British freewomen _ Their historical privilege C. C. Stopes 1251 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of British
freewomen
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: British freewomen
Their historical privilege

Author: C. C. Stopes

Release date: August 15, 2023 [eBook #71414]

Language: English

Original publication: London: Swan Sonnenschein & Co., 1894

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/71414

Credits: The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BRITISH
FREEWOMEN ***

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

BRITISH FREEWOMEN

BRITISH FREEWOMEN

THEIR HISTORICAL PRIVILEGE

BY

CHARLOTTE CARMICHAEL STOPES
DIPLOMÉE, EDIN. UNIVERSITY

“I do own for myself that Seneca the Declaimer saith, that I take pleasure
in going back to studies of antiquity, and in looking behind me to our
grandsires’ better times.”
As saith another poet:

“Antique, buried in rubbish, old and musty,
Which make one verst in customs old and new,
And of Laws, Gods, and Men giving a view,
Render the careful student skilled and trusty.”
Inner Temple Dec. 25, 1610.

John Selden’s Janus Anglorum, translated by Redman Westcott, alias
Littleton.

LONDON
S WA N S O N N E N S C H E I N & C O .
PATERNOSTER SQUARE
1894

CONTENTS

CHAP. PAGE

Preface vii
I. Ancient History And British 1
Women

II. The Modern Bases of Privilege 15

III. Royal Women 27
Queens Consort 27
Queens Regnant 28
Queens Regent 33

IV. Noblewomen 35
They paid Homage 36
They received Homage 37
They held Courts Baron 37

They held by Military Service 40
They could be Knights 42
They could inherit Public Offices 42
They could be High Sheriff 43
They could be Earl Marshal 45
They could be High Constable, 47
High Steward, High Chamberlain
They could be Champion, 48
Governor of Royal Castles
They could be appointed to 51
various offices
They could act as Femes Soles 51
when married
They had the Cure of Churches 53
As Peeresses summoned to 53
Parliament in person or in proxy

V. County Women 60
Could be Freeholders 61
Could act as Femes Soles when 61
married
Could hold by Military Tenure 62
Paid and received Homage 63
Could present to Churches 63
Could hold Motes and attend 64
Motes
Could be Suitors at County 64
Courts, Pares, Judges or Jury

Could elect Knights of the Shire 67
Could elect Members of Private 69
Boroughs

VI. Freewomen 77
Could be Members of Guilds 79
Could have Guilds of their own 83
Were free of the City of London 84
Were free in other Boroughs 86
Could be Members of Corporation 90
Could vote for Members of 94
Parliament

VII. The Long Ebb 99
The Errors of Sir Edward Coke 99
A Believer in Coke’s Views 107
Protesting Women 112
Anne Clifford 112
Mary Astell’s Protest 124
Mary Wolstonecroft Godwin 127
Legal Cases decided in their 128
favour
The Reform Bill of 1832 136
The Reform Bill of 1867 139
Chorlton v. Lings 140

VIII. The Turn of the Tide 146
Something has been done 147

Municipal Franchise—School 148
Boards
Married Women’s Property Acts 149
Lady Sandhurst’s Case 150
What a Woman can do 152
Women and the Universities 155

IX. Other Women 159
The Test of Civilisation 162
Labour the basis of Property 165
The Unrecorded Increment of 166
Women’s Labour
The Duality of Humanity 176
The Woman God’s Fellow-worker 178

Appendix
Eldest Daughters 180
The Countess Lucy 180
Women’s Service 180
Women’s Guilds 181
Free Kent 181
The Learned Selden 181
Sir Edward Coke 181
Judge or Jury 182
Physical Force Argument 182
Women and the Universities 182

PREFACE

In the spring of 1885, when planning to attend the British Association
meeting in Aberdeen that summer, it struck me that I might prepare a paper
on a Woman’s Subject, and try to find an opportunity of reading it before
the Section of Economics and Statistics there. The paper divided itself into
two, which I carefully entitled—I. The History and Statistics of Woman’s
Privilege; and II. The Economic Effects of the Abstention of Women from
Voting.
They were, as might have been expected, both rejected. I was told that,
though they formed valuable contributions to Constitutional History, the
Committee felt they would certainly lead to political discussion, which must
not be risked. At a public meeting in Aberdeen the same week, I gave a
resumé of my arguments, and the materials then collected I have frequently
used since in Drawing-room Addresses, and in private conversation; in
public papers, and in friendly correspondence. So many have been surprised
at the facts, and interested in the results, that, at the present crisis, I thought
it advisable to spend another six months in careful verification of details,
and in grouping apparently disconnected data, so that their full import
might be seen at a glance. My first authorities were Sydney Smith’s

“Enfranchisement of Woman the Law of the Land” (1876), and Mr.
Chisholm Anstey’s Book and Papers on “The Representation of the
People’s Acts” (1876).
Thence I went through the materials of Constitutional History, the
Statutes, Rolls of Parliament, State Papers, Parliamentary Writs, Journals of
the House of Commons, Reports of Cases, Works on Law, History, and
Archæology, both printed and manuscript.
Just as my paper was complete enough for the purpose in hand, M.
Ostrogorski’s book upon “Women’s Rights” appeared. But he had
considered the question in regard to all women, I, only in regard to British
Freewomen. He was the more general, I the more special, and I had noted
several points which had escaped him in regard to the prime question of the
day.
I consulted Miss Helen Blackburn, Editor of the Englishwoman’s Review,
and she urged me to bring out what I had prepared. She had always thought
the work necessary, had intended to undertake it herself, when she could
find leisure, and thought that now was the most fitting time to publish.
She generously placed her notebooks at my disposal, whence I have
gleaned many interesting facts in support of my own. Therefore this little
book may be taken as her voice as well as mine. The points I specially wish
to be considered, are:—
1st, The Ethnological.—The racial characteristics of our ancestors. They
reverenced women.
2nd, The Philological.—All old Statutes are couched in general terms.
Through a deficiency in the English language, the word “man” is a common
term, including woman as well as man, even by Statute.
3rd, The Legal.—The Late Laureate speaks of the liberties of men as
widening down from precedent to precedent. We find that the liberties of
women have, on the other hand, been narrowed down from precedent to

precedent. Sir Edward Coke, the technical cause of this limitation, is only a
fellow mortal, liable to error.
4th, The Historical, in which facts speak for themselves.
5th, The Biblical, in which prejudice and mistranslation have confused
the ideas of readers on this point. Some may disagree with my conclusions,
but I trust they may accept the facts, and do what they can with them.
No one can deny that it is just to grant women the Suffrage, no one can
deny that it would be advantageous for them to receive it. There is no
reason that a thing should be because it has been, but when the only
objection brought against a thing is, that it has not been, it is time to test if
that statement be really true. We have not found the received assertions true
in regard to this subject. Hence the publication of this little book.
Thus far I had written as Preface to the little Brochure that I printed for
the use of the Women’s Suffrage Societies a month ago. But as the whole
Thousand was ordered before it came from the printers, it was evident that I
ought to publish my work formally, with the many additions I had held back
from lack of space, and with the article from the Athenæum, No. 3475,
which I had been permitted to incorporate. Amongst the Labour-saving
appliances of the day, may be classified collections of verified facts. I trust
these may reach the hands of those for whom I write, brave women and fair
men.

CHARLOTTE CARMICHAEL STOPES,
31 Torrington Square, W.C.
6th June, 1894.

BRITISH FREEWOMEN

THEIR HISTORICAL PRIVILEGE

CHAPTER I.

P R E L I M I N A R Y.

ANCIENT HISTORY AND BRITISH WOMEN.
“Let us look at the beginnings of things, for they help us to understand the ends.”

Though early British traditions may survive in later Literature, we cannot
accept them for critical purposes. The century of the birth of Christ is the
earliest date of our authentic history. The words of the Romans, strangers
and enemies, are unexceptionable witnesses. Nothing impressed the
Romans more than the equality of the sexes among the Northern nations;
the man’s reverence for womanhood, the woman’s sympathy with
manhood, and the high code of morality that was the natural outcome of
this well-balanced society.
Plutarch (“de Virtut Mul.”) says, “Concerning the virtues of women, I am
not of the same mind with Thucydides. For he would prove that she is the
best woman concerning whom there is least discourse made by people
abroad, either to her praise or dispraise; judging that as the person, so the
very name of a good woman ought to be retired and not to gad abroad....
And seeing that many worthy things, both public and private, have been
done by women, it is not amiss to give a brief historical account of those
that are public in the first place.” Among the examples he cites, there is that
of the continental Celts, kindred to the British. Some of these wandered

north-west, and some due south. “There arose a very grievous and
irreconcilable contention among the Celts before they passed over the Alps
to inhabit that tract of Italy which now they inhabit, which proceeded to a
civil war. The women, placing themselves between the armies, took up the
controversies, argued them so accurately, and determined them so
impartially that an admirable friendly correspondence and general amity
ensued, both civil and domestic. Hence the Celts made it their practice to
take women into consultation about peace or war, and to use them as
mediates in any controversies that arose between them and their allies. In
the league, therefore, made with Hannibal, the writing runs thus—If the
Celts take occasion of quarrelling with the Carthaginians, the governors and
generals of the Carthaginians in Spain shall decide the dispute; but if the
Carthaginians accuse the Celts, the Celtic women shall decide the
controversy.” The Romans were much struck by the similar position of
women among the Britons, Belgic and Celtic alike. Elton, on the authority
of Ammianus Marcellinus, says of the women, “that their approximation to
the men in stature was the best evidence that the nation had advanced out of
barbarism.” Cæsar tells us (“Eng.” 117) that the British women were made
use of in Court, in Council, and in Camp, and that no distinction of sex was
made in places of command or government. Selden, in his chapter on
“Women” in the “Janus Anglorum,” reminds us, that “Boadicea so
successfully commanded the British armies as to beat and conquer the
Roman Viceroy, and no doubt that noble lady was a deliberative member of
the Council where the resolution was taken to fight, and that she should
command the forces.” Tacitus (“Vita Agric.,” c. xv.) says, “Under the
leadership of Boadicea, a woman of kingly descent (for they admit of no
distinction of sex in their royal successions), they all rose to arms. Had not
Paulinus, on hearing of this outbreak, rendered prompt succour, Britain
would have been lost.” He owns elsewhere that had the Britons but been
able to unite among themselves, the Romans could not have conquered
them; and he more than once notes the bravery of the women in stimulating
the warriors.

More fully in his “Annals” (B. xiv.), Tacitus describes how Suetonius
Paulinus attacked Mona (Anglesea) the stronghold of the Druids; and how
the women priestesses dashed about clothed in black, like furies, with
dishevelled hair, and with torches in their hands, encouraging and
threatening the soldiers, and when all was lost, perishing bravely among the
flames kindled by the conqueror. This is told, not in the tones with which
one belauds compatriot heroines, but in those of an enemy, to whom these
women added new terrors and increased troubles. Meanwhile, in the East,
the Roman statue of Victory had fallen from its place in the temple of
Claudius at Camalodunum; evil signs and omens weakened the hearts of the
Roman soldiers, and frantic Priestesses encouraged the hopes of the British
force thereby. Boadicea, having succeeded in uniting some of the
neighbouring tribes, had driven Catus over the sea, had subdued Petelius
Cerialus, had destroyed the Colonia at Camalodunum, had sacked Verulam,
and marched on London, building an intrenched camp near what we now
call Islington. Suetonius Paulinus, fresh from the slaughter of the sacred
Druid host, advanced to meet her. Tacitus describes the position of the
armies, and reports her speech. Not being “unaccustomed to address the
public,” she called her army to witness “that it was usual for the Britons to
war under the conduct of women, but on that occasion she entered the field,
not as one descended from ancestors so illustrious to recover her kingdom
and her treasure, but as one of the humblest among them, to take vengeance
for liberty extinguished, her own body lacerated with stripes, and the
chastity of her daughters defiled.... They would see that in that battle they
must conquer or perish. Such was the fixed resolve of a woman; the men
might live if they pleased and be the slaves of the Romans.” “Neither was
Suetonius silent at so perilous a juncture, for though he confided in the
bravery of his men, yet he mingled exhortations with entreaties. ‘In that
great host were to be seen more women than efficient men. Unwarlike,
unarmed, they would give way the instant they felt the sword and valour of
those victorious troops, etc.’” Then follows the account of the battle. “The
soldiers spared not even the lives of the women, nay the very beasts,

pierced with darts, seemed to swell the heaps of the slain. The glory gained
that day was signal indeed, and equal to the victories of ancient times, for
there are authors who record that of the Britons were slain almost 80,000, of
our men about 400, with not many more wounded.”
That Boadicea’s defeat was gloried in as being such a triumph to the
Roman arms is in itself a witness to her prowess. The numbers of the slain
did not likely represent warriors alone. The carriages with their wives and
children lined the field. The Romans thought that the defeated Britons could
not fly past these. They would not. Husbands, wives, and babes were slain
together, and reckoned together, perhaps the very beasts of burden among
the heaps of the slain were reckoned too. Anything to increase the Roman
“glory.”
There is no picture more touching in the history of our country! The
forces of oppression and lust, the spirit of Nero himself, then Emperor, were
ranged against this woman. With superhuman energy, as patriot, as mother,
and as individual, she struggled against these in defence of country, home,
and honour. And she failed! Had circumstances been but slightly altered,
had the brave Caractacus been but able to hold out a little longer, and take
shelter with her, instead of trusting the rival Queen Cartismandua, how
differently might our British history have read to-day.
Cartismandua was a Queen, too, in her own right, wedded freely to the
neighbouring Prince Venutius, but nevertheless personally elected as the
supreme ruler and leader of the united tribes of the Brigantes, making
contracts and treaties for all. Caractacus, after his nine years’ struggle, had
fled for shelter and for help to her in the year 50 A.D. But as Elton says in
his “Origin of English History,” “she was farseeing enough to see the
hopelessness of contest with the Romans.” Already Romanised in heart and
spirit, she betrayed her countryman, cast off her husband, forfeited her
honour, and finally lost the crown of her inheritance.

The blameless Boadicea suffered for her sins twelve years later, in that
sad year of 62 A.D. That defeat rang the death-knell of the freedom of
British womanhood, and of the spirit of British manhood. In such a crisis it
is not the fittest who survive. They who lived to tread upon her grave were
born of lower possibilities. Yet she has lived, the typal woman of the British
past.
I know that I may be expected to speak of the Empress Helena, claimed
by Camalodunum (now Colchester) as the only daughter of its Coel II., the
wife of Constantius, the mother of Constantine, the Christian convert, the
finder of the true cross. Good as she was, refined and cultivated too, she
was, nevertheless, but a Romanised Briton, a Roman wife, a Roman mother,
under Roman Law. And the Roman Law was a meaner foster-mother for
feminine virtues than the free old British Law.
The withdrawal of the Roman troops for home affairs hastened a new
crisis, in which the Britons, made limp by protection and an alien
government, were unable to hold their own against invading tribes. No
longer was the British wife the brave help-meet, the counsellor, the inspirer
of the British man. Roman customs had completed what the Roman arms
and the Roman laws had begun, and the spirit of British Womanhood had
no reserve force in itself to spare. Then came an infusion of new blood into
the land, fortunately not of Latin Race, but of a good northern stock, that
reverenced woman still. Speaking of that stock in earlier times, Tacitus
(“Germ.” c. viii.) says, “The women are the most revered witnesses of each
man’s conduct, and his most liberal applauders. To their mothers and their
wives they bring their wounds for relief, who do not dread to count or
search out the gashes. The women also administer food and encouragement
to those who are fighting.” “They even suppose somewhat of sanctity and
prescience to be inherent in the female sex, and, therefore, neither despise
their counsels nor disregard their responses. We have beheld, in the reign of
Vespasian, Veleda, long reverenced by many as a deity. Aurima, moreover,
and several others, were formerly held in similar veneration, but not with a

similar flattery, nor as though they had been goddesses (c. xviii). Almost
alone among barbarians they are content with one wife.... The wife does not
bring a dower to the husband, but the husband to the wife.... Lest the
woman should think herself to stand apart from aspirations after noble
deeds, and from the perils of war, she is reminded by the ceremony which
inaugurates marriage (in which she is handed a spear) that she is her
husband’s partner in toil and danger, destined to suffer and to dare with him
alike in peace and in war....” “She must live and die with the feeling that she
is receiving what she must hand down to her children, neither tarnished, nor
depreciated, what future daughters-in-law may receive, and may so pass on
to her grandchildren” (c. xix). “Thus with their virtue protected, they live
uncorrupted by the allurements of public shows or the stimulant of
feastings. Clandestine correspondence is equally unknown to men and
women. The young men marry late, and their vigour is unimpaired. Nor are
the maidens hurried into marriage. Well-matched and vigorous they wed,
and the offspring reproduce the strength of their parents” (Church’s
Translation).
These racial peculiarities also marked the early Saxon invaders, though
there were no foreign witnesses to note them with surprise. The native
writers took them too much as a matter of course to consider them worth
noting. It is only indirectly that we can glean the state of affairs from public
records. Samuel Heywood, in his “Ranks of the People among the Anglo-
Saxons,” says (p. 2), “The word Cwen[1] originally signified a wife in
general, but was by custom converted into a title for the wife of a king.... It
was customary for Saxon monarchs to hold their courts with great
solemnity three times a year. The Queen Consort, at these assemblies, wore
her crown also, and was seated on a throne near the King. When an
assembly of the nobles met at Winchester to adjust the complaints of the
secular clergy against St. Dunstan, the King presided, having his Queen
seated by his side (“Eadmer de Vita St. Dunstan,” 2 Aug. Sacra., 219)....”

1. “Cwen” originally meant a wife, but it also meant a companion or peer, hence in old French
Histories we see it used instead of Count, as “Thibaut Cwens de Champagne.” In a roll in the
Tower of London, Simon de Montfort is called “Quens of Leycester” (Selden’s “Titles of
Honour”).

“The Queen Consort had her separate household and attendants....” “It is
highly probable that in ancient as well as modern times the Queen Consort
was considered as feme sole in all legal proceedings. Sir Edward Coke
being called on to prove that this was the common law before the Conquest,
produced a charter made by Ethelswurth, Queen of the Mercians, in the
lifetime of her husband, giving away the lands in her own power, her
husband being only an attesting witness. We find Queens Consort acting in
all other respects as femes soles in tenure, management, and alienation of
real property. Emma, Ethelred’s Queen, gave a munificent grant to St.
Swithins, Winchester. Alswythe, the Queen of King Alfred, began to erect a
house for nuns at Winchester, finished by her son Edward. Queens attested
their husband’s grants, and recorded their assents to acts done and
engagements made. Queens Dowager were also present, and subscribed
their names to Royal grants as being content with them.”
Though, of course, the Royal rank increased the woman’s power, the law
and custom for Queens was but the reflex of the common law and custom
of the time for all women. Selden says, “Ladies of birth and quality sat in
the Saxon Witenagemot,” and Gurdon, in his “Antiquities of Parliament,”
vol. i., p. 164, adds, “Wightred, the next Saxon legislator, summoned his
Witas to the Witenagemot at Berghamstead, where his laws were made with
the advice and consent of his Witas (which is a general term for the
nobility), for the laws were signed by the King, Werburg his Queen, the
Bishops, Abbots, Abbesses, and the rest of the Witas” (see “Sax. Chron.,”
48). In Spelman’s “Concilia Britannica,” p. 190, we find also that
Wightred’s council at Beconceld (694) included women, for the Queen and
Abbesses signed the decisions along with the King and the Abbots (p. 192).
The charter to Eabba the Abbess is granted by Wightred and his Queen (p.
486).

The charter to Glastonbury is signed, after the name of the King, “Ego
Eilfgiva ejusdem Regis Mater cum gaudio consensi” (p. 533). In the
“Diploma Comiti, Regis Angliæ,” after the King’s name, “Ego Emma
Regina signo crucis confirmo.”
The second charter of Edward the Confessor to St. Peter’s at Westminster
contains not only the signature of the sainted King, but “Ego Editha Regina
huic donationi Regiæ consentiens subscripsi” (p. 631). And at the council
summoned to consider the Bull of Nicholas the Pope to Edward the
Confessor, after the King, signs “Ego Edgida Regina omni alacritate mentis
hoc corroboravi.” The different expressions used, show that the signatures
were no mere accident, no vapid formality.
In the council held to grant privileges to the Church “præsentibus etiam
clarissimis Abbattissis, hoc est, Hermehilda, Truinberga and Ataba
reverenda, ut subscriberent rogavi” (p. 198).
“King Edgar’s charter to the Abbey of Crowland (961) was signed with
the consent of the nobles and abbesses, for many Abbesses were formerly
summoned to Parliament” (Plowden’s “Jura Anglorum,” p. 384. Also
William Camden’s “Antiquity of Parliament”).
“Ego Ælfrith Regina” signs the Charter that the King of Mercia grants to
the Abbey of Worcester. “Ethelswith Regina” subscribes with Burghred,
King of Mercia or Mercland, in the Register of Worcester.
Edward the Confessor’s charter to Agelwin is confirmed by his wife,
“Ego Edgith Regina consentio.”
So in a charter of King Knut to St. Edmundesbury, his wife, Alfgwa,
signs, “Ego Alfgifa Regina” (Selden’s “Titles of Honour”).
There had been amid the Saxons, Queens Regnant as well as Queens
Consort. William of Malmesbury writes in admiration of Sexburga, the
Queen Dowager of Cenwalch, King of the West Saxons, 672, A.D., “that
there was not wanting to this woman a great spirit to discharge the duties of

the kingdom. She levied new armies, kept the old ones to duty, governed
her subjects with clemency, kept her enemies quiet with threats, in a word,
did everything at that rate that there was no other difference between her
and any King in management except her sex” (“Malmesb. Gest. Reg.,” b.
i.). Ethelfleda, too, the daughter of the great Alfred, called the Lady of
Mercia, ruled that kingdom after the death of her father and her husband for
eight years, and completed the work that her great father had begun in
finally defeating and subjugating the intruding Danes. Women landowners
sat in the Shire Gemote, or held Motes of their own; women Burgesses were
present at Folkmotes, or at Revemotes. In short, the privileges of women in
the Saxon times were nearly equal to those they held in British times.
The Abbess Hilda presided over the monastery at Streneshalh, Whitby,
where was a man’s wing, and a woman’s wing, the church coming between
them. Among her disciples were educated many learned bishops. An
ecclesiastical synod met at her abbey (664), at which she presided, that the
calm of her presence and the influence of her control might soothe
excitement on the vexed questions of the day, chiefly those regarding
Easter. There were delegates from Rome, from the Scots, from the Angles,
and the Britons (see lib. 3, c. xxv., and lib. 4, c. xxiii., xxiv.). Also
Spelman’s “Concilia” (p. 145) describes “Synodis Pharensis rogatu Hildæ
illic Abbatissæ celebratæ.” The earliest British writer still extant, Gildas of
Alcluid (now Dumbarton), reports this fact without comment or surprise.
Spelman preserves also (p. 205) “Epistola Johannis Pa. VII.,” to
“Ethelredum Regem Merciorum.” “Episcopus suo more obnitentibus
beatissima virgo Elfleda soror Alfridi, Abbattissa post Hildam de
Streneshalh, terminum negotio fixit dicens Dimissus ambagibus
testamentum fratris mei, cui præsens interfui, profero,” etc. Other women
held similar positions in England, as well as St. Bridget of the Abbey of
Kildare in Ireland.
The Norman invaders swept like a whirlwind over old institutions, yet
some of the strongest stood firm. They were, after all, of the same Church,

and Church and Cloister preserved the records of Saxon liberties, and the
customs of Saxon times. The clerical and lay powers of many Abbesses
were handed down unimpaired to their successors in Norman times. The
conquest was not one of extermination but of superposition. The great mass
of the people remained Saxon in heart. The Normans were, too, of a kindred
race, though they had come from a long sojourn in a land where language,
thought, and custom had become Latinised, a land that already held the
principles of the Salic Law. William promised to respect the laws of the
country, but there is no appeal against a conqueror’s will, or a soldier’s
sword.
The lands they wrested from the Saxons, the Normans held of the King
by Feudal Tenure or by Military Service. Their laws, customs, and language
dominated the Saxons, as did their swords. But only for a time. The
struggles with France formed, through a common antagonism, a united
nation of the varying races in the island. To complete the union, the nation
went back to the language of the Saxons, and, when opportunity for
freedom called, went back to their old laws as a basis of the new. That
women suffered more than men did from the Norman invasion might only
have been expected. But that they did not do so nearly to the extent that it is
commonly supposed, can be proved by reference to competent authorities,
by whom the limitations of their privileges are shown to proceed on definite
and comprehensible lines.

CHAPTER II.

THE MODERN BASES OF PRIVILEGE.

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

The relation between property and privilege has been the determining
principle in Constitutional Evolution, and the distinction between the sexes
in the matter of Property has been the radical cause of the distinction
between them in regard to Privilege. It is necessary to trace this. The
custom of Military Tenure made male heirs more valuable to the Crown
than female heirs, inasmuch as personal service was more effective and
reliable than representative service; and, therefore, in early Norman days,
when all lands lay in the King’s gift, he was eager to confirm each
succeeding son of the last owner in his possessions, before any of the
daughters. But the principles of justice, the customs of the land, and the
springs of human nature, combined in opposition to a further exercise of the
Royal will, so that all the daughters succeeded before any of the collateral

heirs, before uncle, cousin, or nephew. Husbands and fathers would not
have risked their lives freely in the King’s wars, if they knew that wives and
daughters were to lose their estates, at the same time as they lost the
protection of their strong right arms. A survival of Saxon opinion strangely
affected further the position of daughters, when the chaos of custom took
form in law. An eldest-born son could inherit to the detriment of his
younger brothers, following the Norman custom of primogeniture, but the
eldest-born daughter held no privilege over her younger sisters, who were
all co-parceners with her as regarded the inheritance, in the manner that
children of both sexes inherited among the Saxons, and among the
representatives of the Saxons, the free men of Kent. An indivisible
inheritance, such as a title, fell in abeyance among daughters until decided
by the selection of the Crown, though it was generally granted to the eldest
daughter.[i.] Unless a woman, therefore, was an only child, she did not
succeed to the entire advantages of “the heir,” but as only child, and sole
heiress, she inherited to the full the rights and privileges of her father,
brother, or ancestor. Sex-in-itself did not disqualify a woman from anything.
There was no excusing a woman a duty, and consequently no denying her a
privilege. “Essoin de servitio regis lyeth not where the party is a woman”
(Statutes 33, Ed. I.). The only advantage granted her, that of “sending a
deputy,” she was allowed in common with men, frail or infirm, or over the
age of bearing arms.
The Feudal System has been credited with limiting Personality and
Privilege to males; therefore it startles some students of history to find that
it was only on the extinction of the Feudal System, and the translation of
service-payments into money-payments, that women lost the definite place
assigned to them. Women’s rights came second in Feudal Times, because
they had to be protected by men’s swords; women’s rights came nowhere in
later times, when freedom towards property would have made them able to
protect themselves. The encroachments naturally took place first in regard
to married women. In ancient times even a married woman could be “free,”

both as an inheritor and as an earner. In the very highest ranks she remained
so. She was free to contract, to sign, to seal, to act as a feme sole. On her
marriage she conferred her title on her husband, as men did theirs upon
their wives. The lands were held in common. The responsibilities she could
not undertake herself, he fulfilled as her representative. When she died he
lost his representative character; his tenure of her lands was only “by
courtesy,” and that only if he had a child by her; if not, they reverted at her
death to the donor. (See “Statutes of Realm,” vol. i., p. 220.) But a widow
also could hold her husband’s lands under certain conditions, either by her
marriage settlement, her husband’s will, the King’s gift, or “the courtesy of
England.” Many examples of widows doing so are given later. Even where
there were heirs, and her husband died intestate, a widow had a legal right
to the third part of her husband’s property. In Kent she had a right to the
half till she married again, as a man held the half of his wife’s property till
he married again. (See “The Customal of Kent.”)
The Laws of Chivalry refined the Upper Classes, inculcating Truth,
Loyalty, Chastity, Courtesy, Liberality, Reverence for Women and
Generosity to the Weak. But the real foundation of Privilege in Chivalric
times was practically Strength, Courage and Success among men. Beauty,
Grace and Honour among women. These qualities being temporary, were
not synonymous with Justice. The position of Divinity is an unstable one,
depending on the attitude of the worshippers. When Chivalry faded out of
men’s hearts, women felt that the outer shell of custom meant little. It only
set them on the shelf.
A tone of Chivalry affected the hearts of the traders and manufacturers of
Chivalric Times, a tone healthier, because more founded on justice and
equality. There was even then a confusion of ideas between return-value of
labour abroad, and labour at home; but there was no confusion about the
return-values of similar labour performed by men or by women. Women
were equal in all social guilds, and trading women were equal in trading
guilds.

The notion that partnership in toil could justify the assumption of the
whole proceeds of the common labours to the use and will of one of the
partners did not dawn on the simpler minds of our ancestors. It took
centuries of mistranslations of the first principles of government to let this
partial idea develop into its modern complexity. In Prynne’s “Fundamental
Rights of English Freemen,” p. 3, art. 7, we read, “That it is the ancient and
undoubted right of every freeman that he hath a full and absolute propriety
in his goods and estate. And that no taxes, taillages, loans, benevolences, or
other charge ought to be commanded, imposed, or levied by the King or his
ministers, without common consent by Act of Parliament.” In order that
husbands might have this absolute proprietary right over the whole of the
common property, it was gradually extinguished among wives; and the
second right for them naturally lapsed in consequence of the other. The
absorption of a married woman’s property by her husband developed for her
a massive code of legal restrictions, and a stern doctrine of civil disabilities.
She was dissociated first from property, thence from privilege, finally she
became property. This was but the natural outcome of the non-recognition
of her Personal and Proprietary Rights. In any history, therefore, of British
Freewomen, we must practically follow legal precedent, in assuming the
non-existence of the feme couverte.
Through the different principles of inheritance, there have always been
fewer heiresses than heirs; through the success of the various methods of
protecting male professional and trade industries against female
competition, there have always been fewer female owners of earned
property; through the lower rate of women’s wages, and various causes
tending to disable single women even in the retention of property, these
owners represented smaller incomes than did men of their own class.
Representative Freewomen, therefore, have always been in a small
minority. The dominance of a temporary majority sends a minority into the
Opposition; in which exile it lays plans for future action, when in the see-
saw of political change its turn comes to rise again. The majority has always

to consider the minority in its calculations and actions. But a permanent
majority, consciously or unconsciously, labours to oust a permanent
minority from recognised and recognisable existence even as an Opposition.
By always being able to overbear opinion, it makes the expression of
opinion futile. Either it is concordant and unnecessary, or discordant and
inoperative. The expression of either becomes a waste of time, and is soon
denied. And thus women have been ousted by degrees from the building up
of the superstructure of the English Constitution, in whose foundations they
had been considered. The privilege of British Freewomen remained a
recognised quantity for ages. Though that quantity became “small by
degrees and beautifully less,” it was not finally annihilated till the heart of
the nineteenth century.
The process of diminution was hastened in periods of spasmodic activity
through association of principles that should have worked in the opposite
direction, had the principles been understood and applied in their purity. No
doctrine is more antagonistic to the spirit and teaching of Christ than that of
the subjection of women, and yet, though the change from the Druidic
religion to the worship of Odin affected them but slightly, the changes
within the Christian Creed mark epochs in their gradual enthralment; as, for
instance, the sixteenth century Reformation and the seventeenth century
Revival On the Suppression of the Monasteries, Abbots and Abbesses were
alike extinguished. But the power and privilege of the Abbot in the House
of Peers as in the Church, survived in the Bishop. The extinction of the
Abbess, without successor either in Church or State, took away finally the
right of one class of representative women to sit in the Upper House. The
suppression of the Social and Religious Guilds founded and supported by
women in common with men, gave a seeming reason for later exclusion of
Freewomen from trade guilds.
The loudest Puritan cry of the seventeenth century was, it is true, “No
Bishop;” but the practical work Puritanism was really allowed to do in

politics was to make the representation of women in the Lower House
theoretically impossible.
As antagonistic to the doctrine of the subjection of women are the
Principles of Liberty. How can men become truly free that ignore, for
others, the liberties founded on the same reasonings by which they
enfranchised themselves? Yet every great era in the Evolution of so-called
Popular Liberty has been marked by contemporary restrictions of Feminine
Freedom. Hence, in the seventeenth century, when hereditary serfdom was
finally abolished, and when slavery, by purchase, became impossible in
Britain, we first find the doctrine promulgated that tended to disfranchise
women. When outbursts of fervid eloquence on “Liberty” were preparing
the nation to lay out its millions in enfranchising even its colonial slaves, in
1832, the disfranchisement of women was effected by the use of a single
statutory word. When, on the 29th of June, 1867, William Lloyd Garrison,
the champion of Negro Emancipation, was receiving an ovation at St.
James’ Hall, men were discussing in St. Stephen’s whether to give women
political existence or not. Though the single excluding word was erased
from the statute book, the House and the Courts of Law next year
determined that its spirit lingered there. When a new extension of the
Suffrage took place in 1884, the claims of women were again disallowed.
The new rights of men emphasised more strongly the old wrongs of women.
A lowered qualification for the Franchise protected property, not only
inherited or earned, but that which was only in the process of earning. This
privilege of prospective property increased the opportunities of earning
enormously. But only when its possession was vested in a man. Women’s
possession of property, more difficult to acquire through laws of nature,
custom, inheritance, marriage, and the protection of male industries, was
further rendered less stable by their exclusion from the faintest voice in
determining laws, taxation, and home and foreign policy. The progress of
education has enriched public ideas, has altered the Content of public
Conscience, has facilitated public discussion of facts and theories. The

relations of representation to taxation are assailed. New bases of privilege
are being proposed. There are those who hold that Property is no sound
foundation on which to build a Constitution. Some would put in its place
the notion of Justice, which others name the right of the Individual. But
those who accept this are divided into two great classes, the first
considering Justice in its own nature, and treating Individuals as the
indivisible units to which Justice is to be applied, units not to be segregated
by any test into groups receiving Justice or no Justice. The second class also
considers Justice applicable to all individuals, but adds a rider, that, in their
opinion, individuals can be only masculine. Something in the construction
of their minds permits them to harmonise, to their own satisfaction, two
discordant ideas. Masculinity seems to them a natural basis of privilege—a
solid foundation of Justice.
Others hold the older doctrines in a modified form, believing that
individuality without qualification of individuals cannot provide a stable
basis. If the idle and improvident, by mere force of numbers, are to
dominate the industrious and the provident, the ends of justice would be
defeated. By property or industry tests those are included who have
interests to preserve. Those who help to support the State should have a
voice in determining its action. No one is excluded from Enfranchisement
thereby. A very moderate degree of industry or success will make it possible
to any one to attain the franchise. A worthy incentive to labour is a moral
good. Amidst these thinkers there are also two classes: those who consider
that the rights of women in themselves, and in the property they inherit or
acquire, are as important as those of men, and should be made as stable; and
those that, by combining two principles of Enfranchisement, make a logical
cross division, importing the totally unconnected dividing principle of sex
into the consideration of the rights of property. What is simply unjust, when
individuals are selected on the basis of sex, becomes both illogical and
unjust when questions of sex are imposed on those of property. Sex is an
inseparable accident, and when accepted as the Basis of Justice, closes the

question; property is a separable accident, and must be considered upon
different lines. The various objections to any simple, logical, homogeneous,
and just arrangement of the Bases of Privilege, while depending on the
doctrine of sex, are worked out by two sub-sections of thinkers upon
different lines. One section says boldly, “when persons qualified by
property are also qualified by masculinity, we grant them privilege.” The
other section analyses the attributes of masculinity, and apply each as a
separate test to the person qualified by property. “The physical force
argument is the foundation of government, most men are stronger than most
women, therefore no women must interfere in government.” Women would
“require an improved understanding to vote for a member of Parliament.”
“Women cannot understand mathematics, nor master the classics,” and
when they proved they could, the principle was sent back further into
statements that “their brains were not heavy enough,” “their moral force not
strong enough.” “Women have not written Shakespeare, composed
Beethoven, painted Raphael, built St. Peter’s.” The understanding of
proportional representation, and the far-reaching economic results of bi-
metallism, have been seriously proposed as tests for women. But have the
whole series, or any one of them, ever been applied to the mere male
electors of the realm? When pressed hard on this point, these objectors, in
their confusion, fall back upon precedent and on authority to prove that to
be legal which they cannot prove to be just or reasonable. It is no argument
in favour of anything that it has been, or else reformation would be
impossible. But when the sole argument against its being is that it has not
been, the consideration of Legality and of Precedent becomes a necessity to
the advocates of Justice. Many mistakes have been taken for facts, many
fallacious arguments based upon erroneous premises. A Review of the
History of Women that have hitherto ever exercised any privilege is
necessary for generalisations to be based thereon. For by this process we
may unite the followers of Legality and Precedent with the worshippers of
Justice and Equality, and the union of the two forces, like those of the sun

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

CHAPTER III.

