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