資本論 CHAPTER 28:

BLOODY

LEGISLATION

AGAINST

THE

EXPROPRIATED,FROM

THE

END

OF

THE

15TH

CENTURY.

FORCING

DOWN

OF

WAGES

BY

ACTS

OF

PARLIAMENT

The

proletariat

created

by

the

breaking

up

of

the

bands

of

feudal

retainers

and

by

the

forcible

expropriation

of

the

people

from

the

soil,

this

\"free\"proletariat

could

not

possibly

be

absorbed

by

the

nascent

manufactures

as

fast

as

it

was

thrown

upon

the

world.

On

the

other

hand,

these

men,

suddenly

dragged

from

their

wonted

mode

of

life,

could

not

as

suddenly

adapt

themselves

to

the

discipline

of

their

new

condition.

They

were

turned

en

masse

into

beggars,

robbers,

vagabonds,

partly

from

inclination,in

most

cases

from

stress

of

circumstances.

Hence

at

the

end

of

the

15th

and

during

the

whole

of

the

16th

century,

throughout

Western

Europe

a

bloody

legislation

against

vagabondage.

The

fathers

of

the

present

working

class

were

chastised

for

their

enforced

transformation

into

vagabonds

and

paupers.Legislation

treated

them

as

\"voluntary\"

criminals,

and

assumed

that

it

depended

on

their

own

good

will

to

go

on

working

under

the

old

conditions

that

no

longer

existed.

In

England

this

legislation

began

under

Henry

VII.

Henry

VIII.

1530:

Beggars

old

and

unable

to

work

receive

a

beggar's

licence.

On

the

other

hand,whipping

and

imprisonment

for

sturdy

vagabonds.

They

are

to

be

tied

to

the

cart-tail

and

whipped

until

the

blood

streams

from

their

bodies,

then

to

swear

an

oath

to

go

back

to

their

birthplace

or

to

where

they

have

lived

the

last

three

years

and

to

\"put

themselves

to

labour.\"

What

grim

irony!

In

27

Henry

VIII.

the

former

statute

is

repeated,

but

strengthened

with

new

clauses.

For

the

second

arrest

for

vagabondage

the

whipping

is

to

be

repeated

and

half

the

ear

sliced

off;but

for

the

third

relapse

the

offender

is

to

be

executed

as

a

hardened

criminal

and

enemy

of

the

common

weal.

Edward

VI.:

A

statute

of

the

first

year

of

his

reign,

1547,

ordains

that

if

anyone

refuses

to

work,he

shall

be

condemned

as

a

slave

to

the

person

who

has

denounced

him

as

an

idler.

The

master

shall

feed

his

slave

on

bread

and

water,

weak

broth

and

such

refuse

meat

as

he

thinks

fit.

He

has

the

right

to

force

him

to

do

any

work,

no

matter

how

disgusting,

with

whip

and

chains.

If

the

slave

is

absent

a

fortnight,

he

is

condemned

to

slavery

for

life

and

is

to

be

branded

on

forehead

or

back

with

the

letter

S;

if

he

runs

away

thrice,

he

is

to

be

executed

as

a

felon.

The

master

can

sell

him,

bequeath

him,

let

him

out

on

hire

as

a

slave,just

as

any

other

personal

chattel

or

cattle.

If

the

slaves

attempt

anything

against

the

masters,

they

are

also

to

be

executed.

Justices

of

the

peace,

on

information,

are

to

hunt

the

rascals

down.

If

it

happens

that

a

vagabond

has

been

idling

about

for

three

days,

he

is

to

be

taken

to

his

birthplace,

branded

with

a

red-hot

iron

with

the

letter

V

on

the

breast

and

be

set

to

work,

in

chains,

in

the

streets

or

at

some

other

labour.

If

the

vagabond

gives

a

false

birthplace,

he

is

then

to

become

the

slave

for

life

of

this

place,

of

its

inhabitants,

or

its

corporation,

and

to

be

branded

with

an

S.