ROYAL WOMEN.

“The country prospers when a woman rules.”

In order to simplify and classify the mass of material at hand, it is advisable
to take by their degree the ranks of women among the Anglo-Normans.
Among the Queens, only because they precede in order of time and of
number, we may take first
Queens Consort.—In Doomsday Book, Matilda, the wife of the
Conqueror, is entered as holding of the King, many lands forfeited by the
Saxons. “She was made the feudal possessor of the lands of Beortric, Earl
of Gloucester, hence the practice of settling the Lordship of Bristol on the
Queen generally, prevailed for centuries. On her death in 1083, her lands
went back to the King by feudal tenure. The Conqueror kept them in his
own hands, meaning them for his and her youngest son Henry, who
afterwards succeeded.” (Seyer’s “Memoirs of Bristol,” chap. iv., p. 318).
Later queens had separate establishments, officers and privy purse. “The
Aurum Reginæ, or Queen’s Gold, is distinguished from all other debts and
duties belonging to the Queen of this Realme. All other revenues proceed to

her from the grace of the King, this by the common law ... which groweth
upon all fines paid to the King, licenses, charters, pardons, of which she
receives one-tenth part. After her death the King recovers his right to hold
this tenth. This duty hath been enjoyed by the Queens from Eleanor, wife of
Henry II. to Anne, second wife of Henry VIII.” (Hakewell’s speech in
Parliament on Aurum Reginæ. Addit. MSS., Brit. Mus. 25, 255.)
Even to our own days Queens Consort have had the privilege of acting as
femes soles. But in early times they exercised considerably more power in
the State than we realise to-day. They sat in the Councils, even in the
presence of the Kings, and gave their consent to measures along with Kings
and Nobles. “The Queen-wife of England also superscribed her name over
their warrants or letters of public direction or command, although in the
time of Henry VIII. the fashion was that the queens wrote their names over
the left side of the first line of such warrants, and not over them as the
Kings do” (Selden’s “Titles of Honour”). But as many of the Queens
Consort, though thus entitled to be ranked among “Freewomen,” were not
of native extraction; we do not dwell upon all their privileges, preferring to
hasten on to those that indubitably were British Freewomen.
Queens Regnant.—The first critical moment in the History of Queens
Regnant occurs at the death of Henry I., who had, as he considered,
arranged satisfactorily for the succession of his daughter Matilda. His
attempt proved that the French Salic Law had not been made law in
England. A quaint account of his proceeding occurs in the “Lives of the
Berkeleys,” published by the Gloucester Archæological Society, 1835, p. 2.
“King Harri the first, third sonne of King William the Conqueror, had issue
remaining one daughter named Maude ... the sayd King Harri send for his
foresayd daughter Maude the Emparice into England, and in open
Parliament declared and ordeyned her to bee his eire. To whom then and
there were sworen all the lordes of England, and made unto her sewte,
admittinge her for his eire. Amongs whom principally and first was sworen
Stephen Earle of Boleyn, nevowe of the sayd King Harri the first.” But as

Selden says, “I do very well know, that our perjured barons, when they
resolved to exclude Queen Maud from the English throne, made this
shameful pretence, ‘that it would be a shame for so many nobles to be
subject to one woman.’ And yet you shall not read, that the Iceni, our Essex
men got any shame by that Boadicea, whom Gildas terms a lioness” (Janus
Anglorum). The same author, in noting the laws made by various kings,
enters the reign of Stephen as that of an unrighteous king who had no time
to make laws for the protection of the kingdom, because he had to fight in
defence of his own unjust claim. “In 1136 Henry of England died, and
Stephen Earl of Boulogne succeeded. At Mass on the Day of his
Coronation, by some mistake, the peace of God was forgotten to be
pronounced on the people” (“Antiquitates,” Camden). Prynne calls him “the
perjured usurping King Stephen.” The general uncertainty of the succession
is betokened in the struggle. Very probably had there not been a Stephen to
stir up the nobles, the country might have rested peaceably under the rule of
Matilda.
It seems strange that the oldest Charters of the express Creation of the
title of Comes (Count or Earl) are those of Queen Maud, who first created
the Earldom of Essex and the Earldom of Hereford. To Aubrey de Vere also
she granted the Earldom of Cambridge, or another title if he preferred it,
and he chose the Earldom of Oxford. A struggle like the Wars of the Roses
was closed by the death of Stephen and the peaceable succession of
Matilda’s son, Henry II.
Another lady of the family was supplanted by the proverbially “cruel
uncle.” King John in 1202 made prisoners of his nephew, Arthur, Duke of
Brittany, and the Princess Eleanor, his sister, called “The Beauty of
Brittany.” Arthur is supposed to have been murdered by his uncle, and
Eleanor was confined for forty years in Bristol Castle. A true daughter of
Constance, she is said to have possessed a high and invincible spirit, and to
have constantly insisted on her right to the throne, which was probably the

reason that she spent her life in captivity. (See the close Rolls of the Tower
of London, and the Introduction xxxv.)
But the second real crisis was that which closed the Wars of the Roses.
Another Stephen appeared in Henry VII., who, fortunately for the people,
simplified matters by marrying Elizabeth of York, the rightful heir. Jealous
in the extreme of his wife’s prerogative, he used his high hand as the
conqueror of Richard and the Kingdom, delayed her coronation as long as
he dared, ignored her in his councils, and magnified his relation as husband,
to the extinction of her glory as Queen.
Henry VIII. enjoyed to the full the advantage of an undisputed
succession. He restricted the rights of Queens Consort, as his father had
ignored the rights of Queens Regnant. A strange Nemesis followed, foretold
in the so-called prophecies of Merlin. That these really were talked of,
before the events occurred, can be proved by MSS. among the uncalendared
papers temp. Henry VIII. Public Record Office. There is in full “the
Examination of John Ryan of St. Botolphs, Fruiterer, concerning discourses
which he heard at the Bell on Tower Hill, Prophecies of Merlin, that there
never again would be King crowned of England after the King’s son Prince
Edward, 22nd August, 1538.” James V. of Scotland had sadly said on his
death-bed, “The Kingdom came with a lass, and it will go with a lass.” So
was it to be in England. The pale sickly youth who succeeded, third of the
Tudors, died without wife or child, and on the steps of the throne stood four
royal women, whose lives form the most interesting period of national
history. Each of them had a special claim. Mary, pronounced illegitimate by
the Protestant party, and by statute of Parliament, inherited through her
father’s will alone; Elizabeth, pronounced illegitimate by the Catholic party,
and by a similar statute, stood second in that will; Mary, Queen of Scotland
and of France, showed flawless descent from Margaret, the elder sister of
Henry VIII.; and Lady Jane Grey proved like flawless descent from Mary,
Henry’s younger sister.

Henry, a despot even “by his dead hand,” had, failing Edward, left the
crown to Mary, then to Elizabeth, then to Lady Jane Grey. Edward VI., not
a minor by the laws of England that allowed Government to commence at
fourteen years, considered both his sisters illegitimate under his father’s
statutes, preferring of the two Elizabeth’s claim. But for the peace of the
kingdom he left by will the crown to Lady Jane Grey, ignoring, as his father
had done, the prior claims of Mary, Queen of Scotland and of France. The
results of the complication are too well known to be here rehearsed.
The first act of Mary was to establish her own legitimacy, the honour of
her mother, and the power of the Pope; her second was to establish the
office of Queen Regnant “by Statute to be so clear that none but the
malitious and ignorant could be induced and persuaded unto this Error and
Folly to think that her Highness coulde ne should have enjoye and use such
like Royal Authoritie ... nor doo ne execute and use all things concerning
the Statute (in which only the name of the King was expressed) as the
Kinges of this Realme, her most noble Progenitours have heretofore doon,
used and exercised” (1 Mar., c. iii.)
Both she and her sister, at their coronations, were girt with the sword of
State, and invested with the spurs of knighthood, to show that they were
military as well as civil rulers. Fortunately for her country, and for herself,
Elizabeth lived and died a maiden Queen. The bitter consequences of her
sister’s Spanish alliance taught her the importance of independence as a
ruler. Whatever we may individually think of her character, all must allow
her reign to have been in every way the most brilliant in the history of our
country, only equalled in our own times by that of a Matron Queen, who
has held the reins of Government in her own hand and whose husband came
to the land but as Prince Consort. Queen Anne’s reign is also worthy of
note, and can bear comparison with that of most Kings, for its military
successes, and its literary activities.

Queens Regent.—Selden argues against Bodin of Anjou, who upheld the
Salic Law, “are not discretion and strength, courage, and the arts of
Government more to be desired and required in those who have the tuition
of kings in their minority, than in the kings themselves till they are come of
age?” He considers the French use of Queens as Regents to be destructive
of their own theories.
Queens as Regent-Tutors of young kings have not held the same position
in England as they did in France or in Scotland. But as governing Regents
and Viceroys they have often done good service. William of Normandy
more than once left the country in charge of his Queen. Richard I., by
commission, appointed his mother, Eleanor, to be Regent of the Kingdom in
his absence, and wrote to her to find the money for his ransom when
imprisoned abroad. She sat as Judge in the Curia Regis, taking her seat on
the King’s Bench by right of her office. She granted concessions to the
inhabitants of Oléron (to women as to men) even down to the reign of John
(1 John; see “Rymer’s Fœdera”). Edward III. found his Queen Philippa a
Queen Regent worthy of himself. Henry V. appointed his mother as Regent
in his absence, and even Henry VIII., when he went abroad on his last
French War, left his Queen, Catherine Parr, Governor of the Kingdom. I
have gone through their correspondence in the Public Record Office, and it
bears ample testimony to her capability and his trust in her judgment. In
“Olive versus Ingram,” 1739, it is noted, “Queen Caroline was once
appointed Regentor of the Kingdom.”
It was with little less than Vice Regal splendour and power that Joan,
Dowager Countess of Pembroke, ruled the Palatinate for nine years in the
reign of Edward I.; or Isabel de Burgo in that of Edward II., or Agnes de
Hastings in that of Edward III.; ruling in the stead of their sons until the
youths attained majority at the age of twenty-one.

CHAPTER IV.

NOBLEWOMEN.

“Noblesse Oblige.”

In Selden’s “Titles of Honour,” iii., 890, he says, “Of feminine titles some
are immediately created in women, some are communicated by their
husbands, others are transmitted to them from their ancestors, and some
also are given them as consequents only of the dignity of their husbands and
parents.” Of “immediate creation” he gives the example of Margaret,
Countess of Norfolk, created by Richard II. Duchess of Norfolk, wherein
the investiture is mentioned by the patent to be by putting on her the cap of
honour “recompensatio meritorum.” Henry VIII. created Anne Boleyn
Marchioness of Pembroke. James I. created Lady Mary Compton the
Countess of Buckingham in her husband’s lifetime, without permitting him
to share the honour. He also created Lady Finch, first Viscountess of
Maidstone, and afterwards Countess of Winchilsea, limiting inheritance to
heirs of her body.
Anne Bayning, wife of James Murray, was created Viscountess Bayning
of Foxley in 1674. Several titles have been granted for discreditable causes,

too few for “recompensatio meritorum.” Men that were merely rich have
been made peers. Women that have been truly noble have not been made
Noble by Letters Patent. The Baroness Burdett Coutts is the only modern
example I can recal.
The titles that women received from their husbands were doubtless
intended more as an honour to their husbands than to themselves, though
they carried, at times, considerable privileges along with them. They bore
them as widows until their death, sometimes with the full honours and
powers their husbands had borne.
There are some curious cases of titles being assigned. Randol, Earl of
Chester and Lincoln, granted the Earldom of Lincoln to his sister, the Lady
Hawise de Quency. She afterwards granted the title to John de Lacy, who
had married her daughter Margaret, a grant confirmed by the King in a
charter, limiting the inheritance to the heirs of Margaret.
I have already noted the two limitations of a daughter’s inheritance of
property. The same affected titles. But having inherited, she became
endowed with every privilege to the full; and every duty was exacted of her
to the utmost.
Women paid Homage.—In spite of many careless remarks to the
contrary, women paid homage. “John, heir of the Devereux, died under age;
his sister Joane, making proof of her age, and doing her homage, had Livery
of the Lands of her Inheritance” (2 Ric. II., Dugdale, 117).
The summons to Ladies as well as to Lords for aids to the King was “de
fide et homagio.”
It is true that at some periods widows did not pay Homage for the lands
of their deceased husbands; but neither then did men pay Homage for the
lands of their deceased wives, holding only by “the Courtesy of England.”
“Because if Homage be given, it might never return to the lawful heir”
(“Statutes of the Realm, Lands held by Courtesy,” vol. i., p. 220).

Received Homage.—Many examples are given in the “Rotuli
Hundredorum,” “Testa de Nevil” and “Kirkby’s Inquest.” Isabella and
Idonea de Veteripont insisted on Fealty and Homage from the inhabitants of
Appleby. 4 Edward I., as did Anne Clifford later (Nicholson’s “History of
Westmoreland,” v. 2). One curious distinction comes in here between the
sexes, as a result of the system of coparceny among sisters. A brother might
pay Homage to his brother, but not a sister to her sister. The statute of 20
Henry III. (1236) enacted that “the law regarding sisters, co-heirs, be used
for Ireland as in England, that the eldest sister only pay Homage to the
Overlord or to the King in her own name and that of her sisters, but that the
sisters do not pay Homage to the sister for that would be to make her
Seigneuress over the other sisters” (Rot. Parl., 20 Henry III.).
They could hold Courts Baron.—A petition, 16 Richard II., appears,
praying that no Liegeman should be compelled to appear at the Courts and
Councils of the Lord or of the Lady to reply for his freehold.
In Rot. Hundred, Edward I., many women were entered as holding
Courts of Frank-pledge and Assizes of Bread and Ale, and as having a
Gallows in their Jurisdiction, as Johanna de Huntingfeud held view of
Frank-pledge in the Hundred of Poppeworth, Canterbury, vol. i., p. 53.
Elena de la Zouche also, Agnes de Vescy, and Elena de Valtibus in
Dorsetshire, the Countess of Leycester at Essedon in Buckinghamshire.
(“Relation of Women to the State in past times.” Helen Blackburn, National
Review, Nov., 1886.)
The Countess Lucy kept her Courts at Spalding during the banishment of
her first husband, Yvo de Taillebois. (Selby’s “Genealogist,” 1889, p. 70.)
The Pipe Roll of 31 Hen. I. shows that she had agreed to pay the King 100
marks for the privilege of administering justice among her tenants
(homines).
In Anne Clifford’s Diary, Harl. M.S., 6177, appears: “1650. This time of
my staying in Westmoreland, I employed myself in building and reparation

at Skipton and Barden Towers, and in causing ye bounds to be ridden and
my Courts kept in my sundry mannors in Craven....”
“1653. In the beginning of this year did I cause several Courts to be kept
in my name in divers of my mannors in this Country.”
“1659. And ye Aprill after, did I cause my old decayed Castle of Brough
to be repaired, and also the Tower called the Roman Tower in ye said
Castle, and a Court-House for keeping of my Courts.”
There is preserved in Swansea a charter granted, 2 Edward III., to Aliva,
wife of John de Mowbray, of the land of Gower. It recites and confirms
various previous charters of the land of Gower, with the appurtenances, and
all manner of Jurisdictions, and all Royal Liberties, and free customs which
Gilbert de Clare the son of Richard de Clare theretofore Earl of Gloucester
and Hertford had, in his land of Glamorgan. (Report of Municipal
Corporations, 1835, p. 383.)
This practice seems to have long survived in modified forms. In same
Report, p. 2850, regarding the Borough of Ruthin, “It was in evidence, and
was indeed frankly admitted by the deputy-steward, that, upon impanelling
the jury at the Borough Court Leet it is the uniform practice for some agent
of the Lady of the Manor to address a letter, which is delivered to the
foreman of the jury in their retiring-room, recommending two persons as
aldermen, who are invariably elected. As a part of this system, it was
proved that in many instances the duties and fees payable on the admission
of burgesses to their freedom had been defrayed by the Lady of the Manor;
and that the uncontrolled power of impanelling the jury was left to her
agent. The only answer furnished by the deputy-steward was that he had
taken for his guide the usage of the place, as pursued by his predecessors,
without reference to charters, which had only of late years come under
discussion.” Also in page 2840, regarding Rhuddlan, “As far as any ruling
body or corporation can be said to subsist in a borough thus circumstanced,
the Lady of the Manor must be considered to elect that body; for the

Steward of the Court Leet is appointed by her during pleasure; and he gives
the constables a list of the persons who are to serve on the jury by whom
the two bailiffs, the only subsisting officers of the corporation, are chosen.”
The Lady of the Manor there also paid the Constables.
Held by Military Service.—There were 15 ladies summoned for
military service against Wales “de fide et homagio,” in 5 Edward I., and
again in 10 Edward I. Among these were Devorgilla de Balliol, Agnes de
Vescy, Dionysia de Monte Canisio, and Margaret de Ros. A writ was issued
to Isabella de Ros, commanding her “in fide et homagio” to send her
service to the muster at Portsmouth for the King’s expedition to Gascony,
14th June, 1234. Elena de Lucy was summoned from the county of
Northampton “to perform military service in parts beyond the sea. Muster at
London, 7th July, 25 Edward I.” Joan Disney of Lincoln was summoned “to
perform military service against the Scots. Muster at London, 7th July, 25
Edward I.” These are but a few selected from many others that appear in
Palgrave’s Parliamentary Writs. It is true that a substitute might be sent by
anyone, male or female, with reasonable excuse. “On 16th April, 1303,
proclamation was made that all prelates, persons of religion, women and
persons who were unfit for military service, who were willing to commute
their service by fines, might appear before the Barons of the Exchequer at
York on 17th May ensuing. Otherwise they, or their substitutes, must appear
at the muster at Berwick on the 26th May.”
Palgrave’s Parliamentary Writs give long lists of women holding castles,
towns, and military feods in 9 Edward II., and Harl. MS., 4219, in
“Hundreds, Civitates, Burgi, and Villæ in Comitatu Norfolk et Domini
eorundem,” gives many names of women.
Margaret, widow of Lord Edmund Mortimer, was charged with providing
one hundred men for the wars in Scotland out of her lands at Key and
Warthenon. Dugdale’s “Peerage and Baronetage,” vol. i., p. 173.

In 3 Edward II. writs docketed “De summonicione servicii Regis” were
issued to Abbots and Abbesses alike for military aid against the Scots, “de
fide et dilectione;” and to Nobles, Lords and Ladies alike in “fide et
homagio.” On the 13th September following Domina Maria de Graham
proffers the service of two knights’ fees for all her lands in England,
performed by four servants with four barded horses; and many noble ladies
offer equivalent service.
Joane Plantagenet, the Fair Maid of Kent, inherited from her brother the
Earldom of Kent, and from her mother the Barony of Wake, by which she
was styled the Lady of Wake. She married Sir Thomas de Holland, who,
through her, became Earl of Kent without creation. Her son Thomas
succeeded both. His widow Alicia died possessed of 27 manors held by
direct feudal or military tenure, beside many freeholds. (See “Inquisitions
Post Mortem”; 4 Henry IV.)
They could be Knights.—Not only in Romances, not only in Spenser’s
“Faery Queene,” but in books of Chivalry, we may see that women could be
knights. Mary and Elizabeth were made knights before they were made
Queens. Abergavenny Castle was held by knight’s service. William, Baron
Cantilupe, by marrying Eva, daughter and co-heir of William, Lord Braose,
obtained the Castle and Lands. Her tomb in St. Mary’s Church,
Abergavenny, 1246, is of interest as being the earliest stone effigy of a
woman known in England. Her daughter, Eva de Cantilupe, succeeded to
the barony and the castle, and was a knight. Her tomb is the only instance
known of the stone effigy of a woman adorned with the insignia of
knighthood, 1247. In 1589, Edward Neville sued for the Barony against
Mary, Lady Fane, as being entailed in the Heir Male. His suit was refused.
The Lord Chief-Justice Popham determined “that there was no right at all in
the Heir Male; the common Custom of England doth wholly favour the Heir
General ... and Her Majesty would require to make a new creation to prefer
the Heir Male to the Heir Female” (Sir Harris Nicolas’ “Historic Peerages,”
p. 15).

Inherited Public Office associated with the Title or Property.—The
story of Ela of Salisbury illustrates the views with which the early Normans
regarded heiresses. She was born in 1188. Her father, the Earl of Salisbury,
died 1196, leaving her sole heir. She inherited both title and lands before his
three brothers. Her mother conveyed her away secretly to a castle in
Normandy, to save her from possible dangers during her minority. An
English knight, William Talbot, romantically undertook, as a troubadour, to
discover her whereabouts, and, after two years, brought her back to
England. King Richard betrothed her as a royal ward to his half-brother,
William Longespée, son of Fair Rosamund, who became, through her, Earl
of Salisbury. At King John’s coronation at Westminster, William, Earl of
Salisbury, is noted as being present among the throng of nobility. (See
“Roger Hoveden.”) He died 1226, leaving four sons and four daughters.
Though besieged with suitors, Ela preferred a “free widowhood” to
selecting another Earl Salisbury. When her son came of age he claimed
investiture of the Earldom, but the King refused it judicialiter, by the advice
of the Judges, and according to the dictates of Law. The Earldom and the
government of the Castle of Sarum were vested in Ela, not in her dead
husband.
The office of Sheriff of Wiltshire, her right by inheritance, she exercised
in person until 21 Hen. II., when, probably to facilitate her son’s entrance
into the Earldom, she retired as Abbess to the Abbey of Lacock, founded by
herself. Even then, however, the youth did not receive the title, and she
survived both son and grandson. The note to this Biography adds, “Though
the law of female descent, as applied to baronies by writ, has long ceased to
govern the descent of earldoms, it certainly did during the first centuries
after the Norman conquest.” (Bowle’s “History of Lacock Abbey.”)
Isabella and Idonea de Veteripont, who afterwards married Roger de
Clifford, and Roger de Leybourn jointly held the office of High Sheriff of
Westmoreland, and insisted on the Burghers bringing their cases to them
personally, 15 Ed. I. The office was held afterwards, also in person, during

the reigns of the Stuarts, by the brave Anne de Clifford, Countess of Dorset,
Pembroke, and Montgomery, and Baroness of Westmoreland. In virtue of
her office, she sat on the Bench of Justices in the Court of Assizes at
Appleby. (Durnford and East’s “Term Reports,” p. 397; Nicholson’s
“History of Westmoreland,” vol. ii., p. 20.) “As the King came out of
Scotland, when he lay at York, there was a striffe between my father and my
Lord Burleigh, who was then President, who should carie the sword; but it
was adjudged to my father’s side, because it was his Office by Inheritance,
and so it is lineally descended on me” (Anne Clifford’s Diary, Harl. MSS.,
6177). We may add here, though belonging properly to the following
chapter, a parallel case:
“William Balderstone had two co-heiresses, Isabel and Jane. Isabel
married Sir Robert Harrington of Hornby, and Jane, first Sir Ralph Langton,
and second Sir John Pilkington. When Jane was “the young widow” of Sir
Ralph Langton, in 1462, she, along with her sister Isabella and Sir Robert
Harrington, her sister’s husband, appeared in court to vindicate their right to
the offices of the Baylywicks of the Wapentakes of Amoundernes and
Blakeburnshire, peacefully occupied by their ancestors time out of mind,
and claimed by one Giles Beeston, on the plea of Letters Patent. Giles not
appearing, judgment was given in their favour, and a precept issued
accordingly to the Sheriff at the Castle of Leicester, 28th May, 2 Ed. IV.
(Townley MSS.; “History of Whalley,” vol. ii., p. 358, 4th edition, 1876, by
Whittaker.)
The word, Bailiwick, was then applied to the office of a Sheriff. (See 4
Henry IV., c. v.; Statutes, vol. ii.) “Every Sheriff of England shall reside
within his Bailiwick.”
“Guy de Beauchamp, late Earl of Warwick, held the manor of Southanton
as of inheritance from his deceased wife, Alicia, by the Sergeanty of bearing
a Rod before the Justices in Eyre in the county. (9 Edward II.; Blount’s
Tenures.”)

Marshal.—Isabel de Clare, only daughter of Richard de Clare, Earl of
Pembroke, brought the Earldom into the family of the Marshals of England
by marrying William le Marshal. She had five sons (each of whom
succeeded to the Office, without leaving an heir) and five daughters. The
eldest of these, Maud, Countess of Norfolk, received as her share of the
family property the Castles of Strigail and Cuniberg, and, with them, the
office of Marshal, and in the 30th Hen. III. “received Livery by the King
himself of the Marshal’s Rod, being the eldest who by inheritance ought to
enjoy that great Office by descent from Walter Marischal sometime the Earl
of Pembroke. Whereupon the Lord Treasurer and the Barons of the
Exchequer had command to cause her to have all rights thereto belonging
and to admit of such a deputy to sit in the Exchequer for her as she should
assign.” (Dugdale Peerage, vol. i., p. 77.) Her son Roger exercised it during
the remainder of her life and succeeded her.
Alicia de Bigod, his widow, succeeded him in his honour. I find among
the petitions to the Council of 35 Edward I, held in Carlisle, one of “Alicia
de Bygod Comitissa Mareschall” to be allowed to send two proxies to the
Parliament of the King, “posuit loco suo, Johem Bluet militem, vel Johem
de Fremlingham ad sequend pro dote sua coram Rege et consilio suo.” This
must have been granted, for these proxies do appear in her name in the
Parliament Roll of 35 Edward I. But she was summoned by writ personally
(22nd January), in right of her office, to meet Edward II. and his bride at
Dover on or about 4th February. (1 Edward II.; Palgrave’s “Parliamentary
Writs.”)
The office of Marshal and title of Earl of Norfolk were afterwards given
“in tail general” to Thomas Brotherton, son of Edward I. and brother of
Edward II. His daughter, Margaret, inherited the office with the title and
arms, as she appears as “Margaret Countess Marshal” in the Parliament Roll
of 1 Richard II. (Rot. Parl., 713.)

In the petition of John, Earl Marshal, for precedence over Earl Warwick,
he says that “Thomas of Brotherton was son of Edward I., and bore the
Royal arms. Of him came Margaret, of whom came Elizabeth, of whom
came Thomas, of whom came John, now Erle Mareschal, and so
apperteneth ye said place in yis Riall court to this Lord Earl Mareschal by
cause of the blode and armes Riall with ye said possession” (Rot Parl., iii.
Henry VI.). The office afterwards fell to the Mowbrays. Anne Mowbray,
heiress, married the young Duke of York, second son of Edward IV., at the
age of four years. She carried the office of Marshal to him, but he died in
the Tower with his brother, Edward V., and his uncle seized the title.
“Adeline de Broc held possession of her Guildford estates by the service
of being Marshal in the King’s court. (Temp. Henry II.; Blount’s
Tenures.”) “It was adjudged in B.R., Car I., that the Office of Marshal of
that Court well descended to a feme, and that she might exercise it by
deputy if she pleased.” (Callis, 250.)
High Constable.—Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford and Essex,
held the manors of Harlefield, Newnam, and Whytenhurst, County
Gloucester, by the service of High Constable. He left two daughters, but the
elder, Eleanor, succeeded to the office, which she conveyed to her husband,
Thomas of Woodstock, who exercised it for her; the younger sister, Mary,
marrying Henry Plantagenet of Bolingbroke, afterwards Henry IV.
High Steward.—Henry, Earl of Leicester, through the Barony of
Hinckley held the office of High Steward of England. He died, leaving two
daughters, the elder of whom, having married abroad, left the dignity free to
her sister, who married John of Gaunt, fourth son of Edward III. Through
her right he exercised the office of Steward, which their son, Henry IV.,
carried back to the Crown.
High Chamberlain.—Justice Ashurst, from the King’s Bench in 1788,
notes that women have served the office of High Chamberlain (Rex v.
Stubbs). I have not yet found the name of the lady that he refers to; but we

all know that the Baroness Willoughby d’Eresby held the Office down to
our own times, though she allowed her son to exercise it as her deputy.
“Catherine, sole daughter and heir to the last Lord Willoughby d’Eresby,
became 4th wife to Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. She afterwards
married Thomas Bertie, and her son was Peregrine, Lord Willoughby
d’Eresby, who married Mary, daughter of the Earl of Oxford, whose son
Robert (1 Jac. I.) inherited the title and Office of High Chamberlain.”
(Dugdale.)
“The Manor of Hornmede, Hertforde, the Lady Lora de Laundford holds
as a Serjeanty of our Lord the King by being Chamberlain to our Lady the
Queen.” (7 Edward I., Rot., 39.)
Ela, third daughter of Ela of Salisbury, foundress of Lacock, in 1285 was
returned as holding the Manor of Hoke-Norton in Oxfordshire in capite by
the Serjeanty of carving before our Lord the King on Christmas Day, when
she had for her fee the King’s knife with which she cut. (Placit Coron., 13
Edward I., Rot., 30. Bowle’s “Annals of Lacock Abbey,” p. 160.)
Champion.—The Manor of Scrivelby was held by the Dymocks on
condition of the possessor acting as King’s Champion. When the heiress,
Margaret, inherited the property, she inherited the Office, which her son,
Thomas Dymock, performed for her at the coronation of Henry IV.
“The office of Champion at the last coronation was in a woman, who
applied in that case to make a deputy.” (See “Olive versus Ingram,” 1739,
and Co. Litt, 107.)
They could be Governors of Royal Castles.—Isabella de Fortibus held
the Borough and Camp of Plympton, and governed the Isle of Wight. In 8
and 9 Edward II. there was a settlement of Hugo de Courtenay’s petition to
succeed to his kinswoman Isabella de Fortibus in governance of the Isle of
Wight, etc. Isabella de Vesci held the Castles of Bamborough and
Scarborough.

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

Castle, and the Barony of Eye or Haia, always went together. They
belonged successively to Robert de Haia, Richard de Haia, and Nicholaa de
Haia, who became the wife of Gerarde de Camville.” (Selby’s
“Genealogist,” 1889, p. 170.)
They could also be appointed to various Offices.—As Nicholaa de la
Haye was made Sheriff, so was the wise and renowned Lady Margaret,
Countess of Richmond, made Justice of the Peace in the reign of Henry
VII.; and the Lady of Berkeley under Queen Mary held the same office.
Lady Russell had been appointed Custodian of Donnington Castle for her
life, at a Salary of one pound and twopence halfpenny a day, but for
Contempt of her Overlord, she was tried in the Star Chamber, Mich., 4
James I. (See “Moore’s Law-Cases.”)
They could act as Femes Soles when married, or as Partners.—The
Countess Lucy [ii.] was one of the few Saxon heiresses that carried her
property down into Norman times. She had three Norman husbands, Ivo de
Tailleboys, Earl of Anjou, Roger Fitzgerald de Romar, and Ranulph, Earl of
Chester. Among the various Charters to the Monastery of Spalding are two,
granting and confirming the grant of the Manor of Spalding to the Monks
there. The exact words of the second Charter are these, “I, Lucy Countess of
Chester, give and grant to the Church and Monks of St. Nicholas of
Spallingis with Soc and Sac, and Thol and Them, with all its Customs, and
with the liberties with which I best and most freely held in the time of Ivo
Tailleboys and Roger Fitzgerald and the Earl Ranulph my Lords in almoign
of my soul, for the Redemption of the soul of my father and of my mother,
and of my Lords and relatives,” etc. “Inspeximus by Oliver Bishop of
London 1284.” (Selby’s “Genealogist,” p. 70, 71.) In the lives of the
Berkeleys, from the Berkeley MSS., 1883, published for the Bristol and
Gloucester Archæological Society, some interesting particulars are given of
the Lady Joane, daughter of Earl Ferrars and Derby, and wife of Lord
Thomas of Berkeley, second of the name. “It appears by divers deeds that in
the xxvith yeare of Edward the first, as in other yeares, this lady by hir

deeds contracted with Richard de Wike and others as if she had been a feme
sole; and for her seale constantly used the picture of herself holding in her
right hand the escutcheon of her husband’s arms, the chevron without the
crosses; and in her left hand the escutcheon of her father’s family,
circumscribed Sigilla Johannæ de Berklai,” vol i., p. 206.
Elizabeth, Lady of Clare, had buried three husbands, and had retained her
maiden name through their time as holding the honour and the Castle of
Clare,[2] which she inherited on the death of her brother, the last Earl of
Gloucester and Hereford, at Bannockburn. Her daughter, Elizabeth de
Burgh, married her cousin Lionel, third son of Edward III., in whom the
Earldom of Clare became the Dukedom of Clarence.
2. The petition of her “humble Chapeleyns Priour et chanoyns de sa priourie de Walsingham,”
that she would not allow the Franciscan friars to settle in their neighbourhood, is
communicated by the Rev. James Lee-Warner of Norwich to the Archæological Journal, vol.
xxvi., p. 167 (1869). One reason they bring forward is that if the intruders were to propose an
indemnity, it could only be “par serment, ou par gages, ou par plegges,” and that such security
is of no avail, as the claims of the apostolic See are beyond computation.

