CHAPTER V

CRAFTS AND TRADES.

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

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

(C) _Provision Trades._

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

2. _Millers._ Occasionally followed by women.

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

4. _Fishwives._ Generally very poor.

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

6. _Vintners._

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

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

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

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

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

Footnote 293:

_Liber Albus_, pp. 181-2. 1419.

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

Footnote 294:

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

Footnote 295:

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

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

Footnote 296:

Ferguson, _Carlisle_, p. 79; from _Dormont Book_.

Though examples of the separate trading of women occur frequently in the seventeenth century, no doubt the more usual course was for her to assist her husband in his business. When this was transacted at home her knowledge of it was so intimate that she could successfully carry on the management during her husband’s absence. How complete was the reliance which men placed upon their wives under these circumstances is illustrated by the story of John Adams, a Quaker from Yorkshire, who took a long journey “in the service of Truth” to Holland and Germany. He describes how a fearful being visited him by night in a vision, telling him that he had been deceived, and not for the first time, in undertaking this service, and that all was in confusion at home. “The main reason why things are so is, thy wife, that used to be at the helm in thy business, is dead.” Thoroughly alarmed, he was preparing to hurry home when a letter arrived, saying that all was well, “whereby I was relieved in mind, and confirmed I was in my place, and that it was Satan, by his transformation, who had deceived and disturbed me.”[297]

Footnote 297:

_Irish Friend_, Vol. IV., p. 150.

The understanding and good sense which enabled women to assume control during the temporary absence of their husbands, fitted them also to bear the burden alone when widowed. Her capacity was so much taken for granted that public opinion regarded the wife as being virtually her husband’s partner, leases or indentures were made out in their joint names, and on the husband’s death the wife was left in undisturbed possession of the stock, apprentices and goodwill of the business.

A. _Skilled Trades or Crafts._

The origin of the Craft Gilds is obscure. They were preceded by Religious Gilds in which men and women who were associated in certain trades united for religious and social purposes. Whether these Religious Gilds developed naturally into organisations concerned with the purpose of trade, or whether they were superseded by new associations whose first object was the regulation and improvement of the craft and with whom the religious and social ceremonies were of secondary importance is a disputed point, which, if elucidated, might throw some light on the industrial history of women. In the obscurity which envelopes this subject one certain fact emerges; the earlier Gilds included sisters as well as brothers, the two sexes being equally concerned with the religious and social observances which constituted their chief functions.

As the Gilds become more definitely trade organisations the importance of the sisters diminishes, and in some, the Carpenters for example, they appear to be virtually excluded from membership though this exclusion is only tacitly arrived at by custom, and is not enforced by rules. In other Gilds, such as the Girdlers and Pewterers, it is evident that though women’s names do not occur in lists of wardens or assistants, yet they were actively engaged in these crafts and, like men, were subject to and protected by the regulations of their Gild or Company.

Very little is yet known of the industrial position of Englishwomen in the middle ages. Poll-tax returns show, however, that they were engaged in many miscellaneous occupations. Thus the return for Oxford in 1380 mentions six trades followed by women, viz.—37 spinsters, 11 shapesters (tailors), 9 tapsters (inn-keepers), 3 sutrices (shoemakers,) 3 hucksters, 5 washerwomen, while in six others both men and women were employed, namely butchers, brewers, chandlers, ironmongers, netmakers and kempsters (wool-combers). 148 women were enrolled as ancillæ or servants, and 81 trades were followed by only men.

A similar return for the West Riding of Yorks in 1379 declares the women employed in different trades to be as follows:—6 chapmen, 11 inn keepers, 1 farrier, 1 shoemaker, 2 nurses, 39 brewsters, 2 farmers, 1 smith, 1 merchant, 114 domestic servants and farm labourers, 66 websters, (30 with that surname), 2 listers or dyers, 2 fullers or walkers, and 22 seamstresses.[298] In every case these would be women who were carrying on their trade separately from their husbands, or as widows. During the following centuries women’s names are given in the returns made of the tradesmen working in different Boroughs, occurring sometimes in trades which would seem to modern ideas most unlikely for them. Thus 5 widows and 35 men’s names are given in a list of the smiths at Chester for the year 1574.[299]

Footnote 298:

By kind permission of Miss Eileen Power.

Footnote 299:

Harl. MSS., 2054. fo. 22., _The Smiths Book of Accts._ Chester, 1574.

It must be remembered that, except those who are classed as servants, all grown-up women were either married or widows. It was quite usual for a married woman to carry on a separate business from her husband as sole merchant, but it was still more customary for her to share in his enterprise, and only after his death for the whole burden to fall upon her shoulders. How natural it was for a woman to regard herself as her husband’s partner will be seen when the conditions of family industry are considered. Before the encroachments of capitalism the members of the Craft Gilds were masters, not of other men, but of their craft. The workshop was part of the home, and in it, the master, who in the course of a long apprenticeship had acquired the technical mastery of his trade, worked with his apprentices, one or two journeymen and his wife and children. The number of journeymen and apprentices was strictly limited by the Gild rules; the men did not expect to remain permanently in the position of wage-earners, but hoped in course of time to marry and establish themselves as masters in their craft. Apart from the apprentices and journeymen no labour might be employed, except that of the master’s wife and children; but there are in every trade processes which do not require a long technical training for their performance, and thus the assistance of the mistress became important to her husband, whether she was skilled in the trade or not, for the work if not done by her must fall upon him. Sometimes her part was manual, but more often she appears to have taken charge of the financial side of the business, and is seen in the role of salesman, receiving payments for which her receipt was always accepted as valid, or even acting as buyer. In either case her services were so essential to the business that she usually engaged a servant for household matters, and was thus freed from the routine of domestic drudgery. Defoe, writing in the first decades of the eighteenth century, notes that “women servants are now so scarce that from thirty and forty shillings a Year, their Wages are increased of late to six, seven and eight pounds _per Annum_, and upwards ... an ordinary Tradesman cannot well keep one; but his Wife, who might be useful in his Shop, or Business, must do the Drudgery of Household Affairs; And all this, because our Servant Wenches are so puff’d up with Pride now-a-Days that they never think they go fine enough.”[300]

Footnote 300:

Defoe, _Everybody’s Business is No-Body’s Business_, p. 6, 1725.

The position of a married woman in the tradesman class was far removed from that of her husband’s domestic servant. She was in very truth mistress of the household in that which related to trade as well as in domestic matters, and the more menial domestic duties were performed by young unmarried persons of either sex. To quote Defoe again, “it is but few Years ago, and in the Memory of many now living, that all the Apprentices of the Shopkeepers and Warehouse-keepers ... submitted to the most servile Employments of the Families in which they serv’d; such as the _young Gentry_, their Successors in the same Station, scorn so much as the Name of now; such as _cleaning_ their Masters’ Shoes, bringing _Water_ into the Houses from _the Conduits_ in the Street, which they carried on their Shoulders in long Vessels call’d Tankards; also waiting at Table, ... but their Masters are oblig’d to keep Porters or Footmen to wait upon the apprentices.”[301]

Footnote 301:

Defoe, _Behaviour of Servants_, p. 12, 1724.

The rules of the early Gilds furnish abundant evidence that women then took an active part in their husbands’s trades; thus in 1297 the Craft of Fullers at Lincoln ordered that “none [of the craft] shall work at the wooden bar with a woman, unless with the wife of a master or her handmaid,”[302] and in 1372, when articles were drawn up for the Leather-sellers and Pouch-makers of London, and for Dyers serving those trades, the wives of the dyers of leather were sworn together with their husbands “to do their calling, and, to the best of their power, faithfully to observe the things in the said petition contained; namely John Blakthorne, and Agnes, his wife; John Whitynge, and Lucy, his wife; and Richard Westone, dier, and Katherine, his wife.”[303]

Footnote 302:

Smith (Toulmin), _English Gilds_, p. 180.

Footnote 303:

Riley (H. T.), _Memorials of London_, p. 365.

The craft Gilds had either disappeared before the seventeenth century or had developed into Companies, wealthy corporations differing widely from the earlier associations of craftsmen. But though the Companies were capitalistic in their tendencies, they retained many traditions and customs which were characteristic of the Gilds. The master’s place of business was still in many instances within the precincts of his home, and when this was the case his wife retained her position as mistress. Incidental references often show the wife by her husband’s side in his shop. Thus Thomas Symonds, Stationer, when called as a witness to an inquest in 1514 describes how “within a quarter of an hower after VII. a clock in the morning, Charles Joseph came before him at his stall and said ‘good morow, goship Simondes,’ and the said Simonds said ‘good morow’ to hym againe, and the wife of the said Simons was by him, and because of the deadly countenance and hasty goinge of Charles, the said Thomas bad his wife looke whether Charles goeth, and as she could perceue, Charles went into an ale house.”[304]

Footnote 304:

Arber, _Stationers_, Vol. III., Intro., p. 19.

Decker describes a craftsman’s household in “A Shoemaker’s Holiday.” The mistress goes in and out of the workshop, giving advice, whether it is wanted or not.

_Firk_: “Mum, here comes my dame and my master. She’ll scold, on my life, for loitering this Monday; ...”

_Hodge_: “Master, I hope you will not suffer my dame to take down your journeyman....”

_Eyre_: “Peace, Firk; not I, Hodge; ... she shall not meddle with you ... away, queen of clubs; quarrel not with me and my men, with me and my fine Firk; I’ll firk you, if you do.”[305]

Footnote 305:

Decker (Thos.), _Best Plays_, p. 29.

But the meddling continues to the end of the play.

The same sort of scene is again described in “The Honest Whore,” where Viola, the Linen Draper’s wife, comes into his shop, and says to the two Prentices and George the servant, who are at work,

“Come, you put up your wares in good order, here, do you not, think you? One piece cast this way, another that way! You had need have a patient master indeed.”

_George replies_ (aside) “Ay, I’ll be sworn, for we have a curst mistress.”[306]

Footnote 306:

_Ibid._ p. 108.

Comedy is concerned with the foibles of humanity, and so here the faults of the mistress are reflected, but in real life she is often alluded to as her husband’s invaluable lieutenant. There can be no doubt that admission to the world of business and the responsibilities which rested on their shoulders, often developed qualities in seventeenth century women which the narrower opportunities afforded them in modern society have left dormant. The wide knowledge of life acquired by close association with their husbands’ affairs, qualified mothers for the task of training their children; but it was not only the mother who benefited by the incorporation of business with domestic affairs, for while she shared her husband’s experiences he became acquainted with family life in a way which is impossible for men under modern conditions. The father was not separated from his children, but they played around him while he worked, and his spare moments could be devoted to their education. Thus the association of husband and wife brought to each a wider, deeper understanding of human life.

Returning to the position of women in the Craft Gilds and the later Companies, it must be remembered that originally these associations had a three-fold purpose, (_a_) the performance of religious ceremonies, (_b_) social functions, (_c_) the protection of trade interests and the maintenance of a high standard of technical efficiency.

Women are not excluded from membership by any of the earlier charters, which, in most cases expressly mention sisters as well as brothers, but references to them are more frequent in the provisions relating to the social and religious functions of the Gild than in those concerning technical matters. Though after the Reformation the performance of religious ceremonies fell into abeyance, social functions continued to be an important feature of the Companies.

Entrance was obtained by apprenticeship, patrimony, redemption or, in the case of women, by marriage. The three former methods though open to women, were seldom used by them, and the vast majority of the sisters obtained their freedom through marriage. During the husband’s life time their position is not very evident, but on his death they were possessed of all his trade privileges. The extent to which widows availed themselves of these privileges varied in different trades, but custom appears always to have secured to the widow, rather than to the son, the possession of her husband’s business.

Hitherto few records of the Gilds and Companies have been printed _in extenso_; possibly when others are published more light may be shed on the position which they accorded to women. The Stationers and the Carpenters are selected here, not because they are typical in their dealings with women, but merely because their records are available in a more complete form than the others.

The Stationers’ Company included Stationers, Booksellers, Binders and Printers; apprenticeship to either of these trades conferred the right of freedom in the company, but the position of printer was a prize which could not be attained purely by apprenticeship; before the Long Parliament this privilege was confined to twenty-two Printing Houses only besides the Royal Printers, vacancies being filled up by the Court of Assistants, with the approval of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Any stationer who had been made free of his Company might publish books, but printing was strictly limited to these twenty-two houses. A vacancy seldom occurred, because, according to the old English custom, on the printer’s death his rights were retained by his widow, and in this Company they were not even alienated when she married again, but were shared by her second husband; thus a printer’s widow, whatever her age might be, was regarded as a most desirable “partie.” The widow Francis Simson married in succession Richard Read and George Elde, the business following her, and Anne Barton married a second, third and fourth time,[307] none of the later husbands being printers.

Footnote 307:

Arber, _Stationers_, Vol. V., Intro. xxix-xxx.

Though amongst the printers the line of descent appears to have been more often from husband to wife and wife to husband than from father to son, a list, giving the names of the master printers as they succeeded each other from 1575 to 1635 shows that the business was acquired by marrying the printer’s widow, by purchase from her, and also by descent. Four women are mentioned:—William Ells bound to Mrs. East, a printer’s widow who, having left the trade many years was brought up in the art of printing by Mr. Fletcher upon composition. Mrs. Griffyn had two apprentices, Mrs. Dawson had three apprentices and Mrs. Purslow two apprentices.[308] Another list made in 1630 of the names of the Master Printers of London gives twenty-one men and three women, namely—Widdow Alde, Widdow Griffin, and “Widdow Sherleaker lives by printing of pictures.”[309] In 1634 the names of twenty-two printers are given, among whom are the following women—“Mr. William Jones succeeded Rafe Blore and paies a stipend to his wife ... neuer admitted.”

Footnote 308:

_S.P.D._, cccxiv., 127., Feb. 1636.

Footnote 309:

_Ibid._ clxxv., 45., Nov. 12, 1630.

Mistris [ ] Alde, widdowe of Edward Alde [who] deceased about 10 yeeres since, (but she keepes her trade by her sonne who was Ra[lph] joyners sonne) neuer Admitted, neither capable of Admittance.

Mistris [ ] Dawson widow of John Dawson deceased about a yeere since [he] succeeded his vnkle Thomas Dawson about 26 yeers since ... never admitted neither capeable, (she hath a sonne about 19 yeares old, bredd to ye trade).

Mistris [ ] Pursloe widdow of George Pursloe who succeeded Simon Stafford about 5 yeeres since [she was] never admitted neither capeable. (haviland, Yo[u]ng and fletcher haue this.)

Mistris [ ] Griffin widdow of Edward Griffin [who] succeeded Master [Melchisedeck] Bradwood about 18 yeeres since [she was] never admitted neither capable. (she hath a sonne.) (haviland, Yo[u]ng and fletcher have this yet).[310]

Footnote 310:

Arber, _Transcript_, Vol. III., add, 701.

Men as well as women in the list are noted as “never admitted neither capable of admittance.”

Whether these women took an active part in the management of the business which they thus acquired or whether they merely drew the profits, leaving the management to others, is not clear. From the notes to the above list it would appear that they often followed the latter course, but elsewhere women are mentioned who are evidently taking an

## active part in the printing business. For example, an entry in the

Stationers Register states at a time when Marsh and Vautrollier had the sole printing of school books “It is agreed that Thomas Vautrollier his wife shall finish this present impression which shee is in hand withall in her husband’s absence, of Tullie’s Epistles with Lambini’s annotations.”[311]

Footnote 311:

Stopes (Mrs. C. C.) _Shakespeare’s Warwickshire Contemporaries_, p. 7.

After his death Vautrollier’s widow printed one book but immediately after, on March 4th, 1587-8, the Court of Assistants ordered that “Mrs. Vautrollier, late wife of Thomas Vautrollier deceased, shall not hereafter print any manner of book or books whatsoever, as well by reason that her husband was noe printer at the time of his decease, as alsoe by the decrees sette downe in the Starre Chamber she is debarred from the same.” This order is inexplicable, as other printers’ widows exercised their husbands’ business, and Thomas Vautrollier’s name is duly given in the order of succession from Master Printers. Possibly the business had been transferred to her daughter, who married Field, their apprentice. Field died in 1625, his widow continuing the business.[312]

Footnote 312:

_Ibid._, p. 8. (Some authorities state that Field married the widow, others the daughter of Vautrollier.)

Among thirty-nine printing patents issued by James I. and Charles II. is one to “Hester Ogden, als ffulke Henr. Sibbald _et_ Tho. Kenithorpe for printing a book called The Sincire and True Translation of the Holy Scripture into the Englishe tounge.” It appears as though Hester Ogden was no mere figure head, for His Majesty’s Printers appealed against this licence on the grounds that it infringed their rights, protesting that “Mistris Ogden a maried woman one of Dr. Fulkes daughters did lately [sue] his Majestie to haue ye printing of her fathers workes, which his [Majestie] not knowing ye premises granted, and ye same being first referred [to the] Archbishop of Canterbury ... their lordships ... deliuered their opinion against her, since which she hath gotten a new reference to the Lord Chancellor and Master Secretary Nanton, who not examining yᵉ title vpon oath and the Stationers being not then able to produce those materiall proofes which now they can their honors certified for her, wherevpon her friends hath his Majestie’s grant for ye printing and selling of the sayed book for xxi. years to her vse.... Mistris Ogden hath gotten by begging from ye clergy and others diuers great somes of money towards ye printing of her fathers workes. Master Norton and myself haue for many £1000 bought ye office of his Majesties printer to which ye printing of ye translacons of the Bible or any parts thereof sett furth by the State belongs. Now the greatest parte of Dr. Fulkes worke is the new testament in English sett forth by authoritie.”[313]

Footnote 313:

Arber, _Transcript_, Vol. III., p. 39.

