The very fact that it was necessary to bring skilled artisans from foreign lands to teach the English people the arts of industry shows how a people under a system of free trade will cling to rural pursuits without any desire or ambition to embark in new enterprises. Such foreign competition was then, as it has been in all countries when given full sway, a perpetual blight upon home industry. Edward's proud spirit undoubtedly felt keenly the inferior position in wealth and industrial life of his own people. When English monarchs grasped the great economic truth that they should favor their own people against strangers in every department of trade in which they were at a disadvantage, the problem of English supremacy was solved. Although this great principle was not fully appreciated and embodied in a comprehensive industrial code and national policy until the time of Queen Elizabeth, yet successive monarchs and parliaments sufficiently recognized its application to the conditions of the English people, to make a steady progress under its beneficent influence. The intervention of wars, both foreign and internal, between the time of Edward IV. and Queen Elizabeth, left little room for industrial activity. It was during this period that the wars between the houses of York and Lancaster plunged the nobility into a fierce struggle for the crown. The establishment of the Church of England by Henry VIII., his suppression of the monasteries and seizure of the property of the Roman Catholics, disarranged the business affairs of the realm with injurious results. The struggle between Catholics and Protestants, which continued to the time. of Queen Elizabeth, prevented a rapid industrial development under this policy. At times and for long periods it was almost wholly lost sight of. The system of collecting revenues and enforcing prohibitions on imports was so imperfect that smuggling was constanty and persistently indulged in. Besides this it was not until the early part of the sixteenth century that England had become strong enough to defy foreigners and take from the Hanseatic League its privileges.

PART III.

MODERN ENGLAND UNDER PROTECTION.

CHAPTER I.

THE PROTECTIVE POLICY OF GREAT BRITAIN FROM 1558 TO 1800 AND
WHAT IT TEACHES.

to native

industries policy of Britain.

the settled

Great

"A wise man will make more opportunities than he finds.”—Bacon. The system of protection gradually ripened into a settled national Protection policy, which continued from the time of Queen Elizabeth uninterrupted and persistently strengthened at every point until 1846, when it was in the main abandoned. England was not, however, without political parties and bitter controversies over policies and forms of government took place. From the reign of Elizabeth until the latter part of the seventeenth century, the main question was whether the sovereign power of the realm was vested in the king by divine right or rested in that great body of English freemen represented by the House of Commons. This question was ultimately settled by a resort to arms. It brought Charles I. to the block, established the commonwealth, and ultimately placed it in the power of the people of England by an act of succession to choose their own ruler, make their laws and establish for themselves a form of governBut through all this controversy, there was one question upon which the English people were agreed. It mattered not what party was in power, whether Puritans or Royalists, Whigs or Tories, the industrial development of England by a system of protective tariffs, navigation laws and governmental regulations was recognized as the best means of securing commercial and industrial greatness. A spirit of loyalty to England and to Englishmen pervaded all classes of people and found expression in deeds of bravery and heroism on land and sea, in defending and extending their dominions, building up their industries, and making the power and name of England supreme in the world.

Elizabeth.

The reign of Queen Elizabeth, which began in 1558 and closed in Reign of 1603, forms one of the most important commercial epochs in the history of the country. The most renowned in literature, it should be no less distinguished for the influences exerted on trade and commerce. This was the age of Shakespeare and Lord Bacon, two of the greatest men of all time. As a statesman, jurist and philosopher, Lord Bacon is without

"Statute of Appren

tices."

Its purpose.

a peer. Undoubtedly his genius gave form and order to the national policy of protection, which hitherto had been indefinite and unstable. At this time the legislation of preceding reigns was gathered together, re-enacted and formed into a comprehensive, industrial code, having for its specific purpose the development of all branches of productive industry and comThe purpose of such a policy is disclosed in the several branches of industrial life, which were sought to be specifically regulated and fostered by the following legislation:

merce.

1. The Statute of Apprentices or Laborers.

2. Poor Laws.

3. Protection to Agriculture and Manufacturing.

4. Encouragement of Fisheries.

5. Encouragement of Shipping and the Extension of Foreign

Trade.

