Richard B. Morris, Government and Labor in Early America, 1946.

THE SUPPLY OF SKILLED LABOR

Finally, the Tudor industrial code was the culmination of a program initiated in the Middle Ages to assure an adequate supply of skilled workmen and good quality in the manufactured product. Such a program served to protect consumers, but it was calculated at the same time to assure a continued demand for English exports in foreign markets. The statute of 1562-63 set the term of apprenticeship at seven years and avoided contracts not in accordance with this act.1 In general, this traditional term of service, borrowed from the "custom and order of the city of London," was widel adopted in the Amencan colonies. However, the colonies differed from the mother country in their refusal to impose property qualifications for parents as prerequisite to admitting chiIdren to apprenticeship,2 although in practice colonial parents frequently were required to pay masters to accept their children as apprentices in the more highly skilled crafts or in such professions as the law.3 In order to assure good workmanship a long series of statutes were passed under the Tudors and James I supervising specific industries. This was also true in America, where inspection laws were widely adopted, particularly for processed products exported from the colonies. In the early years of settlement the home authorities sought to encourage colonization. It was widely believed, although as we know now erroneously, that England was overpopulated4 and that the unemployed poor and vagrant class should be shipped to the colonies to produce the raw materials needed at home and to consume England's surplus manufactured products.5 Gradually, with England's rise to commercial and industrial leadership, the official attitude changed.6 The government now sought to restrain the colonies when they tried to follow the shrewd advice of James I to
take example of England, how it hath flourished both in wealth and policie, since the strangers craftsmen came in among them; therefore not only permit, but allure strangers to come here also; taking as strait order for the repressing the mutining of ours at them, as was done in England, at their first bringing there.7
In 1699 the Board of Trade urged Parliament that workers engaged in the manufacture of woolens be prohibited from leaving England.8 As early as 1718 Great Britain began to impose restrictions on the free emigration of skilled artisans; in 1750 its restrictions were specifically applied to workers in certain textile industries. In 1765 Parliament forbade the emigration of trained operatives, both to prevent the spread of closely guarded industrial secrets and to maintain an adequate supply of highly trained labor at home.9 This was followed by statutes of 1774 and 1781, forbidding the exportation of textile machinery, plans, or models. An act of 1782 prohibited the emigration of artificers in the textile fields or in the manufacture of machinery for these industries; three years later this prohibition was extended to workmen in the iron and steel industry; and four years later it was extended to coal miners.10

This changing attitude was clearly apparent by the middle of the eighteenth century. Postlethwayt, writing in 1745, opposed furnishing the colonies with white labor either from the mother country or the Continent on the ground that such emigration would serve to make the colonies manufacturing rivals of England. Instead, he favored slave importations as tending to keep the colonies agricultural.11 For a forthright expression of the official attitude we are indebted to the commander in chief of the British armies in North America, Major General Thomas Gage, who wrote Barrington in 1768:

I have never heard of a people . . . who could manufacture without hands, or materials; We read also that many Manufacturers embark for America, but can't discover where they land. . . . It would be well, if the Emigrations from Great Britain, Ireland and Holland, where the Germans embark for America, were prevented; and our new settlements should be peopled from the old ones, which would be a means to thin them, and put it less in their power to do Mischief.12

Despite the growing hostility to the emigration of skilled workmen the home government down until the eve of the Revolution placed no obstacles on the emigration of vagabonds and the unemployed poor, and, beginning with the latter half of the seventeenth century, stepped up the pace of shipments of convicted felons to the colonies.13 But by the eve of the conflict with the colonies the government felt it necessary to curb all emigration. Governors were forbidden to assent to bills of naturalization or issue patents for lands, and, finally in 1774, a prohibitive per capita tax was imposed on all emigrants to the colonies from Great Britain and Ireland. These measures were attacked in the Declaration of Independence.14

However, despite official obstructions, the importation of skilled craftsmen went on virtually unabated throughout the colonial period. The Virginia Company brought over Dutchmen to erect sawmills, Polish workers for the naval stores industry, "vigneroones from Languedoch," and Italians to establish a glassworks.15 More widely publicized examples include Peter Hasenclever, the Prussian ironmaster who transported from Germany to America over five hundred miners, forgemen, colliers, carpenters, masons, and laborers, together with their wives and children;16 "Baron" Stiegel, the fabulous glassmaker and ironmaster from Cologne; the North of Ireland flaxworkers who developed the linen industry in New England as well as on Maryland's Eastern Shore and in South Carolina;17 the Moravian craftsmen of Bethlehem;18 the artisans of Germantown; the Huguenots of South Carolina who pioneered in salt manufacturing and indigo production;19 and the Italians trained in silk culture and brought over to establish that industry in Georgia.20

