Working Life of Women in the Seventeenth Century

by Alice Clark

E. Conclusion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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.

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.”

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, Yong 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, Yong and fletcher have this yet).[^[310]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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.

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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.

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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.

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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.

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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.

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.

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]]

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]]

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.

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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.

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]].

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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.

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]]

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]]

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.

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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.

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

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]]

Conclusion.

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

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

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

---

Chapter VI
PROFESSIONS

Introductory—Tendencies similar to those in Industry.—Army—Church—Law closed to women. Teaching—Nursing—Medicine chiefly practised by women as domestic arts. Midwifery.

(A). Nursing. The sick poor nursed in lay institutions—London Hospitals—Dublin—Supplied by low class women—Women searchers for the plague—Nurses for small-pox or plague—Hired nurses in private families.

(B) Medicine. Women’s skill in Middle ages—Medicine practised extensively by women in seventeenth century in their families, among their friends and for the poor—Also by the village wise woman for pay—Exclusiveness of associations of physicians, surgeons and apothecaries.

(C) Midwifery. A woman’s profession—Earlier history unknown—Raynold’s translation of “the byrthe of mankynd.”—Relative dangers of childbirth in seventeenth and twentieth centuries—Importance of midwives—Character of their training—Jane Sharp—Nicholas Culpepper—Peter Chamberlain—Mrs. Cellier’s scheme for training—Superiority of French training—Licences of Midwives—Attitude of the Church to them—Fees—Growing tendency to displace midwives by Doctors.

Conclusion. Women’s position in the arts of teaching and healing lost as these arts became professional.

Introductory.

Similar tendencies to those which affected the industrial position of women can be traced in the professions also, showing that, important as was the influence of capitalistic organisation in the history of women’s evolution, other powerful factors were working in the same direction.

Three professions were closed to women in the seventeenth century, Arms, the Church and the Law.

The Law.—It must be remembered that the mass of the “common people” were little affected by “the law” before the seventeenth century. “Common law” was the law of the nobles,[^[547]] while farming people and artizans alike were chiefly regulated in their dealings with each other by customs depending for interpretation and sanction upon a public opinion which represented women as well as men. Therefore the changes which during the seventeenth century were abrogating customs in favour of common law, did in effect eliminate women from what was equivalent to a share in the custody and interpretation of law, which henceforward remained exclusively in the hands of men. The result of the elimination of the feminine influence is plainly shown in a succession of laws, which, in order to secure complete liberty to individual men, destroyed the collective idea of the family, and deprived married women and children of the property rights which customs had hitherto secured to them. From this time also the administration of the law becomes increasingly perfunctory in enforcing the fulfilment of men’s responsibilities to their wives and children.

Church.—According to modern ideas, religion pertains more to women than to men, but this conception is new, dating from the scientific era.

Science has solved so many of the problems which in former days threatened the existence of mankind, that the “man in the street” instinctively relegates religion to the region in which visible beauty, poetry and music are still permitted to linger; to the ornamental sphere in short, whither the Victorian gentleman also banished his wife and daughters. This attitude forms a singular contrast to the ideas which prevailed in the Middle Ages, when men believed that supernatural assistance was their sole protection against the “pestilence that walketh in darkness” or from “the arrow that flieth by day.” Religion was then held to be such an awful power that there were men who even questioned whether women could, properly speaking, be considered religious at all. Even in the seventeenth century the practice of religion and the holding of correct ideas concerning it were deemed to be essential for the maintenance of human existence, and no suggestion was then made that religious observances could be adequately performed by women alone.

Ideas as to the respective appropriateness of religious power to men and women have differed widely; some races have reserved the priesthood for men, while others have recognised a special power enduing women; in the history of others again no uniform tendency is shown, but the two influences can be traced acting and reacting upon each other.

This has been the case with the Christian religion, which has combined the wide-spread worship of the Mother and Child with a passionate splitting of hairs by celibate priests in dogmatic controversies concerning intellectual abstractions. The worship of the Mother and Child had been extirpated in England before the beginning of the seventeenth century; pictures of this subject were denounced because they showed the Divine Son under the domination of a woman. One writer accuses the Jesuits of representing Christ always “as a sucking child in his mothers armes”—“nay, that is nothing they make him an underling to a woman,” alleging that “the Jesuits assert (1) no man, but a woman did helpe God in the work of our Redemption, (2) that God made Mary partaker and fellow with him of his divine Majesty and power, (3) that God hath divided his Kingdom with Mary, keeping Justice to himselfe, and yielding mercy to her.” He complains that “She is always set forth as a woman and a mother, and he as a child and infant, either in her armes, or in her hand, that so the common people might have occasion to imagine that looke, what power of overruling and commanding the mother hath over her little child, the same hath she over her son Jesus ... the mother is compared to the son, not as being a child or a man, but as the saviour and mediator, and the paps of a woman equalled with the wounds of our Lord, and her milke with his blood.... But for her the holy scriptures speake no more of her, but as of a creature, a woman ... saved by Faith in her Saviour Jesus Christ ... and yet now after 1600 yeares she must still be a commanding mother and must show her authority over him ... she must be saluted as a lady, a Queen, a goddesse and he as a child.”[^[548]]

The ridicule with which Peter Heylin treated the worship of the Virgin Mary in France seems to have been pointed more at the notion of honouring motherhood, rather than at the distinction given to her as a woman, for he wrote “if they will worship her as a Nurse with her Child in her arms, or at her breast, let them array her in such apparel as might beseem a Carpenter’s Wife, such as she might be supposed to have worn before the world had taken notice that she was the Mother of her Saviour. If they must needs have her in her state of glory as at Amiens; or of honour (being now publikely acknowledged to be the blessedness among Women) as at Paris: let them disburden her of her Child. To clap them thus both together, is a folly equally worthy of scorn & laughter.”[^[549]]

The reform which had swept away the worship of divine motherhood had also abolished the enforced celibacy of the priesthood; but the priest’s wife was given no position in the Church, and a tendency may be noted towards the secularisation of all women’s functions. Convents and nunneries were abolished, and no institutions which might specially assist women in the performance of their spiritual, educational or charitable duties were established in their place. There was, in fact, a deep jealousy of any influence which might disturb the authority and control which the individual husband exercised over his wife, and probably the seventeenth century Englishman was beginning to realise that nothing would be so subversive to this authority as the association of women together for religious purposes. If a recognised position was given to women in the Church, their lives must inevitably receive an orientation which would not necessarily be identical with their husband’s, thus creating a danger of conflicting loyalties. Naturally, therefore, women were excluded from any office, but it would be a mistake to suppose that their subordination to their husbands in religious matters was rigidly enforced throughout this period. Certainly in the first half of the century their freedom of thought in religion was usually taken for granted, and possibly amongst the Baptists, certainly amongst the Quakers, full spiritual equality was accorded to them. Women were universally admitted to the sacraments, and therefore recognised as being, in some sort, members of the Church, but this was consistent with the view of their position to which Milton’s well known lines in “Paradise Lost” give perfect expression, the ideal which, in all subsequent social and political changes, was destined to determine women’s position in Church and State:—

“Whence true authoritie in men, though both

Not equal, as their sex not equal seem’d,

For contemplation hee and valour form’d

For softness shee, and sweet attractive Grace,

Hee for God only, shee for God in him:

* * * *

To whom thus Eve with perfect beauty adornd

My Author and Disposer, what thou bidst

Unargu’d I obey; so God ordains,

God is thy Law, thou mine; to know no more

Is woman’s happiest knowledge and her praise.”

Nevertheless, though excluded from any position in the hierarchy of recognised servants of the Church, it must not be supposed that the Church was independent of women’s service. To their hands necessity rather than the will of man had entrusted a duty, which when unfulfilled makes all the complicated organisation of the Church impotent; namely, the bending of the infant mind and soul towards religious ideals and emotions. The lives of the reformers of the seventeenth century bear witness to the faithfulness with which women accomplished this task. In many cases their religious labours were extended beyond the care of their children, embracing the whole household for their field of service. The life of Letice, Viscountess Falkland, gives an example of the sense of responsibility under which many religious women lived. Lady Falkland passed about an hour with her maids, early every morning “in praying, and catechizing and instructing them; to these secret and private prayers, the publick morning and evening prayers of the Church, before dinner and supper; and another form (together with reading Scriptures and singing Psalms) before bedtime, were daily and constantly added ... neither were these holy offices appropriate to her menial servants, others came freely to joyn with them, and her Oratory was as open to her neighbours as her Hall was ... her Servants were all moved to accompany her to the Sacrament, and they who were prevailed with gave up their names to her, two or three dayes before, and from thence, she applied herself to the instructing of them ... and after the Holy Sacrament she called them together again and gave them such exhortations as were proper for them.”[^[550]]

The quarrel between Church and State over the teaching profession is an old story which does not concern this investigation. It is sufficient to note that in England neither Church nor State considered that the work of women in training the young entitled them to a recognised position in the general social organisation, or required any provision apart from the casual arrangements of family life.

Teaching.—The question of the standard and character of the education given to girls is too large a subject to be entered into here; it can only be remarked that the number of professional paid women teachers was small. The natural aptitude of the average woman for training the young, however, enabled mothers to provide their children, both boys and girls, with a very useful foundation of elementary education.

The professions of medicine, midwifery and nursing are very closely allied to each other; for neither was there any system of instruction on a scientific basis available for women, whose practice was thus empirical; but as yet science had done little to improve the skill even of the male practitioner.

Nursing.—Nursing was almost wholly a domestic art.

Medicine.—Though we find many references to women who practised medicine and surgery as professions, in the majority of cases their skill was used only for the assistance of their family and neighbours.

Midwifery.—Midwifery was upon a different footing, standing out as the most important public function exercised by women, and being regarded as their inviolable mystery till near the beginning of the seventeenth century. The steady process through which in this profession women were then supplanted by men, furnishes an example of the way in which women have lost their hold upon all branches of skilled responsible work, through being deprived of opportunities for specialised training.

The relative deterioration of woman’s capacity in comparison with the standard of men’s efficiency cannot be more clearly shown than in the history of midwifery. Even though the actual skill of midwives may not have declined during the seventeenth century men were rapidly surpassing them in scientific knowledge, for the general standard of women’s education was declining, and they were debarred from access to the higher branches of learning. As the absence of technical training kept women out of the skilled trades, so did the lack of scientific education drive them from the more profitable practice of midwifery, which in former times tradition and prejudice had reserved as their monopoly.

A. Nursing.

Whatever arrangements had been made by the religious orders in England for the care of the sick poor were swept away by the Reformation. The provision which existed in the seventeenth century for this purpose rested on a lay basis, quite unconnected with the Church. Amongst the most famous charitable institutions were the four London Hospitals; Christ’s Hospital for children under the age of sixteen, St. Bartholomew’s and St. Thomas’s for the sick and impotent poor, and Bethlehem for the insane.

There is no evidence that the women of the upper classes took any part in the management of these hospitals. The squalor and the ugly and disgusting details which are associated with nursing the diseased and often degraded poor, was unredeemed by the radiance with which a mystic realisation of the Divine Presence had upheld the Catholic Saints, or by the passionate desire for the service of humanity which inspired Florence Nightingale. Thus it was only the necessity for earning their daily bread which induced any women to enter the profession of nursing during this period, and as the salaries offered were considerably lower than the wages earned by a competent servant in London, it may be supposed that the class attracted did not represent the most efficient type of women.

The rules appointed for the governance of nurses show that the renunciations of a nun’s life were required of them, but social opinion in Protestant England set no seal of excellence upon their work, however faithfully performed, and the sacrifices demanded from the nurses were unrewarded by the crown of victory.

During the reign of Edward VI. there were a matron and twelve sisters at St. Bartholomew’s who received in wages £26 6s. 8d. In addition the matron received 1s. 6d. per week for board wages and the sisters 1s. 4d. per week, and between them £6 per year for livery, while the matron received 13s. 4d. for this purpose.[^[551]] The rules for the governance of the sisters were as follows:—“Your charge is, in all Things to declare and shew yourselves gentle, diligent, and obedient to the Matron of this House, who is appointed and authorised to be your chief Governess and Ruler. Ye shall also faithfully and charitably serve and help the Poor in all their Griefs and Diseases, as well by keeping them sweet and clean, as in giving them their Meats and Drinks, after the most honest and comfortable Manner. Also ye shall use unto them good and honest Talk, such as may comfort and amend them; and utterly to avoid all light, wanton, and foolish Words, Gestures, and Manners, using yourselves unto them with all Sobriety and Discretion, and above all Things, see that ye avoid, abhor, and detest Scolding and Drunkenness as most pestilent and filthy Vices. Ye shall not haunt or resort to any manner of Person out of this House, except ye be licensed by the Matron; neither shall ye suffer any light Person to haunt or use unto you, neither any dishonest Person, Man or Woman; and so much as in you shall lie, ye shall avoid and shun the Conversation and Company of all Men. Ye shall not be out of the Woman’s Ward after the Hour of seven of the Clock in the Night, in the Winter Time, nor after Nine of the Clock in the Night in the Summer: except ye shall be appointed and commanded by the Matron so to be, for some great and special cause that shall concern the Poor, (as the present Danger of Death or extreme Sickness), and yet so being commanded, ye shall remain no longer with such diseased Person than just Cause shall require. Also, if any just Cause of Grief shall fortune unto any of you, or that ye shall see Lewdness in any Officer, of other Person of this House, which may sound or grow to the Hurt or Slander thereof, ye shall declare the same to the Matron, or unto one or two of the Govenours of this House, that speedy Remedy therein may be had; and to no other Person neither shall ye talk or meddle therein any farther. This is your Charge, and with any other Thing you are not charged.”[^[552]]

The Matron was instructed to “receive of the Hospitaler of this House all such sick and diseased Persons as he ... shall present unto you,” and to “have also Charge, Governance & Order of all the Sisters of this House ... that every of them ... do their Duty unto the Poor, as well in making of their Beds, and keeping their Wards, as also in washing and purging their unclean Cloaths, and other Things. And that the same Sisters every night after the Hour of seven of the Clock in the Winter, and nine of the Clock in the Summer, come not out of the Woman’s Ward, except some great and special Cause (as the present Danger of Death, or needful Succour of some poor Person). And yet at such a special time it shall not be lawful for every Sister to go forth to any Person or Persons (no tho’ it be in her Ward) but only for such as you shall think virtuous, godly, and discreet. And the same Sister to remain no longer with the same sick Person then needful Cause shall require. Also at such times as the Sisters shall not be occupied about the Poor, ye shall set them to spinning or doing some other Manner of Work, that may avoid Idleness, and be profitable to the Poor of this House. Also ye shall receive the Flax ... the same being spun by the Sisters, ye shall commit to the said Governors.... You shall also ... have special Regard to the good ordering & keeping of all the Sheets, Coverlets, Blankets, Beds, and other Implements committed to your Charge, ... Also ye shall suffer no poor Person of this House to sit and drink within your House at no Time, neither shall ye so send them drink into their Wards, that thereby Drunkenness might be used and continued among them.”[^[553]]

