I

The main content of anti-monopoly activities was in opposition to the King's prerogative.To sell monopoly rights through the charter was the king's privileges in English tradition.Monarchical privileges peaked during the reign of Queen Elizabeth and the early Stuarts.At that time,three main types of monopoly licenses were issued by the King:The first was the chartered right that granted exclusive production and marketing of specific products to an individual or organization;the second was the chartered right to enable trade organizations or commercial companies to monopolize a particular market or the overseas colonies,including the exclusive privilege of joining the company;and the third was to give the creators of a patented invention the patent right.In short,its purpose was to limit competition and to obtain the excess profits.

To sell the chartered monopoly right was one of the ways to resolve financial difficulties.The Tudor and Stuart dynasty,faced with the plight of living beyond their means and often in new debt by repaying old debts,adopted this system.For example,in 1552,the debt abroad has reached£108,000,and this,together with the domestic debt,reached£220,000.Three years later it had grown to£148526.5s.8d.,while the interest was about 14 per cent.^[2]In this way,from the period of Queen Elizabeth to James I,the situation for a typical Englishman was,as Appleby has described,one where he lived‘in a house built with monopoly bricks…heated by monopoly coal…His clothes were held up by monopoly belts,monopoly buttons,monopoly…He ate monopoly butter,monopoly currants,monopoly red herrings,monopoly salmon,monopoly lobsters’^[3].

The royal monopoly privileges naturally attracted opposition from many people.The activities were carried out from two battlefields:one was Parliament,the other was the common law courts.The latter got the response and support of civil society.

The subject of royal trade privileges was raised in the 1571 parliament.It was thought that only a few were enriched,and the multitude impoverished by the privileges.Parliament once again raised the issue of monopolies in 1597.Queen Elizabeth agreed to deliver the patent cases to be tried in the common law courts.In the 1601 parliament,the issue of monopolies became the subject of extensive debate in the House of Commons.A draft bill outlawing the royal monopolies was put up for debate on November 20.In the following 5-days of discussion,the lower house lawmakers enumerated the disadvantages of monopolies.Queen Elizabeth admonished her previous parliament,instructing it to avoid questions of the king's privileges.In response,the commons hesitated whether it should pass a bill,or let their protest to take the milder form of petition.The result was that Queen Elizabeth had to adapt to the opposition's voice to monopoly,terminating outright a few of the most unpopular monopolies,and once again reiterating that the others would be given to a common law judge to be tried.^[4]The Queen subsequently issued the royal proclamations to confirm to the abolition of this kind of monopoly.^[5]

As early as the 12th or 13th century,the English common law courts gradually became independent of the King,although Judges continued to be appointed by the King.English common law was a completely separate system of rights,rooted in the practice of the courts,and having a legal basis within or outside statute law.Sir Edward Coke insisted that common law was superior to statute law,claiming that it was the political development to provide the common law courts the opportunity to influence economic regulation.Common law jurists,especially Sir Coke,became the most powerful force in the resistance to the monarchy and its agents.They provided a powerful intellectual weapon to the House of Commons against the royal prerogative.The common law court judgment in such cases adopted the view that the restraint of trade was harmful.From the 16th century,England had developed a universally recognized rule of law,that is:common law protected the economic freedom of its subjects,and did not recognize monopolies.In this decision,the common law court expressed the view‘that at common law,no man could be prohibited from working in any lawful trade’,to‘make a monopoly…is to take away free trade,which is the birthright of every subject’.^[6]Henceforth,monopolies based on royal privileges were considered invalid.So the regulations of monopoly which were issued by municipal authorities and professional associations,if only based on the royal charters,were rejected as soon as it was believed that they were against industrial freedom.But monopolies created by Act of Parliament were respected.All kinds of local rights based on immemorial custom were also respected.^[7]

The attitude of the common law courts to the exclusive trading privileges was reflected in a few typical cases,such as Davenant v.Hurdis,Darcy v.Allen,etc.The judgment of the High Court concerning the case of Davenant v.Hurdis in 1599 announced the provision that the company of Merchant Tailors in London had violated common law,and as a monopoly,was now invalid.The 1602 judgment in the case of Darcy v.Allen was a milestone since it was concerned with the entire public,and not just those excluded from the monopoly.The judgment stated‘The sole trade of any mechanical artifice,or any other monopoly,is not only a damage and prejudice to those who exercise the same trade,but also to all other subjects.’In the 1614 case of the Tailors of Ipswich,the court determined according to customary law that‘No man shall be prohibited from working in any lawful trade.’^[8]

The common law courts,through a series of judgments,upheld the principle of free trade.Monopoly privileges based on the crown were now considered invalid.The common law courts had played a role in the collapse of the entire commercial and industrial controlling system.

In the House of Commons between 1604 and 1606,the monopoly power of chartered companies became a target for parliamentarians.In response,the House of Commons appointed a committee in 1604 to investigate this issue.Listening to the views of a wide range of merchants,the Committee submitted its report to the House of Commons.The bill for free trade was sent to the House of Lords with great consent and applause of the House of Commons.But soon the session was suddenly adjourned by James I.The second session eventually resumed on 5 November 1605.Activity against the charter monopoly became more fruitful.The bill for free trade into Spain,Portugal and France,was passed into law.^[9]

As James I had not met the requirements of the members of first and second Parliament to limit the royal prerogative,he did not obtain any subsidy from the Parliament to ensure these new proposals became a reality.This disrupted the normal fiscal operation of the English government,so James had to turn to other sources of income,including selling monopoly charters.James sold a large number of patent charters,and then routinely found an excuse to revoke.He would then re-issue them to other people,with patents finally being issued,including a provision permitting revocation by vote of the Privy Council.As the management chaos deepened,James received very little.James had to convene the Third Parliament in 1621.In this Parliament,the House of Commons set up a committee chaired by Coke,and drafted a bill against monopolies,which was passed in the House.Although several patents were attacked,attention focused on three aspects:the patents for inns,alehouses,and gold and silver thread.James cancelled the three patents.After the first session,James also issued a public proclamation to revoke eighteen patents and to submit seventeen to the common law.After the second session the parliament was dissolved.The monopolies bill was stillborn.James issued another royal proclamation in February 1623,and set up a committee to receive complaints about monopolies and excessive fees.In James's fourth parliament,the House of Commons set up a committee chaired by Edwin Sandys to discuss the issue of free trade and to examine the patent charter.The bill that eventually became the Statute of Monopolies was passed in the House of Commons again.After repeated modifications,the House of Lords voted in favour of the bill in 1624,with the lower house subsequently approving it.The statute of Monopolies of 1624 now meant that the King was prohibited from selling industrial monopoly patents in order to obtain income.^[10]