Borough Freedom (Family Succession) Bill [HL]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Graham has explained the purpose of his Bill with his usual flair and cogency. I say ““usual”” because, as he said, this is the third time that the Bill has been brought to the House. He knows well by now that the Government’s position is neutral; we take no formal view for or against the Bill. But as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, my noble friend has shown admirable persistence. I would say that it is the persistence of an ex-Chief Whip who is well used to dealing with recalcitrant audiences. As the first woman Minister to have the privilege of debating the Bill, I congratulate him on his tenacity in taking the Bill forward again and on his sterling and relentless pursuit of female rights. As I was doing my own homework on the Bill I became quite absorbed in the history that the Bill represents. In this House, we are hardly intimidated by history, sometimes even making a swift diversion into medieval times. In previous debates, however, we seem to have taken a rather recent view, starting in only 1835 as far as I can see. But in medieval times, the term ““freeman”” was originally a definition of status in feudal society. It came to mean a man who possessed the full privileges and immunities of a city, borough or trade gild, to which admission was usually by birth, apprenticeship, gift or purchase. I have no need to tell your Lordships that that was essentially an arrangement made by and for men. When I read Peter Ackroyd’s wonderful biography of London, I discovered that women too could assume a formidable position in the City of London. I would be interested to hear the answer to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. The medieval widow had the scope to enter a world in which trade, matrimony and piety were thoroughly mingled. On the death of her husband, a woman could indeed become a freewoman of the city and was expected to continue her husband’s old trade and business. I hazard a guess that that might have given rise to the notion of the merry widow. I am not sure whether the Wife of Bath was a freewoman in this sense, but research takes us into some interesting realms. I skip forward to the famous year of 1835, when the governance of local authorities along modern lines was recognised. It provided for the election of mayors, aldermen and councillors on a vote of those who occupied property within the municipality. The previous arrangements, which gave freemen special rights in the selection and governance of the pre-1935 corporate boroughs, were incorporated. As my noble friend said, the 1835 Act confirmed the rights that the freeman had before the Act, apart from admission by purchase or gift. The Act and its successors also froze the basis on which a person could be admitted to be a freeman. Such rights of admission, as my noble friend said, vary from place to place because they are based on established and ancient customs. Before I conclude, it is worth reflecting that, although the history is almost exclusively male-dominated, some female freemen have existed and no doubt they have played their full part, with their male colleagues, in these important traditions. In contrast, we also have this very proud history of women coming into national and local government and making an increasingly visible and indispensable contribution, as your Lordships know, in this House. It could be that whatever the merits of the Bill presented by the noble Lord, Lord Graham—upon which I stress that the Government are as neutral as they have been on the two previous occasions—admitting women could mean, more generally, a whole new adventure and meaning for freemen, while giving the institution more relevance for local people. I look forward to hearing the future of the Bill as it goes through this House.