In Christ’s Hospital there were two Matrons with salaries of £2 13s. 4d. per annum and forty-two women keepers with salaries of 40s. per annum. Board wages were allowed at the rate of 1s. 4d. per week for the “keepers” and 1s. 6d. for the Matrons. There was one keeper for fifteen persons.[^[554]] The Matron was advised “Your office is an office of great charge and credite. For to yow is committed the Governance and oversight of all the women and children within this Hospital. And also to yow is given Authoritie to commaunde, reprove, and rebuke them or any of them.... Your charge is also to searche and enquire whether the women do their Dutie, in washing of the children’s sheets and shirts, and in kepeing clean and sweet those that are committed to their Charge; and also in the Beddes, Sheets, Coverlets, and Apparails (with kepeing clean Wards and Chambers) mending of such as shall be broken from Time to Time. And specially yow shall give diligent Hede, that the said Washers and Nurses of this Howse be alwaies well occupied and not idle; ... you shal also once every Quarter of the Year examine the Inventorie.”[^[555]]

The nurses were instructed that they must “carefully and diligently oversee, kepe, and governe all those tender Babes & yonglings that shal be committed to your Charge, and the same holesomely, cleanely and swetely nourishe and bring up ... kepe your Wardes and every Part thereof swete and cleane ... avoid all Idleness when your Charge and Care of keping the Children is past, occupie yourselves in Spinning, Sewing, mending of Sheets and Shirts, or some other vertuous Exercise, such as you shal be appointed unto. Ye shal not resort or suffer any Man to resort to you, before ye have declared the same to the almoners or Matron of this Howse and obtained their Lycense and Favour, so to do ... see that all your children, before they be brought to Bed, be washed and cleane, and immediately after, every one of yow quietly shal go to your Bed, and not to sit up any longer; and once every night arise, and see that the Children be covered, for taking of Colde.”[^[556]]

Some idea of the class of women who actually undertook the important duties of Matron for the London Hospitals may be gathered from a petition presented by Joane Darvole, Matron of St. Thomas’s Hospital, Southwark, to Laud. She alleged “that she was dragged out of the Chapel of the Hospital at service and dragged along the streets to prison for debt, to the hazard of her life,” she being a “very weak sickly and aged woman,” clothes torn from her back and cast into a swoon. She petitions against the profanation of God’s house and the scandal to the congregation.[^[557]]

Sick and wounded soldiers were tended at the Savoy, where there were thirteen Sisters, whose joint salaries amounted to £52 16s. 8d. per annum.[^[558]] Among the orders for the patients, nurses and widows in the Savoy and other hospitals in and about London occur the following regulations:—4ᵗʰˡʸ “That every soldier or nurse ... that shall profanely sweare” to pay 12d. for the first offence, 12d. for the second, and be expelled for the third. 8ᵗʰˡʸ “That if any souldier shall marye any of the nurses of the said houses whilst hee is there for care or (recov)ery they both shall be turned forth of the House. 11ᵗʰˡʸ No soldier under cure to have their (wiv)es lodge with them there except by the approbation of the Phisicion. 12ᵗʰˡʸ No nurse to be dismissed without the approval of 2 of the Treasurers for the relief of maimed soldiers at least. Nurses to be chosen from among the widows of soldiers if there are among them those that be fit, and those to have 5s. per weeke as others usually have had for the service. 14ᵗʰˡʸ soldiers, wounded and sick, outside the hospitals not to have more than 4s. per week. Those in St. Thomas’s and Bartholomew’s hospital 2s. a week, those in their parents’, masters’ or friends’ houses, according to their necessities, but not more than 4s. per week. 15ᵗʰˡʸ Soldiers’ widows to receive according to their necessities, but not more than 4s. a week. 19ᵗʰˡʸ If any of the nurses ... shalbee negligent in their duties or in giving due attendance to the ... sicke souldiers by daye or night or shall by scoulding, brawlinge or chidinge make any disturbance in the said hospitall, she shall forfeite 12d. for 1st offence, week’s pay for second, be dismissed for the third. 20ᵗʰˡʸ If any widow after marriage shall come and receive weekly pensions as a soldier’s widow contrary to the ordinance of parlᵗ he which hath married her to repay it, & if he is unable she shall be complained of to the nearest J.P. and be punished as a de(ceiver).”[^[559]]

There was one nurse for every ten patients in the Dublin hospitals, and the salary was £10 per annum, out of which she had to find her board.[^[560]]

The opportunity which the hospitals afforded for training in the art of nursing was entirely wasted. The idea that the personal tending of the sick and forlorn poor would be a religious service of special value in the sight of God had vanished, and their care, no longer transformed by the devotion of religious enthusiasm, appeared a sordid duty, only fit for the lowest class in the community. Well-to-do men relieved their consciences by bequeathing money for the endowment of hospitals, but the sense of social responsibility was not fostered in girls, and the expression of charitable instincts was almost confined in the case of women to their personal relations.

Outside the hospitals employment was given to a considerable number of women in the tending of persons stricken with small-pox or the plague, and in searching corpses for signs of the plague. London constables and churchwardens were ordered in 1570 “to provide to have in readiness Women to be Provyders & Deliverers of necessaries to infected Howses, and to attend the infected Persons, and they to bear reed Wandes, so that the sick maie be kept from the whole, as nere as maie be, needful attendance weyed.”[^[561]]

In the town records of Reading it is noted “at this daye Marye Jerome Wydowe was sworn to be a viewer and searcher of all the bodyes that shall dye within this boroughe, and truly to report and certifye to her knowledge of what disease they dyed, etc.; and Anne Lovejoy widowe, jurata, 4ˢ a weeke a peice, allowing iiijs. a moneth after.”[^[562]] “Mary Holte was sworne to be a searcher of the dead bodyes hencefovrth dyeinge within the boroughe (being thereunto required) having iiijs. a weeke for her wages, and iiid. a corps carryeing to buryall, and iiijs. a weeke a moneth after the ceassinge of the plague.”[^[563]]

In 1637 it was “agreed ... with old Frewyn and his wief, that she shall presentlye goe into the house of Henry Merrifeild and be aidinge & helpinge to the said Merrifeild and his wief, during the time of their visitacion [plague].... She shall have dyett with them, and six weekes after their visitacion ended. And old Frewin to have 2s. a week duringe all that tyme paid him, and 2s. in hand. And she shall have 2ˢ a weeke kept for her & paid her in th’end of the sixe weekes after.”[^[564]] Later “it was thought fitt the Woman keeper and Merifielde’s wenche in the Pest-house, it beinge above vj weekes past since any one dyed there, should be at libertie and goe hence to her husbande’s house, she havinge done her best endevour to ayre and cleanse all the beddes & beddinge & other things in both the houses ... for her mayntenance vj weekes after the ceassinge of the sicknes, she keepinge the wenche with her, they shalbe paid 3s. a weeke for and towardes their mayntenance duringe the vj weekes.”[^[565]] In 1639 the Council “Agree to geve the Widowe Lovejoye in full satisfaccion for all her paynes taken in and about the visited people in this Towne in this last visitacion xls. in money, and cloth to make her a kirtle and a wascote, and their favour towards her two sonnes-in-lawe (beinge forreynours) about their fredome.”[^[566]] On a petition in 1641 from Widow Lovejoy “for better allowance & satisfaction for her paines aboute the visited people; ... it was agreed that she shall have xxxs. soe soone as the taxe for the visited people is made uppe.”[^[567]]

In rural districts where hospitals were seldom within reach, entries are not infrequently found in the parish account books of payments made to women for nursing the poor. “Item. To Mother Middleton for twoe nights watchinge with Widow Coxe’s child being sick.”[^[568]] “To Goody Halliday, for nursing him & his family 5 weeks £1 5; to Goody Nye, for assisting in nursing, 2s. 6d.[^[569]] ... to Goody Peckham for nursing a beggar, 5s. For nursing Wickham’s boy with the small pocks 12s.”[^[570]] A Hertfordshire parish paid a woman 15s. for her attendance during three weeks on a woman and her illegitimate child.[^[571]] A Morton man was ordered to pay out of his next half-year’s rent for the grounds he farmed of Isabelle Squire “20s. to Margt. Squire, who attended and looked to her half a year during the time of her distraction.”[^[572]]

Sometimes nurses were provided for the poor by religious and charitable ladies, who, like Letice, Viscountess Falkland, “hired nurses to serve them.”[^[573]] Sick nurses were also engaged by well-to-do people to attend upon themselves or their servants. Thus the Rev. Giles Moore enters in his journal “My mayde being sicke I payd for opening her veine 4d. to the Widdow Rugglesford, for looking to her, I gave 1s. and to old Bess for tending her 3 days and 2 nights I gave 1ˢ; in all 2ˢ 4ᵈ.”[^[574]] A little later, when the writer himself was “in an ague. Paid Goodwyfe Ward for being necessary to me 1s.”[^[575]] Though his daughter was with him, a nurse watched in the chamber when Colonel Hutchinson died in the prison at Dover.[^[576]]

A few extracts from account books will supply further details as to the usual scale of remuneration for nurses; no doubt in each case the money given was in addition to meat and drink. Sarah Fell enters “by mᵒ given Ann Daniell for her paines about Rachell Yeamans when she died 05.00.”[^[577]] Timothy Burrell “pd. Gosmark for tending Mary 3 weeks 6s.”[^[578]] Lady Grisell Baillie engaged a special nurse for her daughter Rachy at a fee of 5s.[^[579]] At Herstmonceux Castle they “pd Hawkin’s wife for tending the sick maiden 10 days 3s. Pd. Widdow Weeks for tending sick seruants a fortnight 4s.”[^[580]] Sir John Foulis in Scotland paid “to Ketherin in pᵗ paymᵗ & till account for her attendance on me the time of my sickness 12. 0. 0” [scots].[^[581]] “To Katherine tueddie in compleat paymᵗ for her attendance on me wⁿ I was sick 20. 0. 0.” [scots].[^[582]] “To my good douchter jennie to give tibbie tomsone for her attendance on my wife the time of her sickness 5. 16. 0. [scots].”[^[583]]

All the above instances refer to professional nursing; that is to say to the tending of the sick for wages, but nursing was more often of an unprofessional character. Sickness was rife in all classes, and for the most part the sick were tended by the women of their household or family. The claim for such assistance was felt beyond the limits of kinship, and in the village community each woman would render it to her neighbour without thought of reward. The solidarity of the community was a vital tradition to the village matron of the early seventeenth century, and it was only in cases of exceptional isolation or difficulty, or where the sick person was a stranger or an outcast that the services of a paid nurse were called in. Probably the standard of efficiency was higher in domestic than in professional nursing, because professional nurses received no systematic training. Their rate of remuneration was low, the essential painfulness of their calling was not concealed by the glamour of a religious vocation, still less was it rewarded by any social distinction. Therefore the women who took up nursing for their livelihood did so from necessity, and were drawn from the lower classes.

Illness was so frequent in the seventeenth century that few girls can have reached maturity without the opportunity of practising the art of nursing at home; but amongst the “common people,” that is to say all the class of independent farmers and tradesmen, the housewife can hardly have found time to perfect her skill in nursing to a fine art. Probably the highest level was reached in the households of the gentry, where idleness was not yet the accepted hall-mark of a lady, and the mistress felt herself to be responsible for the training of her children and servants in every branch of the domestic arts, amongst which were reckoned both medicine and nursing.

B. Surgery and Medicine.

The position held by mediæval women in the arts of healing is shown in such books as Mallory’s “Morte d’Arthur.” When wounds proved intractable to the treatment of the rough and ready surgeons who attended in the vicinity of tourneys, knights sought help from some high-born lady renowned for her skill in medicine. It is true that popular belief assigned her success to witchcraft rather than to the knowledge and understanding acquired by diligent study and experience, but a tendency to faith in the occult was universal, and the reputation of the ladies probably bore some relation to their success in the cures attempted, for, according to the author of “The Golden Bough,” science is the lineal descendant of witchcraft. The position of pre-eminence as consultants was no longer retained by women in the seventeenth century. Schools and Universities had been founded, where men could study medicine and anatomy, and thus secure for themselves a higher standard of knowledge and efficiency; but, though women were excluded from these privileges they were not yet completely ousted from the medical profession, and as a domestic art medicine was still extensively practised by them.

Every housewife was expected to understand the treatment of the minor ailments at least of her household, and to prepare her own drugs. Commonplace books of this period contain recipes for making mulberry syrup, preserving fruit and preparing meats, mingled with, for example, prescriptions for plague water, which is “very good against the plague, the small-pox, the measles, surfeitts ... and is of a sovereign nature to be given in any sickness.” “An oyle good for any ach—and ointments for sore eyes or breasts, or stone in the kidney or bladder.” And in addition, “my brother Jones his way of making inks.”[^[584]] “The Ladies Dispensatory” contains “the Natures, Vertues and Qualities of all Herbs, and Simples usefull in Physick. Reduced into a Methodical Order,” the diseases to be treated including those of men, as well as women and children.[^[585]]

As was the case in other domestic arts, girls depended for their training in medicine chiefly on the tradition they received from their mothers, but this was reinforced from other sources as occasion offered. “The Ladies Dispensatory” was not the only handbook published for their use; sometimes, though schools were closed to women, an opportunity occurred for private coaching. Thus Sarah Fell entered in her account book, “July ʸᵉ 5º 1674 by mᵒ to Bro: Loweʳ yᵗ hee gave Thomas Lawson foʳ comeinge over hitheʳ to Instruct him & sistʳˢ, in the knowledge of herbs. 10.00,”[^[586]] and when Mrs. Hutchinson’s husband was Governor of the Tower she allowed Sir Walter Raleigh and Mr. Ruthin during their imprisonment to make experiments in chemistry “at her cost, partly to comfort and divert the poor prisoners, and partly to gain the knowledge of their experiments, and the medicines to help such poor people as were not able to seek physicians. By these means she acquired a great deal of skill, which was very profitable to many all her life.”[^[587]]

Neither did ladies confine their services to their own household, but extended their benefits to all their suffering neighbours. The care of the sick poor was considered to be one of the duties of a “Person of Quality,” whose housekeepers were expected “to have a competent knowledge in Physick and Chyrurgery, that they may be able to help their maimed, sick and indigent Neighbours; for Commonly, all good and charitable Ladies make this a part of their Housekeepers business.”[^[588]] The “Good Woman” is described as one who “distributes among the Indigent, Money and Books, and Cloaths, and Physick, as their severall Circumstances may require,” to relieve “her poorer Neighbours in sudden Distress, when a Doctor is not at Hand, or when they have no Money to buy what may be necessary for them; and the charitableness of her Physick is often attended by some cure or other that is remarkable. God gives a peculiar Blessing to the Practice of those Women who have no other design in this Matter, but the doing Good: that neither prescribe where they may have the Advice of the Learned, nor at any time give or recommend any thing to try Experiments, but what they are assured from former Tryals is safe and innocent; and if it do not help cannot hurt.”[^[589]]

The provision made by Lady Falkland of “antidotes against infection and of Cordials, and other several sorts of Physick for such of her Neighbours as should need them, amounted yearly to very considerable summes ... her skil indeed was more than ordinary, and her wariness too.... Bookes of spiritual exhortations, she carried in her hand to these sick persons.”[^[590]] Mrs. Elizabeth Bedell “was very famous and expert in Chirurgery, which she continually practised upon multitudes that flock’d to her, and still gratis, without respect of persons, poor or rich. It hapned occasionally that some would return like the heald Samaritan, with some token of thankfulness; though this was seldom. But God did not fail to reward them with (that which in Scripture is most properly call’d his reward) children, and the fruit of the womb. 3 sons and 4 daughters.”[^[591]]