While all these important branches received legislative sanction and recognition at this time, the policy thereby definitely begun was not only adhered to by successive English administrations, but was constantly strengthened and improved upon, until every country on the face of the globe felt its influence, and England became the richest commercial nation in Christendom. It is a fact worthy of consideration that the supremacy of England was reached at the close of the eighteenth century, before the Napoleonic wars. The navigation laws passed in the time of Cromwell were the crowning acts of this series of industrial legislation, having for their definite purpose the establishment of industries and the expansion of trade and commerce.

The "Statute of Apprentices" or "Laborers," as it is sometimes called, passed by parliament in the fifth year of the reign' of Elizabeth, continued in force from 1563 to 1825. While it cannot be commended in all respects, it can be approved in some. It throws much light upon the statesmanship and sound economic ideas which prevailed. The necessity of finding employment for labor, at good wages, and the regard which every well-regulated state should have for the welfare of its artisans, were certainly comprehended by the statesmen of this period. Although the means by which it was sought to accomplish such a result were ineffectual, and in some respects unwise, yet the misery and degradation inflicted upon the artisans of a country by a depression of wages are so necessary to be avoided, that experiments of this character should be treated with great consideration by those who are unable to understand fully the conditions under which production was carried on and subsistence procured at this time.

One of the chief purposes of this enactment was to secure an increase in the wages of laborers which could not be obtained under the old statutes. This is expressly stated in the preamble, as follows:

15th, Elizabeth, c. 4.

Chiefly for that the wages and allowances limited and rated in many of the said statutes, are in diverse places too small and not answerable to this time respecting the advancement of prices of all things belonging to the said servants and laborers, the said laws cannot conveniently without the great grief and burden of the poor laborer and hired man be put in good and due execution.

This effort to improve the condition of labor by governmental aid has been most severely criticised by recent English writers, and especially by those who advocate free trade. They condemn not only the specific details of this legislation, but the whole policy under which conditions favorable to artisans were brought about. When we come later to contrast the effect of free competition on English industries, during the past twentyseven years, with the marvelous development and improvement which followed the legislation under Elizabeth, the discredit will be cast upon those who regard low wages as an economic advantage to a country. The legislation in question attempted to regulate the whole system of apprenticeship, wages, terms of employment and length of day's labor in agriculture and manufacturing. Instead of leaving the question of wages to be settled by free competition or free contract, entered into between the employed and employer, it provided that justices of the peace should meet on or before the tenth of June of each year to fix the rate of wages to be paid during the ensuing season. The statute says, the justices of the peace, after fixing the time of their meeting, "calling to them such Attempt to discreet and grave persons, as they shall think meet, and conferring together wages. respecting the plenty or scarcity of the times, and other circumstances necessary to be considered," shall limit and appoint the wages for every kind of manual labor skilled or unskilled, by the year, week or day, and with or without allowance of food. It was made a penal offence to pay less wages than those fixed by the magistrates. This portion of the statute, however, which vested justices of the peace with power to fix wages, became a dead letter, although it remained unrepealed until 1825. But few instances are found in which it was ever acted upon. The reason is undoubtedly the general improvement of the masses, and the increase of wages which followed. As opportunities for work increased and new fields opened for the investment of capital in manufacturing, shipping and agriculture, the demand for labor tended to prevent the occurrence of the conditions which were sought to be alleviated through the statute.

fix term

The statute also provided a seven years' apprenticeship for artisans, and authorized an agriculturalist to take a boy and instruct him in farm labor, until he arrived at the age of twenty-one years. Every master Attempt to who had three apprentices was required to employ at least one journeyman of employfor each extra apprentice. The statute was designed to secure stability ment, etc. and permanence of employment. Terms of service were fixed and penalties imposed upon laborers for quitting within the limitations, as well as upon

Necessity of legislative 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 con-
tinued 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 per-
petual. 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 workman-
ship, 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 Eng-
land, 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