صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

Necessity of legislalive intervention.

Defence of this policy.

employers for dismissing a servant before his time had expired. At the termination of employment, the master was required to give the employed a certificate of approval, and no laborer could apply for work in another parish excepting upon presentation of such writing from his former employer. It is not necessary here to enter upon a description of the minute details of this statute, or show its application to the various classes of workmen, such as clerks in stores and mechanics. It is sufficient to present only its general features relating to the means by which the mass of ignorant, crude laborers of England were transformed into skilled and efficient artisans. The conditions were such that a resort to extreme measures was necessary. The number of beggars, paupers and idlers was so great that governmental interference in directing their energies, moulding and developing their faculties and fostering a diversity of industries in which they might find employment, was justified upon the ground of public policy as well as upon sound economic principles. If they had continued on free trade lines and been permitted to take their own course unaided and undirected, England would have remained the most barbarous, weak and defenceless country in Europe. If they had continued to exchange agricultural products for the wares made by the labor of the Continent, the people would have been powerless to improve their condition and serfdom, poverty and degradation would have been perpetual. Such free trade policy would have been a continual check on ambition, a hindrance to progress, and the free trade maxim that the "fear of want is the spur to exertion" would then have had full play. The energies and faculties which make a people independent and opulent would never have been aroused. But the English people at this time were attempting to develop their best faculties and to secure good workmanship, and excellence in quality and design of wares. Her artisans must be educated and disciplined. The system of apprenticeship, enforced by law, was undoubtedly beneficial in securing that body of skilled mechanics and artisans which in later years made England so famous for the variety and beauty of her merchandise. Besides, this policy was in practice during a period when manufacturing was carried on largely by hand in small establishments, and before the introduction of machinery and the vast factory system which now prevails. This enactment at the time was intended to apply to all industries and every part of the realm. As years rolled on, as conditions changed, new industries were introduced and corporations formed, which were held to be not within its operations. During the eighteenth and the early part of the nineteenth century, before the final repeal of the statute of laborers, there were in existence in England, being carried on side by side, two systems of production: the one regulated by the Act of 1563, the other consisting partly of the system of apprenticeship, and partly of arrangements made between employer and employed, under free contract. We shall later see the application of the

doctrine of free contract to the conditions existing in England in the early part of the nineteenth century, when the agitation of free trade was begun. No sooner had the statutes, which secured to the laborer certain protection against their employers, been repealed, and the artisans of England thrown back upon their own resources and left to shift wholly for themselves, than labor organizations came into existence, and commenced an agitation for a regulation of hours of labor, a restriction on the employment of women and children, and enforced sanitary regulations of factories through inspectors appointed by the government. We shall be able to trace some of the elements of a system of labor protection from the craft guilds through the legislation of Elizabeth, finally culminating in the labor laws now on the statute book in England, placed there, however, under the protests of the advocates of the doctrine of free trade.

Inspection of goods

such a

system.

The lack of business experience and the low standard of morals and integrity which prevailed at this time, encouraged all manner of frauds, Need of cheating in weight, quality and size of goods put up for sale. It is not surprising that dishonesty should prevail among business men, when kings had set the example by engaging in the most dastardly practice of debasing the coins of the realm and repudiating national debts. To raise the standard of business integrity, to give to English goods a name and to prevent fraud and secure good workmanship, fineness and excellence of quality, the whole manufacturing system was placed under the supervision. of government inspectors. England at this time, it should be noted, was attempting to establish an industrial system in competition with the Dutch and Flemish, whose goods not only monopolized all foreign markets, but had acquired a reputation which procured for them a ready sale everywhere. The very name of Flemish goods gave their producers an advantage over all others. It was to meet this opposition and to establish a similar reputation, that the English Government adopted most stringent means to secure honest weights and measures and good faith in everything offered for sale. The abuse of this system by subsequent monarchs, in farming it out under licenses granted to persons and corporations who derived large profits therefrom, affords no valid objection to the policy itself, which undoubtedly contributed largely to a proper direction and control of the English producers in securing that foreign trade from which they derived in later years such immense profits.