Expressions of gratitude to women for these medical services occur in letters and diaries of the time. The Rev. R. Josselin enters January 27th, 1672, “My L. Honeywood sent her coach for me: yᵗ I stayd to March 10, in wᶜʰ time my Lady was my nurse & Phisitian & I hope for much good: ... they considered yᵉ scurvy. I tooke purge & other things for it;”[^[592]] Marmaduke Rawdon met with a carriage accident, in which he strained his “arme, but comminge to Hodsden his good cossen Mrs. Williams, with hir arte and care, quickly cured itt, and in ten dayes was well againe.”[^[593]]

Nor was the practice of medicine confined to Gentlewomen; many a humble woman in the country, the wife of farmer or husbandman, used her skill for the benefit of her neighbours. In their case, though many were prompted purely by motives of kindness and goodwill, others received payment for their services. How much the dependence of the common people on the skill of these “wise women” was taken for granted is suggested by some lines in “The Alchemist,” where Mammon assures Dol Common

“This nook, here, of the Friers is no Climate

For her to live obscurely in, to learne

Physick, and Surgery, for the Constable’s wife

Of some odde Hundred in Essex.”[^[594]]

Though their work was entirely unscientific, experience and common sense, or perhaps mere luck, often gave to their treatment an appearance of success which was denied to their more learned rivals. Thus Adam Martindale describing his illness says that it was “a vehement fermentation in my body ... ugly dry scurfe, eating deep and spreading broad. Some skilfull men, or so esteemed, being consulted and differing much in their opinions, we were left to these three bad choices ... in this greate straite God sent us in much mercie a poore woman, who by a salve made of nothing but Celandine and a little of the Mosse of an ashe root, shred and boyled in May-butter, tooke it cleare away in a short time, and though after a space there was some new breakings out, yet these being annointed with the same salve ... were absolutely cleared away.”[^[595]]

The general standard of efficiency among the men who professed medicine and surgery was very low, the chief work of the ordinary country practitioner being the letting of blood, and the wise woman of the village may easily have been his superior in other forms of treatment. Sir Ralph Verney, writing to his wife advises her to “give the child no phisick but such as midwives and old women, with the doctors approbation, doe prescribe; for assure yourselfe they by experience know better than any phisition how to treate such infants.”[^[596]] Of Hobbes it was said that he took little physick and preferred “an experienced old woman” to the “most learned and inexperienced physician.”[^[597]]

Dr. Turbeville, a noted oculist in the West Country, was sent for to cure the Princess of Denmark, who had a dangerous inflammation of the eyes. On his return he is reported to have said that “he expected to learn something of these Court doctors, but, to his amazement he found them only spies upon his practice, and wholly ignorant as to the lady’s case; nay, farther, he knew several midwives and old women, whose advice he would rather follow than theirs.”[^[598]] He died at Sarum in 1696, and his sister, Mrs. Mary Turbeville, practised afterwards in London “with good reputation and success. She has all her brother’s receipts, and having seen his practice, during many years, knows how to use them. For my part, I have so good an opinion of her skill that should I again be afflicted with sore eyes, which God forbid! I would rely upon her advice rather than upon any pretenders or professors in London or elsewhere.”[^[599]]

Events, however, were taking place which would soon curtail the practice of women whose training was confined to personal experience, tradition and casual study. The established associations of physicians, surgeons and apothecaries, although of recent growth, demanded and obtained, like other companies, exclusive privileges. Their policy fell in with the Government’s desire to control the practice of medicine, in order to check witchcraft. Statute 3, Henry VIII., enacted that “none should exercise the Faculty of Physick or Surgery within the City of London or within Seven Miles of the same, unless first he were examined, approved and admitted by the Bishop of London, or the Dean of St. Paul’s, calling to him or them Four Doctors of Physick, and for Surgery other expert Persons in that Faculty, upon pain of Forfeiture of £5 for every Month they should occupy Physick or Surgery, not thus admitted” because “that common Artificers, as Smiths, Weavers, and Women, boldly and accustomably took upon them great Cures, and Things of great Difficulty, in the which they partly used Sorceries and Witchcraft, and partly applied such Medicines unto the Diseased, as were very noyous, and nothing meet therefore.”[^[600]]

The restrictions were extended to the provinces. A Charter given to the Company of Barber-Surgeons at Salisbury in 1614 declared that “No surgeon or barber is to practise any surgery or barbery, unless first made a free citizen, and then a free brother of the company. Whereas, also, there are divers women and others within this city, altogether unskilled in the art of chirurgery, who do oftentimes take cures on them, to the great danger of the patient, it is therefore ordered, that no such woman, or any other, shall take or meddle with any cure of chirurgery, wherefore they, or any of them shall have or take any money, benefit or other reward for the same, upon pain that every delinquent shall for every cure to be taken in hand, or meddled with, contrary to this order, unless she or they shall be first allowed by this Company, forfeit and lose to the use of this Company the sum of ten shillings.”[^[601]]

The Apothecaries were separated from the Grocers in 1617, the charter of their company providing that “No person or persons whatsoever may have, hold, or keep an Apothecaries Shop or Warehouse, or that may exercise or use the Art or Mystery of Apothecaries, or make, mingle, work, compound, prepare, give, apply, or administer, any Medicines, or that may sell, set on sale, utter, set forth, or lend any Compound or Composition to any person or persons whatsoever within the City of London, and the Liberties thereof, or within Seven Miles of the said city, unless such person or persons as have been brought up, instructed, and taught by the space of Seven Years at the least, as Apprentice or Apprentices, with some Apothecary or Apothecaries exercising the same Art, and being a Freeman of the said Mystery.” Any persons wishing to become an Apothecary must be examined and approved after his apprenticeship.[^[602]]

It will be observed that there is little in their charters to distinguish the medical from other city Companies, and while the examination required by the Faculties of Medicine and Surgery in the City of London excluded women altogether, the Apothecaries still admitted them by marriage or apprenticeship. “Mʳⁱˢ Lammeere Godfrey Villebranke her son both Dutch Pothecarys” are included in a certificate made by the Justices of the Peace to the Privy Council, of the foreigners residing in the Liberty of Westminster.[^[603]] A journeyman who applied for the freedom of the company, stated that he was serving the widow of an apothecary. His application was refused time after time through difficulties owing to a clause in the Charter. Counsel’s opinion was taken, and finally he was admitted provided he kept a journeyman and entered into a bond of £100 to perform the same, that he gave £10 and a spoon to the Company, took the oaths and paid Counsel’s fees.[^[604]] He subsequently married the widow. Similar rules obtained in the provinces, as is shown by the admittance of Thomas Serne in 1698-9 to the freedom of the City of Dorchester on payment of 40s. because he had “married a wife who had lived as apprentice for 20 years to an apothecary.”[^[605]]

The jurisdiction of companies was local, and where no company existed boys were apprenticed to surgery for the sake of training, though such an apprenticeship conferred no monopoly privilege. Surgery was sometimes combined with another trade. John Croker describes in his memoir how he was bound apprentice in 1686 to one John Shilson “by trade a serge-maker, but who also professed surgery; with whom I went to be instructed in the art of surgery.”[^[606]] The operation of these various Statutes and Charters being local and their enforcement depending upon the energy of the parties interested, it is difficult to determine what was their actual and immediate effect on the medical practice of women. Statute 3, Henry VIII., must have been enforced with some severity, for a later one declares “Sithence the making of which said Act the companie & felowship of surgeons of London, minding oonly their own lucres, and nothing the profit or ease of the diseased or patient, have sued, troubled and vexed divers honest persons as well men as women, whom God hath endued with the knowledge of the nature, kind, and operation of certain herbes, roots and waters, and the using & ministering of them to such as been pained with customable diseases, as women’s breasts being sore, a pin and the web in the eye, &c., &c., and yet the said persons have not taken any thing for their pains or cunning.”[^[607]]

Not only the Surgeons but the Apothecaries also, enforced observance of the privileges which the King had granted to them, and in consequence a Petition of many thousands of citizens and inhabitants in and about London was presented on behalf of Mr. William Trigg, Practitioner of Physick, saying that he “did abundance of good to all sorts of people in and about this City: when most of the Colledge Doctors deserted us, since which time your Petitioners have for above twenty yeares, in their severall times of Sicknesses, and infirmities taken Physick from him ... in which time, we doe verily believe in our consciences, that he hath done good to above thirty thousand Persons; and that he maketh all his Compositions himselfe, not taking anything for his Physick from poor people; but rather releiving their necessities, nor any money from any of us for his advice; and but moderately for his Physick: his custome being to take from the middle sort of Patients 12d., 18d., 2s., 2s. 6d. as they please to give, very seldom five shillings unlesse from such as take much Physick with them together into the Countrey ... there is a good and wholesome law made in the 34th year of King Henry 8 C. 8. Permitting every man that hath knowledge and experience in the nature of Herbs, Roots and waters, to improve his Talent for the common good and health of the people,” and concluding that unless Dr. Trigg is allowed to continue his practice “many poore people must of necessity perish to death ... for they are not able to pay great fees to Doctors and Apothecaries bills which cost more then his advice and Physick; nor can we have accesse unto them when we desire, which we familiarly have to Dr. Trigg to our great ease and comfort.”[^[608]]

Prudence Ludford, wife of William Ludford of Little Barkhampton, was presented in 1683 “for practising the profession of a chyrurgeon contrary to law,”[^[609]] but many women at this time continued their practice as doctors undisturbed; for example, Mrs. Lucy Hutchinson casually mentions that one of her maids went to Colson, to have a sore eye cured by a woman of the town.[^[610]] While Mrs. D’ewes was travelling from Axminster to London by coach, her baby boy cried so violently all the way, on account of the roughness of the road that he ruptured himself, and was left behind at Dorchester under the care of Mrs. Margaret Waltham, “a female practitioner.”[^[611]]

The account books of Boroughs and Parishes show that the poor received medical treatment from men and women indiscriminately. A whole series of such payments occur in the minute book of the Dorchester Corporation. “It is ordered that the Vˡⁱ to be paid to Peter Salanova for cutting of Giles Garrett’s leg shall be paid out of the Xˡⁱ yearly paiable out of the Hospitall for pious vses ... to have the one halfe having cutt of his leg already, and the other halfe when he is thoroughly cured.[^[612]] ... Unto the Widdow Foote xs. for the curing of the Widow Huchins’ lame leg at present; and xs. more when the cure is finished[^[613]].... Mr. Losse should be payed by the Steward of the Hospital the somme of viij li for his paynes and fee as Phisitian in taking care of the poore of the Towne for the last yeare ... as it hath bin formerly accustomed.... Vnto Mr. Mullens the somme of thirty shillings for curing Hugh Rogers of a dangerous fistula.”[^[614]] Three pounds more (three having already been paid) was ordered to be given to “Cassander Haggard for finishing the great cure on John Drayton otherwise Keuse.”[^[615]] In another case the Council tendered to Mr. Mullens, “the chirurgeon, the some of xxxˢ for curing of Thomas Hobbs, but he answered hee would consider of it next weeke [He declined].”[^[616]]

At Cowden the overseers paid to Dr. Willett for “reducing the arm of Elizᵗʰ Skinner, and for ointment, cerecloths and journeys, £2;” three years later a further sum of 10s. was given “to Goodwife Wells for curing Eliz Skinner’s hand.”[^[617]] Mary Olyve was paid 6s. 8d. “for curing a boye that was lame” at Mayfield,[^[618]] and 15s. was given to “Widow Thurston for healing of Stannard’s son,” by the churchwardens at Cratfield.[^[619]] In Somerset £5 was paid to “Johane Shorley towards the cure of Thomas Dudderidge. Further satisfaction when cure is don.”[^[620]]

Such entries show that though women may have practised surgery and medicine chiefly as domestic arts, nevertheless their skill was also used professionally, their natural aptitude in this direction enabling them to maintain their position throughout the seventeenth century even when deprived of all opportunities for systematic study and scientific experiments, and in spite of the determined attacks by the Corporations of physicians and surgeons; but their success was owing to the fact that Science had as yet achieved small results in the standard of medical efficiency.

C. Midwifery.

It has been shown that the employment of women in the arts of medicine, nursing and teaching was chiefly, though not entirely, confined to the domestic sphere; midwifery, on the other hand, though occasionally practised by amateurs, was, in the majority of cases, carried on by women who, whether skilled or unskilled, regarded it as the chief business of their lives, and depended upon it for their maintenance. Not only did midwifery exist on a professional basis from immemorial days, but it was formerly regarded as a mystery inviolably reserved for women; and though by the seventeenth century the barrier which excluded men had broken down, the extent to which the profession had in the past been a woman’s monopoly is shown by the fact that the men who now began to practise the art were known as men-midwives.

The midwife held a recognised position in Society and was sometimes well-educated and well-paid. Nothing is known as to the mediæval history of midwifery in England; and possibly nothing ever will be known concerning it, for the Englishwoman of that period had no impulse to commit her experience and ideas to writing. All the wisdom which touched her special sphere in life was transmitted orally from mother to daughter, and thus at any change, like the Industrial Revolution, which silently undermined the foundations of society, the traditional womanly wisdom could vanish, leaving no trace behind it. Even in the Elizabethan period and during the seventeenth century, when most women could read and many could write, they show little tendency to record information concerning their own affairs. But the profession of midwifery was then no longer reserved exclusively for women. The first treatise on the subject published in England was a translation by Raynold of “The Byrth of Mankynd.” He says in his preface that the book had already been translated into “Dutche, Frenche, Spanyshe and dyvers other languages. In the which Countries there be fewe women that can reade, but they wyll haue one of these bookes alwayes in readinesse ... it beinge lykewyse sette foorth in our Englyshe speeche ... it may supply the roome and place of a good Mydwyfe, ... and truly ... there be syth the fyrst settynge forth of this booke, right many honourable Ladyes, & other Worshypfull Gentlewomen, which have not disdayned the oftener by the occasion of this booke to frequent and haunt women in theyr labours, caryinge with them this booke in theyr handes, and causyng such part of it as doth chiefely concerne the same pourpose, to be read before the mydwyfe, and the rest of the women then beyng present; whereby ofttymes, then all haue been put in remembraunce of that, wherewith the laboryng woman hath bene greatly comforted, and alleuiated of her thronges and travayle.... But here now let not the good Mydwyves be offended with that, that is spoken of the badde. For verily there is no science, but that it hath his Apes, Owles, Beares and Asses ... at the fyrst commyng abroade of this present booke, many of this sorte of mydwyves, meuyd eyther of envie, or els of mallice, or both, diligented ... to fynde the meanes to suppresse ... the same; makyng all wemen of theyr acquayntaunce ... to beleeue, that it was nothyng woorth: and that it shoulde be a slaunder to women, forso muche as therein was descried and set foorth the secretes and priuities of women, and that euery boy and knaue hadd of these bookes, readyng them as openly as the tales of Robinhood &c.”[^[621]]

It is sometimes supposed that childbirth was an easier process in former generations than it has become since the developments of modern civilisation. The question has a direct bearing on the profession of midwifery, but it cannot be answered here, nor could it receive a simple answer of yes or no, for it embraces two problems for the midwife, the ease and safety of a normal delivery and her resources in face of the abnormal.

