these and other abuses of the handicrafts. But this decree and other imperial laws were disregarded, and the craftsmen hung together throughout Germany, until further tumults led to their suppression by law, although they were not stamped out of existence.

$57. These contentions and strikes arose usually with regard to an infringement of the privileges of the guild-members, innovations in trade customs, and the like; they were seldom about wages, although in France some such strikes took place. In Germany and in France, the working classes were completely organised, and to a certain degree they governed themselves. under the superintendence of the masters. In those countries even the special fraternities of journeymen were rather supplemental to the craft-guilds, than confederations directed against the masters; the disputes that arose were not in opposition to the trade system which then prevailed, but disagreements as to the practices which from time to time cropped up; the interests of the two forces were not as yet in direct antagonism, certainly not such as when in subsequent periods antagonism gave rise to trade unions.

$58. In England an Act was passed in 1549 (2 and 3 Ed. VI. c. 15), forbidding conspiracies and covins of the sellers of victuals "to sell their victuals at unreasonable prices," and enacting, at the same time, with regard to "confederacies and promises of the artificers, handicraftsmen, and labourers, not only that they should not meddle with one another's work, and perform and finish what one has begun, but also constituting and appointing how much work they shall do in a day, and what hours and times they shall work," and further "that they should not make nor do their work but at a certain rate." These statutory regulations are, however, to be found in the bye-laws of the several companies then existing; and, consequently, did not originate with agreements of the workmen. only, but were equally applicable to masters. The word "labourer" in the Act refers probably to agricultural labourers only; but "artificers and handicraftsmen" embrace masters and workmen, the provisions being directed against both; for, while the confederacies of the craftsmen in general are pro

hibited, all conspiracies of "divers sellers of victuals" to raise the prices of food are also forbidden. The object seems to have been to check the abuses of the craft-guilds, especially in those trades which provided for man's daily wants, in which cases such abuses would be most severely felt. This Act therefore does not refer to associations of journeymen per se, but rather to transitory combinations for specific purposes; the existence of regular organisations of workmen, in the sense now understood, can scarcely be inferred from the statute. Precisely similar are the prohibitions in the German imperial code of police, 1577, where, of crafts in general, it is said: "We have also heard as certain that the craftsmen, in their craftguilds, or otherwise, conspire and combine that no one shall sell his finished labour or work by open sale for more or less than the others, and they thus raise the prices in such sort, that those who need their labour, and wish to buy, must pay at their (the craftsmen's) pleasure, etc. We therefore declare our earnest opinion and desire that this shall henceforth be in no way suffered by the authorities, but that they shall watch over it when the crafts offend, however, against this they shall be punished by the authorities, according to circumstances, without mercy." This avowedly applied to masters, as well as journeymen, in all the crafts.

§ 59. In London the apprentices of these days played a conspicuous part. Stowe gives an instance of their rising "when some of their brotherhood have been unjustly, as they pretended, cast into prison and punished." In the seventeenth century they often acted in a body, and took part in all the religious and political questions of the time, expressing their opinions pretty freely, and acting in concert. When Cromwell abolished the feasts of Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide, "and other festivals commonly called holidays," as tending to superstition, and enforced a strict puritanical observance of the Sunday, the apprentices, who by this Act "were not only deprived of the benefit of visiting their friends and kindred, but also of all set times of pleasure and lawful recreations," petitioned Parliament for the appointment by law of one day in every month for these purposes; and Parliament thereupon

set apart for them the second Tuesday in every month. The masters were in no way pleased at this, and tried to curtail the play days of the apprentices, ordering that, upon these fixed play days, all shops should remain closed.

$ 60. The origin of the modern trade unions from the journeymen fraternities may be inferred from many peculiar circumstances, including the striking similarity of many of their more prominent features, in several important respects. The ceremonies in vogue in the earlier unions of the woollen manufactures, and which even continued down to within a few years ago, resembled those of the craft-guilds, both in England and in Germany, except that in England travelling was not compulsory, whilst in Germany and in France it was. To a great extent the unions originated from the practice of travelling in the two latter countries. An ordinance of the Clothworkers' Company says: "The masters, wardens, and assistants shall choose the warden of the yeomanry; they shall govern the yeomanry in such sort as in former times has been used." The union of the woolcombers, which, in 1794, presented a petition to Parliament, complaining of the use of the gig-mill, seems to have used its funds to assist those who were thrown out of work by this new invention. That club embraced every member in the craft; contributions were paid according to the wants of the society, journeymen travelling when out of work were assisted, the sick were relieved, and the dead were buried. Only those were relieved who had testimonials from the society as to their honesty and good conduct; those who had broken the rules or deceived the society lost all claim to relief from the funds.

