Patronage, paternalism, and welfare: Masters, workers, and magistrates in eighteenth-century England

International Labor and Working-Class History

Volumn , Issue 53, 1998, Pages 27-48

  Hay, Douglas ^a  

^a YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032386363     PISSN: 01475479     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/s014754790001365x     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. I first heard this song sung with gusto and wit by Roy Palmer at Edward and Dorothy Thompson's dinner table. See Songs of the Midlands, ed. Roy Palmer (Wakefield, 1972), 88; a different version is quoted in E. P. Thompson, "Patrician Society, Plebian Culture," Journal of Social History 7 (1974):398.
2. I first heard this song sung with gusto and wit by Roy Palmer at Edward and Dorothy Thompson's dinner table. See Songs of the Midlands, ed. Roy Palmer (Wakefield, 1972), 88; a different version is quoted in E. P. Thompson, "Patrician Society, Plebian Culture," Journal of Social History 7 (1974):398.
3. On Dudley and Ward's benevolence in the context of riot, see Aris' Birmingham Gazette, June 8, September 21, September 19, and October 26, 1795; January 6, May 5, and September 15, 1800; and February 23, 1801. On the ingratitude of his miners, see note 24 below.
4. For a discussion of a wider range of sources, see Douglas Hay, "Master and Servant in England: Using the Law in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries," forthcoming in a volume of studies on private law and inequality edited by Willibald Steinmetz.
5. The statutes include 7 Geo. I st. 1 c.13 (1720); 9 Geo. I c.27 (1722); 12 Geo. I c.34 (1725); 2 Geo. II c.36 (1729); 13 Geo. II c.8 (1740); 20 Geo. II c.19 (1747); 22 Geo. II c.27 (1749); 6 Geo. III c.25 (1766); 17 Geo. III c.56 (1777); and 32 Geo. III c.57 (1792). There are several editions of Statutes at Large. In Runnington's New Edition of Ruffhead's Statutes at Large (London), these statutes appear in vol. 5 (1786), 232-34, 329-30, 435-17, 448-51, 525-27; vol. 6 (1786), 136-39, 253-54, 424-30, 587-88; vol. 7 (1786), 552-60; vol. 12 (1794), 255-59. Such legislation not only covered breaches by the worker but "regulated the trade" with clauses dealing with apprenticeship, maximum (and sometimes minimum) wages and wage-setting, combination, embezzlement of materials, and indeed any of the common points of conflict in the industry. Conflict was recognized between masters and journeymen, between those who had served a full apprenticeship and those who had not, and between large capitalists who wanted to hire the latter in opposition to small masters who wanted the older structures of the trade respected. All such clauses referred back to the Statute of 1562 in the sense that it provided the interpretive structure, often the spirit, and sometimes direct inspiration for parts of the statutes dealing with respective trades. For a general discussion and further references, see Douglas Hay and Nicholas Rogers, Eighteenth-Century English Society: Shuttles and Swords (Oxford, 1997), chaps. 6-9; and Hay, "Master and Servant in England."
6. The statutes include 7 Geo. I st. 1 c.13 (1720); 9 Geo. I c.27 (1722); 12 Geo. I c.34 (1725); 2 Geo. II c.36 (1729); 13 Geo. II c.8 (1740); 20 Geo. II c.19 (1747); 22 Geo. II c.27 (1749); 6 Geo. III c.25 (1766); 17 Geo. III c.56 (1777); and 32 Geo. III c.57 (1792). There are several editions of Statutes at Large. In Runnington's New Edition of Ruffhead's Statutes at Large (London), these statutes appear in vol. 5 (1786), 232-34, 329-30, 435-17, 448-51, 525-27; vol. 6 (1786), 136-39, 253-54, 424-30, 587-88; vol. 7 (1786), 552-60; vol. 12 (1794), 255-59. Such legislation not only covered breaches by the worker but "regulated the trade" with clauses dealing with apprenticeship, maximum (and sometimes minimum) wages and wage-setting, combination, embezzlement of materials, and indeed any of the common points of conflict in the industry. Conflict was recognized between masters and journeymen, between those who had served a full apprenticeship and those who had not, and between large capitalists who wanted to hire the latter in opposition to small masters who wanted the older structures of the trade respected. All such clauses referred back to the Statute of 1562 in the sense that it provided the interpretive structure, often the spirit, and sometimes direct inspiration for parts of the statutes dealing with respective trades. For a general discussion and further references, see Douglas Hay and Nicholas Rogers, Eighteenth-Century English Society: Shuttles and Swords (Oxford, 1997), chaps. 6-9; and Hay, "Master and Servant in England."
