In February, 1631, the weavers of Sudbury complained; a petition to the Council was presented on behalf of Sylva Harbert and others, saying the "poore spinsters, weavers and combers of wooll" were "much abridged of their former and usuall wages" by the clothiers, "who are now growne rich by the labours of the said poore people." The matter was referred to a committee with instructions to cause "orderly payment" to be made of the "due and accustomed wages.... And in case any particular person shalbe found either out of the hardnes of his harte towards the poore or out of private end or humor refractory to such courses as the said comrs shall thinke reasonable and iust" he shall be ordered to appear before the board[368].
The employers stated that all of the trade had reduced wages, but that, if a general rule were made binding on all the employers, they would be willing to agree to give any wages which were thought reasonable[369]. A rate was fixed by an Order in Council, but the decision was not obeyed. Lawsuits were brought by clothier against clothier, until another attempt was made to settle the matter, and in 1636 Charles I. issued Letters Patent fixing the length of the reel and ordering that the wages of all the workpeople should be raised in proportion[370].
It is evident, then, that in 1629 the masters of Braintree and Booking were trying to take advantage of the competition of their workmen to force down wages, and that in this particular trade both then and afterwards the Council tried to prevent anything of the kind being done.
A bad harvest in 1629, followed by a worse in 1630, plunged not only the clothworkers but the whole labouring class into distress. Amongst many other measures calculated to relieve this scarcity the Council again interfered with wages in order to aid the whole body of workmen.
Wages had been legally fixed by law in various ways since the middle of the fourteenth century, and in 1563 it had been provided that the justices of the peace should every year fix the scale of wages according to the prices of food, and other conditions of the workmen. It has been generally considered that these assessments were either ineffectual or were enforced in the interest of the employers and not that of the employed. But on September 29th, 1630, the Council ordered four letters to be written, directed to the justices of the peace of Cambridge, Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, and to the mayor of Norwich, the contents of which clearly show that in this instance the Council interfered with the object of helping the poor. The people themselves had complained that the rates had not been properly made for them according to law; the Council thereupon write down to the justices and say that "these hard and necessitus tymes doe require some better care to be had in that behalfe; we have therefore thought good at this time to recommend the same to yor extraordinarie care. For the statutes of 5 Eliz. and 1 Jac. having so carefully provided against these inconveniences, it were a great shame if for want of due care in such as are speciallie trusted with the execution of these lawes, the poore should be pinched in theise times of scarcitie and dearth. And his Matie and this Board cannot but be exceeding sensible of any neglect or omission which may occasion such evill effects, as are like to ensue thereupon. And therefore since neither you nor any other can pretend any want of legall power to have prevented all just cause of complainte in this kinde wee doe hereby in his Maties name will and require you to use such care and diligence that his Matie and this Board may not be troubled with any complaint for want of due execution of the aforesaid statute. And so etc.[371]"
The fact that the men complained and that the Council so promptly interfered in this matter is a strong argument that both the workmen and the members of the Council believed that the assessments were enforced, or at least that they had a great influence on the wages actually paid. The occurrence certainly shows us that in this instance the assessments were ordered to be made in the interests not of the masters but of the men, and that it was the intention of the Government to protect the men from oppression. It suggests that the justices were negligent, but it brings into prominence the fact that the justices were supervised by the Privy Council.
There is reason for believing that the determination here shown by the Council to help the poor had considerable weight in inducing the justices to make the wages assessments of the time. It was probably an immediate consequence of this letter that the Norwich justices drew up a new assessment, and reported the fact to the Council in Dec. 1630[372]. Moreover a very large proportion of the other assessments which have been preserved of the reigns of James and Charles belong to the years of scarcity, when the relief of the poor was the main object of the justices[373]. As money wages were rising throughout the century, new assessments were always in favour of the workman and would become most necessary in times when the price of food was high; they would also most readily be made when the necessities of the poor were great.
It is perhaps worth while to notice one other instance of protection given to workmen by the Privy Council. During another time of trade depression, in the year 1637, Thomas Reignolds, manufacturer, made his workmen accept cloth instead of money for their wages. The men complained; the Council found it was a second offence and ordered Thomas Reignolds to be sent to the Fleet until he had paid his workmen double the amount they had lost, and their charges for bringing the complaint besides[374]. The punishment for truck inflicted by the Privy Council during the personal government of Charles I. was certainly severe.
8. Summary.