Freeman Document from June 18th 1818

[freemanpete]

I came across this document in a jumble sale, and couldn't resist.
It is a document from the Mayor of Great Yarmouth in that he I think permits a Man to become a Burgess. A Burgess in Old England is a Freeman, and further on in this document he is notifying the Freeman of the new Burgess in town, and saying that this Man is free to go and do his thing with no worries.
Dated June 18th 1818.
Front
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/download/file.php?id=940&t=1


Know Ye that I, the said Mayor, with the Consent of the Common Council, held for that said Borough........
One of the Freemen of the said Borough, to the Liberties of that said Borough, and him have made and allowed a free Burgess.
Back
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/download/file.php?id=941&t=1


In Testimony whereof, I the said Mayor have hereto put the common Seal.......
Seal
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/download/file.php?id=942&t=1
So help me God.


It just jumped up at me from out of nowhere and said BUY ME BUY ME, and I did. The word Freemen just caught my eye, and the rest is history.

If you want to see larger images of this document, they are available at the World Freeman Society Public Forums: http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=3214

[makeithappen]

Very interesting indeed. I have posted something about this before. In the church yard in St Nicolas church is a stone that talks about being a freeman.

I will dig out the photo (im sure I published it here)

MIH

[sindakit]

yeh in Dundee we have a locked book, lockit book, that has a record of all the freemen of the city. I'm sure they'll be similar in each city/town/borough.
You can search to see Nelson Mandela was the last freeman recorded in all UK I think, so given freeman staus nationwide.
I asked about this before but no-one seemed to rspond so i'm guessing it was a dead end or not very well known about.
I emailed my council regarding the Lockit Book of Dundee and they just gave me history of the book and how the old merchants were listed in there.
I think it has to do with trade.

I might go back and dig some more into it.

[Ian2day]

Was this one of the Freemen of the Rolls or a Freeman-on-the-Land?

[the worm that turned]

Just looking in my concise legal dictionary and Freeman is "One who possesses the freedom of a borough or city and the accompanying rights and privileges."

Apparently the rights of freeman were preserved by the Local Government Act 1972 s.248 and Honorary freedom is bestowed on persons of distinction as an honour (s.249)

Time to take a look. Not sure what the rights and privileges are???

EDIT: Just taken a quick look at the act and it states the following:

248 Freemen and inhabitants of existing boroughs

(1)Subject to the following provisions of this section, nothing in this Act shall affect any person’s status, or the right of any person to be admitted, as a freeman of a place which is an existing borough; and in this section any such place is referred to as a city or town.

(2)On and after 1st April 1974 the roll of freemen of a city or town shall be kept by the proper officer of the relevant district council, that is to say, the council of the district which comprises the whole or the greater part of the city or town.

(3)If at any time on or after 1st April 1974 any person claims to be admitted as a freeman of a city or town, his claim for admission shall be examined by the chairman of the relevant district council, as defined in subsection (2) above, and, if the person’s claim is established, his name shall be entered on the roll of freemen of that city or town.

(4)After 31st March 1974—

(a)a freeman of a city or town,

(b)any person who by marriage, descent, employment or otherwise is or has been related to or associated with a freeman of a city or town, and

(c)any person who is or has been related by marriage to the widow or a child of a freeman of a city or town,

shall have and enjoy the same rights, whether in respect of property or otherwise, as were held and enjoyed on that date by a freeman of that city or town, by a person correspondingly related to or associated with such a freeman or, as the case may be, by a person correspondingly related by marriage to the widow or a child of such a freeman.

(5)A person who is on 1st April 1974, or becomes thereafter, an inhabitant of a city or town shall, as such, have and enjoy the same rights, whether in respect of property or otherwise, as were held and enjoyed immediately before that date by an inhabitant of that city or town.

So in relation to this - I don't think they are a Freeman-on-the-land as per the definitions given on here, because they refer to a person, otherwise we have all got it very wrong!

[Ian2day]

Just looking in my concise legal dictionary and Freeman is "One who possesses the freedom of a borough or city and the accompanying rights and privileges."

Apparently the rights of freeman were preserved by the Local Government Act 1972 s.248 and Honorary freedom is bestowed on persons of distinction as an honour (s.249)

Time to take a look. Not sure what the rights and privileges are???

EDIT: Just taken a quick look at the act and it states the following:

248 Freemen and inhabitants of existing boroughs

(1)Subject to the following provisions of this section, nothing in this Act shall affect any person’s status, or the right of any person to be admitted, as a freeman of a place which is an existing borough; and in this section any such place is referred to as a city or town.

(2)On and after 1st April 1974 the roll of freemen of a city or town shall be kept by the proper officer of the relevant district council, that is to say, the council of the district which comprises the whole or the greater part of the city or town.

(3)If at any time on or after 1st April 1974 any person claims to be admitted as a freeman of a city or town, his claim for admission shall be examined by the chairman of the relevant district council, as defined in subsection (2) above, and, if the person’s claim is established, his name shall be entered on the roll of freemen of that city or town.