To begin with, every single workman had to be imported. The apprenticeship system never proved completely adequate to meet colonial needs for trained workers. Special efforts were constantly made to attract craftsmen from England and the Continent. Many craftsmen were transported to Virginia in the early years of settlement.21 Those coming over on the Ann and the Bonny Bess to James City in 1623, for example, were almost all craftsmen. Only ten were listed as "gentlemen" as against twenty-four tradesmen, one student, four husbandmen, one servant, and a lad from "Christ's Hospital."22 As late as 1662 William Hatton was presented in the York County court for calling several justices of that county "Coopers, Hoggtrough makers, Pedlars, Coblers, Tailors, weavers and saying they are not fitting to sit where they doe sit."23 A great majority of the passengers of the Winthrop Fleet of 1630 belonged to the families of artisans or tillers of the soil.24 To seventeenth-century Massachusetts came English shipwrights, ironmasters, posters, and Yorkshire woolen workers.25 As a result of this immigration trained artisans were found even in such New England frontier communities as York County, Maine, whose court records for the mid-seventeenth century list twenty trades, including a physician, surgeon, and schoolmaster, while for the same period the court records of more populous Essex County mention at least fifty-three trades.26 Governor Rising of New Sweden wrote home in 1654 for potterymakers, brickmakers, limeburners, cabinetmakers, shoemakers, and tanners, as well as for a French hatmaker, among others.27 A proposal in 1657 for the setting up of ironworks in Virginia was based on the importation of virtually all skilled artisans and laborers from England, as "Artists are not to bee had at any rate."28 In a suit instituted against a potter brought over from London, who, one person attested, was "as good a work man as James Budd the Plaintiffe can finde in England," a Burlington (West Jersey) court jury in 1686 was unable to render a final verdict "untill materialls requisite shall come from England to prove the skill of the Defendant."29 To activate a virtually nonexistent shipbuilding industry Virginia imported ship carpenters at the end of the seventeenth century.30

The importation of skilled workmen, attracted by the lure of higher wages and the opportunity to set up in independent business or to acquire a homestead, continued throughout the colonial period. In 1702 the Board of Trade reported that "of late years great numbers of people are enticed over to your M. Northern Colonies in America, and particularly those under Propriety and Charter governments. . . . Divers manufacturers and workmen also are carried over upon specious pretence of more easie livelihood in those parts."31 Despite official reluctance, the authorities were obliged to issue a call for trained artisans to emigrate to areas newly settled in the eighteenth century.32 Lack of trained hands was assigned by Governor Hunter as one of the reasons for the collapse of the government-sponsored naval stores project in New York, as the Palatines, brought over for this industry, had had no previous experience in it. Governor Spotswood of Virginia told the Board of Trade that tar could not be made with the kind of labor available in the plantations and urged that tar burners be brought from Finland for that purpose.33 When machinery was imported it was not infrequent to send along a skilled mechanic who could assemble it in this country.34

When colonial industrialists wanted English artisans they did not stop to haggle over the price, as this news story in the New-York Journal for October 8, 1767, would indicate:

Thirteen of the best Hammer-men and Forge-men in the Iron Manufactory have been engaged to come from Sheffield to America, for which a handsome premium is given them; and great wages for two years certain, and six shillings a week to each of their wives and families as stay behind for that time. They have also given one hundred guineas for each of the best Saw-makers, and the same money for their wives that stay. (If provisions are kept up at the rate they are, the Americans will soon have enough to carry on the manufacture, without giving premiums.)35
A few months later a New York newspaper reported a news item from London to the effect "that in the course of this week, upwards of 100 Journeymen weavers have engaged to go to New-York and Boston, where they are promised constant employment."36 "Numbers of our manufacturers are daily shipping themselves off for the regions of America," London reported in 1768,37 notwithstanding official opposition of mercantilist nationalism.38

Colonial advertisements bear testimony to the variety of crafts plied by foreign workmen in this country. A tailor in Charleston announced that he had been "foreman to the most eminent master-taylors in London and Paris, and by them acknowledged to be as compleat a workman as ever they employed, particularly in the art of cutting."39 A Dublin linen printer and dyer told the Bostonians that he was ready to produce colors "as good and as lasting as any that comes from Europe."40 Workmen frequently advertised that they had served a regular apprenticeship in a London shop.41 A cabinet- and chairmaker who came to New York from London advertised that he had brought along six journeymen, and was prepared to manufacture furniture according to the prevailing mode set by Chippendale.42 English and French silversmiths opened shops in the leading colonial towns and made "Queen Anne" tankards and Meissonier candlesticks. The proprietors of a china factory established in Philadelphia in 1770 advertised for workmen, with the stipulation that "none will be employed who have not served their apprenticeship in England, France, or Germany."43

The process of importing trained operatives was accelerated after the close of the American Revolution when American agents in English manufacturing towns sought to persuade large numbers of trained mechanics to emigrate.44 A highly competent observer reported in 1790 that "a large proportion of the most skillful manufacturers in the United States are persons who were journeymen and in a few instances were foremen in the workshops and manufactories of Europe."45

Not only were workmen imported from Europe, but efforts were made to attract skilled workmen from other colonies. New Englanders migrated to the Carolinas, Philadelphia manufacturers sought to attract craftsmen from Charleston, Virginia cabinetmakers sought to lure journeymen from Maryland, and an effort was made to get journeymen shoemakers from Charleston to go to East Florida. When wages declined in Savannah, the artisans left for Charleston or New York.48 Silversmiths like Samuel Soumain were as much at home at Annapolis as at Philadelphia, and Cornelius Kiersteade plied his craft at both New Haven and New York.

