hath
employed James Moorehead Scotsman to vend and sell goods in her shop
contrary to an order of this company wee doe order that the wardens of
our company shall fourthwith acquaint Mrs. Studholme yt. she must not be
admitted to entertain him any longʳ in her employmt but that before our
next quarter day she take some other course for keeping her shop and yt.
he be noe longer employed therein till yt. time.”[434] At a later date
Mrs. Sybil Hetherington, Mrs. Mary Nixon, Mrs. Jane Jackson, widow, and
four men, were dealt with for having shops or retailery of goods
contrary to the statute.[435]

Footnote 431:

  _C. R._ 18th, August, 1640.

Footnote 432:

  _Nottingham Records_, Vol. V., p. 331, 1686.

Footnote 433:

  Ferguson, _Municipal Records, Carlisle_, p. 110, 1651.

Footnote 434:

  _Ibid._ p. 112, 1668.

Footnote 435:

  _Ibid._ p. 115, 1719.

There were fewer restrictions on retailing in London than in the
provinces, and trading was virtually free in the streets of London. An
act of the Common Council, passed in 1631, deals with abuses rising from
this freedom, declaring “that of late it is come to passe that divers
unruly people, as Butchers, Bakers, Poulters, Chandlers, Fruiterers,
Sempsters, sellers of Grocery wares, Oyster wives, Herbe wives, Tripe
wives, and the like; who not contented to enjoy the benefit and common
right of Citizens, by holding their market and continual Trades in their
several Shops & houses where they dwell, doe ... by themselves, wives,
children and seruants enter into, and take up their standings in the
said streets and places appointed for the common Markets, unto which the
country people only have in former times used to resort to vend and
utter their victuall and other commodities; in which Markets the said
Freemen doe abide for the most part of the day and that not only upon
Market dayes, but all the weeke long with multitudes of Baskets, Tubs,
Chaires, Boards & Stooles, ... the common Market places by these
disordered people be so taken up, that country people when they come
with victual and provision have no roome left them to set down their ...
baskets.”[436]

Footnote 436:

  _Act of Common Council for reformation, etc._

In provincial towns, stalls in the market place were leased to tradesmen
by the Corporation, the rents forming a valuable revenue for the town;
infringements of the monopoly were summarily dealt with and often the
privilege was reserved for “free” men and women. Thus at St. Albans
Richard Morton’s wife was presented because she “doth ordinarilie sell
shirt bands and cuffes, hankerchers, coifes, and other small lynenn
wares openlie in the markett,”[437] not being free. It was as a special
favour that leave was given to a poor woman to sell shoes in Carlisle
market. The conditions are explained as follows:—“Whereas Ann Barrow the
wife of Richard Barrow formerly one that by virtue of the Coldstream Act
brought shoes and exposed them to sell in Carlisle market he being long
abroad and his said wife poor the trade is willing to permit the said
Ann to bring and sell shoes provided always they be the work of one
former servant and noe more and for this permission she owns the trades
favour and is thankful for it ... agreed and ordered that every yeare
she shall pay 2s.”[438]

Footnote 437:

  Gibbs, _Corporation Records of St. Albans_, p. 62, 1613.

The Corporation at Reading was occupied for a whole year with the case
of the “Aperne woman.” The first entry in the records states that
“Steven Foorde of Newbery the aperne woman’s husband, exhibited a lettre
from the Lord of Wallingford for his sellerman to shewe and sell
aperninge[439] in towne, in Mr. Mayor’s handes, etc. And thereupon
tollerated to doe as formerly she had done, payeing yerely 10s. to the
Hall.”[440] Next year there is another entry to the effect that “it was
agreed that Steven Foorde’s wief shall contynue sellinge of aperninge,
as heretofore, and that the other woman usinge to sell suche stuffes at
William Bagley’s dore shalbe forbidden, and shall not hencefourth be
permitted to sell in the boroughe etc., and William Bagley shall be
warned.”[441] The other woman proving recalcitrant, “at Steven Foorde’s
wive’s request and complaynte it was grannted that William Bagley’s
stranger, selling aperninge in contempt of the government, shalbe
questioned.”[442] Finally it was “agreed that Steven Foorde’s wife shall
henceforth keepe Markett and sell onely linsey woolsey of their own
making in this markett, according to the Lord Wallingforde’s lettre, she
payeing xs. per annum, and that noe other stranger shall henceforth
keepe markett or sell lynsey and woolsey in this markett.”[443]

Footnote 438:

  Ferguson, _Carlisle_, p. 187, 1669.

Footnote 439:

  Stuff for Aprons.

Footnote 440:

  Guilding. _Reading Records_, Vol. II., p. 171, 1624.

Footnote 441:

  _Ibid._ Vol. II., p. 240, 1625.

Footnote 442:

  _Ibid._ Vol. II., p. 252.

Footnote 443:

  _Guilding, Reading Records_, Vol. II., p. 267.

At this time, when most roads were mere bridle tracks, and few
conveniences for travel existed, when even in towns the streets were so
ill-paved that in bad weather the goodwife hesitated before going to the
market, the dwellers in villages and hamlets were often fain to buy from
pedlars who brought goods to their door and to sell butter and eggs to
anyone who would undertake the trouble of collection. Their need was
recognised by the authorities, who granted a certain number of licences
to Badgers, Pedlars and Regraters, and probably many others succeeded in
trading unlicensed. This class of Dealers was naturally regarded with
suspicion by shopkeepers. A pamphlet demanding their suppression, points
out that “the poor decaying Shopkeeper has a large Rent to pay, and
Family to Support; he maintains not his own Children only, but all the
poor Orphans and Widows in his Parish; nay, sometimes the Widows and
Orphans of the very Pedlar or Hawker, who has thus fatally laboured to
starve him.” As for the Hawkers, “we know they pretend they are shut out
of the great Trading Cities, Towns and Corporations by the respective
Charters and all other settled Privileges of those Places, but we answer
that tho’ for want of legal Introduction they may not be able to set up
in Cities, Corporations, etc., yet there are very many Places of very
great Trade, where no Corporation Privileges would obstruct them ... if
any of them should be reduc’d and ... be brought to the Parish to keep;
that is to say, their Wives and Children, the Manufacturers, the
Shopkeepers who confessedly make up the principal Numbers of those
corporations, and are the chief Supporters of the Parishes, will be much
more willing to maintain them, than to be ruin’d by them.”[444]

Footnote 444:

  _Brief State of the Inland and Home Trade._, pp. 59 and 63, 1730.

The terms Badging, Peddling, Hawking and Regrating are not very clearly
defined, and were used in senses which somewhat overlap each other; but
the Badger seems to have been a person who “dealt” in a wholesale way. A
licence was granted in 1630 to “Edith Doddington of Hilbishopps,
widdowe, to be a badger of butter and cheese and to carry the same into
the Counties of Wiltes, Hamsher, Dorsᵗᵗ and Devon, and to retourne
againe with corne and to sell it againe in any faire or markett within
this County during one whole yeare now next ensueing; and she is not to
travell with above three horses, mares or geldings at the most
part.”[445] The authorities, fearing lest corners and profiteering
should result from interference with the supply of necessaries, made
“ingrossing” or anything resembling an attempt to buy up the supply of
wheat, salt, etc., an offence. Amongst the prosecutions which were made
on this account are presentments of “John Whaydon and John Preist of
Watchett, partners, for ingross of salt, Julia Stone, Richard Miles,
Joane Miles als. Stone of Bridgwater for ingross of salte.”[446] of
“Johann Stedie of Fifehead, widdow, ... for ingrossinge of corne
contrary etc,”[447] of “Edith Bruer and Katherine Bruer, Spinsters, of
Halse ... for ingrossinge of corne,”[448] and of “Johann Thorne ...
widow ... for ingrossinge of wheate, Barley, Butter and Cheese.”[449]

Footnote 445:

  _Somerset Q.S. Records_, Vol. II., p. 119, 1630.

Footnote 446:

  _Ibid._ Vol. II., p. 153, 1631.

Footnote 447:

  _Ibid._ Vol. II., p. 161.

Footnote 448:

  _Ibid._ Vol. II., p. 165.

Footnote 449:

  _Somerset Q.S. Records_, Vol. II., p. 223.

Pedlars and hawkers carried on an extensive trade all over the country.
At first sight this would seem a business ill suited to women, for it
involved carrying a heavy pack of goods on the back over long distances;
and yet it appears as though in some districts the trade was almost
their monopoly. The success that attended Joan Dant’s efforts as a
pedlar has been told elsewhere.[450] How complete was the ascendency
which women had established in certain districts over this class of
trade is shown by the following definition of the term “Hawkers”:—“those
that profer their Wares by Wholesale which are called Hawkers, and which
are not only the Manufacturers themselves, but others besides them, viz.
the Women in _London_, in _Exceter_ and in _Manchester_, who do not only
Profer Commodities at the Shops and Ware houses, but also at Inns to
Countrey-Chapmen. Likewise the _Manchester_-men, the _Sherborn_-men, and
many others, that do Travel from one Market-Town to another; and there
at some Inn do profer their Wares to sell to the Shopkeepers of the
place.”[451]

Footnote 450:

  _Ante_, p. 33.

Footnote 451:

  _Trade of England_, p. 21, 1681.

Though peddling might in some cases be developed into a large and
profitable concern, more often it afforded a bare subsistence. The
character of a woman engaged in it is given in a certificate brought
before the Hertford Quarter Sessions in 1683 by the inhabitants of
Epping, which states that “Sarah, wife of Richard Young, of Epping,
cooper, who was accused of pocket-picking when she was about her lawfull
and honest imploy of buying small wares and wallnuts” at Sabridgworth
fair, is “a very honest and well-behaved woman, not given to pilfer or
steale,” and that they believe her to be falsely accused.[452]

Footnote 452:

  _Hertfordshire County Records_, Vol. I., pp. 347-8.

While the Pedlar dealt chiefly in small wares and haberdashery,
Regraters were concerned with the more perishable articles of food. In
this they were seriously hampered by bye-laws forbidding the buying and
selling of such articles in one day. The laws had been framed with the
object of preventing a few persons buying up all the supplies in the
market and selling them at exorbitant prices, but their application
seems to have been chiefly directed in the interests of the shopkeepers,
to whom the competition of women who hawked provisions from door to door
was a serious matter, the women being contented with very small profits,
and the housewives finding it so convenient to have goods brought to
their very doorstep. The injustice of the persecution of these poor
women is protested against by the writer of a pamphlet, who points out
that “We provide Men shall not be cheated in buying a pennyworth of
Eggs, but make no provision to secure them from the same Abuse in a
hundred pounds laid out in Cloaths. The poor Artizan shall not be
oppressed in laying out his penny to one poorer than himself, but is
without Remedy, shortened by a Company in his Penny as it comes in. I
have heard Complaints of this Nature in greater matters of the publik
Sales of the _East India Company_, perhaps if due consideration were had
of these great Ingrossers, there would be found more Reason to restrain
them, than a poor Woman that travels in the Country to buy up and sell
in a Market a few Hens and Chickens.”[453]

Footnote 453:

  _Linnen and Woollen Manufactury_, p. 7, 1681.

Even in the Middle Ages the trade of Regrating was almost regarded as
the prerogative of women. Gower wrote “But to say the truth in this
instance, the trade of regratery belongeth by right rather to women. But
if a woman be at it she in stinginess useth much more machination and
deceit than a man; for she never alloweth the profit on a single crumb
to escape her, nor faileth to hold her neighbour to paying his price;
all who beseech her do but lose their time, for nothing doth she by
courtesy, as anyone who drinketh in her house knoweth well.”[454]

Footnote 454:

  Gower, _Le mirour de l’omme_ (trans. from French verse by Eileen
  Power).

In later times the feminine form of the word is used in the ordinances
of the City of London, clearly showing that the persons who were then
carrying on the trade were women; thus it was said “Let no Regrateress
pass _London Bridge_ towards _Suthwerk_, nor elsewhere, to buy Bread, to
carry it into the City of _London_ to sell; because the Bakers of
_Suthwerk_, nor of any other Place, are not subject to the Justice of
the City.” And again “Whereas it is common for merchants to give Credit,
and especially for Bakers commonly to do the same with Regrateresses ...
we forbid, that no Baker make the benefit of any Credit to a
Regrateress, as long as he shall know her to be involved in her
Neighbour’s Debt.”[455] Moreover a very large proportion of the
prosecutions for this offence were against women. “We Amerce Thomas
Bardsley for his wife buyinge Butter Contrary to the orders of the towne
in xijid.”[456] “Katherine Birch for buyinge and selling pullen
[chicken] both of one day 3s. Thos. Ravald wife of Assheton of Mercy
bancke for sellinge butter short of waight.”[457] “Thomas Massey wife
for buyinge a load of pease and sellinge them the same day. Amerced in
1s.”[458] “Katharine Hall for buyinge and sellinge Cheese both of one
day 6d. Anne Rishton for buyinge and sellinge butter the same day Amercd
in 3. 0.”[459]

Footnote 455:

  Stow, _London_, Book V., p. 343. Assize of Bread.

Footnote 456:

  _Manchester Court Leet Records_, Vol. IV., p. 110, 1653.

Footnote 457:

  _Ibid._ p. 212, 1657.

Footnote 458:

  _Ibid._ p. 244, 1658.

Footnote 459:

  _Manchester Court Test Records_, p. 243, 1658.

As the Regrater dealt chiefly in food, her business is closely connected
with the provision trades, but enough has been said here to indicate
that of all retailing this was the form which most appealed to poor
women, who were excluded from skilled trades and whose only other
resource was spinning. The number of women in this unfortunate position
was large, including as it did not only widows, whose families depended
entirely upon their exertions, but also the wives of most of the men who
were in receipt of day wages and had no garden or grazing rights. It has
already been shown that wages, except perhaps in some skilled trades,
were insufficient for the maintenance of a family. Therefore, when the
mother of a young family could neither work in her husband’s trade nor
provide her children with food by cultivating her garden or tending cows
and poultry, she must find some other means to earn a little money. By
wages she could seldom earn more than a penny or twopence a day and her
food. Selling perishable articles of food from door to door presented
greater chances of profit, and to this expedient poor women most often
turned. In proportion as the trade was a convenience to the busy
housewife, it became an unwelcome form of competition to the established
shopkeepers, who, being influential in the Boroughs, could persecute and
suppress the helpless, disorganised women who undersold them.


                         C. _Provision Trades._

Under this head are grouped the Bakers, Millers, Butchers and Fishwives,
together with the Brewers, Inn-keepers and Vintners, the category
embracing both those who produced and those who retailed the provisions
in question.

A large proportion both of the bread and beer consumed at this time was
produced by women in domestic industry. The wages assessments show that
on the larger farms the chief woman servant was expected both to brew
and to bake, but the cottage folk in many cases cannot have possessed
the necessary capital for brewing, and perhaps were wanting ovens in
which to bake. Certainly in the towns both brewing and baking existed as
trades from the earliest times. Though in many countries the grinding of
corn has been one of the domestic occupations performed by women and
slaves, in England women were saved this drudgery, for the toll of corn
ground at the mill was an important item in the feudal lord’s revenue,
and severe punishments were inflicted on those who ground corn
elsewhere. The common bakehouse was also a monopoly of the feudal
lord’s,[460] but his rights in this case were not carried so far as to
penalize baking for domestic purposes.

Footnote 460:

  Petronilla, Countess of Leicester, granted to Petronilla, daughter of
  Richard Roger’s son of Leicester and her heirs “all the suit of the
  men outside the Southgate aforesaid to bake at her bakehouse with all
  the liberties and free customs, saving my customary tenants who are
  bound to my bakehouses within the town of Leicester,” Bateson, (M.)
  _Records, Leicester_, Vol. I.; p. 10.

It might be supposed that industries such as brewing and baking, which
were so closely connected with the domestic arts pertaining to women,
would be more extensively occupied by women than trades such as those of
blacksmith or pewterer or butcher; but it will be shown that skill
acquired domestically was not sufficient to establish a woman’s position
in the world of trade, and that actually in the seventeenth century it
was as difficult for her to become a baker as a butcher.

_Baking._—After the decay of feudal privileges the trade of baking was
controlled on lines similar to those governing other trades, but subject
to an even closer supervision by the local authorities, owing to the
fact that bread is a prime necessity of life. On this account its price
was fixed by “the assize of bread.” The position of women in regard to
the trade was also somewhat different, because while in other trades
they possessed fewer facilities than men for acquiring technical
experience, in this they learnt the art of baking as part of their
domestic duties. Nevertheless, in the returns which give the names of
authorised bakers, those of women do not greatly exceed in number the
names which are given for other trades; of lists for the City of
Chester, one gives thirty names of bakers, six being women, all widows,
while another gives thirty-nine men and no women,[461] and a third
twenty-six men and three women. The assistance which the Baker’s wife
gave to her husband, however, was taken for granted. At Carlisle, the
bye-laws provide that “noe Persons ... shall brew or bayk to sell but
only freemen and thare wifes.”[462] And a rule at Beverley laid down
that “no common baker or other baker called boule baker, their wives,
servants, or apprentices, shall enter the cornmarket any Saturday for
the future before 1 p.m. to buy any grain, nor buy wheat coming on
Saturdays to market beyond 2 bushels for stock for their own house after
the hour aforesaid.”[463]

Footnote 461:

  _Harl. MSS._, 2054, fo. 44 and 45, 2105, fo. 301.

Footnote 462:

  Ferguson, _Carlisle, Dormont Book_, p. 69, 1561.

Footnote 463:

  _Beverley Town Documents_, pp. 39-40.

A writer, who was appealing for an increase in the assize of bread,
includes the wife’s work among the necessary costs of making a loaf;
“Two shillings was allowed by the assize for all maner of charges in
baking a quarter of wheate over and above the second price of wheate in
the market,” but the writer declares that in Henry VII.’s time “the
bakers ... might farre better cheape and with lesse charge of seruantes
haue baked a quarter of Wheate, then now they can.” It was then allowed
for “everie quarter of wheate baking, for furnace and wood vid. the
Miller foure pence, for two journymen and two pages five-pence, for
salt, yest, candle & sandbandes two pence, for himselfe, his house, his
wife, his dog & his catte seven pence, and the branne to his
advantage.”[464]

Footnote 464:

  Powell, _Assize of Bread_, 1600.

The baker’s wife figures also in account books, as transacting business
for her husband. Thus the Carpenters’ Company “Resd of Lewes davys wyffe
the baker a fyne for a license for John Pasmore the forren to sette upe
a lytyll shed on his backsyde.”[465]

Footnote 465:

  _Records of Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, Vol. IV., p. 69, 1554.

Although conforming in general to the regulations for other trades,
certain Boroughs retained the rights over baking which had been enjoyed
by the Feudal Lord, the Portmote at Salford ordering that “Samell Mort
shall surcease from beakinge sale bread by the first of May next upon
the forfeit of 5ls except hee beake at the Comon beakehouse in
Salford.”[466] In other towns the bakers were sufficiently powerful to
enforce their own terms on the Borough. In York, for instance, the
Corporation of Bakers, which became very rich, succeeded in excluding
the country, or “boule bakers,” from the market, undertaking to sell
bread at the same rates; but the monopoly once secured they declared it
was impossible to produce bread at this price, and the magistrates
allowed an advance.[467] In some cases bakers were required to take out
licences, these being granted only to freemen and freewomen; in others
they were formed into Companies, with rules of apprenticeship. “They
shall receive no man into their saide company of bakeres, nor woman
unles her husband have bene a free burges, and compound with Mr. Maior
and the warden of the company.”[468] At Reading in 1624, “the bakers,
vizt., William Hill, Abram Paise, Alexander Pether, complayne against
bakers not freemen, vizt., Izaak Wracke useth the trade his wief did use
when he marryed. Michaell Ebson saith he was an apprentice in towne and
having noe worke doth a little to gett bread. James Arnold will
surceasse ... Wydowe Bradbury alwayes hath used to bake.”[469]

Footnote 466:

  _Salford Portmote Records_, Vol. II., p. 188.

Footnote 467:

  _S.P.D._ cxxxiv., 36. November 27, 1622.

Footnote 468:

  Lambert, _Two Thousand Years of Gild Life_, p. 307. _Composicion of
  Bakers, Hull._, 1598.

Footnote 469:

  Guilding, _Reading Records_, Vol. II., p. 181.

That women were members of the Bakers’ Companies is shown by rules which
refer to sisters as well as brothers. In 1622 the Corporation at
Salisbury ordained that “no free brother or free sister shall at any
time hereafter make, utter, or sell bread, made with butter, or milk,
spice cakes, etc ... except it be before spoken for funerals, or upon
the Friday before Easter, or at Christmas.... No free brother or free
sister shall sell any bread in the market. No free brother or free
sister shall hereafter lend any money to an innholder or victualler, to
the intent or purpose of getting his or their custom.”[470] It is not
likely that many women served an apprenticeship, but the frequency with
which they are charged with offences against the Bye-Laws is some clue
to the numbers engaged in the trade. For instance, in Manchester, Martha
Wrigley and nine men were presented in 1648 “for makeinge bread above &
vnder the size & spice bread.”[471] In 1650, twenty-five men and no
women were charged with a similar offence,[472] in 1651 eleven men and
no women[473] and in 1652 are entered the names of five men and ten
women[474].

Footnote 470:

  Hoare, (Sir. R. C.). _Hist. of Wiltshire_, Vol. VI., p. 342.

Footnote 471:

  _Manchester Court Leet Records_, Vol. IV., p. 31.

Footnote 472:

  _Ibid._ p. 47.

Footnote 473:

  _Ibid._ p. 51.

Footnote 474:

  _Manchester Court Leet Records_, p. 70.

The constant complaints brought against people who were using the trade
“unlawfully” show how difficult it was to enforce rules of
apprenticeship in a trade which was so habitually used by women for
domestic purposes. Information was brought that “divers of the inhabᵗˢ
of Thirsk do use the trade of baking, not having been apprentices
thereof, but their wives being brought up and exercised therein many
yeares have therefore used it ... and the matter referred to the
Justices in Qʳ Sessions to limitt a certain number to use that trade
without future trouble of any informers and that such as are allowed by
the said Justices, to have a tolleration to take apprentices ... the
eight persons, viz., Jaˢ. Pibus, Anth. Gamble, John Harrison, Widow
Watson, Jane Skales, Jane Rutter, Tho. Carter and John Bell, shall onlie
use and occupie the said trade of baking, and the rest to be
restrayned.”[475] The insistence upon apprenticeship must have been
singularly exasperating to women who had learnt to bake excellent bread
from their mothers, or mistresses, and it was natural for them to evade,
when possible, a rule which seemed so arbitrary; but they could not do
so with impunity. Thus the Hertfordshire Quarter Session was informed
“One Andrew Tomson’s wife doth bake, and William Everite’s wife doth
bake bread to sell being not apprenticed nor licensed.”[476] How heavily
prosecutions of this character weighed upon the poor, is shown by a
certificate brought to the same Quarter Sessions nearly a hundred years
later, stating that “William Pepper, of Sabridgworth, is of honest and
industrious behaviour, but in a poor and low condition, and so not able
to support the charge of defending an indictment against him for baking
for hire (he having once taken a halfpenny for baking a neighbour’s
loaf) and has a great charge of children whom he has hitherto brought up
to hard work and industrious labour, who otherwise might have been a
charge to the parish, and will be forced to crave the relief of the
parish, to defray the charge that may ensue upon this trouble given him
by a presentment.”[477]

Footnote 475:

  Atkinson, (J. C.), _Yorks. N. R. Q.S. Records_, Vol. I., p. 81. July
  8, 1607.

Footnote 476:

  _Hertford Co. Records_, Vol. I, p. 32, 1600.

Footnote 477:

  _Hertford County Records_, Vol. I., p. 365, 1686.

The line taken by the authorities was evidently intended to keep the
trade of baking in a few hands. The object may have been partly to
facilitate inspection and thereby check short measure and adulteration;
whatever the motive the effect must certainly have tended to discourage
women from developing the domestic art of baking into a trade.
Consequently in this, as in other trades, the woman’s contribution to
the industry generally took the form of a wife helping her husband, or a
widow carrying on her late husband’s business.

_Millers_:—It was probably only as the wife or widow of a miller that
women took part in the business of milling. An entry in the Carlisle
Records states “we amercye Archilles Armstronge for keeping his wief to
play the Milner, contrary the orders of this cyttie.”[478] But it is not
unusual to come across references to corn mills which were in the hands
of women; a place in Yorkshire is described as being “near to Mistress
Lovell’s Milne.”[479] “Margaret Page, of Hertingfordbury, widow,” was
indicted for “erecting a mill house in the common way there,”[480] and
at Stockton “One water corne milne ... is lett by lease unto Alice
Armstrong for 3 lives.”[481]

Footnote 478:

  Ferguson, _Carlisle_, p. 278. April 21, 1619.

Footnote 479:

  J. C. Atkinson, _Yorks. N. R. Q.S. Records_, Vol. II., p. 8, 1612.

Footnote 480:

  _Hertford County Records_, Vol. II., p. 25, 1698.

Footnote 481:

  Brewster, _Stockton-on-Tees_, p. 42.

Such instances are merely a further proof of the activity shown by
married women in the family business whenever this was carried on within
their reach.

_Butchers_:—The position which women took in the Butchers’ trade
resembled very closely their position as bakers, for, as has been shown,
the special advantages which women, by virtue of their domestic
training, might have enjoyed when trading as bakers, were cancelled by
the statutes and bye-laws limiting the numbers of those engaged in this
trade. As wife or widow women were able to enter either trade equally.
Both trades were subject to minute supervision in the interests of the
public, and as a matter of fact, from the references which happen to
have been preserved, it might even appear that the wives of butchers
were more often interested in the family business than the wives of
bakers. An Act of Henry VIII. “lycensyng all bochers for a tyme to sell
vytell in grosse at theyr pleasure” makes it lawful for any person “to
whom any complaynt shuld be made upon any Boucher his wyff servaunte or
other his mynysters refusing to sell the said vitayles by true and
lawfull weight ... to comytt evry such Boucher to warde,”[482] shows an
expectation that the wife would act as her husband’s agent. But the
wife’s position was that of partner, not servant. During the first half
of the century, certainly, leases were generally made conjointly to
husband and wife; for example, “Phillip Smith and Elizabeth, his wife”
appeared before the Corporation at Reading “desiringe a new lease of the
Butcher’s Shambles, which was granted.”[483]

Footnote 482:

  Statutes 27, Henry VIII., c. 9.

Footnote 483:

  Guilding, _Reading Records_, Vol. IV., p. 122.

Customs at Nottingham secured the widow’s possession of her husband’s
business premises even without a lease, providing that “when anie
Butcher shall dye thatt holds a stall or shopp from the towne, thatt
then his wyefe or sonne shall hould the same stall or shopp, they vsinge
the same trade, otherwaies the towne to dispose thereof to him or them
thatt will give moste for the stall or shopp: this order to bee lykewise
to them thatt houlds a stall in the Spice-chambers.”[484]

Footnote 484:

  _Nottingham Records_, Vol. V., p. 284, 1654.

The names of women appear in lists of butchers in very similar
proportions to the lists of bakers. Thus one for Chester gives the names
of twenty men followed by three women,[485] and in a return of sixteen
butchers licensed to sell meat in London during Lent, there is one
woman, Mary Wright, and her partner, William Woodfield.[486] Bye-laws
which control the sale of meat use the feminine as well as the masculine
pronouns, showing that the trade was habitually used by both sexes. The
“Act for the Settlement and well ordering of the several Public Markets
within the City of London” provides that “all and every Country butcher
... Poulterer ... Country Farmers, Victuallers Laders or Kidders ... may
there sell, utter and put to open shew or sale his, her or their Beef,
Mutton, etc., etc.”[487] It may be supposed that these provisions relate
only to the sale of meat, and that women would not often be associated
with the businesses which included slaughtering the beasts, but this is
not the case. Elizabeth Clarke is mentioned in the Dorchester Records as
“apprenticed 7 years to her father a butcher,”[488] and other references
occur to women who were clearly engaged in the genuine butcher’s trade.
For example, a licence was granted “to Jane Fouches of the Parish of St.
Clement Danes, Butcher to kill and sell flesh during Lent,”[489] and
among eighteen persons who were presented at the Court Leet, Manchester,
“for Cuttinge & gnashing of Rawhides for their seuerall Gnashinge of
evry Hyde,” two were women, “Ellen Jaques of Ratchdale, one hyde, Widdow
namely Stott of Ratchdale, two hydes.”[490]

Footnote 485:

  _Harl. MSS._, 2105 fo., 300 b., 1565.

Footnote 486:

  _S.P.D._ cxix. 107., February 24, 1621.

Footnote 487:

  _Act for the Settlement and well Ordering of the Several Publick
  Markets within the City of London_, 1674.

Footnote 488:

  Mayo, _Municipal Records of Dorchester_, p. 428, 1698.

Footnote 489:

  _S.P.D._ 1. clxxxviii., James I., undated.

Footnote 490:

  _Manchester Court Leet Records_, Vol. V., p. 236, 1674.

Beside these women, who by marriage or apprenticeship had acquired the
full rights of butchers and were acknowledged as such by the Corporation
under whose governance they lived, a multitude of poor women tried to
keep their families from starvation by hawking meat from door to door.
They are often mentioned in the Council Records, because the very nature
of their business rendered them continually liable to a prosecution for
regrating. Thus at the Court Leet, Manchester, Anne Costerdyne was fined
1s. “for buyinge 4 quarters of Mutton of Wᵐ. Walmersley & 1 Lamb of
Thomas Hulme both wᶜʰ shee shold the one & same day.”[491] Their
position was the more difficult, because if they did not sell the meat
the same day sometimes it went bad, and they were then prosecuted on
another score. Elizabeth Chorlton, a butcher’s widow, was presented in
1648 “for buieing and sellinge both on one day” and was fined 3s.
4d.[492] She was again fined with Mary Shalcross and various men in 1650
for selling unlawful meat and buying and selling on one day.[493]

Footnote 491:

  _Ibid._ p. 221, 1674.

Footnote 492:

  _Manchester Court Leet Records_, Vol. IV., p. 31.

Footnote 493:

  _Ibid._ p. 40.

She was presented yet again in 1653 for selling “stinking meate,” and
fined 5s.[494] Evidently Elizabeth Chorlton was an undesirable
character, for she had previously been convicted of selling by false
weights;[495] nevertheless it seems hard that when it was illegal to
sell stinking meat women should also be fined for selling it on the same
day they bought it, and though this particular woman was dishonest no
fault is imputed to the character of many of the others who were
similarly presented for regrating.

Footnote 494:

  _Manchester Court Leet Records_, Vol. IV., p. 68.

Footnote 495:

  _Ibid._ p. 15, 1648.

There remains yet another class of women who were connected with the
Butchers’ trade, namely the wives of men who were either employed by the
master butchers, or who perhaps earned a precarious living by
slaughtering pigs and other beasts destined for domestic consumption. In
such work there was no place for the wife’s assistance, and, like other
wage-earners, in spite of any efforts she might make in other
directions, the family remained below the poverty line. An instance may
be quoted from the Norwich Records where, in a census of the poor (i.e.
persons needing Parish Relief) taken in 1570, are given the names of
“John Hubbard of the age of 38 yeres, butcher, that occupie slaughterie,
and Margarit his wyfe of the age of 30 yeres that sell souce, and 2
young children, and have dwelt here ever.”[496]

Footnote 496:

  Tingey, J. C., _Records of the City of Norwich_, Vol. II., p. 337.

_Fishwives._—There is no reason to suppose that women were often engaged
in the larger transactions of fishmongers. Indeed an English writer,
describing the Dutchwomen who were merchants of fish, expressly says
that they were a very different class from the women who sold fish in
England, and who were commonly known as fisherwives.[497] Nevertheless
that in this, as in other trades, they shared to some extent in their
husband’s enterprises, is shown by the presentment of “John Frank of New
Malton, and Alice his wife, for forestalling the markett of divers
paniers of fishe, buying the same of the fishermen of Runswick or
Whitbye ... before it came into the markett.”[498]

Footnote 497:

  Ante., p. 36.

Footnote 498:

  Atkinson, J. C. _Yorks. N. R. Q.S. Records_, Vol. I., p. 121, 1698.

