A NEW ORDER FOR ADMISSION TO THE FREEDOM

We provide notice of the first Common Hall to be convened for some years. This will be the opportunity for all Freemen to express their views on the proposals and will be held in the Council Chamber in the Town Hall – Thursday 22nd May at 6pm.

The existing Order (reproduced on the following page) has been in place for well over 400 years, and in many ways it shows its age. For this reason it was decided that it should be repealed in its entirety and replaced by an entirely new Order. The text of the new Order appears below, together with some explanatory notes; these will not be incorporated in the final text, but are added to explain the intention behind the changes, and their proposed effect.

It is worth mentioning that in Oxford we are fortunate that admission is regulated by such an Order that is capable of amendment. Journal readers will have seen much of the proposed Beverley Bill, by which the Freemen of that town endeavoured to amend the rules for admission to make them accord with the needs of the 21st century. Their only hope lay in such an Act of Parliament, but we do not need to go to such lengths and depend upon the assistance of MPs. We are, subject to ratification by the Privy Council, able to draft our own rules.

These proposals are without doubt the most important to come before Freemen in Common Hall within living memory – perhaps the most significant since the Municipal Corporations Act was passed in 1835. We would urge all Freemen to attend and make their views known.

An Order for the Admission of Freemen of the City of Oxford

1.Repeal of Existing Order

The existing Order for the Admission of Freemen dated 12th October 1551 and all subsequent Orders or amendments made or expressed to be made pursuant thereto are hereby repealed. However this repeal shall not prejudice or affect any right or interest acquired or any liability incurred or anything done or purported to be done pursuant to the said Order.

Explanatory Note: Clearly the existing Order has to be repealed. However there is no wish to disenfranchise Freemen validly admitted to date. It is also desirable to ‘regularise’ the admission of sons in law whose admission purports to be pursuant to the original Order but whose validity has been called in question.

2. Qualifications for Admission

The following persons shall be entitled to admission to the Freedom of the City of Oxford subject to compliance with the provisions of this Order and any valid amendment thereto namely: -

(a) The son or daughter or son in law or daughter in law of any Freeman, whether living or dead, whose name is enrolled on the roll of Freemen of the City.

Explanatory Note: The 1551 Order refers only to sons. Reference is made above to subsequent admission of sons in law. Such admission can be ‘regularised’ by this new Order, but one of the primary purposes of the new Order is to provide for the admission of daughters and daughters in law. This wording makes clear that if a Freeman has died before the admission of a candidate, such death does not invalidate the candidate’s admission. Hereto that has not been possible because the original Order requires a son to be presented by the Freeman, which is clearly impossible if the Freeman is deceased.

(b) An apprentice of a Freeman whether living or dead whose name appears on the roll of the Freemen of the City provided that during the lifetime of such Freeman such apprentice shall have served him for a continuous period of 2 years.

Explanatory Note: The period of 2 years was agreed by the Freemen some years ago to bring it into line with contemporary practice. This wording provides for the possibility of the death of the Master before the apprentice can be admitted. Clause 6 below provides for the death of the Master during the apprenticeship.

(c) A candidate for admission to the Freedom nominated by the Lord Mayor of the City during his or her year of office whose nomination has been approved by the Committee of the Freemen of the City of Oxford (and if so admitted such candidate shall be referred to as the Lord Mayor’s Childe)

Explanatory Note: The admission of the Lord Mayor’s Childe was revived some years ago having lapsed for a very long time. Upon that occasion it was agreed that the nominee should be submitted for approval to the Committee of the Freemen.

3. Pre-conditions for Admission by Patrimony

Any son or daughter or son in law or daughter in law of a Freeman desiring to be admitted shall produce to the head of the department of the City Council responsible for legal services the following evidence of his or her entitlement to be admitted namely (in the case of a son or daughter) his or her birth certificate or adoption certificate showing the name of an enrolled Freeman as father or mother or adoptive father or adoptive mother and (in the case of a son in law or daughter in law) his or her marriage certificate showing that they have an enrolled Freeman as his or her mother in law or father in law.

