working life of women seventeenth century - School of Economics ...

CAPITALISTSboth, so that there could not ~ossibly be the leastFraud in the Management thereof."'In 1622 the names of Mary Hall, 450 coals, BarbaraRiddell, 450 coals, Barbara Milburne, 60 coals, areincluded without comment among the brothers of thefellowship of Hostmen (coal owners) of Newcastlewho have coals to rent.' The name of BarbaraMilburne, widow, is given in the Subsidy Roll for1621 as owning land.' That these women were equalto the management of their collieries is suggested bythe fact that when in 1623 Christopher Mitford leftbesides property which he bequeathed direct to hisnephews and nieces, five salt-pans and collieries to hissister Jane Legard he appointed her his executrix,'which he would hardly have done unless he had believedher equal to the management of a complicated business.The frequency with which widows conductedcapitalistic enterprises may be taken as evidence ofthe extent to which wives were associated with theirhusbands in business.The wife's part is sometimesshown in prosecutions, as in a case which was broughtin the Star Chamber against Thomas Hellyard,Elizabeth his wife and John Goodenough and HughNicholes for oppression in the country under a patentto Hellyard for digging saltpetre . . . " inpursuance of his direction leave and authority. . .Nicholes Powell, Defendants servant, and the saidHellyard's wife, did sell divers quantities of saltpetre. More particularly the said Hellyard's wifedid sell to Parker 4001bs. at Haden Wells, 300 or 400lbs. at Salisbury and 300 or 400 Ibs. at Winchesterat L9 the hundred." Hellyard was sentenced to afine of LI ,000, pillory, whipping and imprisonment.1 CaseofDorothy Petty, 1710.' Nmcastle and Gateshead, Hzstory of, Vol. III., p. 242.a Ibid, p. 237.* Ibid, p. 252.CAPITALISTS35" As touching the other defendant Elizabeth Hellyardthe courte was fully satisfyed with sufficient matterwhereupon to ground a sentence against the defendantEliz. but shee being a wyfe and subject to obey herhusband theyr Lord ships did forbeare to sentenceher."'Three men, " artificers in glass making," beg thatLady Mansell may either be compelled to allow themsuch wages as they formerly received, or to dischargethem from her service, her reduction of wages disablingthem from maintaining their families, and drivingmany of them away.' Lady Mansell submits afinancial statement and account of the rival glassmakers'attempts to ruin her husband's business, oneof whom " hath in open audience vowed to spend~oooli, to ruine your petitioners husband joyningewith the Scottish pattentie taking the advantage ofyour petitioners husbands absence, thinckinge yourpetitioner a weake woman unable to followe thebusines and determininge the utter ruine of yourpetitioner and her husband have inticed three of herworkemen for windowe glasse, which shee had longekepte att a weeklie chardge to her great prejudice tosupplie the worke yf there should be anie necessitie inthe Kingdome," etc., etc.," she begs justice upon therivals, " your petitioner havinge noe other meanesnowe in his absence (neither hath he when he shallreturne) but onelie this busines wherein he hathengaged his whole estate."'Able business women might be found in every classof English society throughout the seventeenth century,but their contact with affairs became less habitualas the century wore away, and expressions of surpriseoccur at the prowess shown by Dutch women in'S.P.D., cdx., 21, 1634.' S.P.D., cxlviii , 52, 1623,a S.P.D ; dxxi.. 147. Addenda Charles I., 1625.