The position of the sisters of the Fishmongers’ Company, London, was
recognised to the extent of providing them with a livery, an ordinance
of 1426 ordaining that every year, on the festival of St. Peter, “alle
the brethren and sustern of the same fratʳnite” should go in their new
livery to St. Peters’ Church, Cornhill.[499] An ordinance dated 1499
however, requires that no fishmonger of the craft shall suffer his wife,
or servant, to stand in the market to sell fish, unless in his
absence.[500] An entry in the Middlesex Quarter Sessions Records notes
the “discharge of Sarah, daughter of Frances Hall. Apprenticed to
Rebecca Osmond of the Parish of St. Giles’ Without, Cripplegate,
‘fishwoman’.”[501] A member of the important Fishmongers’ Company would
hardly be designated in this way, and Rebecca Osmond must be classed
among the “Fishwives” who are so often alluded to in accounts of London.
Their business was often too precarious to admit of taking apprentices,
and their credit so low that a writer in the reign of Charles I., who
advocated the establishment of “Mounts of Piety” speaks of the high rate
of interest taken by brokers and pawn-brokers “above 400 in the hundred”
from “fishwives, oysterwomen and others that do crye thinges up and
downe the streets.”[502] It was in this humble class of trade rather
than in the larger transactions of fishmongers, that women were chiefly
engaged. In London no impediments seem to have been placed in the way of
their business, but in the provinces they, like the women who hawked
meat, were persecuted under the bye-laws against regrating. At
Manchester, the wife of John Wilshawe was amerced “for buyinge Sparlings
[smelts] and sellinge them the same day in 6d.”[503], while at the same
court others were fined for selling unmarketable fish.

Footnote 499:

  Herbert, _Livery Companies of London_, Vol. II., p. 44.

Footnote 500:

  _Ibid._ Vol. II., p. 35.

Footnote 501:

  _Middlesex County Records_, p. 160, 1696.

Footnote 502:

  _A Project for Mounts of Piety, Lansdowne MSS._, 351 fo., 18b.

Footnote 503:

  _Manchester Court Leet Records_, Vol. IV., p. 112, 1654.

_Brewers_:—It has been shown that the position which women occupied
among butchers and bakers did not differ materially from their position
in other trades; that is to say, the wife generally helped her husband
in his business, and carried it on after his death; but the history of
brewing possesses a peculiar interest, for apparently the art of brewing
was at one time chiefly, if not entirely, in the hands of women. This is
indicated by the use of the feminine term brewster. Possibly the use of
the masculine or feminine forms may never have strictly denoted the sex
of the person indicated in words such as brewer, brewster, spinner,
spinster, sempster, sempstress, webber, webster, and the gradual disuse
of the feminine forms may have been due to the grammatical tendencies in
the English language rather than to the changes which were driving women
from their place in productive industry; but the feminine forms would
never have arisen in the first place unless women had been engaged to
some extent in the trades to which they refer, and it often happens that
the use of the feminine pronoun in relation to the term “brewster” and
even “brewer” shows decisively that female persons are indicated. At
Beverley a bye-law was made in 1364 ordaining that “if any of the
community abuse the affeerers of Brewster-gild for their affeering, in
words or otherwise, he shall pay ... to the community 6s. 8d.”[504] In
this case Brewster might no more imply a woman’s trade than it does in
the modern term “Brewster-Sessions,” but in 1371 a gallon of beer was
ordered to “be sold for 1½d. ... and if any one offer 1½d. for a gallon
of beer anywhere in Beverley and the ale-wife will not take it, that the
purchaser come to the Gild Hall and complain of the brewster, and a
remedy shall be found,”[505] while a rule made in 1405 orders that “no
brewster or female seller called tipeler” shall “permit strangers to
remain after 9 p.m.”[506] Similar references occur in the Records of
other Boroughs. At Bury the Customs provided in 1327 that “if a woman
Brewer (Braceresse) can acquit herself with her sole hand that she has
not sold contrary to the assize [of ale] she shall be quit”[507]; at
Torksey “when women are asked whether they brew and sell beer outside
their houses contrary to the assize or no, if they say no, they shall
have a day at the next court to make their law with the third hand, with
women who live next door on either side or with others.”[508]

Footnote 504:

  _Beverley Town Documents_, p. 41.

Footnote 505:

  _Ibid._ p. 41.

Footnote 506:

  _Ibid._ p. lv.

Footnote 507:

  Bateson, (M.), _Borough Customs_, Vol. I., p. 185.

Footnote 508:

  _Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 185, 1345.

It was ordered at Leicester in 1335 that “no breweress, sworn inn-keeper
or other shall be so bold as to brew except (at the rate of) a gallon of
the best for 1d,”[509] and though the feminine form of the noun has been
dropped, the feminine pronoun is still used in 1532 when “hytt is
enacteyd yᵃᵗ no brwar yᵃᵗ brwys to sell, sell aboffe iid the gallan &
sche schall typill be no mesure butt to sell be yᵉ dossyn & yᵉ halfe
dossyn.”[510]

Footnote 509:

  Bateson, (M.), _Records of Leicester_, Vol. II., p. 21.

Footnote 510:

  Bateson, (M.), _Records of Leicester_, Vol. III., p. 33.

The exclusive use of the feminine in these bye-laws differs from the
expressions used in regard to other trades when both the masculine and
feminine pronouns are habitually employed, suggesting that the trade of
brewing was on a different basis.

It must be remembered that before the introduction of cheap sugar, beer
was considered almost equally essential for human existence as bread.
Beer was drunk at every meal, and formed part of the ordinary diet of
even small children. Large households brewed for their own use, but as
many families could not afford the necessary apparatus, brewing was not
only practised as a domestic art, but became the trade of certain women
who brewed for their neighbours. It is interesting to note the steps
which led to their ultimate exclusion from the trade, though many links
in the chain of evidence are unfortunately missing. In 1532 brewers in
Leicester are referred to as “sche,” but an Act published in 1574 shows
that the trade had already emerged from petticoat government. It
declares that “No inhabitantes what soeuer that nowe doe or hereafter
shall in theire howsses vse tiplinge and sellinge of ale or beare, shall
not brewe the same of theare owne, but shall tunne in the same of the
common brewars therfore appoynted; and none to be common brewars but
such as nowe doe vse the same, ... and non of the said common brewars to
sell, or ... to tipple ale or beare by retayle ... the Brewars shall
togeyther become a felloweship. etc.”[511] This separation of brewing
from the sale of beer was a policy pursued by the government with the
object of simplifying the collection of excise, but it was also defended
as a means for maintaining the quality of the beer brewed. It was
ordayned in the Assize for Brewers, Anno 23, H. 8, that “Forasmuch as
the misterie of brewing as a thing very needfull and necessarie for the
common wealth, hath been alwaies by auncient custom & good orders
practised & maintained within Citties, Corporate Boroughs and market
Townes of this Realm, by such expert and skilfull persons, as eyther
were traded and brought up therein, by the space of seuen yeares, and as
prentizes therin accepted: accordingly as in all other Trades and
occupations, or else well knowne to be such men of skill and honestie,
in that misterie, as could and would alwaie yeeld unto her Maiesties
subiects in the commonwealth, such good and holsome Ale and Beere, as
both in the qualitie & for the quantitie thereof, did euer agree with
the good lawes of the Realme. And especiallie to the comfort of the
poorer sort of subiectes, who most need it, untill of late yeares,
sondrie persons ... rather seeking their owne private gaine, then the
publike profite of their countrie, haue not onelie erected and set uppe
small brewhouses at their pleasures: but also brew and utter such Ales
and Beere, for want of skill in that misterie as both in the prices &
holesomnes thereof, doth utterlie disagree with the good lawes and
orders of this Realm; thereby also ouerthrowing the greater and more
auncient brewhouses.” It is therefore recommended that these modern
brewhouses should be suppressed in the interest of the old and better
ones.[512]

Footnote 511:

  _Ibid._ Vol. III., p. 153.

Footnote 512:

  Powell, John. _The Assize of Bread._

The argument reads curiously when one reflects how universal had been
the small brewhouses in former days. The advantages from the excise
point of view which would be gained by the concentration of the trade in
a few hands is discussed in a pamphlet which remarks that “there is much
Mault made in private Families, in some Counties half, if not two thirds
of the Maults spent, are privately made, and undoubtedly as soon as an
Imposition is laid upon it, much more will, for the advantage they shall
gain by saving the Excise ... if Mault could be forbidden upon a great
penalty to be made by any persons, but by certain publick Maulsters,
this might be of availe to increase the Excise.”[513] The actual
conditions prevailing in the brewing industry at this time are described
as follows in another pamphlet. Brewers are divided into two classes,
“The Brewer who brews to sell by great measures, and wholly serves other
Families by the same; which sort of Brewers are only in some few great
Cities and Towns, not above twenty through the land.... The Brewers who
brews to sell by retail ... this sort of Brewers charges almost only
such as drink the same in those houses where the same is brewed and sold
... and therefore supplies but a small proportion of the rest of the
land, being that in almost all Market Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and
private houses in the Countrey throughout the land, all the Inhabitants
brew for themselves, at least by much the greatest proportion of what
they use.”[514]

Footnote 513:

  _Considerations Touching the Excise_, p. 7.

Footnote 514:

  Rockley, Francis.

In order to extend and strengthen their monopoly the “Common Brewers”
brought forward a scheme in 1620, asking for a certain number of common
brewers to be licensed throughout the kingdom, to brew according to
assize. All other inn-keepers, alehouse keepers and victuallers to be
forbidden to brew, “these brew irregularly without control,” and
“offering to pay the King 4d. on every quart of malt brewed.” The scheme
was referred to the Council who recommended “that a proclamation be
issued forbidding ‘taverners, inn-keepers, etc. to sell any beer but
such as they buy from the brewers.’” To the objections “that brewers who
were free by service or otherwise to use the trade of brewing would
refuse to take a licence, and when apprentices had served their time
there would be many who might do so,” it was replied that it was “not
usual for Brewers to take any apprentices but hired servants and the
stock necessary for the trade is such as few apprentices can
furnish.”[515] Thus the rise of the “common brewer” signalises the
complete victory of capitalistic organisation in the brewing trade. In
1636 Commissioners were appointed to “compound with persons who wished
to follow the trade of common Brewers throughout the Kingdom.”[516] The
next year returns were received by the Council, giving the names and
other particulars of those concerned in various districts. The list for
the “Fellowshipp of Brewers now living in Newcastle-upon-Tyne with the
breath and depth of their severall mash tunns” gives the names of
fifty-three men and three women, widows.[517] A list of such brewers in
the County of Essex “as have paid their fines and are bound to pay their
rent accordingly”[518] (i.e. were licensed by the King’s Commissioners
for brewing) includes sixty-three men and four women, while the names of
one hundred and twenty-four men and eight women are given in other
tables containing the amounts due from brewers and maultsters in certain
other counties,[519] showing that the predominance of women in the
brewing trade had then disappeared, the few names appearing in the lists
being no doubt those of brewers’ widows.

Footnote 515:

  _S.P.D._, cxii., 75., February 9, 1620.

Footnote 516:

  _C. R._ November 9, 1636.

Footnote 517:

  _S.P.D._ ccclxxvii., 62, 1637.

Footnote 518:

  _S.P.D._ ccclxxvii., 64, 1637.

Footnote 519:

  _S.P.D._ ccclxxxvii., 66.

The creation of the common brewers’ monopoly was very unpopular. At Bury
St. Edmunds a petition was presented by “a great no. of poor people” to
the Justices of Assize, saying that for many years they had been
relieved “by those inn-keepers which had the liberty to brew their beer
in their own houses, not only with money and food, but also at the
several times of their brewing (being moved with pity and compassion,
knowing our great extremities and necessities) with such quantities of
their small beer as has been a continual help and comfort to us with our
poor wives and children: yet of late the common brewers, whose number is
small and their benefits to us the poor as little notwithstanding in
their estate they are wealthy and occupy great offices of malting, under
pretence of doing good to the commonwealth, have for their own lucre and
gain privately combined themselves, and procured orders from the Privy
Council that none shall brew in this town but they and their
adherents.”[520] At Tiverton the Council was obliged to make a
concession to popular feeling and agreed that “every person being a
freeman of the town and not prohibited by law might use the trade of
Common Brewer as well as the four persons formerly licensed by the
Commissioners,” but the petition that the alehouse keepers and
inn-keepers might brew as formerly they used was refused, “they might
brew for their own and families use; otherwise to buy from the Common
Brewers.”[521]

Footnote 520:

  _Hist. MSS. Com._, 14 Rep. App., VIII., p. 142.

Footnote 521:

  _C. R._ June 12, 1640. Order concerning the Brewers of Tiverton.

The monopoly involved the closing of many small businesses. Sarah Kemp a
widow, petitioned the Council because she had “been forced to give up
brewing in Whitefriars, and had been at gᵗ loss both in removing her
implements and in her rents,” asking “that in consideration of her loss
she might have license to erect brick houses on her messuage in
Whitefriars.” This was granted on conditions.[522] A married woman, Mary
Arnold, was committed to the Fleet on March 31st, 1639, “for continuing
to brew in a house on the Millbank in Westminster, contrary to an order
against the brewers in Westminster and especially against Michael
Arnold.” The Council ordered her to be discharged, on her humble
admission to brew no more in the said house, but to remove within ten
days; and on bond from her husband that neither he nor she nor any other
shall brew in the said house, and that he will remove his brewing
vessels within ten days.[523]

Footnote 522:

  _C. R._ 22nd March, 1638-9.

Footnote 523:

  _C. R._ May 8, 1639.

The closing of the trade of brewing to women must have seriously reduced
their opportunities for earning an independance; that they had hitherto
been extensively engaged in it is shown by frequent references to women
who were brewsters; for example, Mrs. Putland was rated 5s. on her
brew-house;[524] Jennet Firbank, wife of Steph. Firbank, of Awdbroughe,
a recusant, was presented at Richmond for brewing, a side note adding
“she to be put down from brueing.”[525] Margaret, the wife of Ambrose
Carleton and Marye Barton were presented at Carlisle for “brewing (being
foryners) and therefore we doe emercye either of them viˢ 8d.”[526] At
Thirske, Widow Harrington, of Hewton, Chr. Whitecake, of Bransbie, Rob.
Goodricke, of the same (for his wife’s offence) were presented, all for
brewing.[527] And at Malton, a few years later, “Rob. Driffeld, a
brewster of Easingwold, was presented for suffering unlawful games att
cardes to be used at unlawful times in the night in his house ... and
the wife of the said Driffeld for that she will not sell anie of her ale
forth of doores except it be to those whom she likes on and makes her
ale of 2 or thre sortes, nor will let anie of her poore neighbours have
anie of her drincke called small ale, but she saith she will rather give
it to her Swyne then play it for them.”[528] Isabell Bagley and Janyt
Lynsley “both of Cowburne bruesters” were fined 10s. each “for suffering
play at cardes in their houses, &c,”[529] and at Norwich, Judith Bowde,
brewer, was fined 2s. 9d.[530]

Footnote 524:

  _Strood Churchwardens’ Accounts_, Add. MSS., 36937, p. 263., 1683.

Footnote 525:

  Atkinson, (J. C.), _Yorks. N. R. Q.S. Records_, Vol. I., p. 95., 1607.

Footnote 526:

  Ferguson, _Carlisle_, p. 280, _Court Leet Rolls_,. October 21, 1625.

Footnote 527:

  Atkinson, (J. C.), _Yorks. N. R. Q.S. Records_, Vol. I., p. 159, 1609.

Footnote 528:

  Atkinson, (J. C.), _Yorks. N. R. Q.S. Records_, Vol. II., pp. 53-54,
  1614.

Footnote 529:

  _Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 93, 1607.

Footnote 530:

  Tingey, (J. C.), _Records of City of Norwich_, Vol. I., p. 388, 1676.

Although women had lost their position in the brewing trade by the end
of the seventeenth century, they were still often employed in brewing
for domestic purposes. Sometimes one of the women servants on a large
farm, brewed for the whole family, including all the farm servants.[531]
In other cases a woman made her living by brewing for different families
in their own houses. Thus in the account of a fire on the premises of a
certain Mr. Reading it is described how his “Family were Brewing within
this Place.... The Servants who were in the House perceiving a great
smoak rose out of Bed, and the Maid running out cried Fire and said _Wo
worth this Bookers wife_ (who was the Person whom Mr. _Reading_ imployed
to be his Brewer) _she hath undone us_.”[532] Lady Grizell Baillie
enters in her Household Account Book, “For Brewing 7 bolls Malt by Mrs.
Ainsly 10s. For a ston hopes to the said Malt out of which I had a
puntion very strong Ale 10 gallons good 2nd ale and four puntions of
Beer. 14s.”[533]

Footnote 531:

  Ante., p. 50.

Footnote 532:

  _True Account how Mr. Reading’s House._

Footnote 533:

  Baillie, Lady Grizell, _Household Book_. p. 91., 1714.

Naturally the women who brewed for domestic purposes sometimes wished to
turn an honest penny by selling beer to thirsty neighbours at Fairs and
on Holidays, but attempts to do so were severely punished. Annes Nashe
of Welling, was presented “for selling beer by small jugs at Woolmer
Grene and for laying her donng in the highway leading from Stevenage to
London.”[534] A letter to a Somerset Magistrate pleads for another
offender:—“Good Mr. Browne, all happiness attend you. This poor woman is
arrested with Peace proces for selling ale without lycense and will
assure you shee hath reformed it and that upon the first warning of our
officers ever since Easter last, which is our fayre tyme, when most
commonly our poore people doe offend in that kinde; I pray you doe her
what lawful kindness you may, and hope she will recompense you for your
paynes, and I shall be ready to requite it in what I may, for if she be
committed she is absolutely undone. Thus hoping of your favour I leave
you to God and to this charitable work towards this poor woman. Your
unfeined friend, Hum. Newman.”[535]

Footnote 534:

  _Hertford County Records_, Vol. I., p. 68., 1641.

Footnote 535:

  _Somerset Q.S. Records_, Vol. II., pp. 40-1, 1627.

Though with the growth of capitalism and the establishment of a monopoly
for “Common Brewers” women were virtually excluded from their old trade
of brewing, they still maintained their position in the retail trade,
their hold upon which was favoured by the same circumstances which
turned their energies to the retail side of other businesses.

A tendency was shown by public opinion to regard licences as suitable
provision for invalids and widows who might otherwise require assistance
from the rates. Thus an attempt made at Lincoln in 1628 to reduce the
numbers of licences was modified, “for that it appeareth that divers
poor men and widows, not freemen, have no other means of livelihood but
by keeping of alehouses, it is agreed that such as shall be approved by
the justices may be re-admitted, but that none hereafter be newly
admitted untill they be first sworn freemen.”[536] According to a
pamphlet published early in the next century, “Ale-houses were
originally Accounted Neusances in the _Parish’s_ where they were, as
tending to Debauch the Subject, and make the People idle, and therefore
Licences to sell Beer and Ale, where allow’d to none, but Ancient People
past their Labours, and Invalides to keep them from Starving, there
being then no _Act of Parliament_ that _Parishes_ should Maintain their
own Poor. But the Primitive Intention in granting Licences being now
perverted, and all sorts of People Admitted to this priviledge, it is
but reason the Publick should have some Advantage by the Priviledges it
grants....”[537] Many examples of this attitude of mind can be observed
in the Quarter Sessions Records. For instance, Mary Briggs when a widow
was licensed by the Hertfordshire Quarter Sessions to sell drink, and by
the good order she kept in her house and the goodness of the drink she
uttered and sold she got a good livelihood, and brought up three
children she had by a former husband. She married John Briggs, woodard
and servant to Lord Ashton, she continuing her business and he his. Her
husband was returned as a papist recusant, and on his refusing to take
oaths the court suppressed their alehouse. Mrs. Briggs appealed on the
ground that her business was carried on separately and by it she
maintained her children by her former husband. Her claim was supported
by a petition from her fellow parishioners, declaring that John Briggs
was employed by Lord Ashton and “meddles not with his wife’s trade of
victualling and selling drink.”[538] Other examples may be found in an
order for the suppression of Wm. Brightfoot’s licence who had “by
surprize” obtained one for selling beer ... showing that he was a young
man, and capable to maintain his family without keeping an
alehouse,[539] and the petition of John Phips, of Stondon, labourer,
lately fallen into great need for want of work. He can get very little
to do among his neighbours, “because they have little for him to do,
having so many poore laborious men besides within the said parish.” He
asks for a licence to sell beer “for his better livelihood and living
hereafter, towards the mayntenance of himself, his poor wife and
children.”[540] Licences were refused at Bristol to “John Keemis,
Cooper, not fit to sell ale, having no child; he keeps a tapster which
is no freeman that have a wife and child,” and also to “Richard Rooke,
shipwright, not fit to sell ale, having no child, and brews themselves.”
A Barber Surgeon was disqualified, having no child, “and also for
entertaining a strange maid which is sick.”[541]

Footnote 536:

  _Hist. MSS. Com._, 14 Rep., app. viii., p. 99, 1629.

Footnote 537:

  Phipps, (Thomas), _Proposal for raising £1,000,000 Sterling yearly_.

Footnote 538:

  _Hertford County Records_, Vol. I., p. 289, 1678.

Footnote 539:

  _Middlesex Sessions Book_, p. 23, 1690.

Footnote 540:

  _Hertford County Records_, Vol. I., p. 174, 1665.

Footnote 541:

  Latimer, _Bristol_, p. 359, 1670. _Court Leet for St. Stephen’s
  Parish._

Very rarely were doubts suggested as to the propriety of the trade for
women, though a bye-law was passed at Chester ordaining that “no woman
between the age of xiii & xl yeares shall kepe any taverne or
ale-howse.”[542] At times complaints were made of the conduct of
alewives, as in a request to the Justices of Nottingham “that your
Worshipps wyll take some order wythe all the alewyfes in this towne, for
we thinke that never an alewyfe dothe as hir husband is bownd to,”[543]
but there is no evidence of any marked difference in the character of
the alehouses kept by men and those kept by women. The trade included
women of the most diverse characters. One, who received stolen goods at
the sign of the “Leabord’s Head” in Ware, had there a “priviye place”
for hiding stolen goods and suspicious persons “at the press for
soldiers she hid five men from the constables, and can convey any man
from chamber to chamber into the backside. There is not such a house for
the purpose within a hundred miles.”[544] In contrast to her may be
quoted the landlady of the Inn at Truro, of whom Celia Fiennes wrote,
“My Greatest pleasure was the good Landlady I had, she was but an
ordinary plaine woman but she was understanding in the best things as
most—yᵉ Experience of reall religion and her quiet submission and
self-Resignation to yᵉ will of God in all things, and especially in yᵉ
placeing her in a remoteness to yᵉ best advantages of hearing, and being
in such a publick Employment wᶜʰ she desired and aimed at yᵉ discharging
so as to adorn yᵉ Gospel of her Lord and Saviour, and the Care of her
children.”[545]

Footnote 542:

  _Harl. MSS._, 2054 (4), fo., 6.

Footnote 543:

  _Nottingham Records_, Vol. IV., p. 325, 1614.

Footnote 544:

  _Hertford County Records_, Vol. I., p. 59, 1626.

Footnote 545:

  Fiennes, (Celia), p. 226, _Through England on a Side-Saddle._

_Vintners_:—The trade of the Vintner had no connection with that of the
Brewer. Wine was sold in Taverns. In London the Vintners’ Company, like
the other London Companies, possessed privileges which were continued to
the wife upon her husband’s death, but women were probably not concerned
in the trade on their own account. A survey of all the Taverns in London
made in 1633 gives a total of 211, whereof six are licensed by His
Majesty, 203 by the Vintners’ Company and two are licensed by neither,
one is unlicensed, “inhabited by An Tither, whoe lately made a tavern of
the Starr on Tower Hill where shee also keepes a victualling house
unlicensed.” One licensed by the Earl of Middlesex. Amongst those duly
licensed are the names of a few widows. In Cordwainer Street Ward, there
was only one Tavern, “kept by a widdowe whose deceased husband was bound
prentice to a Vintener and so kept his taverne by vertue of his freedome
of that companye after his termes of apprentizhood expired.”[546]

Footnote 546:

  _S.P.D._ ccl., 22, November 6, 1633. Lord Mayor and others to the
  Council.


                             _Conclusion._

The foregoing examination of the relation of women to the different
crafts and trades has shown them occupying an assured position wherever
the system of family industry prevailed. While this lasted the
detachment of married women from business is nowhere assumed, but they
are expected to assist their husband, and during his absence or after
his death to take his place as head of the family and manager of the
business.

The economic position held by women depended upon whether the business
was carried on at home or elsewhere, and upon the possession of a small
amount of capital. The wives of men who worked as journeymen on their
masters’ premises could not share their husbands’ trade, and their
choice of independent occupations was very limited. The skilled women’s
trades, such as millinery and mantua-making, were open, and in these,
though apprenticeship was usual, there is no reason to suppose that
women who worked in them without having served an apprenticeship, were
prosecuted; but as has been shown the apprenticeship laws were strictly
enforced in other directions, and in some cases prevented women from
using their domestic skill to earn their living.

While women could share their husbands’ trades they suffered little from
these restrictions, but with the development of capitalistic
organisation the numbers of women who could find no outlet for their
productive activity in partnership with their husbands were increasing
and their opportunities for establishing an independent industry did not
keep pace; on the contrary, such industry became ever more difficult.
The immediate result is obscure, but it seems probable that the wife of
the prosperous capitalist tended to become idle, the wife of the skilled
journeyman lost her economic independence and became his unpaid domestic
servant, while the wives of other wage-earners were driven into the
sweated industries of that period. What were the respective numbers in
each class cannot be determined, but it is probable that throughout the
seventeenth century they were still outnumbered by the women who could
find scope for productive activity in their husbands’ business.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                               CHAPTER VI

                              PROFESSIONS

_Introductory_—Tendencies similar to those in Industry.—Army—Church—Law
closed to women. Teaching—Nursing—Medicine chiefly practised by women as
domestic arts. Midwifery.

(A). _Nursing._ The sick poor nursed in lay institutions—London
Hospitals—Dublin—Supplied by low class women—Women searchers for the
plague—Nurses for small-pox or plague—Hired nurses in private families.

(B) _Medicine._ Women’s skill in Middle ages—Medicine practised
extensively by women in seventeenth century in their families, among
their friends and for the poor—Also by the village wise woman for
pay—Exclusiveness of associations of physicians, surgeons and
apothecaries.

(C) _Midwifery._ A woman’s profession—Earlier history unknown—Raynold’s
translation of “the byrthe of mankynd.”—Relative dangers of childbirth
in seventeenth and twentieth centuries—Importance of midwives—Character
of their training—Jane Sharp—Nicholas Culpepper—Peter Chamberlain—Mrs.
Cellier’s scheme for training—Superiority of French training—Licences of
Midwives—Attitude of the Church to them—Fees—Growing tendency to
displace midwives by Doctors.

_Conclusion._ Women’s position in the arts of teaching and healing lost
as these arts became professional.


                            _Introductory._

SIMILAR tendencies to those which affected the industrial position of
women can be traced in the professions also, showing that, important as
was the influence of capitalistic organisation in the history of women’s
evolution, other powerful factors were working in the same direction.

Three professions were closed to women in the seventeenth century, Arms,
the Church and the Law.

_The Law._—It must be remembered that the mass of the “common people”
were little affected by “the law” before the seventeenth century.
“Common law” was the law of the nobles,[547] while farming people and
artizans alike were chiefly regulated in their dealings with each other
by customs depending for interpretation and sanction upon a public
opinion which represented women as well as men. Therefore the changes
which during the seventeenth century were abrogating customs in favour
of common law, did in effect eliminate women from what was equivalent to
a share in the custody and interpretation of law, which henceforward
remained exclusively in the hands of men. The result of the elimination
of the feminine influence is plainly shown in a succession of laws,
which, in order to secure complete liberty to individual men, destroyed
the collective idea of the family, and deprived married women and
children of the property rights which customs had hitherto secured to
them. From this time also the administration of the law becomes
increasingly perfunctory in enforcing the fulfilment of men’s
responsibilities to their wives and children.

Footnote 547:

  _Holdsworth_, Vol. III., p. 408.

_Church_.—According to modern ideas, religion pertains more to women
than to men, but this conception is new, dating from the scientific era.

Science has solved so many of the problems which in former days
threatened the existence of mankind, that the “man in the street”
instinctively relegates religion to the region in which visible beauty,
poetry and music are still permitted to linger; to the ornamental sphere
in short, whither the Victorian gentleman also banished his wife and
daughters. This attitude forms a singular contrast to the ideas which
prevailed in the Middle Ages, when men believed that supernatural
assistance was their sole protection against the “pestilence that
walketh in darkness” or from “the arrow that flieth by day.” Religion
was then held to be such an awful power that there were men who even
questioned whether women could, properly speaking, be considered
religious at all. Even in the seventeenth century the practice of
religion and the holding of correct ideas concerning it were deemed to
be essential for the maintenance of human existence, and no suggestion
was then made that religious observances could be adequately performed
by women alone.

Ideas as to the respective appropriateness of religious power to men and
women have differed widely; some races have reserved the priesthood for
men, while others have recognised a special power enduing women; in the
history of others again no uniform tendency is shown, but the two
influences can be traced acting and reacting upon each other.

This has been the case with the Christian religion, which has combined
the wide-spread worship of the Mother and Child with a passionate
splitting of hairs by celibate priests in dogmatic controversies
concerning intellectual abstractions. The worship of the Mother and
Child had been extirpated in England before the beginning of the
seventeenth century; pictures of this subject were denounced because
they showed the Divine Son under the domination of a woman. One writer
accuses the Jesuits of representing Christ always “as a sucking child in
his mothers armes”—“nay, that is nothing they make him an underling to a
woman,” alleging that “the Jesuits assert (1) no man, but a woman did
helpe God in the work of our Redemption, (2) that God made Mary partaker
and fellow with him of his divine Majesty and power, (3) that God hath
divided his Kingdom with Mary, keeping Justice to himselfe, and yielding
mercy to her.” He complains that “She is always set forth as a woman and
a mother, and he as a child and infant, either in her armes, or in her
hand, that so the common people might have occasion to imagine that
looke, what power of overruling and commanding the mother hath over her
little child, the same hath she over her son Jesus ... the mother is
compared to the son, not as being a child or a man, but as the saviour
and mediator, and the paps of a woman equalled with the wounds of our
Lord, and her milke with his blood.... But for her the holy scriptures
speake no more of her, but as of a creature, a woman ... saved by Faith
in her Saviour Jesus Christ ... and yet now after 1600 yeares she must
still be a commanding mother and must show her authority over him ...
she must be saluted as a lady, a Queen, a goddesse and he as a
child.”[548]

Footnote 548:

  _C.W._ 1641. _The Bespotted Jesuite._

The ridicule with which Peter Heylin treated the worship of the Virgin
Mary in France seems to have been pointed more at the notion of
honouring motherhood, rather than at the distinction given to her as a
woman, for he wrote “if they will worship her as a Nurse with her Child
in her arms, or at her breast, let them array her in such apparel as
might beseem a Carpenter’s Wife, such as she might be supposed to have
worn before the world had taken notice that she was the Mother of her
Saviour. If they must needs have her in her state of glory as at Amiens;
or of honour (being now publikely acknowledged to be the blessedness
among Women) as at Paris: let them disburden her of her Child. To clap
them thus both together, is a folly equally worthy of scorn &
laughter.”[549]

Footnote 549:

  Heylin (Peter), _The Voyage of France_, p. 29, 1673.

The reform which had swept away the worship of divine motherhood had
also abolished the enforced celibacy of the priesthood; but the priest’s
wife was given no position in the Church, and a tendency may be noted
towards the secularisation of all women’s functions. Convents and
nunneries were abolished, and no institutions which might specially
assist women in the performance of their spiritual, educational or
charitable duties were established in their place. There was, in fact, a
deep jealousy of any influence which might disturb the authority and
control which the individual husband exercised over his wife, and
probably the seventeenth century Englishman was beginning to realise
that nothing would be so subversive to this authority as the association
of women together for religious purposes. If a recognised position was
given to women in the Church, their lives must inevitably receive an
orientation which would not necessarily be identical with their
husband’s, thus creating a danger of conflicting loyalties. Naturally,
therefore, women were excluded from any office, but it would be a
mistake to suppose that their subordination to their husbands in
religious matters was rigidly enforced throughout this period. Certainly
in the first half of the century their freedom of thought in religion
was usually taken for granted, and possibly amongst the Baptists,
certainly amongst the Quakers, full spiritual equality was accorded to
them. Women were universally admitted to the sacraments, and therefore
recognised as being, in some sort, members of the Church, but this was
consistent with the view of their position to which Milton’s well known
lines in “Paradise Lost” give perfect expression, the ideal which, in
all subsequent social and political changes, was destined to determine
women’s position in Church and State:—

             “Whence true authoritie in men, though both
              Not equal, as their sex not equal seem’d,
              For contemplation hee and valour form’d
              For softness shee, and sweet attractive Grace,
              Hee for God only, shee for God in him:

                         *      *      *      *
              To whom thus Eve with perfect beauty adornd
              My Author and Disposer, what thou bidst
              Unargu’d I obey; so God ordains,
              God is thy Law, thou mine; to know no more
              Is woman’s happiest knowledge and her praise.”

