the duty of belonging to any guild, but subject to the Court of Industry
(Hallratt) should be: all silk, woollen, and linen manufactories, together with all
the works and factories belonging to them, “as well as other manufactories and
artificers, of whatever name they may be, who choose to place themselves in
subjection to the Court.” In thè quarrels, called forth by this most indefinite
wording, between guild craftsmen and manufacturers, the authorities sided with
the latter, while the former continued to be favoured at the expense of the
rural artisans. Even in 1723, the old difference between town and country
trades — essentially done away with by the wars — revived again; all craftsmen
had to return to the towns, with the exception of those who were engaged
by the year in the service of the nobility, or who, in their capacity of
parish or factory artisans, were entitled by law to live in the country districts.
In 1734, it is true, the farmers obtained the right of carrying on handicrafts as
by-trades and of selling their own articles, as well as those made by others in
general, anywhere they pleased, but the categories of handicraftsmen proper
increased but slowly.
Complaints of the exorbitant rise in guild prices called forth in 1762 an ordinance
requiring the value of the goods to be fixed by-impartial persons, this
replacing the regulations of 1720 concerning the election of valuers from among
the members of the guild. The valuation was now to be performed by one
magistrate (not a guild magistrate), one merchant, one broker, and one guild
artisan, who had to state their decision before a court, after which the matter
was to be settled “summario proeessu”.
The accession of Gustavus III (1771—92) again accelerated the reform agitation.
By the rescript of 1773 it was decreed that the regulation in the guild statute
of 1720 concerning a journeyman’s right to become a master should bè observed
without any alteration, and that thus no journeyman, after having served the
prescribed time, should be denied mastership and burghership. After hearing the
parties concerned, the magistracy was to decide what masterpieces an applicant
had to execute, and what fees had to be paid. Married journeymen, who Wished
to become masters, were guaranteed a reduction in the term of joumeymanship
amounting to one or two years. The subsequent industrial policy of the king
long remained decidedly liberal. Under the administration of Liljencrantz
as Secretary of State, the organization of “free towns” (begun in 1766)
was continued and extended, and in' these towns “real” articles of manufacture
in the iron and steel branches might be produced without any masterpiece
test. This liberty was now to be extended to all kinds of tradesmen
in the new towns henceforth founded. All reformatory plans were, however,
interrupted by the resignation of Liljencrantz. The king’s need for the
assent of the burghers to a new Constitution (1789) forced him into another
course of industrial policy. By a proclamation of 1789 to the burgesses of
the kingdom, it was enacted that nobody should carry on a burgher’s trade or
business that had not been vested with the rights and privileges of citizenship
(but with the exception of those granted to nobility and gentry), and that, in
case a greater number of craftsmen should present themselves than might
reasonably be expected, to be able to find their livelihood, due regard should be paid
to the opinions pronounced on the point by the company, the elders of the town,
and the magistracy. Another resolution annulled the right of admitting craftsmen
conferred upon the universities (by former constitutions) and upon public
offices (since 1739) and forbade the “courts of industry” to bring under their
control journeymen and soldiers, so that these could keep joint workshops,
although the latter retained their privilege of working in a guildmaster’s workshop
or on his account. As early as 1790, it was enacted that this liberty
of work granted to the soldiers (which, in 1804, was extended to the country
militia) should also be granted to workmen at rifle .manufactories and salt-petre
works, etc., as well as “to other persons in the works and on the estates of the
Crown”,' besides which the universities, in 1791, regained their right of appointing
craftsmen; but the declaration o f -1789 remained in force and rendered journeymen’s
right to mastership very difficult to obtain. On the other hand, the
freedom of handicrafts in the rural districts was extended in 1802. On the
representation of the governor of a lan, the Government should henceforth
in every special case be entitled to examine whether other artisans than those
already admitted by law could be admitted in the future. In consequence of such
special concessions, there were thus, in 1843, at various places, craftsmen in no
less than 26 trades in addition to the five original ones, (tailors, shoemakers,
smiths, masons, and glaziers).
After the introduction of the new constitution (1809), the development. towards
free trade found its first legal expression of any importance in the two
ordinances (of 1821 and 1828) by which was settled the old matter of dispute
corifcerning the limits of the respective spheres of work for guild artisans and
for manufacturers. It was now stipulated that the protection of the manufacturing
privileges was to be granted by the Board of Trade: a) to those who had
duly proved their ability to manufacture either such articles as were not made
within the guilds or else such as were of a better quality than those generally
made by the guild masters ; V) also to those who, at a manufacturer’s, had gained a
complete knowledge of his trade, and who, according to the certificate of the
proper magistrate or “court of industry”, were clever enough to work on their
own account. Such a manufacturer was to have the right to produce all kinds
of. .¡goods within the trade of which he had obtained the privileges; the same
liberty of work was to be enjoyed by manufacturers already appointed and their
workmen. In 1828, the clauses of the guild ordinance were declared to be no
longer applicable to brewers, bakers, and butchers in the towns, and in several
new towns and boroughs the same liberty was granted handicrafts in general.
In 1845, the parishes obtained the right to decide what kinds of artisans
ought to be allowed to exist in them.
Then in 1846, followed the abolition of the guilds. In their place
were to be instituted free handicraft unions to promote the interests of the
artisans. The right of exercising a trade as a master was made dependent on
several civil qualifications and, for most trades, on the obligation of having
qualified as a master; burghership was required, besides, to keep a workshop in
town. But any trade might be carried on in the country, and it became permissible
to carry on several trades at the same time. The right was granted, besides,
to every respectable Swedish man that had reached his majority, of manufacturing
goods with the assistance of his wife and such children as were living at
home, even although he had not become a master or a citizen of any town —
this right was, moreover, extended to women. Complete freedom in carrying on
trade was established in 1864.
Shortly after the promulgation of the liberty of trade ordinance of 1864
the artisans discovered that this unrestricted throwing open of trades and
crafts was not a good thing, and before many years had passed, the question
began to be discussed at meetings of industrial workers, whether this extension
of liberty of trade was in agreement with the claims that tradesmen
and craftsmen considered themselves to possess, and what alterations of the
act were to be considered necessary.
There were, properly speaking, three details in the act in question
on which criticism was concentrated. The first was § 2, in which