484

customers as well as of employers as to how, when, or where a thing is done, provided that it is done.

[The authorities for the last part of this article are: Reports of the Select Committee of the H. of L. on Sweating (1888), vols. xx. xxi. (1889), vols. xiii. xiv. (1890), vol. xvii.-Reports of the Royal Commission on Labour, 1892, xxxiv.-xxxvi. ; 1893, xxxii. -xxxix.; 1894, vol. xxxv.- -United States, Bulletin of the Department of Labour, 1896, pp. 360, 721 et passim.-C. Booth, Life and Labour of the People in London (1891-97), vol. iv. ch. x.; vol. ix. ch. iv.-Lord Farrer, London County Council Wages Bill (1892) (a pamphlet).— Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, 13th Feb. 1891, comp. Ec. J., 1896, p. 153.-B. Potter, "The Lords and the Sweating System," Nineteenth Century, vol. xxvii. p. 885.-How best to do away with the Sweating System (1892) (a pamphlet).-D. F. Schloss, Methods of Industrial Remuneration (1894), chs. xiii. xiv.-A. Sherwell, Life in West London (1897), pp. 86-120.]

SUBINFEUDATION.

J. D. R.

the hated name of "sweater"; for it was then a popular fallacy to identify sub-contracting and SWEATING; and nail- and chain-making, and cheap tailoring, and a few other unskilled and therefore overcrowded trades, were adduced in support of this theory. The history of nailand chain-making is a replica of that of handloom weaving. About 1870 list-prices, estimated waste, and unpaid learners, were being superseded, and the non-manufacturing shopkeeper or "fogger" first appeared; and mastermanufacturers' factories with their improved discipline and machinery began to grow on the ruins of the doomed domestic workshops, and the "master worker," passing through the stage of sub-contractor into that of "little master," began to cut himself adrift from the master-manufacturer, and to buy his own iron from, and to sell his own chain and nails to, the "fogger." Briefly, the old system is dying, and the new being born. Cheap tailoring is permanent, but its forms perpetually change: (1) is usually a shopkeeper who begins on his materials, then lets them out to the (2) "garret master"; for it is the same story over again, but (4) and (5) are fused, the ill-paid learners being called "greeners," button-holing is often sub-sublet, and the "garret master' turns "little master" in hard times. This " or "little master" is he who chastises his employees with whips and himself with scorpions, but it is impossible to condemn the system without condemning competition, which would be useless, or home work and work in the homes of one's friends, which would be unnatural. Granted that where unrestricted competition, which does not include competition between the skilled, is grafted on the medieval stock, danger results, yet the danger may be lessened: our war office introduced stipulations against out workers (c. 1882); the London county council (1889) insert in their contracts stipulations for usual or trade union hours and wages, all School Board (1889) and government (1891) contractors undertake to pay specified or usual wages, or wages above a minimum, and similar provisions have been widely adopted by public bodies, and the Factory Act 1891, § 27, compels certain tradesmen to register out-workers. Similar clauses have passed into bye-laws, state laws (New York), and even constitutions (Utah), in America. One solution clearly lies in this method of increasing the employers' responsibility without impairing the sub-contractors' independence. But this solution only touches some artisan sub-contractors and contractors; others, and all the little masters-who are economically indistinguishable-are left untouched. It may be doubted whether the evils associated with the latter can be removed except by sanitary legislation, by example, by publicity, and public opinion. The tap-root of the evil is an ignorant recklessness on the part of

[Challis on Real Property, London, 1892.]