§ 61. The general position of the workmen in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and especially as to the relationship existing between masters and journeymen, may be inferred from the ordinances of the English cloth workers, then the most considerable of all the crafts, which ordained that all "controversies between the livery and their apprentices were to be settled in the old way before the master, at the Common Hall," and further, also that "journeymen should make no unlawful assemblies, brotherhoods, congregations, and flockings

together." Other guild-statutes of the same date ordain that "no person of the mystery should hire himself to a person of another mystery, where greater wages were offered; no journeyman should work with any of another fellowship if he can be set to work by a freeman of his own art;" no member was to suffer his apprentice or servant "to buy and sell to his own use, or that of persons of other mysteries, such practices having brought masters to an after deale and sore damage." These regulations were in favour of the masters; on the other hand there were some in favour of the journeymen, such as "No person was to exercise the trade who had not served an apprenticeship of seven years, or had been instructed by his father for that term." No member was to instruct anybody in the trade except his male children, and apprentices regularly bound; no member was to employ any workman except he were free of the company; no journeyman was to work with a nonmember. Furthermore: "None shall lend out or put forth any of his apprentices to work with any other, because it will hinder and take away the living of free journeymen; no foreigner shall be employed before a free journeyman; no householder shall keep above two apprentices at one time, except he employ a journeyman freeman, and then he may keep three; every master, warden, and assistant may keep three." Again, 21 James I. (1624) enacts with regard to the cutlery trades in Sheffield, "No person to have more than one apprentice in his service at one time, nor to engage another before the former be in his last year, nor take any for a less time than seven years."

§ 62. The following, relating to the printing trade, is interesting, as bearing on the same question:

The Case and Proposals of the Free Journeymen Printers in and about London, humbly submitted to consideration, licensed October 23rd, 1666-Whereas there are at this present, in and about the city of London, to the number of 140 workmen printers, or thereabouts, who have served seven years to the art of printing, under lawful master printers, and are reduced to great necessity and temptations for want of lawful employment, occasioned partly by supernumerary apprentices and turnovers, which have increased the number almost to twice as many

on the whole as would be sufficient to discharge all the public and lawful work of the kingdom, the workmen printers abovementioned, etc., propose: 1. That no foreigners (that is to say) such an one as has not served seven years to the art of printing, under a lawful master printer, as an apprentice, may be entertained and employed by any master printer for the time to come. 2. That a provision may be made to hinder the increase of apprentices, and a limitation appointed as to the number, etc. 3. That no turn-overs be received by any master printer but from a master printer; and that no master printer turning over any apprentice to another master printer, may be permitted to take any other in his place, till the full time of the said apprentice so turned over be expired, for otherwise, the restraint and limitation of apprentices will be evaded, and the number supplied by turn-overs, etc.

It was for the purpose of maintaining these and similar regulations, especially as the masters refused any longer to be bound by them, that trade unions subsequently arose. Many abuses were also practised, which produced divers hardships among the journeymen, either because they were not corporate bodies, or because the Act, 5th of Elizabeth, did not apply to them.

§ 63. The decay of the old guiding spirit of the craft-guilds was now more than ever apparent: everywhere they sank into mere societies for the investment of capital or perpetuation of monopolies; they tried to increase profits by excluding competition, and hence they attempted rigorously to enforce restrictions which were oppressive to the workmen and injurious to the public. Guilds, which formerly comprised all kindred crafts, now split up into smaller bodies of lesser individual trades; these watched each other with jealous greed, to prevent encroachments on their special privileges, and they fought each other continually in endless lawsuits. The feelings of the journeymen were commonly enlisted in these bitter conflicts, in the interests of the masters, and then they were disregarded in the final issue of the contest. They shared in the degeneration of the guild, their position and prospects were in a sense bound up with the system, and they therefore looked rather to a reformation of the system, than its abolition. Some of the provisions were for their protection, while others were insti