The bound-labor system was devised to attract workmen from Europe and to assure a cheap labor supply in the colonies. Although skilled workmen were more reluctant than plowmen and laborers to go to the colonies as redemptioners, a status which soon gained an unsavory reputation,47 German artificers were a notable exception. Indentured servants, whose status is the subject of detailed consideration in Part II of this study, were employed throughout the colonies, but their use was more circumscribed in New England than in the Middle colonies and the South. By and large they were employed in semiskilled and unskilled occupations. In the seventeenth century such servants were used on the plantations for both husbandry and the crafts, but with the advent of Negro slavery they were gradually supplanted as field workers and were principally retained as overseers, foremen, or herdsmen. Bound white artificers were still employed to train Negroes in the crafts, but were gradually displaced as this task was performed. By the latter part of the colonial period many indentured servants moved to the upland regions, and the bulk of them survived as the "poor whites" of the South.48

In the Southern plantations geographical factors and the trend toward husbandry discouraged the development of a skilled white artisan class. These difficulties were described by contemporaries, writing at the close of the seventeenth century, who reported:

For want of Towns, Markets, and Money, there is but little Encouragement for Tradesmen and Artificers, and therefore little Choice of them, and their Labour very dear in the Country. Then a great deal of Tradesman's Time being necessarily spent in going and coming to and from his Work, in dispers'd County Plantations, and his Pay being generally in straggling Parcels of Tobacco, the Collection Whereof costs about 10 per cent, and the best of this Pay coming but once a year, so that he cannot turn his Hand frequently with a small stock, as Tradesmen do in England and Elsewhere, All this occasions the Dearth of all Tradesmen's Labour, and likewise the Discouragement, Scarcity, and Insufficiency of Tradesmen.49

Various methods were employed to counteract the scarcity of skilled workmen. In the first place, artificers in the early days of settlement were required to stick to their lasts. In Virginia craftsmen were required by law to work at their trades and were not permitted to turn to husbandry.50 Acts of 1726 and 1748 penalized by extra service persons imported into the colony as "tradesmen or workmen in wages" who refused to work,51 and a South Carolina statute of 1741 forbade artisans in certain enumerated trades from keeping taverns.52 Not only were handicraftsmen expected to stick to their trades, but, because of the shortage of men and materials, the Plymouth court went so far in 1626 as to forbid them to work for "any strangers or foreigners till such time as the necessity of the Colony be served."53 Sometimes the legislation applied to one specific trade: a Virginia statute of 1632 and a Rhode Island act of 1647 set a penalty of £5 to go to the employer of artificers or laborers in the building trades who left their work,54 while Maryland legislation required coopers to complete work on hogsheads and barrels by specified dates during the year of the order.55 These acts unquestionably outlawed strikes and effectually forestalled labor combinations in the trades enumerated.

Secondly, many of the colonies experimented for a time in the seventeenth century with maximum wage programs, which were again brought forth during the years of the Revolution.56

Thirdly, attempts were made in the Southern colonies to encourage manufacturers and craftsmen by setting up towns, programs which were largely confined to the paper on which they were written.57 Annapolis, Williamsburg, Norfolk, and Charleston attracted numerous craftsmen, but in general the program was a failure.

Failing to maintain an adequate number of white artisans, the Southern colonies then trained Negro slaves for the skilled trades. The files of the South Carolina Gazette reveal that Negroes were trained and practicing virtually all the crafts needed for maintaining the plantation economy. In addition to those engaged in husbandry, the well-organized plantation employed carpenters, coopers, stonemasons, a miller, a blacksmith, shoemakers, spinners, and weavers. The wealthier planters often carried on industrial enterprises on a considerable scale, necessitating the employment of a sizable number of skilled workmen. One must, therefore, revise the traditional picture of the planter solely dependent upon the vagaries of the tobacco market for the livelihood of his family and workmen.58 Some white artificers were generally needed to start such enterprises, but they were in the main carried on almost exclusively by Negro slaves who were often hired out by their masters to others in need of skilled help.59 Futile efforts were made by the white artificers of the Southern towns to check the encroachments of slavery upon the skilled trades.60 Among planters the belief was prevalent that slave labor was more economical than free labor.61 Not only did free white labor demand higher wages than Negro workmen, but their upkeep was higher, for the latter, "even when well treated," as Washington observed, were fed the simple diet of Indian corn bread, buttermilk, pickled herrings, and meat "now and then," "with a blanket for bedding."62 White workmen demanded more discriminating and varied fare, as numerous servant "strikes" on Southern plantations attest.63

Part of the labor shortage in the unskilled and semiskilled trades and in the household crafts was made up by the use of women and children. This was normal European practice, even more typical of the Continent than of England. Andrew Yarranton, a seventeenth-century observer, reported that in Germany a child that was sent to a spinning school at six could earn 8d. a day when he or she was nine years of age. He applauded a system wherein "a man that has most children lives best."64 Defoe was gratified over the fact that in the vicinity of Taunton there was not a child of five years of age but could, if properly reared, "earn its own bread." In the colonies women and children were employed in many occupations.65 A colonial wife was expected to live up to the ambitious standards set in the Book of Proverbs.66 Generally speaking, she was not allowed to eat "the bread of idleness," and, aside from her extensive household and family duties, might be called upon to help in the fields.67 The demand for child labor on the expanding frontier provided an incentive, if any was needed, for the high birth rate and large families of colonial times.68

In order to induce skilled workmen to settle in this country or to engage in a particular trade, colonies as well as local communities offered them exemption from taxation for a specified period of years,69 exemption from labor on roads and highways70 and from military training,71 land grants or leases,72 and other attractive subsidies and bounties.73 This mercantilist program in the colonies paralleled the grants of subsidies in the mother country to domestic manufacturers and the bounties granted by Great Britain to colonial producers of naval stores. However, the practice of issuing patents of monopoly to founders of new industries which proved so objectionable in England74 never took deep root in the colonies.