Another patent was granted to Helen Mason for “printing and selling the abridgment of the book of martyres,”[314] while Jane, wife of Sir Thomas Bludder, petitions Archbishop Laud, showing that “She with John Bill an infant have by grant from the King the moiety of the office of King’s Printer and amongst other things the printing of Bibles. This is infringed by a printer in Scotland, who printed many Bibles there and imported them into England ... she prays the Archbishop to hear the case himself.”[315]

Footnote 314:

Arber, _Transcript_, Vol. V., lviii.

Footnote 315:

_S.P.D._, cccxxxix., p. 89.

Many of the books printed at this time bear the names of women printers,[316] but though women might own and direct the printing houses, there is no indication that they were ever engaged in the manual processes of printing. The printers’ trade does in fact furnish rather a good example of the effect upon women’s economic position of the transition from family industry to capitalistic organisation. It is true that many links in the evolution must be supplied by the imagination. We can imagine the master printer with his press, working at home with the help of his apprentice, his wife and children; then as his trade prospered he employed journeymen printers who were the real craftsmen, and it became possible for the owner of the business to be a man or woman who had never been bred up to the trade.

Footnote 316:

e.g. _An Essay of Drapery_ ... by William Scott, printed by Eliz. Alde for S. Pennell, London, 1635. Calvin, _Institution of Christian Religion_. Printed by the widowe of R. Wolfe, London, 1574. The fourthe edition of _Porta Linguarum_ is printed by E. Griffin for M. Sparke. London, 1639.

Apprenticeship was still exacted for the journeymen. A Star Chamber decree in 1637 provides that no “master printer shall imploy either to worke at the Case, or the Presse, or otherwise about his printing, any other person or persons, then such only as are Freemen, or Apprentices to the Trade or mystery of Printing.”[317] While in 1676 the Stationers’ Company ordained that “no master-printer, or other printer or workman ... shall teach, direct or instruct any person or persons whatsoever, other than his or their own legitimate son or sons, in this Art or Mystery of Printing, who is not actually bound as an Apprentice to some lawful authorised Printer.”[318]

Footnote 317:

Arber, _Transcript_, Vol. IV., p. 534.

Footnote 318:

_Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 16.

From the omission here of any mention of daughters it is clear that the Master Printers’ women-folk did not concern themselves with the technical side of his trade; but some attempt was evidently made to use other girls in the unskilled processes, for on a petition being presented in 1635 by the younger printers, concerning abuses which they wished removed, the Stationers’ Company adopted the following recommendation, “That no Master Printer shall hereafter permit or suffer by themselves or their journeyman any Girles, Boyes, or others to take off anie sheets from the tinpin of the presse, but hee that pulleth at the presse shall take off every sheete himself.”[319]

Footnote 319:

_S.P.D._, ccci., 105, Nov. 16, 1635.

The young printers were successful in their efforts to preserve the monopoly value of their position, and formed an organisation amongst themselves to protect their interests against the masters; but in this association the wives of the young printers found no place. They could no longer help their husbands who were working, not at home, but on the master’s premises; and as girls were not usually apprenticed to the printing trade women were now virtually excluded from it.

Some imagination is needed to realise the social results of the change thus effected by capitalistic organisation on the economic position of married women, for no details have been discovered of the printers’ domestic circumstances; but as the wife was clearly unable to occupy herself with her husband’s trade, neither she nor her daughters could share the economic privileges which he won for himself and his fellows by his organising ability. If his wages were sufficiently high for her to devote herself to household affairs, she became his unpaid domestic servant, depending entirely on his goodwill for the living of herself and her children; otherwise she must have conducted a business on her own account, or obtained work as a wage-earner, in neither case receiving any protection from her husband in the competition of the labour market.

The wives and widows of the Masters were meanwhile actively engaged in other branches of the Stationers’ Company. In a list of Publishers covering the years 1553-1640, nearly ten per cent. of the names given are those of women, probably all of whom were widows.[320] One of these, the widow of Francis Coldock, married in 1603 Isaac Binge, the Master of the Company. “She had three husbands, all Bachelors and Stationers, and died 1616, and is buried in St. Andrew Undershaft in a vault with Symon Burton her father.”[321] The names of these women can be found also in the books they published. For example “The True Watch and Rule of Life” by John Brinsley the elder, printed by H. Lownes for Joyce Macham, _7th ed._ 1615, the eighth edition being printed for her by T. Beale in 1619, and “an Epistle ... upon the present pestilence” by Henoch Clapham, was printed by T.C. for the Widow Newbery, London, 1603. A woman who was a Binder is referred to in an order made by the Bishop of London in 1685 “to damask ... counterfeit Primmirs’ seized at Mrs. Harris’s Binder,”[322] and Women are also met with as booksellers. Anne Bowler sold the book “Catoes Morall Distichs” ... printed by Annes Griffin. The Quakers at Horsley Down paid to Eliz. ffoulkes 3s. for their minute book,[323] while Pepys’ bookseller was a certain Mrs. Nicholls.[324] The death of Edward Croft, Bookseller, is recorded in Smyth’s _Obituary_, “his relict, remarried since to Mr. Blagrave, an honest bookseller, who live hapily in her house in Little Britain.”[325]

Footnote 320:

Arber, _Transcript_, Vol. V., p. lxxxi-cxi.

Footnote 321:

_Ibid._, Vol. V., p. lxiii.

Footnote 322:

Arber, _Transcript_, Vol. V., p. lv.

Footnote 323:

Monthly Meeting Minutes. Horsleydown, 13 iᵐᵒ 167⅞.

Footnote 324:

Pepys, _Diary_, Vol. I., p. 26.

Footnote 325:

Smyth’s _Obituary_, P. 77.

The trade of a bookseller was followed by women in the provinces as well as in London, the Howards paying “For books bought of Eliz. Sturton iijs.”[326] and Sir John Foulis enters in his account book “To Ard. Hissops relict and hir husband for 3 paper bookes at 10 gr. p. peice and binding other 4 bookes, 18. 14. 0 [Scots money], to them for a gramer and a salust to the bairns, 1.2.0. She owes me 6/8. of change.”[327]

Footnote 326:

Howard, _Household Books_, p.161, 1622.

Footnote 327:

Foulis, Sir John, _Acct. Book_, p. 22, 1680.

Presumably all the women who were engaged in either of these allied trades in London were free of the Stationers’ Company, and in most cases they were widows. Many apprentices were made free on the testimony of a woman,[328] and though these in some cases may have almost completed their servitude before the death of their master, “Mistris Woolff” gives testimony for one apprentice in 1601, and for another in 1603, showing that she at least continued the management of her husband’s business for some years, and as she received a new apprentice during this time,[329] it is evident that she had no intention of relinquishing it.

Footnote 328:

“Mistres Gosson. Stephan Coxe, Sworne and Admytted a Freeman of this Companie iijs, iiijid. Note that master Warden White Dothe Reporte, for mistres Gosson’s Consent to the makinge of this prentice free. (Arbers, _Transcript_, Vol. II., p. 727, 1600.) Alice Gosson Late wyfe of Thomas Gosson. Henry Gosson sworne and admitted A ffreeman of this company per patrimonium iijs. iiijid. (_Ibid._ p. 730, 1601.) Mistres Woolff. John Barnes sworne and admitted A freeman (_Ibid._ p. 730, 1601.) Jane proctor, Wydowe of William proctor. Humfrey Lympenny sworne and admitted A ffreeman of this Companye iijs. iiijd, (_Ibid._ p. 730, 1601.) Mystris Conneway Nicholas Davyes sworn and admitted A freeman of this company per patrimonium iijs. iiijid. (_Ibid._ p. 732, 1602.)”

Footnote 329:

Johne Adams of London (stationer’s son) apprenticed to Alice Woolff of citie of London widowe for 8 years 2s. 6d. (Arber, _Transcript_, Vol. II., p. 253, 1601.) Other instances of apprentices being bound to women occur as for example “Wm. Walle apprenticed to Elizabeth Hawes Widow for 8 years,” (_Ibid._, Vol. II., p. 287, 1604.) “Thomas Richardson of York apprenticed to Alice Gosson, of citie of London wydowe for 7 years, 2s. 6d.” (_Ibid._, Vol. II., p. 249, 1600).

When on her husband’s death the widow transferred an apprentice to some other master we may infer that she felt unable to take the charge of business upon her. This happened not infrequently, “Robert Jackson late apprentise with Raffe Jackson is putt ouer by consent of his mystres unto master Burby to serve out the Residue of his terms of apprentishood with him, the Last yere excepted.... Anthony Tomson ... hath putt him self an apprentice to master Gregorie Seton ... for 8 yeres.... Eliz. Hawes shall haue the services and benefit of this Apprentise during her wydohed or marrying one of the Company capable of him.”[330] “John leonard apprentise to Edmond Bolifant deceased is putt ouer by the consent of the said mary Bolyfant unto Richard Bradocke ... to serue out the residue of his apprentiship.”[331] But whether the widow wished to continue the business as a “going concern” or not, she, and she only, was in possession of the privileges connected therewith, for she was virtually her husband’s partner, and his death did not disturb her possession. The old rule of copyright recognised her position, providing “that copies peculiar for life to any person should not be granted to any other but the Widow of the deceased”, she certifying the title of the book to the Master and Wardens, and entering the book in the “bookes of thys Company.”[332]

Footnote 330:

_Ibid._, p. 260, 1602.

Footnote 331:

_Ibid._, p. 262, 1602.

Footnote 332:

Arber _Transcript_, Vol. V., p. 11, 1560.

The history of the Carpenters’ Company resembles that of the Stationers’ in some respects, though the character of a carpenter’s employment, which was so often concerned with building operations, carried on away from his shop, did not favour the continuance of his wife in the business after his death. The “Boke” of the ordinances of the Brotherhood of the Carpenters of London, dated 1333, shows the Society to have been at that time a Brotherhood formed “of good men carpenters of men and women” for common religious observances and mutual help in poverty and sickness, partaking of the nature of a Benefit Society rather than a Trade Union. The Brotherhood was at the same time a Sisterhood, and Brethren and Sisters are mentioned together in all but two of its articles. In the later code of ordinances, of which a copy has been preserved dated 1487, sisters are but twice mentioned, when tapers are prescribed at the burying of their bodies and prayers for the resting of their souls.[333] Women’s names seldom occur in the Records, apart from entries connected with those who were tenants, or charitable grants to widows fallen into poverty, or with payments to the Bedell’s wife for washing tablecloths and napkins.[334] In one instance considerable trouble was experienced because the Bedell’s wife would not turn out of their house after the Bedell’s death. In September, 1567, “it is agreed and fullie determyned by the Mʳ wardeins & assystaunce of this company that Syslie burdon wydowe late wife of Richard burdon dwelling wᵗʰin this house at the will & pleasure of the foresaid Mʳ & wardeins shall quyetlye & peaceablye dept out of & from her now dwellinge at Xpistmas next or before & at her departure to have the some of Twentie six shillinges & eight pence of Lawfull money of England in reward.”[335] Syslie Burdon however did not wish to move, and in the following February another entry occurs “at this courte it is agreed further that Cysley burdon wydowe at the feast daye of thannunciacon of oʳ Ladie Sᵗ marye the virgin next ensueng the date abovesayd shall dept. & goe from her nowe dwellinge house wherein she now dwelleth wᵗʰ in this hall & at the same tyme shall have at her deptur if she doethe of her owne voyd wᵗʰout anye further troublynge of the Mʳ and wardeins of this house at that p’sent tyme the some of Twentie six shillinges eightpense in reward.”[336] Cyslie Burdon may have believed that as a widow she had a just claim to the house, for leases granted by the Company at this time were usually for the life of the tenant and his wife.[337]

Footnote 333:

_Records of the Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, Vol. II., Intro., p. ix.

Footnote 334:

For example “Itm payd to the bedells wyffe for kepyng of the gardyn vijs.” _Ibid._ Vol. IV., p. 2. _Warden’s Acct. Book_, 1546. She had besides iiijs. “for her hole yeres wasschyng the clothes” (p. 11) and iiijid. “for skoryng of the vessell,” (p. 13) this payment was later increased to xijid. and she had “for bromes for Oʳ Hall every quarter a jid.” (p. 33) in Reward for her attendance ijs, (p. 114). Burdons wyffe for dressing your dinner xiiijid. (p. 129).

Footnote 335:

_Records of the Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, Vol. III., _Court Book_, p. 97.

Footnote 336:

_Ibid._ p. 103.

Footnote 337:

_Ibid._ Vol. III., pp. 10-11, March 15, 1544-5. “agreyed and codyssendyd thatt frances pope and hys wyffe schall have and hold a gardyn plott lyeng be oure hall in the prysche of alhallouns at london Wall for the tyme of the longer lever of them bothe payeing viijs: be the yere ... the sayd [ ]pope nor hys wyffe schall not take dowene no palles nor pale postes nor Raylles In the garden nor no tres nor bussches schall nott plucke upe be the Rootes nor cutte theme downe nor no maner of erbys ... wᵗowt the lycens of the Master and Wardyns of the mystery of Carpenters” Aug. 10, 1564, “agreed and condissendid that Robart masckall and Elyzabeth his wiffe shall have and hold the Howse which He now occupieth duryng his lyffe and after the deseese of the said Robart to Remayne to Elizabeth his wyffe duryng her wyddohed paying yerlye xls of lawfull mony of England” etc., _Ibid._ Vol. III., p. 78.

Women accompanied their husbands to the Company dinners as a matter of course. In 1556 “the clothyng” are ordered to pay for “ther dynner at the Dynner day ijs. vjid. a man whether ther wyffes or they themselves come or no.”[338] But the entries do not suggest that the position of equal sisters which they held in the days of the old “Boke” was maintained. Women made presents to the Company. “Mistrys ellis,” the wife of one of the masters of the Company, presented “a sylv̄ pott ꝑsell gylt the q̄ter daye at candylmas wayeing viij ozes & a qter.”[339] This apparently was in memory of her deceased husband, for in the same year she “turned over” an apprentice, and in 1564 a fine was paid by Richard Smarte “for not comyng at yᵉ owre appoynted to mistris Ellis beriall—xijid.”[340] Neither the existence of these two instances, which show a lively interest in the Company, nor the absence of other references can be taken as conclusive evidence one way or another concerning the social position of the sisters in the Company. Among the many judgments passed on brothers for reviling each other, using “ondecent words,” etc., etc., only once is a woman fined for this offence, when in 1556 the warden enters in his account book “Resd of frances stelecrag a fyne for yll wordes that his wyffe gave to John Dorrant ijˢ—Resd of John Dorrant for yll wordes that he gave to Mystris frances xvjᵈ—Resd of Wyllam Mortym̃ a fyne for callyng of Mystris frances best ijˢ.”[341]

Footnote 338:

_Records of Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, Vol. III., p. 58.

Footnote 339:

_Ibid._ Vol. IV., p. 99, _Wardens Acct. Book_, 1558.

Footnote 340:

In 1563 xxs. was “Resd of Wyllym barnewell at yᵉ buryall of his wiffe yᵗ she dyd wyll to be gyven to yᵉ Cōpany.” (_Ibid._ Vol. IV., p. 147) “Payd at the buryall of barnewell’s wyffe at yᵉ kyges hedd. xiiijs. iiijid. Paid to the bedle for Redyng of yᵉ wyll viijid.” (_Ibid._ Vol. IV., p. 149.)

Footnote 341:

_Ibid._ Vol. IV., p. 84.

It is certain that the wives of carpenters, like the wives of other tradesmen, shared the business anxieties of their husbands, the help they rendered being most often in buying and selling. This activity is reflected in some rules drawn up to regulate the purchase of timber. In 1554 “yᵗ was agreyd be the Master & wardyns and the moste parte of the assestens that no woman shall come to the waters to by tymber bourde lath q̄ters ponchons gystes & Raffters ther husbandes beyng in the town uppon payne to forfyt at ëvry tyme so fownd.”[342] The Company’s decision was not readily obeyed, for on March 8th, 1547, “the Master and the Wardyns wᵗ partt of the Assestens went to the gyldehall to have had a Redresse for the women that came to the watersyde to by stuffe,”[343] and on March 10th “was called in John Armestrong, Wyllyam boner, Wyllyam Watson, John Gryffyn and Henry Wrest there having amonyssion to warne ther wyffes that they schulde not by no stuffe at the waters syd upone payne of a fyne.”[344]

Footnote 342:

_Records of Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, Vol. III., p. 15, _Court Book_.

Footnote 343:

_Ibid._ Vol. III., p. 30.

Footnote 344:

_Ibid._ Vol. III., p. 31.

On her husband’s death the carpenter’s wife generally retired from business, transferring her apprentices for a consideration to another master. That this practice was not universal is shown in the case of a boy who had been apprenticed to Joseph Hutchinson and was “turned over to Anne Hayward, widow, relict of Richard Hayward Carpentar.”[345] Mrs. Hayward must clearly have been actively prosecuting her late husband’s business. The women who “make free” apprentices seem generally to have done so within a few months of their husband’s deaths. That the Company recognised the right of women to retain apprentices if they chose is shown by the following provision in Statutes dated November 10th, 1607. “If any Apprentice or Apprentices Marry or Absent themselves from their Master or Mistress During their Apprenticehood, then within one month the Master or Mistress is to Bring their Indentures to the hall to be Registered and Entered, etc.” “None to Receive or take into their service or house any Man or Woman’s Apprentice Covenant Servant or Journeyman within the limits aforesaid, etc.”[346]

Footnote 345:

_Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 136.

