The Armies of Labor | Page 6

market
necessitated credit on a new and infinitely larger scale.
No less important than the revolution in industry was the revolution in
economic theory which accompanied it. Unlimited competition
replaced the state paternalism of the mercantilists. Adam Smith in 1776
espoused the cause of economic liberty, believing that if business and
industry were unhampered by artificial restrictions they would work
out their own salvation. His pronouncement was scarcely uttered before
it became the shibboleth of statesmen and business men. The revolt of
the American colonies hastened the general acceptance of this doctrine,
and England soon found herself committed to the practice of every man

looking after his own interests. Freedom of contract, freedom of trade,
and freedom of thought were vigorous and inspiring but often
misleading phrases. The processes of specialization and centralization
that were at work portended the growing power of those who possessed
the means to build factories and ships and railways but not necessarily
the freedom of the many. The doctrine of laissez faire assumed that
power would bring with it a sense of responsibility. For centuries, the
old-country gentry and governing class of England had shown an
appreciation of their duties, as a class, to those dependent upon them.
But now another class with no benevolent traditions of responsibility
came into power--the capitalist, a parvenu whose ambition was profit,
not equity, and whose dealings with other men were not tempered by
the amenities of the gentleman but were sharpened by the necessities of
gain. It was upon such a class, new in the economic world and endowed
with astounding power, that Adam Smith's new formularies of freedom
were let loose.
During all these changes in the economic order, the interest of the
laborer centered in one question: What return would he receive for his
toil? With the increasing complexity of society, many other problems
presented themselves to the worker, but for the most part they were
subsidiary to the main question of wages. As long as man's place was
fixed by law or custom, a customary wage left small margin for
controversy. But when fixed status gave way to voluntary contract,
when payment was made in money, when workmen were free to
journey from town to town, labor became both free and fluid,
bargaining took the place of custom, and the wage controversy began to
assume definite proportions. As early as 1348 the great plague became
a landmark in the field of wage disputes. So scarce had laborers
become through the ravages of the Black Death, that wages rose rapidly,
to the alarm of the employers, who prevailed upon King Edward III to
issue the historic proclamation of 1349, directing that no laborer should
demand and no employer should pay greater wages than those
customary before the plague. This early attempt to outmaneuver an
economic law by a legal device was only the prelude to a long series of
labor laws which may be said to have culminated in the great Statute of
Laborers of 1562, regulating the relations of wage-earner and employer

and empowering justices of the peace to fix the wages in their districts.
Wages steadily decreased during the two hundred years in which this
statute remained in force, and poor laws were passed to bring the
succor which artificial wages made necessary. Thus two rules of
arbitrary government were meant to neutralize each other. It is the
usual verdict of historians that the estate of labor in England declined
from a flourishing condition in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries to
one of great distress by the time of the Industrial Revolution. This
unhappy decline was probably due to several causes, among which the
most important were the arbitrary and artificial attempts of the
Government to keep down wages, the heavy taxation caused by wars of
expansion, and the want of coercive power on the part of labor.
>From the decline of the guild system, which had placed labor and its
products so completely in the hands of the master craftsman, the
workman had assumed no controlling part in the labor bargain. Such
guilds and such journeyman's fraternities as may have survived were
practically helpless against parliamentary rigor and state benevolence.
In the domestic stage of production, cohesion among workers was not
so necessary. But when the factory system was substituted for the
handicraft system and workers with common interests were thrown
together in the towns, they had every impulsion towards organization.
They not only felt the need of sociability after long hours spent in
spiritless toil but they were impelled by a new consciousness--the
realization that an inevitable and profound change had come over their
condition. They had ceased to be journeymen controlling in some
measure their activities; they were now merely wage-earners. As the
realization of this adverse change came over them, they began