(4)After 31st March 1974—

(a)a freeman of a city or town,

(b)any person who by marriage, descent, employment or otherwise is or has been related to or associated with a freeman of a city or town, and

(c)any person who is or has been related by marriage to the widow or a child of a freeman of a city or town,

shall have and enjoy the same rights, whether in respect of property or otherwise, as were held and enjoyed on that date by a freeman of that city or town, by a person correspondingly related to or associated with such a freeman or, as the case may be, by a person correspondingly related by marriage to the widow or a child of such a freeman.

(5)A person who is on 1st April 1974, or becomes thereafter, an inhabitant of a city or town shall, as such, have and enjoy the same rights, whether in respect of property or otherwise, as were held and enjoyed immediately before that date by an inhabitant of that city or town.

So in relation to this - I don't think they are a Freeman-on-the-land as per the definitions given on here, because they refer to a person, otherwise we have all got it very wrong!


This is a point. After reading my post and paying attention to each red highlighted letter. Re-read your post.

It is attention to detail that has to be applied when any law matter is considered. There is a difference between Freemen and Freeman-on-the-Land. Or to shorten it down. There is a difference between Freemen and Freeman. Small but significant enough to mention it.

Anyone who is one of the Freemen of the Rolls is exempt from Council tax. To be accepted as one of the Freemen. You have to be someone with a certain type of qualification like a City and Guilds etc or a descendant of someone who has such a qualification. Also the Freemen of the rolls, are entitled to appoint at least 20% of the local authoritys councillors from their own members.

The above is from memory. The rest is in a previous post of mine in this section of the forum.

[intellection]

'freeman on the land' is an invented term.

[girlgye]

to mean 'free' of slavery. 'Man' as opposed to person, in the legal sense of the word.:cool:

[soundthief]

yeah i dont think the newly taken term 'free man' should be taken concrete in historical studies

freeman status given by this or that act with privelages immediately contradicts the whole idea that we are born with freedoms and shouldnt have to give in to a system that replaces our freedoms with privelages

you arent anything, you just are



the freemen discussed in the document u have is perhaps in reference to masons?

[freemanpete]

This document names the man here as a "Burgess"

Burgess is a word in English that originally meant a freeman of a borough (England) or burgh (Scotland).
That was from Wikipedia.

Bouviers Law gives the definition of Burgess as such:
BURGESS. A magistrate of a borough; generally, the chief officer of the
corporation, who performs, within the borough, the same kind of duties which
a mayor does in a city. In England, the word is sometimes applied to all the
inhabitants of a borough, who are called burgesses sometimes it signifies
the representatives of a borough in parliament.

Blacks Law Volume one and two defines as:
In English Law, an inhabitant or Freeman of a Borough or Town.

Freeman is defines by Bouviers and Blacks similarly.
FREEMAN. One who is in the enjoyment of the right to do whatever he pleases,
not forbidden by law. One in the possession of the civil rights enjoyed by,
the people generally. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 164. See 6 Watts, 556:

Still, no matter what it is, someone here says a Freeman on the Land is a made up thing?
Where did you read that?

[raze78]

What's the difference between a burghess and freedom of the city?

[klogger]

Apparently the rights of freeman were preserved by the Local Government Act 1972 s.248 and Honorary freedom is bestowed on persons of distinction as an honour (s.249)


The definition of a Person is one who has right or duties attributed to them. The Act assigns rights to the Freeman and therefore must be talking about a Person. Hence this is not a Freeman-on-the-land, IMHO.

[freemanpete]

This was written in 1818, so we need to see the definition of Person from then.
Not only that but also maybe an Act of Parliament where Free Burgess and or Freemen is also defined.
You cannot rely on todays definitions.

Today a Fairy is Gay,
Before a Fairy was something with wings, small and friendly (mostly)
Gay used to be Happy, and now is a Fairy?

So, there is a simple destination between definitions of everyday words depending on what timeframe you decide to be when looking at their meanings.

Was Slavery still around in 1818?

Isn't a Slave and Everyday Person today?

I don't have any answers here, bit I know one thing for sure.
We are all made of atoms. Heaps of atoms. And inside an atom is 99.99% of nothingness. Yup, empty pretty much. There are a few electrons spinning around each aroma, and a nucleus in there as well somewhere, but the most if it is empty space. Infinite. Just like you. There are no boundaries other than the ones we place in ourselves. We re inherently all the same bar a few miniscule DNA differences. We bleed, we shit, and we all know shit stinks.
So, the question everyone is asking. Is a Freeman on the Land achievable?
Ask yourself this. If they can go to the Moon (could be debated), or Climb the highest Mountain, then why can't absolute freedom and enlightenment not be achieved as well?
It can, as long as you see the difference between your empty atoms and theirs. There is none. The are born, and they will die, just like you, so what in the hell makes you think their lives are more important?
They are as important or as unimportant as you want them to be.

I suggest the purple pill with yellow spots. Keep your options open!

[the worm that turned]

Today a Fairy is Gay,
Before a Fairy was something with wings, small and friendly (mostly)
Gay used to be Happy, and now is a Fairy?



Beautiful. Couldn't have put it better myself :)