Prior to the reign of Elizabeth, the poor of the realm were supported Poor Laws. wholly by private charities. From the earliest times, after the conversion of England to the Christian religion, the poor had been regarded as the wards of the Church. The monasteries were for centuries the places from which they were cared for and fed. The destruction of these religious institutions by Henry VIII., and the confiscation of their property for a time, left the unfortunate of the realm in the most helpless condition. It was not, however, until the reign of Queen Elizabeth that the government

took upon itself the duty of regulating and enforcing a relief of the destitute of the country. By an act of parliament,' the care of the poor was imposed as a burden upon the land of the several parishes of the realm. The bishops of the Church were given jurisdiction to enforce its regulations. Laws were immediately enacted imposing a more complete enforcement of its provisions, by the levying of assessments and by the sale of goods to enforce the collection of rates from those who refused to pay. Many provisions of these statutes and amendments intended to provide for the employment of the idle, to punish those who were able but refused to work, and to suppress vagrancy, proved ineffectual.

2

At the time of Henry VII. and Henry VIII., says Mr. Cunningham, "The able-bodied tramp who had no employment was the chief difficulty. In the seventeenth century we hear less of this evil excepting so far as it was directly due to war. By an act of settlement the pauper class was distributed proportionately among the several parishes of the realm. This practically prohibited or prevented those seeking employment, or who might become paupers, from shifting from one part of the kingdom to another. A new arrival in the parish would at any time within forty days be returned by the poor authorities to the parish from which he came. The purpose of the Poor Law enacted at this time was to afford relief for the lame, sick and those unable to work, and to encourage habits of industry in the able-bodied. A more extended view of the Poor Laws will be found in Chapter VI. of Part IV.

Promotion of native industries.

The following quotation from the "Growth of English Industries," is so concise and authentic, that but little is left to be said on this branch of the subject:

It is unnecessary to describe in any detail the industrial policy which Elizabeth pursued; in its main outlines it was protectionist and utilized the various expedients which had been already tried and had been deemed successful.

a. The importation of finished goods from abroad was prohibited early in her reign; the list of articles to be excluded is not as lengthy as that in the statutes of Edward IV. or Richard III., and consists for the most part of cutlery and small hardware goods; but the principle of action is precisely similar to that of preceding monarchs, and the preamble urges the old pleas, in the encouragement given to the artisans abroad and the consequent enrichment of other realms while our own workmen were unemployed.

b. The exportation of unmanufactured products, which might be worked up at home, was also restricted. The English wool was, of course, the mainstay of the manufacturers of the realm, and it was desirable to retain the English breed of sheep; in consequence a very severe measure was passed in 1566, and those who exported sheep or lambs alive were liable to lose a hand for the first offence, while a second was adjudged a felony. At the same time, it was enacted that no Kentish or Suffolk cloth was to be exported unless it was wrought and dressed, and that for every nine unwrought cloths sent from other parts of England, one dressed cloth should be sent abroad.

143d, Eliz. 2 Growth of Eng. Ind., Vol. II., pp. 200-201.

c. Another mode of encouraging native industry was by trying to promote the consumption of English manufactures. During the whole of the Tudor period there was frequent interference in regard to the cappers. Henry VIII. had tried to regulate the trade; while Elizabeth insisted that her subjects should wear English made caps. The trade had apparently been very extensive; London alone had maintained 8000 workers, and it had also been practiced in Exeter, Bristol, Monmouth, Hereford, Bridgenorth, Bewdley, Gloucester, Worcester, Chester, Nantwich, Alcester, Stafford, Lichfield, Coventry, York, Richmond, Beverly, Derby, Leicester, Northampton, Shrewsbury, Wellington, Southampton, Canterbury and elsewhere; the division of employment had been carried very far in this science of capping for carders, spinners, knitters, parters of wool, forcers, thickers, drepers, walkers, dyers, battlers, shearers, prepers, edgers, liners and bandmakers all are mentioned; but it was alleged that people had left off wearing caps, that many who had been busily occupied were thrown into beggary, and that there were fewer personable men to serve the Queen in time of war. On every Sunday and holy day, every person of six years and upwards, with some few exceptions, was to wear on his head one cap of wool fully wrought in England, and if he neglected to do so was to pay a fine of three and four pence for each offence.1

to agricul ture-Its

good effects.

