Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

FALL OF MONOPOLIES

61

In England the system of monopolies was from the beginning the expression of a definite and independent royal policy, pursued with ever-growing eagerness in spite of statutory opposition from the days of Queen Elizabeth, and in a few decades so successfully developed that in almost every important trade national monopolies arose. At first doubtfully, and then ever louder rose the opposition to this policy from the most diverse quarters. At one time enmity was kindled by purely economic results, such as the increased price to consumers, or the restriction of competition which crippled enterprise; at another by the ascendency of courtiers, the arbitrary evasion of the law by the Crown, or financial mismanagement. As monopolies steadily increased all these streams of opposition met in a single movement, which succeeded in extirpating in England, after a comparatively short but exceptionally effective existence, the monopoly system which in other countries continued to flourish in one form or another for over a century more.

The main centre of the anti-monopoly movement was the House of Commons, which "found the whole nation behind it " on this question. Ever after the days of the great monopoly debates in 1597 and 1601 the House made continual angry protests against monopolies and monopolists. Even in the debate of 1601 the majority of the speakers showed such determined and energetic hostility to monopolies that their defenders, Cecil and Bacon, could not obtain a hearing, and the queen had to soothe the discontent by formal promises. The Statute of Monopoly in 1624, though in practice ineffective, was a further proof that Parliament desired vigorous measures against the monopolies. When, after the absolute rule of Charles I., Parliament met again in 1640, one of the first things it did was to declare the chief monopolies invalid, and to use its growing power over the Crown for an energetic attack on all industrial privileges. The deep hatred of the Long Parliament for all monopolies is seen

'Macaulay, vol. viii. pp. 12, 13.

L

62

PARLIAMENTARY AGITATION

in the drastically worded resolution which decisively refused any monopolist a seat in Parliament.1 On the 21st of January 1641 four "monopolists" were, in fact, expelled from the House.2

The speeches delivered on the various occasions on which the Commons occupied themselves with the question show sufficiently clearly the severity with which individuals condemned the monopoly system, and the ardour with which they attacked it. The speeches of 1640 were fomented by an extensive popular movement against monopolies. From all parts of the country petitions reached Parliament for the removal of "grievances," especially of monopolies. At the end of his fine and impressive description of the monopolies Colepepper could with truth say: "I have echoed to you the cries of the kingdom." But these oratorical displays are not by any means the only evidence from which we can picture the anti-monopoly movement of the seventeenth century. They are supported by an abundant literature of pamphlets.

5

The growth of this literature in the seventeenth century is very largely due to the lively discussions on the monopoly question. The characters of the numerous pamphlets vary widely. A great number are purely inflammatory. At times they are satirical, intended to put before the people in grotesque shape the evil effects of the monopolies. Just as at the present time the anti-trust agitation in America represents the industrial monopolies in all kinds of humorous allegorical shapes, so we find pictures of the seventeenth century monopolists with the 1' Parliamentary History,' vol. ii. p. 653. 2 Ibid. p. 207.

Cf. especially the speech of Colepepper cited above, 'Parliamentary History,' vol. ii. pp. 654, 655; ibid. pp. 641, 650, speeches of Pym and Bogshaws; ibid. vol. i., speech of Sir E. Coke on March 1, 1620, of Sir E. Hobby on November 20, 1601 (p. 930), and of Mr. Martin, p. 927 and passim.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

PAMPHLETS. RALPH GARDINER

63

products of the various monopolies as symbols of their activity and with such legends as :

"If any aske, what things these monsters be,

'Tis a Projector and a Patentee." 1

Many of the pamphlets are concerned with the conditions of a single trade alone, and are the appeals to public opinion of consumers or producers oppressed by the monopoly in the industry in question. Instances of this are to be found in the cases of the wine, soap, and salt monopolies of 1640 to 1650,2 and especially in the pamphlet on the coal monopoly written in 1655,3 the importance of which has hitherto been unfortunately not recognised.

The author of this work, Ralph Gardiner of Chirton, was for many years mistakenly identified by posterity with a coiner of the same name, and was only rehabilitated by the investigations of Dr. D. Ross Lietch in 1849.* His pamphlet, whose contents we have already had frequent occasion to quote, attacked the monopolist policy of the town of Newcastle, whose bye-laws under its charter were, according to the writer, contrary both to common and statute law. The special object of his attack was, however, the coal monopoly. This, he in one place states, would most certainly have been declared invalid by Parliament in 1640 "if any public spirit had arisen and denounced this great pest which more than any other affects the life of men." Gardiner hoped himself to kindle in 1653 the agitation which was wanting in 1640.

