So Coke, (Inst. II., 119,) elucidating the laws of Marlebridge, made three years later, says, “Note. A woman may be a free Suitor to the Courts of the Lord, but though it be generally said that the free suitors be Judges in these courts, it is intended of men and not of women.”
This “priestly intention” sprang only from Coke’s own mind. He cites no authority for his opinion, nor could he have found one. To have deprived a female “Suitor” of her right to express her opinion and thereby help to determine the questions brought before the Court, in the light of her own interests, inclinations, or opinions, would have taken away her prime raison d’être. Her second privilege was that of giving her voice, with other freeholders, towards the election of a knight, “in the stead of all and of each of them,” to go to the King’s parliament,[[7]] and defend her interests there. Upon the petition of the Commons that proclamation should be made of the day and place of the meeting of the County Court, it was decreed, “All they that be there present, as well suitors duly summoned, as others, shall attend to the election of the Knights of Parliament.... And after they be chosen, the names of the persons so chosen shall be written in an Indenture,[[8]] under the seales of all them that did chuse them, and tacked to the said writ of Parliament” (7 Henry IV., c. xiii.). A certain limitation, therefore, of electors, must have been caused through the necessity of possessing seals. In 8 Henry VI. the suitors at the County Court were limited to those who had not less than a 40s. freehold. It was soon made clear that the House of Commons was only intended to represent those not eligible in person or in representation to the Upper House; so that the county elections became limited to county freeholders below the rank of Peers. But there is no question, at any time, of altering the Franchise from the general terms to others that would limit it to the masculine being. That women did frequent the courts in person is proved in Prynne’s “Brevia Parliamentaria Rediviva” (p. 152, et seq.), where he refers to “sundry Earls, Lords and Ladies who were annual suitors to the County Courts of Yorkshire.” That women recorded these votes, and sealed the indentures of the Knights elected, is also proved by Prynne. The two points that surprised Prynne were, that the earliest preserved indentures were all signed by the Nobility of the County, and by them alone, and also that they were all sealed by attorney, by Lords, or by Ladies alike, down to 7 Henry VI., after which they were signed by all Freeholders personally. He does not seem to remember that these were the classes privileged by Act 43 Henry III., to absent themselves from the County Courts; and that acting by proxy was considered a privilege of the nobility. It might very well have been considered that Archbishops, Earls, Lords, and Ladies were “especially required” at the County Court to hear and decide on some important territorial dispute, and yet that they could decide on the merits of a candidate at home, and send their Attorneys to the County Court to seal for them there in the presence of the Sheriff. One such indenture (2 Henry V.) is signed by Robert Barry, the Attorney of Margaret, widow of Sir Henry Vavasour. In another return from the County of York, one Attorney signs for the Earl of Westmoreland, and another for the Countess, for the lands each held as freeholds in that neighbouring county.
[7]. The first use of the word “Parliamentum” occurs in the Prologue to the Statutes of Westminster in 1 Edward I.
[8]. Prynne notes that only Cedules have been preserved of the returns of the knights before the Statute of 7 Henry IV., c. xiii.
Prynne also preserves an Indenture signed by the attorney of Lucia, the widowed Countess of Kent (13 Hen. IV.). This lady was an Italian, a Visconti, the daughter of the Duke of Milan, and her foreign extraction, or her failing fortunes at the time,[[9]] may have induced her to exercise her privilege as regards the Member of Parliament, while she preserved the dignity of her nobility by voting by Attorney.
[9]. See Petitions to Parliament (Hen. IV.), Burke’s “Extinct Peerages,” “Inquisitions Post-Mortem.” (Hen. V.)
I have not found any example of a lady “Knight of the Shire,” but neither have I found the shadow of a law against their existence beyond that of the electors’ choice, or the ladies’ convenience. Anne Clifford said that if her candidate did not come forward “she would stand herself.” (Dr. Smith to Williamson, Jan. 1668. Dom. Ser. State Papers, Public Record Office.) But as women summoned to do military service were allowed to send a substitute, as women summoned to the County Courts were allowed to absent themselves, and allowed to send an Attorney, so were they allowed to send their knights to the House of Commons.
If women of the Middle Ages had but realised what their ancestresses did before them, “that they were receiving what they must hand down to their children neither tarnished nor depreciated, what future daughters-in-law may receive, and may so pass on to their grandchildren” (Tacitus Germ., c. viii.), the needs of litigation on this point might not have arisen later.
Could Nominate to Private Boroughs.—Certain Boroughs formerly held by military tenure seemed to have been included in those permitted to return burgesses to Parliament, though belonging to one owner. When women inherited the property and held the Borough, they returned their one or two members, as the custom might be, in their own name. “The members of many ancient Boroughs were often returned by the Lords, and sometimes by the Ladies of the Manors or Boroughs” (Plowden’s “Jura Anglorum,” p. 438). Many cases are doubtless lost among the piles of missing records. But two very illustrative examples have been preserved for us, just sufficient to clear away all doubts from the minds of students of history that women sometimes exercised the privileges they possessed.
In a bundle of Returns for 14 and 18 Eliz., Brady has preserved, and Heywood, in his “County Elections,” has quoted, that of Dame Dorothy Packington, the owner of the private Borough of Aylesbury. In days when military service might have been demanded of her, she would have sent her “substitute” to defend her sovereign; in days when subsidy service was expected of her, she sent a “substitute” to Parliament to defend her interests there, and she paid for both her military and civil representatives. “To all Christian people to whom this present writing shall come, I, Dame Dorothy Packington, widow, late wife of Sir John Packington, Knight, Lord and Owner of the Town of Aylesbury, sendeth greeting. Know ye me, the said Dame Dorothy Packington, to have shown, named, and appointed my trusty and well-beloved Thomas Lichfield and John Burden, Esquires, to be my burgesses of my said town of Aylesbury. And whatsoever the said Thomas and George, burgesses, shall do in the service of the Queen’s highness in that present parliament to be holden at Westminster the 8th day of May next ensuing the date hereof, I, the same Dame Dorothy Packington, do ratify and approve to be my own act, as fully and wholly as if I were, or might be present myself.” She signed their indentures, sealed them, paid “their wages” and their expenses in whole, as others did in part. That the return was held good is sufficient to prove its legality.[[10]] There is not the shadow of grounds for a belief that she “acted as returning officer,” as some have said who have not studied the case. Later on, when the population of Aylesbury increased, and the ambitions of Aylesbury extended, there was an appeal by the inhabitants for permission to share in the Returns.[[11]] But the objection to the monopoly of the Family-Return did not include an objection to the woman that exercised it.