All

persons

have

the

right

to

take

away

the

children

of

the

vagabonds

and

to

keep

them

as

apprentices,

the

young

men

until

the

24th

year,

the

girls

until

the

20th.If

they

run

away,

they

are

to

become

up

to

this

age

the

slaves

of

their

masters,

who

can

put

them

in

irons,whip

them,

&c.,

if

they

like.

Every

master

may

put

an

iron

ring

round

the

neck,

arms

or

legs

of

his

slave,by

which

to

know

him

more

easily

and

to

be

more

certain

of

him.

1The

last

part

of

this

statute

provides,that

certain

poor

people

may

be

employed

by

a

place

or

by

persons,

who

are

willing

to

give

them

food

and

drink

and

to

find

them

work.

This

kind

of

parish

slaves

was

kept

up

in

England

until

far

into

the

19th

century

under

the

name

of

\"roundsmen.\"

Elizabeth,

1572:

Unlicensed

beggars

above

14

years

of

age

are

to

be

severely

flogged

and

branded

on

the

left

ear

unless

some

one

will

take

them

into

service

for

two

years;

in

case

of

a

repetition

of

the

offence,

if

they

are

over

18,

they

are

to

be

executed,

unless

some

one

will

take

them

into

service

for

two

years;

but

for

the

third

offence

they

are

to

be

executed

without

mercy

as

felons.

Similar

statutes:

18

Elizabeth,

c.

13,

and

another

of

1597.2

James

1:

Any

one

wandering

about

and

begging

is

declared

a

rogue

and

a

vagabond.

Justices

of

the

peace

in

petty

sessions

are

authorised

to

have

them

publicly

whipped

and

for

the

first

offence

to

imprison

them

for

6

months,

for

the

second

for

2

years.

Whilst

in

prison

they

are

to

be

whipped

as

much

and

as

often

as

the

justices

of

the

peace

think

fit...

Incorrigible

and

dangerous

rogues

are

to

be

branded

with

an

R

on

the

left

shoulder

and

set

to

hard

labour,

and

if

they

are

caught

begging

again,

to

be

executed

without

mercy.These

statutes,

legally

binding

until

the

beginning

of

the

18th

century,

were

only

repealed

by

12

Anne,

c.

23.

Similar

laws

in

France,

where

by

the

middle

of

the

17th

century

a

kingdom

of

vagabonds

(truands)

was

established

in

Paris.

Even

at

the

beginning

of

Louis

XVI.'s

reign

(Ordinance

of

July

13th,

1777)

every

man

in

good

health

from

16

to

60

years

of

age,

if

without

means

of

subsistence

and

not

practising

a

trade,

is

to

be

sent

to

the

galleys.

Of

the

same

nature

are

the

statute

of

Charles

V.

for

the

Netherlands

(October,1537),

the

first

edict

of

the

States

and

Towns

of

Holland

(March

10,

1614),

the

\"Plakaat\"

of

the

United

Provinces

(June

26,

1649),

&c.

Thus

were

the

agricultural

people,

first

forcibly

expropriated

from

the

soil,

driven

from

their

homes,turned

into

vagabonds,

and

then

whipped,

branded,tortured

by

laws

grotesquely

terrible,

into

the

discipline

necessary

for

the

wage

system.

It

is

not

enough

that

the

conditions

of

labour

are

concentrated

in

a

mass,

in

the

shape

of

capital,at

the

one

pole

of

society,

while

at

the

other

are

grouped

masses

of

men,

who

have

nothing

to

sell

but

their

labour-power.

Neither

is

it

enough

that

they

are

compelled

to

sell

it

voluntarily.

The

advance

of

capitalist

production

develops

a

working

class,which

by

education,

tradition,

habit,

looks

upon

the

conditions

of

that

mode

of

production

as

self-evident

laws

of

Nature.

The

organisation

of

the

capitalist

process

of

production,

once

fully

developed,

breaks

down

all

resistance.