No one can read the domestic records of the seventeenth century without realising that the dangers of childbed were much greater then than now; nevertheless the travail of the average woman at that time may have been easier. There was clearly a great difference in this respect between the country woman, inured to hard muscular labour, and the high-born lady or city dame. The difference is pointed out by contemporary writers. McMath dedicated “the Expert Mid-wife” to the Lady Marquies of Douglas because “as it concerns all Bearing Women ... so chiefly the more Noble and Honourable, as being more Excellent, more Tender, and Delicate, and readily more opprest with the symptoms.” Jane Sharp confirms this, saying that “the poor Country people, where there are none but women to assist (unless it be those that are exceeding poor and in a starving condition, and then they have more need of meat than Midwives) ... are as fruitful and as safe and well delivered, if not much more fruitful, and better commonly in Childbed than the greatest Ladies of the Land.”[^[622]]

Rich and poor alike depended upon the midwife to bring them safely through the perils of childbirth, and it is certain that women of a high level of intelligence and possessing considerable skill belonged to the profession. The fees charged by successful midwives were very high, and during the first half of the century they were considered in no way inferior to doctors in skill. It was natural that Queen Henrietta Maria should send for one of her own country women to attend her, French midwives enjoying an extraordinarily high reputation for their skill at this time. The payment in 1630 of £100 to Frances Monnhadice, Nurse to the Queen, “for the diet & entertainment of Madame Peron, midwife to the Queen,” and further of a “Warrant to pay Madame Peron £300 of the King’s gift”[^[623]] shows the high value attached to her services.

That English midwives were often possessed of ample means is shown by a deposition made by “Abraham Perrot, of Barking parish, Gentleman,” who “maketh oath that a month before the fire ... he ... paid unto Hester Shaw Widow, ... the summe of £953.6.8.”[^[624]] the said Mrs. Shaw being described as a midwife; but relations who were members of this profession are never alluded to in letters, diaries or memoirs. From this absence of any social reference it is difficult to determine from what class of the community they were drawn, or what were the circumstances which led women to take up this responsible and arduous profession. No doubt necessity led many ignorant women to drift into the work when they were too old to receive new ideas and too wanting in ambition to make any serious effort to improve their skill, but the writings of Mrs. Cellier and Mrs. Jane Sharp prove that there were others who regarded their profession with enthusiasm, and who possessed an intelligence acute enough to profit by all the experience and instruction which was within their reach.

The only training available for women who wished to acquire a sound knowledge of midwifery was by apprenticeship; this, if the mistress was skilled in her art, was valuable up to a certain point, but as no organisation existed among midwives it was not possible to insist upon any general standard of efficiency, and many midwives were ignorant of the most elementary circumstances connected with their profession. In any case such an apprenticeship could not supply the place of the more speculative side of training, which can only be given in connection with schools of anatomy where research work is possible, and from these all women were excluded.

As has been said, many women who entered the profession did not even go through a form of apprenticeship, but acquired their experience solely, to use Raynold’s words, “by haunting women in their labours.” In rural England it was customary when travail began, to send for all the neighbours who were responsible women, partly with the object of securing enough witnesses to the child’s birth, partly because it was important to spread the understanding of midwifery as widely as possible, because any woman might be called upon to render assistance in an emergency.

Several handbooks on Midwifery were written in response to the demand for opportunities for scientific training by the more intelligent members of the profession. One of the most popular of these books, which passed through many editions, was published in 1671 by Jane Sharp “Practitioner in the art of Midwifery above 30 years.” The preface to the fourth edition says that “the constant and unwearied Industry of this ingenious and well-skill’d midwife, Mrs. Jane Sharp, together with her great Experience of Anatomy & Physick, by the many years of her Practice in the art of Midwifery hath ... made them ... much desired by all that either knew her Person ... or ever read this book, which of late, by its Scarceness hath been so much enquired after ... as to have many after impressions.” The author says that she has “often sate down sad in the Consideration of the many Miseries Women endure in the Hands of unskilful Midwives; many professing the Art (without any skill in anatomy, which is the Principal part effectually necessary for a Midwife) meerly for Lucres sake. I have been at Great Cost in Translations for all Books, either French, Dutch or Italian of this kind. All which I offer with my own Experience.”[^[625]]

Jane Sharp points out that midwives must be both speculative and practical, for “she that wants the knowledge of Speculation, is like one that is blind or wants her sight: she that wants the Practice, is like one that is lame & wants her legs.... Some perhaps may think, that then it is not proper for women to be of this profession, because they cannot attain so rarely to the knowledge of things as men may, who are bred up in Universities, Schools of Learning, or serve their Apprenticeship for that end and purpose, where anatomy Lectures being frequently read the situation of the parts both of men and women ... are often made plain to them. But that objection is easily answered, by the former example of the Midwives amongst the Israelites, for, though we women cannot deny that men in some things may come to a greater perfection of knowledge than women ordinarily can, by reason of the former helps that women want; yet the Holy Scriptures hath recorded Midwives to the perpetual honour of the female Sex. There not being so much as one word concerning men midwives mentioned there ... it being the natural propriety of women to be much seeing into that art; and though nature be not alone sufficient to the perfection of it, yet further knowledge may be gain’d by a long and diligent practice, and be communicated to others of our own sex. I cannot deny the honour due to able Physicians and Chyrurgions, when occasion is, Yet ... where there is no Men of Learning, the women are sufficient to perform this duty.... It is not hard words that perform the work, as if none understood the Art that cannot understand Greek. Words are but the shell, that we oftimes break our Teeth with them to come at the kernel, I mean our brains to know what is the meaning of them; but to have the same in our mother tongue would save us a great deal of needless labour. It is commendable for men to employ their spare time in some things of deeper Speculation than is required of the female sex; but the art of Midwifery chiefly concerns us.”[^[626]]

Though the schools of Medicine and Anatomy were closed to women, individual doctors were willing to teach the more progressive midwives some of the science necessary for their art; thus Culpeper dedicated his “Directory” to the midwives of England in the following words:—“Worthy Matrons, You are of the number of those whom my soul loveth, and of whom I make daily mention in my Prayers: ... If you please to make experience of my Rules, they are very plain, and easie enough; ... If you make use of them, you wil find your work easie, you need not call for the help of a Man-Midwife, which is a disparagement, not only to yourselves, but also to your Profession: ... All the Perfections that can be in a Woman, ought to be in a Midwife; the first step to which is, To know your ignorance in that part of Physick which is the Basis of your Act.... If any want Wisdom, let him ask it of God (not of the Colledg of Physitians, for if they do, they may hap to go without their Errand, unless they bring Money with them).”[^[627]]

Efforts made by Peter Chamberlain to secure some systematic training for midwives drew upon himself the abuse, if not persecution, of his jealous contemporaries. In justifying the course he had taken he pleads “Because I am pretended to be Ignorant or Covetous, or both, therefore some ignorant Women, whom either extream Povertie hath necessitated, or Hard-heartedness presumed, or the Game of Venus intruded into the calling of Midwifry (to have the issues of Life & Death of two or three at one time in their hands, beside the consequence of Health and Strength of the Whole Nation) should neither be sufficiently instructed in doing Good, nor restrained from doing Evil?... The objection infers thus much. Because there was never any Order for instructing and governing of Midwives, therefore there never must be.... It may be when Bishops are restored again, their Ordinaries will come in to plead their care. Of what? Truly that none shall do good without their leave. That none shall have leave, but such as will take their Oath and pay Money. That taking this Oath and paying their Money with the testimonie of two or three Gossips, any may have leave to be as ignorant, if not as cruel as themselves, ... but of Instruction or Order amongst the Midwives, not one word.”[^[628]]

The danger which threatened midwives by the exclusion of women from the scientific training available for men, did not pass unnoticed by the leading members of the Profession. They realised that the question at stake did not concern only the honour of their Profession, but involved the suffering, and in many cases even the death, of vast numbers of women and babies who must always depend on the skill of midwives and urged that steps should be taken to raise the standard of their efficiency. Mrs. Cellier[^[629]] pointed out “That, within the Space of twenty years last past, above six thousand women have died in childbed, more than thirteen thousand children have been born abortive, and above five thousand chrysome infants have been buried, within the weekly bills of mortality; above two-thirds of which, amounting to sixteen thousand souls, have in all probability perished, for want of due skill and care, in those women who practise the art of midwifery.... To remedy which, it is humbly proposed, that your Majesty will be graciously pleased to unite the whole number of skilful midwives, now practising within the limits of the weekly bills of mortality, into a corporation, under the government of a certain number of the most able and matron-like women among them, subject to the visitation of such person or persons, as your Majesty shall appoint; and such Rules for their good government, instruction, direction, and administration as are hereunto annexed.”

Mrs. Cellier succeeded with her proposal, in so far that His Majesty agreed to unite the midwives into a Corporation by Royal Charter, but there the matter rested.[^[630]]

In France women were more fortunate, for a noted school of midwifery had already been established at the Hotel Dieu in Paris, at which every six weeks dissections and anatomies were especially made for the apprentices of the institution, both past and present.[^[631]] Before entering on their profession the French midwives were required to pass an examination before the chirurgeons. Their professional reputation stood so high that Pechey alludes to one of them as “that most Famous Woman of the World, Madam Louise Burgeois, late Midwife to the Queen of France. The praises that we read of all those that ever heard of her are not so much a flourish as truth; for her reasons are solid experiences, and her witnesses have been all of the most eminent Persons of France: and not only of her, but as we have already exprest, of the most excellent known Men and Women of this Art of other Countries.”[^[632]]

According to Mrs. Cellier, English midwives were for a time examined by the College of Surgeons, but as their records for the years in question are missing there is no means of ascertaining the numbers of those who presented themselves for examination. She says that Bishops did not “pretend to License Midwives till Bp. Bonner’s time, who drew up the Form of the first License, which continued in full force till 1642, and then the Physicians and Chirurgeons contending about it, it was adjudged a Chyrurgical operation, and the Midwives were Licensed at Chirurgions-Hall, but not till they had passed three examinations, before six skilful Midwives, and as many Chirurgions expert in the Art of Midwifery. Thus it continued until the Act of Uniformity passed, which sent the Midwives back to Doctors Commons, where they pay their money (take an oath which it is impossible for them to keep) and return home as skilful as they went thither. I make no reflections on those learned Gentlemen, the Licensers, but refer the curious for their further satisfaction to the Yearly Bills of Mortality, from 42 to 62; Collections of which they may find at Clerkshall. Which if they please to compare with these of late Years, they will find there did not then happen the eight part of the Casualities either to Women or Children, as do now.”[^[633]]

In granting licences to midwives the Bishops were supposed to make some enquiry as to their professional attainments. Among the “articles to be enquired of” during Diocesan visits was one “whether any man or woman within your Parish, hath professed or practised Physick or Chyrurgery; by what name or names are they called, and whether are they licensed by the Bishop of the Diocesse, or his Vicar Generall, and upon whom have they practised, and what good or harm have they done?”[^[634]] And again, “whether any in your Parish do practise Physicke or chirurgery, or that there be any midwife there, or by what authority any of them do practise, or exercise that profession.”[^[635]] But the interest of the Bishops was concerned more with the orthodoxy of the midwife than with her professional skill.

A midwife’s licence was drawn up as follows: beginning:—“Thomas Exton, knight, doctor of laws, commisary general, lawfully constituted of the right worshipful the dean & chapter of St. Paul’s in London; to our beloved in Christ, Anne Voule, the wife of Jacob Voule, of the parish of St Gile’s Cripplegat, sendeth greeting in our Lord God everlasting: Whereas, by due examination of diverse, honest, and discreet women, we have found you apt and able, cunning and experte, to occupy & exercise the office, business & occupation of midwife,” and continuing after many wise and humane rules for her guidance with an exhortation “to be diligent, faithful and ready to help every woman travelling of child, as well the poor as the rich, and you shall not forsake the poor woman and leave her to go to the rich; you shall in no wise exercise any manner of witchcraft, charms, sorcery, invocation, or other prayers, than such as may stand with God’s laws, and the king’s,” concluding thus:—“Item, you shall not be privy to or consent that any priest or other party shall in your absence, or your company, or of your knowledge or sufferance, baptize any child by any mass, Latin service, or prayers than such as are appointed by the laws of the Church of England; neither shall you consent that any child borne by any woman, who shall be delivered by you, shall be carried away without being baptized in the parish by the ordinary minister where the said child is born.”[^[636]]

The Bishops’ interest in midwives may have been caused partly by a praiseworthy desire to secure an adequate supply for the assistance of women in each parish. But from the Church’s point of view, the midwife’s chief importance was not due to the fact that the life of mother and child might depend on her skill, but to her capacity for performing the rites of baptism. The reasons for granting her this authority are explained as follows:—“in hard Labours the Head of the Infant was sometimes baptized before the whole delivery. This Office of Baptizing in such Cases of Necessity was commonly performed by the Midwife; and ’tis very probable, this gave first Occasion to Midwives being licensed by the Bishop, because they were to be first examined by the Bishop or his delegated Officer, whether they could repeat the Form of Baptism, which they were in Haste to administer in such extraordinary Occasion. But we thank God our times are reformed in Sense, and in Religion.”[^[637]] Though the midwife was only expected to baptize in urgent cases she might strain her privilege, and baptize even a healthy infant into the Roman Church. Her power in this respect was regarded with suspicion and jealousy by English Protestants, not only because she might inadvertently admit the infant to the wrong fold, but because it resembled the conferring of office in the Church upon women; however, as no man was usually present at the birth of a child, and it was fully believed that delay might involve the perpetual damnation of the dying infant’s soul, no alternative remained. Peter Heylyn, in writing of Baptism, comments on the difficulty, saying that “the first Reformers did not only allow the administration of this Sacrament [Baptism] in private houses, but permitted it to private persons, even to women also.” He continues that when King James, in the Conference at Hampton Court, seemed offended because of this liberty to women and laicks, Dr. Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury, denied that the words gave this liberty, and Dr. Babington alledged “that the words were purposely made ambiguous as otherwise the Book might not have passed Parliament.” To whom it was replied by the Bishop of London that there was no intent to deceive any, but the words did indeed “intend a permission of private persons to Baptize in case of necessity.”[^[638]]

The fear of secret baptisms into the Catholic Church is shown in a letter which states that “the wief of Frances Lovell esqʳ of West Derhᵐ is noted for a recusant. And the said Frances had a childe about three yeares past christianed by a midwief sent thither by the La. Lovell, and the midwief’s name cannot be learned.”[^[639]]

It was this danger which led to the prosecution of women who practised without licences. The Churchwardens at Lee presented “the Widow Goney and the wife of Thomas Gronge being midwives & not sworne.” In Hadingham they report “We have two poore women exercising the office of midwives, one Avice Rax and the wife of one John Sallerie,”[^[640]] and elsewhere “Dorothye Holding wief of Jo. Holding & Dorothye Parkins wief of Wᵐ Parkins” were presented “for exercising the office of midwives without License.”[^[641]]

The fees charged by midwives varied from £300 in the case of the French Midwife who attended the Queen, to the sum of 1s. 6d. paid by the Parish of Aspenden to the midwife who delivered a woman “received by virtue of a warrant from the justices.”[^[642]] In most cases the amount paid by the parents was supplemented by gifts from the friends and relations who attended the christening.[^[643]] Thus the baby’s death meant a considerable pecuniary loss to the midwife. An example of her payment in such a case is given in Nicholas Assheton’s diary; he enters on Feb. 16, 1617. “My wife in labour of childbirth. Her delivery was with such violence as the child dyed within half an hour, and, but for God’s wonderful mercie, more than human reason could expect, shee had dyed, ... divers mett and went with us to Downham; and ther the child was buried ... my mother wᵗʰ me laid the child in the grave.... Feb. 24, the midwyfe went from my wyffe to Cooz Braddyll’s wyffe. She had given by my wyffe xxs and by me vs.”[^[644]]

The Churchwardens at Cowden entered in their account book 1627 “Item, paide for a poore woman’s lying in 3. 0.” 1638. “to John Weller’s wife for her attendance on the widow Smithe when she lay in 2. 0.”[^[645]]

The account book of Sir John Foulis of Ravelstone gives many details of the expenses incurred at confinements in Scotland. His wife appears to have been attended by a doctor, as well as a midwife, and the latter’s fee was the higher of the two. The payments are in Scots money.[^[646]] “Mar. 26 1680, to the doctor Steinsone for waiting on my wife in her labour 2 guines at 33 P. sterl. p.piece, 27. 16. 0, to Elspie dicksone, midwife, 40. 12. 0, to her woman 2. 18. 0.” On November 26, 1692 there is another payment “to my wife to give doctor Sibbald for his attendance on her in childbed and since to this day 5 guineas 66. 0. 0.” Jan. 31, 1704 “to my son Wᵐ to give the midwife when his wife was brought to bed of her sone Joⁿ 3 guineas 42. 12. 0. to my douchter Crichtoune to give the midwife for me halfe a guinie 7. 2. 0.”

