She

military employments; and the queen, who was not able from her revenue to give them any rewards proportioned to their services, has made use of an expedient which had been employed by her predecessors, but which had never been carried to such an extreme as under her administration. granted her servants and courtiers patents for monopolies, and these patents they sold to others, who were thereby enabled to raise commodities to what price they pleased, and who put invincible restraints upon all commerce, industry and emulation in the arts. It is astonishing to consider the number and importance of those commodities which were thus assigned over to patentees

When the

list was read in the house, a member cried: 'Is not bread in the number?' 'Bread,' said everyone in astonishment. 'Yes, I assure you,' he replied, 'if affairs go on at this rate we shall have bread reduced to a monopoly before the 1 next parliament.'"'

Finally, so strong became the protests of the people against these royal monopolies that their legality was questioned, and in 1602, in the case of Darcy v. Allein, they were declared void. In 1623 the Statute of Monopolies, 21 James I., C. 3, by a general sweeping clause

2

1. Hume, History of England, (Library Edition, 1861), Vol. IV, p.335.

2.

Darcy v. Allein, 11 Coke, 84. Discussed in Ely, Monopolies and Trusts, pp. 217-220.

demolished all existing monopolies, with certain exceptions, 1 and declared them to be contrary to law and void. But it was not until 1639 that they really ceased to exist. In that year there was an order in council revoking patents and commissions, followed on April 9th, by a proclamation of Charles I, given at the Manor of York, revoking the grants, licenses, warrants and commissions for these monopolistic privileges. Thus in general ended the monopolies characteristic of the ancient and mediaeval ages. The next form of monopoly is the modern combination and trust, the elements of which were even at this time in existence and waxing stronger with the growth of industry.

2

This latter manifestation of monopoly is not, however, an outgrowth of the former. In character and origin they

are fundamentally different.3 The monopolies of yesterday

were primitive in their nature and in almost all cases were arbitrarily created by rulers or governments for purposes of revenue, or as in England, for the benefit of favorites. 1. English Statutes at Large, Vol. VII, pp. 255-260. See also Am. and Eng. Encyclopaedia of Law (2nd Ed.) Vol. XX. p. 848. 2. Price, The EnGlish Patents of Monopoly. In Harvard Studies, I. Appendices Q. and R., pp. 171-175.

E.

3. Ely, Certain Psychological Phases of Industrial Evolution, p. 12. Reprinted from "Congress of Arts and Science, Universal Exposition, St.Louis, 1904," Vol. VII.

To

The monopolistic enterprises of today are the natural outgrowth of social, political and industrial development. demonstrate this it is necessary to trace historically the evolution of concentration in business enterprise.

In the beginning the unit of industry was the individual. There was here no industrial problem. Each consumed what he produced. The problem of distribution did not exist. Human capacity and capital were limited and there was really no market. The next development was the family group, in which production was carried on by the master with the co-operation of his family. Here human capacity and capital were increased, but the market, if we may loosely call it such, remained substantially unchanged and values were only "values-in-use."

1

In the next form which the business unit assumed ther e were not only "values-in-use" but also "values-in-exchange." In England this form was the merchant and craft guilds,

2

characteristic of the handicraft stage. In their origin due primarily to conditions new in England but comparatively old on the continent, they were likewise the natural outcome of the changing industrial phenomena in its attempt

1. Davis, Corporations: Their Origin and Development. Vol. II, p. 272.

2. Ashley, An Introduction to English Economic History and Theory, Vol. I,, p. 92.