Nevertheless, though excluded from any position in the hierarchy of
recognised servants of the Church, it must not be supposed that the
Church was independent of women’s service. To their hands necessity
rather than the will of man had entrusted a duty, which when unfulfilled
makes all the complicated organisation of the Church impotent; namely,
the bending of the infant mind and soul towards religious ideals and
emotions. The lives of the reformers of the seventeenth century bear
witness to the faithfulness with which women accomplished this task. In
many cases their religious labours were extended beyond the care of
their children, embracing the whole household for their field of
service. The life of Letice, Viscountess Falkland, gives an example of
the sense of responsibility under which many religious women lived. Lady
Falkland passed about an hour with her maids, early every morning “in
praying, and catechizing and instructing them; to these secret and
private prayers, the publick morning and evening prayers of the Church,
before dinner and supper; and another form (together with reading
Scriptures and singing Psalms) before bedtime, were daily and constantly
added ... neither were these holy offices appropriate to her menial
servants, others came freely to joyn with them, and her Oratory was as
open to her neighbours as her Hall was ... her Servants were all moved
to accompany her to the Sacrament, and they who were prevailed with gave
up their names to her, two or three dayes before, and from thence, she
applied herself to the instructing of them ... and after the Holy
Sacrament she called them together again and gave them such exhortations
as were proper for them.”[550]

Footnote 550:

  _Falkland, Lady Letice, Vi-countess, Life and Death of._

The quarrel between Church and State over the teaching profession is an
old story which does not concern this investigation. It is sufficient to
note that in England neither Church nor State considered that the work
of women in training the young entitled them to a recognised position in
the general social organisation, or required any provision apart from
the casual arrangements of family life.

_Teaching._—The question of the standard and character of the education
given to girls is too large a subject to be entered into here; it can
only be remarked that the number of professional paid women teachers was
small. The natural aptitude of the average woman for training the young,
however, enabled mothers to provide their children, both boys and girls,
with a very useful foundation of elementary education.

The professions of medicine, midwifery and nursing are very closely
allied to each other; for neither was there any system of instruction on
a scientific basis available for women, whose practice was thus
empirical; but as yet science had done little to improve the skill even
of the male practitioner.

_Nursing._—Nursing was almost wholly a domestic art.

_Medicine._—Though we find many references to women who practised
medicine and surgery as professions, in the majority of cases their
skill was used only for the assistance of their family and neighbours.

_Midwifery._—Midwifery was upon a different footing, standing out as the
most important public function exercised by women, and being regarded as
their inviolable mystery till near the beginning of the seventeenth
century. The steady process through which in this profession women were
then supplanted by men, furnishes an example of the way in which women
have lost their hold upon all branches of skilled responsible work,
through being deprived of opportunities for specialised training.

The relative deterioration of woman’s capacity in comparison with the
standard of men’s efficiency cannot be more clearly shown than in the
history of midwifery. Even though the actual skill of midwives may not
have declined during the seventeenth century men were rapidly surpassing
them in scientific knowledge, for the general standard of women’s
education was declining, and they were debarred from access to the
higher branches of learning. As the absence of technical training kept
women out of the skilled trades, so did the lack of scientific education
drive them from the more profitable practice of midwifery, which in
former times tradition and prejudice had reserved as their monopoly.


                             A. _Nursing._

Whatever arrangements had been made by the religious orders in England
for the care of the sick poor were swept away by the Reformation. The
provision which existed in the seventeenth century for this purpose
rested on a lay basis, quite unconnected with the Church. Amongst the
most famous charitable institutions were the four London Hospitals;
Christ’s Hospital for children under the age of sixteen, St.
Bartholomew’s and St. Thomas’s for the sick and impotent poor, and
Bethlehem for the insane.

There is no evidence that the women of the upper classes took any part
in the management of these hospitals. The squalor and the ugly and
disgusting details which are associated with nursing the diseased and
often degraded poor, was unredeemed by the radiance with which a mystic
realisation of the Divine Presence had upheld the Catholic Saints, or by
the passionate desire for the service of humanity which inspired
Florence Nightingale. Thus it was only the necessity for earning their
daily bread which induced any women to enter the profession of nursing
during this period, and as the salaries offered were considerably lower
than the wages earned by a competent servant in London, it may be
supposed that the class attracted did not represent the most efficient
type of women.

The rules appointed for the governance of nurses show that the
renunciations of a nun’s life were required of them, but social opinion
in Protestant England set no seal of excellence upon their work, however
faithfully performed, and the sacrifices demanded from the nurses were
unrewarded by the crown of victory.

During the reign of Edward VI. there were a matron and twelve sisters at
St. Bartholomew’s who received in wages £26 6s. 8d. In addition the
matron received 1s. 6d. per week for board wages and the sisters 1s. 4d.
per week, and between them £6 per year for livery, while the matron
received 13s. 4d. for this purpose.[551] The rules for the governance of
the sisters were as follows:—“Your charge is, in all Things to declare
and shew yourselves gentle, diligent, and obedient to the Matron of this
House, who is appointed and authorised to be your chief Governess and
Ruler. Ye shall also faithfully and charitably serve and help the Poor
in all their Griefs and Diseases, as well by keeping them sweet and
clean, as in giving them their Meats and Drinks, after the most honest
and comfortable Manner. Also ye shall use unto them good and honest
Talk, such as may comfort and amend them; and utterly to avoid all
light, wanton, and foolish Words, Gestures, and Manners, using
yourselves unto them with all Sobriety and Discretion, and above all
Things, see that ye avoid, abhor, and detest Scolding and Drunkenness as
most pestilent and filthy Vices. Ye shall not haunt or resort to any
manner of Person out of this House, except ye be licensed by the Matron;
neither shall ye suffer any light Person to haunt or use unto you,
neither any dishonest Person, Man or Woman; and so much as in you shall
lie, ye shall avoid and shun the Conversation and Company of all Men. Ye
shall not be out of the Woman’s Ward after the Hour of seven of the
Clock in the Night, in the Winter Time, nor after Nine of the Clock in
the Night in the Summer: except ye shall be appointed and commanded by
the Matron so to be, for some great and special cause that shall concern
the Poor, (as the present Danger of Death or extreme Sickness), and yet
so being commanded, ye shall remain no longer with such diseased Person
than just Cause shall require. Also, if any just Cause of Grief shall
fortune unto any of you, or that ye shall see Lewdness in any Officer,
of other Person of this House, which may sound or grow to the Hurt or
Slander thereof, ye shall declare the same to the Matron, or unto one or
two of the Govenours of this House, that speedy Remedy therein may be
had; and to no other Person neither shall ye talk or meddle therein any
farther. This is your Charge, and with any other Thing you are not
charged.”[552]

Footnote 551:

  Stow, _London_, I., pp. 185-186.

Footnote 552:

  Stow, _London_, app., p. 58.

The Matron was instructed to “receive of the Hospitaler of this House
all such sick and diseased Persons as he ... shall present unto you,”
and to “have also Charge, Governance & Order of all the Sisters of this
House ... that every of them ... do their Duty unto the Poor, as well in
making of their Beds, and keeping their Wards, as also in washing and
purging their unclean Cloaths, and other Things. And that the same
Sisters every night after the Hour of seven of the Clock in the Winter,
and nine of the Clock in the Summer, come not out of the Woman’s Ward,
except some great and special Cause (as the present Danger of Death, or
needful Succour of some poor Person). And yet at such a special time it
shall not be lawful for every Sister to go forth to any Person or
Persons (no tho’ it be in her Ward) but only for such as you shall think
virtuous, godly, and discreet. And the same Sister to remain no longer
with the same sick Person then needful Cause shall require. Also at such
times as the Sisters shall not be occupied about the Poor, ye shall set
them to spinning or doing some other Manner of Work, that may avoid
Idleness, and be profitable to the Poor of this House. Also ye shall
receive the Flax ... the same being spun by the Sisters, ye shall commit
to the said Governors.... You shall also ... have special Regard to the
good ordering & keeping of all the Sheets, Coverlets, Blankets, Beds,
and other Implements committed to your Charge, ... Also ye shall suffer
no poor Person of this House to sit and drink within your House at no
Time, neither shall ye so send them drink into their Wards, that thereby
Drunkenness might be used and continued among them.”[553]

Footnote 553:

  Stow, _London_, App., pp. 57-58.

In Christ’s Hospital there were two Matrons with salaries of £2 13s. 4d.
per annum and forty-two women keepers with salaries of 40s. per annum.
Board wages were allowed at the rate of 1s. 4d. per week for the
“keepers” and 1s. 6d. for the Matrons. There was one keeper for fifteen
persons.[554] The Matron was advised “Your office is an office of great
charge and credite. For to yow is committed the Governance and oversight
of all the women and children within this Hospital. And also to yow is
given Authoritie to commaunde, reprove, and rebuke them or any of
them.... Your charge is also to searche and enquire whether the women do
their Dutie, in washing of the children’s sheets and shirts, and in
kepeing clean and sweet those that are committed to their Charge; and
also in the Beddes, Sheets, Coverlets, and Apparails (with kepeing clean
Wards and Chambers) mending of such as shall be broken from Time to
Time. And specially yow shall give diligent Hede, that the said Washers
and Nurses of this Howse be alwaies well occupied and not idle; ... you
shal also once every Quarter of the Year examine the Inventorie.”[555]

Footnote 554:

  _Ibid._ I., pp. 175-6.

Footnote 555:

  Stow, _London_, app., p. 42.

The nurses were instructed that they must “carefully and diligently
oversee, kepe, and governe all those tender Babes & yonglings that shal
be committed to your Charge, and the same holesomely, cleanely and
swetely nourishe and bring up ... kepe your Wardes and every Part
thereof swete and cleane ... avoid all Idleness when your Charge and
Care of keping the Children is past, occupie yourselves in Spinning,
Sewing, mending of Sheets and Shirts, or some other vertuous Exercise,
such as you shal be appointed unto. Ye shal not resort or suffer any Man
to resort to you, before ye have declared the same to the almoners or
Matron of this Howse and obtained their Lycense and Favour, so to do ...
see that all your children, before they be brought to Bed, be washed and
cleane, and immediately after, every one of yow quietly shal go to your
Bed, and not to sit up any longer; and once every night arise, and see
that the Children be covered, for taking of Colde.”[556]

Footnote 556:

  Stow, _London_, app., p. 43.

Some idea of the class of women who actually undertook the important
duties of Matron for the London Hospitals may be gathered from a
petition presented by Joane Darvole, Matron of St. Thomas’s Hospital,
Southwark, to Laud. She alleged “that she was dragged out of the Chapel
of the Hospital at service and dragged along the streets to prison for
debt, to the hazard of her life,” she being a “very weak sickly and aged
woman,” clothes torn from her back and cast into a swoon. She petitions
against the profanation of God’s house and the scandal to the
congregation.[557]

Footnote 557:

  _S.P.D._, cccclv., 87., May 30th, 1640.

Sick and wounded soldiers were tended at the Savoy, where there were
thirteen Sisters, whose joint salaries amounted to £52 16s. 8d. per
annum.[558] Among the orders for the patients, nurses and widows in the
Savoy and other hospitals in and about London occur the following
regulations:—4ᵗʰˡʸ “That every soldier or nurse ... that shall profanely
sweare” to pay 12d. for the first offence, 12d. for the second, and be
expelled for the third. 8ᵗʰˡʸ “That if any souldier shall marye any of
the nurses of the said houses whilst hee is there for care or (recov)ery
they both shall be turned forth of the House. 11ᵗʰˡʸ No soldier under
cure to have their (wiv)es lodge with them there except by the
approbation of the Phisicion. 12ᵗʰˡʸ No nurse to be dismissed without
the approval of 2 of the Treasurers for the relief of maimed soldiers at
least. Nurses to be chosen from among the widows of soldiers if there
are among them those that be fit, and those to have 5s. per weeke as
others usually have had for the service. 14ᵗʰˡʸ soldiers, wounded and
sick, outside the hospitals not to have more than 4s. per week. Those in
St. Thomas’s and Bartholomew’s hospital 2s. a week, those in their
parents’, masters’ or friends’ houses, according to their necessities,
but not more than 4s. per week. 15ᵗʰˡʸ Soldiers’ widows to receive
according to their necessities, but not more than 4s. a week. 19ᵗʰˡʸ If
any of the nurses ... shalbee negligent in their duties or in giving due
attendance to the ... sicke souldiers by daye or night or shall by
scoulding, brawlinge or chidinge make any disturbance in the said
hospitall, she shall forfeite 12d. for 1st offence, week’s pay for
second, be dismissed for the third. 20ᵗʰˡʸ If any widow after marriage
shall come and receive weekly pensions as a soldier’s widow contrary to
the ordinance of parlᵗ he which hath married her to repay it, & if he is
unable she shall be complained of to the nearest J.P. and be punished as
a de(ceiver).”[559]

Footnote 558:

  Stow, _London_ I., p. 211.

Footnote 559:

  _S.P.D._, dxxxix, 231., November 15, 1644.

There was one nurse for every ten patients in the Dublin hospitals, and
the salary was £10 per annum, out of which she had to find her
board.[560]

Footnote 560:

  _S.P.D._, Interreg: I, 62, p. 633., 17 Aug., 1649.

The opportunity which the hospitals afforded for training in the art of
nursing was entirely wasted. The idea that the personal tending of the
sick and forlorn poor would be a religious service of special value in
the sight of God had vanished, and their care, no longer transformed by
the devotion of religious enthusiasm, appeared a sordid duty, only fit
for the lowest class in the community. Well-to-do men relieved their
consciences by bequeathing money for the endowment of hospitals, but the
sense of social responsibility was not fostered in girls, and the
expression of charitable instincts was almost confined in the case of
women to their personal relations.

Outside the hospitals employment was given to a considerable number of
women in the tending of persons stricken with small-pox or the plague,
and in searching corpses for signs of the plague. London constables and
churchwardens were ordered in 1570 “to provide to have in readiness
Women to be Provyders & Deliverers of necessaries to infected Howses,
and to attend the infected Persons, and they to bear reed Wandes, so
that the sick maie be kept from the whole, as nere as maie be, needful
attendance weyed.”[561]

Footnote 561:

  Stow, _London_, V., p. 433.

In the town records of Reading it is noted “at this daye Marye Jerome
Wydowe was sworn to be a viewer and searcher of all the bodyes that
shall dye within this boroughe, and truly to report and certifye to her
knowledge of what disease they dyed, etc.; and Anne Lovejoy widowe,
jurata, 4ˢ a weeke a peice, allowing iiijs. a moneth after.”[562] “Mary
Holte was sworne to be a searcher of the dead bodyes hencefovrth dyeinge
within the boroughe (being thereunto required) having iiijs. a weeke for
her wages, and iiid. a corps carryeing to buryall, and iiijs. a weeke a
moneth after the ceassinge of the plague.”[563]

Footnote 562:

  Guilding, _Reading Records_, Vol. II., p. 241, 1625.

Footnote 563:

  _Ibid._ Vol. II., p. 244, 1625.

In 1637 it was “agreed ... with old Frewyn and his wief, that she shall
presentlye goe into the house of Henry Merrifeild and be aidinge &
helpinge to the said Merrifeild and his wief, during the time of their
visitacion [plague].... She shall have dyett with them, and six weekes
after their visitacion ended. And old Frewin to have 2s. a week duringe
all that tyme paid him, and 2s. in hand. And she shall have 2ˢ a weeke
kept for her & paid her in th’end of the sixe weekes after.”[564] Later
“it was thought fitt the Woman keeper and Merifielde’s wenche in the
Pest-house, it beinge above vj weekes past since any one dyed there,
should be at libertie and goe hence to her husbande’s house, she havinge
done her best endevour to ayre and cleanse all the beddes & beddinge &
other things in both the houses ... for her mayntenance vj weekes after
the ceassinge of the sicknes, she keepinge the wenche with her, they
shalbe paid 3s. a weeke for and towardes their mayntenance duringe the
vj weekes.”[565] In 1639 the Council “Agree to geve the Widowe Lovejoye
in full satisfaccion for all her paynes taken in and about the visited
people in this Towne in this last visitacion xls. in money, and cloth to
make her a kirtle and a wascote, and their favour towards her two
sonnes-in-lawe (beinge forreynours) about their fredome.”[566] On a
petition in 1641 from Widow Lovejoy “for better allowance & satisfaction
for her paines aboute the visited people; ... it was agreed that she
shall have xxxs. soe soone as the taxe for the visited people is made
uppe.”[567]

Footnote 564:

  _Ibid._ Vol. III., p. 371.

Footnote 565:

  _Ibid._ Vol. III., p. 384, 1637.

Footnote 566:

  Guilding, _Reading Records_, Vol. III., p. 459.

Footnote 567:

  _Ibid._ Vol. IV., p. 8.

In rural districts where hospitals were seldom within reach, entries are
not infrequently found in the parish account books of payments made to
women for nursing the poor. “Item. To Mother Middleton for twoe nights
watchinge with Widow Coxe’s child being sick.”[568] “To Goody Halliday,
for nursing him & his family 5 weeks £1 5; to Goody Nye, for assisting
in nursing, 2s. 6d.[569] ... to Goody Peckham for nursing a beggar, 5s.
For nursing Wickham’s boy with the small pocks 12s.”[570] A
Hertfordshire parish paid a woman 15s. for her attendance during three
weeks on a woman and her illegitimate child.[571] A Morton man was
ordered to pay out of his next half-year’s rent for the grounds he
farmed of Isabelle Squire “20s. to Margt. Squire, who attended and
looked to her half a year during the time of her distraction.”[572]

Footnote 568:

  _Sussex Arch. Coll._, Vol. XXIII., p. 90. _Hastings Documents_, 1601.

Footnote 569:

  _Sussex Arch. Coll._, Vol. XX., p. 117. _Acc. Book of Cowden,_ 1704.

Footnote 570:

  _Ibid._ p. 118.

Footnote 571:

  _Hertford County Records_, Vol. I., p. 435, 1698.

Footnote 572:

  Atkinson, J. C., _Yorks. N. R. Q.S. Records_, Vol. VII., p. 91. 1688.

Sometimes nurses were provided for the poor by religious and charitable
ladies, who, like Letice, Viscountess Falkland, “hired nurses to serve
them.”[573] Sick nurses were also engaged by well-to-do people to attend
upon themselves or their servants. Thus the Rev. Giles Moore enters in
his journal “My mayde being sicke I payd for opening her veine 4d. to
the Widdow Rugglesford, for looking to her, I gave 1s. and to old Bess
for tending her 3 days and 2 nights I gave 1ˢ; in all 2ˢ 4ᵈ.”[574] A
little later, when the writer himself was “in an ague. Paid Goodwyfe
Ward for being necessary to me 1s.”[575] Though his daughter was with
him, a nurse watched in the chamber when Colonel Hutchinson died in the
prison at Dover.[576]

Footnote 573:

  _Falkland, Lady Letice, Vi-countess, Life and Death of._

Footnote 574:

  _Sussex Arch. Coll._, Vol. I., p. 72. _Rev. Giles Moore’s Journal._

Footnote 575:

  _Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 100. 1667.

Footnote 576:

  _Memoirs of Col. Hutchinson_, p. 377.

A few extracts from account books will supply further details as to the
usual scale of remuneration for nurses; no doubt in each case the money
given was in addition to meat and drink. Sarah Fell enters “by mᵒ given
Ann Daniell for her paines about Rachell Yeamans when she died
05.00.”[577] Timothy Burrell “pd. Gosmark for tending Mary 3 weeks
6s.”[578] Lady Grisell Baillie engaged a special nurse for her daughter
Rachy at a fee of 5s.[579] At Herstmonceux Castle they “pd Hawkin’s wife
for tending the sick maiden 10 days 3s. Pd. Widdow Weeks for tending
sick seruants a fortnight 4s.”[580] Sir John Foulis in Scotland paid “to
Ketherin in pᵗ paymᵗ & till account for her attendance on me the time of
my sickness 12. 0. 0” [scots].[581] “To Katherine tueddie in compleat
paymᵗ for her attendance on me wⁿ I was sick 20. 0. 0.” [scots].[582]
“To my good douchter jennie to give tibbie tomsone for her attendance on
my wife the time of her sickness 5. 16. 0. [scots].”[583]

Footnote 577:

  Fell (Sarah), _Household Accounts_, p. 285. June 20, 1676.

Footnote 578:

  _Sussex Arch. Coll._, Vol. III., p. 123. _Journal of Timothy Burrell._
  1688.

Footnote 579:

  _Baillie, Lady Grisell, Household Book._ Intro. lxvii.

Footnote 580:

  _Sussex Arch. Coll._, Vol. XLVIII., p. 121. 1643-1649.

Footnote 581:

  Foulis, Sir John, _Account Book_, p. 346. May 23, 1704.

Footnote 582:

  _Ibid._ p. 396. August 22, 1705.

Footnote 583:

  _Ibid._ p. 314. January 28, 1703.

All the above instances refer to professional nursing; that is to say to
the tending of the sick for wages, but nursing was more often of an
unprofessional character. Sickness was rife in all classes, and for the
most part the sick were tended by the women of their household or
family. The claim for such assistance was felt beyond the limits of
kinship, and in the village community each woman would render it to her
neighbour without thought of reward. The solidarity of the community was
a vital tradition to the village matron of the early seventeenth
century, and it was only in cases of exceptional isolation or
difficulty, or where the sick person was a stranger or an outcast that
the services of a paid nurse were called in. Probably the standard of
efficiency was higher in domestic than in professional nursing, because
professional nurses received no systematic training. Their rate of
remuneration was low, the essential painfulness of their calling was not
concealed by the glamour of a religious vocation, still less was it
rewarded by any social distinction. Therefore the women who took up
nursing for their livelihood did so from necessity, and were drawn from
the lower classes.

Illness was so frequent in the seventeenth century that few girls can
have reached maturity without the opportunity of practising the art of
nursing at home; but amongst the “common people,” that is to say all the
class of independent farmers and tradesmen, the housewife can hardly
have found time to perfect her skill in nursing to a fine art. Probably
the highest level was reached in the households of the gentry, where
idleness was not yet the accepted hall-mark of a lady, and the mistress
felt herself to be responsible for the training of her children and
servants in every branch of the domestic arts, amongst which were
reckoned both medicine and nursing.


                       B. _Surgery and Medicine._

The position held by mediæval women in the arts of healing is shown in
such books as Mallory’s “Morte d’Arthur.” When wounds proved intractable
to the treatment of the rough and ready surgeons who attended in the
vicinity of tourneys, knights sought help from some high-born lady
renowned for her skill in medicine. It is true that popular belief
assigned her success to witchcraft rather than to the knowledge and
understanding acquired by diligent study and experience, but a tendency
to faith in the occult was universal, and the reputation of the ladies
probably bore some relation to their success in the cures attempted,
for, according to the author of “The Golden Bough,” science is the
lineal descendant of witchcraft. The position of pre-eminence as
consultants was no longer retained by women in the seventeenth century.
Schools and Universities had been founded, where men could study
medicine and anatomy, and thus secure for themselves a higher standard
of knowledge and efficiency; but, though women were excluded from these
privileges they were not yet completely ousted from the medical
profession, and as a domestic art medicine was still extensively
practised by them.

Every housewife was expected to understand the treatment of the minor
ailments at least of her household, and to prepare her own drugs.
Commonplace books of this period contain recipes for making mulberry
syrup, preserving fruit and preparing meats, mingled with, for example,
prescriptions for plague water, which is “very good against the plague,
the small-pox, the measles, surfeitts ... and is of a sovereign nature
to be given in any sickness.” “An oyle good for any ach—and ointments
for sore eyes or breasts, or stone in the kidney or bladder.” And in
addition, “my brother Jones his way of making inks.”[584] “The Ladies
Dispensatory” contains “the Natures, Vertues and Qualities of all Herbs,
and Simples usefull in Physick. Reduced into a Methodical Order,” the
diseases to be treated including those of men, as well as women and
children.[585]

Footnote 584:

  _Add. MSS._ 36308.

Footnote 585:

  Sowerby (Leonard). _The Ladies’ Dispensatory._ 1651.

As was the case in other domestic arts, girls depended for their
training in medicine chiefly on the tradition they received from their
mothers, but this was reinforced from other sources as occasion offered.
“The Ladies Dispensatory” was not the only handbook published for their
use; sometimes, though schools were closed to women, an opportunity
occurred for private coaching. Thus Sarah Fell entered in her account
book, “July ʸᵉ 5º 1674 by mᵒ to Bro: Loweʳ yᵗ hee gave Thomas Lawson foʳ
comeinge over hitheʳ to Instruct him & sistʳˢ, in the knowledge of
herbs. 10.00,”[586] and when Mrs. Hutchinson’s husband was Governor of
the Tower she allowed Sir Walter Raleigh and Mr. Ruthin during their
imprisonment to make experiments in chemistry “at her cost, partly to
comfort and divert the poor prisoners, and partly to gain the knowledge
of their experiments, and the medicines to help such poor people as were
not able to seek physicians. By these means she acquired a great deal of
skill, which was very profitable to many all her life.”[587]

Footnote 586:

  Fell, (Sarah). _Household Accounts_, p. 95. July 5, 1674.

Footnote 587:

  _Memoirs of Col. Hutchinson_, p. 12.

Neither did ladies confine their services to their own household, but
extended their benefits to all their suffering neighbours. The care of
the sick poor was considered to be one of the duties of a “Person of
Quality,” whose housekeepers were expected “to have a competent
knowledge in Physick and Chyrurgery, that they may be able to help their
maimed, sick and indigent Neighbours; for Commonly, all good and
charitable Ladies make this a part of their Housekeepers business.”[588]
The “Good Woman” is described as one who “distributes among the
Indigent, Money and Books, and Cloaths, and Physick, as their severall
Circumstances may require,” to relieve “her poorer Neighbours in sudden
Distress, when a Doctor is not at Hand, or when they have no Money to
buy what may be necessary for them; and the charitableness of her
Physick is often attended by some cure or other that is remarkable. God
gives a _peculiar Blessing_ to the Practice of those Women who have no
other design in this Matter, but the doing Good: that neither prescribe
where they may have the Advice of the Learned, nor at any time give or
recommend any thing to try Experiments, but what they are assured from
former Tryals is safe and innocent; and if it do not help cannot
hurt.”[589]

Footnote 588:

  _Compleat Servant-maid_, p. 40.

Footnote 589:

  Rogers, Timothy. _Character of a Good Woman_, p. 42-43.

The provision made by Lady Falkland of “antidotes against infection and
of Cordials, and other several sorts of Physick for such of her
Neighbours as should need them, amounted yearly to very considerable
summes ... her skil indeed was more than ordinary, and her wariness
too.... Bookes of spiritual exhortations, she carried in her hand to
these sick persons.”[590] Mrs. Elizabeth Bedell “was very famous and
expert in Chirurgery, which she continually practised upon multitudes
that flock’d to her, and still _gratis_, without respect of persons,
poor or rich. It hapned occasionally that some would return like the
heald Samaritan, with some token of thankfulness; though this was
seldom. But God did not fail to reward them with (that which in
Scripture is most properly call’d his reward) children, and the fruit of
the womb. 3 sons and 4 daughters.”[591]

Footnote 590:

  _Falkland, Lady Lettice, Vi-countess, The Life and Death of._

Footnote 591:

  _Bedell, (Wm.), Life and Death of_, p. 2.

Expressions of gratitude to women for these medical services occur in
letters and diaries of the time. The Rev. R. Josselin enters January
27th, 1672, “My L. Honeywood sent her coach for me: yᵗ I stayd to March
10, in wᶜʰ time my Lady was my nurse & Phisitian & I hope for much good:
... they considered yᵉ scurvy. I tooke purge & other things for
it;”[592] Marmaduke Rawdon met with a carriage accident, in which he
strained his “arme, but comminge to Hodsden his good cossen Mrs.
Williams, with hir arte and care, quickly cured itt, and in ten dayes
was well againe.”[593]

Footnote 592:

  Jonson, (Ben.), _The Alchemist_, Act IV. Sc. I.

Footnote 593:

  Josselin, (R.), _Diary_, pp. 163-4.

Nor was the practice of medicine confined to Gentlewomen; many a humble
woman in the country, the wife of farmer or husbandman, used her skill
for the benefit of her neighbours. In their case, though many were
prompted purely by motives of kindness and goodwill, others received
payment for their services. How much the dependence of the common people
on the skill of these “wise women” was taken for granted is suggested by
some lines in “The Alchemist,” where Mammon assures Dol Common

             “This nook, here, of the Friers is no Climate
              For her to live obscurely in, to learne
              Physick, and Surgery, for the Constable’s wife
              Of some odde Hundred in Essex.”[594]

Footnote 594:

  _Rawdon, (Marmaduke), Life of_, p. 85.

Though their work was entirely unscientific, experience and common
sense, or perhaps mere luck, often gave to their treatment an appearance
of success which was denied to their more learned rivals. Thus Adam
Martindale describing his illness says that it was “a vehement
fermentation in my body ... ugly dry scurfe, eating deep and spreading
broad. Some skilfull men, or so esteemed, being consulted and differing
much in their opinions, we were left to these three bad choices ... in
this greate straite God sent us in much mercie a poore woman, who by a
salve made of nothing but Celandine and a little of the Mosse of an ashe
root, shred and boyled in May-butter, tooke it cleare away in a short
time, and though after a space there was some new breakings out, yet
these being annointed with the same salve ... were absolutely cleared
away.”[595]

Footnote 595:

  _Martindale (Adam), Life of_, p. 21. 1632.

The general standard of efficiency among the men who professed medicine
and surgery was very low, the chief work of the ordinary country
practitioner being the letting of blood, and the wise woman of the
village may easily have been his superior in other forms of treatment.
Sir Ralph Verney, writing to his wife advises her to “give the child no
phisick but such as midwives and old women, with the doctors
approbation, doe prescribe; for assure yourselfe they by experience know
better than any phisition how to treate such infants.”[596] Of Hobbes it
was said that he took little physick and preferred “an experienced old
woman” to the “most learned and inexperienced physician.”[597]

Footnote 596:

  _Verney Family_, Vol. 2, p. 270. 1647.

Footnote 597:

  _Dictionary of National Biography._

Dr. Turbeville, a noted oculist in the West Country, was sent for to
cure the Princess of Denmark, who had a dangerous inflammation of the
eyes. On his return he is reported to have said that “he expected to
learn something of these Court doctors, but, to his amazement he found
them only spies upon his practice, and wholly ignorant as to the lady’s
case; nay, farther, he knew several midwives and old women, whose advice
he would rather follow than theirs.”[598] He died at Sarum in 1696, and
his sister, Mrs. Mary Turbeville, practised afterwards in London “with
good reputation and success. She has all her brother’s receipts, and
having seen his practice, during many years, knows how to use them. For
my part, I have so good an opinion of her skill that should I again be
afflicted with sore eyes, which God forbid! I would rely upon her advice
rather than upon any pretenders or professors in London or
elsewhere.”[599]

Footnote 598:

  Hoare, Sir R. C., _History of Modern Wilts_, Vol. VI., p. 465.

Footnote 599:

  Hoare, Sir R. C., _History of Modern Wilts_, Vol. VI., p. 467.

Events, however, were taking place which would soon curtail the practice
of women whose training was confined to personal experience, tradition
and casual study. The established associations of physicians, surgeons
and apothecaries, although of recent growth, demanded and obtained, like
other companies, exclusive privileges. Their policy fell in with the
Government’s desire to control the practice of medicine, in order to
check witchcraft. Statute 3, Henry VIII., enacted that “none should
exercise the Faculty of Physick or Surgery within the City of _London_
or within Seven Miles of the same, unless first he were examined,
approved and admitted by the Bishop of _London_, or the Dean of _St.
Paul’s_, calling to him or them Four Doctors of Physick, and for Surgery
other expert Persons in that Faculty, upon pain of Forfeiture of £5 for
every Month they should occupy Physick or Surgery, not thus admitted”
because “that common Artificers, as Smiths, Weavers, and Women, boldly
and accustomably took upon them great Cures, and Things of great
Difficulty, in the which they partly used Sorceries and Witchcraft, and
partly applied such Medicines unto the Diseased, as were very noyous,
and nothing meet therefore.”[600]

Footnote 600:

  Stow, _London_ I., p. 132.

