Chapter V · Crafts and Trades. (continued 2)

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. 208But 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 2096d. 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.

210A 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 211fact 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 212they 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 213the 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] 214and 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 215in 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 ... 216is 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]

217Customs 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 218butcher,”^[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]

219She 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 220in 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 221trade 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, 222in 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 223be 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 224also 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 225private 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 226but 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.

227The 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 228have 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, 229a 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 230strong 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. 231Thus 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 232from 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 233to,”^[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 234Tower 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, 235but 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.

236