DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.22140#0180
164 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL HISTORY.
Universities, now about forty years ago, this word greatly exercised
the members of the commission. Till they published their report
I did not know what was their disficulty, though had I learned of
it I could have explained it to them. In brief, the University of
Oxford was a trade union which constrained all those who claimed
admission to its privileges to subscribe for the defence of those
privileges. So, again, the City companies claimed to impose fines
on those of their members who did what in their judgment was
unneighbourly or unfair to other members. I have quoted a case
which I was able to extract from the archives of the Grocers'
Company, in which a very substantial fine was imposed on two
of the fraternity for what would, I suppose, be called in Ireland
shop grabbing, in this case osfering a higher rent for a tenement
than the occupier was paying.
English law or custom has sanctioned penalties inflicted by
corporations or quasi-corporations on persons who are guilty of
unprofessional conduct. The benchers of an inn may disbar a
counsel for misbehaviour. The medical council can take away
his status from a practitioner, and recently has done so in the
case ot a person who published an obnoxious book. The arch-
bishop of a province can deprive a bishop under his jurisdiction
for an ecclesiastical osfence. The precedents are not numerous,
but they are decisive. Pecok, Bishop of Chichester, was thus
deprived by Bourchier in 1457. AVatson, Bishop os St. Davids^,
was suspended in 1694 by Tillotson, and deprived in 1699 by
Tenison ; and in the present century an Irish bishop was similarly
deprived by the Primate of All Ireland. It is by no means an
uncommon practice with professional men and traders to decline
intercourse with such members of the several callings, as decline
to be bound by an etiquette or rule. We have no doubt got a
new word in "boycott," but the word covers a very ancient,,
time-honoured, and recognized practice. Perhaps in the course
of the investigation with which I am concerned to-day, we may be
able to discover why a practice which has been deemed necessary
and therefore harmless in certain directions, has excited so much
horror and indignation in others.
Of all the questions which puzzle practical men, politicians, and
even economists, none is greater than that of the extent to which
Universities, now about forty years ago, this word greatly exercised
the members of the commission. Till they published their report
I did not know what was their disficulty, though had I learned of
it I could have explained it to them. In brief, the University of
Oxford was a trade union which constrained all those who claimed
admission to its privileges to subscribe for the defence of those
privileges. So, again, the City companies claimed to impose fines
on those of their members who did what in their judgment was
unneighbourly or unfair to other members. I have quoted a case
which I was able to extract from the archives of the Grocers'
Company, in which a very substantial fine was imposed on two
of the fraternity for what would, I suppose, be called in Ireland
shop grabbing, in this case osfering a higher rent for a tenement
than the occupier was paying.
English law or custom has sanctioned penalties inflicted by
corporations or quasi-corporations on persons who are guilty of
unprofessional conduct. The benchers of an inn may disbar a
counsel for misbehaviour. The medical council can take away
his status from a practitioner, and recently has done so in the
case ot a person who published an obnoxious book. The arch-
bishop of a province can deprive a bishop under his jurisdiction
for an ecclesiastical osfence. The precedents are not numerous,
but they are decisive. Pecok, Bishop of Chichester, was thus
deprived by Bourchier in 1457. AVatson, Bishop os St. Davids^,
was suspended in 1694 by Tillotson, and deprived in 1699 by
Tenison ; and in the present century an Irish bishop was similarly
deprived by the Primate of All Ireland. It is by no means an
uncommon practice with professional men and traders to decline
intercourse with such members of the several callings, as decline
to be bound by an etiquette or rule. We have no doubt got a
new word in "boycott," but the word covers a very ancient,,
time-honoured, and recognized practice. Perhaps in the course
of the investigation with which I am concerned to-day, we may be
able to discover why a practice which has been deemed necessary
and therefore harmless in certain directions, has excited so much
horror and indignation in others.
Of all the questions which puzzle practical men, politicians, and
even economists, none is greater than that of the extent to which