The restrictions were extended to the provinces. A Charter given to the
Company of Barber-Surgeons at Salisbury in 1614 declared that “No
surgeon or barber is to practise any surgery or barbery, unless first
made a free citizen, and then a free brother of the company. Whereas,
also, there are divers women and others within this city, altogether
unskilled in the art of chirurgery, who do oftentimes take cures on
them, to the great danger of the patient, it is therefore ordered, that
no such woman, or any other, shall take or meddle with any cure of
chirurgery, wherefore they, or any of them shall have or take any money,
benefit or other reward for the same, upon pain that every delinquent
shall for every cure to be taken in hand, or meddled with, contrary to
this order, unless she or they shall be first allowed by this Company,
forfeit and lose to the use of this Company the sum of ten
shillings.”[601]

Footnote 601:

  Hoare, Sir R. C., _History of Modern Wilts_, Vol. VI., p. 341.

The Apothecaries were separated from the Grocers in 1617, the charter of
their company providing that “No person or persons whatsoever may have,
hold, or keep an Apothecaries Shop or Warehouse, or that may exercise or
use the Art or Mystery of Apothecaries, or make, mingle, work, compound,
prepare, give, apply, or administer, any Medicines, or that may sell,
set on sale, utter, set forth, or lend any Compound or Composition to
any person or persons whatsoever within the City of London, and the
Liberties thereof, or within Seven Miles of the said city, unless such
person or persons as have been brought up, instructed, and taught by the
space of Seven Years at the least, as Apprentice or Apprentices, with
some Apothecary or Apothecaries exercising the same Art, and being a
Freeman of the said Mystery.” Any persons wishing to become an
Apothecary must be examined and approved after his apprenticeship.[602]

Footnote 602:

  Barrett, _History of Apothecaries_, Intro., p. xxxii.

It will be observed that there is little in their charters to
distinguish the medical from other city Companies, and while the
examination required by the Faculties of Medicine and Surgery in the
City of London excluded women altogether, the Apothecaries still
admitted them by marriage or apprenticeship. “Mʳⁱˢ Lammeere Godfrey
Villebranke her son both Dutch Pothecarys” are included in a certificate
made by the Justices of the Peace to the Privy Council, of the
foreigners residing in the Liberty of Westminster.[603] A journeyman who
applied for the freedom of the company, stated that he was serving the
widow of an apothecary. His application was refused time after time
through difficulties owing to a clause in the Charter. Counsel’s opinion
was taken, and finally he was admitted provided he kept a journeyman and
entered into a bond of £100 to perform the same, that he gave £10 and a
spoon to the Company, took the oaths and paid Counsel’s fees.[604] He
subsequently married the widow. Similar rules obtained in the provinces,
as is shown by the admittance of Thomas Serne in 1698-9 to the freedom
of the City of Dorchester on payment of 40s. because he had “married a
wife who had lived as apprentice for 20 years to an apothecary.”[605]

Footnote 603:

  _S.P.D._, ccc., 75., October 1635.

Footnote 604:

  Barrett, _History of Apothecaries_, pp. 28-9.

Footnote 605:

  Mayo, C. H., _Municipal Records of Dorchester_, p. 428.

The jurisdiction of companies was local, and where no company existed
boys were apprenticed to surgery for the sake of training, though such
an apprenticeship conferred no monopoly privilege. Surgery was sometimes
combined with another trade. John Croker describes in his memoir how he
was bound apprentice in 1686 to one John Shilson “by trade a
serge-maker, but who also professed surgery; with whom I went to be
instructed in the art of surgery.”[606] The operation of these various
Statutes and Charters being local and their enforcement depending upon
the energy of the parties interested, it is difficult to determine what
was their actual and immediate effect on the medical practice of women.
Statute 3, Henry VIII., must have been enforced with some severity, for
a later one declares “Sithence the making of which said Act the companie
& felowship of surgeons of London, minding oonly their own lucres, and
nothing the profit or ease of the diseased or patient, have sued,
troubled and vexed divers honest persons as well men as women, whom God
hath endued with the knowledge of the nature, kind, and operation of
certain herbes, roots and waters, and the using & ministering of them to
such as been pained with customable diseases, as women’s breasts being
sore, a pin and the web in the eye, &c., &c., and yet the said persons
have not taken any thing for their pains or cunning.”[607]

Footnote 606:

  Croker, (John), _Brief Memoirs_, p. 5.

Footnote 607:

  _Statutes at Large._ 34 Henry VIII. C. 8.

Not only the Surgeons but the Apothecaries also, enforced observance of
the privileges which the King had granted to them, and in consequence a
Petition of many thousands of citizens and inhabitants in and about
London was presented on behalf of Mr. William Trigg, Practitioner of
Physick, saying that he “did abundance of good to all sorts of people in
and about this City: when most of the Colledge Doctors deserted us,
since which time your Petitioners have for above twenty yeares, in their
severall times of Sicknesses, and infirmities taken Physick from him ...
in which time, we doe verily believe in our consciences, that he hath
done good to above thirty thousand Persons; and that he maketh all his
Compositions himselfe, not taking anything for his Physick from poor
people; but rather releiving their necessities, nor any money from any
of us for his advice; and but moderately for his Physick: his custome
being to take from the middle sort of Patients 12d., 18d., 2s., 2s. 6d.
as they please to give, very seldom five shillings unlesse from such as
take much Physick with them together into the Countrey ... there is a
good and wholesome law made in the 34th year of King Henry 8 C. 8.
Permitting every man that hath knowledge and experience in the nature of
Herbs, Roots and waters, to improve his Talent for the common good and
health of the people,” and concluding that unless Dr. Trigg is allowed
to continue his practice “many poore people must of necessity perish to
death ... for they are not able to pay great fees to Doctors and
Apothecaries bills which cost more then his advice and Physick; nor can
we have accesse unto them when we desire, which we familiarly have to
Dr. _Trigg_ to our great ease and comfort.”[608]

Footnote 608:

  _Humble Petition of many thousands of Citizens, and Inhabitants in and
  about London._

Prudence Ludford, wife of William Ludford of Little Barkhampton, was
presented in 1683 “for practising the profession of a chyrurgeon
contrary to law,”[609] but many women at this time continued their
practice as doctors undisturbed; for example, Mrs. Lucy Hutchinson
casually mentions that one of her maids went to Colson, to have a sore
eye cured by a woman of the town.[610] While Mrs. D’ewes was travelling
from Axminster to London by coach, her baby boy cried so violently all
the way, on account of the roughness of the road that he ruptured
himself, and was left behind at Dorchester under the care of Mrs.
Margaret Waltham, “a female practitioner.”[611]

Footnote 609:

  _Hertford Co. Records_, Vol. I., p. 328.

Footnote 610:

  _Memoirs of Col. Hutchinson_, p. 427.

Footnote 611:

  Yonge, Walter, _Diary_, Intro., xxii.

The account books of Boroughs and Parishes show that the poor received
medical treatment from men and women indiscriminately. A whole series of
such payments occur in the minute book of the Dorchester Corporation.
“It is ordered that the Vˡⁱ to be paid to Peter Salanova for cutting of
Giles Garrett’s leg shall be paid out of the Xˡⁱ yearly paiable out of
the Hospitall for pious vses ... to have the one halfe having cutt of
his leg already, and the other halfe when he is thoroughly cured.[612]
... Unto the Widdow Foote xs. for the curing of the Widow Huchins’ lame
leg at present; and xs. more when the cure is finished[613].... Mr.
Losse should be payed by the Steward of the Hospital the somme of viij
li for his paynes and fee as Phisitian in taking care of the poore of
the Towne for the last yeare ... as it hath bin formerly accustomed....
Vnto Mr. Mullens the somme of thirty shillings for curing Hugh Rogers of
a dangerous fistula.”[614] Three pounds more (three having already been
paid) was ordered to be given to “Cassander Haggard for finishing the
great cure on John Drayton otherwise Keuse.”[615] In another case the
Council tendered to Mr. Mullens, “the chirurgeon, the some of xxxˢ for
curing of Thomas Hobbs, but he answered hee would consider of it next
weeke [He declined].”[616]

Footnote 612:

  _Ibid._ Vol. XVIII., p. 196. _Accounts of Parish of Mayfield._

Footnote 613:

  _Cratfield Parish Papers_, p. 179., 1640.

Footnote 614:

  Mayo, C. H., _Municipal Records of Dorchester_, p. 516, 1640.

Footnote 615:

  _Ibid._ p. 518, 1651.

Footnote 616:

  _Ibid._ p. 518, 1649-50.

At Cowden the overseers paid to Dr. Willett for “reducing the arm of
Elizᵗʰ Skinner, and for ointment, cerecloths and journeys, £2;” three
years later a further sum of 10s. was given “to Goodwife Wells for
curing Eliz Skinner’s hand.”[617] Mary Olyve was paid 6s. 8d. “for
curing a boye that was lame” at Mayfield,[618] and 15s. was given to
“Widow Thurston for healing of Stannard’s son,” by the churchwardens at
Cratfield.[619] In Somerset £5 was paid to “Johane Shorley towards the
cure of Thomas Dudderidge. Further satisfaction when cure is don.”[620]

Footnote 617:

  _Ibid._ pp. 518-9. 1652-1654.

Footnote 618:

  _Ibid._ p. 519.

Footnote 619:

  _Sussex Arch. Coll._, Vol. XX., p. 114. _Account Book of Cowden_,
  1690.

Footnote 620:

  _Somerset Q.S. Records_, Vol. III., p. 212. 1653.

Such entries show that though women may have practised surgery and
medicine chiefly as domestic arts, nevertheless their skill was also
used professionally, their natural aptitude in this direction enabling
them to maintain their position throughout the seventeenth century even
when deprived of all opportunities for systematic study and scientific
experiments, and in spite of the determined attacks by the Corporations
of physicians and surgeons; but their success was owing to the fact that
Science had as yet achieved small results in the standard of medical
efficiency.


                            C. _Midwifery._

It has been shown that the employment of women in the arts of medicine,
nursing and teaching was chiefly, though not entirely, confined to the
domestic sphere; midwifery, on the other hand, though occasionally
practised by amateurs, was, in the majority of cases, carried on by
women who, whether skilled or unskilled, regarded it as the chief
business of their lives, and depended upon it for their maintenance. Not
only did midwifery exist on a professional basis from immemorial days,
but it was formerly regarded as a mystery inviolably reserved for women;
and though by the seventeenth century the barrier which excluded men had
broken down, the extent to which the profession had in the past been a
woman’s monopoly is shown by the fact that the men who now began to
practise the art were known as men-midwives.

The midwife held a recognised position in Society and was sometimes
well-educated and well-paid. Nothing is known as to the mediæval history
of midwifery in England; and possibly nothing ever will be known
concerning it, for the Englishwoman of that period had no impulse to
commit her experience and ideas to writing. All the wisdom which touched
her special sphere in life was transmitted orally from mother to
daughter, and thus at any change, like the Industrial Revolution, which
silently undermined the foundations of society, the traditional womanly
wisdom could vanish, leaving no trace behind it. Even in the Elizabethan
period and during the seventeenth century, when most women could read
and many could write, they show little tendency to record information
concerning their own affairs. But the profession of midwifery was then
no longer reserved exclusively for women. The first treatise on the
subject published in England was a translation by Raynold of “The Byrth
of Mankynd.” He says in his preface that the book had already been
translated into “Dutche, Frenche, Spanyshe and dyvers other languages.
In the which Countries there be fewe women that can reade, but they wyll
haue one of these bookes alwayes in readinesse ... it beinge lykewyse
sette foorth in our Englyshe speeche ... it may supply the roome and
place of a good Mydwyfe, ... and truly ... there be syth the fyrst
settynge forth of this booke, right many honourable Ladyes, & other
Worshypfull Gentlewomen, which have not disdayned the oftener by the
occasion of this booke to frequent and haunt women in theyr labours,
caryinge with them this booke in theyr handes, and causyng such part of
it as doth chiefely concerne the same pourpose, to be read before the
mydwyfe, and the rest of the women then beyng present; whereby ofttymes,
then all haue been put in remembraunce of that, wherewith the laboryng
woman hath bene greatly comforted, and alleuiated of her thronges and
travayle.... But here now let not the good Mydwyves be offended with
that, that is spoken of the badde. For verily there is no science, but
that it hath his Apes, Owles, Beares and Asses ... at the fyrst commyng
abroade of this present booke, many of this sorte of mydwyves, meuyd
eyther of envie, or els of mallice, or both, diligented ... to fynde the
meanes to suppresse ... the same; makyng all wemen of theyr
acquayntaunce ... to beleeue, that it was nothyng woorth: and that it
shoulde be a slaunder to women, forso muche as therein was descried and
set foorth the secretes and priuities of women, and that euery boy and
knaue hadd of these bookes, readyng them as openly as the tales of
Robinhood &c.”[621]

Footnote 621:

  Raynold, _The Byrth of Mankynd_, Prologue.

It is sometimes supposed that childbirth was an easier process in former
generations than it has become since the developments of modern
civilisation. The question has a direct bearing on the profession of
midwifery, but it cannot be answered here, nor could it receive a simple
answer of yes or no, for it embraces two problems for the midwife, the
ease and safety of a normal delivery and her resources in face of the
abnormal.

No one can read the domestic records of the seventeenth century without
realising that the dangers of childbed were much greater then than now;
nevertheless the travail of the average woman at that time may have been
easier. There was clearly a great difference in this respect between the
country woman, inured to hard muscular labour, and the high-born lady or
city dame. The difference is pointed out by contemporary writers. McMath
dedicated “the _Expert Mid-wife_” to the Lady Marquies of Douglas
because “as it concerns all Bearing Women ... so chiefly the more Noble
and Honourable, as being more Excellent, more Tender, and Delicate, and
readily more opprest with the symptoms.” Jane Sharp confirms this,
saying that “the poor Country people, where there are none but women to
assist (unless it be those that are exceeding poor and in a starving
condition, and then they have more need of meat than Midwives) ... are
as fruitful and as safe and well delivered, if not much more fruitful,
and better commonly in Childbed than the greatest Ladies of the
Land.”[622]

Footnote 622:

  Sharp (Jane), _The Midwives Book_, p. 3.

Rich and poor alike depended upon the midwife to bring them safely
through the perils of childbirth, and it is certain that women of a high
level of intelligence and possessing considerable skill belonged to the
profession. The fees charged by successful midwives were very high, and
during the first half of the century they were considered in no way
inferior to doctors in skill. It was natural that Queen Henrietta Maria
should send for one of her own country women to attend her, French
midwives enjoying an extraordinarily high reputation for their skill at
this time. The payment in 1630 of £100 to Frances Monnhadice, Nurse to
the Queen, “for the diet & entertainment of Madame Peron, midwife to the
Queen,” and further of a “Warrant to pay Madame Peron £300 of the King’s
gift”[623] shows the high value attached to her services.

Footnote 623:

  _S.P.D._ 1630. Sign Manual Car. I., Vol. VII. No. 11.

That English midwives were often possessed of ample means is shown by a
deposition made by “Abraham Perrot, of Barking parish, Gentleman,” who
“maketh oath that a month before the fire ... he ... paid unto Hester
Shaw Widow, ... the summe of £953.6.8.”[624] the said Mrs. Shaw being
described as a midwife; but relations who were members of this
profession are never alluded to in letters, diaries or memoirs. From
this absence of any social reference it is difficult to determine from
what class of the community they were drawn, or what were the
circumstances which led women to take up this responsible and arduous
profession. No doubt necessity led many ignorant women to drift into the
work when they were too old to receive new ideas and too wanting in
ambition to make any serious effort to improve their skill, but the
writings of Mrs. Cellier and Mrs. Jane Sharp prove that there were
others who regarded their profession with enthusiasm, and who possessed
an intelligence acute enough to profit by all the experience and
instruction which was within their reach.

Footnote 624:

  _Mrs. Shaw’s Innocency Restored._ 1653.

The only training available for women who wished to acquire a sound
knowledge of midwifery was by apprenticeship; this, if the mistress was
skilled in her art, was valuable up to a certain point, but as no
organisation existed among midwives it was not possible to insist upon
any general standard of efficiency, and many midwives were ignorant of
the most elementary circumstances connected with their profession. In
any case such an apprenticeship could not supply the place of the more
speculative side of training, which can only be given in connection with
schools of anatomy where research work is possible, and from these all
women were excluded.

As has been said, many women who entered the profession did not even go
through a form of apprenticeship, but acquired their experience solely,
to use Raynold’s words, “by haunting women in their labours.” In rural
England it was customary when travail began, to send for all the
neighbours who were responsible women, partly with the object of
securing enough witnesses to the child’s birth, partly because it was
important to spread the understanding of midwifery as widely as
possible, because any woman might be called upon to render assistance in
an emergency.

Several handbooks on Midwifery were written in response to the demand
for opportunities for scientific training by the more intelligent
members of the profession. One of the most popular of these books, which
passed through many editions, was published in 1671 by Jane Sharp
“Practitioner in the art of Midwifery above 30 years.” The preface to
the fourth edition says that “the constant and unwearied Industry of
this ingenious and well-skill’d midwife, Mrs. Jane Sharp, together with
her great Experience of Anatomy & Physick, by the many years of her
Practice in the art of Midwifery hath ... made them ... much desired by
all that either knew her Person ... or ever read this book, which of
late, by its Scarceness hath been so much enquired after ... as to have
many after impressions.” The author says that she has “often sate down
sad in the Consideration of the many Miseries Women endure in the Hands
of unskilful Midwives; many professing the Art (without any skill in
anatomy, which is the Principal part effectually necessary for a
Midwife) meerly for Lucres sake. I have been at Great Cost in
Translations for all Books, either French, Dutch or Italian of this
kind. All which I offer with my own Experience.”[625]

Footnote 625:

  Sharp, Mrs. Jane, _The Midwives Book, or the whole Art of Midwifery
  discovered_.

Jane Sharp points out that midwives must be both speculative and
practical, for “she that wants the knowledge of Speculation, is like one
that is blind or wants her sight: she that wants the Practice, is like
one that is lame & wants her legs.... Some perhaps may think, that then
it is not proper for women to be of this profession, because they cannot
attain so rarely to the knowledge of things as men may, who are bred up
in Universities, Schools of Learning, or serve their Apprenticeship for
that end and purpose, where anatomy Lectures being frequently read the
situation of the parts both of men and women ... are often made plain to
them. But that objection is easily answered, by the former example of
the Midwives amongst the Israelites, for, though we women cannot deny
that men in some things may come to a greater perfection of knowledge
than women ordinarily can, by reason of the former helps that women
want; yet the Holy Scriptures hath recorded Midwives to the perpetual
honour of the female Sex. There not being so much as one word concerning
men midwives mentioned there ... it being the natural propriety of women
to be much seeing into that art; and though nature be not alone
sufficient to the perfection of it, yet further knowledge may be gain’d
by a long and diligent practice, and be communicated to others of our
own sex. I cannot deny the honour due to able Physicians and
Chyrurgions, when occasion is, Yet ... where there is no Men of
Learning, the women are sufficient to perform this duty.... It is not
hard words that perform the work, as if none understood the Art that
cannot understand Greek. Words are but the shell, that we oftimes break
our Teeth with them to come at the kernel, I mean our brains to know
what is the meaning of them; but to have the same in our mother tongue
would save us a great deal of needless labour. It is commendable for men
to employ their spare time in some things of deeper Speculation than is
required of the female sex; but the art of Midwifery chiefly concerns
us.”[626]

Footnote 626:

  Sharp, Mrs. Jane, _The Midwives Book_, pp. 2-4.

Though the schools of Medicine and Anatomy were closed to women,
individual doctors were willing to teach the more progressive midwives
some of the science necessary for their art; thus Culpeper dedicated his
“Directory” to the midwives of England in the following words:—“Worthy
Matrons, You are of the number of those whom my soul loveth, and of whom
I make daily mention in my Prayers: ... If you please to make experience
of my Rules, they are very plain, and easie enough; ... If you make use
of them, you wil find your work easie, you need not call for the help of
a Man-Midwife, which is a disparagement, not only to yourselves, but
also to your Profession: ... All the Perfections that can be in a Woman,
ought to be in a Midwife; the first step to which is, To know your
ignorance in that part of Physick which is the Basis of your Act.... If
_any want Wisdom, let him ask it of God_ (not of the _Colledg of
Physitians_, for if they do, they may hap to go without their Errand,
unless they bring Money with them).”[627]

Footnote 627:

  Culpeper, Nich., Gent., Student in Physick and Astrologie, _Directory
  for Midwives_.

Efforts made by Peter Chamberlain to secure some systematic training for
midwives drew upon himself the abuse, if not persecution, of his jealous
contemporaries. In justifying the course he had taken he pleads “Because
I am pretended to be Ignorant or Covetous, or both, therefore some
ignorant Women, whom either extream Povertie hath necessitated, or
Hard-heartedness presumed, or the Game of Venus intruded into the
calling of Midwifry (to have the issues of Life & Death of two or three
at one time in their hands, beside the consequence of Health and
Strength of the Whole Nation) should neither be sufficiently instructed
in doing Good, nor restrained from doing Evil?... The objection infers
thus much. Because there was never any Order for instructing and
governing of Midwives, therefore there never must be.... It may be when
Bishops are restored again, their Ordinaries will come in to plead their
care. Of what? Truly that none shall do good without their leave. That
none shall have leave, but such as will take their Oath and pay Money.
That taking this Oath and paying their Money with the testimonie of two
or three Gossips, any may have leave to be as ignorant, if not as cruel
as themselves, ... but of Instruction or Order amongst the Midwives, not
one word.”[628]

Footnote 628:

  Chamberlain (Peter), _A Voice in Rhama, or the Crie of Women and
  Children_. 1646.

The danger which threatened midwives by the exclusion of women from the
scientific training available for men, did not pass unnoticed by the
leading members of the Profession. They realised that the question at
stake did not concern only the honour of their Profession, but involved
the suffering, and in many cases even the death, of vast numbers of
women and babies who must always depend on the skill of midwives and
urged that steps should be taken to raise the standard of their
efficiency. Mrs. Cellier[629] pointed out “That, within the Space of
twenty years last past, above six thousand women have died in childbed,
more than thirteen thousand children have been born abortive, and above
five thousand chrysome infants have been buried, within the weekly bills
of mortality; above two-thirds of which, amounting to sixteen thousand
souls, have in all probability perished, for want of due skill and care,
in those women who practise the art of midwifery.... To remedy which, it
is humbly proposed, that your Majesty will be graciously pleased to
unite the whole number of skilful midwives, now practising within the
limits of the weekly bills of mortality, into a corporation, under the
government of a certain number of the most able and matron-like women
among them, subject to the visitation of such person or persons, as your
Majesty shall appoint; and such Rules for their good government,
instruction, direction, and administration as are hereunto annexed.”

Footnote 629:

  Cellier (Mrs.). _A scheme for the foundation of a Royal Hospital,
  Harleian Miscellany, Vol. IV. pp. 142-147._

  The scheme was well thought out, and some details from it may be given
  here as showing the aspirations of an able woman for the development
  of her profession. Mrs. Cellier proposed that the number of midwives
  admitted to the first rank should be limited to 1000, and that these
  should pay a fee of £5 on admittance and the like sum annually. All
  the midwives entering this first rank should be eligible for the
  position of Matron, or assistant to the Government.

  Other midwives may be admitted to the second thousand on payment of
  half the above fees.

  The money raised by these fees is to be used for the purpose of
  erecting “one good, large and convenient House, or Hospital,” ... for
  the Receiving and Taking in of exposed Children, to be subject to the
  Care, Conduct and Management of one Governess, one female Secretary,
  and twelve Matron Assistants, subject to the visitation of such
  Persons, as to your Majesty’s Wisdom shall be thought necessary ...
  the children to be afterwards educated in proper Learning, Arts and
  Mysteries according to their several capacities. As a further
  endowment for this institution, Mrs. Cellier asks for one fifth part
  of the voluntary charity collected in the Parishes comprised within
  the Limits of the weekly Bills of Mortality, and that in addition
  collecting Boxes may be placed in every Church, Chapel, or publick
  Place of Divine Service of any Religion whatsoever within their
  limits. The scheme further provides “that such Hospital may be allowed
  to establish twelve lesser convenient houses, in twelve of the
  greatest parishes, each to be governed by one of the twelve Matrons,
  Assistants to the Corporation of the Midwives, which Houses may be for
  the taking in, delivery and month’s Maintenance, at a price certain of
  any woman, that any of the parishes within the limits aforesaid, shall
  by the overseers of the poor place in them; such women being to be
  subject, with the Children born of them, to the future care of that
  parish, whose overseers place them there to be delivered,
  notwithstanding such House shall not happen to stand in the proper
  Parish.” ...

  Then follow proposals for the care of the children, requiring that
  they may be privileged to take to themselves Sirnames and to be made
  capable, by such names, of any honour or employment, without being
  liable to reproach, for their innocent misfortune, and that the
  children so educated may be free members of every city and
  corporation.

  After the first settlement, no married woman shall “be admitted to be
  either governess, secretary, or any of the twelve principal assistants
  to the Government and that no married person of either sex shall be
  suffered to inhabit within the said Hospital, to avoid such
  inconveniences as may arise, as the children grow to maturity; ... if
  any of these Persons do marry afterwards, then to clear their accounts
  and depart the house, by being expelled the society.”

  Among many interesting rules for governing the Hospital, Mrs. Cellier
  appoints “That a woman, sufficiently skilled in writing and accounts,
  be appointed secretary to the governess and company of midwives, to be
  present at all controversies about the art of midwifery, to register
  all the extraordinary accidents happening in the practise, which all
  licensed midwives are, from time to time, to report to the society;
  that the female secretary be reckoned an assistant to the government,
  next to the governess and capable of succeeding in her stead.”

  “That the principal physician or man-midwife, examine all
  extraordinary accidents and, once a month at least, read a publick
  Lecture to the whole society of licensed midwives, who are all to be
  obliged to be present at it, if not employed in their practise.” The
  lectures to be kept for future reference by the midwives.

  “That no men shall be present at such public lectures, on any pretence
  whatsoever, except such able doctors and surgeons, as shall enter
  themselves students in the said art, and pay, for such their
  admittance, ten pounds, and ten pounds a year.” The physicians and
  surgeons so admitted were to be “of Council with the principle
  man-midwife and be capable of succeeding him, by election of the
  governess, her secretary, twelve assistants, and the twenty-four lower
  assistants.”

Mrs. Cellier succeeded with her proposal, in so far that His Majesty
agreed to unite the midwives into a Corporation by Royal Charter, but
there the matter rested.[630]

Footnote 630:

  Cellier, (Eliz.). _To Dr. ——, an answer to his Queries concerning the
  Colledg of Midwives_, p. 7.

In France women were more fortunate, for a noted school of midwifery had
already been established at the Hotel Dieu in Paris, at which every six
weeks dissections and anatomies were especially made for the apprentices
of the institution, both past and present.[631] Before entering on their
profession the French midwives were required to pass an examination
before the chirurgeons. Their professional reputation stood so high that
Pechey alludes to one of them as “that most Famous Woman of the World,
_Madam Louise Burgeois_, late Midwife to the Queen of _France_. The
praises that we read of all those that ever heard of her are not so much
a flourish as truth; for her reasons are solid experiences, and her
witnesses have been all of the most eminent Persons of _France_: and not
only of her, but as we have already exprest, of the most excellent known
Men and Women of this Art of other Countries.”[632]

Footnote 631:

  Carrier (Henriette.) _Origine de la Maternité de Paris._

Footnote 632:

  Pechey, _Compleat Midwife_, Preface.

According to Mrs. Cellier, English midwives were for a time examined by
the College of Surgeons, but as their records for the years in question
are missing there is no means of ascertaining the numbers of those who
presented themselves for examination. She says that Bishops did not
“pretend to License Midwives till Bp. _Bonner’s_ time, who drew up the
Form of the first License, which continued in full force till 1642, and
then the Physicians and Chirurgeons contending about it, it was adjudged
a Chyrurgical operation, and the Midwives were Licensed at
_Chirurgions-Hall, but not till they had passed three_ _examinations,
before six skilful Midwives, and as many Chirurgions expert in the Art
of Midwifery_. Thus it continued until the Act of Uniformity passed,
which sent the Midwives back to _Doctors Commons_, where they pay their
money (_take an oath which it is impossible for them to keep_) and
return home as skilful as they went thither. I make no reflections on
those learned Gentlemen, the Licensers, but refer the curious for their
further satisfaction to the Yearly Bills of Mortality, from 42 to 62;
Collections of which they may find at _Clerkshall_. Which if they please
to compare with these of late Years, they will find there did not then
happen the eight part of the Casualities either to Women or Children, as
do now.”[633]

Footnote 633:

  Cellier (Eliz.). _To Dr. —— an answer to his Queries concerning the
  Colledg of Midwives_, p. 6.

In granting licences to midwives the Bishops were supposed to make some
enquiry as to their professional attainments. Among the “articles to be
enquired of” during Diocesan visits was one “whether any man or woman
within your Parish, hath professed or practised Physick or Chyrurgery;
by what name or names are they called, and whether are they licensed by
the Bishop of the Diocesse, or his Vicar Generall, and upon whom have
they practised, and what good or harm have they done?”[634] And again,
“whether any in your Parish do practise Physicke or chirurgery, or that
there be any midwife there, or by what authority any of them do
practise, or exercise that profession.”[635] But the interest of the
Bishops was concerned more with the orthodoxy of the midwife than with
her professional skill.

Footnote 634:

  _Exeter, Articles to be enquired of by the Churchwardens._ 1646.

Footnote 635:

  _Canterbury, Articles to be enquired._ 1636.

A midwife’s licence was drawn up as follows: beginning:—“Thomas Exton,
knight, doctor of laws, commisary general, lawfully constituted of the
right worshipful the dean & chapter of St. Paul’s in London; to our
beloved in Christ, Anne Voule, the wife of Jacob Voule, of the parish of
St Gile’s Cripplegat, sendeth greeting in our Lord God everlasting:
Whereas, by due examination of diverse, honest, and discreet women, we
have found you apt and able, cunning and experte, to occupy & exercise
the office, business & occupation of midwife,” and continuing after many
wise and humane rules for her guidance with an exhortation “to be
diligent, faithful and ready to help every woman travelling of child, as
well the poor as the rich, and you shall not forsake the poor woman and
leave her to go to the rich; you shall in no wise exercise any manner of
witchcraft, charms, sorcery, invocation, or other prayers, than such as
may stand with God’s laws, and the king’s,” concluding thus:—“Item, you
shall not be privy to or consent that any priest or other party shall in
your absence, or your company, or of your knowledge or sufferance,
baptize any child by any mass, Latin service, or prayers than such as
are appointed by the laws of the Church of England; neither shall you
consent that any child borne by any woman, who shall be delivered by
you, shall be carried away without being baptized in the parish by the
ordinary minister where the said child is born.”[636]

Footnote 636:

  _Sussex Arch. Coll._, Vol. IV., pp. 249-50. Extracts from Parish
  Registers.

The Bishops’ interest in midwives may have been caused partly by a
praiseworthy desire to secure an adequate supply for the assistance of
women in each parish. But from the Church’s point of view, the midwife’s
chief importance was not due to the fact that the life of mother and
child might depend on her skill, but to her capacity for performing the
rites of baptism. The reasons for granting her this authority are
explained as follows:—“in hard Labours the Head of the Infant was
sometimes baptized before the whole delivery. This Office of Baptizing
in such Cases of Necessity was commonly performed by the Midwife; and
’tis very probable, this gave first Occasion to Midwives being licensed
by the Bishop, because they were to be first examined by the Bishop or
his delegated Officer, whether they could repeat the Form of Baptism,
which they were in Haste to administer in such extraordinary Occasion.
But we thank God our times are reformed in Sense, and in Religion.”[637]
Though the midwife was only expected to baptize in urgent cases she
might strain her privilege, and baptize even a healthy infant into the
Roman Church. Her power in this respect was regarded with suspicion and
jealousy by English Protestants, not only because she might
inadvertently admit the infant to the wrong fold, but because it
resembled the conferring of office in the Church upon women; however, as
no man was usually present at the birth of a child, and it was fully
believed that delay might involve the perpetual damnation of the dying
infant’s soul, no alternative remained. Peter Heylyn, in writing of
Baptism, comments on the difficulty, saying that “the first Reformers
did not only allow the administration of this Sacrament [Baptism] in
_private_ houses, but permitted it to private persons, even to women
also.” He continues that when King James, in the Conference at Hampton
Court, seemed offended because of this liberty to women and laicks, Dr.
Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury, denied that the words gave this
liberty, and Dr. Babington alledged “that the words were purposely made
ambiguous as otherwise the Book might not have passed Parliament.” To
whom it was replied by the Bishop of London that there was no intent to
deceive any, but the words did indeed “intend a permission of private
persons to Baptize in case of _necessity_.”[638]

Footnote 637:

  Watson, _Clergyman’s Law_, p. 318.

