Origins of Freedom and FEW (freemen-few.org.

uk)

Origins of Freedom
and FEW
Origins of Freedom and FEW
By Capt. James Evans
Former President ~ FEW
From the time people ceased to be hunters, craftsmen and merchants had
gathered together in communities. Mankind became ‘civilized’ because
they developed the ability to make and use tools. The most able became
‘tradesmen’ and were recognized as experts. Those whose main ability
was to kill became nobles or soldiers. Tradesmen looked for places where
they could work in peace. Often these were the halls of warlords where
they were still subject to the whims and taxes of their overlord and
treated as second class people. Some gathered in villages and as trade
grew they developed an administration capable of sustaining trade.
Mercantile law evolved in the fourth, third and second millennia BC and
grew with each succeeding civilisation. The merchants organised
themselves into Guilds at a very early date. China, India and Phoenicia all
had Guilds and the Laws of the Phoenicians were said to go back
"whereunto the memory of man reacheth not". Mohammed was a
member of the Guild of Merchants.

While tradesmen had a place in rural communities the formation of towns

provided a life free from the bondage of magnates. In urban areas
tradesmen evolved organisations which met with feasts in their town or
city to discuss and regulate matters of common interest. The craftsmen
and tradesmen were free from this feudal holding of the lower classes and
were termed freemen. The term Guild is an Anglo-Saxon term derived
from meeting together for a feast. Alternatively, they are referred to as
Gilds. This term was derived either from the Norse “layered with silver”,
referring to trade or from gildan ‘to pay’

The Vikings (Danes) started raiding at the end of the eighth century and
continued for three centuries. King Alfred of Wessex organized a
successful resistance to hold Wessex for the Saxons. The Viking army
operated by establishing a base on some easily defended ground and
sending out parties of raiders from there. These were hill tops, river
junctions and river mouths. Alfred occupied these places before the
Vikings arrived by getting settlers to build their houses and situate them
against each other to form an outside wall and required each household to
provide warriors to defend the place. The Romans had called a small fort
a burgus and Alfred called these places burgs. Within this sheltered
environment tradesmen were attracted because of the relatively safety.
These burgs were responsible directly to the King and their defenders
were excused from attending the war bands the King collected to oppose
the invaders. They stayed to defend the burg and paid a burgess rent to
the King for their property. This distinguished them from the villages
gathered round a magnate’s property which after the Norman Conquest
were absorbed as part of the Feudal system. Some 33 of these burhs are
listed in the Burghal Hidage. This was compiled early in the reign of
Edward the Elder and is round the edges of Wessex. Edward continued
with the building of burhs when he and his sister recovered west Mercia,
East Anglia and the five Boroughs from the Danes.

With some measure of peace King Alfred was the first English king to
encourage the English language and English literature. It is at this period
that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was first written which continued to be
updated for the next 200 years. He had a number of Latin books
translated into English including Bede's Ecclesiastical History and made a
collection of written laws. Property deeds were recorded in place of oral or
folk witness and the first charters were written. Within the burhs there
was the local right to justice including infangthef, the right to try and
hang a thief caught on the land, sac and soc, the right to the fines from
local or private courts of law.

Edward continued the system of Burhs when he took over Mercia and
conquered East Anglia. These were still essentially Anglo-Saxon areas.
Further north the area had been under Viking control for many years. It
was conquered by Edward’s sons and trade centered on existing Viking
towns like the five Boroughs and York. Most of the Burhs evolved into
Boroughs and as they grew the ancient hundreds had to expand and
evolved to become Shires round these Boroughs.