The

constant

generation

of

a

relative

surplus-population

keeps

the

law

of

supply

and

demand

of

labour,

and

therefore

keeps

wages,

in

a

rut

that

corresponds

with

the

wants

of

capital.

The

dull

compulsion

of

economic

relations

completes

the

subjection

of

the

labourer

to

the

capitalist.

Direct

force,

outside

economic

conditions,

is

of

course

still

used,

but

only

exceptionally.

In

the

ordinary

run

of

things,

the

labourer

can

be

left

to

the

\"natural

laws

of

production,\"

i.e.,

to

his

dependence

on

capital,a

dependence

springing

from,

and

guaranteed

in

perpetuity

by,

the

conditions

of

production

themselves.It

is

otherwise

during

the

historic

genesis

of

capitalist

production.

The

bourgeoisie,

at

its

rise,

wants

and

uses

the

power

of

the

state

to

\"regulate\"

wages,

i.e.,

to

force

them

within

the

limits

suitable

for

surplus-value

making,

to

lengthen

the

working

day

and

to

keep

the

labourer

himself

in

the

normal

degree

of

dependence.This

is

an

essential

element

of

the

so-called

primitive

accumulation.

The

class

of

wage

labourers,

which

arose

in

the

latter

half

of

the

14th

century,

formed

then

and

in

the

following

century

only

a

very

small

part

of

the

population,

well

protected

in

its

position

by

the

independent

peasant

proprietary

in

the

country

and

the

guild-organisation

in

the

town.

In

country

and

town

master

and

workmen

stood

close

together

socially.

The

subordination

of

labour

to

capital

was

only

formal

–i.e.,

the

mode

of

production

itself

had

as

yet

no

specific

capitalistic

character.

Variable

capital

preponderated

greatly

over

constant.

The

demand

for

wage

labour

grew,

therefore,

rapidly

with

every

accumulation

of

capital,

whilst

the

supply

of

wage

labour

followed

but

slowly.

A

large

part

of

the

national

product,

changed

later

into

a

fund

of

capitalist

accumulation,

then

still

entered

into

the

consumption-fund

of

the

labourer.

Legislation

on

wage

labour

(from

the

first,

aimed

at

the

exploitation

of

the

labourer

and,

as

it

advanced,always

equally

hostile

to

him),3is

started

in

Englandby

the

Statute

of

Labourers,

of

Edward

III.,

1349.

The

ordinance

of

1350

in

France,

issued

in

the

name

of

King

John,

corresponds

with

it.

English

and

French

legislation

run

parallel

and

are

identical

in

purport.

So

far

as

the

labour-statutes

aim

at

compulsory

extension

of

the

working

day,

I

do

not

return

to

them,

as

this

point

was

treated

earlier

(Chap.

X.,

Section

5).

The

Statute

of

Labourers

was

passed

at

the

urgent

instance

of

the

House

of

Commons.

A

Tory

says

naively:

\"Formerly

the

poor

demanded

such

high

wages

as

to

threaten

industry

and

wealth.

Next,

their

wages

are

so

low

as

to

threaten

industry

and

wealth

equally

and

perhaps

more,

but

in

another

way.\"4A

tariff

of

wages

was

fixed

by

law

for

town

and

country,

for

piece-work

and

day-work.

The

agricultural

labourers

were

to

hire

themselves

out

by

the

year,

the

town

ones

\"in

open

market.\"

It

was

forbidden,

under

pain

of

imprisonment,

to

pay

higher

wages

than

those

fixed

by

the

statute,

but

the

taking

of

higher

wages

was

more

severely

punished

than

the

giving

them.

[So

also

in

Sections

18

and

19

of

the

Statute

of

Apprentices

of

Elizabeth,

ten

days'

imprisonment

is

decreed

for

him

that

pays

the

higher

wages,

but

twenty-one

days

for

him

that

receives

them.]

A

statute

of

1360

increased

the

penalties

and

authorised

the

masters

to

extort

labour

at

the

legal

rate

of

wages

by

corporal

punishment.