Footnote 638:

  _Heylyn (Peter), Cyprianus Anglicus_, p. 27.

The fear of secret baptisms into the Catholic Church is shown in a
letter which states that “the wief of Frances Lovell esqʳ of West Derhᵐ
is noted for a recusant. And the said Frances had a childe about three
yeares past christianed by a midwief sent thither by the La. Lovell, and
the midwief’s name cannot be learned.”[639]

Footnote 639:

  Bacon, (Sir Nat.), _Official Papers_, p. 176. 1591.

It was this danger which led to the prosecution of women who practised
without licences. The Churchwardens at Lee presented “the Widow Goney
and the wife of Thomas Gronge being midwives & not sworne.” In Hadingham
they report “We have two poore women exercising the office of midwives,
one Avice Rax and the wife of one John Sallerie,”[640] and elsewhere
“Dorothye Holding wief of Jo. Holding & Dorothye Parkins wief of Wᵐ
Parkins” were presented “for exercising the office of midwives without
License.”[641]

Footnote 640:

  _S.P.D._, ccxcvi., 17. August 21, 1635. _Visitation presentments by
  the Churchwardens._

Footnote 641:

  _S.P.D._, ccxcv., 6. August 19, 1636.

The fees charged by midwives varied from £300 in the case of the French
Midwife who attended the Queen, to the sum of 1s. 6d. paid by the Parish
of Aspenden to the midwife who delivered a woman “received by virtue of
a warrant from the justices.”[642] In most cases the amount paid by the
parents was supplemented by gifts from the friends and relations who
attended the christening.[643] Thus the baby’s death meant a
considerable pecuniary loss to the midwife. An example of her payment in
such a case is given in Nicholas Assheton’s diary; he enters on Feb. 16,
1617. “My wife in labour of childbirth. Her delivery was with such
violence as the child dyed within half an hour, and, but for God’s
wonderful mercie, more than human reason could expect, shee had dyed,
... divers mett and went with us to Downham; and ther the child was
buried ... my mother wᵗʰ me laid the child in the grave.... Feb. 24, the
midwyfe went from my wyffe to Cooz Braddyll’s wyffe. She had given by my
wyffe xxs and by me vs.”[644]

Footnote 642:

  _Hertford County Records_, Vol. I., p. 435. 1698.

Footnote 643:

  The Rev. Giles Moore “gave Mat [his adopted daughter] then answering
  for Edwd. Cripps young daughter 5s. whereof shee gave to the mydwyfe
  2s. & 1s. to the Nurse. Myself gave to the mydwyfe in the drinking
  bowle 1s.” (_Sussex Arch. Coll._, Vol. I., p. 113. _Rev. Giles Moore,
  Journal._)

  Later is entered in the Journal, he being god-father “1674. Mat was
  brought to bed of a daughter. Gave the mydwyfe, goodwyfe & Nurse 5s.
  each.” (_Ibid._ p. 119.)

  After Lady Darce’s confinement at Herstmonceux Castle, is entered in
  the accounts “paid my Lord’s benevolence to Widdow Craddock the
  midwife of Battle £5. 0. 0.” (_Sussex Arch. Coll._, Vol. xlviii.
  1643-1649.)

  Entries in a similar book of the Howard family give “To my young
  ladye’s midwyfe xxˢ (p. 227-8). To Mrs. Fairfax her Midwife by my Lord
  xxˢ ... by my Ladie xxˢ. More to Mrs. Fairefax her midwife by my
  Ladie’s commaund iijˡⁱ” (_Howard Household Book_, p. 263. 1629.)

  Sarah Fell records the presents given to her sister’s midwife—Jan yᵉ
  1st 1675

  by mᵒ   Bro. Loweʳ to give Jane Chorley his wifes midwife     1. 00.00
  by mᵒ Motheʳ gave to sᵈ midwife                                  5. 00
  by mᵒ Sistʳ Sus: sistʳ Rach: & I gave heʳ                        5. 00

  Dec. 6. 1676. By M° Given ffran. Laite Sister Lowers middwife by
  ffatheʳ & Motheʳ 5s. by sistʳ Sus: 2s. by sistʳ Rach: 2s. myselfe 4s.
  Dec. 10, 1677 by mᵒ Motheʳ gave ffrances Layte when she was middwife
  to Sistʳ Lower of litle Love-day Loweʳ 02.06, by mᵒ sistʳ Susannah
  gave heʳ then 01.00 by mᵒ sister Rachell gave her then 01.00 (Fell,
  Sarah, _Household Accounts_).

Footnote 644:

  Assheton (Nicholas), _Journal_, p. 81.

The Churchwardens at Cowden entered in their account book 1627 “Item,
paide for a poore woman’s lying in 3. 0.” 1638. “to John Weller’s wife
for her attendance on the widow Smithe when she lay in 2. 0.”[645]

Footnote 645:

  _Sussex Arch. Coll_., Vol. XX., p. 101 and p. 104. _Account Book of
  Cowden._

The account book of Sir John Foulis of Ravelstone gives many details of
the expenses incurred at confinements in Scotland. His wife appears to
have been attended by a doctor, as well as a midwife, and the latter’s
fee was the higher of the two. The payments are in Scots money.[646]
“Mar. 26 1680, to the doctor Steinsone for waiting on my wife in her
labour 2 guines at 33 P. sterl. p.piece, 27. 16. 0, to Elspie dicksone,
midwife, 40. 12. 0, to her woman 2. 18. 0.” On November 26, 1692 there
is another payment “to my wife to give doctor Sibbald for his attendance
on her in childbed and since to this day 5 guineas 66. 0. 0.” Jan. 31,
1704 “to my son Wᵐ to give the midwife when his wife was brought to bed
of her sone Joⁿ 3 guineas 42. 12. 0. to my douchter Crichtoune to give
the midwife for me halfe a guinie 7. 2. 0.”

Footnote 646:

  One pound Scots—20d. sterling.

The size of the gratuities given to the midwife by the friends and
acquaintances who gathered at a society christening in London may be
judged from Pepys, who enters in his diary when he was Godfather with
Sir W. Pen to Mrs. Browne’s child “I did give the midwife 10s.”[647] His
gratuities to people of lower rank were smaller, and of course the gifts
made by the “common people” and those of the gentry in the provinces
were much more modest.

Footnote 647:

  Pepy’s _Diary_, Vol. I., p. 308. 1661.

In the latter part of the century there are indications of a growing
tendency among the upper classes to replace the midwife by the doctor.
The doctors encouraged the tendency. Their treatises on midwifery, of
which several were published during this time, deprecate any attempt on
the midwife’s part to cope with difficult cases. Dr. Hugh Chamberlain
points out “nor can it be so great a discredit to a Midwife ... to have
a Woman or Child saved by a Man’s assistance, as to suffer either to die
under her own hand.”[648] In making this translation of Maurice’s work
on Midwifery, Chamberlain omitted the anatomical drawings, “there being
already severall in English; as also here and there a passage that might
offend a chast English eye; and being not absolutely necessary to the
purpose; the rest I have, as carefully as I could, rendered into English
for the benefit of our midwives.”[649] This line of thought is carried
yet further by McMath, who says in the preface to “The Expert Mid-wife”
that he has “of purpose omitted a Description of the parts in a woman
destined to Generation, not being absolutely necessary to this purpose,
and lest it might seem execrable to the more chast and shamfaced through
Baudiness and Impurity of words; and have also endeavoured to keep all
Modesty, and a due Reverence to Nature: nor am I of the mind with some,
as to think there is no Debauchery in the thing, except it may be in the
abuse.”[650]

Footnote 648:

  Chamberlain (Dr. Hugh). _Accomplisht Midwife: Epistle to the Reader._

Footnote 649:

  _Ibid._

Footnote 650:

  McMath (Mr. James, M.D.). _The Expert Mid-wife._

The notion that it was indecent for a woman to understand the structure
and functions of her own body fitted in with the doctors’ policy of
circumscribing the midwife’s sphere; McMath continues “Natural Labour,
where all goes right and naturally, is the proper work of the Midwife,
and which she alone most easily performs aright, being only to sit and
attend Nature’s pace and progress ... and perform some other things of
smaller moment, which Physicians gave Midwifes to do, as unnecessary &
indicent for them, and for the Matronal chastity (tho some of Old
absurdly assigned them more, and made it also their office to help the
Delivery, and not by Medicaments only and others, but Inchantments
also.)”[651]

Footnote 651:

  _Ibid._

Clearly in a profession which often holds in its hands the balance
between life and death, those members who are debarred from systematic
study and training must inevitably give way sooner or later to those who
have access to all the sources of learning, but the influences which
were prejudicing women’s position in midwifery during the seventeenth
century were not wholly founded on such reasonable grounds; they were
also affected by much more general, undefined and subtle causes. It may
even be doubted whether the superior knowledge of the seventeenth
century doctor actually secured a larger measure of safety to the mother
who entrusted herself to his management than was attained by those who
confided in the skill of an experienced and intelligent midwife.
Chamberlain admits that the practice of doctors “not onely in England
but throughout Europe; ... hath very much caused the report, that where
a man comes, one or both [mother or child] must necessarily dye; and
makes many for that reason forbear sending, untill either be dead or
dying.”[652] He continues “my Father, Brothers and myself (though none
else in Europe that I know) have by God’s blessing, and our industry,
attained to, and long practised a way to deliver a woman in this case
without any prejudice to her or her Infant.”

Footnote 652:

  Chamberlain (Hugh). _Accomplisht Midwife: Epistle to Reader._

The discovery to which Chamberlain refers was the use of forceps, which
he and his family retained as a profound secret. Therefore this
invention did not rank among the advantages which other doctors
possessed over midwives at this period. Even when, a century later, the
use of forceps became generally understood, the death rate in childbed
was not materially reduced, for it was only with the discovery of the
value of asepsis that this heavy sacrifice was diminished. We must
therefore look for the explanation of the growing ascendancy of male
practitioners to other causes beside the hypothetical standard of their
greater efficiency. Their prestige rested partly on an ability to use
long words which convinced patients of their superior wisdom; it was
defended by what was fast becoming a powerful corporation; and more
potent in its effect was the general deterioration in the position of
women which took place during the century. A lessening of confidence in
womanly resourcefulness and capacity in other walks of life, could not
fail to affect popular estimation of their value here too; and added to
this were the morbid tendencies of the increasing numbers of oversexed
society women who were devoted to a life of pleasure. The fact that
similar tendencies were visible in France, where an excellent scientific
training was open to women, shows that the capture of the profession by
men was not only due to superior skill.

The famous French Midwife, Madame Bourgeois, told her daughter “There is
a great deal of artifice to be used in the pleasing of our Women,
especially the young ones, who many times do make election of Men to
bring them to bed. I blush to speak of them, for I take it to be a great
peice of impudence to have any recourse unto them, unless it be a case
of very great danger. I do approve, I have approved of it, and know that
it ought to be done, so that it be concealed from the Woman all her life
long; nor that she see the surgeon any more.”[653]

Footnote 653:

  Pechey, _Compleat Midwife_, p. 349. Secrets of Madame Louyse
  Bourgeois, midwife to the Queen of France, which she left to her
  Daughter as a guide for her.

Whatever may have been the explanation, midwifery had ceased to be a
monopoly for women when the “man-midwife” made his appearance in the
sixteenth century, but it is only in the latter half of the seventeenth
century that the profession passes definitely under the control of men.
The doctors who then secured all the more profitable class of work, were
united in a corporation which was often directed by men possessed of a
disinterested enthusiasm for truth, and considerable proficiency in
their art, even though many in their ranks might regard their profession
merely as a means for acquiring personal fame or wealth. But the
interest of the corporations of physicians and surgeons was centred more
upon their profession than upon the general well-being of the community,
and they did not regard it as part of their duty to secure competent
assistance in childbirth for every woman in the community. They took a
keen professional interest in the problems of midwifery, but the
benefits of their research were only available for the wives or
mistresses of rich men who could afford to pay high fees. Far from
making any effort to provide the same assistance for the poor, the
policy of the doctors, with some exceptions, was to withold instruction
from the midwives on whom the poor depended, lest their skill should
enable them to compete with themselves in practice among the wealthy.


                             _Conclusion._

The foregoing examination of the character and extent of women’s
professional services has brought several interesting points to light.
It has been shown that when social organisation rested upon the basis of
the family, as it chiefly did up to the close of the Middle Ages, many
of the services which are now ranked as professional were thought to be
specially suited to the genius of women, and were accordingly allotted
to them in the natural division of labour within the family. The
suggestions as to the character and conditions of these services during
the Middle Ages, rest upon conjectures drawn from the comparison of a
few generally accepted statements concerning the past, with what appears
at the opening of the seventeenth century to be a traditional attitude
to women, an attitude which was then undergoing rapid modifications. A
more thorough and detailed examination of their position in the
preceding centuries may show that it was far less stable than is
generally supposed, but such a discovery need not disturb the
explanation which is here given of the tendencies deciding the scope of
women’s professional activity within in the seventeenth century.

First among these was the gradual emergence of the arts of teaching and
healing, from the domestic or family sphere to a professional
organisation. Within the domestic sphere, as women and men are equally
members of the family, no artificial impediment could hinder women from
rendering the services which nature had fitted them to perform;
moreover, the experience and training which family life provided for
boys, were to a large extent available for girls also. Coincident with a
gradual curtailment of domestic activities may be observed a marked
tendency towards the exclusion of women from all interests external to
the family. The political theories of the seventeenth century regarded
the State as an organisation of individual men only or groups of men,
not as a commonwealth of families; in harmony with this idea we find
that none of the associations which were formed during this period for
public purposes, either educational, economic, scientific or political,
include women in their membership. The orientation of ideas in the
seventeenth century was drawing a rigid line between the State, in which
the individual man had his being, and family matters. The third tendency
was towards the deterioration of women’s intellectual and moral
capacity, owing to the narrowing of family life and the consequent
impoverishment of women’s education. The fourth tendency was towards an
increasing belief in the essential inferiority of women to men.

It will be seen that these tendencies were interdependent. Their united
effect was revolutionary, gradually excluding women from work for which
in former days, nature, it was supposed, had specially designed them.
Thus the teaching of young children, both girls and boys, had been
generally entrusted to women, many men acknowledging in later life the
excellence of the training which they had received from their mothers,
and it cannot be doubted that women were upon the whole successful in
transmitting to their children the benefit of the education and
experience which they had themselves received. But no amount of didactic
skill can enable persons to teach what they do not themselves possess,
and so the scope of the training given by women depended upon the
development of their own personalities. When family traditions and
family organisation were disturbed, as perhaps they would have been in
any case sooner or later, but as they were to a more marked extent
during the Civil War, the sources from which women derived their mental
and spiritual nourishment were dried up, and without access to external
supplies their personality gradually became stunted.

Women were virtually refused access to sources of knowledge which were
external to the family, and hence, with a few exceptions they were
confined in the teaching profession to the most elementary subjects.
Women were employed in the “dames schools” attended by the common
people, or, when they could read and write themselves, mothers often
instructed their children in these arts; but the governesses employed by
gentlefolks, or the schoolmistresses to whom they sent their daughters
for the acquisition of the accomplishments appropriate to young ladies,
were seldom competent to undertake the actual teaching themselves; for
this masters were generally engaged, because few women had gone through
the training necessary to give them a sound understanding of the arts in
question. Women were not incapable of teaching, but as knowledge became
more specialized and technical, the opportunities which home life
provided for acquiring such knowledge proved inadequate; and
consequently women were soon excluded from the higher ranks of the
teaching profession.

The history of their relation to the arts of Healing is very similar.
Other things being equal, as to some extent they were when the greater
part of human life was included within the family circle, the psychic
and emotional female development appears to make women more fitted than
men to deal with preventive and remedial medicine. The explanation of
this fact offers a fascinating field for speculation, but involves too
wide a digression for discussion here, and in its support we will only
point out the fact that in the old days, when no professional services
were available, it was to the women of the family, rather than to the
men, that the sick and wounded turned for medicine and healing. Yet in
spite of this natural affinity for the care of suffering humanity, women
were excluded from the sources of learning which were being slowly
organised outside the family circle, and were thus unable to remain in
professions for which they were so eminently suited.

The suspicion that the inferior position which women occupied in the
teaching profession and their exclusion from the medical profession, was
caused rather by the absence of educational opportunities than by a
physiological incapacity for the practice of these arts, is strengthened
by the remarkable history of Midwifery; which from being reserved
exclusively for women and practised by them on a professional basis from
time immemorial, passed in its more lucrative branches into the hands of
men, when sources of instruction were opened to them which were closed
to women. Just as the amateur woman teacher was less competent than the
man who had made art or the learned languages his profession, so did the
woman who treated her family and neighbours by rule of thumb, appear
less skilful than the professional doctor, and the uneducated midwives
brought their profession into disrepute. The exclusion of women from all
the sources of specialised training was bound to re-act unfavourably
upon their characters, because as family life depended more and more
upon professional services for education and medical assistance, fewer
opportunities were offered to women for exerting their faculties within
the domestic sphere and the general incompetence of upper-class women
did in fact become more pronounced.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                              Chapter VII

                               CONCLUSION

Great productive capacity of women under conditions of Family and
Domestic Industry—no difference between efficiency of labour when
applied for domestic purposes or for trade.

Rate of wages no guide to real value of goods produced—married women
unlikely to work for wages when possessing capital for domestic
industry—Women’s productiveness in textile industries—Agriculture—Other
industries—Professional services.

Capitalism effected economic revolution in women’s position—By (_a_)
substitution of individual for family wages—(_b_) employment of
wage-earners on master’s premises—(_c_) rapid increase of master’s
wealth.

Exclusion of women from skilled trades not originally due to sex
jealousy—Women’s lack of specialised training due, (_a_) to its being
unnecessary; (_b_) the desire to keep wife in subjection to
husband—Reduction in the value to her family of woman’s productive
capacity by substitution of wage-earning for domestic industry—Effect of
her productive energy on her maternal functions and her social
influence.


THE preceding chapters have demonstrated the great productive capacity
which women possessed when society was organised on the basis of Family
and Domestic Industry. There was then no hard-and-fast line dividing
domestic occupations from other branches of industry, and thus it has
not been possible to discover how much of women’s labour was given to
purposes of trade and how much was confined to the service of their
families; but as labour was at this time equally productive, whether it
was employed for domestic purposes or in Trade, it is not necessary to
discriminate between these two classes of production in estimating the
extent to which the community depended upon women’s services. The goods
produced and the services rendered to their families by wives and
daughters, must if they had been idle have employed labour otherwise
available for Trade; or to put the position in another way, if the
labour of women had been withdrawn from the domestic industries and
applied to Trade, more goods would have been produced for the market,
which goods the said women’s families would then have obtained by
purchase; but while by this means the trade of the country would be
greatly increased, unless the efficiency of women’s labour had been
raised by its transference from domestic to other forms of industry, the
wealth of the community would remain precisely the same.

Nevertheless, in estimating a country’s prosperity domestic production
is generally overlooked, because, as the labour devoted to it receives
no wages and its results do not enter the market, there is no mechanical
standard for estimating its value. For similar reasons Home Trade is
commonly considered to be of less importance than Foreign Trade,
because, as the latter passes through the Customs, its money value can
be much more readily computed, and because the man in the street, like
King Midas, has imagined that gold is wealth. But we are here
considering the production of goods and services, not of gold, and from
this point of view, the woman who spins thread to clothe her family, and
she who furnishes by her industry milk and cheese, eggs and pork, fruit
and vegetables for the consumption of her family, has produced exactly
the same goods, no more and no less, than if she had produced them for
the market, and whether these goods are consumed by her own family or by
strangers makes absolutely no difference to their real value.

Neither can the value of a woman’s productive activity be judged by the
wages she receives, because the value of a pair of sheets is the same,
whether the flax has been spun by a well-to-do farmers’ wife who
meanwhile lives in affluence, or by a poor woman earning wages which are
insufficient to keep body and soul together. The labour required for
spinning the flax was the same in either case, for there was no
difference in the type of spinning wheel she used, or in her other
facilities for work; it was only later, when organisations for trading
purposes had enormously increased productive capacity by the
introduction of power and the sub-division of labour, that the same
productive capacity, devoted to domestic purposes, became relatively
inferior in results. This change between the relative efficiency of
domestic and industrial labour could not fail, when it took place, to
exert a marked influence on the economic position of married women,
because while their husbands earned sufficient money to pay rent and a
few outgoing expenses, they had no inducement to work for wages, their
labour being more productive at home. Women who fed and clothed
themselves and their children by means of domestic industry gratified in
this way their sense of independence as effectively as if they had
earned the equivalent money by trade or wages. Considering the low rates
paid to women, it may be supposed that few worked for wages when
possessed of sufficient stock to employ themselves fully in domestic
industries; on the other hand there were a considerable number who were
in a position to hire servants, and who, having learnt a skilled trade,
devoted themselves to business, either on their own account or jointly
with their husbands.

If the general position of women in the whole field of industry is
reviewed, it will be seen that, beyond question, all the textile fabrics
used at this time, with the exception of a few luxuries, were made from
the thread which was spun by women and children, the export trade in
cloth also depending entirely on their labour for spinning and to some
extent for the other processes. In agriculture the entire management of
the milch cows, the dairy, poultry, pigs, orchard and garden, was
undertaken by the women, and though the mistress employed in her
department men as well as women servants, the balance was redressed by
the fact that women and girls were largely employed in field work. The
woman’s contribution to farming is also shown by the fact that twice as
much land was allowed to the colonists who were married as to those who
were single. The expectation that the women and children in the
husbandman class would produce the greater part of their own food is
proved by the very low rate of wages which Quarter Sessions fixed for
agricultural labour, and by the fact that when no land was available it
was recognised that the wage-earner’s family must be dependent on the
poor rate.

Though the part which women played in agriculture and the textile
industries is fairly clear, a great obscurity still shrouds their
position in other directions. One fact however emerges with some
distinctness; women of the tradesman class were sufficiently capable in
business, and were as a rule so well acquainted with the details of
their husband’s concerns, that a man generally appointed his wife as his
executrix, while custom universally secured to her the possession of his
stock, apprentices and goodwill in the event of his death. That she was
often able to carry on his business with success, is shown by incidental
references, and also by the frequency with which widow’s names occur in
the lists of persons occupying various trades.

How much time the wives of these tradesmen actually spent over their
husband’s business is a point on which practically no evidence is
forthcoming, but it seems probable that in the skilled trades they were
seldom employed in manual processes for which they had received no
training, but were occupied in general supervision, buying and selling.
It is not therefore surprising to find women specially active in all
branches of the Retail Trade, and girls were apprenticed as often to
shopkeepers as to the recognised women’s trades such as millinery and
mantua-making.

The assistance of the wife was often so important in her husband’s
business, that she engaged servants to free her from household drudgery,
her own productive capacity being greater than the cost of a servant’s
wages. Apart from exceptional cases of illness or incompetence, the
share which the wife took in her husband’s business, was determined
rather by the question whether he carried it on at home or abroad than
by any special appropriateness of the said business to the feminine
disposition. Thus, though women were seldom carpenters or masons, they
figure as pewterers and smiths. In every business there are certain
operations which can conveniently be performed by women, and when
carried on at home within the compass of the family life, the work of a
trade was as naturally sorted out between husband and wife, as the work
on a farm. No question arose as to the relative value of their work,
because the proceeds became the joint property of the family, instead of
being divided between individuals.

With regard to the services which are now classed as professional, those
of healing and teaching were included among the domestic duties of
women. Illness was rife in the seventeenth century, for the country was
devastated by recurrent epidemics of small-pox and the plague, besides a
constant liability to ague and the other ordinary ailments of mankind;
thus the need for nursing must have been very great. The sick depended
for their tending chiefly upon the women of their own households, and
probably the majority of English people at this time, received medical
advice and drugs from the same source. Women’s skill in such matters was
acquired by experience and tradition, seldom resting upon a scientific
basis, for they were excluded from schools and universities. Acquired
primarily with a view to domestic use, such skill was extended beyond
the family circle, and women who were wise in these matters sometimes
received payment for their services. Midwifery alone was really
conducted on professional lines, and though practised in former days
exclusively by women, it was now passing from their hands owing to their
exclusion from the sources of advanced instruction.

It is difficult to estimate the respective shares taken by men and women
in the art of teaching, for while the young were dependent on home
training, they received attention from both father and mother, and when
the age for apprenticeship arrived the task was transferred to the joint
care of master and mistress. With regard to learning of a scholastic
character, reading was usually taught by women to both boys and girls,
who learnt it at home from their mothers, or at a dame’s school; but the
teaching of more advanced subjects was almost exclusively in the hands
of men, although a few highly educated women were engaged as governesses
in certain noble families where the Tudor tradition still lingered.
Generally speaking, however, when a girl’s curriculum included such
subjects as Latin and Arithmetic her instruction, like her brothers, was
received from masters, and this was equally true in the case of
accomplishments which were considered more appropriate to the
understanding of young ladies. Women rarely, if ever, undertook the
teaching of music, painting or dancing. From these branches of the
teaching profession they were debarred by lack of specialised training.

Thus it will be seen that the history of women’s position in the
professions, follows a very similar course to that of the developments
in the world of Industry; work, for which they appeared peculiarly
fitted by disposition or natural gifts, while it was included within the
domestic sphere, gradually passed out of their hands when the scene of
their labour was transferred to the wider domains of human life.

Capitalism was the means by which the revolution in women’s economic
position was effected in the industrial world. The three developments
which were most instrumental to this end being:—

(_a_) the substitution of an individual for a family wage, enabling men
to organise themselves in the competition which ruled the labour market,
without sharing with the women of their families all the benefits
derived through their combination.

(_b_) the withdrawal of wage-earners from home life to work upon the
premises of the masters, which prevented the employment of the
wage-earner’s wife in her husband’s occupation.

(_c_) the rapid increase of wealth, which permitted the women of the
upper classes to withdraw from all connection with business.

Once the strong hand of necessity is relaxed there has been a marked
tendency in English life for the withdrawal of married women from all
productive activity, and their consequent devotion to the cultivation of
idle graces; the parasitic life of its women has been in fact one of the
chief characteristics of the parvenu class. The limitations which
surrounded the lives of the women belonging to this class are most
vividly described in Pepys’ Journal, where they form a curious contrast
to the vigour and independence of the women who were actively engaged in
industry. The whole Diary should be read to gain a complete idea of the
relations of married life under these new circumstances, but a few
extracts will illustrate the poverty of Mrs. Pepys’ interests and her
abject dependence on her husband. Most curious of all is Pepys’ naïve
admission that he was trying to “make” work for his wife, which
furnishes an illustration of the saying “coming events cast their
shadows before them.”

“Nov. 12, 1662. much talke and difference between us about my wife’s
having a woman, which I seemed much angry at that she should go so far
in it without ... my being consulted. 13th. Our discontent again and
sorely angered my wife, who indeed do live very lonely, but I do
perceive that it is want of worke that do make her and all other people
think of ways of spending their time worse. June 8. 1664. Her spirit is
lately come to be other than it used to be, and now depends upon her
having Ashwell by her, before whom she thinks I shall not say nor do
anything of force to her, which vexes me, and makes me wish that I had
better considered all that I have done concerning my bringing my wife to
this condition of heat. Aug. 20. I see that she is confirmed in it that
all I do is by design, and that my very keeping of the house in dirt,
and the doing this and anything else in the house, is but to find her
employment to keep her within, and from minding of her pleasure, which
though I am sorry to see she minds it, is true enough in a great degree.
Jan. 14. 1667-8. I do find she do keep very bad remembrance of my former
unkindness to her and do mightily complain of her want of money and
liberty, which will rather hear and bear the complaint of than grant the
contrary.... Feb. 18. a ring which I am to give her as a valentine. It
will cost me near £5 she costing me but little in comparison with other
wives, and have not many occasions to spend money on her. Feb. 23. with
this and what she had she reckons that she hath above £150 worth of
jewels of one kind or another; and I am glad of it, for it is fit the
wretch should have something to content herself with.”

While the capitalistic organisation of industry increased the wealth of
the masters, it condemned a large proportion of the craftsmen to remain
permanently in the position of journeymen or wage-earners with the
incidental result that women were excluded from their ranks in the more
highly skilled trades. Under the old system of Family Industry, labour
and capital had been united in one person or family group of persons,
but capitalism brought them into conflict; and the competition which had
previously only existed between rival families was introduced into the
labour market, where men and women struggled with each other to secure
work and wages from the capitalist. The keystone of the journeymen’s
position in their conflict with capital, lay in their ability to
restrict their own numbers by the enforcement of a long apprenticeship
and the limitation of the number of apprentices. On gaining this point
the journeymen in any trade secured a monopoly which enabled them to
bargain advantageously with the masters. Their success raised them into
the position of a privileged class in the world of labour, but did
nothing to improve the position of the other wage-earners in unskilled
or unorganised trades.

When their organisation was strong enough the journeymen allowed no
unapprenticed person to be employed upon any process of their trade,
however simple or mechanical; a policy which resulted in the complete
exclusion of women, owing to the fact that girls were seldom, if ever,
apprenticed to these trades. It has been shown that under the old
system, craftsmen had been free to employ their wives and daughters in
any way that was convenient, the widow retaining her membership in her
husband’s gild or company with full trading privileges, and the
daughters able, if they wished, to obtain their freedom by patrimony.
Journeymen however now worked on their masters’ premises, their
traditions dating from a time when they were all unmarried men; and
though the majority of them had renounced the expectation of rising
above this position of dependence, the idea that they should extend
their hardly won privileges to wife or daughter never occurred to them.

Thus came about the exclusion of women from the skilled trades, for the
wives of the men who became capitalists withdrew from productive
activity, and the wives of journeymen confined themselves to domestic
work, or entered the labour market as individuals, being henceforward
entirely unprotected in the conflict by their male relations.
Capitalistic organisation tended therefore to deprive women of
opportunities for sharing in the more profitable forms of production,
confining them as wage-earners to the unprotected trades. It would be an
anachronism to ascribe this tendency to sex-jealousy in the economic
world. The idea of individual property in wages had hardly arisen, for
prevailing habits of thought still regarded the earnings of father,
mother and children as the joint property of the family, though
controlled by the father; and thus the notion that it could be to men’s
advantage to debar women from well-paid work would have seemed
ridiculous in the seventeenth century. Though the payment of individual
wages was actually in force, their implication was hardly understood,
and motives of sex-jealousy do not dominate the economic world till a
later period. While the family formed the social unit the interests of
husband and wife were bound so closely together, that neither could gain
or suffer without the other immediately sharing the loss or advantage.

The momentous influence which some phases of Capitalism were destined to
exert upon the economic position of women, were unforeseen by the men
who played a leading part in its development, and passed unnoticed by
the speculative thinkers who wrote long treatises on Theories of State
Organisation. The revolution did not involve a conscious demarcation of
the respective spheres of men and women in industry; its results were
accidental, due to the fact that women were forgotten, and so no attempt
was made to adjust their training and social status to the necessities
of the new economic organisation. The oversight is not surprising, for
women’s relation to the “Home” was regarded as an immutable law of
Nature, inviolable by any upheaval in external social arrangements.

Thus the idea that the revolution in women’s economic position was due
to deliberate policy may be dismissed. Capitalism is a term denoting a
force rather than a system; a force that is no more interested in human
relations than is the force of gravitation; nevertheless its sphere of
action lies in the social relations of men and women, and its effects
are modified and directed by human passions, prejudices and ideals. The
continuance of human existence and its emancipation from the trammels
that hamper its progress, must depend upon the successful mastery of
this as of the other forces of Nature.

If we would understand the effect of the introduction of Capitalism on
the social organism, we must remember that the subjection of women to
their husbands was the foundation stone of the structure of the
community in which Capitalism first made its appearance. Regarded as
being equally the law of Nature and the Law of God, no one questioned
the necessity of the wife’s obedience, lip service being rendered to the
doctrine of subjection, even in those households where it was least
enforced. Traditional ideas regarded the common wealth, or social
organisation, as an association of families, each family being a
community which was largely autonomous, and was self-contained for most
of life’s purposes; hence the order and health of the commonwealth
depended upon the order and efficiency of the families comprised within
it. Before the seventeenth century the English mind could not imagine
order existing without an acknowledged head. No one therefore questioned
the father’s right to his position as head of the family, but in his
temporary absence, or when he was removed by death, the public interest
required his family’s preservation, and the mother quite naturally
stepped into his place, with all its attendant responsibilities and
privileges. In this family organisation all that the father gained was
shared by the mother and children, because his whole life, or almost his
whole life, was shared by them. This is specially marked in the economic
side of existence, where the father did not merely earn money and hand
it to the mother to spend, but secured for her also, access to the means
of production; the specialised training acquired by the man through
apprenticeship did not merely enable him to earn higher wages, but
conferred upon his wife the right to work, as far as she was able, in
that trade.

