that in the Elizabethan period there arises an eager discussion about monopolies. The fact that this question was now raised is sufficient to indicate the growth of a competitive spirit almost unfamiliar to medieval industry, and to show that industrial life was growing stronger and more self-assertive. Merchants and manufacturers alike were beginning to resent more keenly the interference of government with industry, and more especially that form of state interference which took the shape of granting either to individuals or to a corporation the exclusive right of producing or trading in any particular commodity. A strong feeling is manifested against the possessors of monopolies, and in the closing years of Elizabeth's reign there took place in Parliament that celebrated debate in which both the monopolies and their holders were severely attacked. No doubt there was, as usual, a fair amount of political exaggeration and partisan statement introduced-for we need not imagine that the Elizabethan members of parliament were other than human-but there is also no doubt that a real grievance underlay the complaints then made. A member spoke of the "burden of monstrous and unconscionable substitutes to the monopolitans of starch, tin, fish, cloth, oil, vinegar, salt, and I know not what-nay, what not? The principallest commodities of my town and country are ingrossed into the hands of these bloodsuckers of the common-wealth;" and the general feeling of the House of Commons was so strong, that Elizabeth thought it best to annul the monopolies then existing, though she was almost certainly within the legal limits of her prerogative in originally granting them. Her successor, however, James I., used his prerogative to create so many new monopolies that Parliament again protested in 1609, and he also revoked them all. But after the suspension of Parliamentary government in 1614, they were granted again, till in 1621 their existence was one of the main grievances which the House of Commons then brought before the king. At a conference with the House

1 D'Ewes, Complete Journal of the Houses of Lords and Commons, 646. 2 Cf. Craik, British Commerce, ii. 23.

of Lords the Commons offered to prove "that the patents of gold and silver thread, of inns and alehouses, and power to compound for obsolete laws, of the price of horse-meat, starch, cords, tobacco-pipes, salt, train-oil, and the rest were all illegal; howbeit they touched not the tender point of prerogative, but, in restoring the subjects' liberty, were careful to preserve the king's honour." 1 Three patents or monopolies were more particularly complained of: (1) that of inns and hostelries, (2) that of alehouses, and (3) that of gold and silver thread. The first two were monopolies granting to individuals the power of licensing inns and taverns, and had led to great abuses, though it is said in defence of the patent that the original intention was to place these houses under some kind of supervision in order to check evils that were admittedly rife in them. The monopoly of the manufacture of gold and silver thread, granted to Sir Giles Mompesson, was looked upon with disfavour as tending to exhaust the stock of the precious metals in this country. King James warmly condemned these and all other monopolies, asserting that it made “his hair stand upright" to think how his people had been robbed thereby, and, though he waited three years before doing anything decisive, they were all abolished in 1624.6 The evil was not yet, however, by any means entirely suppressed, for it took another shape, monopolies being granted by Charles I. to corporations," though not to individuals. His object was to increase the royal revenue, to which purpose indeed almost every expedient was applied that had any colour of legality. In this he was certainly successful, for he obtained considerable sums of money, receiving in one year £20,000 for soap alone.

5

1 Rushworth, Historical Collections, i. 24.

But great

2 Cf. James I.'s speech in Rushworth's Hist. Collections, i. 26.

3 Cunningham, Growth of English Industry, ii. 158.

Tb., ii. 159, and Gardiner, History, iv. 18.

See his hypocritical but amusing speech quoted by Craik, British Commerce, ii. 27, 28.

Statute 21 James I., c. 3.

7 See Colepepper's speech below; and Dowell, Taxation and Taxes in England, i. 244.

8 Gardiner, History, viii. 75.

discontent was caused by monopolies of such common and necessary articles, and it was seen that the form of a "corporation" was only a cloak for individuals to increase their private gains. In the Long Parliament, Colepepper exclaimed indignantly, after reciting numerous grievances against the "monopolisers": "Mr Speaker, they will not bate us a pin; we may not buy our own clothes without their brokerage. These are the leeches that have sucked the commonwealth so hard, that it is become almost hectical. And some of these are ashamed of their right names; they have a wizard to hide the brand made by that good law in the last Parliament of King James; they shelter themselves under the name of a corporation; they make bye-laws which serve their turn to squeeze us and fill their purses." The system, however, of granting these patents to corporations did not cease either then or subsequently under Cromwell and Charles II., but the government took care only to grant monopolies for such purposes as did not cause an outburst of popular feeling.2 The system has in fact never entirely ceased, for the modern practice of granting patents for a limited time to inventors of new processes is only a modification of the old monopolies, and was prevalent two hundred years ago as well as now.3 But what is noticeable in the seventeenth century is the almost universal acceptance of the principle of monopoly as opposed to competition, except in those cases where monopoly was clearly seen to be injurious to the common welfare. The people might object to a monopoly of soap or salt because they felt its effects directly; but they considered it quite just and proper that a company like the East Indian should have a monopoly of Asiatic trade. Even when the Commons came into conflict with the Crown it was to them a question more of constitutional than of economic importance; they

