Page images
PDF
EPUB

In former times goods and commodities of every kind were chiefly sold at fairs, to which people resorted periodically. The display of merchandise, and the conflux of customers at these principal and almost only emporia of domestic commerce, was prodigious; and they were therefore often held on open and extensive plains. Warton, in his History of English Poetry,' has given us a curious account of that of St. Giles's hill or down, near Winchester. It was instituted and given as a kind of revenue to the bishop of Winchester by William the Conqueror, who, by his charter, permitted it to continue for three days. But in consequence of new royal grants, Henry III. pro

operation. The government announced their intention of adhering to the period of twelve hours, as fixed by their bill. On the 22nd of March the House went into committee on the Bill, when two divisions took place: on the motion that twelve hours a day should be the limits of adult labour, an amendment was proposed which substituted ten hours, which was carried by 186 to 183; but at the next stage of the Bill, the motion that the blank in the bill should be accordingly filled up with the word "ten" was lost by 181 to 188. The ministers in the first instance were in a minority of 3, and in the second they had a majority of 7. From this dilemma the House escaped by bringing in a new bill, which was ulti-longed its continuance to sixteen days. mately carried.

Mr. Leonard Horner, who is one of the Inspectors of Factories, in his report dated 16th of May, 1845, gives an instance of the voluntary shortening of the hours of factory labour from twelve to eleven hours per day, which had been effected without any diminution of profit. The plan had been in operation twelve months, and the declaration of the employers was, "that the same quantity of produce and at the same cost has been obtained by the master; and that all the workers, day hands as well as those who are paid by piece-work, earn the same amount of wages in the eleven hours as was done before by the labour of twelve hours." Encouraged by this representation, the hours of labour of persons under eighteen were reduced by 10 Vict. c. 29, from twelve to eleven, from July 1, 1847; and from May 1, 1848, the hours of persons under eighteen were reduced to ten in any one day, and not to exceed fifty-eight in any one week. These limitations were extended to all females above eighteen years of age. At this stage legislation on this difficult subject rests at present; but as dissatisfaction prevails among the mill-owners, further acts may be requisite.

FACULTIES. [UNIVERSITY.} FAIR, a meeting of buyers and sellers at a fixed time and place; from the French foire, which is from the Latin feriae, a holiday. Fairs in ancient times were chiefly held on holidays.

Its jurisdiction extended seven miles round, and comprehended even Southampton, then a capital trading-town; and all merchants who sold wares within that circuit, unless at the fair, forfeited them to the bishop. As late as 1512, as we learn from the Northumberland Household-book, fairs still continued to be the principal marts for purchasing necessaries in large quantities, which are now supplied by the numerous tradingtowns.

Philip, king of France, complained to Edward II. A.D. 1314, that the merchants of England had desisted from frequenting the fairs in his dominions with their wool and other goods, to the great loss of his subjects; and entreated him to persuade, and, if necessary, to compel them to frequent the fairs of France as formerly, promising them all possible security and encouragement. (Rymer, Fœd., tom. iii. p. 482.)

When a town or village had been consumed, by way of assisting to re-establish it, a fair, among other privileges, was sometimes granted. This was the case at Burley, in Rutlandshire, 49th Edward III. (Abbrev. Rot. Orig., vol. ii. p. 338.)

The different abridgments of Stow and Grafton's Chronicles, published by themselves in Queen Elizabeth's time contain lists of the fairs of England according to the months. There is also 'An authentic Account published by the king's authority of all the Fairs in Eng.

land and Wales, as they have been settled to be held since the alteration of the style; noting likewise the Commodities which each of the said Fairs is remarkable for furnishing,' by William Owen, 12mo., Lond., 1756.

No fair or market can be held except by a grant from the crown, or by prescription, which is supposed to take its rise from soine ancient grant, of which no record can be found. (2 Inst. 220.)

