of grave difference between the economic policy which commended itself to the public opinion of the country and that which was pursued by the king and his advisers. But in the fifteenth century Parliament and the Crown appear on the whole to have co-operated together; though the personal character of the king was no longer of such exclusive importance. There are some signs of a real public opinion from the time of Richard II onwards not necessarily the opinion of a large public, but one that embodied the common opinion of local aristocracies of wealthy burgesses.

By the time of Richard II, too, the process of superseding local by national administration, which has been described above (p. 59), had gone a considerable way. It was much more possible to enforce similar trade regulations in all parts of the country, and even to carry out a similar trade policy, than it would have been in the days of Richard Cœur de Lion.

48. But most important of all, we see that the policy which was pursued by Edward III was defi- Plenty and nitely discarded by his grandson; and we Power. find indications of another course, which, when finally adopted and regularly pursued, was known as the Mercantile System. There is, however, no evidence that it was consciously thought out and deliberately followed before the time of the Tudors.

Probably different parts of the system were introduced under immediate pressure, and because they favoured the aspirations of English merchants. Even when thus fitfully adopted, the new policy amounted to a deliberate rejection of the methods approved by Edward III. In later times, when it was completely systematised, as for example under the Tudors, it is seen to be a commercial policy which aimed not merely at securing plenty of foreign products,

since it also tended towards the power of the realm. This, as Bacon saw, was the crucial difference; Edward III, by favouring the easy access of alien merchants, pursued a policy of plenty, since they brought large quantities of foreign goods in their ships; he imperfectly anticipated the free trade policy of England at the present time, which aims at securing plenty of foreign food and foreign materials for English consumers. Those on the other hand who advocated the mercantile policy, aimed at promoting the political power of the realm, and were ready to subordinate the convenience of producers and to sacrifice the comforts and tastes of consumers to this great national object.

This was the one great aim which more or less consciously dominated our economic policy for centuries; when we bear it steadily in mind, much of the fidgety and petty legislation of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries becomes intelligible, even if we still regard it as unwise. The Mercantile System, as completely thought out, rested on the principle, not of fostering industry and commerce for their own sakes, but of trying to guide them into such directions that they should subserve the political power of the realm. Similar schemes were in vogue in different countries, in Spain, France, Holland, and elsewhere, but the special form which economic policy took in our case was due to the special conditions of our national life. An island realm can only be strong either for defence or offence when it is a naval power; and hence, the development of our shipping and the encouragement of our commerce gradually came to be the most prominent features in the economic policy of the realm.

There are three elements in political strength which may be considered in turn. First, sufficient food must be procurable to provide for the maintenance and rearing of a

well-nourished population from which soldiers and sailors. may be drawn: secondly, a sufficient supply of money or treasure must be available in the royal coffers to meet any emergency, and this in a realm that has no mines can only be amassed by the careful regulation of industry and trade; last and not least in the case of England, it has been necessary to develop shipping with its subsidiary employments. Great pains have been taken at different times to strengthen the country on all these sides. It is not possible to separate them altogether from one another, for each factor in our industrial life has had a double bearing, and success in one direction has often reacted favourably on another. Thus (i) the obtaining of an adequate food supply, (ii) the progress of industry, and (iii) the development of commerce were partly pursued as independent objects, but there was also (iv) an underlying policy, which insisted on treating them with conscious reference to the offensive and defensive strength of the realm. Keeping these main points in view it may be convenient to deal with them in turn, and to indicate the various ways in which the strong hand of the central authority has exercised its influence on each.

G

CHAPTER VI.

THE VARIOUS SIDES OF NATIONAL ECONOMIC LIFE.

The migration of the

tion.

I. The Food Supply.

49. THERE were special circumstances in the time of Richard II and in subsequent reigns which gave rise to anxiety with regard to our food rural popula- supply. The disorganisation of rural society and the increase of sheep-farming, which ensued on the Black Death, seemed to threaten widespread disaster. If the land were allowed to go out of cultivation, it would be impossible to procure sufficient corn for the subsistence of the people; and hence we have a succession of legislative measures which were definitely intended to promote tillage.

Among the earlier regulations of this sort were restrictive laws, which were devised to prevent the migration of the rural population to the towns. This may have been, to some extent, a military precaution, as it was generally believed that an outdoor country life was favourable to the development of a population, which should be physically capable of rendering effective service in time of war; while the depopulation of the coasts was also a military danger, since the sheep and their shepherds could offer no effective

resistance to the landing of a hostile force. But the main object of the measures, which restrained the country people from migrating to the towns, was that of maintaining sufficient rural labour to carry on cultivation. Although, in some cases, those who were ready to work were evicted to make room for sheep, yet in the fourteenth century it was a matter of more common complaint that labourers could hardly be obtained in agricultural districts. There is much. said in the present day about the flocking of the rural population to the towns, but it is not a new phenomenon; for active efforts were made to check it nearly five centuries ago. In the time of Richard II legislation only affected adult labourers, but under Henry IV and Henry VI stringent measures were passed to prevent the children of rural labourers from becoming apprentices. Efforts were made to keep the rising generation on the soil; that these measures were not inoperative is shown by the complaints of the men of Oxford as to the decay of their trades, and by their fruitless efforts to obtain exemption. In the great Statute of Apprentices (1563), this principle was incorporated. Special facilities were given for training boys to those employments which were subsidiary to agriculture, if not to agriculture itself. And the distinction was so far maintained and acted upon that this point was noted as an important factor in the decay of the domestic system, and the growth of factories as late as 1804.1

50. Another method of favouring tillage and preventing the development of sheep-farming is found in Restrictions the statutes restricting the number of sheep on sheepwhich any one man might possess. Two farming.

1 Mr. Cookson of Leeds argued before a Committee of the House of Commons that it was desirable to modify the Act of 1563, so as to favour apprenticeship to the Clothing trades in rural districts.