Landprang under enevælden – ulovlig handel på landet i første halvdel af 1800-tallet

Resumé

Frem til næringsfrihedslovgivningen midt i 1800-tallet var det ulovligt for bønder at handle med købmandsvarer. Denne artikel viser, at der ikke desto mindre i nogle områder af landet foregik en livlig handel med købmandsvarer ude på landet – tilsyneladende uden at lovbruddene blev straffet i større omfang. Hovedsigtet med artiklen er at undersøge, hvorfor denne ulovlige sorte økonomi fik lov at eksistere uden at møde nævneværdig modstand i samtiden. På baggrund af et nærstudie af en række Skive-købmænds forskellige forgæves forsøg på ad juridisk vej at stoppe ulovlig handel med købmandsvarer i oplandet konkluderer artiklen, at den sorte økonomis levedygtighed først og fremmest skyldtes, at flertallet havde gavn af den: Landprangerne tjente penge på den, kunderne fik deres varebehov dækket på en rationel måde, leverandørerne fik øget deres omsætning og de lokale embedsmænd kunne godt se, at aktiviteten var praktisk for landbobefolkningen, samtidig med at de måske selv kunne tjene lidt ved at kigge den anden vej – og desuden var lovgivningen så kompliceret, at embedsmændene formentlig helst undgik at føre denne type sager. De eneste reelle tabere var i det konkrete tilfælde de lokale købmænd i Skive, som mistede omsætning til de leverandører i andre købstæder, som landprangerne benyttede sig af.

---

Unlicensed peddling during absolutism – illegal trade in rural areas in the first half of the 19^th century

Until the freedom of trade acts in the mid-19th century, it was illegal for Danish peasants to sell grocery articles among their peers in the rural areas. Nonetheless, this article shows that in some rural areas saw a vivid trade of this kind – apparently without the offences being punished very often. The main purpose of this article is to investigate why this illegal economy was allowed to exist without meeting any notable contemporary resistance. In the small town of Skive a number of grocers fruitlessly tried to stop the unlicensed peddling in the surrounding area through the courts. On the basis of a close study of these efforts, the article concludes that the vitality of the black economy was primarily due to the fact that a majority benefitted from the illegal activities: The unlicensed peddler made money, his peer clients had their need for goods covered, the suppliers had increased businesses, and the local civil servants had a fundamental understanding of the fact that the illegal activity was useful for the rural population, while at the same time some might even make a small profit on looking the other way – and furthermore, the legislation was so complicated that the civil servants probably preferred not to conduct such cases. In the specific case, the only real losers were the local grocers from Skive who lost business to the illegal merchants’ suppliers from other towns.