(Dugdale's Hist. Warw., pp. 514, 515; Warton's Hist. Engl. Poet., vol. i. p. 279; Henry, Hist. Brit., 8vo. edit., vol. viii. p. 325; Brand's Popular Antiq. 4to. edit. vol. ii., p. 215.)

of the court or of the minister of the day. Sully, the able minister of Henry IV., seeing the dilapidation of the public revenue occasioned by this system, by which, out of 150 millions paid by the people, only 30 millions reached the treasury, opened the contracts for farming the taxes to public auction, giving them to the highest bidder, according to the ancient Roman practice. By this means he greatly increased the revenue of the state. But the practice of private contracts through favour or bribing was renewed under the following reigns: Colbert, the minister of Louis XIV., called the farmers of the revenue to a severe account, and by an act of power deprived them of their enormous gains. In 1728, under the regency, the various individual leases were united into a Ferme Générale, which was let to a company, the members of which were henceforth called Fermiers Généraux. In 1759, Silhouette, minister of Louis XV., quashed the contracts of the farmers-general, and levied the taxes by his own agents. But the system of contracts revived: for the court, the mire-nisters, and favourites were all well disposed to them, as private bargains were made with the farmers-general, by which they paid large sums as douceurs. In the time of Necker, the company consisted of forty-four members, who paid a rent of 186 millions of livres, and Necker calcu

The fairs of Frankfort-on-the-Mayn and Leipzig are the chief fairs in Europe: the former held at Easter and in the months of August and September; the latter at Easter, Michaelmas, and the New Year. The whole book-trade of Germany is centred in the Easter fair at Leipzig. Nishnei Novgorod in Russia, at the confluence of the Oka and Wolga, has a great annual fair in June, which is attended by about three hundred thousand strangers, many of whom come from mote parts of Asia.

FARMERS-GENERAL. Fermiers Généraux was the name given in France under the old monarchy to a company which farmed certain branches of the public revenue, that is to say, contracted with the government to pay into the trea-lated their profit at about two millions sury a fixed yearly sum, taking upon itself the collection of certain taxes as an equivalent. The system of farming the taxes was an old custom of the French monarchy. Under Francis I., the revenue arising from the sale of salt was farmed by private individuals in each town. This was and is still in France and other countries of Europe a monopoly of the government. At the present time the government of France derives about 2,200,000l. a year from the salt monopoly. The government reserves to itself the power of providing the people with salt, which it collects in its stores, and sells to the retailers at its own price. This monopoly was first assumed by Philippe de Valois in 1350. Other sources of revenue were likewise farmed by several individuals, most of whom were favourites

yearly-no very extraordinary sum, if correct. But independent of this profit there were the expenses of collection, and a host of subalterns to support: the company had its officers and accountants, receivers, collectors, &c., who, having the public force at their disposal, committed numerous acts of injustice towards the people, especially the poorer class, by distraining their goods, selling their chattels, &c. The "gabelle" or sale of salt, among others, was a fruitful source of oppression. Not satisfied with oblig. ing the people to pay for the salt at the price fixed upon it in the name of the king, they actually obliged every individual above eight years of age to buy a certain quantity of salt whether wanted or not. But the rule was not alike all over France; in some provinces, which en

est.