All

combinations,

contracts,

oaths,

&c.,

by

which

masons

and

carpenters

reciprocally

bound

themselves,

were

declared

null

and

void.

Coalition

of

the

labourers

is

treated

as

a

heinous

crime

from

the

14th

century

to

1825,

the

year

of

the

repeal

of

the

laws

against

Trades'

Unions.

The

spirit

of

the

Statute

of

Labourers

of

1349

and

of

its

offshoots

comes

out

clearly

in

the

fact,

that

indeed

a

maximum

of

wages

is

dictated

by

the

State,

but

on

no

account

a

minimum.

In

the

16th

century,

the

condition

of

the

labourers

had,

as

we

know,

become

much

worse.

The

money

wage

rose,

but

not

in

proportion

to

the

depreciation

of

money

and

the

corresponding

rise

in

the

prices

of

commodities.

Wages,

therefore,

in

reality

fell.Nevertheless,

the

laws

for

keeping

them

down

remained

in

force,

together

with

the

ear-clipping

and

branding

of

those

\"whom

no

one

was

willing

to

take

into

service.\"

By

the

Statute

of

Apprentices

5

Elizabeth,

c.

3,

the

justices

of

the

peace

were

empowered

to

fix

certain

wages

and

to

modify

them

according

to

the

time

of

the

year

and

the

price

of

commodities.

James

I.

extended

these

regulations

of

labour

also

to

weavers,

spinners,

and

all

possible

categories

of

workers.5George

II.

extended

the

laws

against

coalitions

of

labourers

to

manufactures.

In

the

manufacturing

period

par

excellence,

the

capitalist

mode

of

production

had

become

sufficiently

strong

to

render

legal

regulation

of

wages

as

impracticable

as

it

was

unnecessary;

but

the

ruling

classes

were

unwilling

in

case

of

necessity

to

be

without

the

weapons

of

the

old

arsenal.

Still,

8

George

II.

forbade

a

higher

day's

wage

than

2s.

7d.

for

journeymen

tailors

in

and

around

London,

except

in

cases

of

general

mourning;still,

13

George

III.,

c.

68,

gave

the

regulation

of

the

wages

of

silk-weavers

to

the

justices

of

the

peace;

still,in

1706,

it

required

two

judgments

of

the

higher

courts

to

decide,

whether

the

mandates

of

justices

of

the

peace

as

to

wages

held

good

also

for

non-agricultural

labourers;

still,

in

1799,

an

act

of

Parliament

ordered

that

the

wages

of

the

Scotch

miners

should

continue

to

be

regulated

by

a

statute

of

Elizabeth

and

two

Scotch

acts

of

1661

and

1671.

How

completely

in

the

meantime

circumstances

had

changed,

is

proved

by

an

occurrence

unheard-of

before

in

the

English

Lower

House.

In

that

place,

where

for

more

than

400

years

laws

had

been

made

for

the

maximum,

beyond

which

wages

absolutely

must

not

rise,

Whitbread

in

1796

proposed

a

legal

minimum

wage

for

agricultural

labourers.

Pitt

opposed

this,

but

confessed

that

the\"condition

of

the

poor

was

cruel.\"

Finally,

in

1813,the

laws

for

the

regulation

of

wages

were

repealed.They

were

an

absurd

anomaly,

since

the

capitalist

regulated

his

factory

by

his

private

legislation,

and

could

by

the

poor-rates

make

up

the

wage

of

the

agricultural

labourer

to

the

indispensable

minimum.The

provisions

of

the

labour

statutes

as

to

contracts

between

master

and

workman,

as

to

giving

notice

and

the

like,

which

only

allow

of

a

civil

action

against

the

contract-breaking

master,

but

on

the

contrary

permit

a

criminal

action

against

the

contract-breaking

workman,

are

to

this

hour

(1873)

in

full

force.

The

barbarous

laws

against

Trades'

Unions

fell

in

1825

before

the

threatening

bearing

of

the

proletariat.

