The Purpose of the Freemen of England and Wales (F.E.W.)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Purpose of the Freemen of England and Wales (F.E.W.) The Association is an overarching national body, formed in 1966, to represent the guilds and societies of freemen in towns and cities throughout England and Wales. It is a non political organisation of likeminded men and women who, by inheritance, apprenticeship, purchase, or by honour conferred, enjoy participating in their civic heritage. By affiliation of the various guilds and societies, the Association provides greater voice and purpose. Each town or city may have their own unique customary traditions and freemen are encouraged, by the Association, to participate in the events of each other towns to advance their knowledge and fraternal enjoyment. It is a democratic association in that its leadership does not seek to dictate or to direct its members, but to offer guidance and support when and where it may be required. Political matters affecting the Freedom, particularly regarding changes in legislation, are relayed via the F.E.W. Journal and are debated at Court Meetings. Constitutionally, the objects of the organisation are, to advance public education in, and promote research into, the history and legal customs of the ancient towns of England and Wales and of the legal institution of the Freedom. In this way the Association can be seen to be a charitable institution. Executive officers of the Association are elected by the members. Wardens are appointed to cover all areas of England and Wales, who provide an interface between the various guilds and the Association. There are ceremonial courts, emulating those of the past, where the freemen's affairs are debated and voted upon. At these formal events, the guild members are attired in the robed regalia of their town and regions. This is a very brief overview of the purpose of the Association and of course, more detailed information is to be found within the current 'Constitution' and within Harry Ward's book 'Freemen in England' published privately in 1975. Alan Shelley March 2011 Erosion of Freemen's Rights over their Own Lands The Freemen's hold over their lands may gradually be losing its grip! Freemen exclusively held pasture lands, in the close vicinity of their towns, since time immemorial. The Reform Acts of the 1830's attempted to abolish freemen's inherited rights over their lands, held in common. Parliament concluded (in English constitutional law) that these rights were personal property and incapable of violation. The Freemen's dominant rights are over the grazing of pasture lands. As such they are deemed, by this activity, to be 'in possession' of the land. Over the years and in most instances today, freemen's lands have become 'vested' into the management of a local authority or into the trustees of a perpetual charity. From the 1830's and right through the turbulence of the Local Government Act, 1972, the Freemen's Lands continued being managed 'privately' by the combined agreement of proprietor and freemen. In the 1960's, following the actions of a Royal Commission into 'Common Lands' (set up in 1958) the Freemen were pressed to register their lands and rights under the Commons Registration Act, 1965. This was a huge dilemma for Freemen's associations, who, with little money to afford quality lawyers, submitted to the requirements of the Registration Act. Freemen's lands, primarily private property, 'gated' against the public, but with 'permitted' footpaths, were becoming seen simply as 'commons'. The Common Lands Forum set up in 1983, sought to publicise all commons and that they should be for the enjoyment of the general public. This culminated in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000, which gives the general public free access to registered common land. In the mean times, chairmen of commons committees have been assuming 'ownership' of freemen's lands, now registered as 'commons' under the 1965 Registration Act. They no longer recognise the significant difference in 'ownership' of Freemen's Lands. The vexed question of, 'who owns' the Freemen's Lands, requires a justified decision, at law, by a Chancery Judge. Freemen (burgesses) rights stem from inherited property rights, held in gross. There are commoners elsewhere, with similar inherited burgess rights (held in gross) who, although are no longer practising freemen, have inherited their rights from former arrangements. Recently, it has been noticeable how lawyers are passing off the Freemen's connections with their lands, as merely a burden on the real ownership of registered lands. For the purposes of simplicity, HM Land Registrars and land conveyance lawyers appear to expect lands, held by trustees or by local authorities to be qualified as in freehold ownership. This confuses the true and just 'possession' of Freemen's land and requires, in my opinion, proper analysis by an especially knowledgeable judge. Alan Shelley March 2011 FOOTNOTE: Coincidently, lands registered under the Commons Registration Act, 1965, have in some cases benefitted by their special protective ability to repel undesirable compulsory developments A Freeman!? In ancient times, the native British inhabitants were found in tribal centres. Some small towns existed even before the Roman Conquest. The withdrawal of Roman government encouraged the steady invasion of the English people who would eventually mingle with, and dominate the native Celts. 