joyed certain privileges, salt was 9 livres The Roman system of levying taxes, the one hundred weight, whilst in others at least after the Republic had begun to it cost 16, and in some 62 livres. In some acquire territory out of Italy, was by provinces the quantity required to be farming them out. In the later period of purchased per head was 25 pounds the Republic the farmers were from the weight: in others it was 9 pounds. And body of the Equestrian order. Indiviyet the provinces, nay the individual duals used to form companies or associfamilies of each province, were pro- ations for farming the taxes of a particuhibited under the severest penalties from lar district: the taxes were let by the accommodating each other's wants, and Censors for a period of five years. They buying the superfluous salt of their were probably let to those who bid highneighbours, but whoever wanted more These farmers were called Pubsalt than his obligatory allowance was licani, and by the Greek writers Telonae obliged to resort to the government (@va), which is rendered by Publicans stores. Besides, every article of pro- in the English version of the New Testavisions that was exported from one pro- ment, where they are appropriately classed vince to another was subject to duties with sinners, for they were accused of called Traites. Every apprentice on being often guilty of great extortion. being bound to a master was bound to These tax-collectors in the province were pay to the king a certain sum according however only the agents. The princito the nature of the trade, and afterwards pals generally resided at Rome, where a much larger sum on his admission to the affairs of each association (Societas) practise his trade as a master. These few were managed by a director called a Mainstances may serve to convey an idea of gister. The individual members held taxation in France previous to the Revo- shares (partes) in the undertaking. lution. A lively but faithful picture of There was also a chief manager in the the whole system is given in Breton's province or district of which the company Histoire Financière de la France, 2 vols. | farmed the tax, who was called Pro8vo., Paris, 1829. The farmers-general, magister. as the agents of that system, coming into immediate contact with the people, drew upon themselves a proportionate share of popular hatred. But the Revolution swept away the farmers-general, and put an end to the system of farming the revenues: it equalized the duties and taxes all over France; but the monopoly of the salt and tobacco has remained, as well as the duties on provisions, cattle, and wine brought into Paris and other large towns, called the octroi, and the right of searching by the octroi officers, if they think fit, all carriages and individuals entering the barriers or gates of the same.

The system of farming the taxes, although generally disapproved of, is still continued in some European states. Not many years ago the custom-house duties at Naples were farmed by private speculators. For the character and effects of the system see Necker, De l'Administra- | tion des Finances.

In England the only tax that is farmed is that on post-horses. The excise duties were farmed for some years prior to 1683.

There are no means of knowing what proportions of the taxes collected reached the Roman Treasury (aerarium). Numerous complaints of the rapacity of the Publicani or their agents occur in the classical writers. These Publicani were the monied men of the late Republic and the early Empire, and their aid was often required by the state for advances of money when the treasury was empty. Part of the mal-administration probably came from the Publicani sub-letting the taxes, which seems to have been done, sometimes at least.

FATHER. [PARENT AND CHILD.]

FEALTY, says Littleton (§ 91), "is the same that fidelitas is in Latin. And when a freeholder doth fealty to his lord, he shall hold his right hand upon a book, and shall say thus:- Know ye this, my lord, that I shall be faithful and true unto you, and faith to you shall bear for the lands which I claim to hold of you, and that I shall lawfully do to you the customs and services which I ought to do, at the terms assigned: so help me God

and his saints; and he shall kiss the book. But he shall not kneel when he maketh his fealty, nor shall make such humble reverence as is aforesaid in homage."

From this it appears that fealty is the fidelity which a man who holds lands of another owes to him of whom he holds, and it contains an engagement to perform the services for which the land is granted. The law as to fealty continues unchanged, though it is not usual now to exact the oath of fealty. It is due from all tenants of land, except tenants in frankalmoigne and those who hold at will or by sufferance. The reasons for now requiring it are so few that it is nearly gone into disuse, though it serves to keep up the evidence of tenure, when there are no other services due. If it is refused, the lord may enforce it by distress.

FEDERATION. This word is derived from the Roman term Foederatus, which was applied by the Romans to States which were connected with the Roman State by a Foedus or treaty. A federal union of sovereign states may be most easily conceived in the following

manner:

We will suppose that the sovereign power in any number of independent states is vested in some individual in those several states. These sovereign persons may agree respectively with each other and with all not to exercise certain functions of sovereignty in their several states, and to transfer these functions to be jointly exercised by the contracting sovereign persons. The consequence of such a compact will be that the contracting sovereign persons in their joint capacity will become sovereign in each state and in all the states. The several sove. reign persons having for the time surrendered to the joint body certain powers incident to their several sovereignties, are no longer severally sovereign in their several states. The powers surrendered to the joint body may be determined by written contract, the interpretation of which belongs to the joint body, yet in such a manner that there can be no valid interpretation unless the sovereign persons are unanimous; for if any number or majority could bind the rest, they

might, by interpretation, deprive the several contracting persons of all the powers reserved to them by the contract. It follows also from the terms of the union, that any one party can withdraw from it at pleasure, and, as far as he is concerned, dissolve the union; for the essence of this union is the continuing consent of all.