While there never was an adequate supply of trained workmen to meet the needs of the expanding colonial economy, the quality of the work was often excellent and many native artisans attained eminence in their crafts.75 In silverwork there were some distinguished craftsmen, particularly in Boston and New York. In the colonial period Boston boasted such superb exemplars of the craft as Edward Winslow, Jeremiah Dummer, Jacob and Nathaniel Hurd, and Samuel Burt; while New York took pride in the achievements of Myer Myers, Adrian Bancker, Simeon Soumain, Charles Le Roux, Bartholomew Schaats, Benjamin Wynkoop, Cornelius Vanderburgh, Jacobus Van Der Spiegel, and Peter Van Dyck.76 Were the list to be extended to other crafts we would have to include cabinetmakers like Joshua Delaplaine of New York and William Savery, Charles Gillingham, and David Rittenhouse of Philadelphia, and a number of celebrated New England families of dockmakers, including the Claggetts and the Willards.77

On the other hand, too often was versatility encouraged at the expense of quality. As a result of the failure to establish a permanent craft guild system, the constant shortage of skilled labor, and the rise of laissez faire tendencies workers frequently performed more than one industrial process. The blacksmith was a toolmaker, the soap boiler a tallow chandler, and, despite restrictive legislation,78 the tanner often acted as a currier and shoemaker. At times the trades were not in the least related. A cabinetmaker might run a grocery shop, a house carpenter act as an undertaker, and a silversmith sell toothache remedy.79 Joshua Hempstead, of New London, Conn., was a farmer, surveyor, house and ship carpenter, stonecutter, sailor, trader, and an attorney. He generally held three or four town offices, was a justice of the peace, a judge of probate, and frequently acted as executor or guardian. In addition, he served as business agent of the Winthrop family.80 When John Julius Sorge advertised in the New York newspapers in 1755 that he could make artificial fruit, do japan work, manufacture cleaning fluid, toilet water, soap, candles, insecticides, and wine and remove hair from ladies' foreheads and arms,81 there is no reason to believe that New Yorkers were taken aback by this display of diverse talents. Household servants might be called upon "to wait at table, curry horses, clean knives, boots and shoes, lay a table, shave and dress wigs, carry a lanthorn, and talk French."82 Paul Revere, the distinguished silversmith, who gained greater renown for carrying the messages of the Committees of Correspondence and the Sons of Liberty, was also a well-known copperplate engraver, although not a very good one, a dentist who set false "foreteeth," a manufacturer of clock faces for clockmakers, of branding irons for hatters, and of spatulas and probes for surgeons. After the Revolution, while continuing his workshop craft as a silversmith, he branched out into large-scale industry, setting up a foundry and later a mill for rolling copper into sheets; this has now become one of the greatest establishments of its kind in the country.

Notes

1 5 Eliz. c. 4 §§ 19, 24, and 34.

2 The English statute set a property qualification for the trade of a merchant, mercer, draper, goldsmith, ironmonger, embroiderer, clothier, and cloth weaver. See also 7 Hen. IV, c. 17 (1405), setting such qualifications as a prerequisite to putting a son to any craft or labor in any city or borough.

3 See infra, pp. 369-370.

4 See, e.g., Nova Britannia (1609) in Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers Relating Principally to the Colonies in North America (4 vols., Washington, 1836-46), I, 19; Winthrop Papers, II (Mass. Hist. Soc, 1931), III, 114, 118, 139 (1629).

6 For mercantilist statements of the advantage of colonies as a means of taking care of population, see Buck, Politics of Mercantilism, pp. 60, 204; K. E. Knorr, British Colonial Theories (Toronto, 1944), pp. 41-48.

6 Roger Coke, an economic heretic, anticipated this governmental somersault. A Treatise Wherein Is Demonstrated That the Church and State of England Are in Equal Danger with the Trade of It (London, 1671), pp. 1-36. See also Knorr, op. cit., pp. 68-81,

7 The Workes of the Most High and Mightie Prince James (London, 1616), p. 164.

8 See CSPA, 1699, No. 32, pp. 17, 18.

9 Under 22 Geo. II, c. 60, it was a crime to entice artificers out of England. For the first offense the penalty was £500 and 12 months' imprisonment per workman enticed, and for each successive offense a fine of £1,200 and a similar term of imprisonment. European ship captains appear to have been adept at evading this act. See A. H. Cole, Industrial and Commercial Correspondence of Alexander Hamilton Anticipating His Report on Manufactures (Chicago, 1928), pp. 109-112 (1791). See also ibid., p. 185.

