« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
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 em
ployed by her predecessors, but which had never been carri
ed 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,
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, 'il affairs go on at this
rate we shall have bread reduced to a monopoly before the
1. 1 next parliament.
Finally, so strong became the protests of the people
against these royal monopolies that teir legality was
questioned, and in 1602, in the case of Darcy v. Allein,
they were declared void.
In 1623 the Statute of Monopo
lies, 21 James I., c. 3, by a general sweeping clause
1. Hume, listory of England , (Iibrary Edition,1861),
Vol. IV, p.335. 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.
that year inere 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 monop
2 olistic privileges. Thus in general ended the monopolies
characteristic of the ancient and mediaeval ages.
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.
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
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 E. Studies, I. Appendices l. and R., pp. 171-175.
3. Ely, certain Psychological Phases of Industrial Evolution, p. 12. Reprinted from "Congress of Arts and Science, Universal Exposition, St. Louis, 1904," vol. VII.
The monopolistic enterprises of today are the natural out
growth of social, political and ind ustrial 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.
was really no market. The next development was the family
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
1 loosely call it such, remained substantially unchanged
values were only "values-in-use."
In the next form which the business unit assumed there
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.