Despite

this,

they

fell

only

in

part.

Certain

beautiful

fragments

of

the

old

statute

vanished

only

in

1859.Finally,

the

act

of

Parliament

of

June

29,

1871,

made

a

pretence

of

removing

the

last

traces

of

this

class

of

legislation

by

legal

recognition

of

Trades'

Unions.

But

an

act

of

Parliament

of

the

same

date

(an

act

to

amend

the

criminal

law

relating

to

violence,

threats,

and

molestation),

re-established,

in

point

of

fact,

the

former

state

of

things

in

a

new

shape.

By

this

Parliamentary

escamotage

the

means

which

the

labourers

could

use

in

a

strike

or

lock-out

were

withdrawn

from

the

laws

common

to

all

citizens,

and

placed

under

exceptional

penal

legislation,

the

interpretation

of

which

fell

to

the

masters

themselves

in

their

capacity

as

justices

of

the

peace.

Two

years

earlier,

the

same

House

of

Commons

and

the

same

Mr.

Gladstone

in

the

well

known

straightforward

fashion

brought

in

a

bill

for

the

abolition

of

all

exceptional

penal

legislation

against

the

working

class.

But

this

was

never

allowed

to

go

beyond

the

second

reading,

and

the

matter

was

thus

protracted

until

at

last

the

\"great

Liberal

party,\"

by

an

alliance

with

the

Tories,

found

courage

to

turn

against

the

very

proletariat

that

had

carried

it

into

power.Not

content

with

this

treachery,

the

\"great

Liberal

party\"

allowed

the

English

judges,

ever

complaisant

in

the

service

of

the

ruling

classes,

to

dig

up

again

the

earlier

laws

against

\"conspiracy,\"

and

to

apply

them

to

coalitions

of

labourers.

We

see

that

only

against

its

will

and

under

the

pressure

of

the

masses

did

the

English

Parliament

give

up

the

laws

against

Strikes

and

Trades'

Unions,

after

it

had

itself,

for

500

years,

held,

with

shameless

egoism,

the

position

of

a

permanent

Trades'

Union

of

the

capitalists

against

the

labourers.

During

the

very

first

storms

of

the

revolution,

the

French

bourgeoisie

dared

to

take

away

from

the

workers

the

right

of

association

but

just

acquired.

By

a

decree

of

June

14,

1791,

they

declared

all

coalition

of

the

workers

as

\"an

attempt

against

liberty

and

the

declaration

of

the

rights

of

man,\"

punishable

by

a

fine

of

500

livres,

together

with

deprivation

of

the

rights

of

an

active

citizen

for

one

year.6This

law

which,by

means

of

State

compulsion,

confined

the

struggle

between

capital

and

labour

within

limits

comfortable

for

capital,

has

outlived

revolutions

and

changes

of

dynasties.

Even

the

Reign

of

Terror

left

it

untouched.It

was

but

quite

recently

struck

out

of

the

Penal

Code.Nothing

is

more

characteristic

than

the

pretext

for

this

bourgeois

coup

d'état.

\"Granting,\"

says

Chapelier,

the

reporter

of

the

Select

Committee

on

this

law,

\"that

wages

ought

to

be

a

little

higher

than

they

are,

...

that

they

ought

to

be

high

enough

for

him

that

receives

them,

to

be

free

from

that

state

of

absolute

dependence

due

to

the

want

of

the

necessaries

of

life,

and

which

is

almost

that

of

slavery,\"

yet

the

workers

must

not

be

allowed

to

come

to

any

understanding

about

their

own

interests,

nor

to

act

in

common

and

thereby

lessen

their

\"absolute

dependence,

which

is

almost

that

of

slavery;\"

because,

forsooth,

in

doing

this

they

injure\"the

freedom

of

their

cidevant

masters,

the

present

entrepreneurs,\"

and

because

a

coalition

against

the

despotism

of

the

quondam

masters

of

the

corporations

is

–

guess

what!