J. E. C. M.

SUBSIDIES. The word is defined by Cowel (Interpreter) as "an aid, tax, or tribute granted by parliament to the king." That it was a parliamentary grant is the characteristic distinguishing it from the customs which were from time immemorial raised by royal prerogative. There were several kinds of subsidy. (1) The subsidy in excess of the customs and designated from the commodity to which it referred. (a) Such was the subsidy of wool and leather, linked to the ancient custom on wool and leather. (b) Another subsidy of the same class linked to the new customs by which duties were imposed upon imports and exports of wine and cloth by aliens. This subsidy, under the name of poundage (see TONNAGE AND POUNDAGE), was subsequently extended to every species of merchandise, whether carried by aliens or denizens, and under that of tunnage was a subsidy granted upon every tun of wine imported by aliens or denizens. (2) The subsidy on lands and goods in lieu of the ancient feudal levies, granted from about the middle of the 14th century. They took the place of the obsolete scutages and carucages, and were the precedents for the land-tax and income-tax of modern times (see TAXATION). All these subsidies, conformably to their origin, were limited in duration.

[Cowel, Interpreter, London, 1701.-T. Madox, History of the Exchequer, London, 1711.-S. Dowell, History of Taxation, London, 2nd ed. 1888, vol. i.-Hubert Hall, History of the CustomRevenue, London, 1885, ii. 145. Id. Antiquities of the Exchequer, London, 1841, p. 217.]

SUBSTITUTION, LAW OF. SUBSTITUTION.

I. S. L.

See LAW OF

SUCCESSION (SCOTS LAW). The guiding principle of Scots law, applied with but one exception of recent introduction, is that in matters of succession the relationship to be considered is relationship through the father, and through the father only. It will be convenient to make the explanation of the rules of succession hinge round the first personal pronoun.

If, then, I am a Scottish landowner, I may make my will as I please in respect to my land; but if I die without a will or a settlement, and thus leave my land to the ordinary law of intestate succession, my eldest son succeeds to it, or his heirs; failing them, my second son or his heirs, and so on; and failing all sons or their heirs, it passes as an undivided whole to all my daughters, who become heir-portioners, that is, they acquire equal interests in it, except that the eldest daughter gets the mansion-house, garden, and orchard, and in the event of a division of the estate, has the first right to claim her share of land out of the land immediately surrounding the house. It does not matter whether my sons are all by the same marriage or not; the list of them must be exhausted before my daughters can succeed. If I leave no descendants, my brother succeeds; that is, if I am the eldest brother of the family, my next younger brother or his heirs, and so on downwards ; if I am the youngest, the next older or his heirs, and so on upwards; if I am a middle brother, first the next younger brother or his heirs and so on downwards; and on failure of them, my next elder brother or his heirs, and so on upwards. If I have no brothers of the full blood, my landed estate then goes to my full sisters (or their heirs) as heirs-portioners, as explained before. In the event of there being none such, the next in the order of succession are my half-brothers, being my father's, not my mother's sons, and their heirs, in a downward or upward order, as the case may be; and the next to them are my half-sisters, daughters of my father, or their heirs, who would take as heirs-portioners as before. In no case would landed property go to half-brothers or sisters the children of my mother, or their heirs, even though the estate may originally have come through my mother's family, for my father himself, if he be alive, stands next in the order of succession, and if he be not alive, his brothers and sisters first of the full blood, then of the half-blood, being children of my paternal grandfather, or their heirs, succeed in the same order as my own brothers and sisters or their heirs would have done. If all this fail, the succession goes back to my paternal grandfather and his descendants, such as a son of his by another marriage, and then to his brothers or sisters or their heirs, all as before and so on

