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

TEXTILESroof provided them with the opportunity for combinationand insubordination.' Moreover the factorysystem was not really advantageous to the manufacturerbefore the introduction of power, because he couldpay lower wages to the women who worked at homethan to those who left their families .in order to workonhis premises. Thus the practice was dropped. In1603 the Wiltshire Quarter Sessions published regulationsto the effect that " Noe Clotheman shallkeepe above one lombe in his house, neither any weaverthat hath a ploughland shall keepe more than onelombe in his house. Noe person or persons shallkeepe any lombe or lombs goeinge in any other houseor houses beside their owne, or mayntayne any to doethe same."2Few references occur to the wives of successfulclothiers or wool-merchants who were actively interestedin their husband's business, though no doubttheir help was often enlisted in the smaller or morestruggling concerns. Thus the names of three widowsare given in a list of eleven persons who were usinghandicrafts at Maidstone. " The better sorte of thesewe take to bee but of meaneability and most of thempoore but by theire trade the poore both of the towneand country adjoyning are ymploied to ~p~nn~ng.:'~A pamphlet published in 1692 describes how informer days " the Clothier that made the cloth, sold itto the merchant, and heard the faults of his owncloth ; and forc'd sometimes not only to promiseamendment himself, but to go home and tell Joan, tohave the Wool better pick'd, and the Yarn betterspun."'A certain Rachel Thiery applied for a monopoly' See Weavers' Act, 1555.' Hirt MSS. Com. Var. Coll., Vol I., p. 75, Wilts. Q.S. Rec., 1603.S S.P.D., cxxix, 45, Ap. 10, 1622, Ret~rrn of the Mayor.' Clotbier's Complaint, etc., p. 7, 1692.TEXTILESin Southampton for the pressing of serges, and havingheard that the suit had been referred by the Queento Sir J. Czsar, the Mayor and Aldermen wrote,July 2, 1599, to let him know how inconvenient thegranting of the suit would be to the town of Southampton.I. Those strangers who have presses already wouldbe ruined.I I. Many of their men servants (English andstrangers) bred up to the trade would be idle.I I I. " The woeman verie poore and beggarlie,altogether unable to performe it in workmanshipp or. . . Againe she is verie idle, a prattlingotherwise.gossipp, unfitt to undertake a matter of so great acharge, her husband a poore man being departedfrom her and cornorant in Rochell these I I yeres at least.She is verie untrustie and approoved to have engagedmens clothes which in times past have beenputt to her for pressinge.Verie insufficient to answerof herself men's goodes and unable to procure anie goodCaution to render the owners there goodes againe,havinge not so much as a howse to putt her head in,insomuch as (marvellinge under what coullour she dothseeke to attaine to a matter of such weight) we . . .should hold them worsse than madd that would hazzardor comitt there goodes into her handes. And toconclude she is generallie held amongest us an unfittwoeman to dwell in a well governed Commonwealth."'An incident showing the wife as virtual manager ofher husband's business is described in a letter fromThomas Cocks of Crowle to Sir Robert Berkely, Kt.:in 1633. He writes complaining of a certain Carelesswho obtained a licence to sell ale " because he was asurgeon and had many patients come to him for help,and found it a great inconvenience for them to go toremote places for their diet and drink, and in that-Lansdowne, 161, fo. 127,znd July, 1599