Capitalism, however, broke away from the family system, and dealt direct
with individuals, the first fruit of individualism being shown by the
exclusion of women from the journeymen’s associations; and yet their
exclusion was caused in the first place by want of specialised training,
and was not the necessary result of Capitalism, for the history of the
Cotton Trade shows, in later years, that where the labour of women was
essential to an industry, an effective combination of wage-earners could
be formed which would include both sexes.

Two explanations may be given for women’s lack of specialised training.
The first, and, given the prevailing conditions of Family Industry,
probably the most potent reason lay in the belief that it was
unnecessary. A specialised training, whether in Science, Art or
Industry, is inevitably costly in time and money; and as in every trade
there is much work of a character which needs no prolonged specialised
training, and as in the ordinary course of a woman’s life a certain
proportion of her time and energy must be devoted to bearing and rearing
children, it seemed a wise economy to spend the cost of specialised
training on boys, employing women over those processes which chiefly
required general intelligence and common-sense. It has been shown that
this policy answered well enough in the days of Domestic and Family
Industry when the husband and wife worked together, and the wife
therefore reaped the advantages of the trading privileges and social
position won by her husband. It was only when Capitalism re-organised
industry on an individual basis, that the wife was driven to fight her
economic battles single handed, and women, hampered by the want of
specialised training, were beaten down into sweated trades.

The second explanation for women’s lack of specialised training is the
doctrine of the subjection of women to their husbands. While the first
reason was more influential during the days of Family and Domestic
Industry, the second gains in force with the development of Capitalism.
If women’s want of specialised training had been prejudicial to their
capacity for work in former times, such training would not have been
withheld from them merely through fear of its weakening the husband’s
power, because the husband was so dependent upon his wife’s assistance.
There was little talk then of men “keeping” their wives; neither husband
nor wife could prosper without the other’s help. But the introduction of
Capitalism, organising industry on an individual basis, freed men to
some extent from this economic dependence on their wives, and from
henceforward the ideal of the subjection of women to their husbands
could be pursued, unhampered by fear of the dangers resulting to the
said husbands by a lessening of the wife’s economic efficiency.

A sense of inferiority is one of the prime requisites for a continued
state of subjection, and nothing contributes to this sense so much, as a
marked inferiority of education and training in a society accustomed to
rate everything according to its money value. The difference in earning
capacity which the want of education produces, is in itself sufficient
to stamp a class as inferior.

There is yet another influence which contributed to the decline in the
standard of women’s education and in their social and economic position,
which is so noticeable in the seventeenth century. This period marks the
emergence of the political idea of the “mechanical state” and its
substitution for the traditional view of the nation as a commonwealth of
families. Within the family, women had their position, but neither
Locke, nor Hobbes, nor the obscure writers on political theory and
philosophy who crowd the last half of the seventeenth century,
contemplate the inclusion of women in the State of their imagination.
For them the line is sharply drawn between the spheres of men and women;
women are confined within the circle of their domestic responsibilities,
while men should explore the ever widening regions of the State. The
really significant aspect of this changed orientation of social ideas,
is the separation which it introduces between the lives of women and
those of men, because hitherto men as well as women lived in the Home.

The mechanical State _quâ_ State did not yet exist in fact, for the
functions of the Government did not extend much beyond the enforcement
of Justice and the maintenance of Defence. Englishmen were struggling to
a realisation of the other aspects of national life by means of
voluntary associations for the pursuit of Science, of Trade, of
Education, or other objects, and it is in these associations that the
trend of their ideas is manifested, for one and all exclude women from
their membership; to foster the charming dependence of women upon their
husbands, all independent sources of information were, as far as
possible, closed to them. Any association or combination of women
outside the limits of their own families was discouraged, and the
benefits which had been extended to them in this respect by the Catholic
Religion were specially deprecated. Milton’s statement sums up very
fairly the ideas of this school of thought regarding the relations that
should exist between husband and wife in the general scheme of things.
They were to exist “He for God only, she for God in him.” The general
standard of education resulting from such theories was inevitably
inferior; and the exclusion of women from skilled industry and the
professions, was equally certain to be the consequence sooner or later,
of the absence of specialised training.

The general effect upon women of this exclusion, which ultimately
limited their productive capacity to the field of household drudgery, or
to the lowest paid ranks of unskilled labour, belongs to a much later
period. But one point can already be discerned and must not be
overlooked. This point is the alteration which took place in the value
to her family of a woman’s productive capacity when her labour was
transferred from domestic industry to wage-earning, under the conditions
prevailing in the seventeenth century. When employed in domestic
industry the whole value of what she produced was retained by her
family; but when she worked for wages her family only received such a
proportion of it as she was able to secure to them by her weak
bargaining power in the labour market. What this difference amounted to
will be seen when it is remembered that the wife of a husbandman could
care for her children and feed and clothe herself and them by domestic
industry, but when working for wages she could not earn enough for her
own maintenance.

This depreciation of the woman’s productive value to her family did not
greatly influence her position in the seventeenth century, because it
was then only visible in the class of wage-earners, and into this
position women were forced by poverty alone. The productive efficiency
of women’s services in domestic industry remained as high as ever, and
every family which was possessed of sufficient capital for domestic
industry, could provide sufficient profitable occupation for its women
without their entry into the labour market. Independent hard-working
families living under the conditions provided by Family and Domestic
Industry, still formed the majority of the English people. The upper
classes, as far as the women were concerned, were becoming more idle,
and the number of families depending wholly on wages was increasing, but
farmers, husbandmen and tradesmen, still formed a class sufficiently
numerous to maintain the hardy stock of the English race unimpaired.
Thus, while the productive capacity of women was reduced in the
seventeenth century by the idleness of the _nouveau riche_ and by the
inefficiency of women wage-earners which resulted from their lack of
nourishment, it was maintained at the former high level among the
intermediate and much larger class, known as “the common people.”

Though from the economic point of view intense productive energy on the
part of women is no longer necessary to the existence of the race, and
has been generally abandoned, an understanding of its effect upon the
maternal functions is extremely important to the sociologist. No
complete vital statistics were collected in the seventeenth century, but
an examination of the different evidence which is still available,
leaves no doubt that the birth-rate was extremely high in all classes,
except perhaps that of wage-earners. It was usual for active busy women
amongst the nobility and gentry, to bear from twelve to twenty children,
and though the death rate was also high, the children that survived
appear to have possessed abundant vitality and energy. Neither does the
toil which fell to the lot of the women among the common people appear
to have injured their capacity for motherhood; in fact the wives of
husbandmen were the type selected by the wealthy to act as wet nurses
for their children. It is only among the class of wage-earners that the
capacity for reproduction appears to have been checked, and in this
class it was the under-feeding, rather than the over-working of the
mothers, which rendered them incapable of rearing their infants.

The effect of the economic position of women, must be considered also in
relation to another special function which women exercise in society,
namely the part which they play in the psychic and moral reactions
between the sexes. This subject has seldom been investigated in a
detached and truly scientific spirit, and therefore any generalisations
that may be submitted have little value. It will only be observed here
that the exercise by women of productive energy in the Elizabethan
period, was not then inconsistent with the attainment by the English
race of its high-water mark in vitality and creative force, and that a
comparison of the social standards described by Restoration and
Elizabethan Dramatists, reveals a decadence, which, if not consequent
upon, was at least coincident with, the general withdrawal of
upper-class women from their previous occupation with public and private
affairs.

Undoubtedly the removal of business and public interests from the home,
resulted in a loss of educational opportunities for girls; a loss which
was not made good to them in other ways, and which therefore produced
generations of women endowed with a lower mental and moral calibre. The
influence of women upon their husbands narrowed as men’s lives drifted
away from the home circle and centred more round clubs and external
business relations. Hence it came about that in the actual social
organisation prevailing in England during the last half of the
seventeenth century, the influence or psychic reaction of women upon men
was very different in character and much more limited in scope, than
that exercised by them in the Elizabethan period. When considered in
regard to the historical facts of this epoch, it will be noticed that
the process by which the vital forces and energy of the people were
lowered and which in common parlance is termed emasculation, accompanied
an evolution which was in fact depressing the female forces of the
nation, leaving to the male forces an ever greater predominance in the
directing of the people’s destiny. The evidence given in the preceding
chapters is insufficient to determine what is cause and what is effect
in such complicated issues of life, and only shows that a great
expenditure of productive energy on the part of women is not, under
certain circumstances, inconsistent with the successful exercise of
their maternal functions, nor does it necessarily exhaust the creative
vital forces of the race.

The enquiry into the effect which the appearance of Capitalism has
produced upon the economic position of women has drawn attention to
another issue, which concerns a fundamental relation of human society,
namely to what extent does the Community or State include women among
its integral members, and provide them with security for the exercise of
their functions, whether these may be of the same character or different
from those of men.

It has been suggested that the earlier English Commonwealth did actually
embrace both men and women in its idea of the “Whole,” because it was
composed of self-contained families consisting of men, women and
children, all three of which are essential for the continuance of human
society; but the mechanical State which replaced it, and whose
development has accompanied the extension of Capitalism, has regarded
the individual, not the family, as its unit, and in England this State
began with the conception that it was concerned only with male
individuals. Thus it came to pass that every womanly function was
considered as the private interest of husbands and fathers, bearing no
relation to the life of the State, and therefore demanding from the
community as a whole no special care or provision.

The implications of such an idea, together with the effect which it
produced upon a society in which formerly women had been recognised as
members, though perhaps not equal members, cannot be fully discussed in
this essay; the investigation would require a much wider field of
evidence than can be provided from the survey of one century. But from
the mere recognition that such a change took place, follow ideas of the
most far-reaching significance concerning the structure of human
society; we may even ask ourselves whether the instability,
superficiality and spiritual poverty of modern life, do not spring from
the organisation of a State which regards the purposes of life solely
from the male standpoint, and we may permit ourselves to hope that when
this mechanism has been effectively replaced by the organisation of the
whole, which is both male and female, humanity will receive a renewal of
strength that will enable them to grapple effectively with the blind
force Capitalism;—that force which, while producing wealth beyond the
dreams of avarice, has hitherto robbed us of so large a part of the joy
of creation.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                              AUTHORITIES.

    (_The numbers in leaded type are the press marks in the British
                               Museum._)


Account of Several Workhouses for Employing and Maintaining the Poor,
    etc. _London_ 1725. =1027 i. 18 (9).=

Act of Common Council for the reformation of sundry abuses practised by
    divers persons upon the common markets and streets of the City of
    London. 1631. =21 l. 5. (4).=

Act for the settlement and well ordering of the severall Publick Markets
    within the City of London. 1674. =21 l. 5 (58).=

Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum II. 1651. =Add. MSS. 36308.=

Answer to a Paper of Reflections on the Project for laying a Duty on
    English Wrought Silks. =8223 e. 9 (75).=

Arber, Edward. Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers
    of London. 1554-1640. _London_, 1876.

Assheton, Nicholas, Esq. Journal of; ed. by Rev. F. R. Raines. _Chetham
    Soc._, 1848.

Astell, Mary. A serious proposal to the Ladies for the advancement of
    their true and greatest Interest, by a Lover of her sex. 1694.
    =12314 a. 22.=

Atkinson, J. C. Quarter Sessions Records for the North Riding of
    Yorkshire. _London_, 1884. =R. ac. 8190.=

Bacon, Francis. Works of; ed. by Spedding. _London_, 1858.

Bacon, Sir Nathaniel, of Stiffkey, Norfolk. Official Papers of,
    1580-1620. _Royal Hist. Soc. Camden, 3rd Series_. 1915.

Baillie, Lady Grisell. Household Book of, ed. by R. Scott-Moncrieff.
    _Edinburgh_, 1911. =R. ac. 8256.=

Banks, John. A Journal of the Life of. _London_, 1712.

Barrett, C. R. B. History of the Society of Apothecaries of London.
    _London_, 1905. =7680 f. 14.=

Bateson, Mary. Borough Customs. _Selden Society, Vol. XVIII._, 1904. =R.
    ac. 2176.=

—— Records of the Borough of Leicester. _Cambridge_, 1905. =2367 b. 5.=

Batt, Mary. Testimony to the Life and Death of. 1683.

Bedell, Wm. True relation of the life and death of the Right Reverend
    Father in God, Lord Bishop of Kilmore In Ireland. _Camden Society_,
    1872. =R. ac. 8113/98.=

Best, Henry. Rural Economy in Yorkshire in 1641. _Surtees Society_, 33.
    _Durham_, 1857.

Black, W. H. History and Antiquities of the Worshipful Company of
    Leather-sellers of the City of London. _London_ 1871. =1890 c. 5.=

Bownas, Samuel. Life and Travels of. _London_ 1756.

Brathwaite, Richard. Anniversaries upon his Panarete continued—with her
    contemplations penned in the languishing time of her sicknesse.
    _London_ 1635. =Huth 68.=

—— The English gentleman and English gentlewoman in one volume
    concluded: the 3rd edition with a Ladies Love Lecture and a
    supplement. _London_ 1641. =30 e. 6.=

Brewster, John. Parochial History and Antiquities of Stockton upon Tees.
    _Stockton_ 1796. =2368 d. 3=

Brief State of the Inland or Home Trade of England, and of the
    oppressions it suffers, and the Dangers which threaten it from the
    Invasion of Hawkers, Pedlars and Clandestine Traders of all sorts.
    _London_ 1730. =104 h. 20.=

British Friend.

Bund, J. W. Willis. Worcestershire County Records. _Worcester_ 1900.
    =010360 i.=

Burton, John Richard. History of Kidderminster. 1890. =10368 h. 27.=

C. W. The Bespotted Jesuite. _London_ 1641. =E. 166 (3).=

Calendar State Papers. Domestic Series (C. S.P.D.).

Canterbury. Articles to be enquired of by the Churchwardens, etc. =698
    n. 20 (18).=

Carpenters, Records of the Worshipful Company of. 1913. =W.P. 2524.=

Cary, John. Account of the Proceedings of the Corporation of Bristol in
    execution of the Act of Parliament for the better Employing and
    Maintaining the Poor of that City. _London_ 1700. =1027 i. 18 (3).=

Carrier, Henriette. Origines de la Maternité de Paris. 1888. =7687 eee.
    31.=

Case of the Linen Drapers and other Dealers in Printed Callicoes and
    Linens. =816 m. 13 (49).=

Case of British and Irish Manufacture of Linnen, Threads, and Tapes,
    etc. =1887 b. 60 (6).=

Case of the Manufacturers of Gilt and Silver Wire. =1887 b. 60 (9).=

Case of the Parish of St. Giles. =8223 e. 9 (23).=

Case of the Woollen Manufacturers of Great Britain, and of the Poor they
    imploy. =1887 b. 60 (32).=

Case or Petition of the Corporation of Pin-makers. =816 m. 13.=

Cellier, Elizabeth, Mrs. Scheme for the foundation of a Royal Hospital.
    _London_ 1687. _Harl. Misc. Vol. iv._

—— To Dr. —— an answer to his Queeries concerning the Colledg of
    Midwives. 1687-8. =1178 h. 2 (2).=

—— Malice Defeated. 1680. =515 l. 1 (10).=

Chalkley, Thomas. Collection of the Works of. _London_ 1751.

Chamberlain, Hugh, Dr. Trans. Treatise on Midwifery by F. Maurice. 1672.

Chamberlain, Peter. Dr. in Physick, Fellow of the Colledge of London,
    and one of His Majestie’s Physicians Extraordinary. A voice in Rhama
    or the Crie of Women and Children. _London_ 1646. =B.M. E. 1181.=

Charter of the Joiners’ Co. Chester. _Harl. MSS._ 2054, _fo._ 5.

Charter and By-laws of the Company of Armourers and Brasiers, in the
    City of London. 1554-1640. 1873. =08227 b. 13.=

Child, Sir Josiah. A New Discourse of Trade, etc. _2nd ed. London_ 1694.
    =712 c. 5.=

—— Short Addition. 1668. =1029 b. 1.=

Churchwardens’ Accounts. Steeple Ashton. _Wilts Notes and Queries._
    _London_ 1911. =R. pp. 6049 m.=

—— St. Michael’s in Bedwardine, Worcester. _Oxford_ 1896. =R. Ac.
    8166/8.=

Clode, Charles M. Memorials of the Guild of Merchant Taylors, City of
    London. _London_ 1875. =2366 d. 2.=

—— Early History of the Guild of Merchant Taylors of the Fraternity of
    St. John the Baptist, London. _London_ 1888. =8248 f. 18.=

Clothiers’ Complaint, or Reasons for Passing the Bill. _London_ 1692.
    =711 f. 28.=

Compleat Servant-maid, or the Young Maiden’s Tutor. _London_ 1700. =1037
    a. 42.=

Congreve, Wm. Works of. _London_ 1710. =641 d. 3.=

Considerations touching the Excise of Native and Forreign Commodities
    (as formerly established) as also how the present Excise settled on
    His Majesty may (with some additions) be improved to the sum
    resolved on by the Commons in Parliament. =712 m. 1 (3).=

Costello, Louisa S. Memoirs of Eminent Englishwomen. _London_ 1844.
    =1023 i. 8.=

Council Register.

Cox, Rev. J. C. Churchwardens’ Accounts. 1913. =2260 b. 3.=

—— Three Centuries of Derbyshire Annals as illustrated by the Records of
    the Quarter Sessions of the County of Derby. _London_ 1890. =010358
    l. 28.=

Cratfield. Accounts of the Parish of. Ed. by Wm. Holland and J. J.
    Raven. 1895. =010358 l. 42=.

Croker, John. Brief Memoirs of. _London_ 1839.

Cromwell Family. Bills and Receipts. Vol. II. 1546-1672. =Add. Mss.
    33,461.=

Crosfield, Helen G. Margaret Fox of Swarthmoor Hall. _London_ 1913.

Culpeper, Nicholas, Gent., Student in Physick and Astrologie. Directory
    for Midwives. 1651. =E. 1340.=

Davenant (Inspector-General of Exports and Imports). An Account of the
    trade between Greate Britain, France, Holland, etc., ... delivered
    in his reports made to the Commissioners for Publick Accounts. 1715.

Davies, J. S. History of Southampton. _London_ 1883. =2368 cc. 5.=

Decker, Thomas. Best Plays. _Ed. by E. Rhys._ _London_ 1887. =11773 bb.
    14.=

Declaration of the Estate of Clothing now used within this Realme of
    England. =712 G. 16 (1).=

Defoe, Daniel. The Behaviour of Servants in England. _London_ 1724.
    =1137 h. 6.=

—— Every-Body’s Business is No-Body’s Business. _London_ 1725. =1137 h.
    6 (2).=

Dunning, Richard, Gent. A plain and easie Method shewing how the office
    of overseer of the Poor may be managed, whereby it may be £9,000 per
    annum Advantage to the County of Devon, without abating the weekly
    Relief of any Poor, or doing a Penny damage to any Person. _London_
    1686. =1027 i. 17.=

Dunsford, M. Historical Memoirs of the Town and Parish of Tiverton.
    _Exeter_ 1790. =2368 d. 3.=

Englands Way to win wealth and to employ Ships and Mariners, etc., by
    Tobias, Gentleman, Fisherman and Mariner. 1614. _Harleian Misc.,
    Vol. III._

Evelyn, John. Diary of. _Ed. by Wm. Bray._ 1906. =10854 f. 11.=

Exeter. Articles to be enquired of by the Churchwardens. 1636. =698 n.
    20 (19).=

Eyre, Captain Adam. A Dyurnall. 1646. _Surtees Society, Vol. LXV._
    _Durham_ 1877. =R. ac. 8045/53.=

Falkland, Lady Letice Vi-countess. The Virtuous, Holy, Christian Life
    and Death of the late, by John Duncon. _London_ 1653. =701 b. 12.=

Fanshawe, Lady. Memoirs of. Wife of Sir Richard Fanshawe, Bart. _London_
    1905. =012207 i.=

Fell, Sarah. Swarthmoor Household Accounts.

Ferguson, R. S. Municipal Records of the City of Carlisle. _Carlisle_
    1887. =R. ac. 5630/5.=

Fiennes, Celia. Through England on a Side-Saddle in the time of William
    and Mary. Being the Diary of C. F. _London_ 1888. =10854 g. 23.=

Firmin, Thomas. The Life of. _London_ 1698. =857 h. 26.=

—— Some Proposals for the imploying of the Poor, especially in and about
    the City of London. _London_ 1678. =1027 i. 32.=

Fitzherbert, Sir Anthony. Book of Husbandrye. 1555. =969 a. 32 (1).=

Foulis, Sir John, of Ravelston. Account Book of. 1671-1707. _Edinburgh_
    1894. =R. ac. 8256.=

Fox, F. F. Some Account of the Merchant Taylors, Bristol. _Bristol_
    1880. =10352 l. 17.=

Further Considerations for encouraging the woollen Manufacturers of this
    Kingdom. =1852 d. 1 (41).=

Gentlemen’s Magazine. May, 1834. Vol. I., Letter to Lord Althorp on the
    Poor Laws by Equitas.

Gibbs, A. E. Corporation Records—St. Albans. _St. Albans_ 1890. =10351
    cc. 56.=

Grasier’s Complaint. _London_ 1726. =712 G. 16.=

Guilding, J. M. Reading Records. 1892. =2366 d. 4.=

Hale, Sir Matthew. Method Concerning Relief and Employment of the Poor.
    _London_ 1699. =1027 i. 18 (1).=

—— Discourse touching Provision for the Poor.

Hamilton, A. H. A. Quarter Sessions Records, Queen Elizabeth to Queen
    Anne. 1878. =6006 a. 14.=

Hardy, W. J. Hertford County Records, 1581-1698. _Hertford_ 1905.
    =010360 K. 7.=

—— Middlesex County Records. 1905. =5805 d. f. 2.=

Harl. MSS. 2054, 2105, relating to City of Chester.

Harley, Letters of the Lady Brilliana. _Intro. and notes by Thos. Taylor
    Lewis._ _London_ 1853. =R. ac. 8113/56.=

Haynes, John. Great Britain’s Glory, or an account of the Great Numbers
    of Poor employed in the woollen and silk manufactures. _London_
    1715. =1029 a. 6 (3).=

—— View of the Present State of the Clothing Trade in England. _London_
    1706. =1029 a. 6 (2).=

Heath, J. B. Some account of the Worshipful Company of Grocers of the
    City of London. _London_ 1854. =1302 m. 2.=

Herbert, Wm. History of the Twelve Great Livery Companies of London.
    1836.

Heylyn, Peter, D.D. The Historical and Miscellaneous Tracts of; and an
    account of the life of the Author. _London_ 1681. =479 d. 11.=

—— Cyprianus Anglicus. 1668. =C82 f. 2.=

—— Voyage of France. 1673. =10170 aaa. 8.=

Heywood, Rev. Oliver, 1630-1702. His autobiography, diaries, anecdote
    and event books, _ed. by J. Horsfall Turner_. 1882. =4907 e. 4.=

Historical MSS. Commission 14 Rep. App. VIII.

—— Various Collections. Vol. I.

—— —— Vol. IV.

Hoare, Sir R. C. History of Modern Wiltshire. Old and New Sarum or
    Salisbury. _London_ 1843.

Holdsworth, W. S. A History of Eng. Law. 1903.

Holroyd, Joseph, cloth factor, and Sam. Hill, Clothier, Letter Books of.
    _Halifax_ 1900. =7958 h.=

Howard, Lord William of Naworth Castle. Selections from the Household
    Books of. _Surtees Society, Vol. LXVIII._ _Durham_ 1878. =R. ac.
    8045/55.=

Howell, James. Familiar Letters. _London_ 1754. =G. 2118.=

Humble Petition and Case of the Tobacco Pipe Makers of the City of
    London and Westminster. 1695. =816 m. 12.=

Humble Petition of many thousands of Courtiers’, Citizens’, Gentlemen’s
    and Tradesmen’s wives, etc. _Feb._ 10, 1641. =669 f. 4 (59).=

Humble Petition of the Master, Wardens and Assistants of the Company of
    Silk Throwers, London. =816 m. 13 (115).=

Hunter, Joseph. History and Topography of Ketteringham. _Norwich_ 1851.
    =10351 h. 10.=

Hutchinson, Memoirs of the Life of Colonel, written by his widow, Lucy.
    _Ed. by C. H. Firth._ 1906. =12207 p.p.=

Irish Friend. Vol. IV. Account of remarkable visions and passages of
    John Adams, of Yorkshire.

James, John. History of the Worsted Manufacture in England. _London_
    1857. =2270 bb. 16.=

Johnson, Rev. A. H. History of the Worshipful Company of Drapers of
    London. 1914. =W.P. 3016.=

Jonson, Ben. Plays. 1756. =673 f. 13-19.=

Josselin, Rev. Ralph. The Diary of. 1616-1683, _ed. for the Royal
    Historical Society by E. Hockcliffe_. 1908. =R. ac. 8118/17.=

Jupp, Ed. B. Historical Account of the Worshipful Company of Carpenters
    of the City of London. _London_ 1887. =10350 dd. 17.=

King, Gregory (Rouge Dragon). Natural and Political Observations and
    Conclusions upon the state and condition of England, 1696. _Ed. by
    G. Chalmers._ _London_ 1910. =1137 k. 27.=

Lambert, Rev. J. Malet. 2,000 years of Gild Life, Kingston-upon-Hull.
    =2240 f. 9.=

Lamond, Eliz. Discourse of the Common Weal of this Realm of England.
    First printed in 1581. _Cambridge_ 1893. =8009 aaa. 33.=

Lansdowne MSS. 161 fo. 127. Letter from Mayor of Southampton to Sir J.
    Cæsar _re_ suit of Rachell Tierry.

—— 351 fo. 18 b. A Project for Mounts of Piety.

Latimer, John. Annals of Bristol. _Bristol_ 1900. =2367 bb. 1.=

Leach, Arthur F. Beverley Town Documents. _Selden Society, Vol. xiv._
    _London_ 1900. =R. ac. 2176.=

Leader, John Daniel. Extracts from the earliest book of Accounts
    belonging to the Town Trustees of Sheffield. 1566-1707. _Sheffield_
    1879. =8228 aa. 11.=]

—— Records of the Burgery of Sheffield, commonly called the Town Trust.
    _London_ 1897. =010358 f. 63.=

Leader, Robert Eadon. History of the Company of Cutlers in Hallamshire.
    _Sheffield_ 1905. =1889 e. 10.=

Leland, John. The Itinerary of, 1535-1543. _Ed. by L. Toulmin Smith._
    _London_ 1907. =2366 d. 6.=

Linnen and Woollen Manufactory discoursed, with the Nature of Companies
    and Trade in General. _London_ 1691. =712 m. 1 (14).=

Lipson, E. An Introduction to the Economic History of England. I. the
    Middle Ages. _London_ 1915. =W.P. 2753.=

Little Red Book of Bristol. _Ed. by F. B. Bickley._ =10370 h. 22.=

Lyon, John. History of Town and Port of Dover. _Dover_ 1813. =191 b. 6.=

Manchester Court Leet Records. =1887.=

Martindale, Adam, The Life of, written by himself. _Ed. by Richard
    Parkinson. Cheetham Society, Vol. IV._ 1845. =R. ac. 8120.=

McMath, James, M.D. The Expert Mid-wife. 1694. =7581 de. 19.=

Mayo, C. H. Municipal Records of the Borough of Dorchester. Dorset.
    _Exeter_ 1908. =010360 k. 11.=

Monthly Meeting Minute Books of the Society of Friends, Horselydown and
    Peele.

Mournfull Cryes of many thousand Poore Tradesmen, 1647. =669 f. 11
    (116).=

Murray, Lady Mary, of Stanhope. Memoirs of Lives and Characters of the
    Rt. Hon. Geo. Baillie of Jerviswood, and of Lady Grisell Baillie.
    _Edinburgh_ 1822. =614 g. 29.=

Nash, T. History and Antiquities of Worcester. 1781.

Nicholas Papers. Correspondence of Sir Edward Nicholas, Secretary of
    State. _Ed. by G. F. Warner._ _Camden Society_ 1886. =R. ac.
    8113/127.=

Nicholson, Dame Magdalen, widow of Sir Gilbert Elliot, first Baronet of
    Stobbs, by Alexander O. Curle. Some notes of the Account Book of.
    _In Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland._
    1904-1905. Vol. _XXXIX., pp._ 120-132. =R. ac. 5770. 2.=

Nottingham, Records of the Borough of. _London_ 1889. =2366 d. 1.=

Osborne, Dorothy. Letters to Sir William Temple. _Ed. by E. A. Parry._
    =10921 bbb. 34.=

Overall, W. H. Analytical Index to the Series of Records known as the
    Remembrancia, preserved among the Archives of the City of London.
    1579-1664. _London_ 1878.

—— Some account of the Company of Clockmakers of the City of London.
    _London_ 1881. =10349 gg. 11.=

Pechey, John. Fellow of the Colledge of Physicians. The Compleat
    Midwife’s practice enlarged. _London_ 1698. =778 b. 44.=

Pepys, Samuel. Diary and Correspondence. _Ed. by_ Rev. Mynors Bright.
    _London_ 1875. =100854 ee. 1.=

Petty, Dorothy, the case of, in Relation to the Union Society, at the
    White Lyon by Temple Bar, whereof she is Director. 1710. =816 m.
    10/82.=

Phipps, Thomas, Esq. His Proposal for Raising 1,000,000 of Pounds
    Sterling Yearly. 1712. =8223 e. 9 (60).=

Poor Out-cast Children’s Song and Cry. _London_ 1653. =669 f. 16 (93).=

Powell, John. The Assize of Bread. _London_ 1600. =C. 40 d. 54.=

The Proverb Crossed or a new Paradox maintained, etc., Being a Full
    Clear and Distinct answer to a Paper of an English Gentleman, who
    endeavours to demonstrate that it is for the Interest of England,
    that the Laws against the Transportation of Wooll should be
    repealed. _London_ 1677. =712 g. 16 (16).=

Pseudonismus, Considerations concerning Common-fields and Inclosures.
    1654. =E. 719 (9).=

Ramsey, Wm. History of Worshipful Company of Glass-sellers of London.
    1898. =8248 g. 19.=

Rawdon, Marmaduke, of York, the Life of. _Ed. by Richard Davies._
    _Camden Society, Vol. LXXXV._ =R. ac. 8113/80.=

Raynold, Thomas. The byrth of Mankynde, otherwyse named the woman’s
    booke, newly set furth, corrected and augmented. _London_ 1545.
    =1177 h. 1.=

Reasons for a Limited Exportation of Wooll. 1677. =712 g. 16 (14).=

Reasons humbly offered to the Honourable House of Commons by the
    Leather-dressers and Glovers. =816 m. 13 (39).=

Remarks upon Mr. Webber’s Scheme and the Draper’s Pamphlet. 1741. =1029
    d. 4 (5).=

Report of Commission on Decay of Clothing Trade. 1622. Stowe =554 fo.
    45-49.=

Report of the Commissioners on the Condition of the Hand-loom weavers,
    1841. Mr. Chapman’s Report.

Riley, H. T. Chronicles of the Mayors and Sheriffs of London, 1188-1274.
    _London_ 1863. =9510 h. 12.=

—— Memorials of London and London Life. 1868.

Riley, W. H. Translation of the Liber Albus, of the City of London.
    Compiled 1419, by John Carpenter, clerk, and Richard Whittington,
    Mayor. _London_ 1861. =9510 f. 22.=

Rockley, Francis, Esq., Presenteth that the Revenue of Excise. =816 m. 6
    (2).=

Rogers, J. E. Thorold. History of Agriculture and Prices. _Oxford_
    1866-1902.

—— Oxford City Documents. 1891. =R. ac. 8126/10.=

Rogers, Timothy, M.A. The Character of a Good Woman, both in a Single
    and Marry’d State, in a Funeral Discourse on Prov. 31, 10,
    occasion’d by the Decease of Mrs. Elizabeth Dunton. _London_ 1697.
    =1417 b. 29.=

Rolls of Parliament.