Under Alfred’s descendants the kingdom was extended north to the Clyde
and Forth and the concept of a united kingdom, England, evolved. The
Danes were absorbed into the population, providing a vibrant addition for
they were great traders, sailors and shipbuilders. At first trading was
carried out at convenient places such as beaches where ships could come
in and trade with the local inhabitants. Often these took place close to a
burg and were noted by the place name ending ick or wick. These names
were particularly prevalent in Kent due to the narrow crossing to Europe.
These burgs became ports started exporting wool, corn, skins and honey
and importing wine, timber and exotic materials like silk, gems, gold,
ivory and dyes from countries half a world away. A toll was collected by
the King. In London the Royal Port Reeve collected the tolls, there was a
weekly meeting of all free residents, a Guildhall, rules for testing weights
and measures and there were no less than eight mints in England.
As these burgs grew they developed their own laws. The term frith-gild
refers to family groups with duty to arrest offenders and was compulsory.
The trade guilds evolved as voluntary organizations to regulate their own
trade. Some villages were associated with a local landowner or a religious
house, which provided protection in a very lawless land. In turn taxes
were collected from the town's inhabitants. Other towns formed at
suitable sites but were liable to be subjected to frequent raids. They often
paid protection money rather than taxes. These communities would
huddle together as each inhabitant built his house adjacent to his
neighbour to add to the protection of the community. Some towns were
strong enough, or isolated enough, to remain relatively independent and
made themselves directly responsible to the king or prince.

The commercial efforts of the towns created new wealth and the in the
tenth and eleventh centuries the crusades and travelers such as Marco
Polo brought back to Europe new objects and new ideas. The windmill and
water wheel, the treadle loom, mechanical clock and the compass all
came into use at this time. Farms became more productive, marshes and
forests were cleared to provide more farming land. Instead of barter
money for goods became increasingly common.

The Norman conquest of England had significant consequences. A

relatively small number of fighting men with better armour, weapons and
horses introduced strict Feudal laws to maintain their dominant position.
Under these laws all the land belonged to the king who gave the tenancy
to his Norman lords in return for the provision of armed men when
required by the king. There were sub tenancies providing the lord with
fighting men, but most of the population were serfs or bondi, tied to the
land as virtual slaves.

The first written charter as such in Great Britain was that given by William
l to London after the Norman Conquest in 1066. It was very short
“William King greets William, Bishop, and Gosfrith, Portreeve, and all the
burghers within London, French and English, friendly. I do you to wit that
I will that ye be all law worthy that were in King Edward’s day, and I will
that every child be his father’s heir after his father’s day: and I will not
endure that any man offer wrong to you. God keep you.” This charter
contains the important principles that the burghers are law worthy that is
free with the right to be tried by their equals. Their children could inherit
their property thus giving security to the freedom of the town and
protecting them from any feudal claims, their only lord was the king. The
second great charter for London was that of Henry 1. After the death of
William Rufus, it took Henry two days to cover the 120 miles to London
from the New Forest along bridle tracks and no doubt the Charter was a
recognition of the importance of London. It remitted the levy for feudal
service, the Danegeld and from tolls. He gave the County of Middlesex for
a payment of 300 shillings a year and hunt in certain forests round
London. They were given the right to elect a Sheriff, their own judges and
try their own cases. William built the White Tower of London to keep his
hand upon the burgesses.

William’s Charter for London and that of Henry l was incorporated into
many of the articles in later charters England and Wales. These freed the
freemen from feudal taxes, trial by battle and tolls. They allowed them to
try their own cases within their own limits and to elect their own justices.
They also introduced the concept of the Ferme Fee where Guilds collected
the King’s revenue within the town for a fixed fee.

The term burgher or burgess refers to the possession of a burgage. In

these early days a burgage plot was held from the king and the rent paid
to the king. The burgage was the piece of land which qualified him to
enjoy the rights of a burgess. These burgages were generally long narrow
rigs stretching back from either side of the main streets in a town. In
some burghs they formed a herring bone pattern, particularly when the
market was in the middle of the street and the street widened out at that
point. Sometimes the burgage was divided between two properties. The
important dimension was the frontage onto the street. In the early burgh
laws a burgess had to possess a burgage twenty one feet (6.1 metres) in
width at the street. Boundaries were marked by gullies, wattle fences,
march stones or at a later date by stone walls. The houses would be
constructed of a wood frame with wattle and daub walls no more than 1.5
metres high. The roofs would be either turf or thatch and held by a ridge
post between the two gable ends. The gable would be towards the main
street with the wood planked door in the side wall accessed down a
vennel. Rising damp was a problem which caused the wood to rot. There
would be a stone hearth in the centre of the building providing warmth
and cooking. There was no natural light. Fire was a major hazard and this
type of construction would require to be replaced at regular intervals. The
standard food was potage, a soup with vegetables and cereals.
Unleavened bread and oatcakes were baked on stones by the fire.
Sewage and waste water flowed down gullies in the street to the river.

