(3) We pass next to consider the Educational Legislation during the later Middle Ages. In our summary of the economic condition of this country at the opening of this period we referred to the scarcity of labour consequent upon the Black Death.[756] As a result an Act was passed in 1388, which provided that “he or she which used to labour at the Plough and Cart till they be of the age of twelve years, from henceforth they shall abide at the same labour without being put to any Mystery or Handicraft; and if any Covenant or Bond of Apprentice be from henceforth made to the contrary, the same shall be taken for void.”[757] The reason for this Act is embodied in the statute itself: “there is so great scarcity of Labourers and other Servants of Husbandry that the Gentlemen and other People of the realm be greatly impoverished for the cause thereof.”
Either on account of the prosperity of the labouring classes due to the increase of wages resulting from the demand for labour in the later fourteenth century, or to avoid the provisions of the Act we have just described, or for the purpose of making progress in social status, the custom of sending children to schools seems to have developed. As a result, the Commons of England petitioned the king in 1391 “de ordeiner et comander, que null neif ou Vileyn mette ses Enfantz de cy en avant a Escoles pur eux avancer par Clergie et ce en maintenance et salvation de l’honour de toutz Frankes du Roialme.”[758]
Mr. de Montmorency suggests four reasons for this action on the part of the Commons.
(1) The Commons “were anxious to check the further increase in the number of unbeneficed clergy and of those whom the bishops could claim as subject to ecclesiastical law.”
(2) Lollardism would be very attractive to the newly educated and “the Legislature must have realised the revolutionary possibility of the first and nobler Reformation.”
(3) “The jurisdiction of Rome increased with the increase of popular education,” consequently, this “was a serious consideration for the patriotic baronage of England.”
(4) If a man became ordained, his services would be lost to the manor.[759]
These reasons do not appear to be very conclusive. The first implies an opposition between the clergy and laity which was non-existent; the second and the third are contradictory. If the development of education fostered Lollardism (which is probable, though it has not yet been demonstrated) it could scarcely be regarded as equally favourable to Rome. Further, the desire of limiting the jurisdiction of the Church could have been gratified more simply by the abolition of the “privilege of clergy.”
His fourth reason is a more plausible one but it must be noted that the consent of the lord of the manor was required before children could be sent to schools and before ordination.[760] For this reason, legislation would scarcely be necessary to effect this purpose.
The more probable reason for this petition of the commons is that the diminution of the supply of labour had caused employers to become fearful of future possibilities, and that they were afraid that the result of sending children to school would be that the number of those who would be prepared to act as “hewers of wood and drawers of water” would be seriously diminished.