England -- Social life and customs -- 19th century; Great Britain -- History -- William IV, 1830-1837
These "Tommy shops" were generally kept by some relation or servant of
the master, put in for that purpose; or, when the tradesman did not
resort to such measures on his own account, he made an arrangement
with the retailer, who allowed him a discount. And the more needy the
manufacturer, the greater his advantage under this system; for he was
enabled to stock his shop for three months, and then pay for that
stock with a bill at another three months; so that, instead of paying
his workmen ready money, he was obtaining six months' credit. Again,
without saying that there was a regular contract amongst the masters,
it was always an understood thing that a man discharged for objecting
to this system should not be taken on by any other employer. And,
indeed, this naturally followed; for, when once it was known that a
man had lost his employment by objecting to this mode of payment, it
was not likely that another master, who paid in exactly the same way,
would give him employment.
And the poor fellows had to pay through the nose for all they had. The
milder "truck-masters" were content to charge their men from 15 to 20
per cent. more than the market price, while those unburdened with a
conscience, exacted 100 per cent. profit; nor would they allow their
men to keep pigs. This state of things was well known, and leave was
applied for and given in December, 1830, to bring a Bill into
Parliament to do away with the truck system, and make it penal. On
October 15, 1831, this received the Royal sanction, and the Act was
afterwards known as 1 and 2 Gul. IV. c. 36, "An Act to repeal several
Acts and parts of Acts prohibiting the Payment of Wages in Goods, or
otherwise than in the current Coin of the Realm." And another (same,
c. 37), in which it was settled that all wages must be paid to the
workman in coin, and payment in goods was declared illegal; that
artificers might recover, by law, wages, if not paid in current coin,
and that no employer should have any action against his artificer for
goods supplied to him on account of wages; whilst, if the artificer,
or his wife or children, became chargeable to the parish, the
overseers may recover any wages earned within the three preceding
months, and not paid in cash. That contracts between master and man as
to the payment of the whole or part of wages in goods should be
illegal, and for the first offence the employer should be fined not
less than £5, nor more than £10; for the second, not less than £10,
nor more than £20; and for the third he was to be fined, at the
discretion of the Court, a sum not exceeding £100.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account