As property qualification was of vital importance there were disputes over

boundaries. The burghs appointed officials called liners to supervise the
burgage widths and settle these disputes.

Guilds continued to develop over the centuries. As they were controlled

locally each Guild developed their own rules, administration and
peculiarities. Some acquired extensive land and charity holdings. Those
with Royal charters sent members to Parliament and so played an
important part in the administration of the country.

The Guild recognized that those who had served their apprenticeship were
skilled and worthy to take up the Freedom. They were expected to serve
several years as a Journeyman before qualifying as a Master Tradesman
and being able to sign contracts. It was natural for families to pass on
skills, tools and customers to their sons, who learned their trade from
their fathers or other members of their families. The right to the Freedom
was cherished in families, but the rules of servitude were restrictive. Thus
there developed the right of sons to take up the freedom by right of birth
or heritage.

There was a high death rate in crowded Boroughs due to plague, fire and
war. The continuity to the Freedom by birth was often lost in a family. In
the Middle Ages this was reckoned to be an average of three generations.
Until 1835 admission through purchase or gift was used to incorporate
new traders into the Guild. The new Freemen came from many countries
and also from the surrounding countryside. Their origin or trade is often
shown by their surname.

In the early nineteenth century there grew a movement for reform to

increase the franchise for voting for Parliament and urban areas. Some of
the Boroughs had very few voters and these were known as rotten
boroughs. In other cases many of the voters did not reside in the towns
or which they were qualified as Freemen to vote. The first Reform Act of
1832 removed the exclusive right of Freemen to vote for Parliamentary
elections in the so called unreformed Boroughs and replaced this right
with a property requirement. Freemen were not abolished by this Act.

Following the 1832 Reform Act in1835 the Municipal Corporations Act was
passed. This named 178 boroughs which were reformed passing the
administration of the Borough from the Freemen to elected Councillors. A
further 21 Boroughs were added at a later date. London was excluded
from the Act. The electors were residents of the borough who qualified
under strict property qualifications. Nonresident Freemen no longer had
the right to vote without residence. These boroughs are listed in the Act
which also lists the qualifying Charter or Act under which the borough was
governed prior to 1835. London was excluded from the Act. These
boroughs were those created by charters from the King or Parliament.

There were other boroughs where there was not a Royal Charter or
Parliamentary Act. These were generally Baronial or Ecclesiastical
Boroughs which originally came under the jurisdiction of a baron or
church body. These bodies did not have the same responsibilities for local
government as the boroughs named in the Act although many had a
Court Leet or Bailiff’s Court which a responsibility for their own local
affairs. These bodies were not affected by the Representation of the
People or the Municipal Corporations Act

From earliest times Burgesses and Freemen, assembled in their Head

Guild (AGM), have determined for themselves who should be admitted to
the Guild and to the Freedom. This right was recognised in the Municipal
Corporations Act of 1835 and in all subsequent Acts. The right to
admission by purchase or gift was abolished by the 1835 Act and while
the Guild retained the right to determine their rules of admission these
rules must comply with the law of the land.
The right of the eldest son to take up his Freedom by birth at the age of
twenty-one was established in early times, often with restrictions. Over
time this right was extended to all sons born in legal wedlock. At later
dates the right to the freedom was extended by Parliamentary Acts to
cover legitimacy and daughters.

Over the next hundred years the history of individual Guilds of Freemen in
various boroughs depended to a large extent as to whether the Guilds had
rights in any property or land. Where there was none there was little
incentive to take up the Freedom and many lapsed over the years. Those
with rights clung on in isolation and fought their own local disputes. In
1927 the first discussions took place regarding the possibility of having an
association of Guilds to support each other, defend the Freedom and also
to meet socially. A meeting was held in Newcastle between the freemen
of Berwick, Newcastle and Durham at which some progress was made.