The size of the gratuities given to the midwife by the friends and acquaintances who gathered at a society christening in London may be judged from Pepys, who enters in his diary when he was Godfather with Sir W. Pen to Mrs. Browne’s child “I did give the midwife 10s.”[^[647]] His gratuities to people of lower rank were smaller, and of course the gifts made by the “common people” and those of the gentry in the provinces were much more modest.

In the latter part of the century there are indications of a growing tendency among the upper classes to replace the midwife by the doctor. The doctors encouraged the tendency. Their treatises on midwifery, of which several were published during this time, deprecate any attempt on the midwife’s part to cope with difficult cases. Dr. Hugh Chamberlain points out “nor can it be so great a discredit to a Midwife ... to have a Woman or Child saved by a Man’s assistance, as to suffer either to die under her own hand.”[^[648]] In making this translation of Maurice’s work on Midwifery, Chamberlain omitted the anatomical drawings, “there being already severall in English; as also here and there a passage that might offend a chast English eye; and being not absolutely necessary to the purpose; the rest I have, as carefully as I could, rendered into English for the benefit of our midwives.”[^[649]] This line of thought is carried yet further by McMath, who says in the preface to “The Expert Mid-wife” that he has “of purpose omitted a Description of the parts in a woman destined to Generation, not being absolutely necessary to this purpose, and lest it might seem execrable to the more chast and shamfaced through Baudiness and Impurity of words; and have also endeavoured to keep all Modesty, and a due Reverence to Nature: nor am I of the mind with some, as to think there is no Debauchery in the thing, except it may be in the abuse.”[^[650]]

The notion that it was indecent for a woman to understand the structure and functions of her own body fitted in with the doctors’ policy of circumscribing the midwife’s sphere; McMath continues “Natural Labour, where all goes right and naturally, is the proper work of the Midwife, and which she alone most easily performs aright, being only to sit and attend Nature’s pace and progress ... and perform some other things of smaller moment, which Physicians gave Midwifes to do, as unnecessary & indicent for them, and for the Matronal chastity (tho some of Old absurdly assigned them more, and made it also their office to help the Delivery, and not by Medicaments only and others, but Inchantments also.)”[^[651]]

Clearly in a profession which often holds in its hands the balance between life and death, those members who are debarred from systematic study and training must inevitably give way sooner or later to those who have access to all the sources of learning, but the influences which were prejudicing women’s position in midwifery during the seventeenth century were not wholly founded on such reasonable grounds; they were also affected by much more general, undefined and subtle causes. It may even be doubted whether the superior knowledge of the seventeenth century doctor actually secured a larger measure of safety to the mother who entrusted herself to his management than was attained by those who confided in the skill of an experienced and intelligent midwife. Chamberlain admits that the practice of doctors “not onely in England but throughout Europe; ... hath very much caused the report, that where a man comes, one or both [mother or child] must necessarily dye; and makes many for that reason forbear sending, untill either be dead or dying.”[^[652]] He continues “my Father, Brothers and myself (though none else in Europe that I know) have by God’s blessing, and our industry, attained to, and long practised a way to deliver a woman in this case without any prejudice to her or her Infant.”

The discovery to which Chamberlain refers was the use of forceps, which he and his family retained as a profound secret. Therefore this invention did not rank among the advantages which other doctors possessed over midwives at this period. Even when, a century later, the use of forceps became generally understood, the death rate in childbed was not materially reduced, for it was only with the discovery of the value of asepsis that this heavy sacrifice was diminished. We must therefore look for the explanation of the growing ascendancy of male practitioners to other causes beside the hypothetical standard of their greater efficiency. Their prestige rested partly on an ability to use long words which convinced patients of their superior wisdom; it was defended by what was fast becoming a powerful corporation; and more potent in its effect was the general deterioration in the position of women which took place during the century. A lessening of confidence in womanly resourcefulness and capacity in other walks of life, could not fail to affect popular estimation of their value here too; and added to this were the morbid tendencies of the increasing numbers of oversexed society women who were devoted to a life of pleasure. The fact that similar tendencies were visible in France, where an excellent scientific training was open to women, shows that the capture of the profession by men was not only due to superior skill.

The famous French Midwife, Madame Bourgeois, told her daughter “There is a great deal of artifice to be used in the pleasing of our Women, especially the young ones, who many times do make election of Men to bring them to bed. I blush to speak of them, for I take it to be a great peice of impudence to have any recourse unto them, unless it be a case of very great danger. I do approve, I have approved of it, and know that it ought to be done, so that it be concealed from the Woman all her life long; nor that she see the surgeon any more.”[^[653]]

Whatever may have been the explanation, midwifery had ceased to be a monopoly for women when the “man-midwife” made his appearance in the sixteenth century, but it is only in the latter half of the seventeenth century that the profession passes definitely under the control of men. The doctors who then secured all the more profitable class of work, were united in a corporation which was often directed by men possessed of a disinterested enthusiasm for truth, and considerable proficiency in their art, even though many in their ranks might regard their profession merely as a means for acquiring personal fame or wealth. But the interest of the corporations of physicians and surgeons was centred more upon their profession than upon the general well-being of the community, and they did not regard it as part of their duty to secure competent assistance in childbirth for every woman in the community. They took a keen professional interest in the problems of midwifery, but the benefits of their research were only available for the wives or mistresses of rich men who could afford to pay high fees. Far from making any effort to provide the same assistance for the poor, the policy of the doctors, with some exceptions, was to withold instruction from the midwives on whom the poor depended, lest their skill should enable them to compete with themselves in practice among the wealthy.

Conclusion.

The foregoing examination of the character and extent of women’s professional services has brought several interesting points to light. It has been shown that when social organisation rested upon the basis of the family, as it chiefly did up to the close of the Middle Ages, many of the services which are now ranked as professional were thought to be specially suited to the genius of women, and were accordingly allotted to them in the natural division of labour within the family. The suggestions as to the character and conditions of these services during the Middle Ages, rest upon conjectures drawn from the comparison of a few generally accepted statements concerning the past, with what appears at the opening of the seventeenth century to be a traditional attitude to women, an attitude which was then undergoing rapid modifications. A more thorough and detailed examination of their position in the preceding centuries may show that it was far less stable than is generally supposed, but such a discovery need not disturb the explanation which is here given of the tendencies deciding the scope of women’s professional activity within in the seventeenth century.

First among these was the gradual emergence of the arts of teaching and healing, from the domestic or family sphere to a professional organisation. Within the domestic sphere, as women and men are equally members of the family, no artificial impediment could hinder women from rendering the services which nature had fitted them to perform; moreover, the experience and training which family life provided for boys, were to a large extent available for girls also. Coincident with a gradual curtailment of domestic activities may be observed a marked tendency towards the exclusion of women from all interests external to the family. The political theories of the seventeenth century regarded the State as an organisation of individual men only or groups of men, not as a commonwealth of families; in harmony with this idea we find that none of the associations which were formed during this period for public purposes, either educational, economic, scientific or political, include women in their membership. The orientation of ideas in the seventeenth century was drawing a rigid line between the State, in which the individual man had his being, and family matters. The third tendency was towards the deterioration of women’s intellectual and moral capacity, owing to the narrowing of family life and the consequent impoverishment of women’s education. The fourth tendency was towards an increasing belief in the essential inferiority of women to men.

It will be seen that these tendencies were interdependent. Their united effect was revolutionary, gradually excluding women from work for which in former days, nature, it was supposed, had specially designed them. Thus the teaching of young children, both girls and boys, had been generally entrusted to women, many men acknowledging in later life the excellence of the training which they had received from their mothers, and it cannot be doubted that women were upon the whole successful in transmitting to their children the benefit of the education and experience which they had themselves received. But no amount of didactic skill can enable persons to teach what they do not themselves possess, and so the scope of the training given by women depended upon the development of their own personalities. When family traditions and family organisation were disturbed, as perhaps they would have been in any case sooner or later, but as they were to a more marked extent during the Civil War, the sources from which women derived their mental and spiritual nourishment were dried up, and without access to external supplies their personality gradually became stunted.

Women were virtually refused access to sources of knowledge which were external to the family, and hence, with a few exceptions they were confined in the teaching profession to the most elementary subjects. Women were employed in the “dames schools” attended by the common people, or, when they could read and write themselves, mothers often instructed their children in these arts; but the governesses employed by gentlefolks, or the schoolmistresses to whom they sent their daughters for the acquisition of the accomplishments appropriate to young ladies, were seldom competent to undertake the actual teaching themselves; for this masters were generally engaged, because few women had gone through the training necessary to give them a sound understanding of the arts in question. Women were not incapable of teaching, but as knowledge became more specialized and technical, the opportunities which home life provided for acquiring such knowledge proved inadequate; and consequently women were soon excluded from the higher ranks of the teaching profession.

The history of their relation to the arts of Healing is very similar. Other things being equal, as to some extent they were when the greater part of human life was included within the family circle, the psychic and emotional female development appears to make women more fitted than men to deal with preventive and remedial medicine. The explanation of this fact offers a fascinating field for speculation, but involves too wide a digression for discussion here, and in its support we will only point out the fact that in the old days, when no professional services were available, it was to the women of the family, rather than to the men, that the sick and wounded turned for medicine and healing. Yet in spite of this natural affinity for the care of suffering humanity, women were excluded from the sources of learning which were being slowly organised outside the family circle, and were thus unable to remain in professions for which they were so eminently suited.

The suspicion that the inferior position which women occupied in the teaching profession and their exclusion from the medical profession, was caused rather by the absence of educational opportunities than by a physiological incapacity for the practice of these arts, is strengthened by the remarkable history of Midwifery; which from being reserved exclusively for women and practised by them on a professional basis from time immemorial, passed in its more lucrative branches into the hands of men, when sources of instruction were opened to them which were closed to women. Just as the amateur woman teacher was less competent than the man who had made art or the learned languages his profession, so did the woman who treated her family and neighbours by rule of thumb, appear less skilful than the professional doctor, and the uneducated midwives brought their profession into disrepute. The exclusion of women from all the sources of specialised training was bound to re-act unfavourably upon their characters, because as family life depended more and more upon professional services for education and medical assistance, fewer opportunities were offered to women for exerting their faculties within the domestic sphere and the general incompetence of upper-class women did in fact become more pronounced.

---

Chapter VII
CONCLUSION

Great productive capacity of women under conditions of Family and Domestic Industry—no difference between efficiency of labour when applied for domestic purposes or for trade.

Rate of wages no guide to real value of goods produced—married women unlikely to work for wages when possessing capital for domestic industry—Women’s productiveness in textile industries—Agriculture—Other industries—Professional services.

Capitalism effected economic revolution in women’s position—By (a) substitution of individual for family wages—(b) employment of wage-earners on master’s premises—(c) rapid increase of master’s wealth.

Exclusion of women from skilled trades not originally due to sex jealousy—Women’s lack of specialised training due, (a) to its being unnecessary; (b) the desire to keep wife in subjection to husband—Reduction in the value to her family of woman’s productive capacity by substitution of wage-earning for domestic industry—Effect of her productive energy on her maternal functions and her social influence.

The preceding chapters have demonstrated the great productive capacity which women possessed when society was organised on the basis of Family and Domestic Industry. There was then no hard-and-fast line dividing domestic occupations from other branches of industry, and thus it has not been possible to discover how much of women’s labour was given to purposes of trade and how much was confined to the service of their families; but as labour was at this time equally productive, whether it was employed for domestic purposes or in Trade, it is not necessary to discriminate between these two classes of production in estimating the extent to which the community depended upon women’s services. The goods produced and the services rendered to their families by wives and daughters, must if they had been idle have employed labour otherwise available for Trade; or to put the position in another way, if the labour of women had been withdrawn from the domestic industries and applied to Trade, more goods would have been produced for the market, which goods the said women’s families would then have obtained by purchase; but while by this means the trade of the country would be greatly increased, unless the efficiency of women’s labour had been raised by its transference from domestic to other forms of industry, the wealth of the community would remain precisely the same.

Nevertheless, in estimating a country’s prosperity domestic production is generally overlooked, because, as the labour devoted to it receives no wages and its results do not enter the market, there is no mechanical standard for estimating its value. For similar reasons Home Trade is commonly considered to be of less importance than Foreign Trade, because, as the latter passes through the Customs, its money value can be much more readily computed, and because the man in the street, like King Midas, has imagined that gold is wealth. But we are here considering the production of goods and services, not of gold, and from this point of view, the woman who spins thread to clothe her family, and she who furnishes by her industry milk and cheese, eggs and pork, fruit and vegetables for the consumption of her family, has produced exactly the same goods, no more and no less, than if she had produced them for the market, and whether these goods are consumed by her own family or by strangers makes absolutely no difference to their real value.

Neither can the value of a woman’s productive activity be judged by the wages she receives, because the value of a pair of sheets is the same, whether the flax has been spun by a well-to-do farmers’ wife who meanwhile lives in affluence, or by a poor woman earning wages which are insufficient to keep body and soul together. The labour required for spinning the flax was the same in either case, for there was no difference in the type of spinning wheel she used, or in her other facilities for work; it was only later, when organisations for trading purposes had enormously increased productive capacity by the introduction of power and the sub-division of labour, that the same productive capacity, devoted to domestic purposes, became relatively inferior in results. This change between the relative efficiency of domestic and industrial labour could not fail, when it took place, to exert a marked influence on the economic position of married women, because while their husbands earned sufficient money to pay rent and a few outgoing expenses, they had no inducement to work for wages, their labour being more productive at home. Women who fed and clothed themselves and their children by means of domestic industry gratified in this way their sense of independence as effectively as if they had earned the equivalent money by trade or wages. Considering the low rates paid to women, it may be supposed that few worked for wages when possessed of sufficient stock to employ themselves fully in domestic industries; on the other hand there were a considerable number who were in a position to hire servants, and who, having learnt a skilled trade, devoted themselves to business, either on their own account or jointly with their husbands.