In the Act of Resumption of 1 Henry VII., the King excludes the lands of
his wife, his mother, Cecile, Duchess of York, and others. And in the Act of
Restitution of Margaret, Countess of Richmond, “she was to hold her lands
as any other sole person, not wife, may do,” though she was married at the
time to the Earl of Derby.
Had the Cure of Churches.—The Abbesses of certain convents
inherited the right of dominating the religious succession in some churches
(see “Dyer on Grendon’s Case”), “divers churches were appropriated to
prioresses and nunneries, whereof women were the governesses” (Callis,
250). In Colt and Glover v. Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield about a
presentation to a church, the evidence shews that many women before the
Reformation had the Cure of Churches; that an Archbishop could not
legally appropriate a benefice with the Cure to a nunnery between 25 H. 8.,
and the dissolution of monasteries, though the Pope did.

“Mrs. Foulkes is the Lay-rector of Stanstey, and takes the tithes. She pays
one shilling a year as quit-rent to the Lord of the Manor of Stanstey, County
Denbigh” (Blount’s “Tenures”).
“That all appropriated churches shall have secular vicars” (see “Statutes,”
vol. ii., Henry IV., c. 13).
They could be Peeresses in their own Right, and liable to Summons
to Parliament in Person.—Sir Harris Nicolas says, “The usual form of a
writ of summons to Parliament is common. There is one solitary instance,
however, of an express limitation of the dignity to heirs male, i.e., in the
[3]
Barony of Vesci” (“Historic Peerages and Baronies by Writ”). In Lady
Spenser’s case (M. 11, Henry IV., f. 15) it was decided that it was clear law
at all times that a Dame might be “Peer de Realm and entitled to all the
privileges of such.”[4] “All peers of the realm are looked on as the King’s
Hereditary Councillors” (see Jacob’s “Law Dictionary”).
3. It is strange that this unique exception should have occurred in this barony, which had come
through a woman, and had been held by a woman. Yvo de Vesci came over with William the
Conqueror, and married Alda Tyson, daughter and heir of the Lord of Alnwick. Their daughter
Beatrix was sole heir, and married Eustace of Knaresborough, their son taking his mother’s
name of De Vesci.

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

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

extant in his time; their Summons, twenty-nine years later, to the Parliament
of 34 Edward I. is still extant, written in the same manner and terms as
those of the other clergy. (Palgrave’s “Parliamentary Writs”; 34 Edward I.)
Other Peeresses were summoned according to their inheritance, which,
we have seen, followed different lines from what it does to-day, or by
proxy. By an exemption, intended as a privilege in these days of rough
travelling and dangers, a peeress was permitted “to chuse and name her
lawful proxy to appear for her ad colloquimn et tractatium coram rege on
her behalf.”
Alicia de Bigod sent her two proxies to Parliament, 35 Edward I. (See
Rot. Parl., 189.) Selden and Gurden mention “nine peeresses so summoned
to the Parliament of 35 Edward III.” There were in reality ten. But there was
not a Parliament proper that year, no writs having been issued for the
Commons. It was rather a council of Peers and Peeresses, especially of
those holding lands in Ireland, who were summoned to consult with the
King what should be done in that country, and what aid they would grant
the King. “Anno 35 Edward III., null summoniciones but summons to
council 11 Comitissæ summonitæ at mittend. sede dagnos ad. colloq.”
(Harl. MS., 6204).
“De consilio summonite pro Terras habentibus in Hibernia 35 Edward
III., Maria Comitissa Norfolk, Elianora Comitissa Ormond, Anna le
Despencer, Pha. Comitissa de la Marche, Johanna Fitz Walter, Agnes
Comitissa Pembroch, Maria de Sco Paulo Comitissa Pembroch, Margeria
de Ros, Matilda Comitissa Oxon, Katherina, Com. Atholl, Nulla summonitii
Parliamenti” (Harl., 778). Dugdale gives the same names (“Summons to
Parliament,” p. 263) as summoned by their faith and allegiance to send a
deputy to consult with the King and his council at Westminster.
“Consimiliæ Brevia diriguntur subscriptis, sub eadam Data, de essendo
coram Rege and consulo suo ad dies subscriptos viz., Ad Quindenam
Paschæ Mariæ Comitissa Norfolciæ, Alianora Comitissa de Ormond, Annæ

le Despenser, Ad tres Septimanas Paschæ Philippæ Comitissæ de la March,
Johannæ Fitz-Wauter, Agneti Comitissa Pembrochiæ, Mariæ de S. Paulo
Comitissa Pembroc., Margeria de Roos, Matildæ Comitissæ Oxon,
Katarinæ Comitissæ Atholl,” 35 Edward III., claus in dorso m. 36. These
because they had property in Ireland.”
The proxies,[5] however, do not imply that the ladies themselves would
not have been admitted had they chosen to appear, as the special summons
of Margaret, Countess Marshall, in 1 Richard II., clearly proves. Men also
were allowed to send proxies. “The Bishop of Bath and Wells being infirm
and old is allowed to send a proxy to Parliament.” “Ralph Botiller Miles,
Lord of Sudeley, has the same permission” (6 Rot. Parl., app., ex Rot. Parl.,
1 Edward IV., p. 1, m. [19] 227, a. b.).
5. Plowden notes on this, that the privilege of voting by proxy is a privilege of the House of
Lords. (“Jura Anglorum,” p. 384.)

The husband’s succession to his wife’s titles was in order to grant her a
permanent and interested “proxy.” In Dugdale’s “Summons to Parliament,”
p. 576, there is “A catalogue of such noble persons as have had their
summons to Parliament in right of their wives.”
This proves:—
(1) That a man not entitled to be summoned in his own right could be
summoned in his wife’s right, but that in doing so he must take her name
and title, whether higher or lower than his own: “George, son and heir to
Thomas Stanley, Earl of Derby, having married Joane, the daughter and heir
to John, Lord Strange of Knockin, had summons to the Parliament under
the title of Lord Strange” (22 Edward IV., 1 Richard III., 3, 11, 12 Henry
VII.).
(2) That a woman held her husband’s titles and possessions till her death
by “the courtesy of England,” and could even transfer these while she was
alive to another husband. “Ralphe de Monthermer, having married Joane of
Acre, daughter of King Edward I. and widow of Gilbert de Clare, Earl of

Gloucester and Hertford, possessing lands of great extent in her right, which
belonged to these earldoms, had summons to Parliament from 28 Edward I.
to 35 Edward I. by the title of Earl of Gloucester and Hertford. But after her
death, which happened in the first year of King Edward the Second, he
never had the title of Earl of Gloucester and Hertford, and was summoned
to Parliament as a Baron only from the second to the eighteenth of that
King’s reign” (Dugdale’s “Summons to Parliament”). There are twenty
other cases of nobles summoned in the name of their wives. This, therefore,
may be taken to illustrate the representative power in Peers. At the period of
Ela of Salisbury the heiress of the Albemarles had conferred her title on
three husbands, by the second of whom, William de Fortibus, she had an
heir.
“Isobel of Gloucester likewise had two Earls” (Bowle’s “History of
Lacock Abbey”).
Margaret de Newburgh, Countess of Warwick, married John Marshall of
the Pembroke family, and he became Earl of Warwick, Jure Uxoris. She re-
married John de Plessetis, who also bore her title. Her cousin, William
Mauduit, succeeded her, and then Isabel, his sister, who married William de
Beauchamp, making him Earl of Warwick. Their daughter, Anne de
Beauchamp, succeeded as Countess of Warwick. (Burke’s “Extinct
Peerages.”)
Dugdale also mentions “the names of such noble persons whose titles are
either the names of such heirs female, from whom they be descended, or the
names of such places whence these heirs female assumed their titles of
dignity: of whose summons to Parliament by these titles the general index
will show the respective times.” There are twenty-eight of them. The eldest
sons of earls were sometimes summoned to Parliament by their father’s
second title in their father’s lifetime, and these titles were often inherited
from an ancestress.

That the right of Peeresses to be consulted in relation to aids or subsidies
assessed on their property, was acknowledged, can be learned from an
interesting document still preserved.
The Commons in 1404 voted a grant to the King (Rot. Parl., iii., 546).
“La grante faite au Roy en Parlement. Vos pauvres Commons ... par assent
des Seigneurs Spirituelx et Temporels ... grauntont à vous, en cest present
parlement deux Quinzismes et deux Dismes pour estre levez des laie gentz,
en manere accustume ... Et les Seigneurs Temporelx pur eux, et les Dames
Temporelx, et toutz autres persones temporelx pour la depens suis dit
grauntont ... Et purtant que cestes subside soit grantez à vous ... lesqueux
die soient executy ne mys en œuvre avant la dit Quinzisme de Seint Hiller
q’alors ceste graunt entier soit voide et tenue pur null ne levable, ne paiable
en null manere ... Protestantz que ceste graunt en temps à venir ne soit pris
en ensample de charger les ditz Seigneurs et Communes de Roialme ... sil
ne soit par les voluntées des Seigneurs et Communes de vostre Roiaume et
ces de nouvell graunt a faire en plein Parlement.”
This, therefore, affirmed not only the rights of the Ladies Temporal to be
considered at the time, but the grand principle of non tallagio, non
concedendo, to all time for all classes.

CHAPTER V.

COUNTY WOMEN.

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

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

Countesses, and Baronesses. Marchionesses and Viscountesses are omitted,
but, notwithstanding, they are also comprehended within this chapter.”
County women inherited freeholds under the same conditions as
Noblewomen.
If an heiress married a man of an inferior family or a smaller property,
she could, if she chose, raise him to her rank, and make him take her name.
Thomas de Littleton, upon whose Digest of English laws Coke exercised
his talents, received arms, name, and estate from his mother, “who, being of
a noble spirit, whilst it was in her power, provided, by Westcote’s assent,
that her children should bear her name.” In other words, the heiress of the
Littletons married Westcote, but while she was yet a freewoman imposed
conditions. (See “Life of Littleton” prefixed to his works.)
When married could act as femes soles.—Among “ancient deeds and
charters, drawn up by landowners in the time of Edward III. and Richard
II.” (Harl. MS. 6187), there are many executed by women, many sealed by
women alone, their husbands being alive, many sealed by women along
with their husbands.
A grant by William Faber de St. Briarville and Sarra his wife is sealed by
the name of Sarra Hathwey alone, and another deed by her son is signed by
William Faber, son and heir of Sarra Hathwey.
Robert de la Walter de Staunton and his wife Marjory combine in a deed,
and both seals affixed. So Thomas Waryn and his wife Julia, daughter of
Thomas Baroun, Richard de Pulton and Agnes his wife, and others.
They owed also military service either to their Overlord or to the King
directly. We find this abundantly illustrated in Palgrave’s “Parliamentary
Writs,” and in any of the Domestic Series of State Papers in the Public
Record Office recording service assessed. All names are used in common.
For instance, “Names of gentlemen furnishing light horses and lances,
1583: Bramber, Dorothy Lewknor, 2; Pevensey, Elizabeth Pankhurst, 1,

[6]
etc.; Domina Gage, 2; John Gage, 2; Elizabeth Geoffrey, 1” (Harl. MS.,
703, f. 87).
6. These were “the two Gages” mentioned in connection with the Copleys of Gatton.

There are many women returned in the “Rotuli Hundredorum,” Ed. I., as
holding under military tenures in capite. “Eve de Stopham held her estate
by finding for the King one footman, a bow without a string, and an arrow
without feathers” (Blount’s “Tenures”). “Lady Custance de Pukelereston
holds Pukelereston by finding one man and a horse, with a sack and an axe,
at the summons of the King” (“Testa de Nevill,” 252). The Manor of
Gatton, known as the scene of contested elections in after years, was held
by the service of a knight’s fee and the payment of Castle guard to Dover
Castle.
The “Testa de Nevill” compiled in the reign of Henry III. and Edward I.,
gives the list of many holding in capite and of Overlords by military
service.[iii.]
They also paid and received Homage.—In the Harl. MS. (6187) many
of the tenements are conveyed by women, on condition of Homage
rendered and service given; as, for instance, in the cases of Sibilla de
Bruneshope, widow; Johanna de Muchgross, daughter of Willian de
Muchgross; Agnes de Bellecores; Agnes, daughter and heir of Henry de
Munsterworth; Cecilia Blundell de Teynton.
Among the Records of Banham Marshall, Beckhall and Greyes, there is
one transferring lands to a certain Dorothy Gawdy, 31st March, 1659. “At a
court held by the Homage”—“to which said Dorothy here in full courte is
delivered thereof seisin. To hold to her and to her heires by A Rodd att the
will of the Lords, according to the custom of this Manor, by the rents and
services therefore due and of right accustomed and she giveth to the Lords a
fine. Her fealty is respited for a certain time.” Five days later this Lady
died, and a new transfer was made to her heirs male in same form.

They could present to Churches.—In 16 Edward II. Eleanor, wife of
Thomas Multon of Egremond, petitions the King and Parliament against the
Bishop for interfering with her appointment of a clerk, as she was endowed
with the advowson of the Church of Natlugh in Ireland. Order that justice
be done to the said Eleanor (Tower Rolls).
Matilda de Walda was patron by inheritance of Saint Michael’s of
Canterbury. (See “Rotuli Hundredorum,” Edward I., vol. ii., 392.)
The Lady Copley presented to Gatton living in 1552.
The list, however, of ladies holding advowsons and gifts of churches, is
so long, that more need not be noted, especially as this right is not denied
to-day.
They could hold Motes.—We may find the local duties of County
women illustrated in the “Rotuli Hundredorum,” and other authorities
already quoted.
“Benedicta, widow of Sir Thomas Uvedale, granted a lease to Thomas
Brown of 2½ acres and foure dayewarcs of land ... by the yearly rent of 2s.
6d., and suit at her court of Wadenhalle every three weeks” (“Surrey
Archæological Collection,” vol. iii., p. 82).
They could attend Motes.
They could be free Suitors to the County Courts, and there act as
Pares or Judges.
Women combined with men to elect Knights of the Shire to defend in
Parliament the rights of their property and themselves from unequal
assessment of subsidy and undue exactions of the King.
In Sir Walter Raleigh’s treatise on the Prerogative of Parliaments, he
traces back the origin of the House of Commons to 18 Henry I. on rather
slender bases. At the time of the struggle with John it was clearly perceived
that irresponsible kings could not be trusted to observe all the clauses of

Magna Charta, and general councils were provided for. John promised to
summon all classes to consult with him when it was necessary to assess
aids and scutage. But John’s word was not worth much.
The first clear Summons appears to be that of 38 Henry III. (1254), when
a Writ was issued requiring the Sheriff of each County to “cause to come
before the King’s Council two good and discreet Knights of the Shire,
whom the men of the County shall have chosen for this purpose in the stead
of all and of each of them, to consider, along with Knights of other Shires,
what aid they will grant the King.”
In 49 Henry III. (1265), writs were issued for “two Knights of the Shire
to be chosen by the annual suitors at the County Courts,” and two Citizens
from each Borough. Their expenses were to be paid by those who sent
them.
The Statute passed in the Parliament of Marlebridge (52 Henry III.) by
members elected in this manner, more clearly defined this method of
election, and confirmed the more ancient Statutes regarding the County
Courts. Hallam and Lewis trace their origin to the Anglo-Saxon
Shiregemote, Folkmote, or Revemote, and prove that the Sheriffs and
dignitaries possessed only directory and regulative powers; that the
Freeholders, who were obliged to do “suit and service,” were the Pares or
Judges, as well as the Electors of the Knights of the Shire, and of the
Sheriffs themselves.
Concerning this court, it had been provided (43 Henry III.), “that
Archbishops, Bishops, Earls, Barons, or any religious Men or Women,
should not be forced to come thither unless their presence was especially
required.” Their goods could not be distrained for non-attendance. That this
was intended as a Franchise of Privilege, not inducing a penalty of
exclusion, is perfectly clear, not only in the reading of the Act itself, but in
its effect upon later laws.

So Coke, (Inst. II., 119,) elucidating the laws of Marlebridge, made three
years later, says, “Note. A woman may be a free Suitor to the Courts of the
Lord, but though it be generally said that the free suitors be Judges in these
courts, it is intended of men and not of women.”
This “priestly intention” sprang only from Coke’s own mind. He cites no
authority for his opinion, nor could he have found one. To have deprived a
female “Suitor” of her right to express her opinion and thereby help to
determine the questions brought before the Court, in the light of her own
interests, inclinations, or opinions, would have taken away her prime raison
d’être. Her second privilege was that of giving her voice, with other
freeholders, towards the election of a knight, “in the stead of all and of each
[7]
of them,” to go to the King’s parliament, and defend her interests there.
Upon the petition of the Commons that proclamation should be made of the
day and place of the meeting of the County Court, it was decreed, “All they
that be there present, as well suitors duly summoned, as others, shall attend
to the election of the Knights of Parliament.... And after they be chosen, the
names of the persons so chosen shall be written in an Indenture,[8] under the
seales of all them that did chuse them, and tacked to the said writ of
Parliament” (7 Henry IV., c. xiii.). A certain limitation, therefore, of
electors, must have been caused through the necessity of possessing seals.
In 8 Henry VI. the suitors at the County Court were limited to those who
had not less than a 40s. freehold. It was soon made clear that the House of
Commons was only intended to represent those not eligible in person or in
representation to the Upper House; so that the county elections became
limited to county freeholders below the rank of Peers. But there is no
question, at any time, of altering the Franchise from the general terms to
others that would limit it to the masculine being. That women did frequent
the courts in person is proved in Prynne’s “Brevia Parliamentaria Rediviva”
(p. 152, et seq.), where he refers to “sundry Earls, Lords and Ladies who
were annual suitors to the County Courts of Yorkshire.” That women
recorded these votes, and sealed the indentures of the Knights elected, is

also proved by Prynne. The two points that surprised Prynne were, that the
earliest preserved indentures were all signed by the Nobility of the County,
and by them alone, and also that they were all sealed by attorney, by Lords,
or by Ladies alike, down to 7 Henry VI., after which they were signed by all
Freeholders personally. He does not seem to remember that these were the
classes privileged by Act 43 Henry III., to absent themselves from the
County Courts; and that acting by proxy was considered a privilege of the
nobility. It might very well have been considered that Archbishops, Earls,
Lords, and Ladies were “especially required” at the County Court to hear
and decide on some important territorial dispute, and yet that they could
decide on the merits of a candidate at home, and send their Attorneys to the
County Court to seal for them there in the presence of the Sheriff. One such
indenture (2 Henry V.) is signed by Robert Barry, the Attorney of Margaret,
widow of Sir Henry Vavasour. In another return from the County of York,
one Attorney signs for the Earl of Westmoreland, and another for the
Countess, for the lands each held as freeholds in that neighbouring county.
7. The first use of the word “Parliamentum” occurs in the Prologue to the Statutes of Westminster
in 1 Edward I.

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

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

I have not found any example of a lady “Knight of the Shire,” but neither
have I found the shadow of a law against their existence beyond that of the
electors’ choice, or the ladies’ convenience. Anne Clifford said that if her

candidate did not come forward “she would stand herself.” (Dr. Smith to
Williamson, Jan. 1668. Dom. Ser. State Papers, Public Record Office.) But
as women summoned to do military service were allowed to send a
substitute, as women summoned to the County Courts were allowed to
absent themselves, and allowed to send an Attorney, so were they allowed
to send their knights to the House of Commons.
If women of the Middle Ages had but realised what their ancestresses did
before them, “that they were receiving what they must hand down to their
children neither tarnished nor depreciated, what future daughters-in-law
may receive, and may so pass on to their grandchildren” (Tacitus Germ., c.
viii.), the needs of litigation on this point might not have arisen later.
Could Nominate to Private Boroughs.—Certain Boroughs formerly
held by military tenure seemed to have been included in those permitted to
return burgesses to Parliament, though belonging to one owner. When
women inherited the property and held the Borough, they returned their one
or two members, as the custom might be, in their own name. “The members
of many ancient Boroughs were often returned by the Lords, and sometimes
by the Ladies of the Manors or Boroughs” (Plowden’s “Jura Anglorum,” p.
438). Many cases are doubtless lost among the piles of missing records. But
two very illustrative examples have been preserved for us, just sufficient to
clear away all doubts from the minds of students of history that women
sometimes exercised the privileges they possessed.
In a bundle of Returns for 14 and 18 Eliz., Brady has preserved, and
Heywood, in his “County Elections,” has quoted, that of Dame Dorothy
Packington, the owner of the private Borough of Aylesbury. In days when
military service might have been demanded of her, she would have sent her
“substitute” to defend her sovereign; in days when subsidy service was
expected of her, she sent a “substitute” to Parliament to defend her interests
there, and she paid for both her military and civil representatives. “To all
Christian people to whom this present writing shall come, I, Dame Dorothy

Packington, widow, late wife of Sir John Packington, Knight, Lord and
Owner of the Town of Aylesbury, sendeth greeting. Know ye me, the said
Dame Dorothy Packington, to have shown, named, and appointed my trusty
and well-beloved Thomas Lichfield and John Burden, Esquires, to be my
burgesses of my said town of Aylesbury. And whatsoever the said Thomas
and George, burgesses, shall do in the service of the Queen’s highness in
that present parliament to be holden at Westminster the 8th day of May next
ensuing the date hereof, I, the same Dame Dorothy Packington, do ratify
and approve to be my own act, as fully and wholly as if I were, or might be
present myself.” She signed their indentures, sealed them, paid “their
wages” and their expenses in whole, as others did in part. That the return
[10]
was held good is sufficient to prove its legality. There is not the shadow
of grounds for a belief that she “acted as returning officer,” as some have
said who have not studied the case. Later on, when the population of
Aylesbury increased, and the ambitions of Aylesbury extended, there was an
appeal by the inhabitants for permission to share in the Returns.[11] But the
objection to the monopoly of the Family-Return did not include an
objection to the woman that exercised it.
10. See List of Parliamentary Returns, vol. i., p. 487.

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

Another memorable instance is preserved for us in the Journals of the
House of Commons itself.
I have found out so many curious, hitherto un-noted details about it, that I
thought it advisable fully to illustrate the conditions of the case, so that it
may not again be mistranslated, as it has so often been. On March 25th,
1628, there was a contested election for the Borough of Gatton. There were
two indentures returned, one by the inhabitants of the borough, and the
other by Mr. Copley. Though he returned Sir Thomas Lake, and Mr. Jerome
Weston, “it was held not good that he should have returned alone.” The case

was argued out before the Committee of privileges in the House of
Commons, of which Glanvil, Hakewell, and Sir Edward Coke were
members. Mr. Copley based his claim on returns made by Roger Copley, as
the sole inhabitant in 33 Henry VIII.; and by Mr. Copley in 1 and 2 Phil.
and Mary, 2 and 3 Phil. and Mary. “On the other part, in 7 Edward VI., Mrs.
Copley et omnes inhabitantes returned. In 28º, 43º Eliz. 1º, 18º Jac., the
return was made by the inhabitants, and in all later parliaments Mr. Copley
joined with the other inhabitants.”
The Committee and the other members of the House decided that “Mrs.
Copley and the other inhabitants” was the true and legal Precedent for the
form of Return. And that is the last word Parliament has had to say upon a
Woman-Elector. (See Commons Journal of date.) But the side-lights of the
story are interesting. In the first place, the Commons Journal has a misprint
of an “s” in two cases. Roger Copley died in 1550-1; and from the
manuscript copies of the Commons Journal we may see that Mrs. Copley is
entered as returning alone in 1 and 2 Philip and Mary, and 2 and 3 Philip
and Mary. (See Lansdowne MS., 545.) Further, both the printed and the MS.
copy are wrong about her title, as she was the Lady Elizabeth Copley, or
“Elizabeth Copley Domina de Gatton.” This mistake shows that her own
seal was affixed to the indenture with her Christian name, to which the
Committee added “Mrs.” instead of “Lady.” Further, she must also have
returned in 4 and 5 Philip and Mary, and must have returned her son.[12] On
the 5th March young Copley of Gatton was committed to the sergeant for
irreverent words spoken of Her Majesty, and on 7th March Parliament was
prorogued till 5th November. (Commons Journal.) This receives further
explanation in additional MS. 24, 278, collected by Sir Richard St. George
Norroy:—“Sat., 5th March, 4 and 5 Philip and Mary. For that Mr. Copley, a
member of this house, hath spoken irreverent words of the Queenes
Majestie, concerning the Bill for confirmacion of pattents, saying that he
feared the Queene might thereby give away the Crowne from the right
inheritor, the house commanded, by Mr. Speaker, that Copley should absent

himself until consultation more had thereof. And after consultation had and
agreed to be a grievous fault, Copley was called in and required this House
to consider his youth, and that if it be an offence it might be imputed to his
young yeares. The House referred the offence by the Speaker to the Queene
with a plea for mercy, and Mr. Copley committed to the custody of the
Sergeant-at-arms. Monday, 7th March, Mr. Speaker declared that he had
declared to the Queenes Majestie the matter touching Copley, wherein hir
pleasure was that he should be examined whereof fresh matter did spring.
Nevertheless, Her Majestie would well consider the request of the House in
his favour. In the afternoon Parliament prorogued” (Commons Journal).
“Elizabeth, the second wife and widow of Sir Roger Copley, daughter of Sir
William Shelley, Justice of the Common Pleas, presented to the Church of
Gatton in 1552, as did her son Thomas in 1562; but after that time, the
family, being Roman Catholics, it was vested in trustees, 1571” (Manning
and Bray’s “Surrey”). The troubles of the Copleys and Gatton arose from
recusancy, not women’s elections. Elizabeth died in 1560, “seized of
Gatton,” held of the Queen in fealty for 1d. rent, and 20s. castleguard to
Dover Castle. (See “Inquisition Post-Mortem,” 29 April, 2 Eliz.) It must,
therefore, have been settled on herself. The daughter of Sir William Shelley
would surely be well advised of her legal rights, and, perhaps, her
association of the other inhabitants with herself in her election of 7 Edward
VI., arose from an appreciation of the tendency of popular opinion in favour
of an inhabitant suffrage, instead of a freeholding one.
12. “Thomas Copley Armiger, Thomas Norton Armiger, Gatton.” Names supplied from the Crown
Office in place of original returns. (Parliamentary Returns, vol. i., p. 398.)

In Harl. MS., 703, Burghley writes to the Sheriff of Surrey:—“Whereas
there are to be returned by you against the Parliament two Burgesses for
Gatton in that Countie of Surrey, which, heretofore, have been nominated
by Mr. Coplie, for that there are no Burgesses in the Borough there to
nominate them, for as much as by the death of the said Mr. Copley and
minoritie of his sonne, the same which his lands are within the survey and

rule of the Court of Wards, whereof I am her Majestie’s chiefe officer, you
shall, therefore, forbeare to make returne of anie for the saide towne,
without direction first had from me therein, whereof I praie you not to faile”
(St. James, 13th Nov., 1584). Sir Thomas died abroad, 1584, aged 49,
leaving William, his son and heir. Apparently Francis Bacon and Thomas
Busshop had been nominated by Burghley; because the next letter
preserved, dated 24th Nov., 1584, tells the Sheriff to appoint Edward
Browne, Esq., in the place of Bacon, who had been returned for another
borough. In 11th Sept., 1586, Walsingham instructs the Sheriff of Sussex to
send up Mrs. Copley of Rossey to the charge of the Warden of the Fleet,
and the two Gages, and they are to have no conference. Jan. 29th, 1595,
Buckhurst writes to Sir Walter Covert and Harry Shelley, Esq., to apprehend
“the Lady Copley and certaine other daungerous persons remayning with
her as it is enformed, where very dangerous practizes are in hande” (Harl.
703, f. 87).
“The Queen, by reason of —— Copley, Esq, going beyond sea and not
returning according to Parliament, presented Ralph Rand, M.A., to the
Church of Gatton, 8th Feb., 1598.”
On 7th Feb., 1620, the House considered the return of Gatton in Surrey.
One Smith, a burgess for that town, and a son of Mr. Copley appeared. Mr.
Copley, lord of the town, a recusant convict, with six of his lessees, no
freeholders, made their choice the Tuesday before; the freeholders made
their choice, on the Wednesday, of Sir Thomas Gresham and Sir Thomas
Bludder. The first return held void. Sir Henry Brittayne asked leave to
speak; he said “the writ was directed Burgensibus, and delivered to Mr.
Copley. The town was but of seven houses, all but one Copley’s tenants.
That the election by them good not being freeholders. That all the
freeholders, except one, dwelt out of the town, and only held of the manor
in the town.” “Sir Edward Coke spoke against Copley’s return, and moved
for a new election, in case of danger from Copley” (Commons Journal).
(See also Lansd. MS., 545; Hakewell’s “Report of the Gatton Case.”)

This, therefore, makes the controversy comprehensible that, in 1628, was
illustrated by the records.
Mr. William Copley was not inclined tamely to resign the ancient
privilege of his family of sending up Burgesses for their own Borough; he
attempted to do so again, in spite of the decision of 1620, and through the
adverse decision in his case, Parliament affirmed, and Sir Edward Coke
with it, the right of a woman to vote.

CHAPTER VI.

FREEWOMEN.

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

In days when the word “Free” had no doubtful signification, women could
be “Free” in several different ways. They could be Freeholders in towns by
inheritance or by purchase. They could be Free of “Companies,” in some of
them by patrimony, service, or payment; in others through being widows of
Freemen only. In some cases a widow’s “Freedom” was limited by the
conditions of her husband’s will, but in almost all of the Companies, at
least, in London, some women could be Free. They could be Free in
Boroughs, under the same conditions as men, by paying brotherhood
money, and by sharing in the common duties of Burgesses, as “Watch and
Ward,” “Scot and Lot,” and the service of the King; they could be “Free” as
regards the Corporation, and they could be “Free” as regards voting for
members of Parliament.
I have preferred to use the word “Freewomen” as more definite than any
other. The “Widows and Spinsters” phrase of to-day does not carry back to

old history. Under certain limited conditions married women could be
“Free”; under certain other conditions they could be “Spinsters.”
“The case of a wife trading alone. And where a woman coverte de Baron
follows any craft within the city by herself apart, with which the husband in
no way interferes, such woman shall be bound as a single woman as to all
that concerns her craft. And if the husband and wife are impleaded in such
case, the wife shall plead as a single woman in a Court of Record, and shall
have her law and other advantages by way of plea just as a single woman.”
She has her duties and penalties as well as her privileges, can be imprisoned
for debt, etc. (See “The Liber Albus of London,” compiled 1419, translated
by J. Riley, Book III., p. 39.)
(See also “Historical Manuscripts Commission,” vol. x., appendix iv., p.
466, et. seq. Report on papers found in Town Hall, Chelmsford.) There,
among several lists of women, wives, and mothers, are many designated
“Spinsters.” Among “presentments for neglecting to attend church” (23
Eliz.) were ten women—“Margareta Tirrell, spinster, alias dicta Margaretta
Tirrell uxor Thomae Tirrell armigeri”: “Maria Lady Petre, spinster, alias
dicta Maria Domina Petre uxor Johannis Petre de Westhornden prædicta
Milites.” Many others appear as “wife of” at the same time as “spinster.”
The writer of the Report believes that “spinster” in these cases was
equivalent to “generosa,” and notes that it is insisted on when women have
married men of meaner descent. I myself am inclined to think that a Guild
of women had arisen out of the silk-spinning industries of Essex, and that
the word “Spinster” implied membership of that Guild.
Members of Guilds.—In the old social and religious guilds which seem
to have been established for good fellowship during life, for due burial,
prayers and masses after death, and for charitable assistance of needy
survivors, there was perfect equality between the sexes. Brotherhood money
is exacted from “the sustren” as well as from the brethren. In 1388 (12
Richard II.) an order was given that all Guilds and Brotherhoods should

give “returns of their foundation.” Women appear as the Founders of some
of these. The Guild of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Kingston-upon-Hull, was
founded by 10 men and 12 women (p. 155). The Guild of Corpus Christi,
Hull, founded in 1358, by 18 women and 25 men (p. 160, “Early English
Gilds,” J. Toulmin Smith). The Guild of the Holy Cross, Stratford-on-Avon,
had half of its members women, as also the Guild of Our Lady, in the Parish
of St. Margaret’s, Westminster, whose original manuscripts I have read.
Even when the guild was managed by priests, as in the Guild of Corpus
Christi, York, women were among the members. In St. George’s Guild,
Norwich, men were charged 6s. 8d. and women only 3s. 4d. for
brotherhood. These guilds had “Livery” of their own in some cases. They
had a beneficial effect on society, moral good conduct being necessary to
membership, and a generous rivalry in self-improvement a condition of
distinction. They taught an equal moral standard for both sexes. Hence the
treatment of vicious men and vicious women was the same. (See “Liber
Albus,” p. 179, 180, etc.)
They also did many good works towards the public weal.
The Guild of the Holy Cross in Birmingham, to which belonged the well-
disposed men and women of Birmingham and the neighbouring towns, had
Letters Patent in 1392. The Report of its Condition in the reign of Edward
VI. says, “It kept in good reparacions two great stone Bridges and divers
foule and dangerous wayes, the charge whereof the town, of hitselfe ys not
hable to manteign, so that the lacke thereof will be a great noysaunce to the
Kinges Majesties subjects passing to and from the marches of Wales, and an
utter ruyne to the same towne, being one of the largest and most profitable
townes to the Kinges Highness in all the Shyre” (Toulmin Smith’s “English
Gilds,” pp. 244-249).
These might have weathered the storms of the Reformation by giving up
candles and masses, had not Henry seized their revenues and revoked their
foundations.

The Trades Guilds in early days were also semi-religious in their
character, and also admitted women as sisters.
William Herbert’s “History of the Twelve Great Livery Companies”
gives many details interesting to us. All the Charters of the Drapers’
Company expressly admit Sisters with full rights; the wearing of the Livery,
the power of taking apprentices, sitting at the election feasts, making
ordinances among themselves for better governance, etc. (vol. i., p. 422). So
also did the Clothworkers.
So also the Brewers’ Company. In 5 Henry V. there were 39 women on
the Company’s Livery paying full quarterage money. In 9 Henry V. there
are entries in the books, of the purchase of cloth for the clothing of the
Brethren and Sistern of the Fraternity of the Brewers’ Craft. So also the
Fishmongers (p. 59), the Weavers,[13] and other companies. “The office of
Plumber of the Bridge granted to the Widow Foster, 1595.” (Guildhall
Records.)
13. See “Liber Customarum,” p. 544, etc.