485

until an heir is found; and in the event of failure to find any heir, the estate reverts to the crown as ultimus haeres. In all this scheme, a person is always represented by his heirs, so that for example in the event of my having no issue, and my late only brother having only left daughters, the estate will go to these my nieces, who represent my brother as his heirs, while he, if he had been alive, would have been my heir. Such is a general account of the rules in succession to heritable or real property. Now let us turn to the rules in succession to movable or personal property. In this there is no preference given to sex or seniority all who are equally nearly related divide equally, with one exception, which is that the heir to the heritable (i.e. real) property, if he is also one of the next of kin, is kept out of any share in the personal property unless he is willing to collate his heritage, that is, to throw his real property into hotchpot and divide all equally. It must, however, be kept in mind that under Scots law, even if a man makes his will, it can have no effect as regards personal property over more than the law allows. The moment he dies, his wife and children acquire a vested right to part of his movable property; one-third to the widow, and one-third to the children equally; or if there be no children, one-half to the widow; or if he survive his wife, one-half to the children equally. The only case in which he can make a will to take effect over his whole personal property is that in which he leaves neither wife nor child. In all this it is assumed that there have been no settlements or renunciations to vary the normal course of events. The only part of his movable or personal property in respect to which a man can die intestate is the part which it had been in his power to bequeath, and this is the only part to which the term "succession" is applied in the technical language of Scots law. Limiting ourselves then to such portion of the movable estate as might be bequeathed, the following are, speaking generally, the rules of succession to that portion in the event of there being no will. If I leave children, these children or their representatives will, whether they be male or female, or whether they be by one marriage or by more than one marriage, divide the available fund into equal shares and if any of them be already dead, leaving their children to represent them, the respective shares of my deceased sons or daughters go to their children, my grandchildren, share and share alike within the limits of each family. But if I leave no descendants, then if my father be alive he takes one-half; if he be not alive, my mother, if living, takes one-third: subject to such deduction, if any, my full brothers and sisters or their representatives get the fund, share and share alike, those who have died before me being represented by their respective families of children; and if there be no full brothers or sisters, then my father's other children, my halfbrothers or sisters, if there be any, or their representatives, get the fund on the same terms. Next, if all the preceding fail, and if there be half-brothers or sisters of mine who are my mother's children, or descendants of these, onehalf of the available fund is to be distributed

486

among them. At this point, the rule that a family represents its deceased parent fails us, and we have to take the groups of persons actually existing in the same relation to me at the time of my death. Thus, subject to any such deductions as have already been referred to in favour of my father or of my mother, or of my half-brothers and sisters on the mother's side, my movable property next goes to be divided equally among all my paternal uncles and aunts of the full blood who actually survive me; and if they have all died already, to be divided equally among all my first cousins on the father's side, who happen to survive me; and failing them, equally among their children actually surviving me, and so on. Then if these relatives of the full blood all fail, the next in order of succession are the similar paternal relatives of the half-blood (through the father). In default of all the preceding, the same order of succession is applied to my father's paternal uncles and aunts, to his first cousins, and so on, first of the full blood, and then of the half-blood, and then to my grandfather's, and so on until at length, in default of heirs in movables, we arrive at the crown as ultimus haeres. [Lord M'Laren's Wills and Succession in Scotland.]

A. D.

SUCCESSION DUTY. See DEATH DUTIES; TAXATION.

SUGDEN, EDWARD BURTENSHAW, Baron St. Leonards (1781-1866), judge and jurist, was solicitor-general, 1829-30, lord-chancellor of Ireland 1835, and again 1841-46. He was lord high chancellor 1852, and was at the same time raised to the peerage as Baron St. Leonards.

He published among other things A cursory Enquiry into the Expediency of repealing the Annuity Act, and raising the Legal Rate of Interest (London, 1812, 8vo). This was issued

in a series of letters. He deplores the iniquity

of the sale of annuities, showing them to be a mere shift to evade the usury laws by raising money at an illegal rate of interest. The principal evils attending such sales are (1) the enormous interest -from 25 per cent, given on such loans; (2) the want of power in the grantor to redeem or repurchase the annuity. The bill for the repeal made all annuities redeemable, prohibited dealings with infants, moderated the allowance for brokerage, and gave the courts summary jurisdiction to set aside annuities under or over-valued. The bill did not, however, succeed in repressing grants of life annuities. Letters vii. and viii. deal with the inefficacy of the usury laws.

Sugden subsequently expanded these ideas into a volume entitled Considerations on the Rate of Interest, Redeemable Annuities, and Foreign Loans (London, 1817, 8vo).