1 Parl. Hist., ii. 656.

2 Cf. also Cunningham, Growth of Industry, ii. 168.

4

* The Act of 1624 abolishing ordinary monopolies yet granted them for twenty-one years to new industries, and to new processes for fourteen years. 21 James I., c. 3.

For that on salt, cf. Parl. Hist., i. 1205; Strafford's Letters, i. 193; and Gardiner, History, viii. 285.

were trying to regain rights which had been for some time in abeyance, and to check the menacing growth of royal prerogative. As for the Crown, from Elizabeth onwards, there can be little doubt, although historians have sought to excuse its action by suggesting that it had at heart the proper regulation of industry,1 that in most cases all that was aimed at was an increase of royal revenue or a ready and easy means of rewarding royal favourites.2 There were of course, exceptions; and occasionally genuine attempts were made to improve some languishing industry3 by the doubtful method of a monopoly, but the requirements of the royal purse were the usual guide in matters of this kind. Gradually, however, the general acquiescence in the monopoly system which marks this period gave way before the progress of the spirit of competition, and though it was left to the statesmen of the nineteenth century to perceive that industry is best left as far as possible unhampered by government intervention, we hear but little of this particular form of state regulation as trade and industry expanded.

§ 149. The Revival of the Craft Gilds.

We have mentioned in speaking of monopolies that one excuse for them was that the state might seek thereby to regulate or supervise particular industries. Whether the State actually did so or not, it seems to have been thought necessary to return to some institution such as the old craft-gilds, which had practically been annihilated by the confiscation of their lands under Edward VI.'s guardian, Somerset. Certainly in Elizabeth's reign the gilds were useless, and powerless to exercise any real influence over the crafts which they were supposed to represent.5 But

1 Cf. Gardiner, History of England, iv. 7, and see his whole chapter (xxxiii.) on the monopolies.

2 The monopoly of sweet wines granted by Elizabeth to Essex was such

a case.

3 E.g., the patent granted to Cockayne for dyeing and dressing cloth; Cunningham, Growth of Industry, ii. 165.

1 See above, p. 208.

5 See the petition in 1571 by fourteen London crafts; Clode, Early Hist. of Merchant Taylors, p. 204.

2

under this queen there came a sort of revival, or at least a reconstruction of the old system. New companies were incorporated for many trades, the ostensible reason being the supervision of the quality of the wares produced in that trade. The real cause, however, was no doubt the existence of such "companies companies" among the Flemish and other immigrants, who, as we saw, came to England in such large numbers at this time. Since these foreigners had their own associations and met in their own "halls" or gild houses, it is not surprising that English manufacturers and merchants, either from feelings of jealousy or imitation, or both, should wish to have similar and privileged organisations. But these new institutions differed from the old craft-gilds in several ways. They no longer derived their authority from municipalities, but from the Crown or from Parliament. They were constituted from outside, not from inside the town. Moreover, they were associations of capitalists, or of capitalist employers, rather than of craftsmen, as the old gilds used to be, and were obliged to pay heavily for their patents or charters. Again, various trades were often combined in one company, and there was often no pretence of supervising the wares of all the trades thus associated,5 though in some few cases the companies were empowered to exercise supervision over the quality of goods. the haberdashers, saddlers, curriers, and shoemakers had supervisory rights, and in London these rights seem to have been exercised with some effect." In the rural districts, however, supervision, even when supposed to exist, was very lax. Still, the revival of these companies is interesting as a kind of continuation, though on considerably different lines, of the gilds of mediæval times.

"3

4

§ 150. Agriculture.

Thus

But we must turn now from manufacturing progress to what was then still the greatest industry of the country,

1 Cf. Cunningham, Growth of Industry, ii. 47, and the note there.

2 Ib., quoting Morant, Essex, i. 77.

3 Cunningham, ut supra, q.v.

4 The upholsterers of London paid £100 to Elizabeth for their charter ;

ib., ii. 48.

6 Cf. Act 5 Eliz., c. 8, § 31, and Cunningham, ii. 48.

5 Tb.