In 1948 Newcastle City Council proposed to take over the Newcastle

freemen's rights in the Town Moor. This was opposed by the Newcastle
freemen who asked for and received the support of the Berwick Guild.
This proposal was eventually dropped. There was a proposal for a meeting
of freemen in London to discuss an association. In 1949 the question of
an Association of Freemen in England was raised once again by Newcastle
upon Tyne Freemen. It was agreed to ask Mr.D.B.Foster, the Secretary of
the Newcastle Guild, to address Guilds on this matter in the New Year.

A number of Guilds attended a celebration service for the Festival of

Britain by the Merchant Adventurers Guild on 2nd June 1951 at which the
possibility of an association was discussed with other kindred bodies. It
was stated that there had been very positive discussions with
representatives of various freemen bodies. The Berwick Guild agreed their
wholehearted support for the proposal and agreed to contribute £10 10s
(£10.50p) for this purpose. Further meeting were held in Richmond and
between Tom Evans and Lorne Robson in South Shields in 1952.

Discussions on the formation of an Association of Freemen continued

slowly. Coventry had now joined the interested Guilds. York Freemen
were formally constituted and requested a copy of the regulations
governing the Berwick Guild. This was forwarded. The Berwick Chairman
had visited York and Newcastle a number of times and had addressed the
Freemen.

On 11th August 1960, the Governor of the Merchant Company of York,

Mr.Wilfred Piercy, and the Chairman of the Steward's Committee of the
Freemen of Newcastle upon Tyne, Lorne Campbell Robson, with their
wives, visited Berwick. There was a bus trip round the bounds and a visit
to the Estate followed by a salmon supper in the Guild Hall. The
Committee, Trustees and officials also attended with their wives. Several
speeches were made to further the objective of an Association of
Freemen.
Representatives from London, York, Coventry, Newcastle-upon-Tyne,
Richmond, Shrewsbury, Lichfield and Grimsby were invited to Berwick to
discuss the possible formation of an Association of Freemen on 29th May
1965. The Berwick Guild held a dinner to mark the 40th anniversary of
the 1926 Act in the Guild Hall. Guilds from various cities and towns in
England were represented.

Different Guilds of Freemen from the north east of England had met
together to discuss matters of common interest from the 1920s. By the
1960s the possibility of a reorganisation of local government was being
discussed in Parliament. This caused concern among the Freemen Guilds
to ensure that the rights of Freemen were preserved during any change.
After a number of meetings in 1965 and 1966, which were chaired by
Thomas Evans, the Chairman of the Berwick Guild, it was decided to form
an Association of Freemen to protect these rights in any change of local
government and in the future. It was decided to call a meeting of all
Freemen of England. The inaugural meeting was fixed for October 1966,
in York as a central location. Mr.Evans, who was to have chaired the
meeting, died in September 1966. The first meeting of the new
organization was chaired by Arthur Cairns who had had been elected
Chairman of the Berwick Guild following the death of Mr.Evans. The
arrangements for this meeting had been carried out by Harry Ward of
York.

A new Association known as the Freemen of England was set up with

Harry Ward as President and Mr.Marr of Alnwick as Chairman. There were
to be a Court Meeting in March of all the Guilds which would be the
executive committee and a conference including the AGM in September.
Additional meetings were to be held as necessary.

A White Paper had been issued which proposed major alterations to local
government, which was to be reorganized into a smaller number of larger
authorities. . Many existing Boroughs would disappear. There was
considerable concern over the original wording of this Act as it would have
effectively abolished the Freedom. The Freemen of England took up this
problem and the Association retained Parliamentary Agents and Queen's
Council to monitor the Act of Parliament which was to reorganize local
government. The original draft would have abolished all local Acts. As the
Act passed through its committee stages several alterations were
introduced to protect Freemen's rights. This included an additional clause
which stated that any property and other rights pertaining to Freemen
would be preserved irrespective of any other articles in the Act. Some
local Acts would remain in force although several other local Acts would
lapse after 10 years. It also allowed the new Councils to apply for a
charter and appoint ‘local officers of dignity’

A further meeting of the new National Association of Freemen was held in

Chester on 23rd September 1968. There was a need for finance so a
membership subscription was fixed. The Berwick Committee sent £20 to
Harry Ward who had convened the meeting to assist with finance. The
second AGM was held in Newcastle on 5th October 1968. A draft
constitution had been drawn up by Mr Robin Walker of Newcastle ten
years previously. This was amended and circulated with a view for
approval at the AGM. The draft could have allowed individual freemen to
out vote Guilds and allowed interested non freemen to vote. These two
items were amended. It was agreed that the name of the Association
would be 'The Freemen of England'.