The work opens with a brief recital of the former objections to usury; and quotes Bentham's justification of interest. It then enumerates the legislation on the subject from the 37 Hen. VIII. onwards. Sugden boldly advocates the raising of the legal rate of interest by 2 per cent. which would bring it to 7, instead of the 5 per cent at which it then stood. He blames the usury laws then in force for the commercial

SULLY, MAXIMILIEN DE BÉTHune, Duc de (1560-1641). The Duc de Sully was the friend in childhood, the companion in arms, and minister of Henri IV. from his accession to the throne to his death. A Huguenot by religion, he did not follow his master when he became a Roman Catholic, though Henri advised him to do so. He belonged to that class of statesmen and economists who, like COLBERT and Chaptal, devoted themselves entirely to promote the prosperity of France.

Opposing the theory of the mercantile school (see MERCANTILE SYSTEM), and anticipating by more than a century the doctrines of the PHYSIOCRATS, Sully held that the source of wealth lay, not in commerce, in colonisation, nor in coin, but in the products of the soil. It was he who said to the king that "husbandry and pasture were the two breasts which supplied nourishment to France (les deux mamelles de la France), and the real mines and treasure stores of Peru." He even opposed, though fortunately without success, the efforts of Henri IV. to acclimatise the mulberry and the silk industry in France. He said that France was not suited to such baubles-in this he was obviously not a good prophet.

He regarded the manufacture of cloth with more favour, but he occupied himself principally finances and the development of agriculture. and successfully with the reformation of the Thus, "to prevent any misfortune to the country people," he busied himself in making roads, canals, and treaties of commerce-with Spain in 1604, England in 1606. The ordinary and extraordinary revenues of the treasury were raised by him in ten years-between 1600 and 1609 from 20,000,000 to 32,000,000 livres. This was done notwithstanding that he reduced the public debt and diminished the heaviest taxes on the peasant, such as the TAILLE. He desired to change the vexatious tax on salt, the GABELLE, into a monopoly to be worked by the state, as has since been done with tobacco. The assassination of Henri IV. prevented the realisation of this original plan.

Sully wrote his own memoirs under the title of Economies Royales. The first edition, 2 vols. folio, appeared in 1638. It has this curious feature that the author always speaks in the second person. The traditional explanation of this is that his secretary is said to have been instructed by Sully to describe his career in the form of an address to himself, saying, "You did such and such things on such a day." The most complete edition appeared in the Collection des Mémoires relatifs à l'Histoire de France, vols. xvi. xvii. A small edition, containing selected passages, with

SUMPTUARY LAWS. The legislation of Greece and Rome included many laws of this description, which imposed severe restrictions on dress and entertainments.

Among the most extensive sumptuary laws of the middle ages are those of Philip IV. of France (reigned 1285-1314), who limited the number of dresses to be worn as well as their cost, and regulated food and dress according to rank. The sumptuary legislation of England, which we may take as generally illustrative of mediaval legislation on the subject, from the middle of the 14th to the middle of the 16th century, is chiefly directed against extravagance in dress, and is a sign of the diffusion of wealth which followed the growth of commerce and the break-up of the old distinction of classes. The principal English law dealing with food, the statute De Cibariis Utendis, restricted the meals of all classes alike, to two courses, with a third course on the principal feastdays, "and each mess of two sorts of victuals at the utmost, be it flesh or fish, with the common sorts of pottage." This law was passed in 1336, when Edward III. (reigned 1327-1377) was in need of supplies for war, which were not readily forthcoming, and its object was to check the extravagance of the people "whereby they are not able to aid themselves nor their liege lord in time of need, as they ought." The statute contains no penalty for its infringement, and though it was not repealed until 1856, it was probably never enforced even at the time of its enactment. The English victories in France and the spoil brought into England gave rise to much display and extravagance in dress; and in dress, the distinction of class which was bound up with feudalism was chiefly apparent, for among the higher classes it had reached a state of luxury and display when the houses and manner of living of all ranks were still comparatively simple. Hence, in 1363, by an act "for the outragious and excessive apparel of divers people against their estate and degree, to the great destruction and impoverishment of all the land," regulations were laid down for the dress of each class. Carters, ploughmen, and others whose goods did not amount in value to 40s. were to wear no cloth, but blanket and russet and a girdle of linen; those of higher degree were to dress in cloth of different prices according to their rank, the statute providing that all makers of cloth should supply the various qualities. A limited class only were allowed to wear cloth of gold or silver, silk or fur which came from abroad, and thus this statute, repealed the next year, was, like other English laws of this description, favourable to native industry. The importation in the 15th century of silken goods and other things, mostly for use in dress, and the "excessive and inordinate array and apparel" of both men and women, "to the impoverishing of this realm of England and to the enriching of other strange realms and countries," led to the prohibition, in 1463, of the importation of foreign wares, and to the elaborate regulation of the apparel of different classes. Ermine, velvet, satin,