Salford, The Portmote or Court Leet Records of the Borough or Town and
    Royal Manor of, 1597-1669. _Cheetham Society_ 1902. _Vol. xlvi. new
    series._ =R. ac. 8120.=

Scheme to prevent the running of Irish Wools to France. By a Merchant of
    London. _London_ 1743. =1029 d. 4 (3).=

Second Humble Address from the Poor Weavers and Manufacturers to the
    Ladies. =816 m. 14 (84).=

Sharp, Jane. The Midwives Book or the whole art of Midwifery discovered,
    by Mrs. Jane Sharp, Practioner in the art of Midwifery above thirty
    years. _London_ 1671. =1177 b. 19.=

Shaw’s, Mrs., Innocency restored and Mr. Clendon’s Calumny retorted,
    notwithstanding his late Triumphing, by sundry Depositions, making
    out more than ever she by Discourse or writing did positively charge
    upon him. _London_ 1653. =E. 730 596 (8).=

Short Essay upon Trade in General, etc., by a Lover of his Country.
    _London_ 1741. =1029 d. 4 (2).=

Smith, L. Toulmin. English Gilds. 1870. =R. ac. 9925/33.=

Smith’s Book of Accounts, Chester, 1574. =Harl. MSS. 2054 fo. 22.=

Smyth, Richard, The Obituary of. Secondary of the poultry Compter,
    London; being a catalogue of all such persons as he knew in their
    life. _Ed. by Sir Henry Ellis._ _Camden Society_, 1849. =R. ac.
    8113/44.=

Smythe, W. Dumville. Historical Account of the Worshipful Company of
    Girdlers, London. _London_ 1905. =8248 e. 44.=

Somerset Quarter Sessions Records. _Ed. by Rev. E. N. Bates Harbin._
    1913. =R. ac. 8133/17.=

Sowerby, Leo. Ladies Dispensatory, containing the nature, virtues and
    qualities of all Herbs and simples usefull in Physick reduced into a
    methodical order, for their more ready use in any sicknesse, or
    other accident of the Body. _London_ 1651. =E. 1258.=

State Papers. Domestic Series (S.P.D.).

Statutes at Large.

Stone, Jolley. Court Precedents. 1673. =Harl. MSS. 1628.=

Stopes, Mrs. C. C. Shakespeare’s Warwickshire Contemporaries. 1897.
    =11765 d. 17.=

Stow, John. Survey of the cities of London and Westminster. Written at
    first MDXCVIII., brought down from the year 1633 to the present time
    by John Strype. _London_ 1720. =1791 d. 5.=

Strood, Churchwarden’s Acc. Book. 1555-1763. =Add. MSS. 36937.=

Sussex Archeological Collections. Account Book of Cowden. Vol. XX.
    Burrell, Timothy, Journal of. Vol. III. Danny Papers. Vol. X. East
    Sussex Parochial Documents. Vol. IV. Everenden and Frewen Account
    Books. Vol. IV. Hastings Documents. Vol. XXIII. Herstmonceux Castle
    House Accounts. Vol. XLVIII. Mayfield Overseer’s Accounts. Vol.
    XVIII. Moore, Rev. Giles, Journal of. Vol. I. Stapley, Rich., Diary
    of. Vol. II.

Taylor, Randall. A Discourse of the Growth of England in Populousness
    and Trade since the Reformation. 1689. =712 m. 1 (13).=

Tawney, R. H. The assessment of Wages in England by the Justices of
    the Peace—_in the vierteljahrschrift für Sozial und
    Wirtschaftsgeschichte. XI. Band Drittes Heft und Viertes Heft_.
    1913.

Thornton, Mrs. Alice of East Newton, Co. York. Autobiography. _Surtees
    Society, Vol. LXII._ 1873 =R. ac. 8045/50.=

Tingey, J. C. Assessment of Wages for Norfolk. _English Historical
    Review, Vol. XIII._

—— Records of the City of Norwich. _Norwich_ 1906. =2368 cc. 4.=

Trade of England. Revived and the abuses thereof Rectified. _London_
    1681. =712 g. 16 (20).=

True Account how Mr. Reading’s House at Santoft happened to be Burnt.
    =816 m. 10/112.=

True Case of the Scots Linen Manufacture. =816 m. 13 (55).=

Verney, F. P. Memoirs of the Verney Family during the Civil Wars.
    _London_ 1892. =2407 f. 12.=

Vives, office and duetie of an husband. Trans. by Thos. Paynell. 1550.
    =G. 10325.=

Watson, Wm. The Clergyman’s Law. 1747. =516 m. 10.=

Weavers True Case, or the wearing of Printed Calicoes and Linnen
    Destructive to the Woollen and Silk Manufacturers. 1719. =T. 1814
    (8).=

Welch, Charles. History of the Worshipful Company of Pewterers of the
    City of London. _London_ 1902. =8248 f. 15.=

Welford, Richard. History of Newcastle and Gateshead. =London= 1885.
    =2367 bb. 7.=

Wilkinson, Robert. The Merchant Royal, or woman a ship, etc. in conjugal
    duty, set forth in a collection of ingenious and delightful wedding
    sermons. Original ed., 1607. _London_ 1732. =4454 b. 9.=

Wycherley, Wm. Plays. _London_ 1735. =644 a. 19.=

Yonge, Walter. Diary at Colyton and Axminster, Co. Devon. 1604-1628.
    _Ed. by Geo. Roberts._ _Camden Society 1848._ =R. ac. 8113/41.=


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                           WAGES ASSESSMENTS.


 _County._                               _Reference._

 Buckingham           Hamilton, A. H. A., Quarter Sessions Records from
                        Queen Eliz. to Queen Anne.

 Cardigan             Dyson, Humfrey, Proclamations of Queen Elizabeth.
                        G6463 (331b.).

 Chester              Harleian MSS., 2054 (3) f. 5 2b.

 Derbyshire           Cox, J. C., Three Centuries of Derbyshire Annals.

 Devonshire           Hamilton, A. H. A., Quarter Sessions Record.

 Dorsetshire          Sussex Archeological Collections, Vol. I., p. 75.

 Essex                Ruggles, Thomas, History of the Poor, pp. 123-5.
                        1027 i. 1.

 Gloucestershire      Rogers, J. E. Thorold, History of Agriculture and
                        Prices. Vol. VI., p. 694.

 Hertfordshire        Hardy, W. J., Hertford County Records.

 Kent                 Rogers, J. E. T., History of Agriculture and
                        Prices. Vol. VII., p. 623.

 Kingston-upon-Hull   Dyson, Humfrey, Proclamations. G6463 (77).

 Lancashire           Rogers, J. E. T., History of Agriculture and
                        Prices. Vol. VI., p. 689.

 Lincolnshire         Hist. MSS. Com., Duke of Rutland, Vol. I., p. 460.

 London               Lord Mayor’s Proclamations. 21 h. 5 (61).

 Middlesex            Hardy, W. J., Middlesex County Records.

 Norfolk              English Historical Review, Vol. XIII., p. 522.

 Rutland              Archeologia, Vol. XI., pp. 200-7.

 St. Albans           Gibbs, Corporation Records.

 Somerset             Somerset Quarter Sessions Records.

 Suffolk              Cullum, Sir John., History of Hawstead.

 Warwickshire         Archeologia, Vol. XI., p. 208.

 Wiltshire            Hist. MSS. Com. Var. Coll., Vol. I., p. 163.

 Worcestershire       Hist. MSS. Com. Var. Coll., Vol. I., p. 323.

 Yorkshire:           Rogers, J. E. T., History of Agriculture and
   East Riding          Prices, Vol. VI., p. 686.

 Yorkshire:           Atkinson, J. C., Yorkshire, North Riding Quarter
   North Riding         Sessions Records, Vols. VI. and VII.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                                 INDEX



 Agriculture, 9, 42-92 _passim_, 93, 150, 292;_seq._,
   _see_ Apprentice, Capitalism, Dairy, Farmer, Husbandman, Labourer,
      Pig-keeping, Poultry-keeping, Spinning, Wages, Wage-earner, Wife,
      Yeoman;
   _conditions for rearing children_, 43, 92.

 Alehouse, 91 _seq._, 101, 225, 229, 231-233 _passim_;
   _see_ Brewing, Inn-keeper;
   _livelihood for widows and infirm people_, 230-232.


 Alewife, 222, 232;
   _see_ Brewing.


 Apothecaries, 184, 259-263 _passim_;
   _see_ Doctor, Gilds.


 Apprentice, 6, 26, 112, 144, 156, 185, 195, 211, 213, 293;
   _agriculture_, 59;
   _Gild trades_, _boys_, 163, 165 _seq._, 177, 185, 187, 260, _girls_,
      10, 150, 166, 175 _seq._, 185, 195, 261, 298;
   _other trades_, _boys_, 159, 185, 214, 226, 261, _girls_, 151, 194,
      217, 220, 293;
   _retail trades_, 200 _seq._;
   _silk trade_, 138, 141 _seq._;
   _weavers_, 104 _seq._, 122;
   _duties of apprentices_, 5, 157;
   _restriction of numbers_, 10, 156, 188, 298;
   _apprentices of women_, 162, 168 _seq._, 173, 179, 194, 220;
   _of widows_, 104, 162, 168 _seq._, 173 _seq._, 183, 187 _seq._, 190,
      293.

 Apprenticeship, 146, 151, 156, 160 _seq._, 165, 177, 184, 191, 194,
    196, 200 _seq._, 212-214 _passim_, 234, 261, 269 _seq._, 298, 301.

 Apprentice Trade, 106.


 Aristocracy,
   _see_ Capitalist;
   _character of women_, 38-41, 253, 289, 296 _seq._, 305 _seq._;
   _confinements_, 267 _seq._;
   _occupations_, 14-27, 35, 38, 53 _seq._, 253, 255 _seq._


 Armourers and Brasiers, 178, 183 _seq._
   _See_ Gilds.

 Assheton, Nicholas, 280.

 Astell, Mary, 38.

 Assize, _of beer_, 224;
   _of bread_, 211.



 Badger, 204 _seq._

 Baillie, Lady Grisell, 16, 68, 229.


 Bakers, 8, 92, 202, 208-215 _passim_;
   _corporations of_, 212 _seq._;
   _restrictions on_, 210, 211, 215;
   _women bake for domestic purposes_, 47, 50, 210, 214;
   _for sale_, 30, 213, 214;
   _wife assists husband_, 211 _seq._, 215.

 Baptist, 240.


 Barber-surgeons, 259-263 _passim_, 265, 276, 284;
   _see_ Gilds.

 Barrymore, Lady, 14.

 Bedell, Mrs. Eliz., 256.

 Best, 60-62 _passim_, 78.


 Beverley, 180, 183, 211, 221 _seq._


 Binder, 161, 167.

 Birth-rate, 4, 43, 86 _seq._, 305.

 Bleacher, 129, 145.

 Bookseller, 161, 168.

 Bourgeois, Mme. Louise, 275, 284.


 Borough, 209;
   _see_ Corporations.

 Brathwaite, Richard, 29, 53.


 Brewing, 8, 11, 209, 221-233 _passim_;
   _see_ Alehouse, Alewife, Apprentices, Capitalism, Domestic, Gilds;
   _Brewster_ 11, 155, 221 _seq._, 229;
   _Common Brewers_, 223-227 _passim_, 230;
   _Fellowship of_, 223-226;
   _for domestic purposes_, 5, 8, 47, 50, 210, 223;
   _for retail_, 210, 222-230;
   _for wages_, 229 _seq._


 Bristol, 103, 134, 182, 185, 191, 232.

 Burford, Rose de, 140.


 Burling, 105 _seq._, 132, 145.


 Bury, 222.

 Bury St. Edmunds, 227.


 Business affairs of family, 41;
   _see_ Family;
   _managed by wife_, 16, 21 _seq._, 54 _seq._;
   _superior capacity of Dutch women_, 36-38 _passim_;
   _wife unequal to_, 20, 22 _seq._;
   _women’s capacity for_, 20, 34, 38 _seq._


 Butcher, 155, 202, 209 _seq._, 216-219 _passim_, 221;
   _see_ Apprentices;
   _selling wool_, 107;
   _wage-earners_, 219.

 Buttons, 142, 144.


 Butter, 8, 49;
   _see_ Dairy.


 Cane-chair bottoming, 195.


 Capitalism, 6, 300, 308;
   _see_ Capitalistic Organisation, Family Industry, Gilds,
      Industrialism, Linen-manufacture, Silk, Textile Trades, Woollen;
   _definition of_, 7;
   _demand for labour_, 90 _seq._;
   _effect on Domestic Industry_, 8, 11, 94;
   _effect on Family Industry_, 8, 10, 11, 94, 142, 156, 165, 196, 297;
   _effect on Marital Relations_, 40 _seq._, 158, 167, 197, 235, 296,
      299, 301 _seq._;
   _effect on Motherhood_, 8 _seq._, 11 _seq._, 306;
   _effect on Social Organisation_, 8 _seq._, 40, 148, 300, 306 _seq._;
   _effect on women’s economic position_, 8 _seq._, 10, 92, 94, 96, 98,
      145 _seq._, 165, 167, 196, 235, 295-299 _passim_, 301, 302, 307;
   _effect on women’s morale and physique_, 41;
   _in agriculture_, 43, 56, 92;
   _in brewing_, 11, 226, 230;
   _in Crafts and Trades_, 156, 158, 165, 196.


 Capitalists,
   _see_ Aristocracy;
   _Definition of_, 14;
   _idleness of wives and daughters_, 10, 38, 41, 50, 235, 296-298
      _passim_, 305;
   _women’s activity as Capitalists_, 14-41 _passim_.

 Capitalistic organisation, 13, 94, 146, 196, 236;
   _see_ Capitalism, Industrialism.


 Carding, _employment for poor_, 116, 132;
   _men_, 102, 116;
   _women_, 99, 108, 120 _seq._, 141.

 Card maker, 190.


 Carlisle, 44, 53, 153, 201, 203, 211, 215.


 Carpenter, 170-178 _passim_, 187, 195;
   _see_ Companies.

 Carrier of letters, 63.

 Cellier, Mrs., 195, 269, 273-276 _passim_.

 Chamberlain, Dr. Hugh, 281, 283.

 Chamberlain, Peter, 272 _seq._

 Chandler, _wax and tallow_, 155, 195, 200, 202.


 Chapmen, 109, 155, 206.


 Cheese, 8, 49, 53, 208.


 Chester, 155, 181, 211, 217, 232.

 Child, Sir J., 36.

 Child’s coate seller, 176.


 Children, 22, 45, 88, 147 _seq._, 192-194 _passim_, 196, 256;
   _see_ Agriculture, Apprentice, Capitalism, Cost of Living, Education,
      Family, Father, Housing, Husband, Infant Mortality, Mother,
      Nursing, Poor, Settlement, Wages, Wage-earners, Widow, Wife;
   _attending gild dinners_, 180;
   _employment in agriculture_, 59 _seq._, 64;
   _in textile manufacture_, 9, 97 _seq._, 106, 108, 112-114 _passim_,
      125, 130-134 _passim_, 140-144 _passim_, 292;
   _reduce women’s wage-earning capacity_, 68 _seq._, 92, 136, 147;
   _right to work in father’s trade_, 156, 165 _seq._, 185;
   _share in family property_, 7, 182;
   _share in supporting family_, 12, 72, 79, 105, 192 _seq._, 293;
   _under-feeding of_, 64, 86 _seq._, 118.

 Child-birth, 46, 267, 273, 276, 283, 285;
   _see_ Aristocracy, Common-people, Midwifery.


 Church, 236-242;
   _supervision of midwives_, 277 _seq._

 Clockmakers, 187.


 Clothiers, 98-102 _passim_, 108-112 _passim_, 117-124 _passim_, 141,
    147;
   _see_ Poor;
   _force workpeople to take goods for wages_, 117 _seq._;
   _women_, 9, 100-102 _passim_, 124.


 Cloth-workers, 184.

 Coal-owner, 34.


 Common-people, 3, 257, 305;
   _definition of_, 148, 253;
   _childbirth_, 267-269 _passim_;
   _women’s position controlled by necessity_, 41.


 Companies, 10, 25-27 _passim_, 189, 207, 212, 259, 260 _seq._;
   _see_ Corporations, Gilds, Apothecaries, Armourers and Braziers,
      Bakers, Barber-surgeons, Binder, Book-sellers, Brewsters,
      Butchers, Carpenters, Clockmakers, Cloth-workers, Cutlers,
      Drapers, Dyers, Embroiderers, Fishmongers, Fullers, Girdlers,
      Glass-sellers, Glovers, Goldsmiths, Gold-wire Drawers, Grocers,
      Joiners, Leather-sellers, Mercers, Merchants, Merchant, Taylors,
      Midwives, Painter-Stainers, Pewterers, Physicians, Point-makers,
      Printers, Publishers, Shoe-makers, Smiths, Stationers, Tailors,
      Upholsterers, Whit-awers.

 Congreve, 3.

 Contractors, 31.

 Cooking, 11.


 Corporations (Municipal), 151, 199-204 _passim_, 209, 212, 218, 224,
    263;
   _see_ Boroughs, Companies, Customs, Gilds, Beverley, Bristol, Bury,
      Bury St. Edmunds, Carlisle, Chester, Dorchester, Exeter, Grimsby,
      Hull, Kingston-upon-Hull, Leicester, Lincoln, London, Manchester,
      Norwich, Nottingham, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Reading, Rye, Salford,
      Salisbury, Sandwich, St. Albans, Sheffield, Southampton, Tiverton,
      Torksey, York.

 Cost of living, 68-79 _passim_, 134;
   _diet of children_, 68, 71, 223;
   _servants_, 68;
   _difference between men, women and children_, 71-73 _passim_, 127;
   _Family of three Children_, 68, 73.


 Cotton trade, 94, 124.

 Cowden, parish of, 131, 264, 280.


 Cows, 45, 47, 53, 55, 57, 209, 292;
   _see_ Dairy, Milking.

 Crafts, 10, 150-197;
   _see_ Gilds, Trades.

 Craftsman, 10, 197.

 Cromwell family, 18, 69.

 Culpeper, Nicholas, 271 _seq._

 Custom (habit), 155, 158-161.


 Customs, 160;
   _see_ Corporations;
   _excise_, 140.


 Cutler, 187.

 Cutworks, 32.



 Dairy,
   _see_ Butter, Cheese, Cows, Milking;
   _produce for domestic consumption_, 5, 43;
   _as pin-money_, 54;
   _supplementing family income_, 55;
   _women’s sphere_, 5, 50, 53, 292.

 Dant, Joan, 32 _seq._, 206.

 Daughters, 176 _seq._, 197 _seq._, 252, 284;
   _see_ Burling, Education;
   _employed in parents’ trade_, 184, _seq._, 195, 200, 217, 298;
   _enters company by patrimony_, 191, 298;
   _hired out as weavers_, 103;
   _sustaining parents_, 115.

 Decker, Thos., 158 _seq._

 Defoe, Daniel, 96, 115 _seq._, 156 _seq._

 Distaff, 13, 48, 107, 111.


 Doctor,
   _see_ Apothecaries, Barber-surgeons, Physicians, Midwifery.


 Domestic Industry, 4 _seq._, 8, 40, 47-49, 151, 210, 254, 302;
   _see_ Baking, Brewers, Capitalism, Dairy, Family Industry, Servants,
      Spinning, Textile Trades;
   _definition of_, 4-6 _passim_;
   _drudgery performed by servants_, 156 _seq._, 294, 304;
   _effect on women’s economic position_, 145, 290, 292;
   _girls’ work_, 11 _seq._;
   _men’s work_, 5.


 Dorchester, 132 _seq._, 185, 200, 217, 261, 263 _seq._


 Drapers, 184, 200;
   _see_ Gild.

 Dunning, Richard, 132.


 Dyer, 111, 155;
   _of leather_, 158;
   _in Ireland_, 18.



 Education, 36, 242, 286 _seq._, 295, 302-306 _passim_;
   _see_ Apprentice, Children, Mother, Poor Relief, Teaching;
   _arithmetic unnecessary for girls_, 52;
   _industrial_, 71, 130-135 _passim_;
   _influence of domestic and family industry_, 40;
   _institutions_, 239;
   _medical_, 255, 288;
   _nurses_, 249;
   _want of specialised training for girls_, 243, 288, 301, 304.

 Embroiderer, 184.

 Elizabethan Period, Women of, 2, 3, 9, 38, 41.

 Estate Management, 14, 15, 17.

 Evelyn, John, 115.

 Everenden, 62.

 Executrix, 39, 188, 293.


 Exeter, 206.

 Eyre, Adam, 54.



 Farmer, 42-56 _passim_, 108, 155;
   _see_ Agriculture, Capitalism;
   _definition of_, 43;
   _demand for labour_, 81, 83, 90, 91;
   _finds sureties for married labourers_, 83 _seq._;
   _preference for unmarried labourers_, 12;
   _wife’s occupation_, 46-50 _passim_, 111, 112;
   _women’s characteristics_, 43 _seq._

 Farrier, 155.


 Father, 39, 45, 56, 79, 86, 145, 237;
   _deserts starving family_, 118, 148;
   _head of family_, 6, 300;
   _interest in children_, 5, 54, 160, 295;
   _profits of family industry vested in father_, 6, 7, 182, 294, 299.

 Falkland, The Lady, 18-20 _passim_.

 Falkland, The Lady Letice, 241, 251, 256.

 Family, 73, 80, 100, 106, 122, 144, 204, 219, 242, 286, 291, 294, 299,
    304, 307;
   _see_ Business, Capitalism, Father, Mother, Wages, Wage-earners,
      Widow, Wife;
   _basis of social organisation_, 285, 288, 290, 299 _seq._;
   _chargeable to Parish_, 80-88 _passim_, 134, 142, 146, 204;
   _dependence on wages_, 43, 56, 178;
   _see_ Husbandmen, Wage-earners;
   _size of_, 86 _seq._;
   _traditions lost_, 118, 148, 237, 287.

 Family Industry, 6-11 _passim_, 92, 94, 96 _seq._, 102, 142, 151, 156,
    165, 192 _seq._, 196, 216, 234, 290, 297, 301 _seq._, 305;
   _see_ Capitalism.

 Fanshawe, Lady, 22.


 Fell, Sarah, 17, 51, 255.

 Feltmaker, 190.

 Fiennes, Celia, 62, 73, 124, 233.

 Firmin, Thomas, 135-137 _passim_.

 Fishmonger, 219 _seq._


 Fishwives, 36, 209, 219-221;
   _oyster wives_, 202, 220.

 Fitzherbert, Sir Anthony, 46-50, 129.


 Flax, 64, 146, 246, 291;
   _sowing_, 40, 48, 128.

 Foulis, Sir John, 32, 280 _seq._

 Foreign Women, _Dutch merchants_, 36 _seq._, 219;
   _Flanders, workers of woollen cloths_, 103;
   _French midwives_, 268, 275, 284.


 Fullers, 121, 145, 155, 157, 189.


 Garden, _women’s sphere_, 5, 9, 48, 50, 53, 292.

 Gardiner, Lady, 15.


 Gilds, 10, 141, 150, 154-156 _passim_, 192, 196;
   _see_ Apprentice, Capitalism, Companies, Journeyman, Wife;
   _admission to_, 160 _seq._, 176 _seq._, 179, 191;
   _charters_, 140, 160, 178, 181-183 _passim_; 187, 259;
   _development into Companies_, 158;
   _functions, religious, social and for trade purposes_, 154, 160,
      171-181 _passim_;
   _revilings_, 172, 182, 183;
   _rules_, 157 _seq._, 179 _seq._, 187;
   _women’s position in_, 150, 154-191 _passim_;
   _in woman’s trade_, 195 _seq._


 Girdlers, 185, 189;
   _see_ Companies.

 Glass-sellers, 187;
   _see_ Companies.


 Glovers, 181, 185, 191 _seq._;
   _see_ Companies.


 Gold and Silver Thread, 26, 143-145 _passim_;
   _pauper trade_, 145 _seq._


 Goldsmith, 184;
   _see_ Companies.

 Gold-wire Drawers;
   _see_ Gold and Silver Thread.


 Grimsby, 31.


 Grocers, 179, 184, 201 _seq._, 260;
   _see_ Companies.



 Haberdasher, 200.

 Hale, Sir Matthew, 79.

 Harber, Sylvia, 122 _seq._

 Harley, Brilliana Lady, 15 _seq._

 Harley, Sir E., 16.

 Harrowing, 87.


 Hawkers, 204-207 _passim_.

 Hay-making, 49, 62.

 Hellyard, Elizabeth, 34 _seq._

 Heylyn, Peter, 54 _seq._, 239, 278.

 Heywood, Oliver, 87, 129.

 Hobbes, 258, 303.

 Holroyd, Joseph, 30.

 Home, 4;
   _see_ Industrial Revolution;
   _includes workshop_, 7 _seq._, 156-160 _passim_, 294;
   _men’s sphere as well as women’s_, 303;
   _opportunities for production in home_, 147;
   _wage-earners work away from home_, 296.

 Howell, James, 37, 53.


 Hospitals, 243-249;
   _see_ Nurses.


 Household, _accounts_, 17;
   _affairs_, 157;
   _of craftsmen_, 158 _seq._;
   _size of_, 15, 50, 99.


 Housing, 73-81 _passim_.

 Huckster, 155.


 Hull, 30, 212 _seq._


 Husband, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22-24 _passim_, 34, 39, 46, 49, 88
    _seq._, 95, 118, 171-173 _passim_, 212, 228, 233 _seq._, 240, 306;
   _see_ Wife;
   _acquires wife’s rights_, 161, 213;
   _assists wife_, 199, 214, 301;
   _companionship with wife_, 160, 183, 301-303 _passim_, 306;
   _dependence on wife’s assistance_, 16, 36 _seq._, 46, 153, 165, 194,
      196, 211;
   _ill-treatment of wife_, 191;
   _independence of wife_, 41, 197;
   _meddles not with wife’s trade_, 231 _seq._;
   _not responsible for wife’s debts_, 151 _seq._


 Husbandman, 3, 56-64 _passim_;
   _definition of_, 43, 57;
   _girls’ environment_, 87;
   _independence_, 56;
   _rent_, 57;
   _wages_, _men_, 59-62 _passim_, _women_, 60-63 _passim_;
   _wife’s occupation_, 60-64 _passim_, 111 _seq._;
   _wife as wet-nurse_, 58;
   _women’s characteristics_, 58 _seq._

 Hutchinson, Mrs. Lucy, 23 _seq._, 255, 263.

 Hutchinson, Colonel, 23 _seq._, 252.


 Keeper of tenis court, 25.

 King, Gregory, 55, 80, 86.

 Kingston-upon-Hull, 103, 181.

 Knitting, 18, 26, 133.


 Idleness, 138, 253.

 Industrialism, 94, 123;
   _see_ Capitalism;
   _attempted introduction of factory system_, 99, 124.


 Industrial Revolution, 8 _seq._


 Industry;
   _see_ Domestic, Family, Capitalism.


 Infant Mortality, 58, 86, 273, 276, 283, 305.


 Inn-keeper, 155, 209, 213, 225, 227, 233.

 Insurance Office, 33.


 Ireland, 18, 126.

 Ironmonger, 155.



 Joiners, 181;
   _see_ Companies.

 Jonson, Ben, 28, 257.

 Josselin, the Rev. R., 50, 257.


 Journeyman, 156, 159, 180, 212, 297 _seq._;
   _see_ Widow;
   _employed by women_, 174, 185, 189, 261;
   _organisation of_, 10, 166;
   _wives and daughters excluded_, 10, 166, 197, 234, 298, 301;
   _wife unpaid servant_, 10.


 Labourer, _see_ Farmer, Husbandman, Wage earner, Wages.

 Laundry, _maid_, 50;
   _work_, 5, 13, 49, 135, 155.


 Law, 236 _seq._

 Lace, _see_ Ireland;
   _bone-lace_, 142, 144.


 Leather-sellers, 158, 185;
   _see_ Companies.


 Leicester, 210, 222 _seq._

 Leland, 99.


 Lincoln, 157.


 Linen manufacture, 94, 96, 124-137 _passim_, 138;
   _see_ Drapers, Flax, Poor, Spinning, Weaving;
   _appropriateness to women_, 128 _seq._;
   _capitalistic_, 124, 136;
   _company_, 126-128 _passim_, 136;
   _domestic_, 5, 40, 48, 96, 125, 128, 129, 137;
   _family_, 128;
   _in Ireland_, 126 _seq._;
   _printers_, 126;
   _in Scotland_, 126, 129;
   _wages for spinning_, 48, 95 _seq._, 128-137 _passim_, 146.


 London, 29, 31, 33, 131, 135, 138-141 _passim_, 152, 158-195 _passim_,
    202, 206, 208, 217, 220, 233, 243-249 _passim_, 258-263 _passim_,
    281.



 Malt-making, 47, 49 _seq._, 224-226 _passim_.


 Manchester, 206, 213, 218, 221.

 Mansell, Lady, 35.

 Mantua-making, 195, 234, 293.


 Marriage, 191;
   _see_ Poor relief, Wife, Mother;
   _confers woman’s rights on her husband_, 261;
   _strengthens man’s economic position_, 39.

 Married Woman;
   _see_, Mother, Wife.


 Market, 4, 119, 202, 204, 217, 291;
   _corn-market_, 211;
   _Farmer’s wife attends market_, 49-51;
   _labour market_, 145, 167, 298;
   _price of spinning_, 129;
   _market spinner_, 107, 109 _seq._, 113;
   _town_, 224 _seq._;
   _thread, yarn and wool, sold in market_, 107-109 _passim_, 112, 127
      _seq._;
   _woman_, 135.

 Martindale, Adam, 55, 257.

 McMath, James, 267, 282.


 Medicine, 242, 253-265 _passim_, 286, 288, 294;
   _see_ Poor, Servants;
   _domestic practice_, 242, 254-257 _passim_;
   _education of women_, 255, 294;
   _their exclusion from schools_, 254, 265, 294;
   _fees_, 262, 264;
   _Licensed by Bishop_, 276;
   _professional practice_, 242, 254, 257-259 _passim_, 263 _seq._;
   _restrictions on women_, 259 _seq._;
   _women’s skill extended to neighbours_, 255-257 _passim_, 294.


 Mercers, 184, 201.


 Merchant, 29, 36, 140, 155, 180-184 _passim_;
   _see_ Joan Dant.

 Middle-man, 110, 124;
   _see_ Market spinner.


 Midwife, 258;
   _see_ Midwifery;
   _Baptism by_, 277-279 _passim_;
   _Fees_, 268, 279-281 _passim_;
   _Licences_, 272-279 _passim_;
   _Man-midwife_, 265, 271 _seq._, 284;
   _Prosecutions of_, 279.


 Midwifery, 242 _seq._, 265-285, 288;
   _see_ Midwife;
   _chiefly professional_, 265;
   _doctor’s assistance_, 271, 280-284 _passim_;
   _French_, 268, 275, 279, 284;
   _training of women_ for, 269-275 _passim_, 288.


 Milking, 47.

 Mill, 47, 210, 215 _seq._


 Miller, 209, 212, 215 _seq._;
   _wages of_, 66.

 Milliner, 176, 195, 234, 293.

 Milton, John, 240, 304.


 Money-lender, 28 _seq._,
   _see_ Pawnbroker.

 Monopolies and patents, 25-28 _passim_.

 Moore, Rev. Giles, 252.


 Mother, 43, 63 _seq._, 73, 125, 196, 198, 214;
   _see_ Capitalism, Domestic Industry, Spinning, Wages, Widow, Wife;
   _desertion of children_, 86;
   _educating children_, 21, 95, 159, 242, 286, 295;
   _head of family_, 7, 234, 300;
   _sharing father’s work_, 6 _seq._;
   _supporting family_, 12, 29, 55, 64, 78 _seq._, 114, 178, 192-194
      _passim_, 198;
   _tending children_, 47, 63, 95;
   _under-feeding_, 87-89 _passim_, 306;
   _value of productive activity_, 145, 290 _seq._, 304;
   _worship of_, 238 _seq._


 Motherhood, women’s capacity for, 8 _seq._, 58, 87, 305.

 Murray, Lady, 16.


 Needlework, 13.

 Netmaker, 155.


 Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 34, 226.

 Nicholson, Dame Margaret, 60.


 Norwich, 107, 116, 219, 229.


 Nottingham, 130, 201, 217, 232.


 Nurse, _sick_, 13, 135, 155;
   _salaries_, 243-246 _passim_, 248, 250 _seq._


 _Nursing_, 242-253;
   _see_ Poor, Servants.


 Ogden, Hester, 164.

 Orphan, _see_ Children, Poor Relief.

 Osborne, Dorothy, 57.


 Painter-Stainer, 188.

 Paper-maker, 32.