The Clockmakers’ Company, though only founded in 1632, had female
apprentices sanctioned by the company so late as 1715, 1725, 1730, 1733,
1734, 1747.
Among the Memoranda of the Grocers’ Company, 1345, we may note
“each member of the fraternity shall bring his wife or his companion to the
dinner.” “And that all the wives that now are, and afterward shall become
married to any of our Fraternitie; they shall be entered and esteemed as
belonging to the Fraternitie for ever to assist them and treat them as one of
us, and after the decease of her husband the widowe shall still come to the
said election dinner, and shall pay 40d. if she be able. And if the said widow
is married to some other, who is not of our Fraternitie, she shall not come to
the said dinner so long as she be ‘couverte de Baroun,’ nor ought any of us
to meddle with her in anything, nor interfere on account of the Fraternitie so
long as she is ‘couverte de Baroun’” (see Mr. Kingdon’s translation of the

Books of the Grocers’ Company, 1341-1463, printed in 1886). On a second
widowhood she might return to the company. At a later date they did not
seem to be so severe. One widow, interesting to me on other literary
grounds, made her second and third husbands free of the company through
the rights she gained from her first. Widows paid Brotherhood money, held
Apprentices, traded and received all benefits of the Guild.
The Company of Stationers seems to have followed similar customs.
Many women carried on their husband’s business, and received apprentices,
as Widow Herforde, Widow Alldee, Widow Vautrollier. (See Arber’s reprint
of “Stationer’s Registers” and Ames’ “Typographical Antiquities.”)
In the “Journal of the House of Commons,” vol. ii., p. 331, December
3rd, 1641, we find two entries, “Ordered that the Committee for printing do
meet to-morrow at eight of the clock in the Inner Court of Wards, and the
printing of the Book of Queries is referred to that Committee.”
“Ordered that Elizabeth Purslow, who, as this House is informed, printed
the pamphlet entitled ‘Certain Queries of some Tender-Conscienced
Christians,’ be summoned to attend the Committee appointed to examine
the business.”
In Timperley’s “Cyclopædia of Literary Typographical Anecdote” we
find: In 1711 died Thomas James, a noted printer in London, according to
Dunton, “something the better known for being husband to that She-State
politician, Mrs. Eleanor James.” This extraordinary woman wrote two
letters to printers, one to Masters, and one to Journeymen, the first
beginning, “I have been in the element of printing above forty years,” and
ending, “I rest your sister, and soul’s well-wisher, Eleanor James.” Her
husband, Thomas James, left his fine library to the use of the public, and the
President and Fellows of Sion College were indebted to Mrs. James for
giving them the preference. She also presented them with her own portrait,
with that of her husband, and his grandfather, Thomas James, first librarian
to Bodleian Library. “Her son, George James, who died in 1735, was City

Printer. His widow carried on the business for some time, when the office
was conferred on Henry Kent.” (Timperley; see also Reading’s “Catalogue
of Sion College Library.”)
Women could also have Guilds of their own.—[iv.] In 3 and 4 Edward
IV., there was a “Petition from the Silkewomen and Throwsters of the Craft
and occupation of Silkework within the cite of London, which be, and have
been craftes of women within the same cite of tyme that noo mynde renneth
to the contrarie, nowe more than a M” (i.e., 1000 in number), praying
protection against the introduction of foreign manufactured silk goods.
(Parliamentary Rolls, 1463.) And various Acts for their protection are
passed, down to 19 Henry VII., c. xxi.
There seems also to be somewhat of the nature of a Guild among the
Midwives of London, who had a certain social standing and certain laws
and conditions of office. Many of the Royal Midwives received annuities.
One appears in Rot. Parl. XIII., Ed. IV., Vol. VI., p. 93. Among the
exclusions from the Act of Resumption we find, “Provided alwey that this
Act extend not, nor in any wise be prejudiciall to Margery Cobbe, late the
wyf of John Cobbe being midwyf to our best-beloved wyfe Elizabeth
Queen of England, unto any graunte by us, by owre Letters Patentes of £40
by year, during the Life of the said Margery.” Even in early times, their
male rivals tried to limit the extent of their professional activities. Among
the Petitions to Parliament is one from Physicians who pray that “no
woman be allowed to intermeddle with the practice of Physic.” I. Rot. Parl.,
158.a
The Rolls of the Hundreds make mention of women among the great
Wool Merchants of London, “Widows of London who make great trade in
Wool and other things, such as Isabella Buckerell and others.” Vol. I., pp.
403-4.
They might be Free of the City of London.—The freedom of the city of
London became vested in those that paid Scot and Lot, as women did. The

Jews were not allowed to pay Scot and Lot, and were never “free of the
city.” “And the King willeth that they shall not, by reason of their
Merchandize, be put to Scot or Lot, or in any taxes with the men of the
cities or Boroughs where they abide; for that they are taxable to the King as
his bondmen, and to none other but the King” (Statutes, vol. i., page 221).
“That all Freemen shall make contribution unto taxes and taillage in the
city” (Liber Albus III., pt. i., 235). “For watch and ward. Let all such make
contribution as shall be hostelers and housekeepers in each ward” (p. 102).
“And deeds and indentures, and other writings under seal may be received;
and cognizances and confessions of women as to the same recorded before
the Mayor and one Alderman” (p. 16). “Where women in such cases (i.e., of
debts) are impleaded and wage their law,” they make their law with men or
women at their will (p. 37).
Waller v. Hanger. Moore’s Cases, 832. Pasch. 9, Jac. I. Frances Hanger.
“El plead que el fuit libera fœmina de London, and plead le Charter” that
“the Freemen of London should pay no dues upon their wines.” These
points are important to remember in the light of a petition presented by the
widows of London (17 Richard II.) to be freed from taxes and taillage made
in the city without authority of Parliament; praying the King to remember
that it had been granted them that no such tax would be imposed; and
asking him to see that this present Parliament would prevent the Mayor and
Sheriff of London from levying on them this new imposition not levied by
Act of Parliament. (Rot. Parl., vol. iii., 325.) The Mayor and Aldermen
present a counter petition saying that the tax was for restorations, and
praying that the present Parliament should ordain that the widows may be
contributors according to proportion of the aforesaid fine, for their
tenements and rents in the city and suburbs according to right and reason,
ancient custom and charters of the city, that those who per commune have
advantage of the restoration ought by right to be contributors in cost, etc.
(Ibid.).

That women were no indifferent and over-timid members of the
community, we may see in the petition of the Mercers of London to the
King against the oppressions of Nicholas Brember, Grocer and Mayor of
London, 1386, 10 Richard II.:—
“Also we have be comaunded ofttyme up owre ligeance to unnedeful and
unleweful loose doynges. And also to withdrawe us be the same
comandement fro things nedeful and leeful, as was shewed when a
company of gode women, there men dorst nought, travailled en barfote to
owre lige Lorde to seeke grace of hym for trewe men as they supposed, for
thanne were such proclamacions made that no man ne woman shold
approche owre lige Lorde for sechynge of grace, etc.” (Rot. Parl., vol. iii.,
p. 225).
They could be Free in other Boroughs.—The female burgesses of
Tamworth are recorded in Domesday Book as having been free before the
conquest, and as being still free in later times. If they took it upon them to
trade as femes soles, they made themselves liable to all the common
burdens of the “mercheta,” over and above their proper borough duties of
watch and ward.
The Ipswich Domesday Book gives more than one instance of a woman
having “hominal rights,” and as being liable to the “hominal duties”
corresponding thereto. To any feme sole the Franchise and even the Guild
was open on the same terms as to the men of the place. There was no
essoign of female burgesses whereby to decline attendance at the motes (30
Edward I.).
Amongst liberi homines, liberi homines tenentes, or liberi homines sub
regia, in every English shire, the Domesday Book records the names of
Freewomen. (See Chisholm Anstey’s “Supposed Restraints.”)
I have personally searched the records of Stratford-upon-Avon. There
women could be burgesses. One entry, noted for another purpose, I may
here quote: “At a Hall holden in the Gildehall, 9th September, 1573, Adrian

Queeney and John Shakespeare being present, the town council received of
Christian White for her sisterhood, 6s. 8d.; Robert Wright for his
brotherhood, 6s. 8d.”
York. “Women being free of the city, on marrying a man who is not free,
forfeit their freedom. Persons are entitled to become free by birth, by
apprenticeship, or by gift or grant. Every person who has served an
apprenticeship for seven years under a binding by indentures for that period
to a freeman or freewoman inhabiting and carrying on trade in the city is
entitled to become free. The indentures may be assigned to another master
or mistress being free. The privileges of freemen are extended to the
partners of freemen and to their widows.” (“Report of Municipal
Corporation Committee, 1835,” p. 1741.)
The customs of Doncaster seem somewhat similar. (See same report, p.
1497.)
The City of Chester followed the custom of London. (See “The Mayor’s
Book of Chester, 1597-8.”)
Letter from Lord Burleigh to the officers of the Port of Chester,
authorising them to enter without tax the Gascony wines of a city
merchant’s widow:—
“After my hartie commendacions, Whereas I understand that you have made scruple to
take entrie of certeine Tonnes of Gascoigne wynes brought into that port in december
laste, being the proper goodes of Ales Massy, wydowe, late wife of William Massy,
merchant, of that cittie, deceased, as also of certeine other Tonnes of Gascoign wynes,
brought in thither by William Massey, his sonne, late merchant and free citesin of that
cittie, also deceased, whose administratrix the said Ales Massy is. For-as-much as I fynde
by a graunte by privy scale, from hir Majestie, dated the 21st daye of Maye, in the ninth
yere of hir raigne, that her pleasure is (for good consideracion in the said pryvye scale
specified) That all merchants, inhabitants, and Free Citizens of that Cittie shal be freed
and discharged from payment of any Imposte for such wynes as they bring into that port.

And forasmuch as also I have receyved a Lettre from the Maior and Aldermen of that
cittie, whereby they doe certifye unto me that all Freemen’s wydowes of that cittie, during
their wydowehood, by the Custome of the said Cittie, have used, and ought to have and
enioie all such trades, Fredomes and Liberties as their husbandes used in their life tyme,
which custome hath bene used and allowed of tyme out of mynde. Therefore, these are to
will and require you to take entrie of all the aforesaid wynes of the said Wydow Massies
as well those that she hath as administratrix to Wm. Massey, as of hir owne proper wynes,
without taking or demaundinge Impost for the same wynes. And this shal be your
discharge in that behalf. From my house at Westminster, the xiiith of April, 1598.

“Your lovinge frende,

“W. Burghley.

“To my loving frendes, ye Officers of ye Port of Chester.”

“Recepta per nos viii. die Maii per manus Richardi Massy.
[14]
Tho. Fletcher, Maior.”

14. Transcribed by Dr. Furnival for his present work on Chester MSS.

In 1597, by the same books, some money was distributed to twenty poor
people, having been free of the city twenty years at least; among these were
five women.
In the Town of Winchester women could be free. In an old Customary of
that town we may find “Every woman selling Bread in the High Street, not
having the freedom, pays to the King 2s. 5d. a year, and to the City Clerk
1d., if she sells by the year, if less, in proportion. Every woman who brews
for sale is to make good beer. No Brewer not free of the City (nul
Brasceresse hors de Franchise) can brew within the City jurisdiction
without compounding with the Bailiff.” (Archæological Journal, vol. iv.,
1852.)
In the Hall-book of the corporation of Leicester 1621:

“It is agreed by a generall consent that Wm. Hartshorne, husbandman,
shall be made ffreeman of corporacon payinge such ffine as Mr. Maiour and
the Chambleyns that now be shall assess. But he is not allowed any freedom
or privilege by reason that his mother was a ffreewoman. Neither is it
thought fit that any woman be hereafter made free of this corporacon.”
(Notes and Queries, vol. v., 5th series, p. 138.)
This note is important as showing the period of the change of tone and
spirit.
Women could be on the Corporation.—In 1593, in the Archives of the
Borough of Maidstone, Kent, appears, “That the 11th of September, 1593,
Rose Cloke, single woman, (according to the order and constitutions of the
town and parish of Maidstone aforesaid) was admitted to be one of the
corporation and body politique of the same town and parish, from
henceforth to enjoy the liberties and franchises of the same in every respect,
as others the freemen of the said town and parish. And she was also then
sworn accordingly, and for some reasonable causes and considerations then
stated she was released from paying any fine, other than for her said oath,
which she then paid accordingly” (Notes and Queries, vol. xii., 5th series,
318). The transcriber doubts the “legality” of Miss Rose Cloke’s election.
But it was not till a very long time after this date that any attempt was made
to interfere with the liberty of the electors in choosing whom they would.
Queen Elizabeth is said to have reproached the women of Kent for not
more fully exercising their privileges. It may have been in connection with
this illustration as to what their privileges might be. I had long meditated on
the inner meaning of this reproach, before I came upon the elucidation. The
freemen of Kent alone, in England, rose in arms against William the
Conqueror, and would not lay them down until their ancient laws and
customs were confirmed to them. The Custumal of Kent, therefore, based
on the ancient Saxon laws, gave wider privilege to women than the
Normanised laws of the rest of the country. Inheritance was equal and

independent of sex, either in relations of descent or of marriage. The
children all inherited equally, with a certain special tender consideration for
the youngest, male or female. A widow had the half of her husband’s
property till she married again; a widower had the half of his wife’s
property, while he remained single. This equality in property necessarily
gave the women of Kent fuller privilege. The recognition of the freedom of
womanhood naturally made the men of Kent more free. “Of all the English
shires, be ye surnamed the Free.” (Drayton’s “Poly-Olbion, 18.”) [v.]
Yet some of the English shires did not lag far behind Kent. We may note
“A customary or note of such customes as hath bin used, time out of mind
in Aston and Coat in ye parish of Bampton in ye county of Oxon, and is att
this time used and kept as appeareth by ye sixteens who hath hereunto, with
ye consent of ye inhabitants of ye said Aston and Coat, sett their hands and
seals the sixt September, in ye 35th yeare of Queen Elizabeth, Anno Dom.
1593.” The “customary” contains twelve articles regulating the election and
duties of the sixteens, of which the first is: “The Custome is that upon our
Lady-day Eve every yeere, all the Inhabitants of Aston and Coat shall meet
at Aston Crosse about three of ye clock in ye afternoone, or one of everye
House to understand who shall serve for ye sixteen for that year coming,
and to choose other officers for ye same yeere. (2) Ye said sixteens being
known, ye hundred tenants of ye same sixteens doe divide themselves some
distance from ye Lords Tenants of ye said sixteens. And ye Hundreds
Tenants do chuse one grasse Steward and one Water Hayward, and the
Lords Tennants do choose two Grasse stewards and one Water Hayward,
etc. This antient custome have ben confirmed in ye 35th yeare of Queen
Elizabeth, 1593, by most of ye substantiall inhabitants of Aston and Coat,
videl:

“Roger Medhop (gent).
The mark of Richard Stacy.
The mark of Eliz. Alder.
The mark of John Humphries.
The mark of Margery Young.
The mark of John Bricklande.
The mark of Will. Young.
The mark of Thos. Walter.
The mark of Will. Wagh.
The mark of John Newman.
The mark of Richard Thynne.
The mark of Robt. Carter.
The mark of Will. Haukes.
The mark of Ann Startupp.
The mark of Will. Tisbee.
The mark of John Pryor.
The mark of John Church.”

(Archæologia, vol. xxxv., p. 472), which adds, “Similar customs were
formerly practised in Sussex, and may be found in the Sussex
Archæological Collections.”
We find another case in “Grant’s Treatise of the Law of Corporations,” p.
6.
“In general women cannot be corporators, although in some hospitals
they may be so, and there is one instance in the books of a Corporation
consisting of Brethren and Sisters and invested with municipal powers to a
certain extent, in The Pontenarii of Maidenhead (vid Rep. 30). (Palmer’s
“Cases,” p. 77, 17 Jac., B.R.) Quo Warranto vers Corporation de
Maydenhead in Berkshire, pur claymer de certaine Franchises and Liberties,
un Market, chescun Lundie, Pickage, Stallage, Toll, etc.” (Rot. Cor. 106.)
They pleaded that the Bridge had been repaired by a Fraternitie, time out of

mind, which was dissolved, and that the King by Letters Patent, on
condition that they repaired the Bridge, granted them a market every
Monday with all Liberties.... “Et le veritie fuit que Hen. 6 ad incorporate un
Corporation la per nomen Gardianorum Fratrum et Sororum Pontenariorum,
and concessit al eux and leur Successors quod ipsi and Successores sui
haberent mercatum quolibet die lunae prout ante habuissent simul cum
Tolneto, Pickagio, Stallagio, etc.” The opinion of three Judges were “que
Toll fuit bien grant non obstant que le quantitie de Argent d’estre pay pur
Toll pur chescun chose ne fuit expresse, Mes Montague Ch. Justice fuit
cont. Mes que le Corporation enjoyera les Privileges non obstant cest action
port.” In page 626 of Grant’s Treatise, we see “A Corporation Sole is a
Body Politic having perpetual succession, and being constituted in a single
person.... Corporations Sole are chiefly Ecclesiastical, one or two instances
only of Lay Corporations Sole occurring in the Books.... The most
important Corporation of this nature that claims attention is the King.... It is
as a Body Corporate that the King is said to be immortal (Howell’s “State
Trials,” 598).... A Queen Regnant is precisely and in the same way and to
all intents a Corporation, and, indeed, there is nothing inconsistent with the
principles of the old Law in this; it was everyday’s experience before the
Reformation to find female subjects as Corporations Sole, as Lady
Abbesses, etc., but since that era it is superfluous to observe, females
cannot be invested with this description of incorporation, though, as we
have seen, they may be Corporators of Hospitals, Railways, and other
trading bodies.” (Note. See “Abbess of Brinham’s Case.” Yearbook, Ed. III.,
vol. xxiii.; 2 Rol. Abr. 348, l. 33; and Colt v. Bishop of Coventry, Hob. 148,
149.)
They could vote for Members of Parliament.—To their Municipal
Rights were added, in the reign of Henry III., their Parliamentary Rights.
In 25 Edward II., De tallagio non concedendo, “It was there declared that
no tallage or aid shall be levied by us, or by our heirs in the realm, without

the goodwill and assent of ... Knights, Burgesses, and other Freemen of the
Land.”
As women were Burgesses and Liberi Homines, the right was given to
them as well as to men. Plowden (“Jura Anglorum,” p. 438) remarks that
“the Knights of the Shire represented landed property, the Burgesses the
interests of manufacture or trade”; as women could be Traders they were
recognised as having the rights of Traders.
The qualifications of Electors in Boroughs were very far from uniform or
certain, as may have been noted in the Gatton case.
In Bath the Franchise was limited to the Mayor and Corporation.
Sometimes it was limited to freeholders, sometimes to freeholders resident,
at other times to inhabitants, in other cases to inhabitants paying Scot and
Lot.
In London the Franchise was exercised by all paying Scot or Lot.
In Newcastle-on-Tyne, the Parliamentary Franchise devolved on a
Freeman’s widow, who could also carry on his business. (Brand’s “History
and Antiquities of Newcastle,” vol. ii., p. 367.)
The ordinances of Worcester (6 Edward IV., 49)—“Also that every
eleccion of citizens for to come to the Parliament, that they be chosen
openly in the gelde Halle of such as ben dwellynge within the fraunches and
by the moste voice, accordinge to the lawe and to the statutes in such cases
ordayned and not privily” (“Early English Gilds,” J. Toulmin Smith).
In Shrewsbury, prior to the Reform Act, the right of returning members
of Parliament for the Borough was vested exclusively in Burgesses paying
Scot and Lot. (“Mun. Com.,” p. 2014.)
Rhuddlan—“Here, as in the other contributory boroughs to Flint, the
franchise is exercised by all resident inhabitants paying Scot and Lot.”
(“Mun. Com.,” p. 2840.)

In the Reports of Controverted Elections, Luders mentions that of Lyme
Regis, 1789. The dispute was whether non-resident burgesses could record
their vote. Among the old burgess lists brought forward to elucidate the
qualifications for electors, that of 29 Sept., 19 Eliz., was produced. The first
three names on the list were of three women—“Burgenses sive liberi
tenentes Elizabetha filiæ Thomæ Hyatt, Crispina Bowden Vidua, Alicia
Toller Vidua,” then follow the names of several men. To these were added
in 21 Eliz. two names of “liberi burgenses jure uxoris.” Later records show
an increased number of women’s names on the register of this borough.
The case of Holt v. Lyle or Coats v. Lisle in 14 James I., in discussing the
right of a clergyman to vote, affirms as a side issue that “a feme sole, if she
have a freehold, can vote for a Parliament man, but if she is married, her
husband must vote for her.” A limitation again expressed in Catherine v.
Surrey, preserved in Hakewell’s “Manuscript Cases.”
As some have attempted to throw doubts on the authenticity of these
cases, quoted as they were by the Lord Chief-Justice from the Bench in
1739, it may be well to note here that “William Hakewell was a great
student of legal antiquities, and a Master of Precedents” (“Dictionary of
National Biography”). He left parliamentary life in 1629, the year after he
had, in the Committee of Parliamentary Privileges, helped to decide on the
Gatton case. He was one of the six lawyers appointed to revise the Laws,
and was thereafter created Master of Chancery. So one might be tempted to
consider him rather an exceptionally good and trustworthy witness. He
helped to decide other points in connection with the Franchise, which it is
important for us to remember. He not only decided that inhabitant suffrage
must supersede freeholding, that taxation gave the right to representation,
but that, from its very nature, no desuetude could take away the right of
voting. “On 9th April, 1614, it was pleaded, Sithence Durham last drawn in
to charge to join in petition to the King that Durham may have writs for
Knights and Burgesses. Said to be dumb men because no voices. Mr.
Ashley said, They of Durham had held it a privilege not to be bound to

attendance to Parliament. On 31st May was read An Act for Knights and
Burgesses to have places in Parliament, for the County Palatine, City of
Durham and the Borough of Castle Barnard.” “On 14th March, 1620,
members were allowed for the Palatinate of Durham, which had hitherto sat
free from taxation, and consequently sent no members to the House of
Commons. It was allowed without discussion by the House,” taxation and
representation being constitutionally inseparable. (See Commons Journal,
14th March, 1620.)
“Regarding towns that had discontinued long sending of any burgesses,
and yet were allowed.” Hakewell had discovered this of “Millborne Port,
County Somerset, and Webly, County Hereford, that, either from poverty or
ignorance of their right, or neglect of the Sheriff, had ceased voting. After
321 years they elected again.” “In 21 Jac. I. also, Amersham, Wendover,
Great Marlowe, in Buckinghamshire, were in the same condition, but
received writs for return upon application.” (See Addit. MS., Brit. Mus.
8980.) Thus the doctrine that the right to the Franchise never lapses, and
that non-user never deprives an Elector of this privilege, was affirmed by
the Committee of Privileges in the Parliament of which Coke and Hakewell
were members.

CHAPTER VII.

THE LONG EBB.

“Ye have made the law of none effect by your tradition.”

The Errors of Sir Edward Coke.—In a historical treatise it is not
necessary fully to analyse causes. Facts must be left to speak for
themselves. It is a patent fact that, early in the seventeenth century, men’s
views regarding women became much altered, and the liberties of women
thereby curtailed. But there is generally one voice that in expressing seems
to lead the opinion of an age. The accepted voice of this period, on this
subject, was not that of the “learned Selden” [vi.], but of the “legal Coke.”
He first pronounced an opinion on the disability of women, and, as every
other so-called authority depends upon his, it is necessary to examine the
grounds of his opinion first, as with him all his followers must stand or fall.
When he was speaking against the Procuratores Cleri having a voice in
Parliament, it was urged on him that it was unjust that persons should have
to be bound by laws which they had had no voice in making. To this he
replied, “In many cases multitudes are bound by Acts of Parliament which
are not parties to the elections of knights, citizens or burgesses, as all they

that have no freehold, or have freehold in ancient demesne; and all women
having freehold or no freehold, and men within the age of one and twenty
years” (“Fourth Institute,” 5). He quotes no record, he suggests no authority,
he adduces no precedent. He could not. Yet from this one obiter dictum of
his, uttered in the heat of his discussion against clergymen, recorded in
loose notes, and published without correction after his death, has arisen all
consequent opinion, custom and law against the Woman’s Franchise. So
terrible can be the consequences of the by-utterances of a Judge when
careless, prejudiced, or wilfully ignorant. That Coke could be all three it is
easy to prove.
(1) In Prynne’s “Introduction to the Animadversions on the Fourth Part of
the Lawe of England,” he says, “My ardent desires and studious endeavours
to benefit the present age and posterity to my power by advancing learning
... by discovering sundry misquotations, mistakes of records in our printed
law books reports, especially in the Institute of that eminent pillar of the
Common Law, Sir Edward Coke, published, with some disadvantage to him
and his readers since his death, whose quotations (through too much
credulity and supineness) are generally received, relied on, by a mere
implicit faith, as infallible Oracles, without the least examination of their
originals.”
Male credulity in regard to Coke has been the cause of so much direct
and indirect suffering to women that it is not surprising that they now
attempt to get behind “the Oracle,” and question the Spirit itself of the
English Constitution. Many other writers besides Prynne refer to Coke’s
want of care. “In 1615 the King told him to take into consideration and
review his Book of Reports; wherein, as His Majesty is informed, be many
extravagant and exorbitant opinions set down and published for positive
and good law.” (Chalmers’ Biog. Dict.) “The Institutes published in his
lifetime were very incorrect. The 4th part not being published till after his
death, there are many and greater inaccuracies in it.” One example in the
contested passage may be noted. He says that those who had no freehold

had no vote. He did not die until 1634, and the notes for the “Fourth
Institute” were the last work of his life. But Granville’s “Reports” prove
that by the Parliaments of 1621 and 1628 the Franchise was declared to be
vested in inhabitant householders whether freeholders or not, so he was
incorrect as to that statement at least.
(2) That, through prejudice, he could be blinded to Justice can be seen in
that picture preserved by his Biographers of his hounding Sir Walter
Raleigh to his death by virulent unjudicial denunciations; or in that other
when he and his followers made a riot with swords and staves in seizing his
daughter from the home in which his wife (formerly Lady Hatton) had
placed her. The King’s Council severely reprimanded him for his illegal
action then. (See “The Letter of the Council to Sir Thomas Lake regarding
the Proceedings of Sir Edward Coke at Oatlands,” “Camden Miscell.,” vol.
v.)
The petition of Sir Francis Michell to the House of Commons, 23rd
February, 1620, contains trenchant criticisms on Coke’s conduct as partial
and passionate. Though they may be somewhat discounted by the writer’s
position, they must have had some basis of truth. Michell said that when
summoned before the Bar, Sir Edward Coke prejudiced his cause by saying
aloud, “When I was Chief-Justice, I knew Sir Francis Michell; he is a
tainted man,” which saying discouraged his friends from speaking on his
behalf. He repeats elsewhere that Coke was wont “to make invectives by
the hourglass”; and indeed adds many other more serious charges. Michell
was put out, as was the custom, when his case was being discussed. In his
absence, he was condemned to go to the Tower, and on being re-admitted,
thought he was to be allowed to defend himself as was the custom, and
“asked leave to speak for himself, which Sir Edward Coke hastened to
refuse” (Sir Simon d’Ewes’ Papers, Harl. MSS., 158, f. 224). “His rancour,
descending to Brutality was infamous” (Dict. Nat. Biog.). Sir Francis Bacon
writes to him, “As your pleadings were wont to insult our misery and
inveigh literally against the person, so are you still careless in this point to

praise or dispraise upon slight grounds and that suddenly, so that your
reproofs or commendations are for the most part neglected and contemned,
when the censure of a Judge coming slow but sure should be a brand to the
guilty and a crown to the virtuous.... You make the laws too much lean to
your opinion, whereby you show yourself to be a legal tyrant” (Foss’s
“Lives of the Judges”). James I. is known to have called him “the fittest
engine for a tyrant ever was in England.”
He was an only son with seven sisters, which position probably made
him overvalue his own sex. His well-known matrimonial disputes probably
helped to increase his prejudice against the other sex.
(3) That he could be wilfully ignorant there is abundant ground to
believe. He married again five months after his first wife’s death, without
Banns or Licence, and to escape Excommunication, he pleaded Ignorance
of the Law!! “Not only does he interpolate, but he is often inaccurate;
sometimes, as in Gage’s case, he gives a wrong account of the decision, and
still more often the authorities he cites do not bear out his propositions of
law. This is a fault common to his Reports and his Institutes alike, and it has
had very serious consequences upon English Law” (Dict. Nat. Biog.). Holt
v. Lyle, and Catherine v. Surrey had been decided when he was Attorney-
General. These affirmed that “a feme sole could vote for a Parliament man.”
The Gatton case had been decided in a Parliament, and by a Committee of
which he was a member; and whether he had concurred in it or not, he
cannot but have been aware that other members of Parliament, even in his
day, allowed the woman’s privilege.
Others have accused him of suppressing and falsifying legal documents.
(See Chisholm Anstey’s “Supposed Constitutional Restraints.”) Chief
Justice Best from the Bench said, “I am afraid that we should get rid of a
good deal of what is considered law in Westminster Hall if what Lord Coke
says without authority is not law.” 2 Bing, 296.

One other case which afterwards told heavily upon women we may note.
“Coke artfully inserted in the marriage settlement of his fourth son John,
with the daughter and heiress of Anthony Wheatley, a clause of reversion to
his own heirs to the exclusion of heirs female, which was not discovered
until 1671, when John having died, leaving seven daughters, their mother’s
paternal inheritance passed away from them to their uncle Robert, Coke’s
fifth son.”
“His legal propositions may often be unsound in substance, but in his
mode of stating what he believes or wishes to be law he often reaches the
perfection of form” (Dict. Nat. Biography). This “form” may be sufficient
to satisfy legal technicalities, but I think I have brought forward enough to
show that intelligent women have reason to object to him as a “tainted”
authority. [vii.]
Coke tells us in his “Fourth Institute,” what properties a Parliament man
should have. “He should have three properties of the elephant; first, that he
hath no gall; second, that he is inflexible and cannot bow; third, that he is of
a most ripe and perfect memory. First to be without gall, that is without
malice, rancour, heat and envy.” We have shown that Coke was deficient in
the first quality prescribed by himself for just judgment. His abject
submission to the Archbishop after his Breach of the Canon Law, shows
that he could bow very low to escape the consequences of his wrongdoing;
his groveling in the dust before James, when he had roused the King to
wrath, shows that he could do the same when he thought he was right,
“from which we may learn that he was, as such men always are, as dejected
and fawning in adversity as he was insolent and overbearing in prosperity”
(Chalmers’ “Biography”). We must now prove that he was deficient in the
third quality also. His memory was imperfect. He forgot one Statute when
he was criticising another; he forgot what he had written in the “Second
Institute,” when he was preparing his manuscript for the Fourth. It is only
by self-contradiction that he can hold the opinion now under discussion.
From his own works we must judge him on this count (Coke v. Coke). In

the “Fourth Institute,” 5, he classifies women with minors. In the “Second
Institute,” c. iii., 96, his authorised and corrected work, he says on the
contrary, “Seeing that a feme sole that cannot perform knight’s service may
serve by deputy, it may be demanded wherefore an heir male being within
the age of twenty-one years may not likewise serve by deputy. To this it is
answered, that in cases of minoritie all is one to both sexes, viz., if the heire
male be at the death of the ancestor under the age of one and twenty years,
or the heire female under the age of fourteen, they can make no deputy, but
the Lord will have wardship. Therefore, Littleton is here to be understood of
a feme sole of full age and seized of land, holden by knight’s service,[15]
either by purchase or descent.” One would have thought this clear enough
for a legal mind to follow. Women do not, therefore, come into the same
class as minors in regard to their appointing deputies. But they do come into
the class of Electors. (“Second Institute,” 119.) “A woman may be a free
suitor to the Courts of the Lord, and though it be generally said that the free
Suitors be Judges [viii.] in these courts, this is intended of men and not of
women.”
15. In discussing the “Parliament of Marlebridge” (52 Henry III., chap, vi., p. 3) he says: “Albeit
the heir be not primogenitus, but an heir female, or male lineal or collateral, yet everyone of
them be within the same mischief.”