Footnote 346:

_Records of the Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, Vol. I., Intro. vii-viii.

When a carpenter’s widow could keep her husband’s business together, no one disputed her right to receive apprentices. Several instances of their doing so are recorded towards the end of the century.[347] The right to succeed her husband in his position as carpenter and member of the worshipful company was immediately allowed when claimed by a widow; thus the court “agreed ... that Johan burton wydowe late wife of [ ] burton citezein and Carpenter of London for that warninge hathe not ben goven unto her from tyme to tyme at the Quarterdaies heretofore From henseforthe shall have due warninge goven unto her everye Quarterdaye and at the next Quarterdaie she shall paye in discharge of tharrerages behind Twelve pence & so shall paye her Quateridge (pᵈ xijid.)”[348]; a year later “burtons widow” makes free an apprentice Mighell Pattinson.[349]

Footnote 347:

_Ibid._ p. 137, May 2, 1671. Richardus Read filius Thome Read de Chart Magna in Com. Kanc. Shoemaker po: se appren Josepho Hutchinson Bedello Hujus Societat pro Septem Ann a die dat Indre Dat die et ann ult pred (Assign immediate Susanne Catlin vid nuper uxor. Johannis Catlin nuper Civis et Carpenter London defunct uten etc).

_Ibid._ p. 153. Dec. 5, 1676. Johannes Keyes filius Willi. Keyes nuper de Hampsted in Com. Middx. Milwright ed Elizabetham Davis vid. willi Davis nuper Civi & Carpentar de London a die date pred etc (sic).

_Ibid._ p. 158. July 1, 1679. Samuell Goodfellow filius Johanni of Rowell in Com. Northton Corwayner pon se Martha Wildey relict of Robert pro septem annis a dat etc.

_Ibid._ p. 161. Ap. 5, 1681. Georg Thomas filius Thome nuper de Carlyon in Com Monmouth gent pon se Apprenticum Elizabeth Whitehorne of Aldermanbury vid. Johis. pro septem Annis a dat.

_Ibid._ p. 164. Oct. 4, 1681. Richard Lynn sonn of William Lynn decd. pon se Apprenticum Marie Lynn widdow Relict of the said William C: C: pro septem annis a dat.

_Ibid._ p. 165. March 7, 1681-2. John Whitehorne son of John Whitehorne C: C: Ld, pon se apprenticum Elizabethe Relict. ejusdem Joh’s Whitehorne pro septem annis a dat.

_Ibid._ p. 171. Apr. 5, 1686. Richard Sᵗevenson sonne of Robᵗ Stevenson late of Dublin in the Kingedome of Ireland Pavier bound to Anne Nicholson Widowe the Relict of Anthony Nicholson, for eight yeares.

_Ibid._ p. 189. June 7, 1692. Robert Harper sonne of William Harper of Notchford in the county of Chesheire, bound to Abigail Taylor for Seaven Yeares.

Curiously enough, during the period 1654 to 1670, twenty-one girls were bound apprentice at Carpenters’ Hall. Probably none of these expected to learn the trade of a carpenter.[350] Nine were apprenticed to Richard Hill and his wife, who lived first near St. Michael’s, Cornehill,[351] and afterwards against Trinity Minories.[352] They were apprenticed for seven years to learn the trade of a sempstress, and probably in each case a heavy premium was paid, a note being made against the name of Prudentia Cooper, who was bound in 1664 “(obligatur Pater in 50ˡ pro ventute apprenticij).”[353]

Footnote 348:

_Records of Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, Vol. III., p. 102, _Court Book_, 1567.

Footnote 349:

_Ibid._ Vol. III., p. 200.

Footnote 350:

_Ibid._ Vol. I., Intro. p. x-xi. Apprentice Entry Book.

Footnote 351:

_Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 62.

Footnote 352:

_Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 125.

Footnote 353:

_Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 78.

Richard Hill’s wife’s name is included in the Indentures three times, and in 1672 a boy was apprenticed to “Ric. Hill Civi _et_ Carpenter London necnon de little Minories Silk Winder.”[354] We may infer that Mrs. Hill had founded the business before or after her marriage with the carpenter, and that hers proving profitable the husband had been satisfied with working for wages, while retaining the freedom of the Company, or had transferred his services to his wife’s business, adding that of a Silk winder to it. One girl originally apprenticed to Henry Joyse was “turned over to Anne Joyse sempstress & sole merchant without Thomas Joyse her husband,”[355] five were apprenticed to Henry Joyce to learn the trade of a milliner. No mention is made of his wife, but as he received boy apprentices also,[356] it may be supposed that in fact the two trades of a carpenter and a milliner were carried on in this case simultaneously by him and his wife. The blending of these two trades is noted again in the case of Samuel Joyce;[357] the trade the other girls were to learn is not generally specified, but Rebecca Perry was definitely apprenticed to William Addington “to learne the Art of a Sempstress of his wife.”[358] Two girls were apprenticed to “Thome Clarke ... London Civi et Carpenter ad discend artem de Child’s Coate seller existen. art. uxoris sue pro septem annis.”[359]

Footnote 354:

_Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 145.

Footnote 355:

_Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 136.

Footnote 356:

_Records of the Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, Vol. I., p. 65, e.g. Brewin Radford (obligatur Maria Radford de Perpole in Com Dorsett vid. in 100ˡ pro ventut apprentice).

Footnote 357:

_Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 149, 1674. “Edmundus Wilstead filius Henrici Wilstead de Thetford in Com Norfolcie yeoman po: se appren. Samueli Joyse Civi et Carpenter London necnon de Exambia Regali London miliner pro septem annis” etc.

Footnote 358:

_Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 162.

Footnote 359:

_Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 148.

Elizabeth Lambert, the daughter of Thomas Lambert, formerly of London, silkeman, was apprenticed in 1678 to Rebecca Cooper, widow of Thomas Cooper, “Civis Carpenter London,” for seven years.[360] Another girl who had been apprenticed to this same woman in 1668 applied for her freedom in 1679, which was granted, though apparently her request was an unusual one, the records stating that “Certaine Indentures of Apprentiship were made whereby Rebecca Gyles, daughter of James Gyles of Staines, ... was bound Apprentice to Rebecca Cooper of the parish of St. Buttolph without Aldgate widdow for seaven yeares ... this day att a Court of assistants then holden for this Company came Rebecca Gylles Spinster sometime servant to Rebecca Cooper a free servant of this Company, and complained that haveing served her said Mistres faithfully a Terme of seaven years whᶜʰ expired the twenty-fourth day of June, 1675, and often desired of her said Mistris Testimony of her service to the end shee might bee made free, her said Mistres had hitherto denyed the same; & then presented credible persons within this Citty to testifie the truth of her said service, desireing to bee admitted to the freedome of this Company, which this Table thought reasonable, vnlesse the said Rebecca Cooper, her said Mistres on notice hereof to bee given, shall shew reasonable cause to the contrary, etc.”[361] Encouraged by the success of this application, two other girls followed Rebecca Gyles’ example, one being presented for her freedom at Carpenters’ Hall by Thomas Clarke in 1683 and another by Henry Curtis in 1684.[362]

Footnote 360:

_Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 156.

Footnote 361:

Jupp, _Carpenters_, p. 161, 1679.

Footnote 362:

_Records of Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, Vol. I., p. 198.

Thus it may be presumed that apprenticeship to a brother or sister of the Carpenters’ Company conferred the right of freedom upon any girls who chose to avail themselves of the privilege, even when the trade actually learnt was not that of carpentry. Amongst the girl apprentices only one other was directly bound to a woman, namely “Elizabetha filia Hester Eitchus ux. Geo. Eitchus nuper Civi et Carpentar. pon se dict Hester matri pro septem ann a dat etc.”[363] Although Hester Eitchus is here called “uxor” she must really have been a widow, for her name would not have appeared alone on the indenture during her husband’s lifetime; boy apprentices had previously been bound to him, and no doubt as in the other cases husband and wife had been prosecuting their several trades simultaneously, the wife retaining her membership in the Carpenters’ Company when left a widow. An independent business must have been very necessary for the wife in cases where the husband worked for wages, and not on his own account, for in 1563 carpenter’s wages were fixed “be my lorde mayors commandement ... yf they dyd fynde themselves meat and drynke at xiiijᵈ the day and their servants xijᵈ. Itm otherwises the sayd carpynters to have viijᵈ the day wayges meat & drynke & their servants vjᵈ meat & drynke.”[364] These wages would have been inadequate for the maintenance of a family in London, and therefore unless the carpenter was in a position to employ apprentices and enter into contracts, in which case he could find employment also for his wife, she must have traded in some way on her own account.

Footnote 363:

_Ibid._ Vol. I., _App. Entry Book_, p. 159, Feb. 3, 1679.

Footnote 364:

_Records of the Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, Vol. III., p. 75, _Court Book_.

It is difficult to say how far the position of women in the Stationers’ and Carpenters’ Companies was typical of their position in the other great London Companies and in the Gilds and Companies which flourished or decayed in the provinces. All these organisations resembled each other in certain broad outlines, but varied considerably in details. All seem to have agreed in the early association of brothers and sisters on equal terms for social and religious purposes. Thus the Carpenters’ was “established one perpetual brotherhood, or guild ... to consist of one master, three wardens, and commonalty of freemen, of the Mystery of Carpentry ... and of the brethren and sisters of freemen of the said mystery.”[365] The charter granted by Henry VI. to the Armourers and Braziers provided “that the brethren and sisters of that ffraternity or guild, ... should be of itself one perpetual community ... and have perpetual sucession. And that the brothers and sisters of the same ffraternity or guild, ... might choose and make one Master and two Wardens from among themselves; and also elect and make another Master and other Wardens into the office aforesaid, according to the ordinances of the better and worthier part of the same brethren and sisters....”[366] In this case the sisters were regarded as active and responsible members but of the Merchant Taylors Clode says “It is clear that women were originally admitted as members and took apprentices; that it was customary in later years for women to dine or be present at the quarterly meetings is evidenced by a notice of their absence in 1603, ‘the upper table near to the garden, commonly called the _Mistris Table_, was furnished with sword bearer and gentlemen strangers, there being no gentlewomen at this Quarter Day.’ In many of the wills of early benefactors, sisters as well as brethren are named as ‘devisees.’ Thus in Sibsay’s (1404) the devise is ‘to the Master and Wardens and brethren and sisters’.... When an Almsman of the Livery married with the Company’s consent his widow remained during her life an almswoman, and was buried by the Company. In that sense she was treated as a sister of the fraternity, but she probably exercised no rights as a member of it.”[367]

Footnote 365:

Jupp, _Carpenters_, p. 12.

Footnote 366:

_Armourers and Braziers._, _Charter and By-laws of the Company_, p. 4.

Footnote 367:

Clode, _History of the Merchant Taylors_, London, Vol. I., p. 42.

The sisters are often referred to in the rules relating to the dinners, which were such an important feature of gild life. The “Grocers” provided that “Every one of the Fraternity from thenceforward, that has a wife or companion, shall come to the feast, and bring with him a lady if he pleases; [et ameyne avec luy une demoiselle si luy plest] if they cannot come, for the reasons hereafter named, that is to say, sick, big with child, and near deliverance, without any other exception; and that every man shall pay for his wife 20d.; also, that each shall pay 5s., that is to say, 20d. for himself, 20d. for his companion, and 20d. for the priest. And that all women who are not of the Fraternity, and afterwards should be married to any of the Fraternity, shall be entered and looked upon as of the Fraternity for ever, and shall be assisted and made as one of us; and after the death of her husband, the widow shall come to the dinner, and pay 40d. if she is able. And if the said widow marries any one not of the Fraternity, she shall not be admitted to the said feast, nor have any assistance given her, as long as she remains so married, be whom she will; nor none of us ought to meddle or interfere in anything with her on account of the Fraternity, as long as she remains unmarried.”[368]

Footnote 368:

Heath, _Acct. of the Worshipful Company of Grocers_, p. 53, memo. 1348.

The Wardens of the Merchant Gild at Beverley were directed to make in turn yearly “one dinner for all his bretherne and theire wieves.”[369] The Pewterers decided that “every man and wif that comyth to the yemandries dynner sholde paye xvjid. And every Jorneyman that hath a wif ... xvjᵈ. And every lone man beinge a howsholder that comyth to dynner shall paye xijᵈ. and every Jorneyman having no wif and comyth to dynner shall paye viijᵈ. ... every man that hath bynne maryed wᵗʰin the same ij years shall geve his cocke or eƚƚe paye xijᵈ.... Provided always that none bringe his gest wᵗʰ him wᵗʰowt he paye for his dynner as moch as he paith for hymself and that they bring no childerne wᵗʰ them passing one & no more.”[370] In 1605 it was agreed that “ther shalbe called all the whole clothyng and ther wyves and the wydowes whose husbandes have byne of the clothynge and that shalbe payed ijs. man & wyffe and the wydowes xijid. a peece.”[371] In 1672, the expense of entertaining becoming irksome, “an order of Coʳᵗ for ye abateing extraoʳdinary Feasting” was made, requiring the “Master & Wardens ... to deposit each 12li & spend yᵉ one half thereof upon the Masters & Wardens ffeast this day held, and the Other moyety to be and remain to yᵉ Compᵃ use. Now this day the sᵈ Feast was kept but by reason of the women being invited yᵉ Charge of yᵉ Feast was soe extream that nothing could be cleered to yᵉ house according to yᵉ sᵈ order. There being Spent near 90li.”[372]

Footnote 369:

Leach, _Beverley Town Documents_, p. 95, 1582.

Footnote 370:

Welch, _History of Pewterers Company_, Vol. I., p. 201, 1559.

Footnote 371:

_Ibid._ Vol. II., p. 47.

Footnote 372:

Welch, _Hist. of Pewterers’ Company_, Vol. II., p. 145.

Sisters are also remembered in the provisions made for religious observances and assistance in times of sickness. The ordinances of the Craft of the Glovers at Kingston-upon-Hull required that “every brother and syster of ye same craffᵗᵗ be at every offeryng within the sayd town with every brother or syster of the same crafftt as well at weddynges as at beryalles.” Brethren and sisters were to have lights at their decease, and if in poverty to have them freely.[373] The “yoman taillours” made application “that they and others of their fraternity of yomen yearly may assemble ... near to Smithfield and make offerings for the souls of brethren and sister etc.”[374] In the city of Chester, when a charter was given to joiners, carvers and turners to become a separate Company, not part of the Carpenters’ as formerly, to be called the Company of the Joiners, it is said “Every brother of the said occupacions shall bee ready att all times ... to come unto ... the burial of every brother and sister of the said occupacions.”[375]

Footnote 373:

Lambert, _Two Thousand Years of Gild Life_, p. 217, 1499.

Footnote 374:

_Ibid._ p. 229, 1415.

Footnote 375:

Harl. MSS., 2054, fo. 5. _Charter of the Joiner’s Co._

Sisters must have played an important part in the functions of the Merchant Taylors of Bristol, for an order was made in 1401 that “the said maister and iiii wardeyns schall ordeyne every yere good and convenient cloth of oon suyt for all brothers and sisters of the said fraternity....”[376] The Charter of this Company provided that “ne man ne woman be underfange into the fraternite abovesaid withoute assent of the Keper and maister etc. ... and also that hit be a man or woman y knowe of good conversation and honeste.... Also y^f eny brother other soster of thys fraternite above sayde that have trewly y payed hys deutes yat longeth to ye fraternite falle into poverte other into myschef and maie note travalle for to he be releved, he schal have of ye comune goodes every weke xxiᵈ of monei ... and yf he be a man yat hath wyfe and chylde he schal trewly departe alle hys goodes bytwyne heir and hys wyfe and children; and ye partie that falleth to hym he schal trewly yeld up to ye mayster and to ye wardynes of the fraternite obove sayde, in ye maner to fore seide....” The brothers and sisters shall share in the funeral ceremonies, etc., “also gif eny soster chyde with other openly in the strete, yat eyther schalle paye a pounde wex to ye lighte of the fraternite; and gif they feygte eyther schall paie twenty pounde wex to ye same lyte upon perryle of hir oth gif thei be in power. And gif eny soster by y proved a commune chider among her neygbourys after ones warnyng other tweies at the (delit) ye thridde tyme ye maister and ye wardeynes of ye fraternite schulle pute her out of ye compaynye for ever more.”[377]

Footnote 376:

Fox (F. F.) _Merchant Taylors, Bristol_, p. 31.

Footnote 377:

_Ibid._ p. 26-9.

Chiding and reviling were failings common to all gilds, and were by no means confined to the sisters. The punishments appointed by the Merchant Gild at Beverley for those “who set up detractions, or rehearse past disputes, or unduly abuse”[378] are for brothers only. And though it was “Agreed by the Mʳ Wardens and Assystaunce” of the Pewterers that “Robert west sholde bringe in his wif vpon ffrydaye next to reconsile her self to Mʳ Cacher and others of the Company for her naughty mysdemeanoʳ of her tonge towarde them,”[379] the quarrelling among the Carpenters seems to have been almost confined to the men.

Footnote 378:

Leach, _Beverley Town Documents_, p. 78, 1494.

Footnote 379:

Welch, Charles, _Hist. of Pewterers Company_, Vol. I., p. 200, 1558.