The Local Government Act of 1972 repealed the provisions of the 1933
Act, replacing them

with provisions intended to secure the same results in different words

(section 248). It also contained provisions for the expiration of local Acts
of Parliament (Section 262), but provisions relating to Freemen's status
and rights were expressly excepted (Subsection 12 iii). The Act did not
expressly annul borough charters, but did state that the borough
corporations should cease to exist. The object of this was to annul
borough charters so far as local government was concerned, but not to
destroy them completely as this would have caught other matters in
many charters. The provision in Section 248, that Freemen should have
and enjoy the same rights as before, gave a new statutory confirmation of
any chartered rights, thus saving them from extinction. Section 246 refers
to the privileges and rights of citizens or burgesses of an existing city or
borough. The use of the word burgess is confusing as it was the term
often used for Freemen. However, in this case it is synonymous with
citizen not Freemen.

Many of the local Authorities created after 1835 contained ancient

Boroughs. However, many had now been combined with large
surrounding areas and in some cases there were more councilors from the
newly attached areas than in the original Borough. The 1972 local
Government Act preserved the rights and status of Freemen, but the
future of the earlier Acts such as the Berwick-upon-Tweed Acts of 1843
and 1926 were not specifically protected. Section 262 of the 1972 Act
provided that all local statutory Provisions would cease to have effect in
non-metropolitan areas at the end of 1984 unless individual provisions
were exempted by order, or the Secretary of State postponed the date on
which they ceased to have effect. The Department of the Environment
asked local authorities to take action to renew statutory provisions by
promoting a private bill. After a lengthy dispute with the Borough Council
continuing until 1985 the Charity Commission were consulted and
expressed that in their opinion the 1926 Act was not a local Statuary
Provision within Section 262 (9) of the Local Government Act 1972, since
it was set up by a Committee consisting of representatives of the
Freemen and Local authority, which is not a local authority within
subsection 13 of that scheme. This would mean that the Freemen Acts
would remain in force after 1984. They stated that it was up to the
Borough Council to satisfy the Charity Commission that these Acts would
not remain in force.

At this time a private Bill was promoted by the local authority at York to
remove the property rights of the freemen in the strays in York. The
Pasture Masters in York had little financial resources to oppose this Bill.
However the Freemen of England provided financial assistance and the
Berwick Guild donated £1,000 to the York Pasture Masters and £1,000 to
the Freemen of England legal fund in order to support this action.

In 1989 the York Bill which included the reference to the York Strays was
rejected by Parliament. The cost to York Council had been £100,000 and
to the Freemen £30,000. Because the whole bill was rejected York City
Council had to start from scratch to formulate a new bill excluding the
references to the York Strays.

Harry Ward proved to have been a good choice as President of the

freemen of England and promoted the Freedom during the period he held
this office. He produced a book giving details of all the Guilds with which
the Association was in touch. During this period many new Guilds joined
the Association. It was agreed the Association would be financed by a levy
on Guilds which would reflect the number of Freemen they represented.
The Association also produced a quarterly newsletter. Guilds paid a
modest subscription bases on their number of Freemen. The cost of
producing the newsletter and posting it to all members was high. It was
agreed that the Guilds would receive two copies free of charge. Individual
Freemen wishing their own copy would pay a sum to cover the cost of the
producing and posting copies of the newsletter. These people were listed
as individual members of the Association. This gave rise to a discussion
on voting rights. The Association had been founded to represent Freemen
Guilds and to defend their rights both nationally and locally. Up to this
point there had not been a requirement for a vote at the AGM. It was
suggested that voting should be by those attending the AGM. This was
obviously unsatisfactory as it would not necessarily a valid decision of the
Guilds who made up the Association. It was agreed that Guilds could cast
a vote of the number declared to pay their levy and any individual
member could cast their own vote. If this was not the same as their home
Guild then their vote would be valid and the number recorded by their
own Guild would be reduced by one for each individual voting.

