A Brief History of Printing. Part II: The Economic History of Printing

by Frederick W. Hamilton

The organization of the Community united the masters, but the attempts of the journeymen to unite were met with constant opposition and were frequently prohibited by law. The germ of the journeymen’s organization was the chapel. Originally the chapel was a group of workmen engaged on the same job and consequently dependent upon each other for its success and for the regular progress of the work. The origin of the name is somewhat in doubt, but it probably is either derived from the fact that many of the early printing establishments were connected with monasteries, or under the patronage of the church, or from the fact that the printers were educated men, and in the 15th century educated men were generally identified with the clergy. In English law, until within a comparatively recent time, a man convicted of certain crimes could escape capital punishment if he could prove that he could read and write. This proof was held to identify him with the clergy, who were exempted from certain criminal provisions of the statutes. This process was technically known as “pleading one’s clergy.”

The chapel was soon extended to include in its membership all the workmen in one shop, and in this significance the name is still in use. The organization of journeymen into chapels runs back to the early days of printing. There never seems to have been any serious attempt to prevent this organization in individual shops for the reason that such an organization was highly beneficial to the masters themselves, securing the better co-ordination of related processes and hence more efficient production. In France the chapel was legally recognized in 1777, only a short time before the break-up of the old order. The chapel had certain revenues which were derived from assessments and fees which it laid upon its members and particularly from the sale of books. It was the custom to give to the chapel a certain number of copies of every book printed. These revenues appear to have been intended originally as provision for certain periodical feasts and festivals such as were common in all the guilds of the middle ages. Later they were extended to cover charity and also to provide a sort of war chest out of which the expense of litigation could be met.

The combination of these chapels or the formation of tacit understandings between them created a sort of trade union, and the combination of their funds made possible the raising of the large amounts of money necessary to employ counsel and carry on the litigations against the employers. The employers, often backed by the authorities, strove throughout this period to prevent these combinations. They understood fully the tactical value of the precept “divide and rule,” and they did their best to keep the journeymen divided and at the same time to strengthen the bonds of their own union. In this, however, they were only partially successful. In spite of edicts to the contrary, the chapels, though unable to form an open, strong organization which could meet the Community on equal terms or to act with the openness and authority of the modern trade union, nevertheless maintained a very real and often effective organization through correspondence, conferences, and other methods of securing mutual agreement and common action.

In addition to the general settlements of industrial conditions which were sought by legislation, individual disputes in particular shops or localities were often settled by arbitration. The great difficulty about these arbitrations, which rendered their results unsatisfactory and was never obviated during this whole period, arose from the impossibility of agreeing on a satisfactory board of arbitrators. The masters insisted that all these arbitrations should be referred either to the courts or to the syndics. To this the journeymen seriously objected. They felt that the courts would not really arbitrate but would settle the matter by an application of the statutes, and they knew by experience that the statutes were generally construed against the journeymen wherever possible. They were on the whole very law-abiding people. They had no disposition to break the statutes, but the questions which they wanted decided were either as to the application of the statutes or as to points not covered by them. On the other hand they felt that the syndics were entirely unqualified to act as arbitrators for the reason that they were masters and consequently interested parties. The masters were insistent whenever possible that these cases should go to the syndics, although as an alternative they were willing that they should go to the courts.

The journeymen desired that arbitration boards should be composed of masters, workmen, and citizens not connected with the industry. They maintained that only thus could the interests of all be fairly represented and an impartial arbitration secured. To this type of board the masters almost invariably objected, and they generally refused to submit to its findings. In this regard the journeymen appear to much better advantage than the masters throughout this period.

The main points of dispute have already been indicated and were on the whole not different from similar difficulties today.

First and foremost came the question of pay and food, usually together. Occasionally men were satisfied with their food but not with their pay or vice versa, but ordinarily the two went together. The man who paid badly was likely to feed badly. Another burning question was the right of combination on the part of the journeymen or, as we should say today, the question of the recognition of the union. Another point was the matter of discharge or leaving without notice. The grievance arising from discharge without notice has already been discussed. The masters complained that the men would leave without notice and so render it impossible for them to complete their jobs according to contract. This was one of the evils attendant on the piece system which has already been described. On the one hand the masters tried to manipulate it by hiring extra men and the like so as to increase their profits, while on the other hand workmen facing the danger of a period of unemployment would leave a job unfinished if they could get employment on another job which promised several weeks or even months of work.

Another fruitful cause of difference was tickets of leave or cards of dismissal. When a man left a job he was supposed to be given a card which identified him, told where he had been employed, what he did there, how well he did it, and what his conduct had been in the shop. He was supposed to show this card before obtaining employment. The workmen complained that these cards were withheld or improperly filled out for personal or other unworthy reasons. Sometimes masters were very particular about giving and demanding these cards. At other times they were very lax in both these regards and the consequence was that the card system was a source of constant annoyance to all concerned.

The complaint was also made by journeymen that members of the Community maintained a black-list, and if a journeyman offended a single member of the Community or fell into disfavor in a single shop he might be placed on this black-list and find it impossible to obtain employment.

Of course, there were many other questions which arose from time to time but these were the particular causes of difficulty which we find constantly recurring, just as the questions of pay, hours, recognition of the union, and handling of non-union material constantly recur today.