10 Actually as far back as 1666 and again in 1686 the king, at the urgent request of the Society of Frame Work Knitters, issued proclamations prohibiting the transportation to the colonies of frames for knitting and making silk stockings and wearing necessaries. See 5 Geo. I, c. 27; 14 Geo. III, c. 71; 15 Geo. III, c. 5; 22 Geo. III, c. 60; 25 Geo. III, c. 67. See also J. Commrs. Trade and Plantations, 1722/3-28, p. 132 (1724). Despite these prohibitions Arkwright's machinery was available in this country in the post-Revolutionary period. Md. Gazette (Baltimore), August 21, 1789, reported: "Carding machines are made as cheap and as well at Philadelphia, as in Europe."

11 The African Trade the Great Pillar and Support of the British Plantation Trade in America (London, 1745). This view was widely held in the English newspaper and periodical literature of the day. See F. J. Hinkhouse, The Preliminaries of the American Revolution as seen in the English Press, 1763-1775 (New York, 1926), pp. 107, 108.

12 Gage Corr., II, 450 (1768).

13 See infra, pp. 323-326.

14 E. E. Proper, Colonial Immigration Laws (New York, 1900), p. 75, considers these as political rather than economic measures, but in the light of the extensive restrictions on the movement of craftsmen this must be considered as too circumscribed a view of British policy.

15 The Records of the Virginia Company of London, ed. Susan M. Kingsbury (4 vols., Washington, 1906-35), I, 251, 252 (1619); III, 278, 315 (1620), 474, 475, 477 (1621), 640 (1622); IV, 522 (1625).

16 The Remarkable Case of Peter Hasenclever, Merchant; Formerly One of the Proprietors of the Iron Works, Pot-Ash Manufactory, etc. Established and Successfully Carried On under His Directors, in the Province of New York, and New Jersey, in North America, 'till November 1766 (London, 1773), p. 5.

17 See W. R. Bagnall, The Textile Industries of the United States (Cambridge, 1893), pp. 16-18; N.J. Arch., V, 204; CSPA, 1720-21, No. 153, p. 68 (1720). For the German glass-makers at Braintree, see Boston Gazette, Sept. 26, 1752.

18 J. J. Sessler, Communal Pietism among Early American Moravians (New York, 1933), and infra, pp. 145, 146.

19 See A. H. Hirsch, Huguenots of South Carolina (Durham, N.C., 1928), pp. 214, 215, 245, 246; Cooper, S.C. Stat., II, 132.

20 See Ga. Col. Rec., I, 100 (1733); XXII, Pt. I, p. 169 (1738). For an earlier proposal to import Italian silk workers, see CSPA, 1669-74, No. 737 (1672). For the importation to Georgia of German Protestants skilled in the making of wines and silk, see Hester W. Newton, "The Industrial and Social Influence of the Salzburghers in Colonial Georgia," Ga. Hist. Q., XVIII, 348-349.

21 See Force, Hist. Tracts, No. 5, pp. 5, 15, 17. Thirty-five different trades were listed among tradesmen "to be entertained" in 1620. Va. Co. Rec., III, 317 (1620).

22 Va. Gen. Court Mins., p. 6 (1623).

23 York O.B., 1657-62, f. 175 (1662).

24 See C. E. Banks, The Winthrop Fleet of 1630 (Cambridge, 1930), p. 52. A list of those who were in New England in 1634, while incomplete, reveals a heavy majority of cloth workers and husbandmen. J. Savage, "Gleanings for New England History," Mass. Hist. Soc., Coll., 3d ser., VIII, 270-275. For poor economic conditions in the English cloth industry at the time of the early migrations, see Victoria History of Suffolk (London, 1907, 1911), I, 676, 677; II, 265; Victoria History of Kent (London, 1908), III, 407-408. 63 per cent of the 1,600 male emigrants sailing from Bristol, 1654-61, whose status can be determined, were from the farming classes. See Mildred Campbell, The English Yeoman (New Haven, 1942), p. 215.

25 See infra, p. 57. See also CSPA, 1574-1660, No. 72, p. 158 (1633); N.E. Hist, and Geneal. Register, XXXIX, 33-48; Capt. Edward Johnson, Wonder-Working Providence of Sion's Savior in New England (London, 1664; reprinted Andover, 1867), p. 183; Essex, VI, 82 (1675).

26 See Me. Prov. and Court Rec., I, passim; Essex, V, passim. One hundred different trades and professions are mentioned in the Surrey (England) Q.S.O.B., 1659-1661. Surrey Record Society, Publications, No. 35.

27 A. C. Myers, ed., Narratives of Early Pennsylvania, West New Jersey and Delaware, 1630-1707 (New York, 1912), p. 142.

28 WMCQ, 2d ser., I, 100 et seq. (1657).

29 » Budd v. Randall, Burlington, West Jersey, Court Book, fols. 41, 42 (1686).

30 CSPA, 1696-97, No. 1131, p. 530 (1697).

31 CSPA, 1702, No. 1103, p. 695.

32 See J. Commrs. Trade and Plantations, 1749/50-53 (March 30, 1750).

33 See H. L. Osgood, American Colonies in the Eighteenth Century (New York, 1924), II, 333; W. A. Knittle, Early Eighteenth Century Palatine Emigration (Philadelphia, 1937), pp. 177, 178.

