real national power than did the Tudors. Not only did the economic organization in France foster local exclusiveness, but the efforts of the central power were calculated to strengthen rather than to supersede gild regulation in its expanded form of national monopoly. Then, too, the financial resources of the French monarchy tempted the state into a more active intervention in industry than was possible to the poorer English government, so that monopolies were less likely to be granted to private individuals. A generous use of public money proved hardly more advantageous in French industry than in French colonial enterprise.' Apparently the earliest systematic use of patents in France dates from the closing years of the sixteenth century, and this may well have been in imitation of the English patent system, already well developed."

While continental governments were making sporadic attempts to establish new industries by means of industrial privilege, England was moving in the same direction through a more or less independent course of development. Before the middle of the sixteenth century the industrial patents granted in England were in effect but promises of protection to foreign workmen introducing new arts, especially those connected with the clothing trades. The best known of these were issued in the reign of Edward III.3 In the following century other cases apparently indicate the continuance of the policy. The practice of the early Tudor monarchs, in encouraging the introduction of new arts, was to attract skilled artisans into their own service. In this way German armorers, Italian shipwrights and glass-makers, and French iron-founders were induced to establish new industries in England with the hope of royal patronage.5

Down to this time the industrial privileges conferred by the

Compare Fagniez, Economie sociale de France, chap. ii, with Parkman, Olď Régime in Canada, ch. xx.

Fagniez, pp. 119 and 154 ff.; Renouard, pp. 8o ff.; Levasseur, Hist. class. ouvr. 2d ed. 1901, vol. ii, pp. 172 ff.

Cal. Pat. Rolls, May 1, 1327, Hist. MSS. Com. xiv, pt. viii, p. 7; Pat. 1331, 5 Edw. III, pt. 1, m. 25, reprinted in Rymer (patent to John Kempe); Pat. 1336, 10 Edw. III; Pat. 1368, 42 Edw. III, pt. 1.

Pat. 1440, 18 Hen. VI, pt. 18, m. 27 (patent to John Schiedame and company); Rymer, xi, 317.

Hulme, article in L. Q. R. April, 1896; Page, Denizations, p. xlii.

crown, far from being exclusive, had the contrary effect. They tended to break down special privileges. Instances of grants of monopoly must be sought, not in the royal patents, but in acts of Parliament confirming and protecting local advantages that were being threatened. The decentralization of industry under the domestic system had led to organized attempts to support the former local monopoly of the towns. The borough craftsmen sometimes induced the country artisans to join their organizations, but more commonly they excluded this outside competition.1 Popular feeling, expressed not only in literature 2 but also in statutes, supported the protection of town monopoly and regarded with disfavor the increasing migration to the countryside. In this policy the Tudor sovereigns, despite their occasional attempts to introduce skilled artisans, were in full agreement with Lords and Commons. The forces of economic progress, however, were working against the local inertia as expressed in parliamentary policy. Industry was outgrowing the jurisdiction of the crafts, and was becoming national. This called for a regulation that was national, or none at all.

3

The release of industry from the fetters of local custom opened the way for a diversification as well as an expansion of industry. Elizabeth's accession introduced a vigorous and on the whole a popular national administration. Elizabeth, with the help of her ministers, had the shrewdness to grasp the opportunity. Instead of attempting to bolster up a local supervision which the spread of the domestic system had rendered inadequate, the government was encouraged by the new economic and political conditions in the effort to establish a system of national regulation, and to stimulate new industries by increasing the extent and effectiveness of the former policy of protective intervention. Thus the policy of granting patents was obviously suggested by the course of development 1 See Unwin, Industrial Organization, p. 86, citing stat, 20 Hen. VI, c. 10 (Norwich, 1442), Hist. MSS. Com. Bury St. Edmunds, p. 133, Shrewsbury, p. 11. 'Hales, Discourse of the Commonweal, Miss Lamond's ed. p. 131.

3 14 & 15 Hen. VIII, c. I, country weavers not to deal with foreigners. 14 & 25 Hen. VIII, c. 3, protection of Norwich artisans against neighboring competition. 21 Hen. VIII, c. 12, protection of Bridport artisans against neighboring competition. 25 Hen. VIII, c. 18, protection of Worcester artisans against neighboring competition. 5 & 6 Edw. VI, c. 24, protection of Norwich artisans against neighboring com petition. I Mary, c. 7, seven-year apprenticeship in the country only. 2 & 3 Ph. & M. c. 7, the weavers' act. 5 Eliz. c. 4, statute of apprentices.

in internal economic conditions. The period covered by the reigns of Elizabeth, James I, and Charles I was not the beginning of industrial monopoly. It was important chiefly because of its national and systematic character, whereas hitherto monopoly had been much more a local phenomenon. The system of monopolies under royal patronage was in fact a somewhat reactionary attempt to reconstitute monopolies along national lines. The development of the patent system in England was not accidental; many factors conspired to make this country the birthplace of the system. A nation of a fair degree of economic unity, with the narrower gild regulations and local exclusiveness already declining, with a sovereign who in practice was well-nigh absolute, who surrounded herself with ministers possessing at least the best practical economic ideas that the time afforded, and who was interested in the industrial development of the country but without command of resources. sufficient to involve the state in public enterprise on its own account, - such were the chief conditions favorable to the development of a systematic patent policy in England earlier than in any other country.