–

is

a

restoration

of

the

corporations

abolished

by

the

French

constitution.7

NOTES:

1The

author

of

the

\"Essay

on

Trade,

etc.,\"

1770,

says,

\"In

the

reign

of

Edward

VI.

indeed

the

English

seem

to

have

set,

in

good

earnest,

about

encouraging

manufactures

and

employing

the

poor.

This

we

learn

from

a

remarkable

statute

which

runs

thus:

'That

all

vagrants

shall

be

branded,

&c.'\"

l.

c.,

p.

5.

2Thomas

More

says

in

his

\"Utopia\":

\"Therfore

that

on

covetous

and

unsatiable

cormaraunte

and

very

plage

of

his

native

contrey

maye

compasse

aboute

and

inclose

many

thousand

akers

of

grounde

together

within

one

pale

or

hedge,the

husbandman

be

thrust

owte

of

their

owne,

or

els

either

by

coneyne

and

fraude,

or

by

violent

oppression

they

be

put

besydes

it,

or

by

wrongs

and

iniuries

thei

be

so

weried

that

they

be

compelled

to

sell

all:

by

one

meanes,

therfore,

or

by

other,either

by

hooke

or

crooke

they

muste

needes

departe

awaye,poore,

selye,

wretched

soules,

men,

women,

husbands,

wiues,fatherlesse

children,

widowes,

wofull

mothers

with

their

yonge

babes,

and

their

whole

household

smal

in

substance,

and

muche

in

numbre,

as

husbandrye

requireth

many

handes.

Awaye

thei

trudge,

I

say,

owte

of

their

knowen

accustomed

houses,fyndynge

no

place

to

reste

in.

All

their

housholde

stuffe,

which

is

very

little

woorthe,

thoughe

it

might

well

abide

the

sale:

yet

beeynge

sodainely

thruste

owte,

they

be

constrayned

to

sell

it

for

a

thing

of

nought.

And

when

they

haue

wandered

abrode

tyll

that

be

spent,

what

cant

they

then

els

doe

but

steale,

and

then

iustly

pardy

be

hanged,

or

els

go

about

beggyng.

And

yet

then

also

they

be

caste

in

prison

as

vagaboundes,

because

they

go

aboute

and

worke

not:

whom

no

man

wyl

set

a

worke

though

thei

neuer

so

willyngly

profre

themselues

therto.\"

Of

these

poor

fugitives

of

whom

Thomas

More

says

that

they

were

forced

to

thieve,

\"7,200

great

and

petty

thieves

were

put

to

death,\"

in

the

reign

of

Henry

VIII.

(Holinshed,

\"Description

of

England,\"

Vol.

1,

p.

186.)

In

Elizabeth's

time,

\"rogues

were

trussed

up

apace,

and

that

there

was

not

one

year

commonly

wherein

three

or

four

hundred

were

not

devoured

and

eaten

up

by

the

gallowes.\"

(Strype's

\"Annals

of

the

Reformation

and

Establishment

of

Religion

and

other

Various

Occurrences

in

the

Church

of

England

during

Queen

Elizabeth's

Happy

Reign.\"Second

ed.,

1725,

Vol.

2.)

According

to

this

same

Strype,in

Somersetshire,

in

one

year,

40

persons

were

executed,

35

robbers

burnt

in

the

hand,

37

whipped,

and

183

discharged

as\"incorrigible

vagabonds.\"

Nevertheless,

he

is

of

opinion

that

this

large

number

of

prisoners

does

not

comprise

even

a

fifth

of

the

actual

criminals,

thanks

to

the

negligence

of

the

justices

and

the

foolish

compassion

of

the

people;

and

the

other

counties

of

England

were

not

better

off

in

this

respect

than

Somersetshire,while

some

were

even

worse.

3\"Whenever

the

legislature

attempts

to

regulate

the

differences

between

masters

and

their

workmen,

its

counsellors

are

always

the

masters,\"

says

A.

Smith.

\"L'esprit

des

lois,

c'est

la

propriété,\"

says

Linguet.