Explanatory Note. The Head of Legal Services for the time being is suggested as the contact with the City Council but it must be for the Council to decide which person is the most appropriate contact.

4.Pre-conditions for Admission by Apprenticeship

It shall be the duty of any Freeman taking an apprentice, if so requested by that apprentice, to advise the head of legal services of the City Council within the first 6 months of the term of the apprenticeship and to produce a copy of the deed of apprenticeship. When that has been done then it shall be the duty of the Freeman within 3 months of termination of the apprenticeship to advise the head of legal services that the apprentice has completed his term of training satisfactorily whereupon the apprentice shall be entitled, should he so request of the City Council, to be admitted to the Freedom.

Explanatory Note: Not every apprentice seeks the Freedom and it seems appropriate that the Master should not be required to register the apprenticeship unless so requested.

5. Pre-conditions for Admission as Lord Mayor’s Childe

Any Lord Mayor wishing to nominate a candidate for admission as the Lord Mayor’s Childe shall not later than 3 months before the end of his or her term of office submit to the Secretary for the time being of the Freemen of the City of Oxford the name of his candidate for admission and such other particulars as might reasonably be required and within one month the secretary shall advise the Lord Mayor whether or not such candidate is acceptable to the Freemen of the City and if no objection be raised then the Lord Mayor shall be entitled to admit such candidate to the Freedom before the end of his or her term of office.

Explanatory Note.The suggested timescale is to afford the opportunity for the Committee of the Freemen to consider the candidate so that he or she may be admitted before the Lord Mayor’s term of office ends.

6. Death of a Master during the period of Apprenticeship

If a Master should die before his apprentice has completed a 2 year term of apprenticeship then if the apprentice is able to find another Freeman willing to accept him as an apprentice the period of training served under that second Freeman shall when aggregated with that served under the deceased Master entitle the apprentice to apply for Admission to the Freedom provided always that the term or terms served as apprentice of different Freemen shall total no less than 2 years duration.

Explanatory Note: It is appropriate to make provision for the change of Master in the event of death during an apprenticeship.

7. Admission of Aliens
Nothing in this Order shall prevent the admission of an alien to the Freedom of the City of Oxford.

Explanatory Note: The 1551 Order was clear in denying any alien (even if granted rights of citizenship) the right to admission. Such a provision falls foul of European Community legislation meaning that an application for admission by a Norwegian could be refused but an application by a Hungarian would have to be accepted. It seems appropriate to take the opportunity of making clear that all are eligible regardless of nationality.

Common Hall Agenda

MINUTES

Attendance:

Freemen as listed on separate attendance list

In attendance:

The Lord Mayor of Oxford Councillor Susanne Pressel

Helen Lynch, Legal Department, Oxford City Council

The Reverend Hugh Leigh, The City Rector

1. Requisition Calling Common Hall

The Lord Mayor Councillor Susan Pressel was in the chair and welcomed all Freemen as well as Helen Lynch and the Reverend Hugh Leigh. She then read the requisition convening Common Hall.

2. Secretary’s Report

The Secretary gave an outline of the social events since last Common Hall in 2004, the visit of the Freeman of the City of Leicester in 2006, the annual Christmas dinners, the Aunt Sally skittle match with the Sheriff’s team every summer, the inspection on an annual basis of Port Meadow and the St George’s Day service and lunch. The Secretary expressed the thanks of the committee to Anthony Roberts, the Countryside Officer, who is now our agent for the Rural Payments Agency, as well as all the work he has done for the City and the Freemen. The Secretary also reported on the tripartite meetings with the City Council and with the Wolvercote Commoners as regards Port Meadow and Wolvercote Common. The Secretary also reported on the continuing and successful grazing of Port Meadow and also reported on the recent innovation of the Apprentice Awards, now in their second year, with the next apprentice awards being held on 30 October 2007.

