Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 14.djvu/179

 LABOUR 167 and going to another town or county, was to be proceeded against under the previous statute, to outlawry, to be followed by imprisonment till he did as required by law, and made satisfaction to the party; nevertheless he was to be burnt in the forehead with the letter F, &quot;in token of the falsity,&quot; if the party aggrieved so required, and if the justices should so advise. Eight years later, in the same reign (1368, 42 Edward III.), the statute and ordinance con cerning labourers was confirmed, and commissions directed to justices to hear and determine matters concerning it. Indubitable records still exist, proving that before the passing of those statutes, and down to the 15th century, workmen of various descriptions were pressed by writs addressed to sheriffs to work for their king at wages, regardless of their will as to the terms and place of work. Diggers and hewers of stone, masons, and car penters, as well as ordinary labourers, were so impressed, and by services thus obtained the buildings at Windsor for the Knights of the Round Table, on the institution of the order of the Garter, were erected. In this case the sheriffs were commanded to take security from the workmen not to depart from Windsor without the per mission of William of Wykeham, the king s surveyor. Notwithstanding these precautions, many workmen, so impressed, secretly left, in order to work for other persons at higher wages, and writs were directed to the sheriffs of London, commanding them to make proclamation pro hibiting any person from employing or retaining any of the workmen on pain of forfeiting all their goods, and, as regards the workmen, commanding their arrest and im prisonment. 1 An Act was passed in the reign of Richard II. (1388, 12 Richard II.) by which no servant or labourer, whether man or woman, could depart out of the hundred to serve elsewhere, unless bearing a letter patent under the king s seal, expressing the cause of going and the time of return. Wages were fixed in a way that shows the classification of agricultural labour. The &quot; bailiff for husbandry &quot; stands first. The &quot;master hine,&quot; the carter, and the shepherd are on an equality ; the ploughman follows ; after him the oxherd and cowherd, then the swineherd, the dairy maid and other women receiving equal wages, and every other labourer and servant according to his degree; no ser vant of artificers is to take more than the servants and labourers above named after their estate. The givers and takers forfeited the excess, or double or treble if at tainted before ; &quot; and, if the taker so attainted have nothing whereof to pay the said excess, he shall have forty days imprisonment.&quot; This was followed by a re markable clause: &quot;also it is ordained and assented that he or she which useth to labour at the plough and cart, or other labour or service of husbandry, till they be of the age of twelve years, shall from thenceforth abide at the said labour, without being put to any trade or handi craft ; and, if any covenant or bond of apprenticeship be from henceforth made to the contrary, the same shall be liolden for none.&quot; By a statute of the following year (13 Richard II.), the justices were to settle and proclaim be tween Easter and Michaelmas what should be the wages of day labourers. 1 These proceedings were JIG doubt founded on notions of the royal prerogative, of which the impressment of seamen affords a more recent illustration. This forcing men to work for the king at low wages may be contrasted with proceedings within the present reigu. Workmen employed in building the Queen s Palace at Westminster (the Houses of Parliament) struck for wages in the winter of 1841, and, having nothing to do, availed themselves of vacant seats in the Court of Queen s Bench, where her Majesty was constructively present. Here they were seen from day to day enjoying the comfortable temperature, undisturbed by any fear of writs or other compulsory process to force them to return to their work. Early in the 15th century we have a glimpse of something beyond this continued legislation interfering with freedom of labour, in a reservation in favour of children being sent to school. An Act of 7 Henry IV., putting a property qualification on apprenticeship and requiring children to be put to such labour as their fathers or mothers are of, or as their estates require, on penalty of one year s imprisonment, fine, and ransom, and of one hundred shillings for receiving such apprentices, has this sentence : &quot; But any person may send their children to school to learn literature.&quot; Labourers and artificers are to be sworn to observe the statutes in force or be put in the stocks, and a penalty is imposed on towns neglect ing to have stocks. In 1 4 14, by a statute (2 Henry V.) reciting that the servants and labourers of the shires of the realm flee from county to county because they would not conform to the law, and because the law was not put in force in every county, the former Acts were confirmed and directed to be put in force and proclaimed by the sheriff. Justices of the peace were empowered to send writs to the sheriffs for fugitive labourers in like manner as the justices have power to send to every sheriff for the felons or thieves before they are indicted, and to examine all kinds of labourers, servants, and their masters as well as artificers, and to punish them upon confession in accordance with the statutes. Early in the following reign (2 Henry VI., 1423) further power was given to justices to compel by process an appearance before them of masters as well as servants for examination as to the execution of the statute of Henry V., and to give offenders a month s imprisonment. Four years later (1427) the conclusion was drawn that the statutes of Richard II. were faulty, that of 12 Richard II. because it was too hard upon the masters, that of 13 Richard II. because no penalty was attached to its breach; and, besides remedying the defects, it was enacted (6 Henry VI. c. 3) that justices should fix and make proclamation of wages. Two years earlier (1425) legis lation had been directed against meetings of masons. The statute 3 Henry VI. c. 1 recites that, &quot; by the annual con gregations and confederacies made by masons in their general chapters assembled, the good courses and effect of the Statutes of Labourers are publicly violated and broken, in subversion of the law, and grievous damage of all the commonalty &quot; ; and such chapters and con gregations were forbidden. It was made felony to cause them to be assembled and held, and masons attending them were to be punished by imprisonment and fine. In 1444 (23 Henry VI.) a scale of wages in agriculture and trade was fixed (including freemasons and &quot; rough &quot; masons, master carpenters and mesne carpenters, and master tilers and slaters), and a servant in husbandry was required before departing to give half a year s warning or else to serve his master the year following. Persons refusing to serve or labour were to be committed to jail, there to remain until they found sufficient surety to serve, and masters were entitled to a fixed fine on such. A statute towards the close of the 15th century (1495, 11 Henry VII.) referring to previous statutes, especially to the 23 Henry VI., and complaining of their inadequacy or imperfect execution, proceeds to fix the wages of artificers and labourers with great minuteness. This Act contained a remarkable clause against unlawful con spiracy by workmen engaged in building ; if such artificers or labourers &quot;make or cause to be made any assembly to assault, harm, or hurt any person assigned to control and oversee them in their working, that he or they .^o offending have imprisonment for a year without letting to bail or mainprise, and further to make fine at the king s will.&quot; It is not surprising that even with so very limited