487

While

and "counterfeit cloth of silk resembling to the same, were prohibited to those below the rank of knight; and padding of clothes, and shoes with pikes more than two inches long, were forbidden. In 1482, materials to be worn were again regulated with the aim of compelling English people to wear native fabrics; woollen cloth made abroad was forbidden to those below the rank of lord, and importation of wrought silk was prohibited. Although the act of 1482 sets forth that for want of enforcement of former sumptuary laws, the "realm has fallen into great misery and poverty and like to fall into more greater," it is less stringent than that of 1463; women above the rank of labourer's wife are altogether exempted from it. The sumptuary laws of 1463 and 1482, as compared with the statute of 1444, regulating wages and the price of clothes given as part of wages, show a considerable rise in prices. While legislation was endeavouring to keep gold and silver in the kingdom, and the coinage was being repeatedly debased, sumptuary laws restricted the extravagant use of the precious metals in dress, and in 1515 those below the rank of knight were forbidden to wear a gold or gilt chain on pain of forfeiture. These laws were an expression of the general protective policy of England. Edward III.'s statute of apparel set forth that it was directed against the "apparel of divers people against their estate and degree," in the later sumptuary legislation only economical considerations are advanced. The rich fabrics, which it was sought to limit to a few, were made out of England, and the object of the laws was not so much to encourage thrift as to prevent "the draining out of our treasures" into the ready hands of foreigners. Legislation against the importation of foreign manufactures was to some extent evaded by smuggling. "Infinitely more effectual than the preventive service of the ports were the sumptuary laws. People who broke these laws went about with the evidence of their offence on them" (Rogers). Edward VI. (reigned 1547-1553) and Elizabeth (reigned 1558-1603) enforced abstinence from flesh on fast-days in order to promote seamanship, and were careful to point out that their motives were not such as could be considered superstitious. The last sumptuary measure passed in Great Britain was a Scotch law of 1621. Most English laws of this nature were repealed in 1603. The economists of the 17th century looked unfavourably on sumptuary legislation, considering the consumption of luxuries good for trade, but the use of certain foreign fabrics has since been forbidden, and in 1745 a penalty of £5 was imposed on selling or wearing French lawn, with a direct view to the development of industry in England.

[W. Cunningham, The Growth of English Trade and Industry, 1890, 1892.-J. E. T. Rogers, The Economic Interpretation of History, 1888.-W. J. Ashley, An Introduction to English Economic History and Theory, 1893.-W. Longman, The History of the Life and Times of Edward III., 1869.-Social England, vol. ii. ed. H. D. Traill, 1894.-Knight's Pictorial History of England, 1849.-W. Denton, England in the Fifteenth Century, 1888.-"Statutes of the Realm," Encyclo

488

pædia Britannica.-Roscher, Ueber den Luxus in Ansichten der Volkswirthschaft aus dem geschichtlichen Standpunkte.]