If the general position of women in the whole field of industry is reviewed, it will be seen that, beyond question, all the textile fabrics used at this time, with the exception of a few luxuries, were made from the thread which was spun by women and children, the export trade in cloth also depending entirely on their labour for spinning and to some extent for the other processes. In agriculture the entire management of the milch cows, the dairy, poultry, pigs, orchard and garden, was undertaken by the women, and though the mistress employed in her department men as well as women servants, the balance was redressed by the fact that women and girls were largely employed in field work. The woman’s contribution to farming is also shown by the fact that twice as much land was allowed to the colonists who were married as to those who were single. The expectation that the women and children in the husbandman class would produce the greater part of their own food is proved by the very low rate of wages which Quarter Sessions fixed for agricultural labour, and by the fact that when no land was available it was recognised that the wage-earner’s family must be dependent on the poor rate.

Though the part which women played in agriculture and the textile industries is fairly clear, a great obscurity still shrouds their position in other directions. One fact however emerges with some distinctness; women of the tradesman class were sufficiently capable in business, and were as a rule so well acquainted with the details of their husband’s concerns, that a man generally appointed his wife as his executrix, while custom universally secured to her the possession of his stock, apprentices and goodwill in the event of his death. That she was often able to carry on his business with success, is shown by incidental references, and also by the frequency with which widow’s names occur in the lists of persons occupying various trades.

How much time the wives of these tradesmen actually spent over their husband’s business is a point on which practically no evidence is forthcoming, but it seems probable that in the skilled trades they were seldom employed in manual processes for which they had received no training, but were occupied in general supervision, buying and selling. It is not therefore surprising to find women specially active in all branches of the Retail Trade, and girls were apprenticed as often to shopkeepers as to the recognised women’s trades such as millinery and mantua-making.

The assistance of the wife was often so important in her husband’s business, that she engaged servants to free her from household drudgery, her own productive capacity being greater than the cost of a servant’s wages. Apart from exceptional cases of illness or incompetence, the share which the wife took in her husband’s business, was determined rather by the question whether he carried it on at home or abroad than by any special appropriateness of the said business to the feminine disposition. Thus, though women were seldom carpenters or masons, they figure as pewterers and smiths. In every business there are certain operations which can conveniently be performed by women, and when carried on at home within the compass of the family life, the work of a trade was as naturally sorted out between husband and wife, as the work on a farm. No question arose as to the relative value of their work, because the proceeds became the joint property of the family, instead of being divided between individuals.

With regard to the services which are now classed as professional, those of healing and teaching were included among the domestic duties of women. Illness was rife in the seventeenth century, for the country was devastated by recurrent epidemics of small-pox and the plague, besides a constant liability to ague and the other ordinary ailments of mankind; thus the need for nursing must have been very great. The sick depended for their tending chiefly upon the women of their own households, and probably the majority of English people at this time, received medical advice and drugs from the same source. Women’s skill in such matters was acquired by experience and tradition, seldom resting upon a scientific basis, for they were excluded from schools and universities. Acquired primarily with a view to domestic use, such skill was extended beyond the family circle, and women who were wise in these matters sometimes received payment for their services. Midwifery alone was really conducted on professional lines, and though practised in former days exclusively by women, it was now passing from their hands owing to their exclusion from the sources of advanced instruction.

It is difficult to estimate the respective shares taken by men and women in the art of teaching, for while the young were dependent on home training, they received attention from both father and mother, and when the age for apprenticeship arrived the task was transferred to the joint care of master and mistress. With regard to learning of a scholastic character, reading was usually taught by women to both boys and girls, who learnt it at home from their mothers, or at a dame’s school; but the teaching of more advanced subjects was almost exclusively in the hands of men, although a few highly educated women were engaged as governesses in certain noble families where the Tudor tradition still lingered. Generally speaking, however, when a girl’s curriculum included such subjects as Latin and Arithmetic her instruction, like her brothers, was received from masters, and this was equally true in the case of accomplishments which were considered more appropriate to the understanding of young ladies. Women rarely, if ever, undertook the teaching of music, painting or dancing. From these branches of the teaching profession they were debarred by lack of specialised training.

Thus it will be seen that the history of women’s position in the professions, follows a very similar course to that of the developments in the world of Industry; work, for which they appeared peculiarly fitted by disposition or natural gifts, while it was included within the domestic sphere, gradually passed out of their hands when the scene of their labour was transferred to the wider domains of human life.

Capitalism was the means by which the revolution in women’s economic position was effected in the industrial world. The three developments which were most instrumental to this end being:—

(a) the substitution of an individual for a family wage, enabling men to organise themselves in the competition which ruled the labour market, without sharing with the women of their families all the benefits derived through their combination.

(b) the withdrawal of wage-earners from home life to work upon the premises of the masters, which prevented the employment of the wage-earner’s wife in her husband’s occupation.

(c) the rapid increase of wealth, which permitted the women of the upper classes to withdraw from all connection with business.

Once the strong hand of necessity is relaxed there has been a marked tendency in English life for the withdrawal of married women from all productive activity, and their consequent devotion to the cultivation of idle graces; the parasitic life of its women has been in fact one of the chief characteristics of the parvenu class. The limitations which surrounded the lives of the women belonging to this class are most vividly described in Pepys’ Journal, where they form a curious contrast to the vigour and independence of the women who were actively engaged in industry. The whole Diary should be read to gain a complete idea of the relations of married life under these new circumstances, but a few extracts will illustrate the poverty of Mrs. Pepys’ interests and her abject dependence on her husband. Most curious of all is Pepys’ naïve admission that he was trying to “make” work for his wife, which furnishes an illustration of the saying “coming events cast their shadows before them.”

“Nov. 12, 1662. much talke and difference between us about my wife’s having a woman, which I seemed much angry at that she should go so far in it without ... my being consulted. 13th. Our discontent again and sorely angered my wife, who indeed do live very lonely, but I do perceive that it is want of worke that do make her and all other people think of ways of spending their time worse. June 8. 1664. Her spirit is lately come to be other than it used to be, and now depends upon her having Ashwell by her, before whom she thinks I shall not say nor do anything of force to her, which vexes me, and makes me wish that I had better considered all that I have done concerning my bringing my wife to this condition of heat. Aug. 20. I see that she is confirmed in it that all I do is by design, and that my very keeping of the house in dirt, and the doing this and anything else in the house, is but to find her employment to keep her within, and from minding of her pleasure, which though I am sorry to see she minds it, is true enough in a great degree. Jan. 14. 1667-8. I do find she do keep very bad remembrance of my former unkindness to her and do mightily complain of her want of money and liberty, which will rather hear and bear the complaint of than grant the contrary.... Feb. 18. a ring which I am to give her as a valentine. It will cost me near £5 she costing me but little in comparison with other wives, and have not many occasions to spend money on her. Feb. 23. with this and what she had she reckons that she hath above £150 worth of jewels of one kind or another; and I am glad of it, for it is fit the wretch should have something to content herself with.”

While the capitalistic organisation of industry increased the wealth of the masters, it condemned a large proportion of the craftsmen to remain permanently in the position of journeymen or wage-earners with the incidental result that women were excluded from their ranks in the more highly skilled trades. Under the old system of Family Industry, labour and capital had been united in one person or family group of persons, but capitalism brought them into conflict; and the competition which had previously only existed between rival families was introduced into the labour market, where men and women struggled with each other to secure work and wages from the capitalist. The keystone of the journeymen’s position in their conflict with capital, lay in their ability to restrict their own numbers by the enforcement of a long apprenticeship and the limitation of the number of apprentices. On gaining this point the journeymen in any trade secured a monopoly which enabled them to bargain advantageously with the masters. Their success raised them into the position of a privileged class in the world of labour, but did nothing to improve the position of the other wage-earners in unskilled or unorganised trades.

When their organisation was strong enough the journeymen allowed no unapprenticed person to be employed upon any process of their trade, however simple or mechanical; a policy which resulted in the complete exclusion of women, owing to the fact that girls were seldom, if ever, apprenticed to these trades. It has been shown that under the old system, craftsmen had been free to employ their wives and daughters in any way that was convenient, the widow retaining her membership in her husband’s gild or company with full trading privileges, and the daughters able, if they wished, to obtain their freedom by patrimony. Journeymen however now worked on their masters’ premises, their traditions dating from a time when they were all unmarried men; and though the majority of them had renounced the expectation of rising above this position of dependence, the idea that they should extend their hardly won privileges to wife or daughter never occurred to them.

Thus came about the exclusion of women from the skilled trades, for the wives of the men who became capitalists withdrew from productive activity, and the wives of journeymen confined themselves to domestic work, or entered the labour market as individuals, being henceforward entirely unprotected in the conflict by their male relations. Capitalistic organisation tended therefore to deprive women of opportunities for sharing in the more profitable forms of production, confining them as wage-earners to the unprotected trades. It would be an anachronism to ascribe this tendency to sex-jealousy in the economic world. The idea of individual property in wages had hardly arisen, for prevailing habits of thought still regarded the earnings of father, mother and children as the joint property of the family, though controlled by the father; and thus the notion that it could be to men’s advantage to debar women from well-paid work would have seemed ridiculous in the seventeenth century. Though the payment of individual wages was actually in force, their implication was hardly understood, and motives of sex-jealousy do not dominate the economic world till a later period. While the family formed the social unit the interests of husband and wife were bound so closely together, that neither could gain or suffer without the other immediately sharing the loss or advantage.

The momentous influence which some phases of Capitalism were destined to exert upon the economic position of women, were unforeseen by the men who played a leading part in its development, and passed unnoticed by the speculative thinkers who wrote long treatises on Theories of State Organisation. The revolution did not involve a conscious demarcation of the respective spheres of men and women in industry; its results were accidental, due to the fact that women were forgotten, and so no attempt was made to adjust their training and social status to the necessities of the new economic organisation. The oversight is not surprising, for women’s relation to the “Home” was regarded as an immutable law of Nature, inviolable by any upheaval in external social arrangements.

Thus the idea that the revolution in women’s economic position was due to deliberate policy may be dismissed. Capitalism is a term denoting a force rather than a system; a force that is no more interested in human relations than is the force of gravitation; nevertheless its sphere of action lies in the social relations of men and women, and its effects are modified and directed by human passions, prejudices and ideals. The continuance of human existence and its emancipation from the trammels that hamper its progress, must depend upon the successful mastery of this as of the other forces of Nature.

If we would understand the effect of the introduction of Capitalism on the social organism, we must remember that the subjection of women to their husbands was the foundation stone of the structure of the community in which Capitalism first made its appearance. Regarded as being equally the law of Nature and the Law of God, no one questioned the necessity of the wife’s obedience, lip service being rendered to the doctrine of subjection, even in those households where it was least enforced. Traditional ideas regarded the common wealth, or social organisation, as an association of families, each family being a community which was largely autonomous, and was self-contained for most of life’s purposes; hence the order and health of the commonwealth depended upon the order and efficiency of the families comprised within it. Before the seventeenth century the English mind could not imagine order existing without an acknowledged head. No one therefore questioned the father’s right to his position as head of the family, but in his temporary absence, or when he was removed by death, the public interest required his family’s preservation, and the mother quite naturally stepped into his place, with all its attendant responsibilities and privileges. In this family organisation all that the father gained was shared by the mother and children, because his whole life, or almost his whole life, was shared by them. This is specially marked in the economic side of existence, where the father did not merely earn money and hand it to the mother to spend, but secured for her also, access to the means of production; the specialised training acquired by the man through apprenticeship did not merely enable him to earn higher wages, but conferred upon his wife the right to work, as far as she was able, in that trade.

Capitalism, however, broke away from the family system, and dealt direct with individuals, the first fruit of individualism being shown by the exclusion of women from the journeymen’s associations; and yet their exclusion was caused in the first place by want of specialised training, and was not the necessary result of Capitalism, for the history of the Cotton Trade shows, in later years, that where the labour of women was essential to an industry, an effective combination of wage-earners could be formed which would include both sexes.

Two explanations may be given for women’s lack of specialised training. The first, and, given the prevailing conditions of Family Industry, probably the most potent reason lay in the belief that it was unnecessary. A specialised training, whether in Science, Art or Industry, is inevitably costly in time and money; and as in every trade there is much work of a character which needs no prolonged specialised training, and as in the ordinary course of a woman’s life a certain proportion of her time and energy must be devoted to bearing and rearing children, it seemed a wise economy to spend the cost of specialised training on boys, employing women over those processes which chiefly required general intelligence and common-sense. It has been shown that this policy answered well enough in the days of Domestic and Family Industry when the husband and wife worked together, and the wife therefore reaped the advantages of the trading privileges and social position won by her husband. It was only when Capitalism re-organised industry on an individual basis, that the wife was driven to fight her economic battles single handed, and women, hampered by the want of specialised training, were beaten down into sweated trades.

The second explanation for women’s lack of specialised training is the doctrine of the subjection of women to their husbands. While the first reason was more influential during the days of Family and Domestic Industry, the second gains in force with the development of Capitalism. If women’s want of specialised training had been prejudicial to their capacity for work in former times, such training would not have been withheld from them merely through fear of its weakening the husband’s power, because the husband was so dependent upon his wife’s assistance. There was little talk then of men “keeping” their wives; neither husband nor wife could prosper without the other’s help. But the introduction of Capitalism, organising industry on an individual basis, freed men to some extent from this economic dependence on their wives, and from henceforward the ideal of the subjection of women to their husbands could be pursued, unhampered by fear of the dangers resulting to the said husbands by a lessening of the wife’s economic efficiency.

A sense of inferiority is one of the prime requisites for a continued state of subjection, and nothing contributes to this sense so much, as a marked inferiority of education and training in a society accustomed to rate everything according to its money value. The difference in earning capacity which the want of education produces, is in itself sufficient to stamp a class as inferior.

There is yet another influence which contributed to the decline in the standard of women’s education and in their social and economic position, which is so noticeable in the seventeenth century. This period marks the emergence of the political idea of the “mechanical state” and its substitution for the traditional view of the nation as a commonwealth of families. Within the family, women had their position, but neither Locke, nor Hobbes, nor the obscure writers on political theory and philosophy who crowd the last half of the seventeenth century, contemplate the inclusion of women in the State of their imagination. For them the line is sharply drawn between the spheres of men and women; women are confined within the circle of their domestic responsibilities, while men should explore the ever widening regions of the State. The really significant aspect of this changed orientation of social ideas, is the separation which it introduces between the lives of women and those of men, because hitherto men as well as women lived in the Home.

The mechanical State quâ State did not yet exist in fact, for the functions of the Government did not extend much beyond the enforcement of Justice and the maintenance of Defence. Englishmen were struggling to a realisation of the other aspects of national life by means of voluntary associations for the pursuit of Science, of Trade, of Education, or other objects, and it is in these associations that the trend of their ideas is manifested, for one and all exclude women from their membership; to foster the charming dependence of women upon their husbands, all independent sources of information were, as far as possible, closed to them. Any association or combination of women outside the limits of their own families was discouraged, and the benefits which had been extended to them in this respect by the Catholic Religion were specially deprecated. Milton’s statement sums up very fairly the ideas of this school of thought regarding the relations that should exist between husband and wife in the general scheme of things. They were to exist “He for God only, she for God in him.” The general standard of education resulting from such theories was inevitably inferior; and the exclusion of women from skilled industry and the professions, was equally certain to be the consequence sooner or later, of the absence of specialised training.