We have already noted the illegal character of this opinion; but we repeat
it here intentionally. Coke does not see that in avoiding one of the horns of
a dilemma he throws himself on the other. If “women could be suitors,” and
were “not intended to be judges” or pares, the only other duty left them as
suitors, would be “to elect their knights of the shire!”
The study of the original statutes supports the freedom of women as to
both duties, as well as the fact of their having exercised that freedom. In
Howell’s “State Trials,” 19 (Entinck v. Carrington, 6 George III.), there is a
question asked and answered, worthy of repetition here—“Can the judges
extrajudicially make a thing law to bind the Kingdom by a declaration that
such is their opinion? I say no. It is a matter of impeachment for any judge

to affirm it. There must be an antecedent principle or authority from whence
this opinion may be fairly collected, otherwise the opinion is null, and
nothing but ignorance can excuse the judge that subscribed it.” That women
had to submit then is no reason that they should submit now, as the same
case explains—“It would be strange doctrine to assert that all the people of
this land were bound to acknowledge that as universal law which a few had
been afraid to dispute.”
A believer in Coke’s views and methods of perpetuating them was Sir
Simon d’Ewes, High Sheriff of Suffolk. At the elections of 1640, Oct. 19th
and 22nd, Sir Roger North and his Royalist friends had charged him with
partiality towards the Puritan candidates. He cleared himself eagerly and
then added, “It is true that by the ignorance of some of the Clarkes at the
other two tables, the oaths of some single women that were freeholders
were taken without the knowledge of the said High Sheriff, who as soone as
he had notice thereof instantly sent to forbidd the same, conceiving it a
matter verie unworthie of any gentleman, and most dishonorable in such an
election, to make use of their voices, although in law they might have been
allowed. Nor did the High Sheriff allow of the said votes, upon his
numbering of the said Poll, but with the allowance and consent of the said
two Knights themselves, discount them and cast them out” (Sir Simon
d’Ewes’ Papers; Harl. MS., 158). Thus in a second illustrative case,
personal opinion and prejudice were allowed to counteract law and
privilege. And the law-abiding women yielded to what they were told was
law, and, being kept in ignorance, they knew no better.
But in the very next year women showed that they took a strong interest
in public affairs.
In vol. ii., p. 1673, Parliamentary History, is preserved the Petition to the
Commons for Redress of Grievances, Feb. 4th, 1641. On the last day of
sitting many women had been observed to crowd much about the door of
the Commons, and Sergeant-Major Skippon applied to the House to know

what to do with them, they telling him that where there was one now there
would be 500 next day. The House bade him speak them fair.
Next day they presented their petition (printed by John Wright at King’s
Head in Old Bailey).
“To the Honourable Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses of the House of
Commons assembled in Parliament, the Humble Petition of the
Gentlewomen, Tradesmen’s Wives, and many others of the Female Sex, all
inhabitants of London and the Suburbs thereof, with the lowest submission
showing, etc.”
They acknowledge the care of the House in the affairs of State. They
have cheerfully joined in petitions which have been exhibited “in behalf of
the purity of religion and the liberty of our husband’s persons and estates.”
“We counting ourselves to have an interest in the common privileges with
them.”
“It may be thought strange and unbeseeming to our sex to show ourselves
by way of petition to this Honourable Assembly. But the matter being
rightly considered of ... it will be found a duty commanded and required. (1)
Because Christ hath purchased us at as dear a rate as he hath done men, and
therefore requireth like obedience for the same mercy as men. (2) Because
in the free enjoying of Christ in His own laws, and a flourishing estate of
the Church and Commonwealth consisteth the happiness of women as well
as of men. (3) Because women are sharers in the common calamities that
accompany both Church and Commonwealth, when oppression is exercised
over the Church or Kingdom wherein they live; and unlimited power given
to the prelates to exercise authority over the consciences of women as well
as men: witness Newgate and Smithfield, and other places of persecution,
wherein women, as well as men, have felt the smart of their fury,” etc.
“The petition was presented by Mrs. Anne Stagg, a gentlewoman and
brewer’s wife, and many others with her of like rank and quality. Mr. Pym

came to the Common’s door, addressed the women and told them that their
petition had been thankfully accepted and would be carefully considered.”
Coke’s papers had been seized by the King at his death in 1634, but on
the 12th May, 1641, the House of Commons ordered Coke’s heir to print
them, and thus his views on this point were perpetuated.
On the 13th February, 1620, Coke had committed the House to
extraordinary doctrine in another relation to women. Among Mr. Lovell’s
witnesses was a lady, Mrs. Newdigate, “the House calling to have them
called in. Sir Edward Coke out of St. Barnard said, A woman ought not to
speak in the congregation. Examination hereof committed to a committee”
(Commons Journal). It is strange that Sir Edward Coke should have gone so
far afield as St. Barnard when St. Paul might have come in as conveniently.
Had he read the gospels as carefully as he had read St. Barnard, he would
have seen that one of the first two preachers of Christ was Anna the
prophetess, who spake of Him in the temple to all them that looked for
redemption in Jerusalem (Luke ii. 36), and that it was through women that
Christ sent the first message to the Apostles and Disciples, that became the
watchword of early Christianity, “Christ is arisen” (Matthew xxviii., Luke
xxiv., John xx.). Coke’s precedent on this point was reversed in his own
century.
On the 17th November, 1666, “Some debate arising whether Mrs.
Bodville, mother of Mrs. Roberts, should be admitted as witness, the matter
being debated in the House, the question being put whether Mrs. Bodville
be admitted, it was resolved in the affirmative, and Mrs. Bodville, with
several other witnesses was examined” (Commons Journal).
His utterance on the Women’s Franchise has coloured the minds of
willing disciples until to-day. In Add. MS. 25, 271, Hakewell on
impositions, says, “To make a man judge in his own cause and especiallie
ye mightie over ye weake, and that in pointe of profitt to him that judgeth,
were to leave a way open to oppression and bondage.” So women proved.

There is no doubt that Puritanism on the one hand, and the frivolity of the
fashions of the Restoration on the other, tended to make women content
with their narrowed political privileges, and restricted educational
opportunities. Only among the Society of Friends, commonly called
Quakers, did women retain their natural place. Though there were some
brilliant exceptions, the majority of women, by the procrustean methods of
treatment in vogue were reduced to the state of incompetency that society
came to believe was natural to them. “It was unwomanly for women to
think and act for themselves.” “Women had no concern in public affairs.”
“Men knew much better than women did what was good for them,” were
proverbs.
By losing one privilege they lost others. New laws were made prejudicial
to their interests, and old laws retranslated in a new and narrow spirit.
Precedent gained power to override statute; the notions of justice between
the sexes became warped and distorted.
The laws of inheritance were altered, the rights of women in their
property further ignored. Sophistical Labour Creeds were introduced to
support masculine property privilege. Work was ignoble for ladies, except
when done without remuneration; domestic work was not cognisable in
coin of the realm, therefore women were said to be supported by their male
relatives, though they might labour ten times as much as they. It was natural
to educate them little, so that they should not know; it was natural to take
privileges from those who knew not what they lost.
Protesting Women.—But the Suppression of the Sex did not go on
without various Protests on the part of women during the 200 years of this
Backdraw in the tide of Civilisation. We cannot spare time for every detail;
but three illustrative women must be noted—the first born in the 16th
Century, protesting against the infringement of the Inheritance Laws in
relation to women; the second born in the 17th Century, against the

withdrawal of their educational advantages; the third born in the 18th
Century, against their social, civil and political degradation.
Anne Clifford, born in 1590, was the only daughter of George, Earl of
Cumberland, and of his good wife, Margaret Russel. She and her two noble
sisters, Elizabeth, Countess of Bath, and Anne, Countess of Warwick, were
distinguished for family affection, and all other womanly virtues. The
Countess of Warwick was Elizabeth’s favourite Lady-in-Waiting. Anne was
much with this aunt in her youth, was a favourite of Queen Elizabeth, and
was destined for her court. Her father refused to allow her, like other noble
ladies of her time, to learn ancient and modern languages, so she made the
most of the opportunities to be found in her own. “Her instructor in her
younger years was the learned Mr. Daniel, the Historiographer and Poet.
She was much interested in searching out old documents about her
ancestors and very jealous of preserving her rights.” (See in Nicholson and
Burn’s “History of Cumberland and Westmoreland, the Autobiography of
Mr. Sedgwick, who was her Secretary.”) She was well prepared by her
beloved mother and respected tutor for the exigencies of her future life. The
Queen died in 1602-3, and her father in 1605. A woman being considered of
age at 14, she chose her mother as her guardian, who initiated the
proceedings against her brother-in-law, the new Earl of Cumberland, which
lasted until his death. The Earldom of Cumberland had been entailed in
Heirs Male, but the secondary Titles, the Baronies of Clifford,
Westmoreland, and Vescy, with all the Lands and Castles in Westmoreland
belonging to them, were entailed in the Heir General. Her uncle, however,
took possession, and favoured by the King, the power of wealth, and Sex
Bias among those in power, he was able to hold them against her, in spite of
her private and public petitions. His son, Henry, was summoned to
Parliament by the title of Lord Clifford, a right which should have been
hers, as she bitterly complained. Meanwhile, in 1609, she married Richard,
Earl of Dorset. “On 25th July, 1610, my cousin, Henry, married Lady
Francis Cecil, daughter to Robert, Earl Salisbury, which marriage was

purposely made that by that power and greatness of his the lands of mine
inheritance might be worsted and kept by strong hand from me” (Harl. MS.,
6177, Anne Clifford’s Diary). 16th July, 1615, “the great trial for my lands
in Craven.” Her husband agreed with the Earl of Cumberland to leave it to
the King’s arbitration, which she would never agree to, standing upon her
rights. In 1617 she was brought before King James in Whitehall to give her
consent to the arbitration, “which I utterly refused, and was thereby
afterwards brought to many and great troubles.” Her uncle offered £20,000
as a compromise for the Westmoreland estates, which she would not hear
of, but which her prodigal husband urged her to accept. Indeed, he
attempted to strain his marital rights, and backed by the King, signed the
agreement with her uncle, which she refused to acknowledge, and defeated
the plans of the trio by her firmness. For she was a true descendant of the
old stock of women, and wished “to live and die with the feeling that she is
receiving what she must hand down to her children neither tarnished nor
depreciated, what future daughters-in-law may receive, and so pass on to
her grand children” (Tac. Germ. c. 19). She was determined to hold by her
rightful inheritance. Her husband died on 28th March, 1624, and the contest
went on with renewed vigour.
In the Domestic Series “State Papers,” vol. cxxvi. 7, 1628, there is
preserved “Reasons to prove that by the Common Law dignities conferred
by Writ of Summons to Parliament descend to females, where there is a sole
heir, and not co-heirs; being the reasons alleged for Mary, Lady Fane, in her
suit for the Barony of Abergavenny in 1587, with other reasons alleged to
show that such dignities by custom and reason descend to heirs female,
produced on behalf of Anne claiming to be Lady Clifford.”
Also in same series, April, 1628, there is “The Petition of Anne, Countess
Dowager, late wife of Richard, Earl of Dorset, deceased, and daughter and
sole heir of George, Earl of Cumberland, Lord Clifford, Westmoreland and
Vescy, to the King. On the death of her father, the titles of Clifford,
Westmoreland and Vescy descended to the petitioner, yet Francis, Earl of

Cumberland, has published that the name of Lord Clifford and that of Lord
Vescy pertain to him; and Henry Clifford, Chivaler, was summoned to this
present Parliament, and styles himself Lord Clifford ... prays the King to
admit her claim to the dignities of Clifford, Westmoreland and Vescy, and to
order the Earl of Cumberland and Henry, his son, to forbear to style
themselves by these names.”
In 1630 she married Philip, Earl of Montgomery, who shortly afterwards
became the Earl of Pembroke by the death of his brother, and she again
claimed her inheritance, still, however, in vain. In 1641 died her uncle,
leaving one son, Henry, and one daughter, Elizabeth, married to the Earl of
Cork. Two years later her cousin Henry died without heir male, and without
further dispute, Anne stepped into her inheritance, thereby proving her
original right. She had not sold it! “1644. So by the death of this cousin
German of mine, Henry Clifford Earl of Cumberland, without heirs male,
ye lands of mine inheritance in Craven and Westmoreland reverted unto me
t
without question or controversie after y his father Francis Earl of
Cumberland and this Earl Henry his son had unjustly detained from me the
antient lands in Craven from ye death of my father and ye lands in
Westmoreland from ye death of my mother until this time, yet had I little or
no profit from ye estate for some years after by reason of ye civil wars.” On
the death of her second husband in 1649, she retired to the north, and began
to fortify her castles. The parliamentary forces demolished them, but she
said that as often as Cromwell pulled them down she would build them up
again. After a time, admiring her spirit, the Protector gave orders she should
not be molested. She was not even yet free from litigation, as at first she
had troubles with her tenants. In every case, however, through knowledge,
experience, and firmness she finally triumphed. A cloth-worker having
bought a property held under her by the yearly rent of one hen, he refused
to acknowledge her as his Seigneuress by paying that small rent. But she
sued him successfully, and though she spent £200, she secured that hen, and
the right of which it was the symbol.

She asserted all the privileges connected with her inheritance. In her
Diary she says, “As the King came out of Scotland, when he lay at Yorke,
there was a striffe between my father and my Lord Burleighe who was then
President who should carie the sword; but it was adjudged on my father’s
side, because it was his office by inheritance, and so is lineally descended
upon me.” She became High Sheriff of Westmoreland also by right of her
inheritance, and exercised its duties in person for a time. “The 29th
December, 1651, did I sign and seal a patent to Mr. Thomas Gabetis to be
my Deputy Sheriff of ye County of Westmoreland.”
Looking back on her life in the quiet of her northern home she said, “I
must confess, with inexpressible thankfulness that I was born a happy
creature in mind, body, and fortune, and that those two Lords of mine to
whom I was afterwards by the Divine providence married, were in their
several kinds worthy noblemen as any were in this Kingdom. Yet was it my
misfortune to have contradictions and crosses with them both, with my first
Lord about the desire he had to make me sell my rights in ye lands of mine
inheritance for money, which I never did nor never would consent unto,
insomuch as this matter was the cause of a long contention betwixt us, as
also for his profuseness in consuming his estate.” Her dispute with her
second husband arose because she would not compel her daughter by her
first husband, against the girl’s desire, to marry his son by his first wife. The
consequence of these two disputes, in both of which she was in the right,
was that “the marble halls of Knoll and the gilded towers of Wilton, were
often to me the Bowers of secret anguish.” She was not what has been
called a man’s woman, but she was essentially a woman’s woman. All good
women were her friends, her cousin the Countess of Cork, daughter of her
usurping uncle; her sister-in-law the Countess of Dorset, wife of her
brother-in-law, whom she considered her greatest enemy. Though King
James was against her, Queen Anne was her warm friend. She had no
children by her second husband; and her two sons by Earl Dorset died
young. She had great consolation in the affection first of her mother, then of

her two daughters, and also of her grandchildren. It was in connection with
one of these that an important incident occurred, necessary to be fully
explained here.
I have been allowed to utilise some critical points communicated by me
to the Athenæum, No. 3475, p. 709, June 2, 1894.
In an article on “Letter-writing,” published in The World, April 5th, 1753,
Sir Horace Walpole quotes the famous and often repeated letter by Anne
Clifford, Dowager-Countess of Pembroke, to the Secretary of State, who
wanted her to nominate his follower for Appleby:—
“I have been neglected by a Court, I have been bullied by a usurper, but I will not be
dictated to by a subject. Your man sha’n’t stand.

“Anne Dorset, Pembroke and Montgomery.”

Lodge and other writers doubt its genuineness. The author of the
“Dictionary of National Biography” gives as reasons for doubting it, that
Sir Joseph Williamson, to whom it was supposed to be addressed, was not
made Secretary of State until 1674; that Anne died in 1675, and that there
was no election between these dates; also, that it was not in the style of her
correspondence, and the signature was unusual, because she always signed
her titles in the order of creation—Pembroke, Dorset, and Montgomery—
and not in the order of her two marriages. None of the critics, however,
seem to have followed out the correspondence in the Domestic Series of
“State Papers” at the Public Record Office, which, though it does not
include the contested letter, yet illustrates it in a remarkable manner.
The Parliament elected in 1661, 13 Charles II., has been called “The
Long or Pensionary Parliament,” lasting till 1678. (See “Parl. Returns,” vol.
lxii., part i., p. 530.) John Lowther, Esq. of Hackthrop, and John Dalston,
Esq. of Accornbank, were Burgesses for Appleby. John Lowther’s death
necessitated a new election, and in January, 1667-8, there was great
excitement in and about Appleby. From Anne’s position as High Sheriff of

the County, she had the right to nominate a Candidate; from her great
goodness and bounty to the place, the Corporation were willing to gratify
her by electing whom she would. She determined to have one of her
grandsons the Tuftons, sons of her daughter, Countess Thanet, four of
whom were over 21, and in need of occupation. Failing them, she meant to
have selected her kinsman, Anthony Lowther. But Joseph Williamson,
Secretary to Lord Arlington, then Secretary of State, had set his heart on
that seat, and by all means in his power, open and underhand, attempted to
secure it. He was a native of those parts, and had friends and relatives there,
who all bestirred themselves in his favour. Everybody “plied the Countess,”
Williamson himself, his brother and friends, the neighbouring gentry, the
Justices of the Peace, the Bishop of Winchester, Lord Arlington himself.
Her replies at first were very kindly, but they gradually became more and
more “definite.”
Anne’s first letter, explaining how her interest was engaged, dated Jan.
16th, 1667-8, was addressed to “Mr. Secretary Williamson at Whitehall,”
showing that there is no weight in the argument as to Williamson’s
appointment not taking place till 1674, as being Under-Secretary, he could
be addressed so. Further, it is evident that the contested letter was not
addressed to Williamson, but to Lord Arlington, about Williamson, though
it may certainly have been re-addressed, and sent to him later, and may have
been found among his papers.
To Lord Arlington on Jan. 17th, she writes, “Mr. Williamson, being of so
eminent an ingenuity, cannot miss a Burgess-ship elsewhere.” On Jan. 25th,
Arlington writes again to her on behalf of his Secretary. On Jan. 29th,
George Williamson writes to his brother: “Unless the three Tuftons be taken
off by Lady Thanet’s means, it is impossible for any man to oppose.... Dr.
Smith fears the taking off of the old Lady, but if done, we shall be joyful.”
Feb. 4th, Dan Fleming writes to Williamson about plying the Lady
Pembroke: “If you cannot accomplish this, you should stay the Writ as long
as you can, until you have a good account of your interest in Appleby.” The

same day Dr. Smith wrote to Williamson telling him of his friend’s work:
“The success of it will be seen by her answer to Lord Arlington, whereof
she showed me a copy. I cannot see how it is possible to do any good unless
her grandchildren be taken off.” George Williamson writes same date to his
brother, that Lord Arlington had been urging Thomas Tufton to withdraw.
“Neither Arlington nor the Bishop make any impression on the wilful
Countess.” On Feb. 6th, Lord Arlington writes again, to whom Anne
replies: “It was myself and neither my daughter of Thanet, nor any of my
children, that made me attempt making one of her sons a Burgess for
Appleby.” “If it should happen otherwise, I will submit with patience, but
never yield my consent. I know very well how powerful a man a Secretary
of State is throughout the King’s dominions, so am confident that by your
Lordship’s favour and recommendation you might quickly help this Mr.
Williamson to a Burgess-ship without doing wrong or discourtesy to a
widow that wants but two years of fourscore, and to her grandchildren
whose father and mother suffered as much in their worldly fortunes for the
King, as most of his subjects did.”
One can see that the spirited old lady has been kindled to white heat, and
that very little more would make her say something very like what has been
preserved by Walpole.
As to her style, she employed a Secretary, Mr. Sedgwick. That Secretary
was absent from Skipton Castle for a few days at this time. It is just
possible that the young Candidate, Thomas Tufton himself, became her
clerk on the occasion, and transmitted his grandmother’s words as he
thought she said them, without anything of Sedgwick’s clerkly polish.
On Feb. 9th George Williamson writes to his brother, enclosing a letter
from Dr. Smith, “If the town be left to their own freedom, your brother will
carry it, but I doubt that the Countess will never let it come to that, being
resolved to present one to them. If none of her grandchildren will accept,
she will pitch upon Anthony Lowther. She has been heard to say that if they

all refuse, she will stand for it herself, by which you may imagine what the
issue is likely to be.”
Feb. 13th. Sir John Lowther to Williamson says, that he had taken off his
kinsman from the candidature. “I believe that her Ladyship will prevail in
her resolution with regard to her relatives,” “and will neither desire, seek,
nor need, anybody’s help to make whom she desires.” I know this by a
letter from the Mayor.
Feb. 23, Thomas Gabetis, Under-Sheriff, writes to Mr. Williamson, that
he studied to serve him, but the Countess had planned otherwise. “The
Corporation being disposed to gratify her for her great nobleness and
bounty to the place. My station obligates me to render service with
obedience to her commands, especially in this particular.”
Here comes the period at which the undated letter preserved by Walpole
might well have been written. But between him and the printers it seems to
have disappeared. There is no further letter now on the subject among the
State Papers.
But in her Diary, Harl. MS., she writes, “And on ye second day of March
in this year my grandchild, Mr. Thomas Tufton, was chosen Burgess of ye
Town of Appleby to serve in the House of Commons in Parliament therein
assembled, and sitting in Parliament at Westminster, in ye place of Mr. John
Lowther, my cosin’s son, who dyed; so as Mr. Thomas Tufton, my
grandchild, begann first of all to sitt in ye said House of Commons at
Westminster as a member thereof, the 10th day of March, he being ye first
grandchild of mine yt ever sate in ye House of Commons.”
On 21st Sept., 1668, in 1670, and in 1674, this Mr. Thomas Tufton
visited his grandmother and his constituency, still Burgess.
So she had her way with the Secretary of State, as she had had with the
King, the Protector, and her noble husbands. Her motto, it may be
remembered, was “Preserve your loyalty, defend your rights.”

Many other women have been right in their contentions, but to very few
have been given with the spirit and courage, the wealth, power, patience and
opportunity to secure success. Her struggle was no purely personal one; it
was the first Protest against the invasion of the rights of her sex. She saw
how “legal precedent” was drifting.
Mr. Joshua Williams on Land Settlement says, “I have not been able to
discover any trace of a limitation of an estate, tail, or any other estate to an
unborn son prior to 3 and 4 Philip and Mary” (“Judicial Papers,” vol. i., part
i., p. 47).
We have already noted the decision of Judge Popham in the case of Lady
Fane, which Anne Clifford quoted as precedent for her own case in vain.
She utilised every opportunity of improving herself and blessing her fellow-
creatures. She would not go where she could do no good. Being invited to
the Court of Charles II. she replied, “I could not go, unless I were to wear
blinkers, like my horses!”
Dr. Donne said of her, that she “was able to converse on any subject,
from predestination to slea-silk.”
In her Funeral Sermon, preached by Bishop Rainbow, he mentioned her
learning, hospitality, and encouragement of letters, and reckoned among her
many virtues, Courage, Humility, Faith, Charity, Piety, Wisdom. “Thus died
this great wise Woman, who, while she lived, was the Honour of her Sex
and her Age, fitter for a History than a Sermon.”
In 1694 Mary Astell protested against the state of things in her day in a
small anonymous publication, “A Serious Proposal to the Ladies, by a
Lover of their Sex.” Speaking of the repute learning was held in about 150
years ago, she says, “It was so very modish that the fair Sex seemed to
believe that Greek and Latin added to their charms, and Plato and Aristotle
untranslated were frequent ornaments of their closets. One would think by
the effects that it was a proper way of educating them, since there are no
accounts in history of so many great women in any one age as are between

1500 and 1600.” She refers to Mr. Wotton’s “Reflections on Ancient and
Modern Learning,” p. 349, and makes clear that her proposal is to found an
institution for the higher education of women, to be dedicated to the
Princess Anne of Denmark. In 1696 she also published “An Essay in
Defence of the Female Sex, by a Lady.” Defoe next year in his “Essays on
Projects,” proposed to establish Academies for women, and criticises “the
Lady” who had suggested the idea under the conditions of a Monastery.
“Reflections upon Marriage” appeared in 1700. In the third edition of the
latter, 1706, answering objections, in the Preface, she says, “These
Reflections have no other design than to correct some abuses which are
none the less because power and prescription seem to authorise them. ’Tis a
great fault to submit to Authority when we should only yield to Reason,” ...
“designing nothing but the Pubic Good, and to return, if possible, the native
Liberty, the Rights and Privileges of the Subject.... She did not indeed
advise women to think men’s folly wisdom, nor his brutality that love and
worship he promised in the matrimonial oath, for this required a flight of
wit and sense much above her poor ability, and proper only to masculine
understandings.... ’Tis true, through want of learning and of that superior
genius which men, as men, lay claim to, she was ignorant of the natural
inferiority of our sex, which our masters lay down as a self-evident and
fundamental truth. She saw nothing in the reason of things to make this
either a principle or a conclusion, but very much to the contrary, it being
Sedition, at least, if not Treason, to assert it in this Reign. For if by the
natural superiority of their Sex they mean that every man is superior to
every woman, which is the obvious meaning, and that which must be stuck
to if they would speak sense, it would be a sin in any woman to have
dominion over any man, and the greatest Queen ought not to command, but
to obey her Footman, because no municipal Laws can supersede or change
the Laws of Nature. If they mean that some men are superior to some
women, that is no great discovery. Had they turned the tables they would
have found that some women are superior to some men. Or, had they

remembered their Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy, they might have
known that one woman is superior to all the men in the Kingdom, or else
they have sworn to very little purpose, and it must not be supposed that
their Reason and Religion would suffer them to take Oaths contrary to the
Law of Nature and the Reason of Things.” “That the Custom of the World
has put women, generally speaking, into a state of subjection, is not denied;
but the right can be no more proved by the fact than the predominance of
vice can justify it. They say that Scripture shows that women were in a state
of subjection. So were the Jews, under the Chaldeans; and the Christians
under the Romans. Were they necessarily inferior? That ingenious theorist,
Mr. Whiston, argues, ‘that before the Fall woman was the superior.’ Woman
is put into the World to serve God. The service she owes a man at any time
is only a business by-the-bye, just as it may be any man’s business to keep
hogs. He was not made for this, but if he hires himself out to such an
employment, he ought conscientiously to perform it.... We do not find any
man think any the worse of his understanding because another has more
physical power, or conclude himself less capable for any post because he
has not been preferred to it.... If all men are born Free, how are all women
born slaves? Not Milton himself would cry up Liberty for Female Slaves, or
plead the Lawfulness of resisting a private Tyranny.... If mere power gives a
right to rule, there can be no such thing as Usurpation, but a Highwayman,
so long as he has Strength to force, has also a right to command our
obedience. Strength of mind goes along with Strength of body, and ’tis only
for some odd accidents, which philosophers have not yet thought worth
while to inquire into, that the sturdiest porter is not also the wisest man....
Sense is a portion that God has been pleased to distribute to both sexes with
an impartial hand; but learning is what men have engrossed to themselves,
and one cannot but admire their improvements.” She winds up with another
Eulogy on the good Queen Anne. But society did not then reform itself
upon her suggestions.

Before the close of the eighteenth century, however, Mary
Wollstonecraft Godwin blew a loud trumpet blast, in her indignant
“Vindication of the Rights of Women.” She treats the subject on lines that
men and women are only now beginning to learn to read. “There can be no
duty without reason. There can be no morality without equality. There can
be no justice when its recipients are only of one sex. Let us first consider
women in the broad light of human creatures, who, in common with men,
are placed upon the earth to unfold their faculties.” “Who made man the
exclusive judge, if woman partakes with him the gift of reason? Do you not
act a tyrant’s part when you force all women by denying them civil and
political rights, to remain immured in their families, groping in the dark?
Surely you will not assert that a duty can be binding that is not founded on
reason.” “Women may be convenient slaves, but slavery will have its
constant effect, degrading both the master and the abject dependent.” “It is
time to effect a revolution in female manners, time to restore to women
their lost dignity and to make them labour by reforming themselves, to
reform the world.” She was too much in advance of her times to be
successful in spreading her views, especially as they were entangled with
other opinions even more unpopular in her day. Yet she sowed the seed that
is still growing. The society she pictures gives a painful illustration of the
effects of the exclusively masculine creeds of her century.
Yet, during that dark age of women’s privilege, there were some Legal
Cases tried and decided, refreshing in their results, as they showed that
dispassionate judges could still do something for women, when they
followed the ordinary principles of Philology, and decreed that a common
term could stand for woman as well as for man, even when it meant a
privilege.
“A woman was appointed by the Justices to be a governor of a
workhouse at Chelmsford in Essex, and Mr. Parker moved to quash the
order because it was an office not suitable to her sex, but the Justices upheld
the appointment” (2 Lord Raymond, 1014). “My Lady Broughton was

keeper of the Gatehouse Prison” (3 Keble, 32). “A woman was appointed
clerk in the King’s Bench” (see Showers’ P.C.).
A lady’s appointment to be Commissioner of Sewers was also contested,
but it was “decided that as the office by statute” shall be granted to such
person or persons as the said Lords should appoint, “the word person stands
indifferently for either sex ... and though women have been discreetly
spared ... yet I am of opinion, for the authorities and reasons aforesaid, that
this appointment is warrantable in law. Women have been secluded as
unfit, but they are not in law to be excluded as incapable,” i.e., the election
determined eligibility; and so the Countess of Warwick was allowed to
retain the benefits of her election. (See Callis. 250.)
In Hilary Term, 1739, the case of Olive v. Ingram was heard before Sir
William Lee, Chief-Justice, Sir Francis Page, Sir Edmund Probyn, Sir
William Chappel, Justices, to decide whether a woman could vote for a
sexton, and whether she could be a sexton. A woman candidate for the
office of sexton of the Church of St. Botolphs without Bishopsgate had 169
indisputable votes and 40 women’s votes; the plaintiff had 174 indisputable
votes and 22 women’s votes. The woman had been declared elected.
The case was considered so important that it was heard four times. First,
whether a woman could vote? The counsel against argued that women
could not vote in this case, as they did not do so in others; that they did not
vote for members of Parliament, quoting Coke. The counsel for argued that
non-user did not imply inability; that women paying Scot and Lot had a
right to vote on municipal affairs; that they voted in the great Companies;
that it had been decided in Attorney-General v. Nicholson that women had a
right to elect a preacher. If they could elect to a higher office, how could
they not do so to a lower? It had been decided in Holt v. Lyle and Catharine
v. Surrey, according to Hakewell, “that a feme sole, if she has a freehold,
may vote for a Parliament man.” Women did come to the old County

Courts, though not compellable thereto. Women are sui juris till they are
married.
The Lord Chief-Justice said the case of Holt v. Lyle is a very strong case,
but as I am not bound now to say whether a woman can vote for a
Parliament man, I will reserve that point for further consideration. The
question here is, whether a woman can be included in “all persons paying
Scot and Lot.” It was a just rule that they who contributed to maintain the
elected should themselves be electors. There is a difference between
exemption and incapacity. If women are qualified to pay Scot and Lot, they
are qualified to keep a sexton. They who pay must determine to whom they
will pay. He decided that women could vote for a sexton. Justice Page
agreed with Chief-Justice Lee on the general question, but added, “I see no
disability in a woman for voting for a Parliament man.” Justice Probyn
agreed that they who pay have a right to nominate. It might be thought that
it required an improved understanding for a woman to vote for a Parliament
man, but the case of Holt v. Lyle was a very strong case.
The woman having thus secured a majority of “indisputable votes,” the
next question was, could she hold office? The objection was that women
could not hold places of trust, of exertion, of anything to do with a church.
Chief-Justice Lee said a woman is allowed to be a Constable, an
Overseer, a Governor of a Poorhouse, a Gaoler, a Keeper of a Prison, a
Churchwarden, a Clerk of the Crown in the King’s Bench. Very high offices
have been held by Ladies. In regard to the Church, women have been
allowed to baptise; there have been Deaconesses, and female servants circa
sacra. (Romans xvi. 21.) Women have presented to churches. He decided
that a woman could be sexton. The others concurred. (Leach’s “Modern
Term Reports,” vol. vii.)
Strange, the opposing counsel, in reporting the case shortly and
confusingly, says that he knew many women sextons at the time. (See 27
Strange.)

In the case of Rex v. Chardstock, where “the parish was obstinate in not
having another Overseer than a woman,” Justice Powell had testily declared
that a woman cannot be Overseer of the Poor, that there can be no custom of
the parish to appoint her, because it is an Office[16] created by Act of
Parliament. To the petitioner’s election he replied that there was not to be a
woman Overseer, an obiter dictum reversed in the King’s Bench in 1788 in
Rex v. Stubbs. “Can a woman be Overseer of the poor?” the only
qualification necessary by the Statute[17] (43 Eliza.), is that the Overseer be
“a substantial householder.” A woman can be “a substantial householder,
and therefore she is eligible.” Justice Ashurst referred to the other offices
that women had held, as quoted above. “This office has no reference to sex.
The only question is whether there be anything in the nature of the office
that should make a woman incompetent, and we think there is not”
(Durnford and East’s “Term Reports”).
16. Yet before the said creation of the Statute (43 Eliz.; even in 7 Eliz.) there were Overseers of the
poor in Westminster, (see p. 148 Athenæum, No. 3458, February 3rd., 1894).

17. Ibid.

Yet before the time that male rivals contested the election with a woman,
women had exercised the office without objection. “In the township of
Gorton, parish of Manchester, 1748, Widow Waterhouse was overseer of
the poor. In 1775 Sarah Schofield played the flute in the chapel choir. In
1826 Mary Grimston appointed sexton. In 1829 the vestry sent for Ruth
Walker to come and break stones” (Notes and Queries, 5th series, vol. iv., p.
269). In the Parish Register, Totteridge, Middlesex, March 2nd, 1802, entry
—burial. Mrs. Elizabeth King, widow, for 46 years Clerk of this Parish, in
her 91st year. Note.—As long as she was able she attended, and with great
strength and pleasure to her hearers, read prayers. (p. 493.) Mrs. Anne Bass
of Ayleston, Leicestershire an excellent churchwarden for many years.
(Notes and Queries, 5th series, vol. iv., 269, 493.)
The opening of the nineteenth century was signalised by the cessation of
the Napoleonic wars; and the Peace brought wider opportunities of leisure,

learning, and literature to both sexes. Yet so powerful had become the force
of Custom in confusing men’s ideas of Justice, that even James Mill, the
pupil of Jeremy Bentham, in his masterly article on “Government” for the
Supplement to the “Cyclopædia Britannica” (afterwards republished in
pamphlet form, 1825) could allow it to blind his eyes to the logical results
of his own reasoning. In page 494 he says, “That one human being will
desire to render the person and property of another subservient to his
pleasures, notwithstanding the pain or loss of pleasure which it may
occasion to that other individual, is the foundation of government. The
desire of the object implies the desire of the power necessary to accomplish
the object. The desire, therefore, of that power which is necessary to render
the persons and properties of other human beings subservient to our
pleasures, is a grand governing law of human nature.” Yet the writer of this
searching analysis of the cause and need of government says elsewhere (p.
300), “One thing is pretty clear, that all those individuals whose interests
are indisputably included in those of other individuals, may be struck off
from political rights without inconvenience. In this light may be viewed all
children up to a certain age, whose interests are involved in those of their
parents. In this light, also, women may be regarded, the interest of almost
all of whom is involved in either that of their fathers or that of their
husbands.” Yet even at that early date a man, inspired by a woman, rose up
to protest against this sweeping assertion. William Thompson, in 1825,
published a little book, dedicated to Mrs. Wheeler, that puts the whole
question in a broad modern light, “The Appeal of one Half of the Human
Race, Women, against the Pretensions of the other Half, Men, to retain them
in Political, and thence in Civil and Domestic Slavery. In reply to a
paragraph of Mr. Mill’s celebrated article on Government.” This interesting
book was the first voice of a nineteenth century man against the degradation
of women. He points out that Mill has not nearly reached the level of his
master, Bentham, in his conception. He asks, what is to become of those not
included in the “nearly all”? what of those that are? “Why are women’s
interests included in those of men? Mr. Mill’s article seeks to evade the

equal claims of the other half of the human race to similar protection
against the abuse of the same power, against the application of the general
principle of security to women.” “In order to include women in the
proscription of children, a fiction must be manufactured, as none of the
good reasons applicable to children would be found to apply to women, and
this romance of an identity of interest is the ingenious, say rather, the
vulgar, the audacious fiction devised” (p. 15). “From this examination it
results that the pretext set up to exclude women from political rights,
namely, the inclination of men to use power over them beneficently; would,
if admitted, sweep away the grand argument itself for the political rights of
men.” “We shall investigate the philosophical pretext of the ‘article’ for the
degradation of one half of the adult portion of the human race in the
following order:—(1) Does the identity of interest between men and
women, in point of fact, exist? (2) If it do exist, is it a sufficient cause, or
any reason at all, why either of the parties, with interests thus identified,
should therefore be deprived of political rights? (3) Is there in the nature of
things any security for equality of enjoyments proportional to exertion and
capabilities, but by means of equal civil rights? or any security for equal
civil but by means of equal political rights? In regard to the first, there are
three great classes of women. First, all women without fathers or husbands;
second, adult daughters in their father’s establishment; third, wives. The
first class have no men to identify their interests with; they are therefore the
class, sometimes scornfully called, the unprotected. Adult daughters can
acquire legal rights as against their fathers, but on marriage they forfeit their
freedom, and are again thrown back into the class of children or idiots.”
“Involving of interests must mean that one enjoys as much as the other, is
this true as between husband and wife?” “The very assumption of despotic
power by the husbands over wives is in itself a demonstration, that in the
opinion of husbands, a contrariety, and not an involving of interests, exists
between them and their wives. Domestic despotism corrupts man’s moral
frame.” “If it is more difficult for women to labour, why should men further
increase the difficulty by protecting themselves? In justice to the stronger

excluding party, as well as to the weaker, all such powers of excluding
ought to be withheld” (p. 149).
Many must have read, but few assimilated Mr. Thompson’s able and
generous arguments.
Meanwhile, in regard to the Representation of the People’s Acts, the
parliamentary franchises had been revised and cobbled, but in none was any
but the general term used. The Act 7 and 8 William III. describes electors as
“freeholders,” or “persons”; 18 George II., c. xviii., 19 George II., c. xxviii.,
use the same general terms. That of 3 George III. limits the franchise “to
persons who had taken up their freedom for 12 months.”
Those of 11 George III., c. lv.; 22 George III., c. xxxi.; 44 George III., c.
lx.; 11 George IV., and 1 William IV., c. lxxiv., confer the suffrage on “every
Freeholder being above the age of 21 years, or on inhabitant householders
of same age.” There is no term ever used, that might not include a woman.
But just at the time when the tide of civilisation and education was
beginning to rise again, just after “The Appeal of Women” had appeared, by
W. Thompson and Mrs. Wheeler (1825), all historical precedent was
reversed. Concentrated social opinion became boldly expressed in law.
In the Reform Bill of 1832, the word “male” was interpolated before
“persons” in the Charters of the newly created Boroughs. Never before, and
never since has the phrase “male persons” appeared in any Statute of the
Realm. By this Act, therefore, women were legally disfranchised for the
first time in the history of the English Constitution. The privilege of
abstention was converted into the penalty of exclusion. Curiously enough,
the framers seemed to have had dim notions of this, as in all reference to
older Charters the term “person” only appeared, and the interpolating
adjective “male” is suppressed. Therefore in Boroughs holding by older
Charters women were not necessarily excluded, except by the reflex action
of the 1832 Statute. (See 2 William IV., c. xlv., s. 24, 25, 31, 32, and 33.)