 Pauper, _see_ Poor.

 Pawnbroker, 28 _seq._;
   _see_ Money-lender.

 Pechey, 275.


 Pedlar, 32, 204-207 _passim_.

 Pepys Samuel, 3, 38 _seq._, 59, 62, 281, 296 _seq._

 Peronne, Mme., 268.


 Petitions, _from women_, 23-27 _passim_, 118, 121, 138;
   _of married woman objected to_, 77.

 Petty, Dorothy, 33 _seq._


 Pewterers, 183, 186 _seq._, 191, 210, 294;
   _see_ Companies.


 Physicians, 259, 262, 265, 271, 275 _seq._, 284.

 Politics, _see_ Petitions;
   _women’s interest in_, 23 _seq._


 Pig-keeping, 5, 48, 52 _seq._, 292.

 Pin-maker, 193.

 Point-maker, 191.


 Poor,
   _see_ Hospitals, Midwife, Silk, Spinning, Wages, Wage-earners;
   _census of_, 219;
   _clothiers’ poor_, 109;
   _confinements_, 277, 280;
   _education of_, 130-134 _passim_;
   _increased wages_, 115;
   _medical attendance_, 255 _seq._, 263-265 _passim_;
   _not all vagrants_, 135;
   _nursing_, 243, 251 _seq._;
   _relief_, 69-92 _passim_, 118, 129-137 _passim_, 204;
   _set on work_, 110, 120, 130-137 _passim_, 140, 148;
   _synonymous with pauper_, 148;
   _widows and orphans maintained by parish_, 204;
   _workhouse_, 72, 131-134 _passim_.


 Poultry-keeping, 5, 48, 50, 87, 209, 292.

 Pregnancy, 24, 72 _seq._, 82, 89.

 Printer, 161-167;
   _see_ Companies.

 Professions, 5, 236-289 _passim_;
   _see_ Church, Education, Law, Medicine, Midwifery, Nursing, Teaching;
   _services_, 4 _seq._, 294 _seq._;
   _women’s position in_, 13, 304.

 Projector, 28.

 Provision Trades, 150, _seq._, 209-234 _passim_;
   _see_ Alehouse, Alewife, Apprentice, Bakers, Brewing, Butcher,
      Fishwife, Inn-keeper, Malt-making, Miller, Retail Trades, Vintner,
      Wife, Widow;
   _women’s position in_, 10 _seq._

 Publisher, 167;
   _see_ Companies.

 Pulling pease, 61 _seq._


 Quakers, 51, 168, 199, 240;
   _see_ Fell;
   _Adams (wife of John)_, 153;
   _Banks, (wife of John)_, 44;
   _Batt, Mary_, 45 _seq._;
   _Bownas (wife of Samuel)_, 52;
   _Townsend, Will., marriage of_, 190.


 Rawdon, Marmaduke, 257.

 Raynold, 266 _seq._, 269.

 Reading, 85, 132, 189, 203 _seq._, 213, 216, 249 _seq._

 Regrater, 204 _seq._, 207-209 _passim_, 218 _seq._

 Religion, _independence of married women_, 240.

 Restoration Period, _women of_, 2, 9, 38, 41.


 Retail Trade, 197-209 _passim_;
   _see_ Chapmen, Badger, Haberdashers, Hawkers, Pedlars, Regrater,
      Shopkeepers;
   _women’s position in_, 10 _seq._, 150 _seq._, 156, 172, 197, 209,
      293.

 Rous, Margaret, 17.


 Rye, 152 _seq._


 Salford, 52 _seq._, 84, 212.


 Salisbury, 184, 213, 258 _seq._

 Salisbury, Earl of, 25, 111.


 Sandwich, 152.

 Salt concerns, 17 _seq._

 Scotland, 126, 129.

 Scottish, 140.

 Semptsress, 155, 175 _seq._, 202, 221.


 Servants, 5 _seq._, 26, 155 _seq._, 176, 187, 202, 220, 241;
   _see_ Brewing, Journeyman, Wages, Wages assessments;
   _diet of_, 68, 88;
   _dresses_, 126;
   _employed in domestic drudgery_, 5, 157, 196, 292, 294;
   _employed in spinning_, 125;
   _farm_, 47, 50, 116, 210, 229;
   _married_, 81, 88;
   _scarcity of_, 56;
   _housekeepers’ duties_, 255;
   _medical attendance on_, 252, 263;
   _men servants brought up by women_, 141;
   _of clothiers_, 101;
   _nursing of_, 251 _seq._;
   _shoemaker_, 66, 203;
   _training of_, 253;
   _women, scarcity of_, 157.

 Sex-jealousy, _an anachronism_, 299;
   _absence in woollen trade_, 95, 123;
   _exclusion of women from trades_, 103, 105, 106, 191.

 Shakespeare, 3.

 Sharp, Jane, 269-271 _passim_.

 Shearing, _corn_, 49, 60;
   _sheep_, 62.


 Sheffield, 187.

 Shepherd, 62.

 Shipping, 29-31 _passim_.

 Shoemaker, 155, 158 _seq._, 184, 202 _seq._;
   _see_ Servants.


 Shopkeeper, 158, 168, 198-209 _passim_.


 Silk manufacture, 94, 126, 138-143;
   _see_ Apprentice, Poor, Textiles, Weaving;
   _capitalistic_, 142;
   _occupation of gentlewomen_, 10, 138-140 _passim_, 142;
   _refuge of paupers_, 140-142 _passim_, 146;
   _silk women_, 140;
   _stockings_, 26 _seq._;
   _wages_, 142.


 Smith, 155, 189, 210, 259, 294.

 Social position of women, 8, 40, 249, 283, 306 _seq._

 Southampton, 101, 195 _seq._


 Spinning, 5;
   _see_ Poor, Linen-manufacture, Woollen;
   _demand for_, 95, 110, 112 _seq._, 124, 129, 146;
   _domestic industry_, 9, 40, 64, 96, 125, 129, 137, 147, 291 _seq._;
   _employment of poor_, 13, 100, 110 _seq._, 128-137 _passim_, 146
      _seq._, 209, 291;
   _instruction in_, 13, 111, 130-137;
   _monopoly of women and children_, 93, 102, 145, 292;
   _organisation of_, 107-113, 123 _seq._;
   _resource for mothers_, 9, 13, 63, 95, 151, 209;
   _wages_;
   _withdraws women from agriculture and service_, 112, 115.


 Spinner, 18, 102, 110, 113, 117, 120, 128 _seq._, 141, 221;
   _market spinner_, 107, 109 _seq._, 113.

 Spinster, 95 _seq._, 107-109 _passim_, 112-136 _passim_, 147, 155, 221;
   _classes of_, 111 _seq._

 Spreading muck, 62.


 St. Albans, 202.

 Stapley, Richard, 125.

 State, 242, 286, 299, 303, 307 _seq._


 Stationers, 158, 161-170 _passim_;
   _see_ Companies.

 Stumpe, 99;
   _see_ Clothier.

 Suckle calves, 47.

 Surgeons, _see_ Barber-surgeons.

 Surgery, _see_ Medicine.



 Tailor, 155, 181.

 Tanner, 185.

 Thatching, 61.

 Taylor, Randall, 58.


 Teaching, 242, 265, 286 _seq._, 294 _seq._


 Textile Trades, 9, 93-149 _passim_, 150;
   _see_ Burling, Capitalism, Carding, Clothiers, Cotton, Domestic
      Industry, Family Industry, Fuller, Gold and Silver, Knitting,
      Linen-manufacture, Silk, Spinning, Spinner, Weaver, Wage-earner,
      Wages, Woollen;
   _industrial organisation of_, 96;
   _proportion of women’s labour_, 93 _seq._, 97 _seq._, 114, 133
      _seq._, 292;
   _proportion of children’s labour_, 108, 112, 114, 116, 133 _seq._;
   _women’s position in_, 93 _seq._, 95, 146.

 Thierry, Rachel, 100 _seq._

 Thornton, Mrs. Alice, 16.


 Tiverton, 227.

 Tobacco pipe makers, 192.


 Torksey, 222.


 Trades;
   _see_ Crafts, Provision, Retail Textile;
   _women’s occupation in_, 10, 146, 293.

 Turbeville, Mrs. Mary, 258 _seq._



 Upholsterer, 184, 195.


 Vantrollier (wife of Thos.), 163.

 Verney, Lady, 20;
   _Sir Edmund_, 15;
   _Sir Ralph_, 15, 20, 258.


 Vintners, 209, 233 _seq._

 Village Community, 56, 253;
   _disintegration of_, 148;
   _vigorous stock of_, 42;
   _women’s influence in_, 148.

 Vives, 37.



 Wage-earner, 4, 6, 64-92 _passim_, 99;
   _see_ Agriculture, Birth-rate, Butcher, Capitalism, Children, Infant
      Mortality, Journeyman, Marriage, Motherhood, Spinning, Silk,
      Textile-Manufactures, Wages, Widow, Wife, Woollen;
   _definition of_, 43, 65;
   _children of_, 86 _seq._;
   _class of undesirables_, 90;
   _combination among_, 121-124 _passim_, 298, 301;
   _family income_, 65-69 _passim_, 71, 79 _seq._, 178;
   _insolvency_, 80-92 _passim_, 129, 146-149, 209, 293;
   _numbers of_, 4, 90 _seq._, 305;
   _wife of_, 9 _seq._, 76-89 _passim_, 235;
   _her earning capacity_, 68 _seq._, 89, 92, 147 _seq._, 209, 292;
   _her virtual exclusion from skilled trades_, 298.


 Wages, 35, 59, 65, 100, 301;
   _see_ Brewing, Carpenters, Doctors, Husbandmen, Linen-manufacture,
      Nurse (sick), Midwife, Miller, Poor, Spinning, Silk, Woollen;
   _assessments_, 50, 59 _seq._, 62, 65-67 _passim_, 72, 83, 90, 210,
      293;
   _difference between family and individual wages_, 7, 296, 299;
   _day labourers, men_, 9, 56, 60-62 _passim_, 65 _seq._, 96;
   _day labourers, women_, 9, 60-66 _passim_, 68, 72, 89;
   _servants, men_, 50, 56, 65 _seq._;
   _servants, women_, 50, 65, 157;
   _married men_, 65 _seq._;
   _not expected to keep family_, 12, 86, 90, 293;
   _relation to cost of living_, 10, 68 _seq._, 79 _seq._, 83, 89, 95,
      130, 134-137 _passim_, 145, 178;
   _women’s, do not represent value of their work_, 64, 137, 145, 291
      _seq._, 304.


 Weaver, 155, 259;
   _see_ Apprentice;
   _assault women_, 126;
   _complaints against clothiers_, 114, 117-123 _passim_,
   _domestic purposes_, 40, 64, 125;
   _linen_, 18, 124 _seq._, 128, 136;
   _women_, 129;
   _woollen_, 18, 99, 111, 116;
   _women_, 102-106, 145;
   _forbidden to weave cloth_, 103;
   _widow_, 103 _seq._;
   _ribbons and tape_; 104;
   _silk_, 138, 141;
   _Wages_, 120, 149.

 _Webber_, 102, 221;
   _see_ Weaver.

 Webster, 102, 155, 221;
   _see_ Weaver.

 Weeding, 62, 89.

 Wet-nurse, 26, 58.

 Whipping dogs out of Church, 63.


 Whit-awers, 191.

 Winchcombe, John, 99.

 Winnowing, 49.


 Widow, 29, 33, 45, 86, 100, 122, 129, 137, 156, 171, 177, 189 _seq._,
    195, 200, 201, 204 _seq._, 209, 213, 216, 218, 227, 230, 249-252
    _passim_, 264, 268;
   _see_ Apprentice, Housing, Journeymen, Poor Relief, Weaver;
   _dependence on journeymen_, 185, 189, _seq._, 261;
   _membership in late husband’s gild_, 160 _seq._, 168, 174, 176
      _seq._, 179 _seq._, 183, 185, 187, 233 _seq._, 261, 298;
   _pensions_ to, 69, _seq._ 170;
   _of soldiers_, 248 _seq._;
   _succession to late husband’s business_, 11, 30-34 _passim_, 104
      _seq._, 151, 154 _seq._, 160-163 _passim_, 167-173 _passim_, 188
      _seq._, 215, 217, 221, 293.


 Wife, 45, 70, 216, 237, 280;
   _see_ Alehouse, Bakers, Business, Capitalist, Dairy, Doctor,
      Domestic, Farmer, Household Management, Husbandman, Journeyman,
      Mother, Pig-keeping, Poultry-keeping, Shop-keeper, Sick nursing,
      Spinning, Wage-earner;
   _economic position of_, 11, 292;
   _membership in husband’s gild_, 150, 160, 171 _seq._, 179 _seq._,
      191, 261, 301;
   _mutual dependence of husband and wife_, 12, 41, 44, 49, 54 _seq._,
      300-302 _passim_;
   _pauperisation of wife_, 92, 147, 149;
   _wife provides food and clothes for family_, 12 _seq._, 39, 60, 63,
      90, 94 _seq._, 106, 112, 125, 137, 145, 291, 293, 304;
   _separate business_, 17, 40, 151-156 _passim_, 165, 175-178 _passim_,
      194 _seq._, 202 _seq._, 206, 208, 214, 219, 221, 228 _seq._, 231;
   _settlement_, 80-89 _passim_;
   _soldier’s wife_, 142;
   _subjection to husband_, 16, 35, 41, 45, 197, 240, 302-304 _passim_;
   _working in husband’s business_, 29, 34 _seq._, 40 _seq._, 45, 95,
      100-102 _passim_, 144, 151, 153-159 _passim_, 163, 172 _seq._,
      175, 184-187 _passim_, 192 _seq._, 196 _seq._, 202 _seq._, 212,
      215 _seq._, 220 _seq._, 229, 234 _seq._, 293 _seq._, 302.


 Woollen manufacture, 42, 94, 97-124 _passim_, 126, 129, 138;
   _see_ Clothiers, Drapers, Poor, Spinning, Weaver;
   _capitalistic_, 94, 96 _seq._, 123 _seq._, 147;
   _domestic_, 49, 106;
   _family_, 97, 106;
   _dependence on women’s and children’s labour_, 97 _seq._, 112, 114;
   _fluctuations in trade_, 98 _seq._, 110 _seq._, 118-122 _passim_, 147
      _seq._;
   _instruction in_, 110 _seq._;
   _men and women wage-earners unite in trade disputes_, 116-123
      _passim_;
   _political power_, 126;
   _wages for spinning_, 49, 95-97 _passim_, 100, 108 _seq._, 113-118
      _passim_, 120, 122 _seq._, 124, 134 _seq._, 137;
   _women’s position in_, 98, 102 _seq._, 106, 124;
   _wool-combers_, 155.

 Wycherley, 3, 37.


 Yeoman, 9, 50, 76, 90.


 York, 212.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




          LIST OF STUDIES IN ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE.

                           ------------------

  _A Series of Monographs by Lecturers and Students connected with the
           London School of Economics and Political Science._

                           ------------------

                             EDITED BY THE

   DIRECTOR OF THE LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE.

                           ------------------

=1. The History of Local Rates in England.= The substance of five
lectures given at the School in November and December, 1895. By EDWIN
CANNAN, M.A., LL.D. 1896; second, enlarged edition, 1912; xv. and 215
pp., Crown 8vo, cloth. 4s. net. _P. S. King & Son._

=2. Select Documents Illustrating the History of Trade Unionism.= 1.—THE
TAILORING TRADE. By F. W. GALTON. With a Preface by SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B.
1896; 242 pp., Crown 8vo, cloth. 5s. _P. S. King & Son._

=3. German Social Democracy.= Six lectures delivered at the School in
February and March, 1896. By the Hon. BERTRAND RUSSELL, B.A., late
Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. With an Appendix on Social
Democracy and the Woman Question in Germany. By ALYS RUSSELL, B.A. 1896;
204 pp., Crown 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. _P. S. King & Son._

=4. The Referendum in Switzerland.= By M. SIMON DEPLOIGE, University of
Louvain. With a Letter on the Referendum in Belgium by M. J. VAN DEN
HUEVEL, Professor of International Law in the University of Louvain.
Translated by C. P. TREVELYAN, M.A., Trinity College, Cambridge, and
edited with Notes, Introduction, Bibliography, and Appendices, by LILIAN
TOMN (Mrs. Knowles), of Girton College, Cambridge, Research Student at
the School. 1898; x. and 334 pp., Crown 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d. _P. S. King
& Son._

=5. The Economic Policy of Colbert.= By A. J. SARGENT, M.A., Senior
Hulme Exhibitioner, Brasenose College, Oxford, and Whately Prizeman,
1897, Trinity College, Dublin. 1899; viii. and 138 pp., Crown 8vo,
cloth. 2s. 6d. _P. S. King & Son._

=6. Local Variation in Wages.= (The Adam Smith Prize, Cambridge
University, 1898). By F. W. LAWRENCE, M.A., Fellow of Trinity College,
Cambridge. 1899; viii. and 90 pp., with Index and 18 Maps and Diagrams.
4to, 11 in. by 8¼ in., cloth. 8s. 6d. _Longmans, Green & Co._

=7. The Receipt Roll of the Exchequer for Michaelmas Term of the
Thirty-first Year of Henry II. (1185).= A unique fragment transcribed
and edited by the Class in Palæography and Diplomatic, under the
supervision of the Lecturer, HUBERT HALL, F.S.A., of H.M. Public Record
Office. With thirty-one Facsimile Plates in Collotype and Parallel
readings from the contemporary Pipe Roll. 1899; vii. and 37 pp., Folio,
15¼ in. by 11¼ in., in green cloth; 2 Copies left. Apply to the Director
of the London School of Economics.

=8. Elements of Statistics.= By ARTHUR L. BOWLEY, M.A., Sc.D., F.S.S.,
Cobden and Adam Smith Prizeman, Cambridge; Guy Silver Medallist of the
Royal Statistical Society; Newmarch Lecturer, 1897-98. 500 pp. and 40
Diagrams, Demy 8vo, cloth. 1901; Third edition, 1907; viii. and 336 pp.
12s. net. _P. S. King & Son._

=9. The Place of Compensation in Temperance Reform.= By C. P. SANGER,
M.A., late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, Barrister-at-Law. 1901;
viii. and 136 pp., Crown 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d. net. _P. S. King & Son._

=10. A History of Factory Legislation.= By B. L. HUTCHINS and A.
HARRISON (Mrs. Spencer), B.A., D.Sc. (Econ.), London. With a Preface by
SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B. 1903; new and revised edition, 1911; xvi. and 298
pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d. net. _P. S. King & Son._

=11.The Pipe Roll of the Exchequer of the See of Winchester for the
Fourth Year of the Episcopate of Peter Des Roches (1207).= Transcribed
and edited from the original Roll in the possession of the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners by the Class in Palæography and Diplomatic,
under the supervision of the Lecturer, HUBERT HALL, F.S.A., of H.M.
Public Record Office. With a Frontispiece giving a Facsimile of the
Roll. 1903; xlviii. and 100 pp., Folio, 13½ in. by 8½ in., green cloth.
15s. net. _P. S. King & Son._

=12. Self-Government in Canada and How it was Achieved: The Story of
Lord Durham’s Report.= By F. BRADSHAW, B.A., D.Sc. (Econ.), London;
Senior Hulme Exhibitioner, Brasenose College, Oxford. 1903; 414 pp.,
Demy 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d. net. _P. S. King & Son._

=13. History of the Commercial and Financial Relations Between England
and Ireland from the Period of the Restoration.= By ALICE EFFIE MURRAY
(Mrs. Radice), D.Sc. (Econ.), London, former Student at Girton College,
Cambridge; Research Student of the London School of Economics and
Political Science. 1903; 486 pp. Demy 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d. net. _P. S.
King & Son._

=14. The English Peasantry and the Enclosure of Common Fields.= By
GILBERT SLATER, M.A., St. John’s College, Cambridge; D.Sc. (Econ.),
London. 1906; 337 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net. _Constable & Co._

=15. A History of the English Agricultural Labourer.= By Dr. W. HASBACH,
Professor of Economics in the University of Kiel. Translated from the
Second Edition (1908), by RUTH KENYON. Introduction by SIDNEY WEBB,
LL.B. 1908; xvi. and 470 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d. net. _P. S. King
& Son._

=16. A Colonial Autocracy: New South Wales under Governor Macquarie,
1810-1821.= By MARION PHILLIPS, B.A., Melbourne; D.Sc. (Econ.), London.
1909; xxiii. and 336 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. _P. S. King & Son._

=17. India and the Tariff Problem.= By H. B. LEES SMITH, M.A., M.P.
1909; 120 pp., Crown 8vo, cloth. 3s. 6d. net. _Constable & Co._

=18. Practical Notes on the Management of Elections.= Three Lectures
delivered at the School in November, 1909, by ELLIS T. POWELL, LL.B.,
D.Sc. (Econ.), London, Fellow of the Royal Historical and Royal Economic
Societies, of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law, 1909; 52 pp., 8vo,
paper. 1s. 6d. net. _P. S. King & Son._

=19. The Political Development of Japan.= By G. E. UYEHARA, B.A.,
Washington, D.Sc. (Econ.), London. xxiv. and 296 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth.
1910. 8s. 6d. net. _Constable & Co._

=20. National and Local Finance.= By J. WATSON GRICE, D.Sc. (Econ.),
London. Preface by SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B. 1910; 428 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth.
12s. net. _P. S. King & Son._

=21. An Example of Communal Currency.= Facts about the Guernsey
Market-house. By J. THEODORE HARRIS, B.A., with an Introduction by
SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B. 1911; xiv. and 62 pp., Crown 8vo, cloth. 1s. 6d. net;
paper, 1s. net. _P. S. King & Son._

=22. Municipal Origins.= History of Private Bill Legislation. By F. H.
SPENCER, LL.B., D.Sc. (Econ.), London; with a Preface by Sir EDWARD
CLARKE, K.C. 1911; xi. and 333. pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net.
_Constable & Co._

=23. Seasonal Trades.= By VARIOUS AUTHORS. With an Introduction by
SIDNEY WEBB. Edited by SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B., and ARNOLD FREEMAN, M.A.
1912; xi. and 410 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 10. 6d. net. _Constable & Co._

24. =Grants in Aid.= A Criticism and a Proposal. By SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B.
1911; vii. and 135 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 5s. net. _Longmans, Green &
Co._

25. =The Panama Canal: A Study in International Law.= By H. ARIAS, B.A.,
LL.D. 1911; xiv. and 188 pp., 2 maps, bibliography, Demy 8vo, cloth.
10s. 6d. net. _P. S. King & Son._

26. =Combination Among Railway Companies.= By W. A. ROBERTSON, B.A.
1912; 105 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 1s. 6d. net; paper, 1s. net. _Constable
& Co._

27. =War and the Private Citizen=: Studies in International Law. By A.
PEARCE HIGGINS, M.A., LL.D.; with Introductory Note by the Rt. Hon.
Arthur Cohen, K.C. 1912; xvi. and 200 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 5s. net. _P.
S. King & Son._

28. =Life in an English Village=: an Economical and Historical Survey of
the Parish of Corsley, in Wiltshire. By M. F. DAVIES 1909; xiii. and 319
pp., illustrations, bibliography, Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net. _T.
Fisher Unwin._

29. =English Apprenticeship and Child Labour=: a History. By O. JOCELYN
DUNLOP, D.Sc. (Econ.), London; with a Supplementary Section on the
Modern Problem of Juvenile Labour, by the Author and R. D. DENMAN, M.P.
1912; pp. 390, bibliography, Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net. _T. Fisher
Unwin._

30. =Origin of Property and the Formation of the Village Community.= By
_J. St. Lewinski_, D.Ec.Sc., Brussels. 1913; xi. and 71 pp., Demy 8vo,
cloth. 3s. 6d. net. _Constable & Co._

31. =The Tendency Towards Industrial Combination (in some Spheres of
British Industry).= By G. R. CARTER, M.A. 1913; xxiii. and 391 pp., Demy
8vo, cloth. 6s. net. _Constable & Co._

32. =Tariffs at Work=: an outline of Practical Tariff Administration. By
JOHN HEDLEY HIGGINSON, B.Sc. (Econ.), London, Mitchell Student of the
University of London; Cobden Prizeman and Silver Medallist. 1913; 150
pp., Crown 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d. net. _P. S. King & Son._

33. =English Taxation, 1640-1799.= An Essay on Policy and Opinion. By
WILLIAM KENNEDY, M.A., D.Sc. (Econ.), London; Shaw Research Student of
the London School of Economics and Political Science. 1913; 200 pp.,
Demy 8vo. 7s. 6d. net. _G. Bell & Sons._

34. =Emigration from the United Kingdom to North America, 1763-1912.= By
STANLEY C. JOHNSON, M.A., Cambridge, D.Sc. (Econ.), London. 1913; xvi.
and 387 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 6s. net. _G. Routledge & Sons._

=35. The Financing of the Hundred Years’ War, 1337-1360.= By SCHUYLER B.
TERRY. 1913; xvi. and 199 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 6s. net. _Constable &
Co._

=36. Kinship and Social Organisation.= By W. H. R. RIVERS, M.D., F.R.S.,
Fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge. 1914; 96 pp. Demy 8vo, cloth.
2s. 6d. net. _Constable & Co._

=37. The Nature and First Principle of Taxation.= By ROBERT JONES, D.Sc.
(Econ.), London; with a Preface by SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B., 1914; xvii. and
299 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d. net. _P. S. King & Son._

=38. The Export of Capital.= By C. K. HOBSON, M.A., D.Sc. (Econ.),
London, F.S.S., Shaw Research Student of the London School of Economics
and Political Science. 1914; xxv. and 264 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d.
net. _Constable & Co._

=39. Industrial Training.= By NORMAN BURRELL DEARLE, M.A., D.Sc.
(Econ.), London, Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford; Shaw Research
Student of the London School of Economics and Political Science. 1914;
610 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net. _P. S. King & Son._

=40. Theory of Rates and Fares.= From the French of Charles Colson’s
“Transports et tarifs” (3rd edn., 1907), by L. R. CHRISTIE, G. LEEDHAM,
and C. TRAVIS. Edited and arranged by CHARLES TRAVIS, with an
Introduction by W. M. ACWORTH, M.A. 1914; viii. and 195 pp., Demy 8vo,
cloth. 3s. 6d. net. _G. Bell & Sons, Ltd._

=41. Advertising: a Study of a Modern Business Power.= By G. W. GOODALL,
B.Sc. (Econ.), London; with an Introduction by SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B. 1914;
xviii. and 91 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 2s. 6d. net; paper, 1s. 6d. net.
_Constable & Co._

=42. English Railways: their Development and their Relation to the
State.= By EDWARD CARNEGIE CLEVELAND-STEVENS, M.A., Christ Church,
Oxford; D.Sc. (Econ.), London; Shaw Research Student of the London
School of Economics and Political Science. 1915; xvi. and 325 pp., Demy
8vo, cloth. 6s. net. _G. Routledge & Sons._

=43. The Lands of the Scottish Kings in England.= By MARGARET F. MOORE,
M.A., with an Introduction by P. HUME BROWN, M.A., LL.D., D.D.,
Professor of Ancient Scottish History and Palæography, University of
Edinburgh. 1915; xi. and 141 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth, 5s. net. _George
Allen & Unwin._

=44. The Colonisation of Australia, 1829-1842: the Wakefield Experiment
in Empire Building.= By RICHARD C. MILLS, LL.M., Melbourne; D.Sc.
(Econ.), London; with an Introduction by GRAHAM WALLAS, M.A., Professor
of Political Science in the University of London. 1915; xx., 363 pp.,
Demy 8vo, cloth. 10s. 6d. net. _Sidgwick & Jackson._

=45. The Philosophy of Nietzsche.= By A. WOLF, M.A., D.Lit., Fellow of
University College, London; Reader in Logic and Ethics in the University
of London. 1915; 114 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth, 3s. 6d. net. _Constable &
Co._

=46. English Public Health Administration.= By B. G. BANNINGTON; with a
Preface by GRAHAM WALLAS, M.A., Professor of Political Science in the
University of London. 1915; xiv., 338 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 8s. 6d. net.
_P. S. King & Son._

=47. British Incomes and Property: the application of Official
Statistics to Economic Problems.= By J. C. STAMP, D.Sc. (Econ.), London.
1916.; xvi. 538 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 12s. 6d. net. _P. S. King & Son._

=48. Village Government in British India.= By JOHN MATTHAI, D.Sc.
(Econ.), London; with a Preface by SIDNEY WEBB, L.L.B., Professor of
Public Administration in the University of London. 1915; xix., 211 pp.,
Demy 8vo, cloth. 4s. 6d. net. _T. Fisher Unwin._

=49. Welfare Work: Employers’ Experiments for Improving Working
Conditions in Factories.= By E. D. PROUD, B.A., Adelaide; D.Sc. (Econ.),
London, with a Foreword by the Rt. Hon. D. LLOYD GEORGE, M.P. 1916; xx.,
363 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 7s. 6d. net. _George Bell & Sons._

=50. Rates of Postage.= By A. D. SMITH, D.Sc (Econ.), London. 1917;
xii., 431 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 16s. net. _George Allen & Unwin._

=51. Metaphysical Theory of the State.= By L. T. HOBHOUSE, M.A., Martin
White Professor of Sociology in the University of London. [In Press.]
_George Allen & Unwin._

=52. Outlines of Social Philosophy.= By J. S. MACKENZIE, M.A., Professor
of Logic and Philosophy in the University College of South Wales. [In
Press.] _George Allen & Unwin._


                       _Monographs on Sociology._

=1. The Material Culture and Social Institutions of the Simpler
Peoples.= By L. T. HOBHOUSE, M.A., Martin White Professor of Sociology
in the University of London, G. C. WHEELER, B.A., and M. GINSBERG, B.A.
1915; 300 pp., Demy 8vo, paper. 2s. 6d. net. _Chapman & Hall._

=2. Village and Town Life in China.= By TAO LI KUNG, B.Sc. (Econ.),
London, and LEONG YEW KOH, LL.B., B.Sc. (Econ.), London. Edited by L. T.
HOBHOUSE, M.A. 1915; 153 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 5s. net. _George Allen &
Unwin._


         _Series of Bibliographies by Students of the School._

=1. A Bibliography of Unemployment and the Unemployed.= By F. ISABEL
TAYLOR, B.Sc. (Econ.), London. Preface by SIDNEY WEBB, LL.B. 1909; xix.
and 71 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth, 2s. net; paper, 1s. 6d. net. _P. S. King &
Son._

=2. Two Select Bibliographies of Mediæval Historical Study.= By MARGARET
F. MOORS, M.A.; with Preface and Appendix by HUBERT HALL, F.S.A. 1912;
185 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 5s. net. _Constable & Co._

=3. Bibliography of Roadmaking and Roads in the United Kingdom.= By
DOROTHY BALLEN, B.Sc. (Econ.), London; an enlarged and revised edition
of a similar work compiled by Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Webb in 1906. 1914;
xviii. and 281 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 15s. net. _P. S. King & Son._

=4. A Select Bibliography for the Study, Sources, and Literature of
English Mediæval Economic History.= Edited by HUBERT HALL, F.S.A. 1914;
xiii. and 350 pp., Demy 8vo, cloth. 5s. net. _P. S. King & Son._


                   _Series of Geographical Studies._

=1. The Reigate Sheet of the One-inch Ordnance Survey.= A Study in the
Geography of the Surrey Hills. By ELLEN SMITH. Introduction by H. J.
MACKINDER, M.A., M.P. 1910; xix. and 110 pp., 6 maps, 23 illustrations.
Crown 8vo, cloth. 5s. net. _A. & C. Black._

=2. The Highlands of South-West Surrey.= A Geographical Study in Sand
and Clay. By E. C. MATTHEWS, 1911; viii. and 124 pp., 7 maps, 8
illustrations, 8vo, cloth. 5s. net. _A. & C. Black._


              _Series of Contour Maps of Critical Areas._

=1. The Hudson-Mohawk Gap.= Prepared by the Diagram Company from a map
by B. B. Dickinson. 1913; 1 sheet 18″ by 22½″. Scale 20 miles to 1 inch.
6d. net; post free, folded 7d., rolled 9d. _Sifton, Praed & Co._


           --------------------------------------------------

 Printed in England by Headley Bros., Ashford, Kent, and 18, Devonshire
                               St. E.C.2.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




 ● Transcriber’s Notes:
    ○ Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected.
    ○ Typographical errors were silently corrected.
    ○ Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only
      when a predominant form was found in this book.
    ○ Text that:
      was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_);
      was in bold by is enclosed by “equal” signs (=bold=).

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 67936 ***