3. Treasurer’s Report

The Treasurer gave his report, in 2003, the Freemen’s balance sheet was some £20,000 but four years later was now £28,800 - funds have increased and these include monies received from the Rural Payments Agency which we hold on behalf of the City Council. The major sources of income are the investments which primarily comprise gilts as well as income from the graziers who graze cattle on Port Meadow and the Angling Association and various donations. Most of the expenditure goes on the Oxford Journal and insuring the Chairman’s chain and badge of office.

4. Other Business

The Secretary reported that there was only one item, the proposed new Order for admission. The Secretary then passed over to the former Secretary Mr Butterfield. He gave a brief historical background to the proposed new Order and why it was necessary to change from the current Order which dates from 1551 - some twenty years ago, the Freemen tried to change the Order but the Privy Council at that time were not interested. After that, Common Hall introduced new procedures but there was a question over their validity - he paid a tribute to Oxford City Council and in particular Helen Lynch of their legal department for assistance and helping to draft the new Order. The Order will regularise the position of people who have been admitted whose admission may be questioned under the 1551 Order and also to update the Order for admission. He then went through the proposed new Order clause by clause and he said that he would move an amendment to paragraph 2, to suggest that the minimum age should be eighteen years or over. He also referred to the possible admission of grandchildren if a parent predeceased - he said that may be the subject of an amendment but it was not in the draft Order. He reported that the Lord Mayor’s Childe was an ancient custom, had lapsed for many years and then was revived in 1970 with Freemen approval - under the 1551 Order, Freemen’s approval was not required for appointment of the Lord Mayor’s Childe but in 1970, the Freemen approved a new procedure requiring their approval to the appointment by the Lord Mayor of a Childe. He said that article 7 was necessary because under the 1551 Order, only Freemen living or working in the City of Oxford could be appointed.

Mr Butterfield then formally proposed the new draft order and an amendment of clause 2 and this was seconded by the Secretary. Gordon Seeney proposed an amendment, so that under clause 3, step-children could be admitted – Mark Hathaway seconded that amendment. John Gorton proposed an amendment to permit someone who marries a widow or widower of a freeman to qualify for admission and this was seconded by Leslie Hathaway. Leslie Hathaway proposed an amendment allowing grandchildren and then great-grandchildren to be admitted – the Lord Mayor said that she thought this should be subject to two separate votes – John Sanders seconded both amendments.

The Lord Mayor then took the vote on each clause in the new order and the results of the voting was as follows:

Clause 1 – majority in favour.

Clause 2(a) – majority in favour.

Clause 2(b) – majority on favour.

Clause 2(c) – majority in favour.

Clause 3 – majority in favour.

Clause 4 – majority in favour.

Clause 5 – majority in favour.

Clause 6 – majority in favour.

Clause 7 – majority in favour.

Clause 2(a) – Simon Gibbs proposed an amendment that the age of 18 years should be 21 years and this was seconded by Ben Cross. A vote was taken on the first amendment – that the age should be 18 years, there were 15 votes in favour and 7 votes against – on that basis, the Lord Mayor said that she would not take a vote on the second amendment.

Clause 3 – amendment permitting step-children to be admitted – majority in favour.

Clause 3 - amendment permitting widows and widowers to be admitted – 7 in favour 8 against – amendment lost.

Clause 3 - amendment permitting grandchildren to be admitted - majority in favour.

Clause 3 - amendment permitting great-grandchildren to be admitted - 6 in favour 10 against – amendment lost.

The Lord Mayor gave thanks to Mr Butterfield and Helen Lynch for all their work in drawing up the documentation and the draft new Order.

5. Election of committee members. The Secretary proposed and Mr Seeney seconded that the entire committee was re-appointed en bloc. The Secretary pointed out that he had not received any other nominations for members of the committee. The motion was passed by a majority.

Helen Lynch pointed out that the Privy Council next have meetings in London on 25 June 2008 and 23 July 2008 and the process for approval of the order would take approximately four weeks so hopefully the Privy Council will approve the new Order either at their June or July 2008 meetings.

The meeting then closed at 7.05 pm..