A native artisan class was the fruit of the industrial policy of King
Oustavus Vasa (1523—60), the principle of which was to effect a beneficial
division of labour among the various leading trades as well as among the
various minor branches of these trades. For this purpose artisans were forbidden
to engage in commerce or to carry on more than one trade; merchants were
forbidden to carry on a handicraft; nor were merchants allowed to import from
abroad such manufactured goods, by the import of which the town artisans
might be “ruined”. To carry on a craft it was necessary to be vested with the
rights and privileges of a burgher and to be a member of a guild. The endeavours
of the Middle Ages to concentrate the trades in the towns were taken
up afresh and in greater earnest. The rural districts were, however, allowed to
keep their “tailors, shoemakers, skinners, blacksmiths, and carpenters”, who were
considered indispensable. Another exception was occasioned by the King’s right
of appointing “free-masters”, who were permitted to carry on their trades independent
of guilds and burghership. This privilege was generally granted to
foreigners, as there was still a complaint of the lack of clever Swedish craftsmen,
which still remained the case during the reign of King Johan III
(1568—92).
The next stage of development is marked by a still greater favour shown
to the towns at the expense of the rural districts and by an increasing rigour
in the enforcement of the rule making membership in the guilds obligatory.
Charles IX (1 5 9 9—-1611) fixed the number of artisans for each hundred (harad),
and as early as 1576 he ordered all the guilds of his duchy to be close,
i. e., they were to have a certain number of masters proportionate to the population
and size of the town. The town artisans obtained a monopoly of work
inside the town and within a Swedish mile (6 English miles) radius outside
of it, but they were not allowed to work beyond that limit. To exercise a craft
it was required, that the masterpiece should have been approved by the bailiff,
the council, and the alderman of the guild, which authorities, moreover, were
to exercise superintendence over the guilds, examine the wares, and fix a
suitable price for them. In the same spirit, or a still severer one, (the extension
of “the mile of freedom” to two miles, the stricter requirements respecting
apprentices and journeymen, etc.), Charles, when king, issued guild privileges
for special crafts as well as for whole towns.
Gustavus Adolphus (1611— 32) went even farther than his predecessors in
his attempts to restrict the pursuit of crafts in the rural districts. Country
artisans were not now allowed to work at less than four Swedish ifii-
les’ distance from a town, whereas urban artisans, with the knowledge of the
alderman, had permission to work for the country people. In 1644, liberty of
trade in the rural districts was restricted still more, so far even that all craftsmen
in the country districts had to apply for burgership of the cities and to
pay taxes there. I f urban crafts had thus been almost completely delivered
from the rivalry of the rural districts, they were, however, threatened with a
more dangerous intrusion from another quarter. The Nobility privileges of
1612, as well as those of 1617, granted a nobleman the full right to keep any
number of artisans he might need, and to hold his domain free from all the
impositions of Crown and Town, unless the people living on the estate carried
on a townsman’s craft. In this way the nobility found a pretext for “protecting”
from taxes and military conscription a number of “handicraftsmen” in the
rural districts who were working there for other people, as also for releasing a
number of artisans in the towns from all kinds of taxes. The attempts to check
this undue interference did not lead to any satisfactory results.
On the other hand, the new statutes of 1621 and 1622 do not recognize
any close guilds, though some older ones were kept up in many places, and
the sole right of the guild to examine the masterpiece of an applicant considerably.
restricted competition.
It is also about this time that voices are heard against the obligatory
membership of guilds, as a remedy against the unreasonable prices of
craftsmen’s goods. Axel Oxenstierna, Sweden’s real regent during the years
1632—44, enforced the holding of open markets, in Stockholm and Kalmar
at least. But the promises of Government to amend the guild statutes
remained unfulfilled. The only thing done during the reign of Christina (1644
—54) was the appointment (in 1653) of a commissioner to inquire into the
reform question, to inspect all kinds of manufactured articles, and, in general,
to exercise superintendence over the artisans. The decree was renewed in 1662,
and the activity of the guild commissioner was now placed under the control
of the Board of Trade. A new general statute for the guilds was also- issued
in 1669. By it close guilds were expressly forbidden; any one who honestly
and well had learnt his trade was to be admitted as a master. On “masterpieces”
and most other concerns of the guilds, the guild should not decide alone but in
concert with the mayor and the council.. No meetings were to be held without
the permission of these authorities, and at each session one of the magistrates,
“the guild magistrate”, was to be present. In 1672, the right was granted to
artisans to settle as free-masters at Kungsholmen, close to Stockholm.
The reign of Charles X I (1672—97), on the contrary, seems to mark a reaction
as far as the guilds are concerned. During his time, even close guilds
were sometimes allowed, and the prohibitions — after falling into disuse in the
regency during the King’s minority (1660—72) — against the interference of
“protected men”, were. now re-enforced. As to the country districts, Charles XI
entertained a more liberal opinion, however; to each parish was given the
right of keeping one tailor and one shoemaker; the larger parishes were allowed
to have several. Against a fixed payment to the Crown, these artisans were
also relieved from all taxes hitherto accruing to the towns and from the duty of
applying for burghership in them, and they were also shielded from any action
that might be brought against them by the guilds.
The decline of industry and the high prices of craftsmen’s goods during the
last years of Charles X I I (1697—1718), were essentially attributed to the
guilds. One of the first measures of the new political era was, consequently, the
statute of 1719 concerning free-masters. livery one that had learnt a trade
should be allowed to pursue it, after_ giving notice to the magistracy and being
vested with the rights and privileges of citizenship. The reform, however, was
too radical to be of long duration; the very next year, the right of freemastership
was, by the new guild ordinance, limited to immigrating foreigners.
In spite of protests from the burghers, the ideas of liberty certainly
made headway again in the statute of 1724 concerning free-mastership for
natives as well as foreigners/ but reaction was soon in full sway, and in 1731
it was decreed that no native-born free-masters of such trades as stood under a
guild could be admitted to the towns. In opposition to the explicit direction of
the guild-ordinance, the making of the guilds into close bodies followed in 1734; for
the prevention of poverty and the unauthorized carrying on of the crafts, no larger
number of craftmasters should be admitted than the magistracy and the respective
guilds considered expedient and necessary. In 1739, these retrogressive
efforts were crowned by a prohibition against the free-masterhip of foreigners
too. With this step legislative action concerning handicrafts was for the time
brought to a close; henceforth, it is the regulation of industrialism that attract
our chief attention.
During the year just mentioned (1739), a new hall-statute was issued (to replace
that of 1722), as well as new manufacturers3 privileges. Released from