M. T. M.

When

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE. ever the vote assigned by parliament for any given head of expenditure during a current financial year has been expended, it is not lawful for the treasury to pay sums in excess of the vote without further parliamentary sanction. It is therefore necessary for the government of the day either (1) to submit to parliament a fresh estimate which may provide in advance sums of money to cover votes which are expected to be exceeded-this, of course, is the proper and legitimate course, -or (2) to obtain the sanction of parliament for expenditure on votes which have been already unavoidably exceeded - a course which has received the sanction of usage and convenience in many cases.

This further estimate is known as a "supplementary estimate." The term is in use also in all the British colonies, their financial systems being modelled more or less on that of Great Britain.

In the United Kingdom the supplementary estimates are usually taken in parliament in February, or about four weeks before the close of the financial year (see SUPPLY).

SUPPLY.

C. A. H.

(1) Conditions of Supply, p. 488; (2) the Supply of Commodities, p. 488; (3) Diminishing, Constant and Increasing Returns, p. 489; (4) Components of Supply Price, p. 489; (5) Supply Price as connected with Rent and Quasi-Rent, p. 489.

Supply, pp. 488, 489; Supply and Demand, p. 490;

Supply, Parliamentary, p. 496.

In the article on SUPPLY AND DEMAND, it is explained that (1) the conditions of supply of any commodity are known when the price which would lead sellers to offer any given amount of the commodity has been ascertained. This price in general would vary with the amount offered. Hence every commodity has its law of supply, which expresses the variations in supply-price which are correlated with variations in supply-amount. There are special difficulties in constructing such a law of supply, which do not arise generally in the construction of a law of DEMAND. For the supply of any commodity depends on the co-operation of many different kinds of productive agents, and the simultaneous and successive union of many different productive processes. Hence the supply-price of a commodity depends upon the current prices at which the services of the agents of production can be obtained, and the proportions in which these services have to be combined in producing the commodity.

In the theory of the exchange value of commodities (see EXCHANGE, VALUE IN), it is necessary, for the sake of simplification, to assume that the rate at which each kind of agent has to

be remunerated has been determined by general social conditions. These rates of remuneration are thus given independently of any conditions affecting the variations specially attaching to the supply of the commodity under consideration. On the other hand, the theory of DISTRIBUTION is concerned with the economic forces which determine the rates at which the

several kinds of agents are currently remunerated.

And here it is convenient to assume that the

prices at which each kind of commodity can be sold have been determined independently of the rates at which the agents are remunerated. But this latter assumption requires very considerable modification if we are to avoid circular processes of reasoning.

(2) The supply of commodities. — The term price is a convenient abbreviation for a sum of money paid for a unit of any kind of commodity. The term aggregate price may be used for a sum of money paid for a certain given amount of the commodity. Hence the aggregate price is always the arithmetical product found by multiplying the price, per unit, by the amount. The supply-price of a commodity is found by adding together the prices which have to be paid to the different agents who contribute to the production of a unit of the commodity. In this connection the prices of the agents may be called the component prices, and the sum of these prices may be called the resultant supply-price. The term expenses of production is sometimes used in a slightly different sense from that of supplyprice. For when different businesses are competing in the supply of the same kind of commodity to the same market, what are called the expenses of production in one business may be found to differ from the expenses of production in another business. And even in the same business the expenses of producing the earlier units may be less than those of producing the later units. Now the supplyprice must be equal to the expense of producing that unit which is most expensively produced. This unit is technically called the marginal unit, and the expense of producing it is called the marginal expense. have the law :-The supply-price of a commodity for any amount is equal to the marginal expense, per unit, incurred in producing that amount. It follows that the aggregate supply price may be in excess of the aggregate expenses of production. This excess is called producer's surplus or PRODUCER'S RENT (q.v.), or, we may say that each unit (except the marginal unit) is produced at an expense less than the price for which the unit is sold; this difference constitutes the producer's surplus for that unit. Before referring to the difficulties connected with the theory of producer's surplus, it is necessary to point out its connection with diminishing or increasing returns.

Hence we