34 See HMC, Rep., LIX, Pt. I, p. 29.

35 French refugees brought over to cultivate silkworms in New York and South Carolina were also reported to have secured very advantageous terms. N.Y.J., Sept. 23, 1774. A mason who was brought over from England to build a furnace in Virginia was paid a daily wage from the time he left Gloucestershire until his return home, unless he chose to remain in Virginia after he had completed his contract. J. S. Bassett, ed., The Writings of "Colonel William Byrd of Westover in Virginia Esqr." (New York, 1901), p. 375 (1732).

36 N.Y. Gazette or the Weekly Post-Boy, Feb. I, 1768.

37 S.C. Gazette, Feb. 29-March 7, 1768.

38 British emigration lists, 1773-76 (Treasury Papers, 47, Bundles 9-11) confirm this charge. The bulk of the emigrants in this period were tradesmen -- coopers, hatters, stocking weavers, woolcombers, blacksmiths, laborers, -- or husbandmen. Only a very small number were accounted "gentlemen," merchants, or professional men. For the wide variety of crafts plied by the redemptioners and, in some instances, transported convicts, see Boston News-Letter, June 18-25, 1716; Oct. 31, 1763; Md. Gazette (Annapolis), June 26, 1760; March II, 1762; Feb. 24, 1774.

39 S.C. Gazette, March 21, 1768.

40 Boston Gazette, Supp., May 7, 1759.

41 E.g., Pa. Packet, Jan. 30, 1775; Pa. J., Oct. 31, 1771; Md. J. and Baltimore Advertiser, Dec. 5, 1783. Cf. Pa. Mus. of Art, Picture Book, of Philadelphia Chippendale Furniture (1931).

42 N.Y. Mercury, May 31, 1762; see also N.Y. Gazette or Weekly Post-Boy, August 5, 1762; June 13, 1765; Sept. 11, 1766. For other instances of European artisans establishing themselves in the colonies, see Boston News-Letter, Oct. 6-13, 1707, Nov. 3-10, 1712; March 4-11, 1717; April 21-28, June 23-30, 1735; Feb. 9, 1769; Nov. 26, 1772; Boston Gazette, Nov. 5, 1764; Pa. J., Oct. 24, 1771; S.C. Gazette, Jan. 18, 1768, See also infra, pp. 217, 421-423.

43 S.C. Gazette, March 15, 1770. When English workmen did come over, they were impelled to complain of this firm's mistreatment of them. Pa. Gazette, Nov. 4, 1732.

44 See V. H. Clark, History of Manufactures in the United States, 1607-1860 (Washington, 1916), pp. 399, 400.

45 Tench Coxe, A View of the United States of America (Philadelphia, 1794), p. 443. "Our Mechanics are ruined by British Importations!" was a frequent cry. See Mass. Centinel, April 6, 1785. See also Mass. Spy (Worcester), Feb. 18, 1790; N.J. Gazette, Sept. 12, 1785; Pa. J., Oct. 24, 1771; Md. J. and Baltimore Advertiser, Dec. 5, 1783; Charleston City Gazette and Advertiser, Feb. 4, 1797.

46 See Boston News-Letter, Aug. 23-30, 1714; S.C. Gazette, Nov. 16-23, 1734. Nov. 22-Dec. 6, 1735, March 15, 1770, May 30, 1774; Md. Gazette, June 22, 1762; Ga. Col. Rec, XXII, Pt. I, pp. 69 (1738), 366 (1740). The manager of the Hibernia Furnace in New Jersey wrote Lord Stirling, the proprietor, of the need of acquiring the services of a New York blacksmith named Lawrence, reputed to be "the best judge of Blister'd Steel of any there." Stirling MSS, lib. IV, f. 13 (1774), N.Y. Hist. Soc.

47 For the experience in New Netherland, see Doc. Rel. to the Col. Hist. of N.Y., XIV, 401 (1656).

48 See WMCQ, 1st ser., II, 146.

49 H. Hartwell, Rev. J. Blair, and E. Chilton, The Present State of Virginia (London, 1727), p,8.

50 Hening, I, 115-118 (1621); Va. Co. Rec., 111, 586 (1622): instructions to Gov. Wyatt regarding apprentices; Hening, I, 208 (1633): instructions to Gov. Berkeley, VMH, II, 287; MacDonald MSS, Va. State Library.

51 Hening, IV, 168-175 (1726); V, 556, 557 (1748). See also the injunction of James Blair, CSPA, 1696-97, No. 1411, p. 670 (1697).

52 S.C. Slat., Ill, 583.

53 Plymouth Col. Rec., XI, 3, 4 (1626).

54 Hening, I, 193 (1632); R. I. Col Rec., I, 183 (1647); code of 1663, Rider, Laws of R.I., 1636-1705 (reprinted, Providence, 1896), p. 11.

55 The penalty was 100 lbs. of tobacco for every ton unfinished, payable to the person placing the order, unless the cooper could show that the delay was due to illness or some other "Lawful Impediment." Md. Arch., II, 288, 289 (1671), 511 (1676); XIII, 552, 553 (1692). In the licensed trades workmen could be kept at their tasks under strict penalties. Carters, porters, sawyers, and chimney sweeps were required to work at specified rates under penalty of a fine for noncompliance. Philadelphia Directory, 1791.

