In his pioneering study from 1886 on living standards in the past, the economic historian James Thorold Rogers delivered a harsh verdict on the labour laws that governed employer-worker relations in England between 1563 and 1824. Rogers described this body of labour legislation as nothing less than a 'conspiracy' aiming 'to cheat the English workman of his wages, to tie him to the soil, to deprive him of hope, and to degrade him into irremediable poverty'. 1 This characterisation of English labour legislation as a socially selective and oppressive body of law that resulted in low wages, immobility and poverty was informed by Rogers' liberal ideological stance. In their design, the English labour laws were indeed completely antithetical to the principles of free trade that Rogers advocated as a politician. Of most significance here, however, is that the quotation illustrates that the founders of economic history paid ample attention to the legal framework in which labour was mobilised, supervised and remunerated. The material realities of work and wages that Rogers sought to reconstruct could not be dissociated from the legislative framework of work and wages that characterised English society between the late Middle Ages and the early nineteenth century. Other pioneers of English economic history followed in Rogers' footsteps. On the eve of the First World War, Richard Tawney published a lengthy article on the periodic assessment of wages by Justices of the Peace -one of the key elements of early modern English labour laws. 2 This interest in the history of pre-industrial economic relations would expand beyond England. In his opus magnum on the history of economic development in Europe, the Russian historian Maxim Kowalewsky devoted more than 200 pages to the early history of labour laws in late medieval Europe.