Harry Ward had visited each Guild in the Association each year and was
therefore fully knowledgeable about the local affairs. When he demitted
office it was realised that it would be extremely difficult to find a person
able to devote so much time and effort to the Association. Originally the
Court had been the Executive of the Association. The Court consisted of
one person from each member Guild. The Court elected individuals to
carry out the day to day running of the Association which previously had
been carried out by Harry Ward. It was also realised that it would be
difficult for one individual to keep in close touch with all the Guilds in the
Association which now numbered nearly 40 Guilds. Wardens were
appointed with responsibilities in specific areas of the Country. Their
duties were to keep the President fully informed about the Guilds in their
area. They were also instructed to contact other towns and cities to
encourage those with Guilds to join the Association and those whose
Guilds had lapsed to reconstitute a Guild.

The original Association had been formed from those Guilds named in the
1835 Act plus those who later had been added to this list. In the wish to
increase membership some Court Leets had joined the Association. Their
constitution was fundamentally different from the Royal Chartered Guilds.
The Constitution was altered to prevent any such organisation to join in
the future. However, it was considered that those already accepted into
the Association should continue with the same rights as other Guilds and
individuals. Several Welsh Guilds had joined the Association and the name
was changed to the Association of Freemen of England and Wales in
recognition of this.

In March 1993 in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice a

judgment was made with regard to Huntingdon Freemen. This removed
the freemen's rights in common lands and opened the income for the
common good of the inhabitants of Huntingdon. It was noted that
Huntingdon differed from Berwick in a number of ways. Huntingdon
freemen had the right of pasture over common lands and this had only
been turned into a monetary right in the twentieth century.

After Robin Walker retired Charles Sparrow, QC, had been employed by
some Guilds to give opinions on Guild matters. He thus gained a
considerable knowledge about the Freedom and was appointed Honorary
QC to the Association. At a FEW AGM he presented a paper entitled
'Women and the Freedom today'. This was part of a series of papers
collectively known as 'Aspects of Freedom'. Mr. Sparrow ended his paper
noting that the Franchise could be extended to ladies by means of a single
page Bill in Parliament. It was agreed that this suggestion should be
considered at a future AGM. Before it could be discussed Beverley Pasture
Masters promoted a Private Members Bill as they were concerned with
declining number of Freemen in Beverley. This Bill was drafted by Charles
Sparrow. The proposed Bill would apply generally and not just to
Beverley. Berwick Guild Committee obtained a Council's Opinion through
Dickenson Dees, their solicitors in Newcastle. This stated that unless the
wording of the Bill was altered it would apply to Berwick and nationwide.
The matter was discussed at the FEW AGM in 1997 when a large majority
of freemen were concerned that the Bill was dictating to Guilds and that
FEW could be seen to support this position. A motion was passed to
oppose the Bill. However this was replaced with a motion that further
consideration should be given to the position. Mr. Sparrow with some
reluctance agreed this was the best way forward.
The Beverley Pasture Masters had sponsored a Bill in Parliament drafted
by Charles Sparrow QC, who was legal advisor to FEW. There were
problems with the low number of freemen in Beverley and they wished to
remove from their charter restrictions such as having to be born in
Beverley and live in Beverley. They also included a clause which would
allow daughters to take up the Freedom as well as sons. In spite of the
decision of the FEW AGM Charles Sparrow had drafted the Bill to cover all
freemen anywhere. FEW had been formed to protect the interest of
freemen and their Guilds. The officials of FEW at first gave support to the
Bill. Berwick withdrew membership of FEW on the grounds that FEW was
exceeding its remit in trying to dictate to Guilds rather than following the
wishes of the Guilds. The Bill was short and did not take account of the
various rules in different Guilds. Sixteen Guilds were named by Berwick
where there would probably be a requirement for details to be resolved
through the Courts. These were detailed in a letter from the Berwick Guild
Chairman to the appropriate Minister in Westminster. Eventually this
matter was overtaken by the passage through Parliament of the Local
Democracy Act of 2009. This Act reformed local government into very
large regional authorities. Some degree of local interest was maintained
by parish councils. During the run up to this reform FEW and individual
guilds ensured that the rights of Freemen were not affected by the
changes.