There can be no doubt that the sisters shared fully in the social and religious life of the Gilds; it is also perfectly clear that the wife was regarded by the Gild or Company as her husband’s partner, and that, after his death she was confirmed in the possession of his business with his leases and apprentices at least during the term of her widowhood.

But the extent to which she really worked with him in his trade and was qualified to carry it on as a going concern after his death is much more difficult to determine, varying as it did from trade to trade and depending so largely in each case upon the natural capacity of the individual woman concerned. The extent to which a married woman could work with her husband depended partly upon whether his trade was carried on at home or abroad. It has been suggested that the carpenters who often were engaged in building operations could not profit much by their wives’ assistance, but many trades which in later times have become entirely closed to women were then so dependent on their labour that sisters are mentioned specifically in rules concerning the conditions of manufacture. Thus the charter of the Armourers and Brasiers was granted in the seventeenth year of James I. “to the Master and Wardens and Brothers and Sisters of the ffraternity ... that from thenceforth All & all manner of brass and copper works ... edged tools ... small guns ... wrought by any person or persons being of the same ffraternity ... should be searched and approved ... by skilful Artificers of the said ffraternity.”[380] Rules which were drawn up at Salisbury in 1612 provide that no free brother or sister shall “rack, set, or cause to be racked or set, any cloth upon any tenter, on the Sabbath day, under the forfeiture of 2s.” The Wardens of the Company of Merchants, Mercers, Grocers, Apothecaries, Goldsmiths, Drapers, Upholsterers, and Embroiderers were ordered to search the wares, merchandise, weights and measures of sisters as well as brothers.[381] “No free brother or sister is at any time to put any horse leather into boots or shoes or any liquored calves leather into boots or shoes, to be sold between the feast of St. Bartholomew the Apostle and the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary.... No free brother or sister is to keep or set up any standing in the market place, except in fair times. No brother or sister is to set open his or her shop, or to do any work, in making or mending of boots and shoes on the Sabbath day, on pain of twelve pence forfeit.”[382]

Footnote 380:

_Armourers and Brasiers, Charter and Bye laws of Company of._, p. 5. See also Johnson, _Ordinances of the Drapers of London_, Vol. I., p. 280, 1524).

“(it shall not be lawful unto any brother or sister freed in this fellyship to take mo. apprentices than may stand in good order for their degree) ... every brother being in the master’s livery shall pay 6s. 8d. and every sister whose husband has been of the aforesaid livery shall pay for every apprentice 6s. 8d. and every other brother or sister not being of the master’s livery shall pay for every apprentice 3s. 4d.”

Footnote 381:

Hoare, Sir R. C., _Hist. of Modern Wilts_, Vol. VI., p. 340.

Footnote 382:

_Ibid._ Vol. VI., p. 343.

Rules which specifically permit the employment of the master’s wife or daughter in his trade while excluding other unapprenticed persons, are in themselves evidence that they were often so employed. Thus the Glovers allowed “noe brother of this ffraternity” to “take an apprentice vnder the full end and tearme of seaven years ffuly to be compleat ... excepting brothers son or daughter....”[383] No leatherseller might “put man, child or woman to work in the same mistery, if they be not bound apprentice, and inrolled in the same mistery; excepting their wives and children.”[384] Similarly the Girdlers in 1344 ordered that “no one of the trade shall get any woman to work other than his wedded wife or daughter”[385] while by a rule of the Merchant Taylors, Bristol “no person ... shall cutt make or sell any kynde of garment, garments, hose or breeches within ye saide cittie ... unles he be franchised and made free of the saide crafte (widdowes whose husbandes were free of ye saide crafte duringe the tyme of their wyddowhedd vsinge ye same with one Jorneyman and one apprentice only excepted).”[386]

Footnote 383:

Ferguson, _Carlisle_, p. 212, _Glover’s Gild_, 1665.

Footnote 384:

Black, W. H., _Articles of the Leathersellers_, p. 21, 1398.

Footnote 385:

Smythe, W. D., _Hist. of Worshipful Co. of Girdlers, London_, p. 63.

Footnote 386:

Fox, F. F., _Merchant Taylors, Bristol_, pp. 64-65.

The association of women with their husbands in business matters is often suggested by the presence of both their names on indentures. Walter Beemer, for example, was apprenticed to John Castle of Marke and Johane his wife to be instructed and brought up in the trade of a tanner.[387] Sometimes it is shown by the indifference with which money transactions are conducted either with husband or with wife. When the Corporation at Dorchester purchased a new mace in 1660, Mr. Sam White’s wife appears to have acted throughout in the matter. An entry in the records for 1660 states that “the silver upon the old maces ... comes unto iijˡⁱ.xviijˢ.iijᵈ, which was intended to bee delivered to Mr. Sam: White’s wife towards payment for the new Maces.... Mr. White hath it the 18th of January, 1660.” (Inserted later).

July 3rd, 1661.—pd. Mrs. White as appeareth forward — 5 0 0

October 4th, 1661.—pd. Mrs. White more as appeareth forward — 4 10 0

About Michaelmas, Mr. Sauage pd Mrs. White in dollers— 7 7 0

April 26th, 1661.—It is ordered and agreed that twenty shillings a man, which shall be lent and advanced to Mr. Samuel White’s wife by any of this Company towards payment for the Maces shall be repayed back to them.”[388]

Footnote 387:

_Somerset Quarter Sessions Records_, Vol. III., p. 165, 1652.

Footnote 388:

Mayo, G. H., _Municipal Records, Dorchester_, p. 466.

An equal indifference is shown by the Carpenters’ Company in making payments for their ale. Sometimes these are entered to William Whytte, but quite as often to “his wyffe.” For example in 1556 “Itm payd for Yest to Whytte’s wyffe iiijᵈ.”[389] “Resd of Whytte’s wyffe her hole yere’s Rent in ale xxixˢ iiijᵈ.”[390] “Itm payd to whytte’s wyffe for ale above the rent of hyr howsse iijˢ.vjᵈ.” “Itm payd to whytte’s wyffe for hopyng of tobbis xvjᵈ.”[391] Finally, in 1559, when perhaps William Whytte had departed this life, it is entered “Resd of Mother whytte hole yeres rent xxixˢ vijᵈ.”[392]

Footnote 389:

_Rec. of Worshipful Co. of Carpenters_, Vol. IV., p. 56, _Warden’s Acct. Book_, 1556.

Footnote 390:

_Ibid._ Vol. IV., p. 86.

Footnote 391:

_Ibid._ Vol. IV., p. 88.

Footnote 392:

_Ibid._ Vol. IV., p. 101.

The Pewterers, in order to check stealing, ordered that “none of the sayde Crafte shall bye anye Leade of Tylers, Laborers, Masons, boyes, nor of women Nor of none such as shall seme to be a Suspect pson,” adding “that none of the sayde companye shalbe excusyd by his wif or servannte nor none other suche lyk excuse.”[393]

Footnote 393:

Welch, _Hist. of Pewterers’ Company_, Vol. I., pp. 180-181.

Gild rules recognise the authority of the mistress over apprentices, the Clockmakers ordaining that “no servant or apprentice that ... hath without just and reasonable cause, departed from his master, mistress or dame, ... shall be admitted to work for himself,”[394] while the charter of the Glass-sellers provides suitable punishment “if any apprentice ... shall misbehave himself towards his master or mistress ... or shall lie out of his master or mistress’s house without his or her privity.”[395]

Footnote 394:

Overall, _Company of Clockmakers_, London, p. 43, 1632.

Footnote 395:

Ramsay, Wm., _Hist. of the Glass-Sellers_, p. 125.

When a man who belonged to Gild or Company died, his wife was free to continue his business under her own management, retaining her position as a free sister, or she might withdraw from trade and transfer her apprentices to another brother. In the Carpenters’ and some other trades the latter was the more usual course to follow; thus Thomas Mycock, a cutler, on taking over an apprentice who had served John Kay, deceased, six years, covenanted to pay Kay’s widow 20s. a year for the three remaining years,[396] but on the other hand the widow Poynton was paid 15s. 7d. “for glass worke” by the Burgery of Sheffield;[397] showing that she had not withdrawn from business on her husband’s death. It is clear that widows often lost their rights as sisters, if they took, as a second husband, a man who was not and did not become a brother of the same Gild. Thus there is an entry in the “Pewterers’ Records,” 1678, concerning “Mrs. Sicily Moore, formerly the wife of Edward Fish, late member of this Compᵃ decđ, and since marryed to one Moore, a fforeignir, now also decđ, desired to be admitted into the ffreedome of this Compᵃ. After some debate the Court agreed and soe Ordered that she shall be received into the ffreedom of the Compᵃ Gratis, onely paying usuall ffees and this Condition that she shall not bind any app’ntice by virtue of the sᵈ Freedom.”[398]

Footnote 396:

Leader, _Hist. of Company of Cutlers_, Vol. I., p. 47, 1696.

Footnote 397:

Leader, _Records of the Burgery of Sheffield_, p. 227, 1685.

Footnote 398:

Welch, _Hist. of Pewterers’ Company_, Vol. II., p. 153.

Instances occur in which an apprentice was discharged because “the wife, after the death of her Husband, taught him not.”[399] The apprentice naturally brought forward this claim if by so doing there was a chance of shortening the term of his service, but he was not always successful. The Justices dismissed a case brought by Edward Steel, ordering him to serve Elizabeth Apprice, widow, the remainder of his term. He was apprenticed in 1684 to John Apprice Painter-Stainer for nine years; he had served seven years when his master died, and he now declares that Elizabeth, the widow, refuses to instruct him. She insists that since her husband’s death she has provided able workmen to instruct this apprentice, and that he was now capable of doing her good service.[400] When the “widowe Holton prayed that she [being executor to her husband] maye have the benefitt of the service of Roger Jakes, her husband’s apprentice by Indenture, for the residue of the years to come, which he denyeth to performe, it was ordered that th’apprentice shall dwell and serve his dame duringe the residue of his terme, she providing for him as well work as other things fitt for him.”[401] The Gilders having accused Richard Northy of having more than the just number of apprentices, he stated in his defence that the apprentice “was not any that was taken or bound by him, but was left unto him by express words in the will of his deceased mother-in-law whᶜʰ will, wᵗʰ the probate thereof, he now produced in court.”[402]

Footnote 399:

Stow, _London_, Book V., p. 335.

Footnote 400:

_Middlesex Sessions Book_, p. 47, 1691.

Footnote 401:

Guilding, _Reading Records_, Vol. II., p. 362.

Footnote 402:

Smythe, _Company of Girdlers_, p. 133, 1635.

The occurrence of widows’ names among the cases which came before the Courts for infringements of the Company’s rules is further evidence that they were actively engaged in business. “Two bundles of unmade girdles were taken from widows Maybury and Bliss, young widows they were ordered to pay 5s. each by way of fine for making and selling unlawful wares.”[403] Richard Hewatt, of Northover in Glastonbury, fuller, when summoned to appear before the Somerset Quarter Sessions as a witness, refers to his dame Ursula Lance who had “lost 2 larrows worth five shillings and that Robert Marsh, one of the constables of Somerton Hundred, found in the house of William Wilmat the Larrows cloven in pieces and put in the oven, and the Rack-hookes that were in the larrows were found in the fire in the said house.”[404]

Footnote 403:

_Ibid._ p. 87, 1627.

Footnote 404:

_Somerset Q.S. Rec._, Vol. III., pp. 365-6, 1659.

Widows were very dependent upon the assistance of journeymen, and often chose a relation for this responsible position. At Reading “All the freeman Blacksmiths in this Towne complayne that one Edward Nitingale, a smith, beinge a forreynour, useth the trade of a blacksmith in this Corporacion to the great dammage of the freemen: it was answered that he is a journeyman to the Widowe Parker, late wife to Humfrey Parker, a blacksmith, deceassed, and worketh as her servant at 5s. a weeke, she being his aunt, and was advised to worke in noe other manner but as a journeyman.”[405] The connection often ended in marriage; it was brought to the notice of one of the Quaker’s Meetings in London that one of their Members, “Will Townsend ... card maker proposes to take to wife Elizabeth Doshell of ye same place to be his wife, and ye same Elizabeth doth propose to take ye said Will to be her husband, the yonge man liveing with her as a journey-man had thought and a beliefe that she would come to owne ye truth and did propose to her his Intentions towards her as to marige before she did come to owne the truth which thinge being minded to him by ffriends ... he has acknowledged it soe and sayes it had been beter that he had waited till he had had his hope in some measure answered.”[406]

Footnote 405:

Guilding, _Reading Records_, Vol. III., p. 502, 1640.

Footnote 406:

_Horsleydown Monthly Meeting Minute Book_, 19 11mo., 1675.

Such marriages, though obviously offering many advantages, were not always satisfactory. A lamentable picture of an unfortunate one is given in the petition of Sarah Westwood, wife of Robert Westwood, Feltmaker, presented to Laud in 1639, showing that “your petitioner was (formerly) the wife of one John Davys, alsoe a Feltmaker, who dying left her a howse furnished with goodes sufficient for her use therein and charged with one childe, as yet but an infant, and two apprentices, who, for the residue of their termes ... could well have atchieved sufficient for the maynetenance of themselves and alsoe of your petitioner and her child. That being thus left in good estate for livelyhood, her nowe husband became a suitor unto her in the way of marriage, being then a journeyman feltmaker....”

Soon after their marriage, “Westwood following lewde courses, often beate and abused your petitioner, sold and consumed what her former husband left her, threatened to kill her and her child, turned them out of dores, refusing to afford them any means of subsistance, but on the contrary seekes the utter ruin of them both and most scandelously has traduced your petitioner giving out in speeches that she would have poysoned him thereby to bring a generall disgrace upon her, ... and forbiddes all people where she resortes to afford her entertaignment, and will not suffer her to worke for the livelyhood of her and her child, but will have accompt of the same.... Albeit he can get by his labour 20/- a weeke, yet he consumes the same in idle company ... having lewdlie spent all he had with your petitioner.”[407]

Footnote 407:

_S.P.D._, ccccxxxv. 42, Dec. 6, 1639.

Though their entrance to the Gilds and Companies was most often obtained by women through marriage, it has already been shown that their admission by apprenticeship was not unknown, and they also occasionally acquired freedom by patrimony; thus “Katherine Wetwood, daughter of Humphrey Wetwood, of London, Pewterer, was sworn and made free by the Testimony of the Master and Wardens of the Merchant Taylors’ Co., and of two Silk Weavers, that she was a virgin and twenty-one years of age. She paid the usual patrimony fine of 9s. 2d.”[408] More than one hundred years later Mary Temple was made free of the Girdlers’ Company by patrimony.[409] No jealousy is expressed of the women who were members of the Companies, but all others were rigorously excluded from employment. Complaints were brought before the Girdlers’ that certain Girdlers in London “set on worke such as had not served 7 years at the art, and also for setting forreigners and maids on worke.”[410] Rules were made in Bristol in 1606, forbidding women to work at the trades of the whitawers (white leather-dressers), Point-makers and Glovers.[411]

Footnote 408:

Welch, _Pewterers_, Vol. II., p. 92, 1633-4.

Footnote 409:

Smythe, _Company of Girdlers_, p. 128, 1747.

Footnote 410:

_Ibid._ p. 88, 1628.

Footnote 411:

Latimer, _Annals of Bristol_, p. 26, 1606.

In the unprotected trades where the Gild organisation had broken down, and the profits of the small tradesmen had been reduced to a minimum by unlimited competition, the family depended upon the labour of mother and children as well as the father for its support. Petitions presented to the King concerning grievances under which they suffer, generally include wives and children in the number of those engaged in the trade in question. On a proposal to tax tobacco pipes, the makers show “that all the poorer sort of the Trade must be compelled to lay it down, for want of Stock or Credit to carry it on; and so their Wives and Children, who help to get their Bread, must of necessity perish, or become a Charge to their respective Parishes. That when a Gross of Pipes are made, they sell them for 1s. 6d. and 1s. 10d., out of which 2d. or 3d. is their greatest Profit. And they not already having Stock, or can make Pipes fast enough to maintain their Families, how much less can they be capable, when half the Stock they have, must be paid down to pay the King his Duty?”[412]

Footnote 412:

_Humble Petition and Case of the Tobacco Pipe Makers of the Citys of London and Westminster, 1695._

The Glovers prepared a memorandum showing the great grievances there would be if a Duty be laid on Sheep and Lamb Skins, Drest in Oyl etc. “The Glovers,” they say, “are many Thousands in Number, in the Counties of England, City of London and Liberties thereof, and generally so Poor (the said Trade being so bad and Gloves so plenty) that mear Necessity doth compel them to Sell their Goods daily to the Glove-sellers, and to take what Prises they will give them, to keep them and their Children and Families at Work to maintain them, or else they must perrish for want of Bred.”[413]

Footnote 413:

_Reasons humbly offered by the Leather-Dressers and Glovers, &c._

The Pin-makers say that their company “consists for the most part of poor and indigent People, who have neither Credit nor Money to purchase Wyre of the Merchant at the best hand, but are forced for want thereof, to buy only small Parcels of the second or third Buyer, as they have occasion to use it, and to sell off the Pins they make of the same from Week to Week, as soon as they are made, for ready money, to feed themselves, their Wives, and Children, whom they are constrained to imploy to go up and down every Saturday Night from Shop to Shop to offer their Pins for Sale, otherwise cannot have mony to buy bread.”[414]

Footnote 414:

_Case or Petition of the Corporation of Pin-makers._

A similar picture is given in the “Mournfull Cryes of many thousand Poore tradesmen, who are ready to famish through decay of Trade.” “Oh that the cravings of our Stomacks could bee heard by the Parliament and City! Oh that the Teares of our poore famishing Babes were botled! Oh that their tender Mothers Cryes for bread to feed them were ingraven in brasse.... O you Members of Parliament and rich men in the City, that are at ease, and drink Wine in Bowles ... you that grind our faces and Flay off our skins ... is there none to Pity.... Its your Taxes Customes and Excize, that compels the Country to raise the price of Food and to buy nothing from us but meere absolute necessaries; and then you of the City that buy our Worke, must have your Tables furnished ... and therefore will give us little or nothing for our Worke, even what you please, because you know wee must sell for Monyes to set our Families on worke, or else wee famish ... and since the late Lord Mayor Adams, you have put into execution an illegall, wicked Decree of the Common Counsell; whereby you have taken our goods from us, if we have gone to the Innes to sell them to the Countrimen; and you have murdered some of our poor wives, that have gone to Innes to find countrimen to buie them.”[415]

Footnote 415:

_Mournfull Cryes of many Thousand Poore Tradesmen_, 1647.

