The historiography of work-related accidents in nineteenth-century Ontario is a product of two complementary but as yet unsynthesized lines of inquiry. On the one hand, legal historians have focused on the genesis of judge-made and statutory law respecting the liability of employers for the work-related accidents of their hired labor. Considerable light has been shed on political and ideological as well as formally “legal” factors that shaped judicial and legislative decision making concerning personal injuries at work. However, the legal historiography of the Victorian Ontario workplace pertains mainly to the law and those who made the law, rather than those subject to it. These studies of the dynamics of legal change, important as they are, lack a firm basis in tangible sociohistorical experience.

During the first two decades following statehood in 1859, the Oregon Supreme Court heard a great many disputes about personnel or activities of the new state government. Were Oregon blacks entitled to vote after national ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment, even though Oregon itself voted not to ratify? Did the federal legal tender acts require Oregon to accept payment of its own taxes in depreciated greenbacks? Could a landowner's eminent domain recovery be reduced by an improvementrelated increase in the value of remaining land?

In 1614, an angry pamphleteer writing in the name of six peasants described for his French readers how the country was being taken over by lawyers. Legal officials had swelled their purses, bellies, and heads by gobbling up the rest of France; they were like a growing infestation of “leeches,” he exclaimed passionately, “that suck our blood right to the bone.” These judicial parasites were so disgusting that one should not even consider them a part of society; they were a foreign substance “born of putrefaction and living off putrescence.”

During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the manor courts of medieval England were evolving into formal legal bodies with written records and standard procedures. An important reason for this development was that lords needed to protect their prerogatives, which were endangered from above by the king's increasing authority expressed in the royal courts and common law, and from below by peasants who actively sought greater freedom. Lords met these challenges to their authority by altering the law and practice of the manor courts to reinforce the institution of villeinage. This is particularly true of the land law enforced in the manor courts.