While the system as settled policy was not borrowed, the initial suggestion apparently came from abroad. The earliest recorded application for an exclusive patent for introducing a new art into England bears the date of 1558 and was presented jointly by an Englishman and an Italian.1 The petition was granted in 1562 as a reward of "diligent travail" and to "give encouragement to others." Meanwhile two other patents had been granted for inventions of foreign origin. Before any one of these was conceded, another Italian, Giacopo Acontio, in a petition for a patent prefaced his application with the suggestion that "nothing is more honest than that those who by searching have found out things useful to the public should have some fruit of their rights and labors, as meanwhile they abandon all other modes of gain, are at much expense in experiments, and often sustain much loss." He then explained that he had invented certain furnaces and "wheel

1 S. P. D. E. 1558, i, 56.

› Pat. 4 Eliz. pt. 10 (May 26, 1562), to George Cobham, for a dredging-machine. Pat. 3 Eliz. pt. 6 (August 8, 1561), for white soap. Pat. 4 Eliz. pt. 13, (January 3, 1562), for saltpeter.

machines" which others would copy without remunerating him unless he were protected.1

2

During the first ten years of the patent policy (1561-70), twelve patents were granted for various chemical products and processes, and six for mechanical inventions. Some of the inventions and inventors were native and some foreign, for "invention" was held to cover first importation as well as first contrivance. The chemical patents included such products as soap, saltpeter, alum, sulphur, oil, salt, glass, and cloth- and leather-dressing. The mechanical patents covered dredging, draining, and grinding machines, furnaces and ovens. During this decade also, numerous mining privileges were conferred upon two groups of prospectors. In the course of the next decade, seven mechanical inventions were patented, chiefly for water-raising and drainage, and three for chemical inventions, earthenware, glass, and sulphur. There was also a patent for sailcloth and one for playing-cards. Originally, the patents had been given for ten years, but by this time twenty, twenty-one, and thirty years had become more ordinary terms, the practice of reissuing had commenced, and patents were no longer wholly confined to new arts. In the course of the third decade (1581-90), more obvious abuses crept in. No less than three new patents were issued for the manufacture of salt. The third, to Thomas Wilkes, continued in force by means of extensions until 1601, when it was abolished by proclamation in response to the bitter outcry against the extortions of the patentee. Patents for salt, starch, train-oil, and paper were issued to men who did not claim to be the first introducers. In this decade, also, the saltpeter licenses became particularly irritating and proved a constant source of popular resentment, for the deputies used their authority to dig in houses, cellars, and barns. Several

1 S. P. D. Add. December, 1559, ix, 39. The editor of the calendar adds that "Acontius had an annuity of £50 granted February 27, 1560, letters of naturalization, October 8, 1561, and a license to take up workmen to amend Plumstead Marshes, June 24, 1563, but not the patent here solicited." This is a mistake, as the patent was received September 7, 1565. See also Hulme, L. Q. R. April, 1896, p. 148.

See the list of patents given by Mr. E. W. Hulme in L. Q. R. April, 1896.
Pat. September 1, 1585.

The grievance from the saltpeter-men antedated the accession of Elizabeth. See Clode, Early History of the Merchant Taylors' Company, i, p. 87 (1545-6.)

mechanical inventions received patents, which caused little trouble. The ten years from 1591 witnessed the renewal of patents for starch, salt, train-oil, paper, glass, and playing-cards, and a new patent for vinegar, in addition to a few unimportant privileges for genuine inventions. In each of the cases named established industries were attacked. Meanwhile, the system of licenses was being given an unprecedented extension. Those which attracted most attention were for the sealing of leather, the alnage of the new draperies, the survey of cordage, digging for saltpeter, the supervision of taverns and of gaming-houses; patents for remission of penalties under the acts for sowing of flax and hemp, for the tanning of leather, and against the use of gig-mills; and finally a miscellaneous group of licenses for the exportation of commodities contrary to statute.2

The export licenses occupy a position somewhat anomalous. They were admitted to be monopolies and were decried as such, fairly so, perhaps, for they constituted exclusive privileges, — but their purpose and results were in opposition to trade restrictions. They were granted for the most part in contravention or suspension of statutes prohibiting certain exports. Hence they may very well have constituted a political grievance. It is needless to say that in current opinion they also formed a grave economic grievance. The prohibitory acts of Parliament were frankly class-legislation, and very serious results would have followed the rigid enforcement of some of the most extreme of them. This was the case particularly with a great deal of legislation, experimental in character, which was passed at one session at the demand of one interest, only to be modified or repealed at the next or a later session, at the complaint of another interest. Sweeping restrictions were made in certain trades, the rigid enforcement of which either experience or urgent representations demonstrated would be injurious. In such cases the crown simply exercised the wide discretionary power which it claimed, and authorized certain exceptions to the law which would give partial or complete relief. The special licenses for the export of grain, for instance, were in addition to the licenses automatically

1 See list of patents, 1570-1600, by Mr. Hulme in L. Q. R. January, 1900. • See Appendices B, C, and J.