In each case it will be noticed that the wife’s activity is specially mentioned in connection with the sale of the goods. Women were so closely connected with industrial life in London that when the Queen proposed to leave London in 1641 it was the women who petitioned Parliament, declaring, “that your Petitioners, their Husbands, their Children and their Families, amounting to many thousand soules; have lived in plentifull and good fashion, by the exercise of severall Trades and venting of divers workes.... All depending wholly for the sale of their commodities, (which is the maintenance and very existence and beeing of themselves, their husbands, and families) upon the splendour and glory of the English Court, and principally upon that of the Queenes Majesty.”[416]

Footnote 416:

_Humble Petition of many thousands of Courtiers, Citizens, Gentlemens and Tradesmens Wives, &c._

In addition to these Trades, skilled and semi-skilled, in which men and women worked together, certain skilled women’s trades existed in London which were sufficiently profitable for considerable premiums to be paid with the girls who were apprenticed to them.[417] These girls probably continued to exercise their own trade after marriage, their skill serving them instead of dowry, the Customs of London providing that “married women who practise certain crafts in the city alone and without their husbands, may take girls as apprentices to serve them and learn their trade, and these apprentices shall be bound by their indentures of apprenticeship to both husband and wife, to learn the wife’s trade as is aforesaid, and such indentures shall be enrolled as well for women as for men.”[418] The girls who were apprenticed to Carpenters were evidently on this footing.

Footnote 417:

Ante, p. 175.

Footnote 418:

Eileen Power, by kind permission, 1419.

References in contemporary documents to women who were following skilled or semi-skilled trades in London are very frequent. Thus Thomas Swan is reported to have committed thefts “on his mistress Alice Fox, Wax-chandler of Old Bailey.”[419] Mrs. Cellier speaks of “one Mrs. Phillips, an upholsterer,”[420] while the Rev. Giles Moore notes in his diary “payed Mistress Cooke, in Shoe Lane, for a new trusse, and for mending the old one and altering the plate thereof, £1 5 0; should shee dye, I am in future to inquire for her daughter Barbara, who may do the like for mee.”[421] Isaac Derston was “put an app. to Anthony Watts for the term of seven years, but turned over to the widow—dwelling near: palls: who bottoms cane chaires, £2 10 0.”[422] That the bottoming of cane chairs was a poor trade is witnessed by the meagreness of the premium paid in this case.

Footnote 419:

_C.S.P.D._ cv. 53, Jan. 19, 1619.

Footnote 420:

Cellier (Mrs.) _Malice Defeated_., p. 25.

Footnote 421:

_Suss. Arch. Coll._, Vol. I., p. 123, _Journal Rev._, 1676.

Footnote 422:

_Monthly Meeting Minute Book, Peele_, Nov. 24, 1687.

No traces can be found of any organisation existing in the skilled women’s trades, such as upholstery, millinery, mantua-making, but a Gild existed among the women who sorted and packed wool at Southampton. A Sisterhood consisting of twelve women of good and honest demeanour was formed there as a company to serve the merchants in the occupation of covering pokes or baloes [bales]. Two of the sisters acted as wardens. In 1554 a court was held to adjudicate on the irregular attendance of some of the sisters. The names of two wardens and eleven sisters are given; no one who was absent from her duties for more than three months was permitted to return to the Sisterhood without the Mayor’s licence. “Item, yᵗ is ordered by the sayde Maior and his bretherne that all suche as shall be nomynated and appoynted to be of the systeryd shall make a brekefaste at their entrye for a knowlege and shal bestowe at the least xxᵈ or ijˢ, or more as they lyste.”[423]

Footnote 423:

Davies. (J. S.) _Hist. of Southampton_, p. 279.

Possibly when more records of the Gilds and Companies have been published in a complete form, some of the gaps which are left in this account of the position of women in the skilled and semi-skilled trades may be filled in; but the extent to which married women were engaged in them must always remain largely a matter of conjecture, and unfortunately it is precisely this point which is most interesting to the sociologist. Practically all adult women were married, and the character of the productive work which an economic organisation allots to married women and the conditions of their labour decide very largely the position of the mother in society, and therefore, ultimately, the fate of her children. The fragmentary evidence which has been examined shows that, while the system of family industry lasted, it was so usual in the skilled and semi-skilled trades for women to share in the business life of their husbands that they were regarded as partners. Though the wife had rarely, if ever, served an apprenticeship to his trade, there were many branches in which her assistance was of great value, and husband and wife naturally divided the industry between them in the way which was most advantageous to the family, while unmarried servants, either men or women, performed the domestic drudgery. As capitalistic organisation developed, many avenues of industry were, however, gradually closed to married women. The masters no longer depended upon the assistance of their wives, while the journeyman’s position became very similar to that of the modern artisan; he was employed on the premises of his master, and thus, though his association with his fellows gave him opportunity for combination, his wife and daughters, who remained at home, did not share in the improvements which he effected in his own economic position. The alternatives before the women of this class were either to withdraw altogether from productive

## activity, and so become entirely dependent upon their husband’s

goodwill, or else to enter the labour market independently and fight their battles alone, in competition not only with other women, but with men.

Probably the latter alternative was still most often followed by married women, although at this time the idea that men “keep” their wives begins to prevail: but the force of the old tradition maintained amongst women a desire for the feeling of independence which can only be gained through productive activity, and thus married women, even when unable to work with their husbands, generally occupied themselves with some industry, however badly it might be paid.

B. _Retail Trades._

The want of technical skill and knowledge which so often hampered the position of women in the Skilled Trades, was a smaller handicap in Retail Trades, where manual dexterity and technical knowledge are less important than general intelligence and a lively understanding of human nature. Quick perception and social tact, which are generally supposed to be feminine characteristics, often proved useful even to the craftsman, when his wife assumed the charge of the financial side of his business; it is therefore not surprising to find women taking a prominent part in every branch of Retail Trade. In fact the woman who was left without other resources turned naturally to keeping a shop, or to the sale of goods in the street, as the most likely means for maintaining her children, and thus the woman shopkeeper is no infrequent figure in contemporary writings. For example, in one of the many pamphlets describing the incidents of the Civil War, we read that “Mistresse Phillips was sent for, who was found playing the good housewife at home (a thing much out of fashion) ... and committed close prisoner to castle.” Her husband having been driven before from town, “She was to care for ten children, the most of them being small, one whereof she at the same time suckled, her shop (which enabled her to keep all those) was ransacked,” £14 was taken, and the house plundered, horse and men billetted with her when she could scarce get bread enough for herself and her family without charity. She was tried, and condemned to death, when, the account continues, “Mistress Phillips not knowing but her turne was next, standing all the while with a halter about her neck over against the Gallowes, a Souldier would have put the halter under her Handkerchiefe, but she would not suffer him, speaking with a very audible voice, ‘I am not ashamed to suffer reproach and shame in this cause,’ a brave resolution, beseeming a nobler sex, and not unfit to be registered in the Book of Martyrs.”

The woman shop-keeper is found also among the stock characters of the drama. In “The Old Batchelor” Belinda relates that “a Country Squire, with the Equipage of a Wife and two Daughters, came to Mrs. Snipwel’s Shop while I was there ... the Father bought a Powder-Horn, and an Almanack, and a Comb-Case; the Mother, a great Fruz-Towr, and a fat Amber-Necklace; the Daughters only tore two Pair of Kid-leather Gloves, with trying ’em on.”[424]

Footnote 424:

Congreve (Wm.). _The Old Batchelor_, Act iv., Sc. viii.

Amongst the Quakers, shop-keeping was a usual employment for women. Thomas Chalkley, soon after his marriage “had a Concern to visit Friends in the counties of Surrey, Sussex and Kent, which I performed in about two Weeks Time, and came home and followed my calling, and was industrious therein; and when I had gotten something to bear my expenses, and settled my Wife in some little Business I found an Exercise on my Spirit to go over to _Ireland_.”[425] Another Quaker describes how he applied himself “to assist my Wife in her Business as well as I could, attending General, Monthly and other Meetings on public Occasions for three Years.”[426] The provision of the little stock needed for a shop was a favourite method of assisting widows.

Footnote 425:

Chalkley, _Journal_, pp. 30-31, 1690.

Footnote 426:

Bownas, Samuel, _Life of_, p. 135.

The frequency with which payments to women are entered in account books[427] is further evidence of the extent to which they were engaged in Retail Trades, but this occupation was not freely open to all and any who needed it. It was, on the contrary, hedged about with almost as many restrictions as the gild trades. The craftsman was generally free to dispose of his own goods, but many restrictions hampered the Retailer, that is to say the person who bought to sell again. The community regarded this class with some jealousy, and limited their numbers. Hence, the poor woman who sought to improve her position by opening a little shop, did not always find her course clear. In fact there were many towns in which the barriers between her and an honest independence were insurmountable. Girls were, however, apprenticed to shopkeepers oftener than to the gild trades, and licences to sell were granted to freewomen as well as to freemen. At Dorchester, girls who had served an apprenticeship to shopkeepers were duly admitted to the freedom of the Borough; we find entered in the Minute Book the names of Celina Hilson, apprenticed to Mat. Hilson, Governor, haberdasher, and Mary Goodredge, spinster, haberdasher of small wares; also of James Bun (who had married Elizabeth Williams a freewoman), haberdasher of small wares; Elizabeth Williams, apprenticed seven years to her Mother, Mary W., tallow chaundler, and of William Weare, apprenticed to Grace Lacy, widow, woolen draper.[428] An order was granted by the Middlesex Quarter Sessions to discharge Mary Jemmett from apprenticeship to Jane Tyllard, widow, from whom she was to learn “the trade of keeping a linen shop,”[429] and an account is given of a difference between Susanna Shippey, of Mile End, Stepney, widow, and Ann Taylor, her apprentice, touching the discharge of the said apprentice. It appears that Ann has often defrauded her mistress of her goods and sold them for less than cost price.[430]

Footnote 427:

Mayo, _Municipal Records of Dorchester_, p. 428-9.

Footnote 428:

The Churchwardens of St. Margaret’s, Westminster, paid 6d. to “Goodwyfe Wells for salt to destroy the fleas in the Churchwarden’s pew.” (Cox. _Churchwardens Accts._, p. 321, 1610.). Among the Cromwell family receipts is one in 1624 “from ye Right worᵉ ye Lady Carr by the hands of Henry Hanby, the somme of twenty and one pounds in full payment of all Reckonings from the beginninge of the world ... by me ellen Sadler X” (_Cromwell Family Bills and Receipts_, p. 15.) “A bill for Mrs. Willie of Ramsie the 14 of April 1636

for material and making your daughter petecoat for material and making your silk grogram coate for material and making your daughter’s gasson shute for material and making your daughter’s silke moheare wascote for material and making your damask coate Total 7. 17. 9.” (_Ibid._ p. 265).

The Rev. Giles Moore bought “of Widdow Langley 2 more fine sheets, of Goodwyfe Seamer 9 ells. and a halfe of hempen cloath.” (_Suss. Arch. Coll._ Vol. I., p. 68, 1656. Rev. Giles Moore’s Journal).

Foulis paid, in Scots money, Jan. 22, 1692 “to Mrs. Pouries lad for aniseed, carthamums &c. 11s.” (p. 144), and on Aug. 3, 1696 he “received from Eliz. Ludgate last Whits maill for yᵉ shop at fosters Wyndhead 25ˡⁱᵇ.” (p. 195). Jan. 14, 1704 “to my douchter Jean be Mrs. Cuthbertsons paymᵗ for 4 ell & ½ flowered calico to lyne my nightgowne 7. 13. 0.” (p. 339). May 23, 1704 “receaved from Agnes philp Whitsun, maill for the shop at fosters wyndhead and yᵉ key therof, and given it to the Candlemakers wife who has taken the shop 25ˡⁱᵇ” (p. 346). (Foulis _Acct. Book_). Similar entries are in the _Howard Household Book_, 1619. “To Mrs. Smith for lining [linen] for my Lord, had in Easter tearm, 5ˡⁱ xˢ. Mrs. Smith for napry had in May vjˡⁱ iiˢ” (_Howard Household Book_, _pp._ 105 and 161.).

Footnote 429:

_Middlesex County Records_, p. 180, 1698.

Footnote 430:

_Middlesex County Records_, p. 2, 1690.

Little mercy was shown to either man or woman who engaged in the Retail Trade without having served an apprenticeship. A warrant was only issued to release “Elizabeth Beaseley from the Hospital of Bridewell on her brother John Beaseley’s having entered into bond that she shall leave off selling tobacco in the town of Wigan.”[431] Mary Keeling was presented at Nottingham “for falowing ye Treaid of a Grocer and Mercer and kepping open shope for on month last past, _contra Statum_, not being _aprentice_.”[432] At Carlisle it was ordered that “Isaack Tully shall submit himself to pay a fine to this trade if they shall think it fitting for taking his sister to keep & sell waires for him contrary to our order,”[433] and when it was reported that “Mrs. Studholme hath employed James Moorehead Scotsman to vend and sell goods in her shop contrary to an order of this company wee doe order that the wardens of our company shall fourthwith acquaint Mrs. Studholme yt. she must not be admitted to entertain him any longʳ in her employmt but that before our next quarter day she take some other course for keeping her shop and yt. he be noe longer employed therein till yt. time.”[434] At a later date Mrs. Sybil Hetherington, Mrs. Mary Nixon, Mrs. Jane Jackson, widow, and four men, were dealt with for having shops or retailery of goods contrary to the statute.[435]

Footnote 431:

_C. R._ 18th, August, 1640.

Footnote 432:

_Nottingham Records_, Vol. V., p. 331, 1686.

Footnote 433:

Ferguson, _Municipal Records, Carlisle_, p. 110, 1651.

Footnote 434:

_Ibid._ p. 112, 1668.

Footnote 435:

_Ibid._ p. 115, 1719.

There were fewer restrictions on retailing in London than in the provinces, and trading was virtually free in the streets of London. An act of the Common Council, passed in 1631, deals with abuses rising from this freedom, declaring “that of late it is come to passe that divers unruly people, as Butchers, Bakers, Poulters, Chandlers, Fruiterers, Sempsters, sellers of Grocery wares, Oyster wives, Herbe wives, Tripe wives, and the like; who not contented to enjoy the benefit and common right of Citizens, by holding their market and continual Trades in their several Shops & houses where they dwell, doe ... by themselves, wives, children and seruants enter into, and take up their standings in the said streets and places appointed for the common Markets, unto which the country people only have in former times used to resort to vend and utter their victuall and other commodities; in which Markets the said Freemen doe abide for the most part of the day and that not only upon Market dayes, but all the weeke long with multitudes of Baskets, Tubs, Chaires, Boards & Stooles, ... the common Market places by these disordered people be so taken up, that country people when they come with victual and provision have no roome left them to set down their ... baskets.”[436]

Footnote 436:

_Act of Common Council for reformation, etc._

In provincial towns, stalls in the market place were leased to tradesmen by the Corporation, the rents forming a valuable revenue for the town; infringements of the monopoly were summarily dealt with and often the privilege was reserved for “free” men and women. Thus at St. Albans Richard Morton’s wife was presented because she “doth ordinarilie sell shirt bands and cuffes, hankerchers, coifes, and other small lynenn wares openlie in the markett,”[437] not being free. It was as a special favour that leave was given to a poor woman to sell shoes in Carlisle market. The conditions are explained as follows:—“Whereas Ann Barrow the wife of Richard Barrow formerly one that by virtue of the Coldstream Act brought shoes and exposed them to sell in Carlisle market he being long abroad and his said wife poor the trade is willing to permit the said Ann to bring and sell shoes provided always they be the work of one former servant and noe more and for this permission she owns the trades favour and is thankful for it ... agreed and ordered that every yeare she shall pay 2s.”[438]

Footnote 437:

Gibbs, _Corporation Records of St. Albans_, p. 62, 1613.

The Corporation at Reading was occupied for a whole year with the case of the “Aperne woman.” The first entry in the records states that “Steven Foorde of Newbery the aperne woman’s husband, exhibited a lettre from the Lord of Wallingford for his sellerman to shewe and sell aperninge[439] in towne, in Mr. Mayor’s handes, etc. And thereupon tollerated to doe as formerly she had done, payeing yerely 10s. to the Hall.”[440] Next year there is another entry to the effect that “it was agreed that Steven Foorde’s wief shall contynue sellinge of aperninge, as heretofore, and that the other woman usinge to sell suche stuffes at William Bagley’s dore shalbe forbidden, and shall not hencefourth be permitted to sell in the boroughe etc., and William Bagley shall be warned.”[441] The other woman proving recalcitrant, “at Steven Foorde’s wive’s request and complaynte it was grannted that William Bagley’s stranger, selling aperninge in contempt of the government, shalbe questioned.”[442] Finally it was “agreed that Steven Foorde’s wife shall henceforth keepe Markett and sell onely linsey woolsey of their own making in this markett, according to the Lord Wallingforde’s lettre, she payeing xs. per annum, and that noe other stranger shall henceforth keepe markett or sell lynsey and woolsey in this markett.”[443]

Footnote 438:

Ferguson, _Carlisle_, p. 187, 1669.