The general effect upon women of this exclusion, which ultimately limited their productive capacity to the field of household drudgery, or to the lowest paid ranks of unskilled labour, belongs to a much later period. But one point can already be discerned and must not be overlooked. This point is the alteration which took place in the value to her family of a woman’s productive capacity when her labour was transferred from domestic industry to wage-earning, under the conditions prevailing in the seventeenth century. When employed in domestic industry the whole value of what she produced was retained by her family; but when she worked for wages her family only received such a proportion of it as she was able to secure to them by her weak bargaining power in the labour market. What this difference amounted to will be seen when it is remembered that the wife of a husbandman could care for her children and feed and clothe herself and them by domestic industry, but when working for wages she could not earn enough for her own maintenance.

This depreciation of the woman’s productive value to her family did not greatly influence her position in the seventeenth century, because it was then only visible in the class of wage-earners, and into this position women were forced by poverty alone. The productive efficiency of women’s services in domestic industry remained as high as ever, and every family which was possessed of sufficient capital for domestic industry, could provide sufficient profitable occupation for its women without their entry into the labour market. Independent hard-working families living under the conditions provided by Family and Domestic Industry, still formed the majority of the English people. The upper classes, as far as the women were concerned, were becoming more idle, and the number of families depending wholly on wages was increasing, but farmers, husbandmen and tradesmen, still formed a class sufficiently numerous to maintain the hardy stock of the English race unimpaired. Thus, while the productive capacity of women was reduced in the seventeenth century by the idleness of the nouveau riche and by the inefficiency of women wage-earners which resulted from their lack of nourishment, it was maintained at the former high level among the intermediate and much larger class, known as “the common people.”

Though from the economic point of view intense productive energy on the part of women is no longer necessary to the existence of the race, and has been generally abandoned, an understanding of its effect upon the maternal functions is extremely important to the sociologist. No complete vital statistics were collected in the seventeenth century, but an examination of the different evidence which is still available, leaves no doubt that the birth-rate was extremely high in all classes, except perhaps that of wage-earners. It was usual for active busy women amongst the nobility and gentry, to bear from twelve to twenty children, and though the death rate was also high, the children that survived appear to have possessed abundant vitality and energy. Neither does the toil which fell to the lot of the women among the common people appear to have injured their capacity for motherhood; in fact the wives of husbandmen were the type selected by the wealthy to act as wet nurses for their children. It is only among the class of wage-earners that the capacity for reproduction appears to have been checked, and in this class it was the under-feeding, rather than the over-working of the mothers, which rendered them incapable of rearing their infants.

The effect of the economic position of women, must be considered also in relation to another special function which women exercise in society, namely the part which they play in the psychic and moral reactions between the sexes. This subject has seldom been investigated in a detached and truly scientific spirit, and therefore any generalisations that may be submitted have little value. It will only be observed here that the exercise by women of productive energy in the Elizabethan period, was not then inconsistent with the attainment by the English race of its high-water mark in vitality and creative force, and that a comparison of the social standards described by Restoration and Elizabethan Dramatists, reveals a decadence, which, if not consequent upon, was at least coincident with, the general withdrawal of upper-class women from their previous occupation with public and private affairs.

Undoubtedly the removal of business and public interests from the home, resulted in a loss of educational opportunities for girls; a loss which was not made good to them in other ways, and which therefore produced generations of women endowed with a lower mental and moral calibre. The influence of women upon their husbands narrowed as men’s lives drifted away from the home circle and centred more round clubs and external business relations. Hence it came about that in the actual social organisation prevailing in England during the last half of the seventeenth century, the influence or psychic reaction of women upon men was very different in character and much more limited in scope, than that exercised by them in the Elizabethan period. When considered in regard to the historical facts of this epoch, it will be noticed that the process by which the vital forces and energy of the people were lowered and which in common parlance is termed emasculation, accompanied an evolution which was in fact depressing the female forces of the nation, leaving to the male forces an ever greater predominance in the directing of the people’s destiny. The evidence given in the preceding chapters is insufficient to determine what is cause and what is effect in such complicated issues of life, and only shows that a great expenditure of productive energy on the part of women is not, under certain circumstances, inconsistent with the successful exercise of their maternal functions, nor does it necessarily exhaust the creative vital forces of the race.

The enquiry into the effect which the appearance of Capitalism has produced upon the economic position of women has drawn attention to another issue, which concerns a fundamental relation of human society, namely to what extent does the Community or State include women among its integral members, and provide them with security for the exercise of their functions, whether these may be of the same character or different from those of men.

It has been suggested that the earlier English Commonwealth did actually embrace both men and women in its idea of the “Whole,” because it was composed of self-contained families consisting of men, women and children, all three of which are essential for the continuance of human society; but the mechanical State which replaced it, and whose development has accompanied the extension of Capitalism, has regarded the individual, not the family, as its unit, and in England this State began with the conception that it was concerned only with male individuals. Thus it came to pass that every womanly function was considered as the private interest of husbands and fathers, bearing no relation to the life of the State, and therefore demanding from the community as a whole no special care or provision.

The implications of such an idea, together with the effect which it produced upon a society in which formerly women had been recognised as members, though perhaps not equal members, cannot be fully discussed in this essay; the investigation would require a much wider field of evidence than can be provided from the survey of one century. But from the mere recognition that such a change took place, follow ideas of the most far-reaching significance concerning the structure of human society; we may even ask ourselves whether the instability, superficiality and spiritual poverty of modern life, do not spring from the organisation of a State which regards the purposes of life solely from the male standpoint, and we may permit ourselves to hope that when this mechanism has been effectively replaced by the organisation of the whole, which is both male and female, humanity will receive a renewal of strength that will enable them to grapple effectively with the blind force Capitalism;—that force which, while producing wealth beyond the dreams of avarice, has hitherto robbed us of so large a part of the joy of creation.

---

AUTHORITIES.
(The numbers in leaded type are the press marks in the British Museum.)

Account of Several Workhouses for Employing and Maintaining the Poor, etc. London 1725. 1027 i. 18 (9).

Act of Common Council for the reformation of sundry abuses practised by divers persons upon the common markets and streets of the City of London. 1631. 21 l. 5. (4).

Act for the settlement and well ordering of the severall Publick Markets within the City of London. 1674. 21 l. 5 (58).

Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum II. 1651. Add. MSS. 36308.

Answer to a Paper of Reflections on the Project for laying a Duty on English Wrought Silks. 8223 e. 9 (75).

Arber, Edward. Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London. 1554-1640. London, 1876.

Assheton, Nicholas, Esq. Journal of; ed. by Rev. F. R. Raines. Chetham Soc., 1848.

Astell, Mary. A serious proposal to the Ladies for the advancement of their true and greatest Interest, by a Lover of her sex. 1694. 12314 a. 22.

Atkinson, J. C. Quarter Sessions Records for the North Riding of Yorkshire. London, 1884. R. ac. 8190.

Bacon, Francis. Works of; ed. by Spedding. London, 1858.

Bacon, Sir Nathaniel, of Stiffkey, Norfolk. Official Papers of, 1580-1620. Royal Hist. Soc. Camden, 3rd Series. 1915.

Baillie, Lady Grisell. Household Book of, ed. by R. Scott-Moncrieff. Edinburgh, 1911. R. ac. 8256.

Banks, John. A Journal of the Life of. London, 1712.

Barrett, C. R. B. History of the Society of Apothecaries of London. London, 1905. 7680 f. 14.

Bateson, Mary. Borough Customs. Selden Society, Vol. XVIII., 1904. R. ac. 2176.

—— Records of the Borough of Leicester. Cambridge, 1905. 2367 b. 5.

Batt, Mary. Testimony to the Life and Death of. 1683.

Bedell, Wm. True relation of the life and death of the Right Reverend Father in God, Lord Bishop of Kilmore In Ireland. Camden Society, 1872. R. ac. 8113/98.

Best, Henry. Rural Economy in Yorkshire in 1641. Surtees Society, 33. Durham, 1857.

Black, W. H. History and Antiquities of the Worshipful Company of Leather-sellers of the City of London. London 1871. 1890 c. 5.

Bownas, Samuel. Life and Travels of. London 1756.

Brathwaite, Richard. Anniversaries upon his Panarete continued—with her contemplations penned in the languishing time of her sicknesse. London 1635. Huth 68.

—— The English gentleman and English gentlewoman in one volume concluded: the 3rd edition with a Ladies Love Lecture and a supplement. London 1641. 30 e. 6.

Brewster, John. Parochial History and Antiquities of Stockton upon Tees. Stockton 1796. 2368 d. 3

Brief State of the Inland or Home Trade of England, and of the oppressions it suffers, and the Dangers which threaten it from the Invasion of Hawkers, Pedlars and Clandestine Traders of all sorts. London 1730. 104 h. 20.

British Friend.

Bund, J. W. Willis. Worcestershire County Records. Worcester 1900. 010360 i.

Burton, John Richard. History of Kidderminster. 1890. 10368 h. 27.

C. W. The Bespotted Jesuite. London 1641. E. 166 (3).

Calendar State Papers. Domestic Series (C. S.P.D.).

Canterbury. Articles to be enquired of by the Churchwardens, etc. 698 n. 20 (18).

Carpenters, Records of the Worshipful Company of. 1913. W.P. 2524.

Cary, John. Account of the Proceedings of the Corporation of Bristol in execution of the Act of Parliament for the better Employing and Maintaining the Poor of that City. London 1700. 1027 i. 18 (3).

Carrier, Henriette. Origines de la Maternité de Paris. 1888. 7687 eee. 31.

Case of the Linen Drapers and other Dealers in Printed Callicoes and Linens. 816 m. 13 (49).

Case of British and Irish Manufacture of Linnen, Threads, and Tapes, etc. 1887 b. 60 (6).

Case of the Manufacturers of Gilt and Silver Wire. 1887 b. 60 (9).

Case of the Parish of St. Giles. 8223 e. 9 (23).

Case of the Woollen Manufacturers of Great Britain, and of the Poor they imploy. 1887 b. 60 (32).

Case or Petition of the Corporation of Pin-makers. 816 m. 13.

Cellier, Elizabeth, Mrs. Scheme for the foundation of a Royal Hospital. London 1687. Harl. Misc. Vol. iv.

—— To Dr. —— an answer to his Queeries concerning the Colledg of Midwives. 1687-8. 1178 h. 2 (2).

—— Malice Defeated. 1680. 515 l. 1 (10).

Chalkley, Thomas. Collection of the Works of. London 1751.

Chamberlain, Hugh, Dr. Trans. Treatise on Midwifery by F. Maurice. 1672.

Chamberlain, Peter. Dr. in Physick, Fellow of the Colledge of London, and one of His Majestie’s Physicians Extraordinary. A voice in Rhama or the Crie of Women and Children. London 1646. B.M. E. 1181.

Charter of the Joiners’ Co. Chester. Harl. MSS. 2054, fo. 5.

Charter and By-laws of the Company of Armourers and Brasiers, in the City of London. 1554-1640. 1873. 08227 b. 13.

Child, Sir Josiah. A New Discourse of Trade, etc. 2nd ed. London 1694. 712 c. 5.

—— Short Addition. 1668. 1029 b. 1.

Churchwardens’ Accounts. Steeple Ashton. Wilts Notes and Queries. London 1911. R. pp. 6049 m.

—— St. Michael’s in Bedwardine, Worcester. Oxford 1896. R. Ac. 8166/8.

Clode, Charles M. Memorials of the Guild of Merchant Taylors, City of London. London 1875. 2366 d. 2.

—— Early History of the Guild of Merchant Taylors of the Fraternity of St. John the Baptist, London. London 1888. 8248 f. 18.

Clothiers’ Complaint, or Reasons for Passing the Bill. London 1692. 711 f. 28.

Compleat Servant-maid, or the Young Maiden’s Tutor. London 1700. 1037 a. 42.

Congreve, Wm. Works of. London 1710. 641 d. 3.

Considerations touching the Excise of Native and Forreign Commodities (as formerly established) as also how the present Excise settled on His Majesty may (with some additions) be improved to the sum resolved on by the Commons in Parliament. 712 m. 1 (3).

Costello, Louisa S. Memoirs of Eminent Englishwomen. London 1844. 1023 i. 8.

Council Register.

Cox, Rev. J. C. Churchwardens’ Accounts. 1913. 2260 b. 3.

—— Three Centuries of Derbyshire Annals as illustrated by the Records of the Quarter Sessions of the County of Derby. London 1890. 010358 l. 28.

Cratfield. Accounts of the Parish of. Ed. by Wm. Holland and J. J. Raven. 1895. 010358 l. 42.

Croker, John. Brief Memoirs of. London 1839.

Cromwell Family. Bills and Receipts. Vol. II. 1546-1672. Add. Mss. 33,461.

Crosfield, Helen G. Margaret Fox of Swarthmoor Hall. London 1913.

Culpeper, Nicholas, Gent., Student in Physick and Astrologie. Directory for Midwives. 1651. E. 1340.

Davenant (Inspector-General of Exports and Imports). An Account of the trade between Greate Britain, France, Holland, etc., ... delivered in his reports made to the Commissioners for Publick Accounts. 1715.

Davies, J. S. History of Southampton. London 1883. 2368 cc. 5.

Decker, Thomas. Best Plays. Ed. by E. Rhys. London 1887. 11773 bb. 14.

Declaration of the Estate of Clothing now used within this Realme of England. 712 G. 16 (1).

Defoe, Daniel. The Behaviour of Servants in England. London 1724. 1137 h. 6.

—— Every-Body’s Business is No-Body’s Business. London 1725. 1137 h. 6 (2).

Dunning, Richard, Gent. A plain and easie Method shewing how the office of overseer of the Poor may be managed, whereby it may be £9,000 per annum Advantage to the County of Devon, without abating the weekly Relief of any Poor, or doing a Penny damage to any Person. London 1686. 1027 i. 17.

Dunsford, M. Historical Memoirs of the Town and Parish of Tiverton. Exeter 1790. 2368 d. 3.

Englands Way to win wealth and to employ Ships and Mariners, etc., by Tobias, Gentleman, Fisherman and Mariner. 1614. Harleian Misc., Vol. III.

Evelyn, John. Diary of. Ed. by Wm. Bray. 1906. 10854 f. 11.

Exeter. Articles to be enquired of by the Churchwardens. 1636. 698 n. 20 (19).

Eyre, Captain Adam. A Dyurnall. 1646. Surtees Society, Vol. LXV. Durham 1877. R. ac. 8045/53.

Falkland, Lady Letice Vi-countess. The Virtuous, Holy, Christian Life and Death of the late, by John Duncon. London 1653. 701 b. 12.

Fanshawe, Lady. Memoirs of. Wife of Sir Richard Fanshawe, Bart. London 1905. 012207 i.

Fell, Sarah. Swarthmoor Household Accounts.

Ferguson, R. S. Municipal Records of the City of Carlisle. Carlisle 1887. R. ac. 5630/5.

Fiennes, Celia. Through England on a Side-Saddle in the time of William and Mary. Being the Diary of C. F. London 1888. 10854 g. 23.

Firmin, Thomas. The Life of. London 1698. 857 h. 26.

—— Some Proposals for the imploying of the Poor, especially in and about the City of London. London 1678. 1027 i. 32.

Fitzherbert, Sir Anthony. Book of Husbandrye. 1555. 969 a. 32 (1).

Foulis, Sir John, of Ravelston. Account Book of. 1671-1707. Edinburgh 1894. R. ac. 8256.