7. The statutes include 7 Geo. I st. 1 c.13 (1720); 9 Geo. I c.27 (1722); 12 Geo. I c.34 (1725); 2 Geo. II c.36 (1729); 13 Geo. II c.8 (1740); 20 Geo. II c.19 (1747); 22 Geo. II c.27 (1749); 6 Geo. III c.25 (1766); 17 Geo. III c.56 (1777); and 32 Geo. III c.57 (1792). There are several editions of Statutes at Large. In Runnington's New Edition of Ruffhead's Statutes at Large (London), these statutes appear in vol. 5 (1786), 232-34, 329-30, 435-17, 448-51, 525-27; vol. 6 (1786), 136-39, 253-54, 424-30, 587-88; vol. 7 (1786), 552-60; vol. 12 (1794), 255-59. Such legislation not only covered breaches by the worker but "regulated the trade" with clauses dealing with apprenticeship, maximum (and sometimes minimum) wages and wage-setting, combination, embezzlement of materials, and indeed any of the common points of conflict in the industry. Conflict was recognized between masters and journeymen, between those who had served a full apprenticeship and those who had not, and between large capitalists who wanted to hire the latter in opposition to small masters who wanted the older structures of the trade respected. All such clauses referred back to the Statute of 1562 in the sense that it provided the interpretive structure, often the spirit, and sometimes direct inspiration for parts of the statutes dealing with respective trades. For a general discussion and further references, see Douglas Hay and Nicholas Rogers, Eighteenth-Century English Society: Shuttles and Swords (Oxford, 1997), chaps. 6-9; and Hay, "Master and Servant in England."
8. The statutes include 7 Geo. I st. 1 c.13 (1720); 9 Geo. I c.27 (1722); 12 Geo. I c.34 (1725); 2 Geo. II c.36 (1729); 13 Geo. II c.8 (1740); 20 Geo. II c.19 (1747); 22 Geo. II c.27 (1749); 6 Geo. III c.25 (1766); 17 Geo. III c.56 (1777); and 32 Geo. III c.57 (1792). There are several editions of Statutes at Large. In Runnington's New Edition of Ruffhead's Statutes at Large (London), these statutes appear in vol. 5 (1786), 232-34, 329-30, 435-17, 448-51, 525-27; vol. 6 (1786), 136-39, 253-54, 424-30, 587-88; vol. 7 (1786), 552-60; vol. 12 (1794), 255-59. Such legislation not only covered breaches by the worker but "regulated the trade" with clauses dealing with apprenticeship, maximum (and sometimes minimum) wages and wage-setting, combination, embezzlement of materials, and indeed any of the common points of conflict in the industry. Conflict was recognized between masters and journeymen, between those who had served a full apprenticeship and those who had not, and between large capitalists who wanted to hire the latter in opposition to small masters who wanted the older structures of the trade respected. All such clauses referred back to the Statute of 1562 in the sense that it provided the interpretive structure, often the spirit, and sometimes direct inspiration for parts of the statutes dealing with respective trades. For a general discussion and further references, see Douglas Hay and Nicholas Rogers, Eighteenth-Century English Society: Shuttles and Swords (Oxford, 1997), chaps. 6-9; and Hay, "Master and Servant in England."
9. The statutes include 7 Geo. I st. 1 c.13 (1720); 9 Geo. I c.27 (1722); 12 Geo. I c.34 (1725); 2 Geo. II c.36 (1729); 13 Geo. II c.8 (1740); 20 Geo. II c.19 (1747); 22 Geo. II c.27 (1749); 6 Geo. III c.25 (1766); 17 Geo. III c.56 (1777); and 32 Geo. III c.57 (1792). There are several editions of Statutes at Large. In Runnington's New Edition of Ruffhead's Statutes at Large (London), these statutes appear in vol. 5 (1786), 232-34, 329-30, 435-17, 448-51, 525-27; vol. 6 (1786), 136-39, 253-54, 424-30, 587-88; vol. 7 (1786), 552-60; vol. 12 (1794), 255-59. Such legislation not only covered breaches by the worker but "regulated the trade" with clauses dealing with apprenticeship, maximum (and sometimes minimum) wages and wage-setting, combination, embezzlement of materials, and indeed any of the common points of conflict in the industry. Conflict was recognized between masters and journeymen, between those who had served a full apprenticeship and those who had not, and between large capitalists who wanted to hire the latter in opposition to small masters who wanted the older structures of the trade respected. All such clauses referred back to the Statute of 1562 in the sense that it provided the interpretive structure, often the spirit, and sometimes direct inspiration for parts of the statutes dealing with respective trades. For a general discussion and further references, see Douglas Hay and Nicholas Rogers, Eighteenth-Century English Society: Shuttles and Swords (Oxford, 1997), chaps. 6-9; and Hay, "Master and Servant in England."
10. The statutes include 7 Geo. I st. 1 c.13 (1720); 9 Geo. I c.27 (1722); 12 Geo. I c.34 (1725); 2 Geo. II c.36 (1729); 13 Geo. II c.8 (1740); 20 Geo. II c.19 (1747); 22 Geo. II c.27 (1749); 6 Geo. III c.25 (1766); 17 Geo. III c.56 (1777); and 32 Geo. III c.57 (1792). There are several editions of Statutes at Large. In Runnington's New Edition of Ruffhead's Statutes at Large (London), these statutes appear in vol. 5 (1786), 232-34, 329-30, 435-17, 448-51, 525-27; vol. 6 (1786), 136-39, 253-54, 424-30, 587-88; vol. 7 (1786), 552-60; vol. 12 (1794), 255-59. Such legislation not only covered breaches by the worker but "regulated the trade" with clauses dealing with apprenticeship, maximum (and sometimes minimum) wages and wage-setting, combination, embezzlement of materials, and indeed any of the common points of conflict in the industry. Conflict was recognized between masters and journeymen, between those who had served a full apprenticeship and those who had not, and between large capitalists who wanted to hire the latter in opposition to small masters who wanted the older structures of the trade respected. All such clauses referred back to the Statute of 1562 in the sense that it provided the interpretive structure, often the spirit, and sometimes direct inspiration for parts of the statutes dealing with respective trades. For a general discussion and further references, see Douglas Hay and Nicholas Rogers, Eighteenth-Century English Society: Shuttles and Swords (Oxford, 1997), chaps. 6-9; and Hay, "Master and Servant in England."