Discussions had taken place within the Freemen of England and Wales
regarding eligibility to take up the Freedom. In several places there were
serious restrictions with this eligibility. These included that a new freeman
had to be born within the ancient bounds of the town and they could only
be eligible if their father was already a freeman at their time of birth.
Berwick has established their right to alter the rules of admission, as long
as they were not contrary to the Law of the land, from the seventeenth
century and had done so on many occasions since that date. Thus these
problems did not affect Berwick. It was also suggested that daughters
should have the same rights as sons.

There was considerable discussion within FEW and the individual guilds. It
was agreed that due to the diverse nature of the various guilds across the
board legislation would result in problems within several guilds which
would probably require a decision through the courts. The government
concurred with this assessment and agreed to attach suitable clauses onto
the Local Government Bill which was proposed to allow Guilds to alter
their rules. As this Bill progressed through Parliament and at the
Committee stage several alterations were made after consultation with
the Freemen of England and Wales. These effectively protected the
interests of Freemen whilst allowing alterations to the Rules of admission
by consent. The only Guild not agreeing to this course was Newcastle
upon Tyne. They wished the rules to be compulsory and withdrew from
FEW. It was not explained to FEW why Newcastle wished to impose their
wishes upon other Guilds.
The Bill completed the various Committee stages and had a final reading
before the House of Lords in November 2009. At the last-minute Mr.
Cousins, one of the MPs for Newcastle, introduced a new clause effectively
reverting to a compulsory system. The original arguments for a voluntary
system drafted for FEW by the Archivist were continued by Lord Graham
of Edmonton and eventually both clauses were incorporated. The Local
Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act, 2009, was
passed in November 2009. As well as allowing Guilds to amend their rules
of admission due to the amendment by Mr Cousins daughters were also
entitled to have the same rights and sons with regard to the inheritance
of the freedom. Most Guilds complied with this requirement.

It is at this point worth considering how the Association has complied with
its original reasons for its foundation. There were 40 years of meetings
and discussions before the inaugural meeting. This meeting took place
against the immediate threat of the abolition of the Freedom in the white
paper before the 1972 Act. Although the time was short the Association
was able to draw together the various strands and make the alterations to
the White Paper which retained all the rights of the Freedom. Even before
the foundation of the Association there had been the threat to Newcastle
Town Moor where various Guilds were able to support Newcastle
Freemen. Since 1972 the Association has provided invaluable support to
individual Guilds like York and Berwick and has built up in its Archives the
various information, including solicitors and QC opinions, which are
available to Guilds in the future. Again, in the run up to the 2009 Act the
Association worked to get the required alterations to protect the Freedom.
In addition, the Association has provided guidance to Guilds on various
matters such as Registration of land, Unitisation of Councils and other
matters. The Association has been able to provide this support because
the Executive has always included Freemen with a deep understanding of
the Freedom. For this reason the Constitution requires members of the
Executive to have gained such knowledge within their own Guild.

It is possible that the Freedom would have ceased to exist without the
actions of the then Freemen of England between 1966 and 1972.
Certainly, the defense of the Freedom which has taken place over the
past 55 years has preserved the freedom in towns and cities in England
and Wales. There will continue to be such threats over the years to come.
It is essential that we have an Association to back up Guilds which is
knowledgeable about the Freedom and to protect our Guilds from
unfriendly Acts of Parliament and against hostile local authorities. The
main danger is lack of knowledge and for this reason we have to make
our Archive easily available to all freemen.

……………………………………………………

This paper was written by Capt. James Evans, Freeman of Berwick upon
Tweed and Past President of FEW.
The original composition also included a comprehensive explanation of the
way in which The Berwick Freemen’s Guild, with competent legal advice
and sufficient funds, were able to overcome the rapacious efforts of their
Borough Council to absorb the income of the Freemen’s Estate into their
own funds.

Should your Guild require similar assistance this information is held on file
and can be made readily available to you.

I must record my thanks to Capt. Evans for allowing my abridgement of

his original work to make it suitable for publication in the FEW Journal and
on its website.

A G Fallows

Archivist ~ FEW

July 2022
Source www//freemen