Fox, F. F. Some Account of the Merchant Taylors, Bristol. Bristol 1880. 10352 l. 17.

Further Considerations for encouraging the woollen Manufacturers of this Kingdom. 1852 d. 1 (41).

Gentlemen’s Magazine. May, 1834. Vol. I., Letter to Lord Althorp on the Poor Laws by Equitas.

Gibbs, A. E. Corporation Records—St. Albans. St. Albans 1890. 10351 cc. 56.

Grasier’s Complaint. London 1726. 712 G. 16.

Guilding, J. M. Reading Records. 1892. 2366 d. 4.

Hale, Sir Matthew. Method Concerning Relief and Employment of the Poor. London 1699. 1027 i. 18 (1).

—— Discourse touching Provision for the Poor.

Hamilton, A. H. A. Quarter Sessions Records, Queen Elizabeth to Queen Anne. 1878. 6006 a. 14.

Hardy, W. J. Hertford County Records, 1581-1698. Hertford 1905. 010360 K. 7.

—— Middlesex County Records. 1905. 5805 d. f. 2.

Harl. MSS. 2054, 2105, relating to City of Chester.

Harley, Letters of the Lady Brilliana. Intro. and notes by Thos. Taylor Lewis. London 1853. R. ac. 8113/56.

Haynes, John. Great Britain’s Glory, or an account of the Great Numbers of Poor employed in the woollen and silk manufactures. London 1715. 1029 a. 6 (3).

—— View of the Present State of the Clothing Trade in England. London 1706. 1029 a. 6 (2).

Heath, J. B. Some account of the Worshipful Company of Grocers of the City of London. London 1854. 1302 m. 2.

Herbert, Wm. History of the Twelve Great Livery Companies of London. 1836.

Heylyn, Peter, D.D. The Historical and Miscellaneous Tracts of; and an account of the life of the Author. London 1681. 479 d. 11.

—— Cyprianus Anglicus. 1668. C82 f. 2.

—— Voyage of France. 1673. 10170 aaa. 8.

Heywood, Rev. Oliver, 1630-1702. His autobiography, diaries, anecdote and event books, ed. by J. Horsfall Turner. 1882. 4907 e. 4.

Historical MSS. Commission 14 Rep. App. VIII.

—— Various Collections. Vol. I.

—— —— Vol. IV.

Hoare, Sir R. C. History of Modern Wiltshire. Old and New Sarum or Salisbury. London 1843.

Holdsworth, W. S. A History of Eng. Law. 1903.

Holroyd, Joseph, cloth factor, and Sam. Hill, Clothier, Letter Books of. Halifax 1900. 7958 h.

Howard, Lord William of Naworth Castle. Selections from the Household Books of. Surtees Society, Vol. LXVIII. Durham 1878. R. ac. 8045/55.

Howell, James. Familiar Letters. London 1754. G. 2118.

Humble Petition and Case of the Tobacco Pipe Makers of the City of London and Westminster. 1695. 816 m. 12.

Humble Petition of many thousands of Courtiers’, Citizens’, Gentlemen’s and Tradesmen’s wives, etc. Feb. 10, 1641. 669 f. 4 (59).

Humble Petition of the Master, Wardens and Assistants of the Company of Silk Throwers, London. 816 m. 13 (115).

Hunter, Joseph. History and Topography of Ketteringham. Norwich 1851. 10351 h. 10.

Hutchinson, Memoirs of the Life of Colonel, written by his widow, Lucy. Ed. by C. H. Firth. 1906. 12207 p.p.

Irish Friend. Vol. IV. Account of remarkable visions and passages of John Adams, of Yorkshire.

James, John. History of the Worsted Manufacture in England. London 1857. 2270 bb. 16.

Johnson, Rev. A. H. History of the Worshipful Company of Drapers of London. 1914. W.P. 3016.

Jonson, Ben. Plays. 1756. 673 f. 13-19.

Josselin, Rev. Ralph. The Diary of. 1616-1683, ed. for the Royal Historical Society by E. Hockcliffe. 1908. R. ac. 8118/17.

Jupp, Ed. B. Historical Account of the Worshipful Company of Carpenters of the City of London. London 1887. 10350 dd. 17.

King, Gregory (Rouge Dragon). Natural and Political Observations and Conclusions upon the state and condition of England, 1696. Ed. by G. Chalmers. London 1910. 1137 k. 27.

Lambert, Rev. J. Malet. 2,000 years of Gild Life, Kingston-upon-Hull. 2240 f. 9.

Lamond, Eliz. Discourse of the Common Weal of this Realm of England. First printed in 1581. Cambridge 1893. 8009 aaa. 33.

Lansdowne MSS. 161 fo. 127. Letter from Mayor of Southampton to Sir J. Cæsar re suit of Rachell Tierry.

—— 351 fo. 18 b. A Project for Mounts of Piety.

Latimer, John. Annals of Bristol. Bristol 1900. 2367 bb. 1.

Leach, Arthur F. Beverley Town Documents. Selden Society, Vol. xiv. London 1900. R. ac. 2176.

Leader, John Daniel. Extracts from the earliest book of Accounts belonging to the Town Trustees of Sheffield. 1566-1707. Sheffield 1879. 8228 aa. 11.]

—— Records of the Burgery of Sheffield, commonly called the Town Trust. London 1897. 010358 f. 63.

Leader, Robert Eadon. History of the Company of Cutlers in Hallamshire. Sheffield 1905. 1889 e. 10.

Leland, John. The Itinerary of, 1535-1543. Ed. by L. Toulmin Smith. London 1907. 2366 d. 6.

Linnen and Woollen Manufactory discoursed, with the Nature of Companies and Trade in General. London 1691. 712 m. 1 (14).

Lipson, E. An Introduction to the Economic History of England. I. the Middle Ages. London 1915. W.P. 2753.

Little Red Book of Bristol. Ed. by F. B. Bickley. 10370 h. 22.

Lyon, John. History of Town and Port of Dover. Dover 1813. 191 b. 6.

Manchester Court Leet Records. 1887.

Martindale, Adam, The Life of, written by himself. Ed. by Richard Parkinson. Cheetham Society, Vol. IV. 1845. R. ac. 8120.

McMath, James, M.D. The Expert Mid-wife. 1694. 7581 de. 19.

Mayo, C. H. Municipal Records of the Borough of Dorchester. Dorset. Exeter 1908. 010360 k. 11.

Monthly Meeting Minute Books of the Society of Friends, Horselydown and Peele.

Mournfull Cryes of many thousand Poore Tradesmen, 1647. 669 f. 11 (116).

Murray, Lady Mary, of Stanhope. Memoirs of Lives and Characters of the Rt. Hon. Geo. Baillie of Jerviswood, and of Lady Grisell Baillie. Edinburgh 1822. 614 g. 29.

Nash, T. History and Antiquities of Worcester. 1781.

Nicholas Papers. Correspondence of Sir Edward Nicholas, Secretary of State. Ed. by G. F. Warner. Camden Society 1886. R. ac. 8113/127.

Nicholson, Dame Magdalen, widow of Sir Gilbert Elliot, first Baronet of Stobbs, by Alexander O. Curle. Some notes of the Account Book of. In Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. 1904-1905. Vol. XXXIX., pp. 120-132. R. ac. 5770. 2.

Nottingham, Records of the Borough of. London 1889. 2366 d. 1.

Osborne, Dorothy. Letters to Sir William Temple. Ed. by E. A. Parry. 10921 bbb. 34.

Overall, W. H. Analytical Index to the Series of Records known as the Remembrancia, preserved among the Archives of the City of London. 1579-1664. London 1878.

—— Some account of the Company of Clockmakers of the City of London. London 1881. 10349 gg. 11.

Pechey, John. Fellow of the Colledge of Physicians. The Compleat Midwife’s practice enlarged. London 1698. 778 b. 44.

Pepys, Samuel. Diary and Correspondence. Ed. by Rev. Mynors Bright. London 1875. 100854 ee. 1.

Petty, Dorothy, the case of, in Relation to the Union Society, at the White Lyon by Temple Bar, whereof she is Director. 1710. 816 m. 10/82.

Phipps, Thomas, Esq. His Proposal for Raising 1,000,000 of Pounds Sterling Yearly. 1712. 8223 e. 9 (60).

Poor Out-cast Children’s Song and Cry. London 1653. 669 f. 16 (93).

Powell, John. The Assize of Bread. London 1600. C. 40 d. 54.

The Proverb Crossed or a new Paradox maintained, etc., Being a Full Clear and Distinct answer to a Paper of an English Gentleman, who endeavours to demonstrate that it is for the Interest of England, that the Laws against the Transportation of Wooll should be repealed. London 1677. 712 g. 16 (16).

Pseudonismus, Considerations concerning Common-fields and Inclosures. 1654. E. 719 (9).

Ramsey, Wm. History of Worshipful Company of Glass-sellers of London. 1898. 8248 g. 19.

Rawdon, Marmaduke, of York, the Life of. Ed. by Richard Davies. Camden Society, Vol. LXXXV. R. ac. 8113/80.

Raynold, Thomas. The byrth of Mankynde, otherwyse named the woman’s booke, newly set furth, corrected and augmented. London 1545. 1177 h. 1.

Reasons for a Limited Exportation of Wooll. 1677. 712 g. 16 (14).

Reasons humbly offered to the Honourable House of Commons by the Leather-dressers and Glovers. 816 m. 13 (39).

Remarks upon Mr. Webber’s Scheme and the Draper’s Pamphlet. 1741. 1029 d. 4 (5).

Report of Commission on Decay of Clothing Trade. 1622. Stowe 554 fo. 45-49.

Report of the Commissioners on the Condition of the Hand-loom weavers, 1841. Mr. Chapman’s Report.

Riley, H. T. Chronicles of the Mayors and Sheriffs of London, 1188-1274. London 1863. 9510 h. 12.

—— Memorials of London and London Life. 1868.

Riley, W. H. Translation of the Liber Albus, of the City of London. Compiled 1419, by John Carpenter, clerk, and Richard Whittington, Mayor. London 1861. 9510 f. 22.

Rockley, Francis, Esq., Presenteth that the Revenue of Excise. 816 m. 6 (2).

Rogers, J. E. Thorold. History of Agriculture and Prices. Oxford 1866-1902.

—— Oxford City Documents. 1891. R. ac. 8126/10.

Rogers, Timothy, M.A. The Character of a Good Woman, both in a Single and Marry’d State, in a Funeral Discourse on Prov. 31, 10, occasion’d by the Decease of Mrs. Elizabeth Dunton. London 1697. 1417 b. 29.

Rolls of Parliament.

Salford, The Portmote or Court Leet Records of the Borough or Town and Royal Manor of, 1597-1669. Cheetham Society 1902. Vol. xlvi. new series. R. ac. 8120.

Scheme to prevent the running of Irish Wools to France. By a Merchant of London. London 1743. 1029 d. 4 (3).

Second Humble Address from the Poor Weavers and Manufacturers to the Ladies. 816 m. 14 (84).

Sharp, Jane. The Midwives Book or the whole art of Midwifery discovered, by Mrs. Jane Sharp, Practioner in the art of Midwifery above thirty years. London 1671. 1177 b. 19.

Shaw’s, Mrs., Innocency restored and Mr. Clendon’s Calumny retorted, notwithstanding his late Triumphing, by sundry Depositions, making out more than ever she by Discourse or writing did positively charge upon him. London 1653. E. 730 596 (8).

Short Essay upon Trade in General, etc., by a Lover of his Country. London 1741. 1029 d. 4 (2).

Smith, L. Toulmin. English Gilds. 1870. R. ac. 9925/33.

Smith’s Book of Accounts, Chester, 1574. Harl. MSS. 2054 fo. 22.

Smyth, Richard, The Obituary of. Secondary of the poultry Compter, London; being a catalogue of all such persons as he knew in their life. Ed. by Sir Henry Ellis. Camden Society, 1849. R. ac. 8113/44.

Smythe, W. Dumville. Historical Account of the Worshipful Company of Girdlers, London. London 1905. 8248 e. 44.

Somerset Quarter Sessions Records. Ed. by Rev. E. N. Bates Harbin. 1913. R. ac. 8133/17.

Sowerby, Leo. Ladies Dispensatory, containing the nature, virtues and qualities of all Herbs and simples usefull in Physick reduced into a methodical order, for their more ready use in any sicknesse, or other accident of the Body. London 1651. E. 1258.

State Papers. Domestic Series (S.P.D.).

Statutes at Large.

Stone, Jolley. Court Precedents. 1673. Harl. MSS. 1628.

Stopes, Mrs. C. C. Shakespeare’s Warwickshire Contemporaries. 1897. 11765 d. 17.

Stow, John. Survey of the cities of London and Westminster. Written at first MDXCVIII., brought down from the year 1633 to the present time by John Strype. London 1720. 1791 d. 5.

Strood, Churchwarden’s Acc. Book. 1555-1763. Add. MSS. 36937.

Sussex Archeological Collections. Account Book of Cowden. Vol. XX. Burrell, Timothy, Journal of. Vol. III. Danny Papers. Vol. X. East Sussex Parochial Documents. Vol. IV. Everenden and Frewen Account Books. Vol. IV. Hastings Documents. Vol. XXIII. Herstmonceux Castle House Accounts. Vol. XLVIII. Mayfield Overseer’s Accounts. Vol. XVIII. Moore, Rev. Giles, Journal of. Vol. I. Stapley, Rich., Diary of. Vol. II.

Taylor, Randall. A Discourse of the Growth of England in Populousness and Trade since the Reformation. 1689. 712 m. 1 (13).

Tawney, R. H. The assessment of Wages in England by the Justices of the Peace—in the vierteljahrschrift für Sozial und Wirtschaftsgeschichte. XI. Band Drittes Heft und Viertes Heft. 1913.

Thornton, Mrs. Alice of East Newton, Co. York. Autobiography. Surtees Society, Vol. LXII. 1873 R. ac. 8045/50.

Tingey, J. C. Assessment of Wages for Norfolk. English Historical Review, Vol. XIII.

—— Records of the City of Norwich. Norwich 1906. 2368 cc. 4.

Trade of England. Revived and the abuses thereof Rectified. London 1681. 712 g. 16 (20).

True Account how Mr. Reading’s House at Santoft happened to be Burnt. 816 m. 10/112.

True Case of the Scots Linen Manufacture. 816 m. 13 (55).

Verney, F. P. Memoirs of the Verney Family during the Civil Wars. London 1892. 2407 f. 12.

Vives, office and duetie of an husband. Trans. by Thos. Paynell. 1550. G. 10325.

Watson, Wm. The Clergyman’s Law. 1747. 516 m. 10.

Weavers True Case, or the wearing of Printed Calicoes and Linnen Destructive to the Woollen and Silk Manufacturers. 1719. T. 1814 (8).

Welch, Charles. History of the Worshipful Company of Pewterers of the City of London. London 1902. 8248 f. 15.

Welford, Richard. History of Newcastle and Gateshead. London 1885. 2367 bb. 7.

Wilkinson, Robert. The Merchant Royal, or woman a ship, etc. in conjugal duty, set forth in a collection of ingenious and delightful wedding sermons. Original ed., 1607. London 1732. 4454 b. 9.

Wycherley, Wm. Plays. London 1735. 644 a. 19.

Yonge, Walter. Diary at Colyton and Axminster, Co. Devon. 1604-1628. Ed. by Geo. Roberts. Camden Society 1848. R. ac. 8113/41.

---