'English' immigrants came from northern Europe in boats, gradually spreading across the country and settling in family groups. Place-names exist today that indicate the family name or tribal leader who settled at that time. Their way of life was crude, primitive and tribal. Immigration of the English happened during the fifth, sixth and seventh centuries. The English Borough (burh fortified town) was essentially a commercial centre, in contrast to the agricultural landscape with which it was surrounded. The Norman Conquest intensified the difference of character, when feudal system parcelled out the countryside, with the dedicated object of conscripting and supporting an army. This led to the 'Town' and 'Country' inhabitation of 'Freemen' and 'Yeomen'. A Borough was a self managed entity. It came to develop a select caste of inhabitants, the full members of which were 'freemen'. Freemen were liable for scot and lot (taxation and duties). Freemen had the monopoly right to trade. Pasturage in community use was reserved for the freemen. Common fields, typically called by names such as Springfield, Summer Meadow, North Common, Marshfield etc., surviving to this day. Inclosures came about, beginning from a theory that no man is likely to improve land that he does not own. So began the enclosure movement. Common fields were divided up, under parliamentary authority, and private ownership followed. Arable parcels were hedged around and became the modern landscape of the present day. Common fields confined to pasturage were set aside for use, specifically, of freemen present and future. Closed community is privileged, and privilege was accused of abuse of power, 'Rotten Boroughs' of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were accused of unacceptable monopoly, and of restrictive practices. The principle of hereditary rule was not acceptable (with accusations of potential bribery and jobbery). In 1835 the Reform Acts and Municipal Corporations Act brought changes to the old practices. Private ownership, with property rights were preserved for freemen ('though the rule of the towns were to be by democratically elected councillors). The freemen's lands were held in trust. It is a fundamental principle of English Law that the purpose of a perpetual trust is that it be 'charitable' and beneficial to the community. Thereby it becomes subject to the authority of the Charity Commissioners. In 1882, a dispute between a Freeman and the Corporation of Colchester determined that freemen's funds were not private and therefore subject to the above. The 1835 Act had authorised continuance of Freemen's rights. This suggests that such rights (property in law) are private. However, the Huntingdon case (Peggs v Lamb, 1993) brought about a judgement that overruled this opinion and embraced the 'charity' rule. This means that all privileges must be seen to be in accordance with the publics' interest. Alan Shelley, October 2005 The Status of the Freemen in England and Wales Freemen are justly proud of their ancestral inheritance and connection with their hometowns. From time immemorial the freemen had been responsible for the governance and regulation of the old and ancient towns. Advantages that came from the exclusive position of being a freeman was seen by less fortunate 'non-freemen' as undemocratic privilege and in some restrictive practices, as corrupt. The monopoly of control by some corporations (of Freemen) led to their reference as "Rotten Boroughs". Investigations resulted in the Great Reform Act of 1832 and subsequent Municipal Corporations Act of 1835. In an attempt to remove all and any undemocratic monopoly, the position held by the freemen was changed in as much that they no longer had sole control over government or regulation. An important advantage held by freemen was their access to designated pasture (freemen's common lands). Rights were held individually (personally) by freemen, over lands, of income from property and investments and were determined in English law to be privately owned by the freemen. In many towns it was left to the Guilds or corporate bodies of the Freemen to argue their ownership. This resulted in some cases where new councils, created under the 183 5 Act, transferred freemen's property rights into the administration of the newly formed borough councils. In many cases Freemen and their guilds were abolished altogether. The report from the Select Committee on Freemen of Cities and Boroughs, 1840 listed 3 5 boroughs where no freemen existed, 97 where freemen had no possessions or property and 46 where they enjoyed property and privileges of various descriptions.