ON THE PRICE OF LABOUR. 2$$ 



was never, as far as I have found, exacted as a labour-rent from 

 the villains. In these cases then we may, I think, fairly con- 

 clude that the price of the service, in so far as it was affected 

 by competition, represents fully the economical conditions of 

 supply and demand, and is interpreted by the evidence of prices. 

 There can be no doubt that all villages of any magnitude 

 maintained certain persons who were engaged in mechanical 

 avocations. No parish or manor, for instance, was without a 

 thatcher, though, as I should judge from the comparative rarity 

 of this occupation as a surname, the labour was rendered by 

 those who at other times of the year than that in which their 

 services were in great demand, that namely which immediately 

 follows on the hay or corn-harvest, were engaged in ordinary 

 farm business. A skilful thatcher in these days is a first-class 

 farm hand, in just the same way as a skilful ploughman is, or 

 a good hedger or ditcher. Besides the thatcher, most villages 

 maintained a smith, whose employment was permanent. The 

 universal distribution of this surname is indicative of how 

 universal was the presence of this artificer. Iron implements 

 were rarely bought, at least in the earlier part of the period 

 before us. It was the custom for the bailiff of the manor, and 

 no doubt for others who cultivated small parcels for their own 

 purposes, to buy iron as raw material, and, just as is the custom 

 to this day with native artificers in India, to supply the crafts- 

 man with it, and pay him for his work. This iron was pur- 

 chased, as we shall see below, in two forms, either forged into 

 bars or pieces, or puddled in some rude fashion into blooms 

 or masses weighing about a hundred. As the bar or piece iron 

 was more manageable than the same material in mass, it bears 

 a higher price, or what is the same thing, the smith is paid less 

 for forging and fashioning it. Although, too, in a population 

 which must needs have been so scanty in this country during 

 the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries it was necessary that 

 a large portion of the ordinary materials for husbandry should 

 be manufactured at home, and as therefore the division of 

 labour could not have been carried to any great extent, yet we 