4\"Sophisms

of

Free

Trade.\"

By

a

Barrister.

Lond.,

1850,

p.206.

He

adds

maliciously:

\"We

were

ready

enough

to

interfere

for

the

employer,

can

nothing

now

be

done

for

the

employed\"

5From

a

clause

of

Statute

2

James

I.,

c.

6,

we

see

that

certain

clothmakers

took

upon

themselves

to

dictate,

in

their

capacity

of

justices

of

the

peace,

the

official

tariff

of

wages

in

their

own

shops.

In

Germany,

especially

after

the

Thirty

Years'War,

statutes

for

keeping

down

wages

were

general.

\"The

want

of

servants

and

labourers

was

very

troublesome

to

the

landed

proprietors

in

the

depopulated

districts.

All

villagers

were

forbidden

to

let

rooms

to

single

men

and

women;

all

the

latter

were

to

be

reported

to

the

authorities

and

cast

into

prison

if

they

were

unwilling

to

become

servants,

even

if

they

were

employed

at

any

other

work,

such

as

sowing

seeds

for

the

peasants

at

a

daily

wage,

or

even

buying

and

selling

corn.(Imperial

privileges

and

sanctions

for

Silesia,

I.,

25.)

For

a

whole

century

in

the

decrees

of

the

small

German

potentates

a

bitter

cry

goes

up

again

and

again

about

the

wicked

and

impertinent

rabble

that

will

not

reconcile

itself

to

its

hard

lot,

will

not

be

content

with

the

legal

wage;

the

individual

landed

proprietors

are

forbidden

to

pay

more

than

the

State

had

fixed

by

a

tariff.

And

yet

the

conditions

of

service

were

at

times

better

after

war

than

100

years

later;

the

farm

servants

of

Silesia

had,

in

1652,

meat

twice

a

week,

whilst

even

in

our

century,

districts

are

known

where

they

have

it

only

three

times

a

year.

Further,

wages

after

the

war

were

higher

than

in

the

following

century.\"

(G.

Freytag.)

6Article

I.

of

this

law

runs:

\"L'anéantissement

de

toute

espèce

de

corporations

du

même

état

et

profession

étant

l'une

des

bases

fondamentales

de

la

constitution

franaise,

il

est

défendu

de

les

rétablir

de

fait

sous

quelque

prétexte

et

sous

quelque

forme

que

ce

soit.\"

Article

IV.

declares,

that

if

\"des

citoyens

attachés

aux

mêmes

professions,

arts

et

métiers

prenaient

des

délibérations,

faisaient

entre

eux

des

conventions

tendantes

à

refuser

de

concert

ou

à

n'accorder

qu'à

un

prix

déterminé

le

secours

de

leur

industrie

ou

de

leurs

travaux,les

dites

délibérations

et

conventions...

seront

déclarées

inconstitutionnelles,

attentatoires

à

la

liberté

et

à

la

declaration

des

droits

de

l'homme,

&c.;\"

felony,

therefore,

as

in

the

old

labour-statutes.

[As

the

abolition

of

any

form

of

association

between

citizens

of

the

same

estate

and

profession

is

one

of

the

foundations

of

the

French

constitution,

it

is

forbidden

to

re

establish

them

under

any

pretext

or

in

any

form,

whatever

they

might

be.

...

citizens

belonging

to

the

same

profession,

craft

or

trade

have

joint

discussions

and

make

joint

decisions

with

the

intention

of

refusing

together

to

perform

their

trade

or

insisting

together

on

providing

the

services

of

their

trade

or

their

labours

only

at

a

particular

price,

then

the

said

deliberations

and

agreements

...

shall

be

declared

unconstitutional,

derogatory

to

liberty

and

the

declaration

of

the

rights

of

man,

etc.](\"Révolutions

de

Paris,\"

Paris,

1791,

t.

III,

p.

523.)

7Buchez

et

Roux:

\"Histoire

Parlementaire,\"

t.

x.,

p.

195.