Footnote 439:

Stuff for Aprons.

Footnote 440:

Guilding. _Reading Records_, Vol. II., p. 171, 1624.

Footnote 441:

_Ibid._ Vol. II., p. 240, 1625.

Footnote 442:

_Ibid._ Vol. II., p. 252.

Footnote 443:

_Guilding, Reading Records_, Vol. II., p. 267.

At this time, when most roads were mere bridle tracks, and few conveniences for travel existed, when even in towns the streets were so ill-paved that in bad weather the goodwife hesitated before going to the market, the dwellers in villages and hamlets were often fain to buy from pedlars who brought goods to their door and to sell butter and eggs to anyone who would undertake the trouble of collection. Their need was recognised by the authorities, who granted a certain number of licences to Badgers, Pedlars and Regraters, and probably many others succeeded in trading unlicensed. This class of Dealers was naturally regarded with suspicion by shopkeepers. A pamphlet demanding their suppression, points out that “the poor decaying Shopkeeper has a large Rent to pay, and Family to Support; he maintains not his own Children only, but all the poor Orphans and Widows in his Parish; nay, sometimes the Widows and Orphans of the very Pedlar or Hawker, who has thus fatally laboured to starve him.” As for the Hawkers, “we know they pretend they are shut out of the great Trading Cities, Towns and Corporations by the respective Charters and all other settled Privileges of those Places, but we answer that tho’ for want of legal Introduction they may not be able to set up in Cities, Corporations, etc., yet there are very many Places of very great Trade, where no Corporation Privileges would obstruct them ... if any of them should be reduc’d and ... be brought to the Parish to keep; that is to say, their Wives and Children, the Manufacturers, the Shopkeepers who confessedly make up the principal Numbers of those corporations, and are the chief Supporters of the Parishes, will be much more willing to maintain them, than to be ruin’d by them.”[444]

Footnote 444:

_Brief State of the Inland and Home Trade._, pp. 59 and 63, 1730.

The terms Badging, Peddling, Hawking and Regrating are not very clearly defined, and were used in senses which somewhat overlap each other; but the Badger seems to have been a person who “dealt” in a wholesale way. A licence was granted in 1630 to “Edith Doddington of Hilbishopps, widdowe, to be a badger of butter and cheese and to carry the same into the Counties of Wiltes, Hamsher, Dorsᵗᵗ and Devon, and to retourne againe with corne and to sell it againe in any faire or markett within this County during one whole yeare now next ensueing; and she is not to travell with above three horses, mares or geldings at the most part.”[445] The authorities, fearing lest corners and profiteering should result from interference with the supply of necessaries, made “ingrossing” or anything resembling an attempt to buy up the supply of wheat, salt, etc., an offence. Amongst the prosecutions which were made on this account are presentments of “John Whaydon and John Preist of Watchett, partners, for ingross of salt, Julia Stone, Richard Miles, Joane Miles als. Stone of Bridgwater for ingross of salte.”[446] of “Johann Stedie of Fifehead, widdow, ... for ingrossinge of corne contrary etc,”[447] of “Edith Bruer and Katherine Bruer, Spinsters, of Halse ... for ingrossinge of corne,”[448] and of “Johann Thorne ... widow ... for ingrossinge of wheate, Barley, Butter and Cheese.”[449]

Footnote 445:

_Somerset Q.S. Records_, Vol. II., p. 119, 1630.

Footnote 446:

_Ibid._ Vol. II., p. 153, 1631.

Footnote 447:

_Ibid._ Vol. II., p. 161.

Footnote 448:

_Ibid._ Vol. II., p. 165.

Footnote 449:

_Somerset Q.S. Records_, Vol. II., p. 223.

Pedlars and hawkers carried on an extensive trade all over the country. At first sight this would seem a business ill suited to women, for it involved carrying a heavy pack of goods on the back over long distances; and yet it appears as though in some districts the trade was almost their monopoly. The success that attended Joan Dant’s efforts as a pedlar has been told elsewhere.[450] How complete was the ascendency which women had established in certain districts over this class of trade is shown by the following definition of the term “Hawkers”:—“those that profer their Wares by Wholesale which are called Hawkers, and which are not only the Manufacturers themselves, but others besides them, viz. the Women in _London_, in _Exceter_ and in _Manchester_, who do not only Profer Commodities at the Shops and Ware houses, but also at Inns to Countrey-Chapmen. Likewise the _Manchester_-men, the _Sherborn_-men, and many others, that do Travel from one Market-Town to another; and there at some Inn do profer their Wares to sell to the Shopkeepers of the place.”[451]

Footnote 450:

_Ante_, p. 33.

Footnote 451:

_Trade of England_, p. 21, 1681.

Though peddling might in some cases be developed into a large and profitable concern, more often it afforded a bare subsistence. The character of a woman engaged in it is given in a certificate brought before the Hertford Quarter Sessions in 1683 by the inhabitants of Epping, which states that “Sarah, wife of Richard Young, of Epping, cooper, who was accused of pocket-picking when she was about her lawfull and honest imploy of buying small wares and wallnuts” at Sabridgworth fair, is “a very honest and well-behaved woman, not given to pilfer or steale,” and that they believe her to be falsely accused.[452]

Footnote 452:

_Hertfordshire County Records_, Vol. I., pp. 347-8.

While the Pedlar dealt chiefly in small wares and haberdashery, Regraters were concerned with the more perishable articles of food. In this they were seriously hampered by bye-laws forbidding the buying and selling of such articles in one day. The laws had been framed with the object of preventing a few persons buying up all the supplies in the market and selling them at exorbitant prices, but their application seems to have been chiefly directed in the interests of the shopkeepers, to whom the competition of women who hawked provisions from door to door was a serious matter, the women being contented with very small profits, and the housewives finding it so convenient to have goods brought to their very doorstep. The injustice of the persecution of these poor women is protested against by the writer of a pamphlet, who points out that “We provide Men shall not be cheated in buying a pennyworth of Eggs, but make no provision to secure them from the same Abuse in a hundred pounds laid out in Cloaths. The poor Artizan shall not be oppressed in laying out his penny to one poorer than himself, but is without Remedy, shortened by a Company in his Penny as it comes in. I have heard Complaints of this Nature in greater matters of the publik Sales of the _East India Company_, perhaps if due consideration were had of these great Ingrossers, there would be found more Reason to restrain them, than a poor Woman that travels in the Country to buy up and sell in a Market a few Hens and Chickens.”[453]

Footnote 453:

_Linnen and Woollen Manufactury_, p. 7, 1681.

Even in the Middle Ages the trade of Regrating was almost regarded as the prerogative of women. Gower wrote “But to say the truth in this instance, the trade of regratery belongeth by right rather to women. But if a woman be at it she in stinginess useth much more machination and deceit than a man; for she never alloweth the profit on a single crumb to escape her, nor faileth to hold her neighbour to paying his price; all who beseech her do but lose their time, for nothing doth she by courtesy, as anyone who drinketh in her house knoweth well.”[454]

Footnote 454:

Gower, _Le mirour de l’omme_ (trans. from French verse by Eileen Power).

In later times the feminine form of the word is used in the ordinances of the City of London, clearly showing that the persons who were then carrying on the trade were women; thus it was said “Let no Regrateress pass _London Bridge_ towards _Suthwerk_, nor elsewhere, to buy Bread, to carry it into the City of _London_ to sell; because the Bakers of _Suthwerk_, nor of any other Place, are not subject to the Justice of the City.” And again “Whereas it is common for merchants to give Credit, and especially for Bakers commonly to do the same with Regrateresses ... we forbid, that no Baker make the benefit of any Credit to a Regrateress, as long as he shall know her to be involved in her Neighbour’s Debt.”[455] Moreover a very large proportion of the prosecutions for this offence were against women. “We Amerce Thomas Bardsley for his wife buyinge Butter Contrary to the orders of the towne in xijid.”[456] “Katherine Birch for buyinge and selling pullen [chicken] both of one day 3s. Thos. Ravald wife of Assheton of Mercy bancke for sellinge butter short of waight.”[457] “Thomas Massey wife for buyinge a load of pease and sellinge them the same day. Amerced in 1s.”[458] “Katharine Hall for buyinge and sellinge Cheese both of one day 6d. Anne Rishton for buyinge and sellinge butter the same day Amercd in 3. 0.”[459]

Footnote 455:

Stow, _London_, Book V., p. 343. Assize of Bread.

Footnote 456:

_Manchester Court Leet Records_, Vol. IV., p. 110, 1653.

Footnote 457:

_Ibid._ p. 212, 1657.

Footnote 458:

_Ibid._ p. 244, 1658.

Footnote 459:

_Manchester Court Test Records_, p. 243, 1658.

As the Regrater dealt chiefly in food, her business is closely connected with the provision trades, but enough has been said here to indicate that of all retailing this was the form which most appealed to poor women, who were excluded from skilled trades and whose only other resource was spinning. The number of women in this unfortunate position was large, including as it did not only widows, whose families depended entirely upon their exertions, but also the wives of most of the men who were in receipt of day wages and had no garden or grazing rights. It has already been shown that wages, except perhaps in some skilled trades, were insufficient for the maintenance of a family. Therefore, when the mother of a young family could neither work in her husband’s trade nor provide her children with food by cultivating her garden or tending cows and poultry, she must find some other means to earn a little money. By wages she could seldom earn more than a penny or twopence a day and her food. Selling perishable articles of food from door to door presented greater chances of profit, and to this expedient poor women most often turned. In proportion as the trade was a convenience to the busy housewife, it became an unwelcome form of competition to the established shopkeepers, who, being influential in the Boroughs, could persecute and suppress the helpless, disorganised women who undersold them.

C. _Provision Trades._

Under this head are grouped the Bakers, Millers, Butchers and Fishwives, together with the Brewers, Inn-keepers and Vintners, the category embracing both those who produced and those who retailed the provisions in question.

A large proportion both of the bread and beer consumed at this time was produced by women in domestic industry. The wages assessments show that on the larger farms the chief woman servant was expected both to brew and to bake, but the cottage folk in many cases cannot have possessed the necessary capital for brewing, and perhaps were wanting ovens in which to bake. Certainly in the towns both brewing and baking existed as trades from the earliest times. Though in many countries the grinding of corn has been one of the domestic occupations performed by women and slaves, in England women were saved this drudgery, for the toll of corn ground at the mill was an important item in the feudal lord’s revenue, and severe punishments were inflicted on those who ground corn elsewhere. The common bakehouse was also a monopoly of the feudal lord’s,[460] but his rights in this case were not carried so far as to penalize baking for domestic purposes.

Footnote 460:

Petronilla, Countess of Leicester, granted to Petronilla, daughter of Richard Roger’s son of Leicester and her heirs “all the suit of the men outside the Southgate aforesaid to bake at her bakehouse with all the liberties and free customs, saving my customary tenants who are bound to my bakehouses within the town of Leicester,” Bateson, (M.) _Records, Leicester_, Vol. I.; p. 10.

It might be supposed that industries such as brewing and baking, which were so closely connected with the domestic arts pertaining to women, would be more extensively occupied by women than trades such as those of blacksmith or pewterer or butcher; but it will be shown that skill acquired domestically was not sufficient to establish a woman’s position in the world of trade, and that actually in the seventeenth century it was as difficult for her to become a baker as a butcher.

_Baking._—After the decay of feudal privileges the trade of baking was controlled on lines similar to those governing other trades, but subject to an even closer supervision by the local authorities, owing to the fact that bread is a prime necessity of life. On this account its price was fixed by “the assize of bread.” The position of women in regard to the trade was also somewhat different, because while in other trades they possessed fewer facilities than men for acquiring technical experience, in this they learnt the art of baking as part of their domestic duties. Nevertheless, in the returns which give the names of authorised bakers, those of women do not greatly exceed in number the names which are given for other trades; of lists for the City of Chester, one gives thirty names of bakers, six being women, all widows, while another gives thirty-nine men and no women,[461] and a third twenty-six men and three women. The assistance which the Baker’s wife gave to her husband, however, was taken for granted. At Carlisle, the bye-laws provide that “noe Persons ... shall brew or bayk to sell but only freemen and thare wifes.”[462] And a rule at Beverley laid down that “no common baker or other baker called boule baker, their wives, servants, or apprentices, shall enter the cornmarket any Saturday for the future before 1 p.m. to buy any grain, nor buy wheat coming on Saturdays to market beyond 2 bushels for stock for their own house after the hour aforesaid.”[463]

Footnote 461:

_Harl. MSS._, 2054, fo. 44 and 45, 2105, fo. 301.

Footnote 462:

Ferguson, _Carlisle, Dormont Book_, p. 69, 1561.

Footnote 463:

_Beverley Town Documents_, pp. 39-40.

A writer, who was appealing for an increase in the assize of bread, includes the wife’s work among the necessary costs of making a loaf; “Two shillings was allowed by the assize for all maner of charges in baking a quarter of wheate over and above the second price of wheate in the market,” but the writer declares that in Henry VII.’s time “the bakers ... might farre better cheape and with lesse charge of seruantes haue baked a quarter of Wheate, then now they can.” It was then allowed for “everie quarter of wheate baking, for furnace and wood vid. the Miller foure pence, for two journymen and two pages five-pence, for salt, yest, candle & sandbandes two pence, for himselfe, his house, his wife, his dog & his catte seven pence, and the branne to his advantage.”[464]

Footnote 464:

Powell, _Assize of Bread_, 1600.

The baker’s wife figures also in account books, as transacting business for her husband. Thus the Carpenters’ Company “Resd of Lewes davys wyffe the baker a fyne for a license for John Pasmore the forren to sette upe a lytyll shed on his backsyde.”[465]

Footnote 465:

_Records of Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, Vol. IV., p. 69, 1554.

Although conforming in general to the regulations for other trades, certain Boroughs retained the rights over baking which had been enjoyed by the Feudal Lord, the Portmote at Salford ordering that “Samell Mort shall surcease from beakinge sale bread by the first of May next upon the forfeit of 5ls except hee beake at the Comon beakehouse in Salford.”[466] In other towns the bakers were sufficiently powerful to enforce their own terms on the Borough. In York, for instance, the Corporation of Bakers, which became very rich, succeeded in excluding the country, or “boule bakers,” from the market, undertaking to sell bread at the same rates; but the monopoly once secured they declared it was impossible to produce bread at this price, and the magistrates allowed an advance.[467] In some cases bakers were required to take out licences, these being granted only to freemen and freewomen; in others they were formed into Companies, with rules of apprenticeship. “They shall receive no man into their saide company of bakeres, nor woman unles her husband have bene a free burges, and compound with Mr. Maior and the warden of the company.”[468] At Reading in 1624, “the bakers, vizt., William Hill, Abram Paise, Alexander Pether, complayne against bakers not freemen, vizt., Izaak Wracke useth the trade his wief did use when he marryed. Michaell Ebson saith he was an apprentice in towne and having noe worke doth a little to gett bread. James Arnold will surceasse ... Wydowe Bradbury alwayes hath used to bake.”[469]

Footnote 466:

_Salford Portmote Records_, Vol. II., p. 188.

Footnote 467:

_S.P.D._ cxxxiv., 36. November 27, 1622.

Footnote 468:

Lambert, _Two Thousand Years of Gild Life_, p. 307. _Composicion of Bakers, Hull._, 1598.

Footnote 469:

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

That women were members of the Bakers’ Companies is shown by rules which refer to sisters as well as brothers. In 1622 the Corporation at Salisbury ordained that “no free brother or free sister shall at any time hereafter make, utter, or sell bread, made with butter, or milk, spice cakes, etc ... except it be before spoken for funerals, or upon the Friday before Easter, or at Christmas.... No free brother or free sister shall sell any bread in the market. No free brother or free sister shall hereafter lend any money to an innholder or victualler, to the intent or purpose of getting his or their custom.”[470] It is not likely that many women served an apprenticeship, but the frequency with which they are charged with offences against the Bye-Laws is some clue to the numbers engaged in the trade. For instance, in Manchester, Martha Wrigley and nine men were presented in 1648 “for makeinge bread above & vnder the size & spice bread.”[471] In 1650, twenty-five men and no women were charged with a similar offence,[472] in 1651 eleven men and no women[473] and in 1652 are entered the names of five men and ten women[474].

Footnote 470:

Hoare, (Sir. R. C.). _Hist. of Wiltshire_, Vol. VI., p. 342.

Footnote 471:

_Manchester Court Leet Records_, Vol. IV., p. 31.

Footnote 472:

_Ibid._ p. 47.

Footnote 473:

_Ibid._ p. 51.

Footnote 474:

_Manchester Court Leet Records_, p. 70.

