Boris
Johnson’s smashing success is a feel-good moment for nativists.
But they
are all on the wrong side of history. Here is an excerpt from my forthcoming
study on three empires that, at times, cutoff immigration and trade to their
great detriment—Rome, Britain, and the U.S.:
Naturalization Laws and the Rise of the
British Empire: From an early time, English law
protected workers from foreigners.[1]
But these policies isolated and slowed the English economy. In time, England
allowed limited immigration to develop its business climate. Three waves of
foreigners were admitted: Flemings in the fourteenth century, Dutch and
Walloons in the sixteenth century, and French in the seventeenth century.[2] Over
this long span, English governments regarded these foreigners as religious
refugees and economic assets.[3] Beginning
in 1331, Edward III promoted immigration of skilled craftsmen with letters of
protection.[4] Weavers
from Flanders were allowed entry to work.[5] Edward
III cultivated industry and training by admitting skilled aliens.[6]
Within
a short time, the Black Death created an immense labor shortage. The Ordinance
of Labourers of 1349 reacted to wage inflation by capping wages across many trades
and occupations.[7] A
year later, citizenship was broadened in “A Statute for Those That Be Born
Beyond the Sea.”[8]
The law provided that inheritance rights for the “children of the kings of
England, in whatsoever parts they be born, in England or elsewhere, be able
ought to bear the inheritance after the death of their ancestors.”[9] Timing
of the law suggests a national imperative to increase the labor pool by extending
citizenship to English emigres.
Until the early sixteenth century, England remained in a trading rut,
a small satellite in the orbit of Italy, the Mediterranean, Low Countries, and
Germany.[10] The Hanseatic League was England’s primary trade partner in the 1400s:
together, they granted favorable trading privileges in wool to Germanic guilds
but disadvantaged English producers and merchants.[11] England’s primary export until 1565 was cloth— a finished commodity
that required imported raw materials and dyes.[12] Not only did England import most products essential to its economy:
It imported also Europe’s technical skills.[13]
As
foreigners arrived in larger numbers during the early sixteenth century, this influx
brought labor competition.[14] Native
resentments exploded on Evil May Day 1517, a day of rioting against foreigners.[15] But
the trade between foreign businesses and English artisans was so vital to the
treasury that the king meted out cruel punishment against the nativists.[16] Thirteen
young rioters were hanged; more than 400 others bound in ropes awaiting their
fate at the gallows before they received a last-minute pardon.[17]
The
population of foreign artisans swelled, constituting about one-third of Londoners.[18] Skilled
labor in this period mostly came from foreigners, including tradesmen who
worked for the royal household.[19] Their
presence inflamed British subjects.[20] In
consequence, the Aliens Act of 1540 restricted the rights of these workers.[21]
Parliament reflected native concern that aliens “did eate the Englishmen out of
trade, and that they entertained no Apprentizes, but of their own Nation.”[22] Before
long, however, England adopted permissive immigration laws. During Elizabeth
I’s reign, naturalization laws thrust England to the forefront as a continental
trading partner. Foreigner artisans who mastered new drapery technologies
provided a way for England to grow exports by adding new value to domestic
materials.[23]
[1] Daniel Thompson, The Weavers’ Craft 19 (1903) (the twenty-second law of
the “Leges Burgorum,” written during the reign of David I (1124-1153),
prohibited anyone but a burgess from making cloth or dyeing it).
[2] Ephraim
Lipson, The Economic History of England 60 (1937).
[3] Id.
[4] Lien Bich Luu,
Immigrants and the Industries of London, 1500–1700 53-55 (2017) (Edward
III promoted industrial development in
his letters of protection to Flemish weavers, encouraging them to come and
develop the cloth industry in England).
[5] Also see Bart Lambert &
Milan Pajic, Drapery in Exile: Edward
III, Colchester and the Flemings, 1351–1367, 99 Hist. 338 (Dec. 2014) (as a result of Edward III granting
Flemish textile workers letters of protection, skilled artisans helped
Colchester become an international
center of textile production. These letters were similar to modern actions by
legislatures to grant a private form of naturalization.
The king to
all his bailiffs … to whom … greeting. Know you that since John Kempe of
Flanders, weaver of woollen cloths, will come to stay within our realm of
England to exercise his mystery here, and to instruct and teach those wishing
to learn therein, and will bring certain men, servants and apprentices of that
mystery, we have taken John and his aforesaid men, servants and apprentices,
and their goods and chattels into our special protection of defence.
[7] Braid, supra
note 169, at 23-24.
[8] 25 Edw. III Stat. 2 (1350).
[9] Id.
[11] Frederik Pedersen, Trade and Politics in the Medieval Baltic: English Merchants and
England’s Relations to the Hanseatic League 1370-1437, in Public Power in Europe: Studies in Historical
Transformations 161 (James S.
Amelang & Siegfried Beer, eds.), at 161-165.
[12] Lawrence Stone, Elizabethan Overseas Trade, 2 The
Eco. Hist. Rev. 30 (New Series, 1949), at 37:
The main difference from the situation 200
years before was that cloth had now replaced wool as the staple English export.
In this year cloth alone comprised 78% of the total value of all exports, and
all types of wool, wool-fells and clothing amounted to over 90%. … For all
intents and purposes England exported clothing and clothing materials and
nothing else.
[14] Charles Mathew
Clode, The
Early History of the Guild of Merchant Taylors of the Fraternity of St. John
the Baptist, London
78 (1888) (“From early times the foreign workmen pressed very heavily upon the
native craftsmen, taking work from them and keeping down the price of wages.”).
[15] Derek Wilson, Evil May Day 1517, 67 History
Today 68 (2017) (the riot was likely sparked by an Easter sermon that
demonized foreigners for depriving English natives of wealth). The rioters were
mostly poor laborers, watermen, or journeymen apprentices in tanning and
brewing companies.
[16] Id. at 69, explaining
that customs duties made up the largest part of the king’s ordinary income. The
Tudor regime, therefore, had no interest in inhibiting trade by restrictive
practices. Id. Henry VIII and Wolsey
had other methods of extracting much-needed cash from the foreigners to fund
the king’s early military adventures and heavy personal expenditure. Id.
[17] Graham Noble, “Evil May Day”: Re-Examining the Race Riot of 1517, 2008 History Rev. 37 (Sep’t. 2008), at 39.
[19] Letters
of Denization and Acts of Naturalization for Aliens in England 1509-1603
(1893), vii.
[20] Lien Bich Luu, Migration and Change: Religious Refugees and the London Economy,
1550-1600, 8 Critical Survey
93 (1996), at 98 (as economic conditions, worsened in the late 1500s attacks on
foreigners peaked). In 1573, foreigners sought protection from London
officials, complaining that they “‘have been of late molested and euell
entreted going into the strete about there busines, by servants and apprentices
undiscretly and without order whereof hurt may ensue (quoted in original
text).’” Id.
[21] 32 Hen. 8, c. 16, § 1 (1540) (Eng.).
[22] Sir
Francis Bacon, Three Speeches of the Right Honorable 19 (1641).
No comments:
Post a Comment