II
Activities against monopolies,intertwined with a series of struggles between the parliament and the king in respect of tax revenues and other issues,eventually led to a political revolution.The Parliament and the King had engaged in a life and death struggle on the abolition of the prerogatives of the king during the revolutionary period.After the restoration,the charter of monopolies was no longer an effective means for the English government.The mercantilism policy in the late Tudor and early Stuart period began to turn direction from the full control of economy to economic freedom.
Why,then,was there a continuing anti-monopoly activity in the late Tudor and early Stuart period that might have led to the occurrence of the revolution and the shift of England's mercantilist policy?What kind of relation existed between the three?
In the Tudor period the development of capitalism was still limited.The first echelon of the bourgeoisie relied on national implementation of mercantilist policy,controlling domestic industry,commerce and foreign trade,even the people's everyday life.Overcoming many difficulties and dangerous obstacles,they enriched themselves with the monopoly rights granted by the state.However,following the economic changes of the 16th century,there was,according to Stone,‘a new class of gentry,lawyers,small merchants and entrepreneurs,retailers and middle-man’[11]rapidly rising,who had accumulated considerable wealth.In the early 17th century,after the wave of commercialization of the Tudor dynasty,a new pattern of trade linked Europe,Asia and the Western Hemisphere into a world economy.A vast world market had spread before the British front.As Rabb has argued:‘In the history of British expansion there was no more active period than the first thirty of the seventeenth century.’[12]The new class formed in the 16th century was made up of the second echelon of the bourgeoisie.They had long paddled the tide of the market economy,and quickly saw this golden opportunity with their eagle-eyes.They actively invested in overseas trade and domestic business.T.K.Rabb's studies on the investment in English overseas enterprise from 1575-1630 had shown that the number of gentry investments markedly increased in the first twelve years of the 17th century.[13]In the House of Commons debates between 1604 and 1606,several debates were called against the monopoly of the chartered companies,and the campaign for free trade.The gentry and outport merchants who opposed the monopoly of the chartered companies,and the London merchants accounted for the majority in the members of the free trade committee appointed by the two sessions.Among 22 members of the 1604 free trade committee,nine members were from the gentry,five were outport merchants,one London merchant.[14]Among the 37 members of 1605-6 committee,at least 19 members were gentlemen,and only four were merchants or former merchants,of which two were London merchants.As Croft has argued,‘In short,the commons had made no effort to select members with commercial expertise,as it would have done on a purely commercial matter.The Committee was dominated by gentry well aware of economic interests of their class.’[15]The gentry became the main force against the monopoly of chartered companies.However,the gentry were not merely spokesman for the merchants,and they advocated free trade for their own reasons.Their interests alone ensured that determined action would be taken.[16]Where did the gentry's economic interests lie?First,the gentry were the organizers of the production of export products like grain,wool,woolen and other.The export channel was monopolized by the chartered companies.This situation was obviously not in their interest because the monopoly merchants could depress the prices of their commodities.Second,until this time,the gentry were excluded from the most profitable commercial activities.The government's charter monopoly policy prevented their investments.Third,the gentry and other new social strata,regardless of it being legal or illegal,had been deeply involved in the triangular corn trade exporting from England to Spain,Portugal or the fishing trade between England,Newfoundland and Spain as early as the second half of the 16th century.Spain's demand for cereals took a decisive turning point in the late 16th century,from intermittent demand to sustained demand.The demand for protein foods such as fish was always high.The lucrative trade was mainly operated by the gentry and minor merchants from the outports,even during wartime with Spain.[17]Therefore,it was not difficult to understand why the gentry held against the monopoly of chartered companies and supported free trade when peace with Spain came in 1604,and the new trade opportunities arose.
However,the new market forces were‘excluded from the major benefits of the economic system and hampered in their activity by the official policy’.[18]One of the biggest obstacles was the charter monopoly policy of the king.The beneficiaries of this policy were a few courtiers,great merchants,and great financiers.So capitalism had entered the stage of attack,and had begun to control the government.As a result,the English revolution was inevitable,and the obstacles to the free trade were finally swept away by force in 1640,and as a result,the mercantilist policy had to change.
Thus,the mercantilist policies of the Tudors and the early Stuarts fostered the strength against their own people.This strength became the major force in the English Revolution.The abolition of the king's privileges and monopoly rights,including the charter of trade companies,became the centre of the struggle during the revolutionary period.In this struggle,the great merchants benefited from the charter monopolies were generally on the king's side.However,some action by the royal family had hurt their interests,so their position was sometimes wavering,while the gentry and other merchants were simply standing on Parliament's side.After the revolution,the mercantilist policy started to change direction,and reflected the changing relationship between the state and market power.The licensing and controlling of the trade and production activities gradually disappeared,replaced by tariff protection and other indirect means,rather than through direct intervention,to nurture competitive advantage of domestic industries.This explained the essential aspect that while the mercantilist policy could change,the interests of capital could not.
【注释】
[1]T.B.Nachbar,‘Monopoly,Mercantilism,and the Politics Regulation’,Virginia Law Review,91(2005),1361.
[2]W.R.Scott,The Constitution and Finance of English,Scottish and Irish Joint- Stock Companies to 1720,(Cambridge,1910),Ⅰ.16.
[3]J.O.Appleby,Economic Thought and Ideology in Seventeenth-Century England(Princeton,1980),33.
[4]T.B.Nachbar,‘Monopoly,Mercantilism,and the Politics Regulation’, 1330-1331.
[5]P.L.Hughes and J.F.Larkin,Tudor Royal Proclamations(New Haven and London,1969),Ⅲ.236-237.
[6]Eli.F.Heckscher,Mercantilism(New York,1983),Ⅰ.278-285.
[7]Eli.F.Heckscher,Mercantilism,Ⅰ.284.
[8]Eli.F.Heckscher,Mercantilism,Ⅰ.288.
[9]见李新宽:《论英国重商主义政策的阶段性演进》,《世界历史》2008年第5期,第78-79页(LI Xinkuan,‘On the Stepwise Development of British Mercantilism Policies’,World History,5(2008),78-79)。
[10]Statutes of the Realm(Buffalo,N.Y.,1993),Ⅳ.1212.
[11]L.Stone,‘State Control in Sixteenth-Century England’,Economic History Review,17(1947),120.
[12]T.K.Rabb,‘Investment in English Overseas Enterprise,1575-1630’,Economic History Review,19(1966),70.
[13]T.K.Rabb,‘Investment in English Overseas Enterprise,1575-1630’,70.
[14]T.K.Rabb,‘Sir Edwin Sandys and the Parliament of 1604’,American Historical Review,69(1963/4),664-65.
[15]P.Croft,‘Free Trade and the House of Commons,1605-6’,Economic History Review,28(1975),22-23,25.
[16]T.K.Rabb,‘Sir Edwin Sandys and the Parliament of 1604’,663.
[17]P.Croft,‘Free Trade and the House of Commons,1605-6’,20-22.
[18]L.Stone,‘State Control in Sixteenth-Century England’,120.