In strange contrast to the spirit of this Act were the Bills passed in 1833
and 1834, which gave freedom, at the nation’s expense, to all Colonial
slaves.
The Municipal Franchises naturally followed the example of the
Parliamentary one, and in spite of Charter, and in spite of precedent, limited
their privileges to “male persons.”
For many years these readings remained in uncontested force, not
without protest on the part of women and of the friends of justice. In 1851,
Lord Romilly’s Bill, otherwise called Lord Brougham’s Bill, “for
shortening the language of the Acts of Parliament,” was passed. This
decided that the word “man” should always include “woman” except where
otherwise expressly stated. In that year the Earl of Carlisle presented a
Petition drafted at a public meeting in Sheffield for the extension of the
Parliamentary Suffrage to women. Sympathetic minds were stirred by the
great American Convention of the subject, and in the Westminster and
Foreign Quarterly, July, 1851, appears the notable article on “The
Enfranchisement of Women,” by Mrs. Mill. “That women have as good a
claim as men have to the suffrage and to be jury, it would be difficult for
any one to deny.” “It is one axiom of English freedom that taxation and
representation always go together; it is another that all persons must be tried
by their peers, yet both are denied to women.” “A reason must be given
why what is permitted to one person is interdicted to another.” “Far from
being expedient, the division of mankind into two castes, one born to rule
the other, is an unqualified mischief, a source of perversion and
demoralisation both to the favoured class and to those at whose expense
they are favoured, producing none of the good which it is the custom to
ascribe to it, and forming a bar to any really vital improvement either in the
character or the social condition of the human race.”
“It is the boast of modern Europeans and Americans that they know and
do many things which their fore-fathers neither knew nor did; it is the most

unquestionable point of their superiority that custom is not now the tyrant
that it formerly was. Yet in this case prejudice appeals to custom and
authority.” “Great thinkers from Plato to Condorcet have made emphatic
protests in favour of the equality of women.” “We deny the right of any
portion of the species to decide for another portion, or any individual for
another individual what is and what is not their ‘proper sphere.’ The proper
sphere of all human beings is the largest and highest they can attain to.”
The Bill of 1867. Again the “Representation of the people” came before
the House in 1867. The word “man” was exchanged for “male persons” of
the 1832 Charter. John Stuart Mill redeemed his father’s errors and moved
an Amendment that it should be made expressly to include women. “We
ought not to deny to them what we are conceding to everyone else, a right
to be consulted; of having, what every petty trade or profession has, a few
members who feel specially called on to attend to their interests, to point
out how these interests are affected by law.” “The want of this protection
has affected their interests vitally. The rich can make private laws unto
themselves by settlements, but what of the poor?”
“Educational endowments founded for both sexes have been limited to
boys. The medical profession shuts its doors when women strive to enter in.
The Royal Academy shut its doors when women began to distinguish
themselves. There is no meaning in the objection that women have no time
to attend to politics. Do all enfranchised men take time?” “What is the
meaning of political freedom? Is it anything but the control of those that
make politics by those who do not?” (p. 7). His Amendment was lost. But
so also was the Amendment that the phrase “male persons” of 1832 should
be replaced. The Bill enacted that every man of full age, and not subject to
legal incapacity, “duly qualified and registered,” should have the right to
vote. During the discussion, the Hon. G. Denman, Justice of the Common
Pleas, asked the following question—“Why, instead of the words ‘male
person’ of the Act of 1832, the word ‘man’ had been substituted in the
present Bill? In the fifth clause of the Bill he found that after saying that

every ‘man’ should be entitled to be registered, it proceeds to say, ‘or a
male person in any university who has passed any senior middle
examination.’ In the light of Lord Romilly’s Act, if the Court of Queen’s
Bench had to decide to-morrow on the construction of these clauses they
would be constrained to hold that they conferred the suffrage on female
persons as well as on males.” The Government did not answer the question,
but it passed the Bill as it stood. This, therefore, to ordinary, as well as to
logical minds, seemed to reinstate women in their ancient though neglected
privileges, which the advance of education had taught them now to
appreciate. Therefore, next year, 5,347 women had themselves duly
registered in the town of Manchester alone, in the neighbouring town of
Salford about 1,500, and large numbers in other places. Great uncertainty
prevailed as to how to treat them, but most of the revising barristers threw
them out. The Manchester women consolidated their claims and appealed
against their decision.
The case of Chorlton v. Lings was heard before the Court of Common
Pleas in Westminster, Nov. 7th and 10th, 1868, Lord Chief-Justice Bovill
and Justice Willes, Keating and Byles, sitting on the Bench. The facts can
be found in the Law Reports, and it is good that they should be recalled to
the minds of the rising generation.
Yet they are treated in a more lively manner in the pages of The Times.
Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., and Dr. Pankhurst appeared on behalf of the women,
Mr. Mellish against. Miss Becker, the woman’s champion, was present, and
many other ladies. Mr. Coleridge stated that there were 5,347 women duly
registered in the town of Manchester, qualified except by sex to be electors.
The Chief-Justice asked him if he had found any cases of women exercising
political privileges before then? He said he had not![18] But he added that the
Statute for the County Courts might have included both sexes. The Chief-
Justice interpolated, “The Common Law existed before the Statute Law.
There is no trace, so far as I know, of women having been admitted to the
assemblies of the wise men of the land!”[19] (Laughter.) Mr. Coleridge gave

the examples of the Countess of Westmoreland voting by attorney and Mrs.
Copley signing the indenture. Justice Willes interposed, “She might have
[20]
been a returning officer, which office she unquestionably might fill!” Mr.
Coleridge then quoted Luders as to the women burgesses of Lyme Regis;
the Statute of Henry VI., which limited suitors to forty shilling freeholders
and the citizen burgesses, as all being enacted of “chusers” or “electors” in
common terms. Hallam (ch. xiii.), states that “all Householders paying Scot
and Lot, and Local Rates, voted for members of Parliament.” Women could
be freeholders, householders, citizens, burgesses, suitors, taxpayers,
therefore they could vote. It is true that the Reform Bill of 1832 read these
as only applied to “male persons,” but the Bill of 1867 used the term
“man,” while Lord Romilly’s Act had decided the term “man” should
include woman, unless where it was otherwise expressly stated. It was not
“otherwise expressly stated” in the Statute of 1867. There was no legal
restraint against women voting, and he quoted the case of Holt v. Lyle,
which affirmed that a feme sole had a right to vote for a Parliament man.
18. See Ante to the contrary p. 64.

19. P. 10.

20. P. 70.

Mr. Mellish, in opposition, said that Manchester was a new Borough in
1832, and claimed by its Charter the franchise for “male persons.” The Bill
of 1867 stated that it would not alter existing franchises. The ground of
women being excluded was their legal incapacity. It is true no statute took
their right away, because they never had it! “As well suitors as others,” of
52 Henry III., did not necessarily mean women. “They could not be
Esquires or Knights.” Justice Willes interposing—“Not only in Books of
Romance but in Books of Chivalry we see they can!” “The case quoted by
Mr. Coleridge is valueless. If a lady were not present to vote, it was clearly
illegal for her to do so by attorney. Mrs. Copley was Patron of the Borough,
and probably acted as returning officer. In Olive v. Ingram the majority of

[21]
the Judges were against the woman’s claim. Peeresses could not sit in the
House of Lords.” Justice Willes interposing—“Yet peeresses marrying
commoners, the commoners became Peers, and sat jure mariti. Is not that,
at least, representative of a woman?” Mr. Mellish then referred to the
parallel case that had been tried in Scotland. Judgment was against the
women, first, because they were legally incapacitated; and second, because
to give them a vote would be against public policy, as it was a premium on
ladies to remain unmarried in order to retain their votes, and a premium to
them to desire that their husbands might die in order that they might
become enfranchised as widows.” Mr. Coleridge said that the Scotch case
had no bearing on this. Lord Chief-Justice Bovill was obliged to concede
that “it is quite true that a few women being parties to indentures of returns
of members of Parliament have been shown, and it is quite possible that
there may have been some other instances in early times of women having
voted and assisted in legislation. Indeed, such instances are mentioned by
Selden. Yet the fact of the right not having been asserted for centuries raises
a very strong presumption against its ever having had legal existence.”[22]
And though he acknowledged that in many statutes “man” may be properly
held to include women, he decided against this interpretation here. The rest
of the judges agreed with him.
21. He could only have read the short and misleading report by Strange, the counsel for the
opposition, as the assertion does not seem borne out by the case in extenso. As Strange also
affirmed that women could not hold by military tenure, his judgment regarding them on other
points may well be doubted.

22. The last recorded example of women proffering their vote was in 1640, less than 260 years
before, p. 99. While Amersham and other towns had not voted for 321 years, p. 92.

The second case, Chorlton v. Ressler, a woman freeholder at Rusholme
with a county qualification with no relation to the 1832 Charter of
Manchester, they refused to hear. Dr. Pankhurst was silenced. The Lord
Chief-Justice said to him—“Do you expect to convince us that we are
wrong, and that we ought to alter our judgment just given?” Dr. Pankhurst

—“Your judgment is inchoate, and might be altered during the term.
(Laughter.) This is not a point of Common Law but of Constitutional Law.”
The next case was Wilson v. Town Clerk of Salford; Martha Wilson
having appeared on the Overseer’s List, and not having been objected to,
wanted to know why she had been struck out. She was curtly referred to the
decision in Chorlton v. Lings.
The next case, Bennet v. Bromfit, was a consolidated appeal of men and
women against the revising barrister at Ormskirk, who had held that certain
notices of objection were valid, without the reasons of objection being
stated. Here the Revising Barrister had decided that Ellen Ashcroft was
qualified to vote. The Lord Chief-Justice interposed—“The Revising
Barrister may have decided that Ellen Ashcroft had a right to vote, but we
have decided that she has not.” “But, your Lordship, what has to become of
Birch, Roberts and the other men concerned in this appeal?” “It is laid
down that where appeals are improperly consolidated they cannot be
heard.”
And thus, in a Court of Common Law, amid peals of amused laughter,
the Constitutional Privilege of British Freewomen was taken from them, as
a Justice worded it, “forever.”
Yet Coke himself had declared “Judges ought not to give any opinion of a
matter of Parliament because it is not decided by the Common Law, but
secundum legem et consuetudini Parliamenti” (“Fourth Institute,” 15).
In 1704, the Commons had resolved that “they cannot judge of the right
of elections without determining the right of electors; and if the electors
were at liberty to prosecute suits touching the right of giving voices in other
courts, there might be different voices in other courts which would make
confusion and be dishonourable to the House of Commons, and that such an
action was a breach of privilege.”

But this decision was accepted from the Common Law Courts, and, by
Christmas, 1868, there was not a “Freewoman” left in Britain, except the
One who sat on the throne, holding her privileges, not as her female
subjects did, by Statutes written in general terms, but by Statutes where the
language designates the male sex alone.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE TURN OF THE TIDE.

1868-1894.

“Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow.”

It was not only the seven thousand women from Manchester and Salford
who were disappointed in the results of their appeal. Women began on all
sides to analyse the grounds of the judgment, and to take steps towards
counteracting its baneful influence. An ever-increasing body of generous-
hearted or far-seeing men joined their party, and worked with, and for them,
both within and without the House of Commons. Meeting after meeting has
spread enthusiasm. Petition after Petition has been presented. Bill after Bill
has been brought forward. Amendment after Amendment has been proposed
hitherto without success. As Mr. Stuart, M.P., once wittily said at a public
meeting, “Petitions sent up by the Unrepresented, are like Bell-handles rung
outside of a door, that have no bell attached at the other end. They occupy
the attention of those outside of the house, but do not disturb those that are
within.” The strongest plea has been taken from women. By the extension

of the Franchise in 1884, the Service Clause disallowed the doctrine that
taxation was the qualification for representation, and reversed the prime
reason of members being first called to the House in the reign of Hen. III. If
women had felt it hard that their payment of taxes had not been sufficient to
purchase their right of representation, they felt it harder that their payment
of taxes, invalid and inoperative as regards themselves, was valid and
operative as providing the qualification of their male servants, that, in short,
the qualification had been altered fundamentally. Yet some good has come
out of the evil. It has provided a reductio ad absurdum.
It has made women see clearly that no qualification, but that of sex, lies
in the modern readings of the Statutes. They cannot alter the sex, but they
may alter the Basis of Privilege. Such things have been done ere now. Ripe
scholars in Mathematics have been excluded the Universities because they
could not subscribe to the articles of the English Church. Political
Economists have been excluded the House of Commons because they were
of Jewish descent. These disabilities have been removed for men. The
disabilities of sex must ere long be removed for women.
Progress has been very rapid since 1868.—The “woman’s question” no
longer provokes somnolence nor awakes mirth: it is treated as a question of
gravity. The publication of John Stuart Mills’ “Subjection of Women,” in
1869, educated many minds. The humorous treatment of the question in
Fraser’s Magazine in the article entitled, “Latest News from the Planet
Venus,” where logical objections against Male Enfranchisement are
supposed to be urged by women, taught others that there were two sides to
the principles of exclusion, and that those against the Enfranchisement of
men, were, to say the least of it, quite as valid, as any that have ever been
brought against the Liberty of Women. Many other interesting volumes and
articles have been written, making the views of women known.
Women have begun to speak for themselves, and to speak clearly—with
no uncertain sound.

No new elucidation of the 1867 Charter has taken place except one very
remarkable one. “If a woman’s name were to get on an election list by
mistake, and she afterwards tenders her vote, that vote must be accepted”
(see “Warren on Election Law”). The humour of the remark is great. As by
the mistakes of some men women lost their rights, by a further masculine
mistake they may regain them. Is this what it imports? If not, what?
The 1868 Decision threw back civilisation theoretically 2000 years. But
it necessitated opposition. One clear sign of this effect was given in 1869
when Mr. Jacob Bright moved a resolution in the House that women should
vote in Municipal affairs, and it was adopted almost without discussion.
The Bill was modified, but reconfirmed in 1882. The right has been
exercised by women since that time without any overturning of the social
fabric.
In 1870 the vote for the School Board, and eligibility thereto, was
conferred upon them. Ancient rights allowed them to vote for Poor Law
Guardians; and in 1888 they were allowed to vote for County Councillors.
In 1893 they were made electors, and eligible for election on Parish District
Councils.
Many Bills have been passed in their favour through the toil and energy
of devoted women, and the co-operation of broad-minded men.
The Married Women’s Property Acts of 1870 and of 1882 have
secured the earnings of industrious wives from the clutches of grasping or
drunken husbands to a certain degree. A slight improvement has taken place
in regard to the Custody of Infant Children. The Criminal Law Amendment
Act of 1884 took a step in the right direction, though sadly crippled by its
overriding conditions. (See Mrs. Fawcett’s pamphlet on “The Criminal Law
Amendment Act of 1884.”)
Various other moral Bills have showed the woman’s spirit working
behind the scenes in favour of justice and mercy and chastity.

And the famous Clitheroe case, in 1891, which sent back the Judge,
through lack of Precedent, to the original Statutes to find a decision as to
the imprisonment of a wife, bewildered the populace, and reduced the
demand for wife-kicking boots.
Public Conscience is beginning to be awakened to the errors of its
judgments in regard to women. The disproportionate awards of punishment
to those who steal food when hungry, and those who maltreat their wives
through tyranny, do not so often now arouse the indignation of those who
read the Law Reports in newspapers.
Yet the tide has not been uniform in its motion. It is the way of waves to
retire before and after a rise.
I forbear enlarging on the last great decision regarding women’s
disabilities, by which the Judge, following the example of his predecessor
in Rex v. Chardcroft, refused the electors of Brixton a right to elect Lady
Sandhurst as County Councillor, and put another in her place that the
majority of them had not elected; refused also to the County Councillors
themselves their right of electing Miss Cons among their Aldermen. On
May 16th, 1889, in the Queen’s Bench Division, was tried the case of
Beresford-Hope v. Lady Sandhurst. The other candidates had given notice
of objections to the Lady, but the Deputy disallowed these, studying only
the Statute. There were 1986 votes recorded in favour of Lady Sandhurst,
and 1686 in favour of Beresford-Hope, who appealed. It was allowed, that
the office being new, there was no precedent to guide them; that the
Municipal Act of 1882 had enacted that “for all purposes connected with
the right to vote at municipal elections, words in this Act importing the
masculine gender include women.” It was allowed that the Local
Government Acts of 1888 contain no enactments against women.
One Judge stated that it was a new office, but that no woman had ever sat
in a Municipal Corporation. That Anne Clifford was a solitary instance of a
woman being Sheriff.[23] That it was necessary that a statute should give

express permission to women to be elected, because Lord Brougham’s Act
does not apply to this.
23. See “Ante,” pp. 43, 44.

Another Judge stated that his opinion would have been in favour of the
women’s claim, but for the 63rd Section of the Act of 1888. But the
majority of those concerned, accepting the assertion “that a more learned
Judge never lived than Justice Willes,” who had checked the Historical
arguments in the case of Chorlton v. Lings, accepted also the decision in
that case as the grounds of their Ruling. “I take it, that neither by the
Common Law nor the Constitution of this country, from the beginning of
the Common Law until now, can a woman be entitled to exercise any public
function.”
One at least they forgot whom they might have remembered, it was the
Woman from whom they held their Seals of office.
Thus Lady Sandhurst, after helping her colleagues, her country and her
sex, for a year, with two other brave women were turned out, and the
Council and the Country were alike the sufferers thereby. “Who will take
care of the Baby Farms, the Pauper Lunatic women? the many small details
that a man cannot know by accident, and prides himself in not knowing by
experience?”
If they have been defeated on the County Councils, the success of women
as Poor Law Guardians is undeniable. The spirit of tenderness for those
who receive charity in their old age, the healing spirit of sympathy for those
that have been tempted; the spirit of exact investigation of accounts, and of
economy in expending the ratepayers’ money, has certainly been fostered
by the presence of women on the Boards. The same may be said of women
on the School Boards. They have offered themselves for many public
appointments and offices. Sometimes they are accepted gladly; sometimes
they are only not ejected because the law for doing so cannot be found.

A self-sacrificing worker in the cause of women has collected together
and tabulated all the elections a woman may at present join, all the public
offices she may at present fill. “The elections at which women may vote at
present are: The House of Keyes, Isle of Man; Town Councils in England,
Scotland, and Belfast; County Councils in England and Scotland, District
Councils in Scotland, School Boards, Boards of Guardians, Local Boards of
Health, Improvement Commissioners, Waywardens and Highway Boards,
Road Surveyors, Burgh Commissioners in Scotland, Parochial Boards in
Scotland, Select Vestries and District Boards in London, Burial Boards and
Common Vestries.
They can be elected to School Boards, Boards of Guardians; also to
Parochial Boards in Scotland and many other boards. They can be elected
now to very many public offices, can be Members of Royal Commissions,
Visitors of Lunatic Asylums, Inspectors of the Poor in Scotland, Inspectors
of Nuisances, Registrars of Births, Deaths, and Marriages; Collectors of
Poor Rates, Members of Dispensary Boards, Road Surveyors, Overseers of
the Poor, Churchwardens, Sextons, Parish Clerks, Local Government Board
Inspectors, County Council Inspectors of Baby Farms, Noxious Trades, etc.;
Factory and Workshop Inspectors under the Home Office, Post-mistresses
and Clerks in the Post Office, Census Clerks” (see “The Civil Rights of
Women,” by Mrs. Eva Maclaren).
Some of these duties are, of course, performed without remuneration, but
in others they are paid at a fair rate, in some cases, at the same rate as men.
I take in a separate paragraph some questions regarding work and its
returns, but it seems necessary first to show the advance of education during
the period. I have always felt that our sex owes much to our Queen simply
for being what she is. At the time of the Reform Bill of 1832, she was being
trained wisely for her future duties. The intellectual powers of a girl, when
educated under favourable conditions, were brilliantly illustrated in her. The
young Queen succeeded in 1837, and from the commencement of her reign

there has been a constantly expanding view of the educatability even of
ordinary girls. The want of good secondary schools was at first severely
felt; but women began to patch up their education by private study or at
public Lectures. The Philosophical Institution of Edinburgh, providing
Lectures, Library, and Reading-Room, founded in 1846, was open from the
first to women, as well as to men, and in many a large town were similar
opportunities.
Mr. Thomas Oliphant of that city, in the same year, started a large School
in Charlotte Square, to which he added two “Advanced Classes” for the
elder girls. There were taught Literature and Science in new and suggestive
methods, that many women, still living, have rejoiced in. The Normal
Schools for training Teachers had always been open to women; but these
“Advanced Classes” were intended for women of leisure, those who had
been accustomed to leave a Ladies’ Finishing School, to become the
Butterflies of Ball-Rooms, or better-class domestic drudges. A host of
imitators showed the demand for schools of Mr. Oliphant’s style.
In London, the Public Day School Company, since 1871, has done
splendid work, and trained thousands of girls; and higher schools and
colleges all over the country, have given solid education to a class of young
women, to whom, formerly, the most superficial smattering was considered
sufficient.
Meanwhile, the Secondary Education of women having succeeded, the
higher education was attempted. When the University Local Examinations
were commenced, they were opened to girls as well as to boys, to women as
well as to men. They soon proved that they were able to take advantage of
their opportunities. Strong efforts were made in many quarters to have them
admitted to the Universities on equal terms with men. Failing this, there
were strenuous attempts made to secure, at least, the education, if not the
other privileges of a University career.

The earliest University Classes for Women were opened in Edinburgh
in the winter of 1867-8, when 265 women enrolled themselves as students
in Professor Masson’s class on English Literature alone. In 1868-9, three
branches of the Arts Curriculum were offered in Literature, Natural
Philosophy, and Logic and Mental Philosophy; opportunities which spread
until the whole field was covered. In October, 1869, Hitchin Temporary
College was opened for women in similar connection with Cambridge
University. In 1873, the Oxford Association for the Education of Women
took shape. In 1876, Glasgow and St. Andrews joined the work, and other
opportunities all over the country had to be arranged to meet the ever-
increasing demand.
The first University to grant degrees to women on equal terms was
London, in the new Charter of 1878. As a non-teaching university, however,
its gift of Degrees was limited by the opportunities opened to women of
acquiring professional education in recognised colleges.
The Royal University of Ireland in Dublin opened in 1880, and in its
original Charter grants equal terms for men and women; and the Victoria
University in 1880, allowing women instruction and examination in some
departments, granted Degrees where they had passed sufficient
examinations.
In 1892, the Scotch Universities were opened simultaneously.
Durham offered, under certain conditions, to admit women, conditions
not finally arranged, when it found by its Charter that it could not do so.
Education is, however, granted women in the affiliated colleges of
Newcastle, and Titles, if not Degrees, allowed.
Cambridge admits women to its examinations, grants them a recognised
place, but no Degrees. Oxford examines them, but also excludes them from
full privileges. [x].

In none of these Universities can women, either as Undergraduates or
Graduates, vote for the University Member of Parliament. The same
anomaly exists as existed in relation to a property qualification. The real
qualification in a University is based upon attending certain classes, passing
certain examinations, living under certain conditions, and paying certain
fees. Women fulfil all these duties, but they do not, even from their Alma
Mater, receive the same privilege as their brothers, on a University
Qualification; because the Reform Bill of 1867, while granting it to all men
on property qualification, by clause 5, limited it to “male persons in
Universities.” It is possible that, after a little more of the Higher Education,
it will be found that they have attained “an improved understanding,”
enough to allow them even to vote by the side of the navvy and the pot-boy.
The twenty-six years have not been lost, however, even in regard to
Women’s Suffrage. Meanwhile have been growing up young men and
young women, educated under the broadening effect of more equal
privileges in learning. The old restrictions seem to them meaningless in the
new light of reason. A generous youth, in the older Universities, who has
been beaten by a woman in a mathematical examination, feels his brow
flush when he receives the reward that is denied to her, and feels shame
instead of pride that he has to be protected against her competition. He
would never dream of suggesting that she would “require an improved
understanding to vote for a Parliament man.” In the youth of the country
lies hope, if the youth be but trained aright.
The result of the educational opportunities has been to give women
personal capability of entering professional life. But the Professions have
certain powers of excluding competitors, and they have all done what they
could to make entrance difficult or impossible. Women are now admitted to
the Medical Profession. Several original professions they have invented for
themselves, and they have done their best with the old. They have therefore
gained new powers of acquiring property. Their energy and self-dependence
have revolutionised the thoughts of men as regards their capability.

John Stuart Mill, in his “Subjection of Women,” p. 99, says: “If anything
conclusive can be inferred from experience, without psychological analysis,
it would be that the things women have not been allowed to do are just
those that they succeed best in doing.” Association of ideas is doing its
work in forming customs and in moulding habits of thought. No longer is a
woman an incongruous sight in Halls of Learning or of Research, in
Scientific Societies or on Boards of Guardians. Those who exclude women
are learning that they themselves suffer by the exclusion.
They welcome them eagerly as Canvassers at elections. Ere long they
will find it both natural and desirable to invite them to co-operate with them
through the Ballot-box, “to choose a Knight of the Shire or a Burgess from
a Borough, in the stead of all and of each of them, to go to the Parliament
House, and there consulting with the Knights of other Shires,” to defend the
interests of those who sent them.

CHAPTER IX.

OTHER WOMEN.

“All sisters are co-parceners one with another. The elder-born has no privilege over the younger.”

If in these pages I have not noted the great majority of women who never
have had, under any condition, any privilege of any kind, it is not because I
have forgotten them. The needle-workers, whose toil is doubled and whose
pay is halved by self-enriching sweaters; the labouring women, toiling in
unfavourable conditions alongside of men now privileged with voices
powerful enough to control their earnings; the tempted women, whose
temptations are made strong and dangerous for them through false social
and economic views; the poor married women, who may be happy only
according to the degree that their husbands are better than the Law allows
them to be; the poor mother to whom Slave Law is still applied in regard to
their children. But the principles of Method lead us to take one step at a
time; the doctrines of Logic prevent us confusing two ideas; and the
Precedents of the Law Courts teach us that “where claims are improperly
consolidated they cannot be heard” (see Bennet v. Bromfit, Queen’s Bench,
1868).

To lose the possible reward of any effort by misplacing it, is, to say the
least of it, unwise.
Men have placed all women in one class now. We are all sisters, and “co-
parceners” one with another. They have extended political privileges to all,
under conditions very easy to fulfil, except to Aliens, Minors, Lunatics,
Criminals, and Women. The Aliens may become naturalised, the Minors
may attain majority, Lunatics may regain their reason, and when a Criminal
has served his time he may become once more a free British Elector. The
noblest and the best, the most learned and philanthropic of women, classed
with the worst, are reckoned as something lower than the lowest Criminal.
He may, combining with others of his class, urge on his narrow, selfish
views; they may not enrich the world by advancing the high, generous
ideals that lie nearest their hearts. If any women, on any qualification,
become enfranchised, the disability of sex-in-itself will be removed, and to
all others thereby will be given a ray of hope. It has seemed to me, through
following a Psychological study of the springs of human action, that the
class most likely to receive Enfranchisement first, is that which formerly
had it. Therefore I, with others who would not be immediately concerned in
the success of our efforts, join hands in toil to help forward the claims of
those who have been British Freewomen, as that section of the community
which can claim most on Historical grounds and by Legal Precedents. We
hope that they, being given the chance, will help their less fortunate sisters.
We must not forget, that the very Charters, that have so mightily
multiplied the legions of Freemen in Esse, have likewise increased the
number of Freewomen in Posse.
When the light increases, so that men can see to read aright, then women
may be able “to take up their Freedom too.”
M. Talleyrand Perigord,[24] once Bishop of Autun, observes “that to see
one half of the human race excluded by the other, from all participation in
Government, is a political phenomenon that on abstract principles it is

impossible to explain.” We think the phenomenon very capable of
explanation, but the reason is to be found, not in the perfection of human
nature, but in its incompleteness.
24. See Dedication of Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin’s “Vindication of the Rights of Women.”

The Romance of the old world was carried on by the “fair women and
brave men,” little being said of the plain women and the weak men.
Civilisation has advanced far enough to recognise the claims of the weak
men; we want it to go further, and help wisely the cause of the weak women.
For that we require, reversing the adjectives, armies of “brave women and
fair men,” brave women who seek not their lost birthright with futile tears,
but with self-sacrificing energies, and heart-inspired sympathies; and fair
men who can understand that none lose through another’s gain, and that
theirs is not Liberty but License, that use a self-asserted power to the
restriction of the rights and privileges of others.
Various tests have been proposed to mark different degrees of
Civilisation. I believe that the common-place man of to-day might suggest
that the multiplication of Machinery is the most satisfactory index. More
thoughtful men would consider a recognition of the first principles of
Justice a safer ground. Some of these assert that the position of women is
the surest test of the Civilisation of a Country and of a Time. If this be so,
Nineteenth Century men must look to their character as posterity will judge
it, for the Century is very near its close. They are apt to be judged not by
what they have done, but by what they have left undone.
In reality one cause of the existence of so much statutory evil is this, that
the majority of men are so much better than the laws—they do not
understand their full bearing.
Victor Hugo has said, “Man was the problem of the eighteenth century,
Woman is the problem of the nineteenth.” To understand and solve that
problem, a totally different set of reasonings must be applied than have
hitherto been used by the majority of men. The so-called “Physical Force

Argument” is, after all, but the ghost of a Dead Argument raised to scare the
timid in the night. It can be valid only in Savage times, when Might makes
Right. It is inoperative in Civilisations, where Justice even pretends to
decide the rights of men. Even under the “physical force argument,” some
women might be free. Many women are stronger than many men; and many
women have been known to signalise that strength, not only in disguise as
soldiers, or as navvies, but openly fearless and free.[ix.] The courage of
Nicholaa de la Haye and Black Agnes of Dunbar; of the Countess of Derby
and the Marchioness of Hamilton during the Civil War has been emulated
by many others. Some men assert scornfully that women are not fit for
privilege or power. To assert a thing is not to prove it. If women are not fit
for the Franchise, perhaps it may be made fit for them. It is perfectly certain
that they are fitted to enjoy justice and to benefit by freedom. Some
sentimentalists say that women are too pliable and delicate to be exposed to
the roughnesses of political life. It would destroy their charm. To such
objectors I would answer, Look out into the flat meadows where sluggish
streamlets wind, and see in the inartistic clumps of pollard-willows an
illustration of the manner in which “woman’s nature” has been treated by
such men. Though their roots and leaves are the same, though their upward
aspirations are permanent, and their vital energies restorative, yet through
top-pruning at the will of others, for the use of others, the growth and the
ideals of the trees have been marred for ever. Nothing can ever restore to a
Pollard-Willow its natural place in the picture-gallery of trees. But its
distortion has only been individual, its offspring through freedom may
develope into a perfect tree, really sweet and graceful, and not artificially
so.
Other sentimentalists say that women are angels, and their purity must
not be contaminated by contact with the great outer world of vile realities.
They mistake fragile butterflies for God’s angels. These are spirits strong in
His strength, whose inward purity gives them power to pass unscathed
through external impurity, whose sympathy gives them knowledge and

whose presence purifies and refines the moral atmosphere. The more a
woman is like an angel, the more is she needed to counsel and to work with
men.
That women do not want it, is another futile objection. No classes or
masses ever unanimously want saving regeneration of any kind, until the
few have made it seem desirable to them. We know that at least a quarter of
a million women in this country do want it, and have set their hands to the
present great “Appeal to the Members of Parliament” to grant them political
freedom for weighty reasons. To refuse that quarter million what the other
millions do not ask, is like refusing to the Eagle and the Lark the right to
fly, because the Ostrich and the Swan do not care for the exercise.
Others boldly say that this is a man’s world, and in it men must rule. It is
true that man has long led in the Song of Life, with words and music
written at his will, and woman has but played an Accompaniment.
Sometimes in their Duets she has been forced to sing a shrill second, or a
piping Bass, in notes that have no meaning when they are sung alone. But
he did not see or hear, and she dared not say, that this was not the sole part
that she could sing or play. In the many-voiced Concert of the Universe,
where harmonious “parts” should combine in balanced perfection, there are
constant discords and recurrent “clangs,” because man has misunderstood
the Rules of Harmony. The Bass voices are necessary for perfection, but too
much Bass becomes monotonous to the listening ear, and overpowering the
finer notes, spoils the Conception of the Whole. If there is anything in this
Analogy, it is the Woman’s voice that should lead the Melody and express
the meaning, and the man’s voice should support her notes and enrich the
Harmony. One need not analyse the various other objections. None of them
are based on Truth, Justice, Logic, or History.
In my second Chapter I spoke somewhat of women’s privilege as
heiresses, but I would like here to add a few words about unprivileged
earners.