56 See infra, pp. 55-135.

57 For Virginia's ambitious plans, see Captain John Smith, "The Generall Historie of Virginia," in Narr. of Early Va., ed. L. G. Tyler, p. 391; also VMH, III, 29 (1639). For the attitude of the Somerset County court toward the acts of 1699 for encouraging the manufacture of linen and woolen cloth and "for Erecting some new necessary Towns," see R. B. Morris, "Judicial Supremacy and the Inferior Courts in the American Colonies," Pol. Sci. Q., LV (1940), 429-434. See also Md. Arch., XIII, 111-120, 132-139, 218, 220-222; CSPA, 1661-68, No. 32, p. 11 (1661), Nos. 301, 333, pp. 90, 98, 99 (1662), Nos. 975, 1030, pp. 290, 291, 316 (1665), No. 1241, p. 396 (1666), No. 1410, p. 446 (1667); VMH, II, 387; WMCQ, 2d sen, X, 332; Calendar of Virginia State Papers, ed. by W. P. Palmer et al. (11 vols., Richmond, 1875-93), I, 137 (1709); S.C. Council J., lib. 1737-41, f. 529 (1741).

58 Indeed, a study of exports based upon the British Naval Office lists has disclosed that by the mid-eighteenth century Virginia led all the original states in the export of Indian corn, with Maryland second and Pennsylvania only third. See W. E. Bean, "War and the British Colonial Farmer: A Revaluation in the Light of New Statistical Records," Pacific Hist. Rev., XI (Dec, 1942). 439-447.

59 For typical newspaper references to skilled Negro artisans, see Cape Fear Mercury, Nov. 24, 1769; S.C. Gazette, Jan. 27-Feb. 3, Dec. 2-9, 1732, May 25, Oct. 5, 1734, Aug. 2-9, 1735, Dec. 15-22, 1739, Jan. 12-19, 1740, Nov. 1, 1742, Feb. 27, May 14, 1744, Oct. 23, 1762, June 21, 1773, April 24, 1774; Gazette of the State of S.C., April 9, 29, 1777, Nov. 3, 1779, Dec. 25, 1783, July 1, 1784; Ga. Gazette, June 15, Nov. 9, 1774. See also The Negro in Virginia, comp. by the Writers' Program of the Work Projects Administration in the State of Virginia (New York, 1940), pp. 47-49; F. J. Klingberg, An Appraisal of the Negro in Colonial South Carolina: a Study in Americanization (Washington, 1941), p. 45. W. H. Brown, "The Education and Economic Development of the Negro in Virginia," University of Virginia, Publications (Phelps-Stokes Fellowship Papers), No. 6, pp. 12, 13, 18, 19, R. B. Pinchbeck, "The Virginia Negro Artisan and Tradesman," ibid., No. 7, pp. 11-15, 21. Jernegan, op. cit., ch. i. For the employment of slaves in the colonial iron industry, see Byrd, Writings, p. 345; in the 19th century, see Kathleen Bruce, "Slave Labor in the Virginian Iron Industry," WMCQ, 2d ser., VI, 21-31, 289-307. But cf. T. J. Wertenbaker, Labor Costs and American Democracy (Princeton, 1938), p. 5.

60 See infra, pp. 184-188, 388, 524.

61 See H. J. Carman, ed., American Husbandry (New York, 1939), p. 302. The service of a young, healthy slave was estimated at from 30 to 40 years. Klingberg, op. cit., p. 113. For comparative wage statistics of Negro and white artisans in one region in the Revolutionary period, see W. H. Siebert, "Slavery and White Servitude in East Florida, 1726-1776," Florida Hist. Soc. Q., X (1931), 156. Benjamin Franklin asserted that slave labor was expensive, when one took into account, in addition to the element of risk upon the slave's life, the expense of clothes and diet, the loss of time due to illness, as well as other losses due to negligence, indifference, and theft, and the cost of "a driver to keep him at his work." Writings, ed. A. H. Smyth (New York, 1905), III, 63-73.

62 U.S. George Washington Bicentennial Commission, Pamphlets (Washington, 1932), Nos. 1-16, p. 40.

63 See infra, pp. 167-182.

64 Andrew Yarranton, England's Improvement by Sea and Land . . . (London, 1677), pp. 46, 47.

65 See infra, pp. 321, 322, 384-387, 517, 518.

66 Prov. 31:10-31.

67 John Hammond painted a rosy picture of colonial labor conditions when he asserted that in Virginia women were not "put into the ground to worke" but merely assigned to domestic duties. "Leah and Rachel, or the Two Fruitful Sisters, Virginia and Maryland" (1656), in Force, Hist. Tracts, III, 12, 14. As a matter of fact the Virginia authorities resented the presence of women who did "nothing but to deuoure the food of the land without dooing any dayes deed." Va. Co. Rec., IV, 231, 232 (1623).

68 See A. W. Calhoun, A Social History of the American Family (Cleveland, 1917), I, 124, 125.

69 Hening, II, 85 (1662).

70 Md. Arch., XLVI, 212-470, passim. Under the Maryland act of 1750, c. 14, one tenth the number of workmen at each iron works were liable for service on public roads and bridges.