The constant complaints brought against people who were using the trade “unlawfully” show how difficult it was to enforce rules of apprenticeship in a trade which was so habitually used by women for domestic purposes. Information was brought that “divers of the inhabᵗˢ of Thirsk do use the trade of baking, not having been apprentices thereof, but their wives being brought up and exercised therein many yeares have therefore used it ... and the matter referred to the Justices in Qʳ Sessions to limitt a certain number to use that trade without future trouble of any informers and that such as are allowed by the said Justices, to have a tolleration to take apprentices ... the eight persons, viz., Jaˢ. Pibus, Anth. Gamble, John Harrison, Widow Watson, Jane Skales, Jane Rutter, Tho. Carter and John Bell, shall onlie use and occupie the said trade of baking, and the rest to be restrayned.”[475] The insistence upon apprenticeship must have been singularly exasperating to women who had learnt to bake excellent bread from their mothers, or mistresses, and it was natural for them to evade, when possible, a rule which seemed so arbitrary; but they could not do so with impunity. Thus the Hertfordshire Quarter Session was informed “One Andrew Tomson’s wife doth bake, and William Everite’s wife doth bake bread to sell being not apprenticed nor licensed.”[476] How heavily prosecutions of this character weighed upon the poor, is shown by a certificate brought to the same Quarter Sessions nearly a hundred years later, stating that “William Pepper, of Sabridgworth, is of honest and industrious behaviour, but in a poor and low condition, and so not able to support the charge of defending an indictment against him for baking for hire (he having once taken a halfpenny for baking a neighbour’s loaf) and has a great charge of children whom he has hitherto brought up to hard work and industrious labour, who otherwise might have been a charge to the parish, and will be forced to crave the relief of the parish, to defray the charge that may ensue upon this trouble given him by a presentment.”[477]

Footnote 475:

Atkinson, (J. C.), _Yorks. N. R. Q.S. Records_, Vol. I., p. 81. July 8, 1607.

Footnote 476:

_Hertford Co. Records_, Vol. I, p. 32, 1600.

Footnote 477:

_Hertford County Records_, Vol. I., p. 365, 1686.

The line taken by the authorities was evidently intended to keep the trade of baking in a few hands. The object may have been partly to facilitate inspection and thereby check short measure and adulteration; whatever the motive the effect must certainly have tended to discourage women from developing the domestic art of baking into a trade. Consequently in this, as in other trades, the woman’s contribution to the industry generally took the form of a wife helping her husband, or a widow carrying on her late husband’s business.

_Millers_:—It was probably only as the wife or widow of a miller that women took part in the business of milling. An entry in the Carlisle Records states “we amercye Archilles Armstronge for keeping his wief to play the Milner, contrary the orders of this cyttie.”[478] But it is not unusual to come across references to corn mills which were in the hands of women; a place in Yorkshire is described as being “near to Mistress Lovell’s Milne.”[479] “Margaret Page, of Hertingfordbury, widow,” was indicted for “erecting a mill house in the common way there,”[480] and at Stockton “One water corne milne ... is lett by lease unto Alice Armstrong for 3 lives.”[481]

Footnote 478:

Ferguson, _Carlisle_, p. 278. April 21, 1619.

Footnote 479:

J. C. Atkinson, _Yorks. N. R. Q.S. Records_, Vol. II., p. 8, 1612.

Footnote 480:

_Hertford County Records_, Vol. II., p. 25, 1698.

Footnote 481:

Brewster, _Stockton-on-Tees_, p. 42.

Such instances are merely a further proof of the activity shown by married women in the family business whenever this was carried on within their reach.

_Butchers_:—The position which women took in the Butchers’ trade resembled very closely their position as bakers, for, as has been shown, the special advantages which women, by virtue of their domestic training, might have enjoyed when trading as bakers, were cancelled by the statutes and bye-laws limiting the numbers of those engaged in this trade. As wife or widow women were able to enter either trade equally. Both trades were subject to minute supervision in the interests of the public, and as a matter of fact, from the references which happen to have been preserved, it might even appear that the wives of butchers were more often interested in the family business than the wives of bakers. An Act of Henry VIII. “lycensyng all bochers for a tyme to sell vytell in grosse at theyr pleasure” makes it lawful for any person “to whom any complaynt shuld be made upon any Boucher his wyff servaunte or other his mynysters refusing to sell the said vitayles by true and lawfull weight ... to comytt evry such Boucher to warde,”[482] shows an expectation that the wife would act as her husband’s agent. But the wife’s position was that of partner, not servant. During the first half of the century, certainly, leases were generally made conjointly to husband and wife; for example, “Phillip Smith and Elizabeth, his wife” appeared before the Corporation at Reading “desiringe a new lease of the Butcher’s Shambles, which was granted.”[483]

Footnote 482:

Statutes 27, Henry VIII., c. 9.

Footnote 483:

Guilding, _Reading Records_, Vol. IV., p. 122.

Customs at Nottingham secured the widow’s possession of her husband’s business premises even without a lease, providing that “when anie Butcher shall dye thatt holds a stall or shopp from the towne, thatt then his wyefe or sonne shall hould the same stall or shopp, they vsinge the same trade, otherwaies the towne to dispose thereof to him or them thatt will give moste for the stall or shopp: this order to bee lykewise to them thatt houlds a stall in the Spice-chambers.”[484]

Footnote 484:

_Nottingham Records_, Vol. V., p. 284, 1654.

The names of women appear in lists of butchers in very similar proportions to the lists of bakers. Thus one for Chester gives the names of twenty men followed by three women,[485] and in a return of sixteen butchers licensed to sell meat in London during Lent, there is one woman, Mary Wright, and her partner, William Woodfield.[486] Bye-laws which control the sale of meat use the feminine as well as the masculine pronouns, showing that the trade was habitually used by both sexes. The “Act for the Settlement and well ordering of the several Public Markets within the City of London” provides that “all and every Country butcher ... Poulterer ... Country Farmers, Victuallers Laders or Kidders ... may there sell, utter and put to open shew or sale his, her or their Beef, Mutton, etc., etc.”[487] It may be supposed that these provisions relate only to the sale of meat, and that women would not often be associated with the businesses which included slaughtering the beasts, but this is not the case. Elizabeth Clarke is mentioned in the Dorchester Records as “apprenticed 7 years to her father a butcher,”[488] and other references occur to women who were clearly engaged in the genuine butcher’s trade. For example, a licence was granted “to Jane Fouches of the Parish of St. Clement Danes, Butcher to kill and sell flesh during Lent,”[489] and among eighteen persons who were presented at the Court Leet, Manchester, “for Cuttinge & gnashing of Rawhides for their seuerall Gnashinge of evry Hyde,” two were women, “Ellen Jaques of Ratchdale, one hyde, Widdow namely Stott of Ratchdale, two hydes.”[490]

Footnote 485:

_Harl. MSS._, 2105 fo., 300 b., 1565.

Footnote 486:

_S.P.D._ cxix. 107., February 24, 1621.

Footnote 487:

_Act for the Settlement and well Ordering of the Several Publick Markets within the City of London_, 1674.

Footnote 488:

Mayo, _Municipal Records of Dorchester_, p. 428, 1698.

Footnote 489:

_S.P.D._ 1. clxxxviii., James I., undated.

Footnote 490:

_Manchester Court Leet Records_, Vol. V., p. 236, 1674.

Beside these women, who by marriage or apprenticeship had acquired the full rights of butchers and were acknowledged as such by the Corporation under whose governance they lived, a multitude of poor women tried to keep their families from starvation by hawking meat from door to door. They are often mentioned in the Council Records, because the very nature of their business rendered them continually liable to a prosecution for regrating. Thus at the Court Leet, Manchester, Anne Costerdyne was fined 1s. “for buyinge 4 quarters of Mutton of Wᵐ. Walmersley & 1 Lamb of Thomas Hulme both wᶜʰ shee shold the one & same day.”[491] Their position was the more difficult, because if they did not sell the meat the same day sometimes it went bad, and they were then prosecuted on another score. Elizabeth Chorlton, a butcher’s widow, was presented in 1648 “for buieing and sellinge both on one day” and was fined 3s. 4d.[492] She was again fined with Mary Shalcross and various men in 1650 for selling unlawful meat and buying and selling on one day.[493]

Footnote 491:

_Ibid._ p. 221, 1674.

Footnote 492:

_Manchester Court Leet Records_, Vol. IV., p. 31.

Footnote 493:

_Ibid._ p. 40.

She was presented yet again in 1653 for selling “stinking meate,” and fined 5s.[494] Evidently Elizabeth Chorlton was an undesirable character, for she had previously been convicted of selling by false weights;[495] nevertheless it seems hard that when it was illegal to sell stinking meat women should also be fined for selling it on the same day they bought it, and though this particular woman was dishonest no fault is imputed to the character of many of the others who were similarly presented for regrating.

Footnote 494:

_Manchester Court Leet Records_, Vol. IV., p. 68.

Footnote 495:

_Ibid._ p. 15, 1648.

There remains yet another class of women who were connected with the Butchers’ trade, namely the wives of men who were either employed by the master butchers, or who perhaps earned a precarious living by slaughtering pigs and other beasts destined for domestic consumption. In such work there was no place for the wife’s assistance, and, like other wage-earners, in spite of any efforts she might make in other directions, the family remained below the poverty line. An instance may be quoted from the Norwich Records where, in a census of the poor (i.e. persons needing Parish Relief) taken in 1570, are given the names of “John Hubbard of the age of 38 yeres, butcher, that occupie slaughterie, and Margarit his wyfe of the age of 30 yeres that sell souce, and 2 young children, and have dwelt here ever.”[496]

Footnote 496:

Tingey, J. C., _Records of the City of Norwich_, Vol. II., p. 337.

_Fishwives._—There is no reason to suppose that women were often engaged in the larger transactions of fishmongers. Indeed an English writer, describing the Dutchwomen who were merchants of fish, expressly says that they were a very different class from the women who sold fish in England, and who were commonly known as fisherwives.[497] Nevertheless that in this, as in other trades, they shared to some extent in their husband’s enterprises, is shown by the presentment of “John Frank of New Malton, and Alice his wife, for forestalling the markett of divers paniers of fishe, buying the same of the fishermen of Runswick or Whitbye ... before it came into the markett.”[498]

Footnote 497:

Ante., p. 36.

Footnote 498:

Atkinson, J. C. _Yorks. N. R. Q.S. Records_, Vol. I., p. 121, 1698.

The position of the sisters of the Fishmongers’ Company, London, was recognised to the extent of providing them with a livery, an ordinance of 1426 ordaining that every year, on the festival of St. Peter, “alle the brethren and sustern of the same fratʳnite” should go in their new livery to St. Peters’ Church, Cornhill.[499] An ordinance dated 1499 however, requires that no fishmonger of the craft shall suffer his wife, or servant, to stand in the market to sell fish, unless in his absence.[500] An entry in the Middlesex Quarter Sessions Records notes the “discharge of Sarah, daughter of Frances Hall. Apprenticed to Rebecca Osmond of the Parish of St. Giles’ Without, Cripplegate, ‘fishwoman’.”[501] A member of the important Fishmongers’ Company would hardly be designated in this way, and Rebecca Osmond must be classed among the “Fishwives” who are so often alluded to in accounts of London. Their business was often too precarious to admit of taking apprentices, and their credit so low that a writer in the reign of Charles I., who advocated the establishment of “Mounts of Piety” speaks of the high rate of interest taken by brokers and pawn-brokers “above 400 in the hundred” from “fishwives, oysterwomen and others that do crye thinges up and downe the streets.”[502] It was in this humble class of trade rather than in the larger transactions of fishmongers, that women were chiefly engaged. In London no impediments seem to have been placed in the way of their business, but in the provinces they, like the women who hawked meat, were persecuted under the bye-laws against regrating. At Manchester, the wife of John Wilshawe was amerced “for buyinge Sparlings [smelts] and sellinge them the same day in 6d.”[503], while at the same court others were fined for selling unmarketable fish.

Footnote 499:

Herbert, _Livery Companies of London_, Vol. II., p. 44.

Footnote 500:

_Ibid._ Vol. II., p. 35.

Footnote 501:

_Middlesex County Records_, p. 160, 1696.

Footnote 502:

_A Project for Mounts of Piety, Lansdowne MSS._, 351 fo., 18b.

Footnote 503:

_Manchester Court Leet Records_, Vol. IV., p. 112, 1654.

_Brewers_:—It has been shown that the position which women occupied among butchers and bakers did not differ materially from their position in other trades; that is to say, the wife generally helped her husband in his business, and carried it on after his death; but the history of brewing possesses a peculiar interest, for apparently the art of brewing was at one time chiefly, if not entirely, in the hands of women. This is indicated by the use of the feminine term brewster. Possibly the use of the masculine or feminine forms may never have strictly denoted the sex of the person indicated in words such as brewer, brewster, spinner, spinster, sempster, sempstress, webber, webster, and the gradual disuse of the feminine forms may have been due to the grammatical tendencies in the English language rather than to the changes which were driving women from their place in productive industry; but the feminine forms would never have arisen in the first place unless women had been engaged to some extent in the trades to which they refer, and it often happens that the use of the feminine pronoun in relation to the term “brewster” and even “brewer” shows decisively that female persons are indicated. At Beverley a bye-law was made in 1364 ordaining that “if any of the community abuse the affeerers of Brewster-gild for their affeering, in words or otherwise, he shall pay ... to the community 6s. 8d.”[504] In this case Brewster might no more imply a woman’s trade than it does in the modern term “Brewster-Sessions,” but in 1371 a gallon of beer was ordered to “be sold for 1½d. ... and if any one offer 1½d. for a gallon of beer anywhere in Beverley and the ale-wife will not take it, that the purchaser come to the Gild Hall and complain of the brewster, and a remedy shall be found,”[505] while a rule made in 1405 orders that “no brewster or female seller called tipeler” shall “permit strangers to remain after 9 p.m.”[506] Similar references occur in the Records of other Boroughs. At Bury the Customs provided in 1327 that “if a woman Brewer (Braceresse) can acquit herself with her sole hand that she has not sold contrary to the assize [of ale] she shall be quit”[507]; at Torksey “when women are asked whether they brew and sell beer outside their houses contrary to the assize or no, if they say no, they shall have a day at the next court to make their law with the third hand, with women who live next door on either side or with others.”[508]

Footnote 504:

_Beverley Town Documents_, p. 41.

Footnote 505:

_Ibid._ p. 41.

Footnote 506:

_Ibid._ p. lv.

Footnote 507:

Bateson, (M.), _Borough Customs_, Vol. I., p. 185.

Footnote 508:

_Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 185, 1345.

It was ordered at Leicester in 1335 that “no breweress, sworn inn-keeper or other shall be so bold as to brew except (at the rate of) a gallon of the best for 1d,”[509] and though the feminine form of the noun has been dropped, the feminine pronoun is still used in 1532 when “hytt is enacteyd yᵃᵗ no brwar yᵃᵗ brwys to sell, sell aboffe iid the gallan & sche schall typill be no mesure butt to sell be yᵉ dossyn & yᵉ halfe dossyn.”[510]

Footnote 509:

Bateson, (M.), _Records of Leicester_, Vol. II., p. 21.

Footnote 510:

Bateson, (M.), _Records of Leicester_, Vol. III., p. 33.

The exclusive use of the feminine in these bye-laws differs from the expressions used in regard to other trades when both the masculine and feminine pronouns are habitually employed, suggesting that the trade of brewing was on a different basis.

It must be remembered that before the introduction of cheap sugar, beer was considered almost equally essential for human existence as bread. Beer was drunk at every meal, and formed part of the ordinary diet of even small children. Large households brewed for their own use, but as many families could not afford the necessary apparatus, brewing was not only practised as a domestic art, but became the trade of certain women who brewed for their neighbours. It is interesting to note the steps which led to their ultimate exclusion from the trade, though many links in the chain of evidence are unfortunately missing. In 1532 brewers in Leicester are referred to as “sche,” but an Act published in 1574 shows that the trade had already emerged from petticoat government. It declares that “No inhabitantes what soeuer that nowe doe or hereafter shall in theire howsses vse tiplinge and sellinge of ale or beare, shall not brewe the same of theare owne, but shall tunne in the same of the common brewars therfore appoynted; and none to be common brewars but such as nowe doe vse the same, ... and non of the said common brewars to sell, or ... to tipple ale or beare by retayle ... the Brewars shall togeyther become a felloweship. etc.”[511] This separation of brewing from the sale of beer was a policy pursued by the government with the object of simplifying the collection of excise, but it was also defended as a means for maintaining the quality of the beer brewed. It was ordayned in the Assize for Brewers, Anno 23, H. 8, that “Forasmuch as the misterie of brewing as a thing very needfull and necessarie for the common wealth, hath been alwaies by auncient custom & good orders practised & maintained within Citties, Corporate Boroughs and market Townes of this Realm, by such expert and skilfull persons, as eyther were traded and brought up therein, by the space of seuen yeares, and as prentizes therin accepted: accordingly as in all other Trades and occupations, or else well knowne to be such men of skill and honestie, in that misterie, as could and would alwaie yeeld unto her Maiesties subiects in the commonwealth, such good and holsome Ale and Beere, as both in the qualitie & for the quantitie thereof, did euer agree with the good lawes of the Realme. And especiallie to the comfort of the poorer sort of subiectes, who most need it, untill of late yeares, sondrie persons ... rather seeking their owne private gaine, then the publike profite of their countrie, haue not onelie erected and set uppe small brewhouses at their pleasures: but also brew and utter such Ales and Beere, for want of skill in that misterie as both in the prices & holesomnes thereof, doth utterlie disagree with the good lawes and orders of this Realm; thereby also ouerthrowing the greater and more auncient brewhouses.” It is therefore recommended that these modern brewhouses should be suppressed in the interest of the old and better ones.[512]

Footnote 511:

_Ibid._ Vol. III., p. 153.