In the fifth year of the reign of Elizabeth, a statute was passed, con- Protection tinuing in force the acts of Henry VII. and Henry VIII., which had been enacted to prevent the system of enclosure from being carried to any further extent; but in 1592 this policy was abandoned and the landowners were again permitted to take their own course. The result was that large tracts were fenced in and the displacement of the agricultural population was renewed. The injurious effect upon agriculture was so quickly felt, that in 1597 the old laws were revived, and it was provided that the land which had been turned into pasture since the repeal of the old law, should be restored to tillage.

2

The laws in regard to the export of wheat were somewhat changed. Under Elizabeth, export of wheat was permitted when it was worth ten shillings a quarter, and prohibited when the price reached twenty shillings a quarter. This act was passed in 1592. Prior to that time, since the reign of Philip and Mary, the export of wheat was allowed when the price was six shillings and eight pence a quarter. The improved condition of agriculture is shown by a writing by Dymock in 1650, who says, that "In Queen Elizabeth's day good husbandry began to take place." It should be noted that the statute passed under the reign provided that a cow should be kept, and a calf raised for every sixty sheep. In the forty-third year of Elizabeth, laws were passed to effect a drainage of fens and low lands, and to reclaim for agriculture a large amount of marshy land which had been untillable.

3

stress.

An incidental proof of the prosperity of agriculture is to be found in the gradual increase of rents, on which Professor Thorold Rogers lays considerable This rise was not like the enhancement of the sixteenth century, which seems to have been due to the increased value of unimproved land for grazing 1 Growth of Eng. Ind, Vol. II., pp. 33-4. 2 35th, Eliz., c. 7., sec. 8. 3 2d and 3d, Philip and

Mary, c. 3.

Encouragement of English shipping.

purposes; but it followed in consequence of actual improvements, especially, as Best notes, of enclosing pastures.1

The lands in the pastures weere (att my father's first comminge) letten to our owne tenants and others for 2s. a lande; afterwards for 2s. 6d. a lande, and lastly for 3s. a lande; but nowe being enclosed they will let for thrice as much.2

The legislation relating to the fisheries performed the double purpose of giving encouragement to industry and causing an increase of shipping, intending thereby to provide for the defence of the realm. The fisheries. were made a nursery for British seamen. Edward VI. had withdrawn the aid formerly given to shipping, but these laws were revived and enforced with great vigor by Elizabeth. In 1563 it was forbidden to bring wine from Gascony in foreign ships. Fish caught by Englishmen with English vessels were exempt from custom duties and all tolls and tax of landing the fish. The act which made it obligatory upon all subjects to eat fish on Friday and Saturday, was amended in 1563 by adding Wednesday as another fish day. Although the act on its face was ostensibly passed for the purpose of encouraging piety and religious observance, it was really a piece of commercial legislation.

5

6

By an act of Elizabeth's reign, fishermen were exempt from service as soldiers. Section 10 of the same act prohibited foreigners from bringing cod and herring into the country, and admitted free of duty those caught by Englishmen.

Immigration of

couraged

Their introduction of new

manufacLures.

During the latter part of the sixteenth century, England became an artisans en- asylum for those Flemish and Dutch artisans who fled from the religious persecutions and warfare of the Continent. This was a most important. episode in the industrial history of England. Partly from religious sympathy, partly from the importance which the English people were then attaching to the development of their industries, these refugees were made welcome. It was fully realized that, at this time, they were greatly needed, not only to establish their industries in the kingdom, but also to instruct Englishmen in the mysteries of the various arts of manufacturing, which had been carried on in the Netherlands. The immigrants were allotted to different towns by the government, under the direction of the privy council, these towns having, in most cases, petitioned the privy council, that they might settle in them.

In 1561 Sandwich received twenty-five clothmakers and their families. The manufacture of cloth known as new drapery was begun in Norwich in 1665, by thirty of these refugees. Other settlements were made at Stanford, Halstead, Lynn and Dover, and also at Colchester and London. The weaving of linen was begun, and the making of needles, parchment, sack cloth and many other articles was introduced into England by these

1 Growth of Eng. Ind. and Com., p. 186. 2 Rural Economy in Yorkshire in 1641, p. 129. 35th and 6th, Edw. VI., c. 18. 45th Eliz., c. 5., sec. 11. 62d and 3d, Edw. VI., c. 19. 65th, Eliz,

C. 5., sec. II.

« السابقةمتابعة »