The most common element of rural labour regulation in this part of the Southern Low Countries related to entry into service (see Table 6.1).
1 A few customs also contain provisions on the exit from service with an individual employer. These clauses specified when the servant and/or farmer had to give notice. See, for example, Costumen der stede, casselrye, ende vassalryen van Berghen, pp. 49–50. These clauses have not been included in this analysis of labour laws. In most regions, legal provisions ensured the execution of a labour contract by both parties. In particular, these sections of the labour laws were designed to ensure that servants presented themselves to their employer at the agreed date. In Flanders, servants were mostly hired several weeks or even months before they started work and moved to the household of their employer.
2 T. Lambrecht, Een grote hoeve in een klein dorp. Relaties van arbeid en pacht op het Vlaamse platteland tijdens de 18de eeuw (Gent, 2002), pp. 148–9. This time gap between the verbal agreement and the physical entry of the servant in the employer’s household was potentially risky as one party could choose not to honour their contractual obligations. The motives could be diverse. For servants, higher wages or better overall working conditions with another employer could be reasons to fail to fulfil their promised labour contract.
3 As suggested by some contemporary legal texts. See n. 24. Employers, on their part, might have found cheaper or more highly skilled servants. Measures concerning entry into service, therefore, were important elements of labour law as it provided some security that the contract would be honoured. In all regions, customary law dealt with these specific challenges and stipulated the consequences for both servants and employer for this aspect of contract breach. In all customs breach of promise by both servant and farmer was punished, but the fines and additional sanctions were far from uniform.
The verbal or written agreement between a farmer and a servant was usually sealed with a so-called God’s penny or hiring penny.
4 Ann Kussmaul, Servants in Husbandry in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 1981), p. 32. This hiring penny was a small denomination coin given by the farmer to the servant. The acceptance of this hiring penny was not merely symbolic, but also entailed legal implications and obligations. By handing over and accepting the God’s penny, servants and employers committed themselves to execute the conditions of the labour contract. In some regions, servants enjoyed a small window of opportunity to return the God’s penny to the farmer. In the district of Waas, the restitution of the hiring penny within three days liberated the servant from any obligation vis-à-vis an employer.
5 The bylaws of Zandhoven from 1665 state that the hiring penny had to be returned within twenty-four hours to render the labour agreement null and void. See Kort begryp van verscheyde placaerten ende ordonnantien soo gheestelijcke als werelijcke (Brussels, 1734), p. 202. Some communities allowed servants up to eight days to return the hiring penny. See G. De Longé, Coutumes du Kiel, de Deurne et de Lierre (Brussels, 1875), p. 22. Many contemporary texts suggest that servants in particular abused this system. In some cases, labour legislation was developed with an explicit reference to the servant’s abuse of the God’s penny. According to these legal texts, servants successively negotiated with multiple employers and entered service with the employer that offered the best terms. As a result, some farmers found themselves without servants.
6 See, for example, the preamble of the bylaws on servants in the district of Waas from 18 January 1645 in SAG, Hoofdcollege Land van Waas, nr. 2693. The clause dealing with the hiring penny in the bylaws of the rural district of Nevele from 1704 refers to ‘great inconveniences’ for the employers resulting from this malicious practice. See D. Berten, Coutumes des seigneuries enclavées dans le Vieuxbourg de Gand (Brussels, 1904), pp. 513–14. In the district of Courtray the bylaws from 1703 adopted the term ‘disorder’ to describe the effects of servants not honouring their labour contracts. See Reglement op den styl van proceduren ende sallarissen, p. 19. In all regions, servants who failed to show up for work as agreed faced a fine. Also, if they hired themselves to multiple employers, they were meant to enter service with the employer from which they received the hiring penny first. In addition to a fine, there were also other consequences for servants who failed to show up for service. In this respect, significant differences between the regions can be observed. In the district of Kaprijke such behaviour was sanctioned with a temporary ban from the village.
7 De Potter and Broeckaert, Geschiedenis, p. 74. In some other regions, the physical removal from the village was preceded by public exposure at the pillory.
8 The bylaws for the district of Lummen from 1613 were particularly harsh on servants who did not enter service. Interestingly, servants were not fined but were banned from the village for two years and either had to suffer exposure at the village pillory for three consecutive days or undertake a penal pilgrimage to Milan. See L. Crahay, Coutumes du Comté de Looz, de la seigneurie de Saint-Trond et du Comté impérial de Reckheim, vol. 2 (Brussels, 1872), p. 558. Frequently, as was the case in Assenede, a servant or labourer fined for failure to show up or execute work was also barred from seeking employment in the village.
9 Costumen ende usantien, der stede ende ambachte van Assenede (Gent, 1775), p. 15. Most of the regional customs stated that servants were expected to compensate employers financially for the economic damage they had caused by not showing up for service. Farmers could hire another servant to take their place and claim reimbursement of these costs from the servants that reneged on their contractual obligations.
Labour laws protected the interests not only of the employer but also of the servant. In this respect, one could argue that labour legislation was quite balanced. Farmers who refused to employ servants they had hired were indeed also fined and had to compensate servants for their financial loss. Normally employers had to pay the full wages owed to the servant. However, in some regions the fines for such infractions were different between employer and servants. In the district of Furnes refusal to enter service was sanctioned with a fine of 12 £ parisis, but refusal to hire a servant by the employers was only sanctioned by 6 £ parisis.
10 Gilliodts-Van Severen, Coutumes de la ville. To the extent that the different fines for a similar infraction reflect the priorities and concerns of the lawmakers, the political elites in the district of Furnes clearly viewed breach of contract by the servants as a more pressing problem than refusal to hire on the part of the employers.