71 See infra, pp. 279-281.

72 Boston Town Rec., II, 34 (1638); Falmouth Proprietors' Book (1677); Brookhaven Rec., Bk. A, p. 28 (1667); Easthampton, L.l. Rec., I, 338 (1671); Jamaica Town Rec., I, 17 (1667); Md. Arch., XIII, 534-536 (1692); VMH, II, 160 (1618); S.C. Gazette, May 13-20, 1732. For opposition to such grants as favoritism, see Munsell, Annals of Albany, IV, 88 (1653). In 1719 the common council of New York City permitted William Dugdale and John Searle to use certain lands as tenants at will for setting up a building for the making of rope. The petitioners had urged that the project should be considered as being in the public interest as it would give "encouragement to the raising of Hemp, Tar, etc., as also by employing of Journey Men and Labourers, and Bringing up of Boys." Original Records of the Common Council of New York City, File Box No. 1, Bundle 10, Board of Aldermen and City Clerk's Records; M.C.C., III, 195 (1719). For the West Indies, see CO. 154: 1, p. 18 (1668).

73 E.g., Plymouth Col. Rec., I, 159 (1640); IV, 45 (1663); Mass. Acts and Resolves, II, 28 (1716); XI, 241 (1727-28); Boston News-Letter, Dec. 13, 1750; Boston Gazette, Aug. 7, 1753; Derby, Conn., Rec., 1655-1710, p. 120 (1681); R.l. Col. Rec., VII, 430 (1776); Jamaica Town Rec., I, 67 (1676); Baltimore County Court Rec., lib. H.S., No. 7, 1730-32 (March, 1731); Ann Arundel, lib. 1745-47 (August, 1746); Md. Arch., XI, 30 (1775), 77 (1776); S.C. Gazette, Feb. 23, 1734; Aug. 23, 1760; Cooper, S.C. Stat., II, 370 (1712), 385 (1716); IV, 10 (1754); Ga. Col. Rec., I, 507 (1748); XXIV, 227 (1744); Laws of the Island of Antigua (London, 1805), I, 276 (1740-41); Stock, Proc. Brit. Parl., V, 539 (Jamaica, 1749). For typical bounties to war industries during the Revolution, see "Proceedings of the Committees of Safety of Cumberland and Isle of Wight Counties, Virginia, 1775-1776," Va. State Library, Ann. Rep., 1918 (Richmond, 1919), pp. 7, 43 (1775); J. Prov. Cong., N.Y., I, 105, 106 (1775), 366, 697 (1776). For an offer of a loan by the state of a sum of money without interest for the erection of powder mills, see ibid., I, 349, 365 (1776); of rolling and slitting mills, Amer. Arch., 4th ser., VI, 1467; 5th ser., I, 1349. See also A. C. Bining, British Regulation of the Colonial Iron Industry (Philadelphia, 1933), pp. 94-95. Hamilton in his Report on the Subject of Manufactures urged that bounties or subsidies be paid to induce skilled artisans to migrate from Europe. The early Federal exemption of tools and implements from duty was an indirect subsidy. Cole, Hamilton Corr., Pp. 294, 295; also ibid., p. 183.

74 W. R. Scott, English, Scottish and Irish Joint Stock Companies to 1720 (Cambridge, 1910-12), I, ch. vi. For a short-lived salt monopoly to a private entrepreneur on Virginia's Eastern Shore, see Hening, II, 122, 186, 236. For other instances of exclusive privileges to manufacture in the colonies, see Clark, Hist, of Mfgrs., pp. 47-53.

75 William Williams was an unusual example of a colonial house carpenter who went to London to study architecture. Pa. Packet, Jan. 4, 1773. Other native carpenters who stayed at home had access to leading European architectural works, although they were by no means slavish copyists. T. J. Wertenbaker, Golden Age of Colonial Culture (New York, 1942), p. 99.

76 One should not omit mentioning the names of Francis and Joseph Richardson of Philadelphia, Samuel Vernon of Newport, and Samuel Soumain of Annapolis.

77 As a result of the widespread adoption of Oliver Evans' grain elevator American flour mills in the early Federal period were considered definitely superior to those of Great Britain. Oliver Evans, The Young Mill-Wright and Miller's Guide (9th ed., Philadelphia, 1836), Preface. Shortly after the close of the Revolution a correspondent in a New England paper declared it to be a matter of "some surprise" that American artificers should be regarded as inferior to those of Europe, "for had they proper encouragement they could produce work that would defy all the workmen of Europe to outdo. The article of carriages will prove the assertion, as there are several now running in this town, that for neatness, convenience and shew, need not yield the palm to any foreign production whatever." Mass. Centinel, Aug. 10, 1785. See also Mass. Spy (Worcester), Sept. 24, 1789. George Cabot wrote Hamilton in 1791 that thirty-nine out of the forty persons employed in his cotton mill at Beverly, Mass., were natives of the vicinity, as the Irish artisans who were imported "proved deficient in some quality essential to usefulness." Cole, Hamilton Corr., p. 62.

78 See infra, pp. 153-154. See also Clark, Hist, of Mfgrs., pp. 161, 162.

79 See, e.g., N.Y. City Directory, 1786; Pa. J., May 24, 1775; S.C. Gazette, March 12, 1737.

80 See Diary of Joshua Hempstead of New London, Conn., 1711-1758, New London Hist. Soc, Coll., I (1901).

81 N.Y. Gazette or Weekly Post-Boy, June 16, 1755.

82 See advertisement in the Md. Gazette, cited by E. S. Rilcy, The Ancient City: a History of Annapolis in Maryland, 1649-1887 (Annapolis, 1887), p. 13.