Labour is the Basis of Property.—I do not wish now to analyse all the
Economic Theories regarding the relations of Property to Labour, but only
the one that touches our question. In olden times Labour was paid in kind.
Money is an arbitrary sign of labour, as speech is of thought. Money is an
easy medium by which the returns of labour can be transferred, either in
purchase of other property or of other labour, or as a free gift or inheritance.
In ancient times fighting was considered a kind of labour, the highest
kind. The Service of the King was the most honourable, save that of the
Service of the Church. Fighting and praying were alike paid in land, or in
coin, and the land or the coin could be inherited by those who neither
fought nor prayed. Hard-working traders and farmers also earned coin and
land, and sometimes left their gains to idle children. Hence owners have not
always been earners. Some writers on National Economy have inveighed
against the principle of inheritance. To me it seems natural and right that
what a man has produced by labour, he may leave to his descendants, at
least, when he does so by old Saxon Law. There has been much virulent
denunciation of Landlords, especially in relation to the unearned increment
of property in thriving towns. I do not know any however, who have
discussed a question, that bears much upon the Argument of this book.
The Unrecorded Increment of Woman’s Labour.—Earners are not
always owners. Except where a woman brought some fortune at her
marriage it has been supposed that her husband “supported her.” But in the
majority of respectable middle-class or workmen’s dwellings, this is very
far from being the case.
The woman labours as well as her husband. If property is the result of
labour, both can be expressed in figures. Let us take a man earning 30s. a
week for eight hours’ work a day, and five hours on Saturday, forty-five in
all. The payment for each hour is 8d. As the woman spends no time walking
to and from her work; as she has no rest on Saturdays or Sundays except
through extra work on other days; as she on these other days works very

many more hours than her husband, she has bettered the common stock by
the amount of ninety hours of work; which taken at half the wage, rises to
the same sum, so that the common income should be reckoned at 60s.
instead of 30s. But her share being received in kind, it is unrecognised and
unrecorded. This may be made clear by supposing that some other person
had fulfilled the wife’s duties. In transferring flour into bread she earns
what the baker otherwise would gain in the difference between flour and the
price of the loaf. In washing and ironing the family linen she earns what the
laundress would charge for the same, minus the cost of soap and coals. In
carrying a heavy basket from the distant stores, she earns what the local
grocer would have done in the difference between wholesale and retail
prices; in making clothes for her children out of her own frayed garments,
she earns what the draper would have charged for similar material, and
what the dressmaker would have required for making it up. If she patches
her husband’s clothes, she earns the tailor’s charge. Her daily scrubbing and
cooking may be reckoned at charwoman’s wages, and thus, multiplied by
the hours of labour, the proportion may come out. Both she and her husband
dimly feel that she has saved expenditure, they never realise that she has
acquired property.
The spending also must be reckoned. The result of the man’s labour has
been translated into coin, a more convenient form in which to pay rent and
taxes, the Club-money and direct Shop-purchases for both. Of the common
diet the man has the larger and better share. Beyond this he generally has a
daily paper, a pipe, and beer. At the lowest estimation these cost 3s. 6d. a
week. If he has no vices, there may be 3s. in his pocket at the end of the
week, and that 3s. may be put into a Savings Bank in his name, which after
years of saving, by modern law, he may will away from his wife and
children.
What of her toil, her earnings, her increment of property? It has seemed
to vanish, but it has really enriched him. This may easily be seen if, leaving
her domestic employments, she goes out to labour as charwoman in the

house of others at 2s. 6d. a day of ten hours. She there also receives food.
The position then is this. The common house-property is increased by the
expenditure on her food being saved. She still saves somewhat to the family
in comfort and money by working overtime. Her husband has either to do
without some of his comforts or her economies, or spend some hours of his
relaxation in home-work. But at the end of the week, there is the visible
increment of fifteen shillings. Before 1870 all that belonged legally to the
husband, since that time it belongs nominally to the wife. That is the
meaning of the Married Women’s Property Bill. A husband should support a
wife, but the money she earns she may keep to herself. But it is hard on
wives and mothers that their share in the common property should be
unrecognised when their toil is continued under the ordinary domestic
conditions; but be recognised when circumstances or inclination make it
possible for them to seek a visible money reward elsewhere.
We will take another example from a higher rank. Suppose a man has
£300 a year, and is left a widower with four young children, he at once feels
the diminution of his income, through the increase of his needs. He must
have a housekeeper, at a salary, at least, of £25. Her keep costs him another
£30. He must find a daily governess to teach the children, and walk with
them. Without keep that may cost another £25. He has to pay the
dressmaker for making and repairing the children’s clothes, at least £10. He
has to pay workmen to hang pictures, put up curtains, to paint the back-
garden fence, or enamel the nursery bath; to cover the drawing-room chairs,
or patch the dining-room sofa, quite £10 a year. His wife’s whole keep had
been saved through greater care in purchasing and managing food, and
higher skill in cooking than either his housekeeper or assistant-girl
possesses; and the man has not only lost the love and comfort of his wife,
but the £100 a year which she indirectly earned for him. He thought his
income was £300 and was all his own; he finds it had been really £400, as
compared to the present receipts of expenditure, and that the missing £100
had been earned by her. He would have found this out had he allowed her to

give music-lessons as she wished to do, a light labour that she loved. Or she
might have written that weekly letter to the country paper she was asked to
do. She might have earned £100 a year at that, and that money would have
been her own to spend in luxury or charity if she pleased, or to have saved
up for her children’s future. But then his tradesmen’s bills would have been
increased. It is absurd, therefore, to believe that a wife’s earnings are
limited to those hours that she takes from her husband’s service and sells to
some other employer of labour, who pays her in so much coin of the realm.
But the partner that touches the coin seems always to take the lead. We
may see this in the circumstances where the positions are altered, as, for
instance, among many fishing communities. There, though the men go out
at night and fish, the women not only do their domestic work, but receive
the fish, go out and sell it, make the necessary purchases, and “bank” the
remainder of the money. The superior intelligence and relative social
position of the women in fishing communities has often been noted. I have
heard it scornfully said of a fisher-girl, “She marry? Why, she is not able to
keep a man!” In this illustrative case, the woman holds the purse, and her
share in the family earnings is recognised.
Now, if privilege is based on property, and property is based on labour,
how is an industrious woman shut out from the benefits of both? Why must
the man only have the earner’s vote? One vivifying revelation of our half-
century is the recognition of the nobility of labour. No one has so gracefully
expressed it as Mrs. Barret Browning in “Aurora Leigh,” when, urging all
to work, she adds:
“Get leave to work;
In this world ’tis the best you get at all,
For God in cursing, gives us better gifts
Than man in benediction.”

But even with her it was too much work for its own sake. It has taken
fuller education, even since her time, for women to recognise that it is
equally noble and just for them to receive the reward of toil in earning as it
is for a man; and to be able to keep or use these earnings as they will. A
century ago, men suffered somewhat from the state of things they had
themselves initiated. An eldest son that received all the inheritance and
privilege had therewith to support the women of his father’s family as well
as of his own. It was disgraceful for him as well as for them that they
should earn money. But they gave him labour, acting as upper servants,
butts of ridicule, as the case might be, or blind worshippers when all the
outer world had learned to disbelieve in him. Their recreation was the
manufacture of useless Berlin-wool monstrosities; or self-sacrificing work
in pauperising the poor of the parish, under the misdirection of a callow
curate. Higher education was discredited; literary aspiration a shame-faced
secret. Miss Austen had to hide her pen and ink and manuscripts by a piece
of fancy-work kept handy, lest her world should know and speak its mind of
her and her dreadful doings. The only profession open to a lady was
matrimony; and the chances of happy matrimony were thereby enormously
decreased.
If the dignity of being able to earn money has raised women immensely
in social life, their higher education has made this earning possible.
Dependent sisters need no longer hang their heads in shame before
supporting brothers. If they are not needed in their homes, they may go
forth into the world, eat the sweet bread of honest labour, and become
individuals.
But the woman is fettered still by the trammels of custom, by the
protection accorded to males; false social and economic creeds which teach
that man’s work must be paid higher than woman’s, whether it is better
done or not; by men’s power of place, which gives them power of veto; by
inherited thought-fallacies and linguistic inaccuracies; by the nature of the
medium through which things are seen.

Bacon wisely advised men to study all things in the “lumen siccum” or
dry light of science, lest vapours arising from the mind should obscure the
vision. He also pointed out that “There are four classes of Idols which beset
men’s minds. To these for distinction sake I have assigned names—calling
the first class Idols of the Tribe; the second, Idols of the Cave; the third,
Idols of the Market-place; the fourth, Idols of the Theatre” (“Novum
Organum,” Article xxxix., p. 53; also in lix.). “But the Idols of the Market-
place are the most troublesome of all; idols which have crept into the
understanding through the alliances of words and names. For men believe
that their reason governs words; but it is also true that words react on the
understanding.” Is the word “man” a common or masculine term?
After an impartial analysis of the laws regarding women, can men say
that they are just? Can they continue to assert that they know better than
women do what they need, and wish, and strain after; and if they know, will
they do the thing that is necessary? With the best will in the world, which I
believe the majority of men have, they do not know how. Only the foot that
wears the shoe knows just where it pinches, and feels keenly the need of
alteration.
Why must a woman be unable to free herself from an unfaithful husband
if his hand is restrained from personal cruelty?
Why may a noble and loving mother have less power over the children
she bore, and toiled for, than a selfish, indifferent father, who still “has
sacred rights, because he has sacred duties” that he has despised?
Why must strong men inherit their father’s unwilled property before
weak women?
Why must a bad workman be paid higher wages than a good
workwoman?
Why are all laws in regard to vice notoriously unequal?

Why have labouring men the right injuriously to determine the conditions
and opportunities of the labour of women working by their side?
It is because men are represented in Parliament and women are not.
“The House of Commons is as sensitive to the claims of the Represented
as the mercury is to the weather.” If women, oppressed by various burdens,
wish their will should reach the House, they must be given a voice. The
only method by which the needs and wishes of women can be considered
duly is by classing them once more among the “represented.” In vain
otherwise will they look to their friends in the House to help various Bills
they desire to pass, or to restrain other Bills they desire not to pass. It is not
their friends they require to affect, it is their opponents. And their opponents
can only be converted to the woman’s cause when women become Electors.
That Bills affecting the liberties of more than half of the whole population
should be left in the hands of “private members,” that they should be left to
the chance of a private members’ ballot, that a Machinery Bill, or any other
Bill affecting the interests of the smallest class of Electors, should be
allowed to “talk out” the limited time allowed for the discussion of a
question of such magnitude, shows the peculiar and sinister aspect in which
Bills affecting the “unrepresented” can be viewed.
Archimedes of old said that he could move the world if he had but a
“place where to stand.” If women want to move their world, to affect its
destinies and their own, they too must have a place where to stand, and the
place where to stand is the Suffrage.
“I trust the suffrage will be extended on good old English principles, and
in conformity with good old English notions of representation” (“Essay on
the Constitution,” by Lord Russell).
What these were I have attempted to show.
Apart from the special measures urgently needed on behalf of women,
most public measures affect them equally with men.

A woman grocer is as much interested in Sugar Bounties and in Tea-taxes
as her male rivals.
A woman housekeeper needs as much to be protected against the
imposition of frozen home or foreign meat, at fresh English prices, as does
the burdened British farmer.
All women suffer as much in War, and gain as much by Peace as men do.
Noxious trades, impure air, bad drainage, poison women as they do men.
Women have as much interest in the character and wisdom of the members
of the house as men have, because they also suffer from the consequences
of their unwise actions. How, therefore, can anyone say—these things do
not concern women?
It would be better for men too, if women were represented. They would
then understand the meaning of Justice, and enjoy the return blessings of
fair-play. They would discover that in the very difference of women lies one
great argument for their being consulted.
If public-spirited women continue to be denied the power of offering
their judgment in the consensus of public opinion on political matters, the
nation will be the poorer. It will ere long recognise this. But it does not yet.
How can any Assembly be said to be “Representative of the People,”
when the best half of the People are not represented there; the best half in
numbers, through the working out of the modern doctrine of the Survival of
the Fittest; the best half by Statistics, as there are five times as many male
criminals as female; the best half, by the position in which God placed
woman at the Creation, at the Fall, and the Redemption. If it starts under
false pretences how can it do the best possible to itself?
There is a strange suggestive duality even in our physical frame. We have
two eyes, two ears, two hands, two feet, many other dualities, and two lobes
of the brain to control them. If by any cause one lobe of the brain is injured,
it is the other side of the body that becomes paralysed, but the whole body

suffers with its members. If men persist in using only one eye, they not only
see things out of focus, but restrict their range of vision. They can only see
things on the near side of them. A Government that only uses the masculine
eye, and sees but the masculine side of things, is at best but a one-eyed
Government. The builder that only toils with one hand impoverishes
himself, and makes meaner the design of the great Architect. The traveller
that through some brain-sick fancy imagines one of his feet to be decrepit,
can get along but by hops and jerks, or by using crutches made of dead
wood, instead of living limbs that make motion graceful, equal, and rapid.
Yet thus men do, wondering, meanwhile, that the “times are out of joint.”
Let them apply reason to their time-worn aphorisms, and the scales of
justice to their out-worn Customs. Let them look at Humanity as it is, and
as it ought to be.
Two comparisons will help them in the review, their comparison with
their ancestors in this respect, and their comparison with “the perfect man in
Christ Jesus,” and his “perfect Law of Liberty.”
For Revelation has enriched our education. Through much
misconstruction and misconception the vision of Creation has been
coloured by the prejudice of men.
God made man in His own image, male and female; man has made him
altogether male. The Creator said, “It is not good for man to be alone.” His
creature asserts, “It is best for us to be alone.” But it never has been good; it
is not good now. Only in following out the lines of God’s conception can
man (homo) remain in the image of God. Early names were all connotative,
recording some special quality or association, and the early name of Adam
was “Dust,” and the meaning of Eve is “Life.” The Titanic and Earth-born
Physical force of which Adam was made the representative, must be united
to that which lives and brings Life, to make one perfect being. Only through
the spiritual and practical union of Man with Woman can society be
regenerated. When Woman ate of the Tree of the knowledge of Good and

Evil, she learned more clearly to distinguish the good from the evil and to
choose that good. Therefore, God chose the Woman as His fellow-worker in
the scheme of Redemption. As part of the curse of Satan it is part of the
primeval blessing of Humanity, that “I will put enmity between thee and the
Woman.” The hands that restrict the Woman’s power, and limit her
opportunity of fulfilling her mission, are fighting against God’s Will.
The words of God, “Thy desire shall be unto thy husband, and he shall
rule over thee,” is a prophecy of man’s wrong and not a statute of man’s
right. To understand this we have only to collate the passage with that other
in which God speaks to Cain before he slew his brother—“If thou doest
well shalt thou not be accepted, and if thou doest not well sin lieth at the
door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.”
The result of the first “physical force argument” was the death of the
“righteous Abel.” The result of the same argument, through centuries of
human existence, has been the death-in-life of the Woman whom God
opposed to Satan. And the paralysis of the half has affected the whole body
Social and Politic.
The Divine and Human are united through the Woman.
It is only by the representative Woman that Christ becomes the “Son of
Man.” i
Christ, as His Father did, took women to be His friends and fellow-
workers. Women never forsook Him. Woman watched by His cradle and
spread the “glad tidings” ere yet He had opened His lips. Fearless women
stood by His Cross and saw the last of His life; faithful women went to the
Tomb and learned first of His Resurrection.
Through the ages, the contest between Satan and the Woman and
between the Seed of Satan and the Seed of the Woman, has been made
unduly hard both for Man and Woman, because of the Woman being bound
both hand and foot. “The Dragon was wroth with the Woman and went to

make war with the Remnant of her Seed which keep the Commandments of
God, and have the Testimony of Jesus Christ” (Rev. xii. 17).
Let her have Freedom and Fair Play. Let her show what, God helping her,
she can do, when men cease hindering her in the development of Herself.
They also will be gainers thereby. It will seem a new Creation when the
earlier-born Freeman meets the later-born Freewoman and recognises at last
that it was not good for him to have been so long alone. For any Moral
Regeneration, or for any Political Stability, men must learn to distinguish
Good from Evil, Justice from short-sighted Selfishness, and to see, in the
recognition of Woman as a help-meet for them in all things, the fulfilment
of God’s Will in regard to both.
The Truth shall make you Free!

THE END.

A P P E N D I X.
[i.—“Eldest daughters,” page 16.] This custom was not clear among the
Normans. In one well-known case at least, the younger sisters were made
Abbesses or otherwise disposed of, and the eldest made by the Norman law
sole heir. Mabile, eldest daughter of Robert Fitzhaymo, was heir of all his
lands, and King Henry I. wished to marry her to his illegitimate son Robert.
This she long withstood, giving as her reason that she would not have a man
for her husband that had not two names. When the King remedied that by
calling his son Fitz Roy, she said, “That is a fair name as long as he shall
live, but what of his son and his descendants?” The King then offered to
make him Earl of Gloucester. “Sir,” quoth the maiden, “then I like this well;
on these terms I consent that all my lands shall be his” (Robert of
Gloucester’s “Brut,” and Seyers’ “Memoirs of Bristol,” p. 353).]
[ii.—“The Countess Lucy,” page 51.] It is accepted that Anglo-Saxon
Earls had only official dignity which was not hereditary. But the inheritance
of the lands generally carried the other privileges. Lucy was certainly made
Countess of Chester by her third husband, but in some authorities she is
entitled Countess of Bolingbroke, as in her own right. In Selby’s
“Genealogist,” 1889, there is a long discussion on the point, Who was the
Countess Lucy? She is ordinarily considered the grand-daughter of Leofric,
Earl of Mercia (who died in 1057), and of his wife the famous Lady

Godiva, who survived the Conquest. Their son Alfgar, Earl of Mercia, twice
rebelled against the Confessor, and died in 1059. Lucy’s two brothers were
Edwin, Earl of Mercia, and Morcar, Earl of Northumbria; her sister Edgiva
married first, Griffith of Wales, and second, King Harold. Edwin and
Morcar were almost the only English nobles permitted by the Conqueror to
retain their lands. Lucy inherited much from her father, probably with the
Saxon privilege of the “youngest born,” and afterwards more from her
brothers. She married three Norman husbands, with whom she held the
position of a great heiress. This is the view Dugdale takes. Others imagine,
from her longevity, there must have been two Lucys. The writer in “The
Genealogist” thinks, with good reason, that this Lucy was not the daughter
of Alfgar, but the only daughter and heiress of Thorold, the Sheriff of
Lincoln.]
[iii.—“Women’s service,” page 63.] “Margeria de Cauz has the gift of the
lands of Landford, held by the Serjeanty of keeping the Falcons of our Lord
the King” (Berkshire Survey. Testa de Neville. Ed. III.)
Many other women are entered as performing military service, or paying
other duties.]
[iv.—“Women’s Guilds,” page 83.] Ed. III. imposed limitations upon
men’s labour, but leaves women the privilege to work free. “Mais
l’intention du roi et de son conseil est que femmes cestassavoir
brasceresces, pesteresces, texteresces, fileresces, et œvresces si bien de
layne come de leinge toille, et de soye, brandestesters, pyneresces de layne
et totes autres que usent œveront œveraynes manuels puissent user et
œverer franchement come els ont fait avant ces hures sanz mal
empeschementou estre restreint par ceste ordeignance.” (Rot. Parl., 37 Ed.
III., c. 6.) This is important in relation to modern legislation about women’s
freedom to labour.]
[v.—“Free Kent,” page 91.]

“Oh, noble Kent, quoth he, this praise doth thee belong,
The hard’st to be control’d, impatientest of wrong;
Who, when the Norman first with pride and horror swayed,
Threw’st off the servile yoke upon the English laid;
And with a high resolve, most bravely didst restore
That liberty so long enjoyed by thee before,
Not suffering foreign laws shall thy free customs bind.
Then only showd’st thyself of th’ ancient Saxon kind.
Of all the English Shires be thou surnam’d the Free,
And foremost ever placed, when they shall reckoned be.”

(Drayton’s “Poly-Olbion.” Ed. 1738, Song 18th, p. 33.)
In Testa de Neville, and Rotuli Hundredorum, the large proportion of
women’s names as owners of land, in Kent, proves the difference wrought
by the working of the Saxon Inheritance Laws.]
[vi.—“The learned Selden,” page 99.] Selden writes warmly in favour of
women, and quotes many authorities in support of his opinion. Besides
those that have been quoted, we may notice that he refers to Sir Thomas
More’s Utopia. “Plato allowed women to govern, nor did Aristotle
(whatever the Interpreters of his Politics foolishly say) take from them that
privilege. Vertue shuts no door against anybody, any sex, but freely admits
all. And Hermes Trismegistus, that thrice great man, in his Poemander,
according to his knowledge of Heavenly concerns (and that sure was great
in comparison of what the owl-eyed Philosophers had) he ascribes the
mystical name of Male-Female to the great Understanding, to wit, God the
Governor of the Universe” (“Janus Anglorum”).]
[vii.—“Sir Edward Coke,” page 104.] In Foss’s “Lives of the Judges of
England,” VI. 112, he says, “In the trial of Essex, he gave the first specimen
of that objurgatory and coarse style, which makes his oratory so painfully
remembered.” He also tells about his unhappy second marriage, and its

ominous opening. In the Trials for the Murder of Sir Thomas Overburg,
Foss says, “Guilty, as the parties undoubtedly were, Coke conducted the
Trial most unfairly.” In regard to the suspicions attending the death of
Prince Henry, Sir Anthony Weldon records—“It was intended the Law
should run in its proper channel, but was stopt and put out of its course, by
the folly of that great Clerke, though no wise man, Sir Edward Coke” (“The
Court and Character of King James”). Sir E. Conway writes in 1624—“Sir
Edward Coke would die, if he could not help to ruin a great man once in
seven years.” “Butler notices that Coke had not studied the Feudal Law”
(“Dict. Nat. Biog.”). This may account for his ignorance of the powers of
women. “The Lord Coke in his Preface to Littleton, thinks Littleton’s
Tenures were first printed in 24 Hen. VIII; my Lord was mistaken” (J.
Anstiss Nicholl’s “Illustrations of Literature”).
In 1620 Coke was intrusted with the drawing up of the Charge against
Bacon. Macaulay says, “For the first time in his life, he behaved like a
gentleman.” He who drew up the famous “Petition of Rights” for men, has
by his careless or premeditated words drawn up also the plea of
disfranchisement for women.]
[viii.—“Judge or Jury,” page 106.] There are numerous instances in old
records of women acting as Judges or Jury, at least in women’s cases. “On
1st February, 1435, Parochia Edlyngeham, Margareta Lyndseay contra
Johannem de Longcaster, Johannem Somerson, Johannem Symson,
Diflamata quod fuit incantatrix ... negavit et purgavit se cum Agnete
Wright, Christiana Ansom, Alicia Faghar, Emmota Letster, Alicia Newton,
et restituta est ad famen, et Johannes Longcaster, Johannes Somerson,
Johannes Symson, moniti sunt sub pœna excommunicationis quod de cetero
talia non prædicent de ipsa.”
On 3rd October, 1443, “Beatrix Atkynson and Margareta Donyll habent
ad purgandum se cum 6th manu mulierum honestarum vicinarum suarum”

(“Depositions from the Court of Durham, Surtees Society,” p. 28, 29). See
also “Liber Albus.”]
[ix.—“Physical Force Argument,” page 163.] “The Lord Marquis of
Hamilton’s Mother commands a Regiment, and leade them into
Edenboroughe with a case of pistols at her saddle, and a case at her side.
Our ladys are not more skilfull in curlinge and poudringe then the
Scotchwomen in charging and discharging their pistols.” (Letter from Sir
Henry Herbert, Edinburgh, June, 1639. “Letters of the Herbert Family.”)
The Women Volunteer Movement of to-day shews that the spirit of courage
and patriotism is not yet extinct.
In Somerset, “One of the ferdell-holders (i.e., holder of a quarter of a
virgate of land) found all the Blacksmith’s work for the Lord’s horses and
ploughs, and at the time of the compilation of the Custumal of Bleadon in
the 13th Century,” this RENT for her land was paid by the widow Alicia as
Common Smith of the Vill or Manor. (“Papers on the Custumal of Bleadon,
as illustrative of the History and Antiquities of Wilts,” 1857, p. 193.)]
[x.—“Women and the Universities,” page 155.]—The Universities of
this country have for some time recognised in a gracious, but far-off way,
the industrial and educational needs of outsiders. The University Local
Examinations, the University Extension Lectures, etc., instituted through
consideration of the intellectual advance of the people, have always been
open to women as well as to men. But the relations of women to
Universities, where they suffer, or have suffered disabilities on the ground
of their sex alone, are anomalous.
The younger Universities are generally more liberal to women than the
older ones. Yet there is no universal rule, based upon observable conditions.
The general uncertainty makes the position of things as they are, worth
noting. Taking the Universities, not in the chronological order of their
foundation, but in the order of their opening to women, the oldest is the
London University. It may be considered as a foundation either old or

young. In 1548, Sir Thomas Gresham founded in London, chairs for
Divinity, Music, Astronomy, Geometry, Law, Physic and Rhetoric, a liberal
course for his days. In Stow’s “Annals,” 1615, there is a notice of “the three
famous Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and London.” I do not now go
into its claims to the title at that period.
On 19th August, 1835, the Duke of Somerset and others petitioned for a
Charter for London University, and in November of that year the words
were added to their claim—“It should always be kept in mind that what is
sought on the present occasion is an equality in all respects with the ancient
Universities, freed from those exclusions and religious distinctions which
abridge the usefulness of Cambridge and Oxford.” Their demand was
granted, and London University refounded, but it was only men who were
“freed from those exclusions.” Its first Charter was formally renewed in the
beginning of the present reign, and a supplementary Charter in 1850
permitted it to affiliate certain Colleges, but later on, its duty became
limited to Examination. The actual Charter by which it is now governed is
that of January 6th, 1863. In 1807 another Charter conferred upon the
University the power of instituting special examinations for women. In the
same year the Reform Act gave the graduates the right to send one
Representative member to Parliament. The Examinations for Women did
not thrive. It was found they did not want a system devised exclusively for
their use. After much discussion, the Senate and Convocation agreed to
accept from the Crown in 1878 a supplemental Charter, making every
Degree, Honour, and Prize awarded by the University, accessible to both
sexes on perfectly equal terms. The University of London was thus the first
Academic body in the United Kingdom to admit women as Candidates for
Degrees. This supplement decrees that “5. All the powers and provisions
relating to the granting of Degrees and Certificates of Proficiency contained
in our said recited Letters Patent of the 6th day of January in the 26th of our
reign shall henceforward be read and construed as applying to women as
well as to men, and that, except as hereinafter mentioned, all the parts of the

same Letters Patent shall be read and construed as if the extended powers
hereby conferred were contained in the same Letters Patent.”
“6. And further, know ye that we do in like manner will and ordain that
notwithstanding anything in our said Letters Patent of the sixth day of
January in the twenty-sixth year of our reign to the contrary, no Female
Graduate of the said University shall be a member of the Convocation of
the said University unless and until such Convocation shall have passed a
resolution that Female Graduates be admitted to Convocation.” Later,
Convocation did pass that resolution. Women are now admitted to their
general Council. The recording of their vote for their member of Parliament
depends on other decisions. “The Visitor,” is a woman, our Queen.
Therefore women cannot complain much of London University. There, they
have had a fair field and no favour. The records of the results can be
followed in the University Calendars. Women have attained a very good
position, and many honours in proportion to the relative number of their
candidates.
As London University grants degrees to all capable persons whether
educated in Academic haunts or private homes, there are no Colleges that
can be said to be “affiliated.” But there are several Colleges that prepare
students definitely for the London Examinations. Chief of these is
University College, London. There, since the opening of London
University, women have been freely admitted to all the instruction in the
Science and Arts Classes, with their prizes and honours. They require the
recommendation of the Lady Principal (Miss Morison) before admission as
students, but that can be easily attained by those really desirous of attending
the classes. Wives and daughters of Members of Senate or former Members
of Senate are admitted free, and without recommendation in the same
manner as are sons of the same gentlemen.
The medical classes are, however, still closed, and women have to be
trained in Medicine in their own Medical School in 30 Handel Street,

whence they can take London Degrees. During the past year 143 women
students attended the College, and 14 have been registered as full medical
practitioners. Admission to the legal practice of Medicine is regulated by
the General Medical Council of Great Britain and Ireland in accordance
with the powers conferred by Act of Parliament upon that body, under
whom are 20 examining boards. Women educated in this school are eligible
also to the exams. of the Society of Apothecaries, London, and to other
examinations in other University centres. The British Medical Association
is now opened to them. King’s College, Strand, admits women, but they are
kept apart. What is called “The Ladies’ Department” is at 13 Kensington
Square, a thriving centre. They can there prepare for London University
Exams.
The Mason College founded in Birmingham by Sir Joshua Mason, Knt.,
23rd February, 1875, opened by Prof. Huxley, in 1880, admits men and
women on the same terms.
Aberystwyth University College of North Wales was opened in 1871, and
there were women students in the musical department in its early years. The
first woman admitted to full College Course was one who took an
Exhibition of £15 in 1884. There was no mention of sex in the Charter of
the College, and therefore she only asked admission, and was received. The
number of women students gradually increased, and after various attempts,
a Hostel was founded for their reception, and residence made compulsory
for all students not living with parents or guardians. A rapid increase ensued
in the number of women students, under the wise care of Miss Carpenter,
and they now number over 120. All prizes, the “open” scholarships, are free
to women, as well as the Associateship of the College. In the London
exams. the Aberystwyth women students have done well. Other Welsh
Colleges receive women. This year the united Colleges of Wales have
applied for a University Charter, and the Professorships, as well as
Studentships, are opened to women.

We cannot go into full details of all the Colleges that send up women
students to London University Examinations.

Dublin University, founded in 1591, was incorporated in 1593, and other
colleges were afterwards affiliated. In 1869, women were admitted to
Queen’s College Examinations.
The Charter of the Royal University of Ireland in 1880, decided that “all
Degrees, Honours, Exhibitions, Prizes and Scholarships in this University
are open to students of either sex.” The Royal University of Ireland,
absorbing the old Queen’s University, the offices and emoluments of the
one University merely passed on to the other, with fuller powers and wider
scope. It is now also an examining body as is London.
At the commencement of the Royal University, many qualified women
students attained the degrees thereby thrown open to them. Since that time
665 women have been granted B.A. degrees, 90 M.A., 22 LL.D., and 20
LL.B. The old Queen’s Colleges of Belfast, Cork, Galway and others,
prepare students for the Royal University, private students having, however,
the same privileges.
As all prizes and exhibitions are said to be open to all matriculated
students of the Colleges, some time ago Miss Lee (daughter of the Late
Archdeacon Lee of Dublin), now Principal of the Old Hall at Newnham
College, was proposed for a Fellowship. She only gained 4 votes, one being
that of Archbishop Trench; but the fact of her being proposed and voted for
at all, showed that her sex did not exclude her from competition. The Act
under which the Royal University was founded, excludes women from
Convocation, unless they were members of the Senate. Convocation at
present consists of the Senate, and of qualified male Graduates. The Senate,
however, at first appointed by the Queen, consists of 36 Senators and one
Chancellor, and except 6 Graduates, afterwards elected by Convocation, it

does not exclude women. The word used in the Charter is invariably
“person.”

The Royal Charter of the Victoria University is dated 20th April, 1880,
which incorporates Owen’s College, Manchester; University College,
Liverpool; and Yorkshire College, Leeds, with freedom to admit other
Colleges. It makes no distinction of sex. It says:—
“IV. The University shall have power to grant and confer all such degrees
and other distinctions as now or at any time hereafter can be granted and
conferred by any other University in our United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland, to and on all persons, male or female, who shall have pursued a
regular course of Study in a College in the University and shall submit
themselves for Examination.”
Medicine and Surgery degrees are here excepted. The supplemental
Charter of 20th March, 1893, however, ordains:—
“I. The Victoria University shall have power to grant and confer to and
on all persons, whether male or female ... Degrees and Certificates of
Proficiency in Medicine and Surgery.”
The Medical Degrees are therefore theoretically open to women. But the
characteristic of the Victoria University is, that it examines those only who
have gone through a course of study in each subject of examination in a
College of the University, and the privileges of the University depend upon
the arrangements made at the Colleges. The Medical Schools at all three
Colleges are still closed to women, and therefore the Victoria University
medical degrees are practically dependent on extraneous teaching. If
women want a medical degree “they must study for two years, in one of the
affiliated Colleges, and take their medical classes at a recognised school
such as Queen Margaret College, Glasgow, or the Medical School for
Women, Edinburgh.”

Women were admitted to some classes in Owen’s College, Manchester,
in 1876. All the Science and Arts classes are now open, but Biology, and
some of the Laboratories are closed. In the junior classes men and women
are taught separately, though the examinations are the same. The
Department for Women of Owen’s College, Manchester, is at 223
Brunswick Street.
At the two younger colleges of Liverpool and Leeds; all Classes and
Laboratories are open to women, except in the Medical School.
A fair proportion of women’s names appear in the Degree Lists and in the
Prize Lists. Several women are members of Convocation, and there will
soon be more. Many of them are Associates of their College. Besides full
Degrees, there are Certificates of Proficiency granted by this University to
women. All University prizes are open to women, and the majority of
College Prizes.