1'Social England,' p. 624, illustration; Unwin, 'Gilds,' p. 298.

2' A True Discovery of the Projectors' Wine Project,' London 1641; ‘A short and true relation concerning the Soap Business,' London 1841; R. Wilkins, 'The Sope Patentees' petition opened,' London 1646; J. Davies, 'An Answer to those Printed Papers, etc.,' London 1641.

[ocr errors]

3 R. Gardiner, England's Grievances Discovered in relation to the Coal Trade,' London 1655.

Dr. Lietch published Gardiner's pamphlet in 1849 without the author's The preface gives the events of Gardiner's life. His rehabilitation is on pp. xiii.-xv.

name.

5 R. Gardiner, p. 193.

64

LATER ANTI-MONOPOLIST TRADITION

He had suffered as a brewer in North Shields from the privileges and monopolist control of the town, and became finally a bitter opponent of all monopolies and restrictions on trade. Whether he undertook the fight against Newcastle's monopolies in revenge for the long time he had lain in prison there, or from unselfish motives, we cannot say. If Parliament had not been dissolved by Cromwell on the 12th of December 1653, Gardiner's agitation, which had already led to an important enquiry by the Committee of Trade and Corporations, would certainly have been successful. As it was, Newcastle remained unmolested. But Gardiner's tireless and heroic zeal in attacking the coal monopoly contributed largely to a clearer knowledge of the effect of the coal gilds, and his vehement but well-informed polemic strengthened the movement against monopolies, even though his immediate object, the abolition of the gild, was only in fact realised about 1660.

The agitation, of which pamphlets and Parliamentary reports give us such a lively picture, exercised an influence on public opinion which extended to days in which monopolies had long been abolished. It is a curious thing that down to the present day the English consumer is especially opposed to any kind of industrial monopoly or monopolist amalgamation, and the main origin of this anti-monopolist national conscience is to be found in the anti-monopoly agitation of the seventeenth century. Until the Elizabethan policy of monopolies began, the expression "monopoly" had always been connected with the acute commercial monopoly which we nowadays call a "corner," and the chief monopolists were merchants who bought up corn and food supplies. Against such persons the statutes passed by Henry III.1 and again under Edward VI. against "regraters," "engrossers," and "forestallers" were sufficient protection. The condemna''Annual Register,' 1766, p. 224.

2 Cf. the essay of S. Browne, a Judge, 'The laws against Engrossing,' London 1767, passim.

HATRED OF PATENTEES

65

tion of monopoly in the case of exchange of goods expressed in these statutes was transferred to industrial production when at the end of the sixteenth century it began to show an inclination to such a system. It seemed a matter of

course that monopolies were harmful.

Henry Parker states in 1648: "That which seizes too great matters in the hands of too few, and so is in the nature of a monopoly has been always condemned as preventing trade, and held to be injurious to the major part of mankind." The lawyers tried to define more accurately the effects of monopolies. In a famous lawsuit tried in 1602 the Court found "the evil of the monopoly" to lie chiefly in the fact that "the price of the same wares has increased "; that after the grant of the monopoly "the wares were not so good and serviceable" as before; and that other producers had, through the monopoly, become unable to find work and so put out of the trade. This opinion was shared by writers like Misselden and Malynes, who may be called the forerunners of the political economists.3 Misselden starts that part of his book written in 1622 which deals with trade monopolies with the words: "The parts of a monopoly are twaine. The restraint of the liberty of commerce to some one or few, and the setting of the price at the pleasure of the monopolist to his private benefit and the prejudice of the publicke." Other writings of the time also use the expression that the monopolist regulates the price at "his pleasure," or "as he pleases," 5 a phrase which Adam Smith appropriated in this connection about 150 years later." Only, Adam Smith had in his mind

1 Henry Parker, 'Of a Free Trade,' London 1648, p. 21.

2 Fisk Beach, 'Monopolies and Industrial Trusts,' St. Louis 1898, pp. 11-13.

[ocr errors]

Raffel, Englische Freihändler vor A. Smith,' Tubingen 1905, pp.

9 and 11.

4 Misselden, Free Trade,' London 1622, pp. 57-58.

"Malynes' 'Lex Mercatoria,' quoted by Raffel, supra p. 12; and later, 'Britannia Languens,' p. 73.

A. Smith, Lectures on Justice and Police,' ed. by Dr. E. Cannan, 1896; cf. Hirst, Monopolies, Trusts, and Cartells,' London 1903, p. 21.

E

« AnteriorContinuar »