This is the simplest possible form of a supreme federal government; one in which the contracting sovereign powers are individuals, and in which the sovereign persons in their aggregate capacity exercise the functions of sovereignty. Such a federation may never have existed, but any federation that does exist or can exist, however complicated it may seem, is reducible to these simple elements.

If the sovereign powers, instead of being in individuals, are in all the people of the respective states, the only difference will be that the functions of sove reignty, which in the first case we sup posed to be exercised by the individual sovereigns in their joint capacity, must, in this case, be delegated to individual members of the sovereign body. The citizens of the several sovereign states must in the first instance of necessity delegate to some of their own body the proper authority for making the federal contract or constitution; and they must afterwards appoint persons out of their own body, in the mode prescribed by the federal contract, for executing the powers intrusted by the federal contract to persons so appointed. Thus the individuals who form the federal contract act therein severally as the agents of the sovereign states from which they receive their commission; and the individuals appointed to carry into effect the terms of the federal contract are the ministers and agents of that sovereign power which is composed of the several sovereign states, which again are composed of all the citizens. By whatever name, of President, Senate, House of Representatives, or other name, the agents of the sovereign power are deuominated, they are only the agents of those in whom the sovereign power resides.

When the sovereign power is so distributed, the question as to the interpretation of the federal contract may in practice be more difficult, but in principle it is the

same. No one state can be bound by the interpretation of the rest, for if this were once allowed there would be no assignable limit to the encroachments of the states exercising sovereign power in their aggregate capacity. It is a clear consequence of the nature of the compact, whether the several sovereign powers are nations or individuals, that each contracting power must exercise its judgment on the interpretation of the instrument to which it is a party, and that no interpretation from which any power dissents can, consistently with the nature of the compact, bind that power against its will.

In the case of complete dissent or disagreement by any one power, the contract is, by the very nature of its terms, at an end; for the contract being among sovereign powers, they cannot severally as such yield obedience to another sovereignty, which results from the aggregation of their several sovereign powers: their acts in their joint capacity must be acts of complete consent.

If the sovereign power in such a federal union has delegated the power of interpreting the written instrument of union to certain judiciary authorities, appointed under the federal compact for the purpose of carrying its provisions into effect, the several sovereign powers must still exercise, either by their legislatures or their judiciary authorities, their power to judge of the correctness of the interpretation, just as much as if the several sovereign persons, in the case first supposed, themselves exercised the functions of sovereignty in the supreme federal govern

ment.

What is commonly called the general government of the United States of North America is an example of a federation or federal government, or a supreme federal government. The contracting parties were sovereign states (the sovereignty in each state being in the citizens), which in their aggregate capacity formed a supreme federal government. The ministers for carrying into effect the federal government are the president and congress, and the judiciary of the United States. By the preamble to the constitution it is in fact declared that the "people of the United States" are the contracting

parties. The several states of the union are often still called sovereign and inde pendent states, because they retain all the sovereignty which they have not given up, expressly or by implication, to the general government; and it is considered that the chief business of the general government is to determine and control the relations of all the confederated states to foreign states, and to make provision for the general defence. In practice, however, great difficulties arise in fixing the limits between the sovereignty of the states, such as it is, and the powers of the general government.

The fifth article of the constitution provides that "The congress, whenever twothirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in threefourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the congress; provided, &c. that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate." From this article it is clear that the framers of the constitution did not fully comprehend the nature of the supreme federal government; for it is assumed by this article that the several states may be bound without their unanimous consent, which is contrary to conditions essentially implied by the nature of the union. This article involves also the inconsistency that the sovereign in any state may bind his successors: if the case of a federation of individual sovereign persons had been that to be provided for, the impossibility of the provision would have been apparent; but the impossibility equally exists when the contracting sovereign powers are respectively composed of many individuals, for the abiding consent is still the essence of the union that has been formed.

This is not the proper place to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of a supreme federal government, nor to examine into its stability. That it is neces

« EelmineJätka »