THE WEALTH OF NATIONS.

121

foolish as can well be imagined. It has been adjudged, forexample, that a coachmaker can neither himself make noremploy journeymen to make his coach-wheels; but must buythem of a master whcelright; this latter trade having- beenexercised in England before the 5th of Elizabeth. But awheelright, though he has never served an apprenticeship toa coachmaker, may either himself make or employ journey-men to make coaches; the trade of a coachmaker not beingwithin the statute, because not exercised in England at thetime when it was made. The manufactures of Manchester ,Birmingham, and Wolverhampton , are many of them, uponthis account, not within the statute; not having been exer-cised in England before the 5th of Elizabeth.

In F ranee, the duration of apprenticeships is different indifferent towns and in different trades. In Paris , five yearsis the term required in a great number; but before any per-son can be qualified to exercise the trade as a master, hemust, in many of them, serve five years more as a journey-man. During this latter term he is called the companion ofhis master, and the term itself is called his companionship.

In Scotland there is no general law which regulates uni-versally the duration of apprenticeships. The term is differ-ent in different corporations. Where it is long, a part of itmay generally be redeemed by paying a small fine. In mosttowns too a very small fine is sufficient to purchase the free-dom of any corporation. The weavers of linen and hempencloth, the principal manufactures of the country, as well asall other artificers subservient to them, wheel-makers, reel-makers, &c. may exercise their trades in any town corporatewithout paying any fine. In all towns corporate all personsare free to sell butcher’s meat upon any lawful day of theweek. Three years is in Scotland a common term of appren-ticeship, even in some very nice .trades; and in general Iknow of no country in Europe , in which corporation lawsare so little oppressive.

The property which every man has in his own labour, asit is the original foundation of all other property, so it is themost sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of a poor manlies in the strength and dexterity of his hands ; and to hin-der him from employing this strength aud dexterity in whatmanner he thinks proper without injury to his neighbour, isa plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a mani-fest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman,

i