“The grown up son might establish a separate household or, as the Romans expressed it, maintain his own cattle (perculium) assigned to him by his father; but in law all that the son acquired, whether by his own labour or by gift from a stranger, whether in his father’s household or in his own, remained the father’s property.” [19] Mommsen, _History of Rome_, I, p. 93. [20] Mommsen, _History of Rome_, II, p. 484-5. [21] Mommsen, _History of Rome_, I, p. 89. [22] Durny, _History of Rome_, I. Sec. 1, pp. 54-55. [23] Guizot, _History of Civilization_, I, pp. 92-93. [24] Guizot, _History of Civilization_, VI, p. 91. [25] Green, _Town Life in the Fifteenth Century_, p. 264-5. [26] Ostrogorski, _The Right of Women_, p. 2. [27] Green, _Town Life in the Fifteenth Century_, II, p. 88. [28] Denton, _England in the Fifteenth Century_, pp. 219-220. [29] Toynbee, _The Industrial Revolution_, p. 15. [30] Toynbee, _The Industrial Revolution_, p. 181. [31] Cheyney, _Industrial and Social History of England_, p. 206. [32] Toynbee, _The Industrial Revolution_, p. 88. [33] Toynbee, _The Industrial Revolution_, p. 186. [34] Hart, _National Ideals Historically Traced_, pp. 188-189. CHAPTER III THE EFFECTS OF INDUSTRIAL CHANGES UPON THE HOMES OF THE WORKING POOR Under the domestic system of industry the lord or the master assumed a moral responsibility for the welfare of his working people. It was his recognized duty to care for them when in distress. Although this system of industry centered great power in the hands of a few, and admitted of great abuse, it relieved the workman of a sense of responsibility for the future. With the introduction of machinery, this protection afforded by the master ceased along with the servitude of the worker. A prop was removed from the working people as well as a weight. The immediate result was almost disastrous. Under the old domestic system there was little encouragement of individual initiative, and the routine of life was subject to few, if any, disturbances that thrust great responsibilities upon the individual. Initiative was a characteristic of the master but the poor worker was taught obedience from the cradle. He was never stimulated nor encouraged to start out on a new line for himself. In other words, he and his family were protected from the uncertainties and responsibilities imposed upon the modern workman. His standard of living was necessarily low. Hunger was not unknown, but it was apt to be a hunger common to all in his class, and so seemingly inevitable, rather than a hunger endured by his family because of his failure in the every day industrial struggle.