Edinburgh University was founded in 1582 on the site of the lonely Kirk
of Field, where Darnley met his death. The present building, however, now
called the Old University, was only begun in 1739. It is to this College
alone that women are as yet admitted. The University New Buildings,
commenced in 1878, were partly opened for teaching purposes in 1880, and
completed in 1888. This has been handed over to the great “School of
Medicine,” of Edinburgh University. The McEwan Hall for public
Academic Ceremonials and for the conferring of Degrees was completed
the year before last, and some women graced its first public function.
Edinburgh retains the honour of having been the earliest place in the
British Islands where women were admitted to the advantages of a
University education. Mrs. Crudelius in 1866 conceived the idea, and with
an ever-increasing army of sympathisers, she formed in 1867 the
“Edinburgh Association for the Higher Education of Women,” afterwards
entitled the “Edinburgh Association for the University Education of

Women.” This did good work. In the session 1867-8 a class was opened in a
separate hall, in which Professor Masson delivered his University Lectures
on English Literature, 265 women enrolling themselves as students.
Encouraged by their success, in November, 1868, a second winter session,
the Association arranged for three classes in three departments, “the
Literary,” represented by Professor Masson’s on English Literature, in
which 129 women appeared; “the Scientific,” represented by Professor
Tait’s class of Experimental Physics, in which 141 women entered; and “the
Philosophical,” represented by Professor Fraser’s Lectures on Logic and
Psychology, the first time such a course had been offered to women, and 65
women took advantage of it. The quality of the work done both in
Examinations and Essays, showed that Intellect was of no Sex. The
Association worked on patiently through the years, more and more gaining
the sympathy and co-operation of the University, which soon granted
Certificates for proficiency in any three subjects, proved in examinations of
the M.A. Standard, the first of which was gained in 1873. Separate Honours
Examinations were also instituted.
Later, a higher Certificate, called a Diploma, was offered to those who
had passed in seven subjects of M.A. Standard, one at least in Honours. The
first was gained in 1875, before any other Scottish University had
considered the needs of women, and before London or Dublin had opened
their doors. The disturbances made against the attempts by women to gain
admission to the medical school, had made it more difficult for the
Association to gain what it desired, the opening of the Art Classes and
Degrees to women. But it lived to make warm friends among members of
the University Senate who were at first its foes. The Scottish Universities
Bill coming into force the year before last, empowered the several Scotch
Universities to open their doors to women in their own time and in their
own way. Women students were to matriculate under the same conditions as
men.
Ordinance 18. IX.

“1. It shall be in the power of the University Court of each University to
admit women to graduation in such Faculty or Faculties as the said court
may think fit.
“2. It shall be competent to the University Court of each University to
make provision within the University for the instruction of women in any of
the subjects taught by the University either by admitting them to the
ordinary classes, or by instituting separate classes for their instruction. Such
classes shall be conducted by the Professors in the several subjects, or by
Lecturers specially appointed for the purpose by the University Court,
provided always that the Court shall not institute classes where men and
women shall be taught together, except after consultation with the Senatus,
and provided also that no Professor whose commission is dated before the
approval of this ordinance by Her Majesty in council shall be required,
without his consent, to conduct classes to which women are admitted.
“3. The conditions for graduation within any Faculty in which women are
admitted to graduation shall be the same for women as for men, with the
exceptions,” that there are advantages offered at present to women which
may be classified under the name of Retrospective Recognition. “So long as
provision is not made for the education of women in any University,
qualifications gained at other recognised centres will be accepted as
preparing for examinations and degrees.”
“4. So long as provision is not made for the education of women in
Medicine, the University is empowered to admit to graduation women
trained at other home or foreign Universities. So soon as, within any of the
said Faculties in any University, provision is made for the instruction of
women in all subjects qualifying for graduation, ... the conditions for the
graduation of women within such Faculty shall be the same as the
conditions for the graduation of men.
“5. Women who had begun their studies in recognised University classes
before this date to be admitted to graduation, as if they had been members

of the University and, if they had passed in the specified seven subjects
qualifying for M.A., to receive that degree without further examination.”
The result of this concession is that eight ladies received the degree of
M.A. of Edinburgh University, and several more will be qualified through
the next Examination. Those who take their Degree will be admitted to the
General Council. Therefore, Edinburgh stands at the head of the Scotch
Universities in the order of time of the admission of women. She will have
several women graduates before any other University can present one. That,
of course, was only made possible by her efforts commencing earlier, and
her work being more systematic. One hundred and thirty-four women in all
have taken at least three of the subjects towards their Degree Examination.
Edinburgh has simply admitted women to mixed Classes in the Old
University, with all privileges in Arts. About one hundred and twenty
women have matriculated this session. A Hall of Residence is now being
built for women, to be called the Masson Hall, in commemoration of the
life-long devotion of Professor David Masson to the cause of Women.
The New University Building, the School of Medicine, is still closed. But
women have now fuller opportunities granted them of studying in the
“Medical College for Women,” 30 Chambers Street, Edinburgh, with liberty
of clinical instruction in the Royal Infirmary. This College was founded by
the Scottish Association for the Medical Education of Women, the
arrangements for teaching and fees being the same as those of the School of
Medicine, the Teachers and Lecturers being duly qualified Lecturers of the
School of Medicine, and the classes recognised as the Extra-Mural School.
Since degrees can be taken in London, Victoria, and elsewhere, the prime
difficulties in the medical education of women are practically overcome.
Thirty-four women at present attend these classes.

St. Andrews University was founded in 1411; and besides its own
colleges, it has affiliated to it, “University College,” Dundee. This famous

University has long been friendly to women. In 1876, it added to the
ordinary local Certificates a new and higher “Certificate for women” in
three subjects, of the same standard as the M.A. Degrees; and later on an
examination in seven subjects secured a Diploma with the Title L.A., and
the privilege of being allowed to wear the University Badges. As residence
at the University was not necessary, and as there was no limiting clause as
to age, though the questions were hard, and the standard high, these
examinations became very popular. In 1892, there were 700 candidates at
36 centres, among which were Berlin, Birmingham, Constantinople, Cork,
Dresden, Dublin, Edinburgh, London, Marseilles, Pietermaritzburg, Seville,
Truro, Uitenhage, and Wolfenbüttel. They have thus spread widely over the
continent of Europe, and invitations have been sent to form centres in
America, which are now under consideration. This Diploma is recognised
as equivalent to the “Brèvet Superieur” for admission to the Sorbonne
Examinations in Paris.
Some of the St. Andrews Professors had given lectures to women in the
neighbouring town of Dundee as well as in St. Andrews. So the soil was
prepared for the passing of the Scottish Universities Bill. St. Andrews nobly
went as far as it could, in fulfilling these, and therefore in the University
Calendar for the session appears, “The University Court of the University
of St. Andrews, in consultation with the Senatus Academicus, has resolved
to open all its classes in Arts, Science, Theology and Medicine to women
students. Women may henceforward matriculate as Students of the
University and be admitted to any class or classes they may select, with a
view to graduation in Arts, Science, Theology or Medicine. In the year 1893
a sum of £30,000 will become available for Bursaries or Scholarships at the
University, one half of which is reserved for women students exclusively;
those who intend to enter the Medical Profession having a prior claim to
these Bursaries, though they are tenable while Arts and Science Classes are
being attended. A Hall of Residence for women students will be instituted,
where they can live together under a head.” Mrs. Morrison Duncan of

Naughton’s liberality has made it possible to offer ten Bursaries to women
at the very outset of their career. Nineteen women matriculated in October.
The LL.A. examinations will go on all the same for those who cannot attend
the University.

Glasgow University was founded in 1450, by a Bull from Pope Nicholas
V. After the Reformation, in 1577, James VI. gave it a new Charter.
Glasgow University has some special claims to notice in the way that it has
followed the lines of the Scottish Universities Acts of last year.
In 1876 a movement for the University Education of Women was
initiated, and the Glasgow Association for the Higher Education of Women
founded. Shortly afterwards a liberal friend gave ground and funds to build
a College for women, to be called the Queen Margaret College. There the
University Professors and Assistants have lectured, good work has been
done and examinations instituted. But when the ordinances of the Scottish
Universities Acts came into force in February, 1892, the existence of Queen
Margaret College endowment enabled the Glasgow Senatus to proceed on
different lines from the other Universities. The Executive Council of Queen
Margaret’s College arranged to hand over to the University the College
Buildings, grounds and endowment, on condition that they should be used
for University Classes for Women exclusively. Their College therefore
becomes University Property and Part of the University, and the old
Executive Council is about to dissolve. It is now governed by the University
Court and Senate, who make all the appointments and arrangements for
classes; the classes qualify for the University Degrees, in the same way as
the classes at Gilmore Hill, the Men’s University Buildings.
Students must matriculate as the men do; they have seats in the College
Chapel, use of the Libraries and Museums; the University prizes are open to
them, and graduates will be admitted to Convocation. There is a full
curriculum kept up in Arts and Medicine, and the girls who go up for

preliminary Arts, Science and Medicine Examinations and Degree
Examinations are examined along with the men, under the same conditions.
There is a good attendance at the classes, 86 having matriculated in Arts,
and 45 in Medicine, 131 in all compared with 1935 men students. The votes
of the undergraduate girls have been solicited already in the election of the
Lord Rector.
If the apparatus in the Queen Margaret College is not sufficient to
illustrate the Science and Medical Classes, the supply is supplemented from
the other building, or the girls may go there for demonstrations, at different
hours from the men. There are several women going up not only for
Preliminary exams. in Arts, but for Professional exams. in Medicine.
The relation between the two Colleges has been sometimes called
Affiliation. This is incorrect. Affiliation supposes a separate governing body
and other details of separate existence. At one time Affiliation was
suggested, but the Rulers of Queen Margaret College preferred that it
should be taken over and become a part of the University. The new
arrangement works very well, and in a large University like Glasgow the
women prefer it to mixed classes.
The Medical Department of the College is the only active School of
Medicine for women belonging to a University in this Country. As
applications are constantly being received, the number of its students is
likely to increase rapidly. After Matriculation, women are admitted to the
Hunterian Museum, have permission for the usual attendance in the Wards
and on the clinical Lectures at the Royal Infirmary. The classes in Medicine
being University classes, certificates of attendance thereon may be used by
those who propose to become Candidates for the degrees of the other
Scottish Universities, for those of the London University, Victoria
University, and the Royal University of Ireland, as well as for the
Qualification of the Scottish Corporations, the Colleges of Physicians and

Surgeons of Edinburgh and the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons of
Glasgow (Conjoint).
Glasgow University, like that of Edinburgh, for the time being, has made
those differences in favour of women that we call Retrospective
Recognition, of those who had attended classes in Queen Margaret College,
though there are none completely ready to take full advantage of it. As soon
as arrangements are fully made for their education, the conditions for
women will be the same as for men.

The University of Aberdeen was founded in 1494. Women’s claims on its
attention have not been so persistent as they have been in the Southern
Universities. But it rose to the new conditions of the Scottish Universities
Acts.
Ordinance No. 18 of the Universities Commission having passed, the
University Court of Aberdeen, on the recommendation of the Senatus,
resolved to admit women to Graduation in all Faculties. As to their
instruction, women are, within the University, on the same footing as men,
in the Faculties of Arts and Divinity, Science, and in the Faculty of Law,
except so far as the class of Medical Jurisprudence is concerned, which is
classified with the other Medical classes proper, in which the University has
meantime considered it not advisable to provide the necessary instruction.
Eleven women have matriculated this year and have commenced with the
Class of Literature. In answer to a question the Secretary of the Senatus
replied, “When we have any women Graduates, questions of their privileges
will have to be considered. But I can see no ground on which membership
in our General Council can be denied to them, except there be any legal
difficulty connected with the right of every member of Council to vote for
the M.P. for Glasgow and Aberdeen.”

Durham University was founded in 1832-33 by the Dean and Chapter of
Durham; the Newcastle-on-Tyne College of Medicine was made an integral
part of the University in 1870, the Newcastle College of Physical Science in
1871. There is no notice of Women in the Calendar. Women have from the
beginning been admitted to the classes of the College of Physical Science in
Newcastle, but not to the Medical College in Newcastle nor to the Durham
College itself. A strong petition was drawn up in 1881 to admit women to
full privileges in Durham, but Convocation refused to allow women
matriculation unless a Hostel were established, that is, they would have no
“unattached” women students. It is always difficult to find funds for the
needs of women, and the “Hostel” was not at once forthcoming.
Convocation assented to the following:—
“1. That female students who shall have fulfilled the requirements of the
University regarding residence and standing shall be admitted to the Public
Examinations and have first degree in Arts of the University.”
Then the University discovered, or thought it did, that by their Charter
they could not admit women to full Degrees, and so the matter dropped. In
Newcastle, however, women have gone on attending the classes. They can
go in for the same Examinations as men, and gain the Class Prizes, but they
are excluded from degrees. Titles such as A.S.C., “Associate of Science”;
C.E., “Civil Engineer”; L.S., “Licentiate in Surgery,” they may obtain.
Among the Students working for A.S.C., women are about 1 to 30. Among
the ordinary matriculated students, the average of the sexes are about equal.
Among non-matriculated students who attend such classes as Literature,
Fine Art, etc., the women are about 30 to 1.

When we come to the older Universities, it seems but just to consider the
women-benefactors as being related somehow to the Colleges; and through
them to the University itself.

The oldest College at Cambridge, St. Peter’s, was founded in 1284. The
second, Clare College, was founded in 1326 by the Lady Elizabeth, sister
and co-heir of Gilbert, Earl of Clare. Three scholarships in this college were
founded by Mrs. Tyldesley de Bosset.
Pembroke College or Valence-Mary, 1347, was founded by Mary de St.
Paul, widow of Aymer de Valence, Earl Pembroke.
Corpus Christi, 1352, was founded by the Guilds of Corpus Christi and
the Blessed Virgin Mary. These old Guilds had “sustren” as well as
“brethren” in their fraternity, and consequently women had something to do
with that foundation, however little it may generally be recognised.
Queen’s College was founded 1448, by Queen Margaret of Anjou, and
refounded by Elizabeth Widville, Queen of Ed. IV.
St. Catherine’s was founded 1473, by Dr. Robert Wodelarke, but large
benefactions from Mrs. Mary Ramsden endowed 14 scholarships. Other
benefactors were women.
Christ’s College, 1505, was refounded by Lady Margaret, Countess of
Richmond and Derby (mother of Henry VII.), and 2 scholarships were
given by Lady Drury.
St. John’s, 1511, was also founded by Lady Margaret (mother of Henry
VII.) and a fellowship was given by Lady Jane Rokeby.
Magdalen holds benefactions from the Countess of Warwick, Lady Anne
Wray, Mrs. Margaret Dongworth, and others.
To Trinity, 1546, Queen Mary added 20 scholarships. Mrs. Mednyanszky
is an important benefactor.
Sidney Sussex was founded 1594 by Lady Frances Sidney, Dowager
Duchess of Sussex.
These are some of the gifts women have given to Cambridge. It proves
that the sex valued and honoured learning.

Hitchin Temporary College was opened for women by the Cambridge
Association for the Education of Women, in Oct., 1869, and a rapid success
enabled the friends of women to incorporate Girton College, 1872, to which
the students removed in 1873, and Newnham was founded in Oct., 1875.
At first there was no connection with the University at all. Then women
were allowed to have examination papers, and to answer the questions, but
no information was given as to the Class of the Student except privately. No
official record was kept of these informal examinations. But in 1882 by a
grace of the Senate the examinations were thrown open to women students
of Girton and Newnham who had passed certain preliminary exams, and
had resided the proper number of terms, had paid the customary fees, and
had been recommended by the authorities of their College. Class Lists have
ever since been published in which the exact place of the women is
mentioned with regard to the men. Some women, such as Miss Ramsay and
Miss Fawcett, would have held the first place, had they been allowed to
take it. No Prizes or Degrees are granted them by the University. But what
is called a Degree Certificate is conferred upon any student whose
proficiency has been certified by the standard of examinations qualifying
for B.A., which entitles the holder to all the rights and privileges of
certificated students. These are signed by the Vice Chancellor. There is no
probability at present of their receiving degrees. The objection is that this
would make them eligible as members of senate. As there is no
matriculation, women cannot even become under-graduates in Cambridge.
The Cambridge University Calendar now gives the conditions of the
admission of women to University Examinations.

Oxford, oldest in foundation, is youngest in regard to granting privileges
to women.
University College, Oxford, is said to have been founded in 872 by
Alfred. In it a Civil Law Fellowship was founded by Mary Anne,

Viscountess Sidmouth.
Balliol College was founded by John Balliol and Devorgilla, his wife,
1263-8. Eight scholarships were founded by Hannah Brackenbury, in Law,
History, and Natural Science.
In Exeter College, founded 1314, 2 scholarships were given by Miss
Hasker.
Queen’s College was founded 1340, by Hubert de Eglesfield, Chaplain to
Philippa, Queen of Edward III.
In Brasenose, founded 1509, Sarah, Dowager Duchess of Somerset,
founded 22 scholarships, and Misses Colquilt, 3 exhibitions.
Christ Church holds 2 scholarships from Mrs. Dixon, and Miss Slade’s
exhibition.
Jesus College was founded in 1571, by Queen Elizabeth. Wadham in
1612, by Nicholas Wadham of Merifield and Dorothy, his wife.
To Pembroke College, founded 1624, by King James I., his Queen, Anne,
attached a Canonry of Gloucester to the Mastership.
To Worcester, founded 1714, Mrs. Sarah Eaton was a benefactor.
It may be that the result of there being fewer female benefactors in
Oxford than in Cambridge may have affected the comparative want of
gratitude to women in this city. Whatever be the cause, the oldest University
is the hardest to move.
Oxford Lectures for the benefit of women were started as early as 1865,
but not in connection with the University. In 1873, another scheme was set
on foot by a Committee of Ladies. But the formation of the “Association for
the Education of Women,” such as at present exists, was first suggested by
Professor Rolleston, June, 1878.

The first series of Lectures commenced in October, 1879. In 1880 one
College Lecture was attended. At the present time students are admitted
under certain regulations to lectures in almost every College in Oxford. The
Lectures are of three kinds. Those of the University generally are open
without fee, those in the different colleges for men, for which fees are paid,
and those provided by the Association, for which fees are paid. Until 1884,
the only Oxford Examinations open to Students of the Association were
those provided for women by the Delegates of Local Examinations. In that
year, in answer to a petition put forward by the Association and numerously
signed by resident M.A.’s, a Statute was passed by Convocation opening to
women, Honour Moderations, and the Final Honour Schools of
Mathematics, Science, and Modern History. In 1888, another Statute
admitted women to the Final School of Literæ Humaniores, and in 1890, to
the Honour Law School and the Final Examination for Mus. Bac. All
examinations for B.A. in Honours are now opened to women, except
Theology and Indian languages, for which no application has been made.
The University, like that of Cambridge, does not admit women to
Matriculation, or Graduation, but it does not impose on them all the
restrictions of men.
The University Examinations for women still provide for all Pass
Subjects and for the Honour Subjects of English and Modern Languages, in
which there are no University Examinations for men.
Three Halls have been founded, Lady Margaret Hall, 1879 (Church of
England with liberty for other denominations); Somerville Hall, 1879 (non-
denominational), and St. Hugh’s, 1886 (Church of England). There are also
unattached students residing in Oxford under certain regulations. From
1879 to 1892 the number of students has been in all 539. But though
women are admitted to the Oxford University Exams., Honours and Pass,
and are ranked in Classes, they have no reward or recognition by the
University, and no notice of women appears in the University Calendar.

Therefore in a country in which Free Trade principles have been forced
on the British farmer for the benefit of other classes of the community,
however prejudicial to his own, protection still reigns in these old
Universities, that illogically “protect” the stronger against the weaker sex,
who are thus forced to prove their capability in face of many difficulties and
overwhelming odds.
Women are admitted to the following privileges:—
1878. London:
Subordinate Colleges give Education. Examination. Degrees.
Convocation.
1880. Royal University of Ireland:
Subordinate Colleges give Education. Examination. Degrees.
Convocation.
1880. Victoria Combined Colleges:
Matriculation. Education (Partial). Examination. Degrees.
Convocation.
1892. Edinburgh:
Matriculation. Education (Partial). Examination. Degrees. General
Council.
1892. St. Andrews:
Matriculation. Education. Examination. Degrees. General Council.
1892. Glasgow:
Matriculation. Education Separate. Examination. Degrees. General
Council.
1892. Aberdeen:

Matriculation. Education (Partial). Examination. Degrees. General
Council.
Durham. . . . .Education (Partial). Examination. Titles.
Cambridge. . .Education (Partial). Examination. Certificates.
Oxford. . . . . .Education (Partial). Examination. Certificates.

FINIS.

Printed by Cowan & Co., Limited, Perth.

SOCIAL SCIENCE SERIES.
SCARLET CLOTH, EACH 2s. 6d.

1. Work and Wages. —— Prof. J. E. Thorold Rogers.
“Nothing that Professor Rogers writes can fail to be of interest to
thoughtful people.”—Athenæum.
2. Civilisation: its Cause and Cure. —— Edward Carpenter.
“No passing piece of polemics, but a permanent possession.”—Scottish
Review.
3. Quintessence of Socialism. —— Dr. Schäffle.
“Precisely the manual needed. Brief, lucid, fair and wise.”—British
Weekly.
4. Darwinism and Politics. —— D. G. Ritchie, M.A. (Oxon.).
New Edition, with two additional Essays on Human Evolution.
“One of the most suggestive books we have met with.”—Literary
World.
5. Religion of Socialism. —— E. Belfort Bax.
6. Ethics of Socialism. —— E. Belfort Bax.
“Mr. Bax is by far the ablest of the English exponents of Socialism.”—
Westminster Review.

7. The Drink Question. —— Dr. Kate Mitchell.
“Plenty of interesting matter for reflection.”—Graphic.
8. Promotion of General Happiness. —— Prof. M. Macmillan.
“A reasoned account of the most advanced and most enlightened
utilitarian doctrine in a clear and readable form.”—Scotsman.
9. England’s Ideal, &c. —— Edward Carpenter.
“The literary power is unmistakable, their freshness of style, their
humour, and their enthusiasm.”—Pall Mall Gazette.
10. Socialism in England. —— Sidney Webb, LL.B.
“The best general view of the subject from the modern Socialist
side.”—Athenæum.
11. Prince Bismarck and State Socialism. —— W. H. Dawson.
“A succinct, well-digested review of German social and economic
legislation since 1870.”—Saturday Review.
12. Godwin’s Political Justice (On Property). —— Edited by H. S. Salt.
“Shows Godwin at his best; with an interesting and informing
introduction.”—Glasgow Herald.
13. The Story of the French Revolution. —— E. Belfort Bax.
“A trustworthy outline.”—Scotsman.
14. The Co-Operative Commonwealth. —— Laurence Gronlund.
“An independent exposition of the Socialism of the Marx school.”—
Contemporary Review.
15. Essays and Addresses. —— Bernard Bosanquet, M.A. (Oxon.).
“Ought to be in the hands of every student of the Nineteenth Century
spirit.”—Echo.

“No one can complain of not being able to understand what Mr.
Bosanquet means.”—Pall Mall Gazette.
16. Charity Organisation. —— C. S. Loch, Secretary to Charity
Organisation Society.
“A perfect little manual.”—Athenæum.
“Deserves a wide circulation.”—Scotsman.
17. Thoreau’s Anti-Slavery and Reform Papers. —— Edited by H. S.
Salt.
“An interesting collection of essays.”—Literary World.
18. Self-Help a Hundred Years Ago. —— G. J. Holyoake.
“Will be studied with much benefit by all who are interested in the
amelioration of the condition of the poor.”—Morning Post.
19. The New York State Reformatory at Elmira. —— Alexander
Winter. With Preface by Havelock Ellis.
“A valuable contribution to the literature of penology.”—Black and
White.
20. Common Sense about Women. —— T. W. Higginson.
“An admirable collection of papers, advocating in the most liberal spirit
the emancipation of women.”—Woman’s Herald.
21. The Unearned Increment. —— W. H. Dawson.
“A concise but comprehensive volume.”—Echo.
22. Our Destiny. —— Laurence Gronlund.
“A very vigorous little book, dealing with the influence of Socialism on
morals and religion.”—Daily Chronicle.
23. The Working-Class Movement in America. —— Dr. Edward and E.
Marx Aveling.

“Will give a good idea of the condition of the working classes in
America, and of the various organisations which they have formed.”—Scots
Leader.
24. Luxury. —— Prof. Emile de Laveleye.
“An eloquent plea on moral and economical grounds for simplicity of
life.”—Academy.
25. The Land and the Labourers. —— Rev. C. W. Stubbs, M.A.
“This admirable book should be circulated in every village in the
country.”—Manchester Guardian.
26. The Evolution of Property. —— Paul Lafargue.
“Will prove interesting and profitable to all students of economic
history.”—Scotsman.
27. Crime and its Causes. —— W. Douglas Morrison.
“Can hardly fail to suggest to all readers several new and pregnant
reflections on the subject.”—Anti-Jacobin.
28. Principles of State Interference. —— D. G. Ritchie, M.A.
“An interesting contribution to the controversy on the functions of the
State.”—Glasgow Herald.
29. German Socialism and F. Lassalle. —— W. H. Dawson.
“As a biographical history of German Socialistic movements during
this century it may be accepted as complete.”—British Weekly.
30. The Purse and the Conscience. —— H. M. Thompson, B.A. (Cantab.).
“Shows common sense and fairness in his arguments.”—Scotsman.
31. Origin of Property in Land. —— Fustel de Coulanges. Edited, with
an Introductory Chapter on the English Manor, by Prof. W. J. Ashley, M.A.

“His views are clearly stated, and are worth reading.”—Saturday
Review.
32. The English Republic. —— W. J. Linton. Edited by Kineton Parkes.
“Characterised by that vigorous intellectuality which has marked his
long life of literary and artistic activity.”—Glasgow Herald.
33. The Co-Operative Movement. —— Beatrice Potter.
“Without doubt the ablest and most philosophical analysis of the Co-
Operative Movement which has yet been produced.”—Speaker.
34. Neighbourhood Guilds. —— Dr. Stanton Coit.
“A most suggestive little book to anyone interested in the social
question.”—Pall Mall Gazette.
35. Modern Humanists. —— J. M. Robertson.
“Mr. Robertson’s style is excellent—nay, even brilliant—and his purely
literary criticisms bear the mark of much acumen.”—Times.
36. Outlooks from the New Standpoint. —— E. Belfort Bax.
“Mr. Bax is a very acute and accomplished student of history and
economics.”—Daily Chronicle.
37. Distributing Co-Operative Societies. —— Dr. Luigi Pizzamiglio.
Edited by F. J. Snell.
“Dr. Pizzamiglio has gathered together and grouped a wide array of
facts and statistics, and they speak for themselves.”—Speaker.
38. Collectivism and Socialism. —— By A. Nacquet. Edited by W.
Heaford.
“An admirable criticism by a well-known French politician of the New
Socialism of Marx and Lassalle.”—Daily Chronicle.
39. The London Programme. —— Sidney Webb, LL.B.

“Brimful of excellent ideas.”—Anti-Jacobin.
40. The Modern State. —— Paul Leroy Beaulieu.
“A most interesting book; well worth a place in the library of every
social inquirer.”—N. B. Economist.
41. The Condition of Labour. —— Henry George.
“Written with striking ability, and sure to attract attention.”—Newcastle
Chronicle.
42. The Revolutionary Spirit preceding the French Revolution. ——
Felix Rocquain. With a Preface by Professor Huxley.
“The student of the French Revolution will find in it an excellent
introduction to the study of that catastrophe.”—Scotsman.
43. The Student’s Marx. —— Edward Aveling, D.Sc.
“One of the most practically useful of any in the Series.”—Glasgow
Herald.
44. A Short History of Parliament. —— B. C. Skottowe, M.A. (Oxon.).
“Deals very carefully and completely with this side of constitutional
history.”—Spectator.
45. Poverty: Its Genesis and Exodus. —— J. G. Godard.
“He states the problems with great force and clearness.”—N. B.
Economist.
46. The Trade Policy of Imperial Federation. —— Maurice H. Hervey.
“An interesting contribution to the discussion.”—Publishers’ Circular.
47. The Dawn of Radicalism. —— J. Bowles Daly, LL.D.
“Forms an admirable picture of an epoch more pregnant, perhaps, with
political instruction than any other in the world’s history.”—Daily
Telegraph.

48. The Destitute Alien in Great Britain. —— Arnold White; Montague
Crackanthorpe, Q.C.; W. A. M’Arthur, M.P.; W. H. Wilkins, &c.
“Much valuable information concerning a burning question of the
day.”—Times.
49. Illegitimacy and the Influence of Seasons on Conduct. —— Albert
Leffingwell, M.D.
“We have not often seen a work based on statistics which is more
continuously interesting.”—Westminster Review.
50. Commercial Crises of the Nineteenth Century. —— H. M. Hyndman.
“One of the best and most permanently useful volumes of the
Series.”—Literary Opinion.
51. The State and Pensions in Old Age. —— J. A. Spender and Arthur
Acland, M.P.
“A careful and cautious examination of the question.”—Times.
52. The Fallacy of Saving. —— John M. Robertson.
“A plea for the reorganisation of our social and industrial system.”—
Speaker.
53. The Irish Peasant. —— Anon.
“A real contribution to the Irish Problem by a close, patient and
dispassionate Investigator.”—Daily Chronicle.
54. The Effects of Machinery on Wages. —— Prof. J. S. Nicholson,
D.Sc.
“Ably reasoned, clearly stated, impartially written.”—Literary World.
55. The Social Horizon. —— Anon.
“A really admirable little book, bright, clear, and unconventional.”—
Daily Chronicle.

56. Socialism, Utopian and Scientific. —— Frederick Engels.
“The body of the book is still fresh and striking.”—Daily Chronicle.
57. Land Nationalisation. —— A. R. Wallace.
“The most instructive and convincing of the popular works on the
subject.”—National Reformer.
58. The Ethic of Usury and Interest. —— Rev. W. Blissard.
“The work is marked by genuine ability.”—North British
Agriculturalist.
59. The Emancipation of Women. —— Adele Crepaz.
“By far the most comprehensive, luminous, and penetrating work on
this question that I have yet met with.”—Extract from Mr. Gladstone’s
Preface.
60. The Eight Hours’ Question. —— John M. Robertson.
“A very cogent and sustained argument on what is at present the
unpopular side.”—Times.
61. Drunkenness. —— George R. Wilson, M.B.
“Well written, carefully reasoned, free from cant, and full of sound
sense.”—National Observer.
62. The New Reformation. —— Ramsden Balmforth.
“A striking presentation of the nascent religion, how best to realise the
personal and social ideal.”—Westminster Review.
63. The Agricultural Labourer. —— T. E. Kebbel.
“A short summary of his position, with appendices on wages,
education, allotments, etc, etc.”
64. Ferdinand Lassalle as a Social Reformer. —— E. Bernstein.

“A worthy addition to the Social Science Series.”—North British
Economist.
65. England’s Foreign Trade in XIXth Century. —— A. L. Bowley.
“Full of valuable information, carefully compiled, and skilfully
marshalled.”—Times.
66. Theory and Policy of Labour Protection. —— Dr. Schäffle.
“Remarkable as an attempt to systematize a conservative programme of
reform.”—Manchester Guardian.
67. History of Rochdale Pioneers. —— G. J. Holyoake.
“The first complete edition, brought down from 1844 to the Rochdale
Congress of 1892.”—Co-Operative News.
68. Rights of Women. —— M. Ostragorski.
“Advocates and opponents will find it an admirable storehouse of
precedents, collected from authentic sources, carefully brought up to date,
supported by exact references, and conveniently arranged.”—Daily
Chronicle.
69. Dwellings of the People. —— Locke Worthington.
“An effective and valuable contribution to one of the most pressing
problems of the day.”—Daily Chronicle.
70. Hours, Wages, and Production. —— Dr. Brentano.
“Substantially a new work on the relation between wages and hours of
labour and the work done—characterised by all Professor Brentano’s
clearness of style and fulness of historical detail.”—Economic Review.
71. Rise of Modern Democracy. —— Ch. Borgeaud.
“A very useful little volume, characterised by exact research and by
very clear political ideas.”—Daily Chronicle.

72. Land Systems of Australasia. —— Wm. Epps.
“A laudable and very useful attempt to place before political thinkers an
outline of the methods which govern the use and alienation of the public
land of the Australasian Colonies.”—Times.
73. The Tyranny of Socialism. —— Yves Guyot.
Edited with Introduction by J. H. Levy.
“M. Guyot is smart, lively, trenchant, and interesting.”—Daily
Chronicle.

DOUBLE VOLUMES, Each 3s. 6d.
1. Life of Robert Owen. —— Lloyd Jones.
“A worthy record of a life of noble activities.”—Manchester Examiner.
2. The Impossibility of Social Democracy: a Second Part of “The
Quintessence of Socialism”. —— Dr. A. Schäffle.
“Extremely valuable as a criticism of Social Democracy by the ablest
living representative of State Socialism in Germany.”—Inter. Journal of
Ethics.
3. The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844. ——
Frederick Engels.
“A translation of a work written in 1845, with a preface written in
1892.”
4. The Principles of Social Economy. —— Yves Guyot.
“An interesting and suggestive work. It is a profound treatise on social
economy, and an invaluable collection of facts.”—Spectator.
5. Social Peace. —— Dr. Schulze-Gaeveruitz.

Edited by Graham-Walles.
“A study by a competent observer of the industrial movement in
England, and the later developments of trade unionism.”—Times.

SWAN SONNENSCHEIN & CO.,
LONDON.
NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS.

Transcriber’s Notes:
New original cover art included with this eBook is
granted to the public domain.
There are several cases of un-matched quote marks
or nested quotes. I've mostly left them as they are as
it isn't easy to tell where the quotes are meant to
end.
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.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BRITISH
FREEWOMEN ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright royalties.
Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license,
apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and
trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not
be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of
the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project
Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this
eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may
use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative
works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks
may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically
ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S.
copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license,
especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing
Project Gutenberg electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg electronic
work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept
all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your possession. If
you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this
agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom
you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg electronic
works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the

collection of Project Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg works
in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project
Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily comply with
the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format
with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when you share it
without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work on which
the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase
“Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States
and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with

this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located
in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the
country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is derived
from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United
States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or
providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”
associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with
the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain
permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide
access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official

version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of
obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works provided
that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the
use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method you
already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the
owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has agreed to donate
royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days
following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to
prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly
marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about
donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does
not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You
must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works
possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all
access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth
in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the
Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in
Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend
considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and
proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the
Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be
stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete,
inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -
Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation,
the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH
OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT,
CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES

EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you
discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return
the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that
provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu
of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a
refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If
any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law
of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the
Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly
from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a)

distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration,
modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work,
and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project
Gutenberg

Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s goals
and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will remain freely
available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and
permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future generations. To
learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and
the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state
of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue
Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is
64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S.
federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza
#516, Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact

links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States.
Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable
effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these
requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have
not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular
state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg
electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility:
www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg, including
how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.