Footnote 512:

Powell, John. _The Assize of Bread._

The argument reads curiously when one reflects how universal had been the small brewhouses in former days. The advantages from the excise point of view which would be gained by the concentration of the trade in a few hands is discussed in a pamphlet which remarks that “there is much Mault made in private Families, in some Counties half, if not two thirds of the Maults spent, are privately made, and undoubtedly as soon as an Imposition is laid upon it, much more will, for the advantage they shall gain by saving the Excise ... if Mault could be forbidden upon a great penalty to be made by any persons, but by certain publick Maulsters, this might be of availe to increase the Excise.”[513] The actual conditions prevailing in the brewing industry at this time are described as follows in another pamphlet. Brewers are divided into two classes, “The Brewer who brews to sell by great measures, and wholly serves other Families by the same; which sort of Brewers are only in some few great Cities and Towns, not above twenty through the land.... The Brewers who brews to sell by retail ... this sort of Brewers charges almost only such as drink the same in those houses where the same is brewed and sold ... and therefore supplies but a small proportion of the rest of the land, being that in almost all Market Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and private houses in the Countrey throughout the land, all the Inhabitants brew for themselves, at least by much the greatest proportion of what they use.”[514]

Footnote 513:

_Considerations Touching the Excise_, p. 7.

Footnote 514:

Rockley, Francis.

In order to extend and strengthen their monopoly the “Common Brewers” brought forward a scheme in 1620, asking for a certain number of common brewers to be licensed throughout the kingdom, to brew according to assize. All other inn-keepers, alehouse keepers and victuallers to be forbidden to brew, “these brew irregularly without control,” and “offering to pay the King 4d. on every quart of malt brewed.” The scheme was referred to the Council who recommended “that a proclamation be issued forbidding ‘taverners, inn-keepers, etc. to sell any beer but such as they buy from the brewers.’” To the objections “that brewers who were free by service or otherwise to use the trade of brewing would refuse to take a licence, and when apprentices had served their time there would be many who might do so,” it was replied that it was “not usual for Brewers to take any apprentices but hired servants and the stock necessary for the trade is such as few apprentices can furnish.”[515] Thus the rise of the “common brewer” signalises the complete victory of capitalistic organisation in the brewing trade. In 1636 Commissioners were appointed to “compound with persons who wished to follow the trade of common Brewers throughout the Kingdom.”[516] The next year returns were received by the Council, giving the names and other particulars of those concerned in various districts. The list for the “Fellowshipp of Brewers now living in Newcastle-upon-Tyne with the breath and depth of their severall mash tunns” gives the names of fifty-three men and three women, widows.[517] A list of such brewers in the County of Essex “as have paid their fines and are bound to pay their rent accordingly”[518] (i.e. were licensed by the King’s Commissioners for brewing) includes sixty-three men and four women, while the names of one hundred and twenty-four men and eight women are given in other tables containing the amounts due from brewers and maultsters in certain other counties,[519] showing that the predominance of women in the brewing trade had then disappeared, the few names appearing in the lists being no doubt those of brewers’ widows.

Footnote 515:

_S.P.D._, cxii., 75., February 9, 1620.

Footnote 516:

_C. R._ November 9, 1636.

Footnote 517:

_S.P.D._ ccclxxvii., 62, 1637.

Footnote 518:

_S.P.D._ ccclxxvii., 64, 1637.

Footnote 519:

_S.P.D._ ccclxxxvii., 66.

The creation of the common brewers’ monopoly was very unpopular. At Bury St. Edmunds a petition was presented by “a great no. of poor people” to the Justices of Assize, saying that for many years they had been relieved “by those inn-keepers which had the liberty to brew their beer in their own houses, not only with money and food, but also at the several times of their brewing (being moved with pity and compassion, knowing our great extremities and necessities) with such quantities of their small beer as has been a continual help and comfort to us with our poor wives and children: yet of late the common brewers, whose number is small and their benefits to us the poor as little notwithstanding in their estate they are wealthy and occupy great offices of malting, under pretence of doing good to the commonwealth, have for their own lucre and gain privately combined themselves, and procured orders from the Privy Council that none shall brew in this town but they and their adherents.”[520] At Tiverton the Council was obliged to make a concession to popular feeling and agreed that “every person being a freeman of the town and not prohibited by law might use the trade of Common Brewer as well as the four persons formerly licensed by the Commissioners,” but the petition that the alehouse keepers and inn-keepers might brew as formerly they used was refused, “they might brew for their own and families use; otherwise to buy from the Common Brewers.”[521]

Footnote 520:

_Hist. MSS. Com._, 14 Rep. App., VIII., p. 142.

Footnote 521:

_C. R._ June 12, 1640. Order concerning the Brewers of Tiverton.

The monopoly involved the closing of many small businesses. Sarah Kemp a widow, petitioned the Council because she had “been forced to give up brewing in Whitefriars, and had been at gᵗ loss both in removing her implements and in her rents,” asking “that in consideration of her loss she might have license to erect brick houses on her messuage in Whitefriars.” This was granted on conditions.[522] A married woman, Mary Arnold, was committed to the Fleet on March 31st, 1639, “for continuing to brew in a house on the Millbank in Westminster, contrary to an order against the brewers in Westminster and especially against Michael Arnold.” The Council ordered her to be discharged, on her humble admission to brew no more in the said house, but to remove within ten days; and on bond from her husband that neither he nor she nor any other shall brew in the said house, and that he will remove his brewing vessels within ten days.[523]

Footnote 522:

_C. R._ 22nd March, 1638-9.

Footnote 523:

_C. R._ May 8, 1639.

The closing of the trade of brewing to women must have seriously reduced their opportunities for earning an independance; that they had hitherto been extensively engaged in it is shown by frequent references to women who were brewsters; for example, Mrs. Putland was rated 5s. on her brew-house;[524] Jennet Firbank, wife of Steph. Firbank, of Awdbroughe, a recusant, was presented at Richmond for brewing, a side note adding “she to be put down from brueing.”[525] Margaret, the wife of Ambrose Carleton and Marye Barton were presented at Carlisle for “brewing (being foryners) and therefore we doe emercye either of them viˢ 8d.”[526] At Thirske, Widow Harrington, of Hewton, Chr. Whitecake, of Bransbie, Rob. Goodricke, of the same (for his wife’s offence) were presented, all for brewing.[527] And at Malton, a few years later, “Rob. Driffeld, a brewster of Easingwold, was presented for suffering unlawful games att cardes to be used at unlawful times in the night in his house ... and the wife of the said Driffeld for that she will not sell anie of her ale forth of doores except it be to those whom she likes on and makes her ale of 2 or thre sortes, nor will let anie of her poore neighbours have anie of her drincke called small ale, but she saith she will rather give it to her Swyne then play it for them.”[528] Isabell Bagley and Janyt Lynsley “both of Cowburne bruesters” were fined 10s. each “for suffering play at cardes in their houses, &c,”[529] and at Norwich, Judith Bowde, brewer, was fined 2s. 9d.[530]

Footnote 524:

_Strood Churchwardens’ Accounts_, Add. MSS., 36937, p. 263., 1683.

Footnote 525:

Atkinson, (J. C.), _Yorks. N. R. Q.S. Records_, Vol. I., p. 95., 1607.

Footnote 526:

Ferguson, _Carlisle_, p. 280, _Court Leet Rolls_,. October 21, 1625.

Footnote 527:

Atkinson, (J. C.), _Yorks. N. R. Q.S. Records_, Vol. I., p. 159, 1609.

Footnote 528:

Atkinson, (J. C.), _Yorks. N. R. Q.S. Records_, Vol. II., pp. 53-54, 1614.

Footnote 529:

_Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 93, 1607.

Footnote 530:

Tingey, (J. C.), _Records of City of Norwich_, Vol. I., p. 388, 1676.

Although women had lost their position in the brewing trade by the end of the seventeenth century, they were still often employed in brewing for domestic purposes. Sometimes one of the women servants on a large farm, brewed for the whole family, including all the farm servants.[531] In other cases a woman made her living by brewing for different families in their own houses. Thus in the account of a fire on the premises of a certain Mr. Reading it is described how his “Family were Brewing within this Place.... The Servants who were in the House perceiving a great smoak rose out of Bed, and the Maid running out cried Fire and said _Wo worth this Bookers wife_ (who was the Person whom Mr. _Reading_ imployed to be his Brewer) _she hath undone us_.”[532] Lady Grizell Baillie enters in her Household Account Book, “For Brewing 7 bolls Malt by Mrs. Ainsly 10s. For a ston hopes to the said Malt out of which I had a puntion very strong Ale 10 gallons good 2nd ale and four puntions of Beer. 14s.”[533]

Footnote 531:

Ante., p. 50.

Footnote 532:

_True Account how Mr. Reading’s House._

Footnote 533:

Baillie, Lady Grizell, _Household Book_. p. 91., 1714.

Naturally the women who brewed for domestic purposes sometimes wished to turn an honest penny by selling beer to thirsty neighbours at Fairs and on Holidays, but attempts to do so were severely punished. Annes Nashe of Welling, was presented “for selling beer by small jugs at Woolmer Grene and for laying her donng in the highway leading from Stevenage to London.”[534] A letter to a Somerset Magistrate pleads for another offender:—“Good Mr. Browne, all happiness attend you. This poor woman is arrested with Peace proces for selling ale without lycense and will assure you shee hath reformed it and that upon the first warning of our officers ever since Easter last, which is our fayre tyme, when most commonly our poore people doe offend in that kinde; I pray you doe her what lawful kindness you may, and hope she will recompense you for your paynes, and I shall be ready to requite it in what I may, for if she be committed she is absolutely undone. Thus hoping of your favour I leave you to God and to this charitable work towards this poor woman. Your unfeined friend, Hum. Newman.”[535]

Footnote 534:

_Hertford County Records_, Vol. I., p. 68., 1641.

Footnote 535:

_Somerset Q.S. Records_, Vol. II., pp. 40-1, 1627.

Though with the growth of capitalism and the establishment of a monopoly for “Common Brewers” women were virtually excluded from their old trade of brewing, they still maintained their position in the retail trade, their hold upon which was favoured by the same circumstances which turned their energies to the retail side of other businesses.

A tendency was shown by public opinion to regard licences as suitable provision for invalids and widows who might otherwise require assistance from the rates. Thus an attempt made at Lincoln in 1628 to reduce the numbers of licences was modified, “for that it appeareth that divers poor men and widows, not freemen, have no other means of livelihood but by keeping of alehouses, it is agreed that such as shall be approved by the justices may be re-admitted, but that none hereafter be newly admitted untill they be first sworn freemen.”[536] According to a pamphlet published early in the next century, “Ale-houses were originally Accounted Neusances in the _Parish’s_ where they were, as tending to Debauch the Subject, and make the People idle, and therefore Licences to sell Beer and Ale, where allow’d to none, but Ancient People past their Labours, and Invalides to keep them from Starving, there being then no _Act of Parliament_ that _Parishes_ should Maintain their own Poor. But the Primitive Intention in granting Licences being now perverted, and all sorts of People Admitted to this priviledge, it is but reason the Publick should have some Advantage by the Priviledges it grants....”[537] Many examples of this attitude of mind can be observed in the Quarter Sessions Records. For instance, Mary Briggs when a widow was licensed by the Hertfordshire Quarter Sessions to sell drink, and by the good order she kept in her house and the goodness of the drink she uttered and sold she got a good livelihood, and brought up three children she had by a former husband. She married John Briggs, woodard and servant to Lord Ashton, she continuing her business and he his. Her husband was returned as a papist recusant, and on his refusing to take oaths the court suppressed their alehouse. Mrs. Briggs appealed on the ground that her business was carried on separately and by it she maintained her children by her former husband. Her claim was supported by a petition from her fellow parishioners, declaring that John Briggs was employed by Lord Ashton and “meddles not with his wife’s trade of victualling and selling drink.”[538] Other examples may be found in an order for the suppression of Wm. Brightfoot’s licence who had “by surprize” obtained one for selling beer ... showing that he was a young man, and capable to maintain his family without keeping an alehouse,[539] and the petition of John Phips, of Stondon, labourer, lately fallen into great need for want of work. He can get very little to do among his neighbours, “because they have little for him to do, having so many poore laborious men besides within the said parish.” He asks for a licence to sell beer “for his better livelihood and living hereafter, towards the mayntenance of himself, his poor wife and children.”[540] Licences were refused at Bristol to “John Keemis, Cooper, not fit to sell ale, having no child; he keeps a tapster which is no freeman that have a wife and child,” and also to “Richard Rooke, shipwright, not fit to sell ale, having no child, and brews themselves.” A Barber Surgeon was disqualified, having no child, “and also for entertaining a strange maid which is sick.”[541]

Footnote 536:

_Hist. MSS. Com._, 14 Rep., app. viii., p. 99, 1629.

Footnote 537:

Phipps, (Thomas), _Proposal for raising £1,000,000 Sterling yearly_.

Footnote 538:

_Hertford County Records_, Vol. I., p. 289, 1678.

Footnote 539:

_Middlesex Sessions Book_, p. 23, 1690.

Footnote 540:

_Hertford County Records_, Vol. I., p. 174, 1665.

Footnote 541:

Latimer, _Bristol_, p. 359, 1670. _Court Leet for St. Stephen’s Parish._

Very rarely were doubts suggested as to the propriety of the trade for women, though a bye-law was passed at Chester ordaining that “no woman between the age of xiii & xl yeares shall kepe any taverne or ale-howse.”[542] At times complaints were made of the conduct of alewives, as in a request to the Justices of Nottingham “that your Worshipps wyll take some order wythe all the alewyfes in this towne, for we thinke that never an alewyfe dothe as hir husband is bownd to,”[543] but there is no evidence of any marked difference in the character of the alehouses kept by men and those kept by women. The trade included women of the most diverse characters. One, who received stolen goods at the sign of the “Leabord’s Head” in Ware, had there a “priviye place” for hiding stolen goods and suspicious persons “at the press for soldiers she hid five men from the constables, and can convey any man from chamber to chamber into the backside. There is not such a house for the purpose within a hundred miles.”[544] In contrast to her may be quoted the landlady of the Inn at Truro, of whom Celia Fiennes wrote, “My Greatest pleasure was the good Landlady I had, she was but an ordinary plaine woman but she was understanding in the best things as most—yᵉ Experience of reall religion and her quiet submission and self-Resignation to yᵉ will of God in all things, and especially in yᵉ placeing her in a remoteness to yᵉ best advantages of hearing, and being in such a publick Employment wᶜʰ she desired and aimed at yᵉ discharging so as to adorn yᵉ Gospel of her Lord and Saviour, and the Care of her children.”[545]

Footnote 542:

_Harl. MSS._, 2054 (4), fo., 6.

Footnote 543:

_Nottingham Records_, Vol. IV., p. 325, 1614.

Footnote 544:

_Hertford County Records_, Vol. I., p. 59, 1626.

Footnote 545:

Fiennes, (Celia), p. 226, _Through England on a Side-Saddle._

_Vintners_:—The trade of the Vintner had no connection with that of the Brewer. Wine was sold in Taverns. In London the Vintners’ Company, like the other London Companies, possessed privileges which were continued to the wife upon her husband’s death, but women were probably not concerned in the trade on their own account. A survey of all the Taverns in London made in 1633 gives a total of 211, whereof six are licensed by His Majesty, 203 by the Vintners’ Company and two are licensed by neither, one is unlicensed, “inhabited by An Tither, whoe lately made a tavern of the Starr on Tower Hill where shee also keepes a victualling house unlicensed.” One licensed by the Earl of Middlesex. Amongst those duly licensed are the names of a few widows. In Cordwainer Street Ward, there was only one Tavern, “kept by a widdowe whose deceased husband was bound prentice to a Vintener and so kept his taverne by vertue of his freedome of that companye after his termes of apprentizhood expired.”[546]

Footnote 546:

_S.P.D._ ccl., 22, November 6, 1633. Lord Mayor and others to the Council.

_Conclusion._

The foregoing examination of the relation of women to the different crafts and trades has shown them occupying an assured position wherever the system of family industry prevailed. While this lasted the detachment of married women from business is nowhere assumed, but they are expected to assist their husband, and during his absence or after his death to take his place as head of the family and manager of the business.

The economic position held by women depended upon whether the business was carried on at home or elsewhere, and upon the possession of a small amount of capital. The wives of men who worked as journeymen on their masters’ premises could not share their husbands’ trade, and their choice of independent occupations was very limited. The skilled women’s trades, such as millinery and mantua-making, were open, and in these, though apprenticeship was usual, there is no reason to suppose that women who worked in them without having served an apprenticeship, were prosecuted; but as has been shown the apprenticeship laws were strictly enforced in other directions, and in some cases prevented women from using their domestic skill to earn their living.

While women could share their husbands’ trades they suffered little from these restrictions, but with the development of capitalistic organisation the numbers of women who could find no outlet for their productive activity in partnership with their husbands were increasing and their opportunities for establishing an independent industry did not keep pace; on the contrary, such industry became ever more difficult. The immediate result is obscure, but it seems probable that the wife of the prosperous capitalist tended to become idle, the wife of the skilled journeyman lost her economic independence and became his unpaid domestic servant, while the wives of other wage-earners were driven into the sweated industries of that period. What were the respective numbers in each class cannot be determined, but it is probable that throughout the seventeenth century they were still outnumbered by the women who could find scope for productive activity in their husbands’ business.

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

##