was not open to the seventeenth century administrators whether they would have approved of it or not they had to set themselves to provide as far as possible for the employment of national labour and resources in the localities where they happened to be available.1 No new The details of the measures by which these different interests were promoted need not detain us: there was however one point of considerable interest. departure of any kind could be made to succeed, without royal support and patronage. To found a new colony many days' sail from the mother country, was a hazardous undertaking in which no one would engage unless privileges were secured him by the crown. To fit out vessels for distant voyages and try to open new lines of commerce involved risks which no one could attempt without public recognition and support. Hence we find a succession of proposals for the planting of colonies, and the granting of charters to African, Eastland, and above all to the East India Companies. What a feeble force private enterprise then was we may see from the accounts of the first beginnings of this great Company. There are many private firms to-day who own a tonnage that far exceeds that of this mighty company in the seventeenth century; and yet it needed royal encouragement to call forth the efforts which were then devoted by London merchants to competing with the Dutchmen who had anticipated us, and to securing for England a share in the East India Trade. The same thing was partially true of the management of industry the increase of manufacturing was desirable, : 1 Compare Yarranton's England's improvement by land and sea for a careful investigation of the ways in which the resources of different parts of the country might be developed. partly as providing us with new means of export, and of thus driving a profitable trade, and partly as a means of providing opportunities for employing persons who might otherwise have been idle vagrants. But to introduce. a new industry, to cultivate the requisite skill, to compete successfully with foreign producers, was a herculean undertaking for which no private capital would suffice, and thus those who attempted to plant new trades, or to introduce improvements, relied on the support that was given them by royal letters-patent. When these patents only concerned articles newly introduced, or of mere luxury, the granting of them created no grievance; but when they affected processes which were necessary for the production of articles of general demand-like soap, or when they affected the terms on which a staple trade was carried on-like the dyeing of cloth, the case was entirely altered, for the granting of a patent to certain producers, made them monopolists, and as obnoxious to the public weal as engrossers. (See p. 120, note.) In nine cases out of ten the benefit accruing from the introduction of the new industry or the improved process, was as nothing compared to the inconvenience which arose from the monopoly of the patentees, and the disorganisation of the trade of which a part was entirely in their hands. A brief experience of the results of royal wisdom in cultivating private enterprise was So unfavourable, that the Commons demanded in the interests of the English public that all such patents should be abolished. The failure of the king and his advisers in attempting to control the industry of the country for the common good, had much to do with discrediting royal wisdom, and preparing for the rebellion against royal authority. But it may be doubted whether any other influence would have sufficed for the planting of new trades. When the Huguenots were expelled from France, new trades planted themselves at Canterbury and Spitalfields, because the possessors of this special skill sought refuge on English ground. But as we look back on the attempts of King James and King Charles to stimulate industry afresh, we may perhaps feel that they failed not so much because they were unwise in design, as because the indirect effects were more far-reaching than they had apprehended. But whatever may have been the precise grounds for the decision, a final condemnation was pronounced on the royal efforts to stimulate industry so as to meet the requirements of the home market, when Charles revoked his grants by his proclamation from York in 1639. From that time forward we have had to rely on almost unprivileged private enterprise for catering for English consumers by the improvement of old manufactures, and introduction of new ones—and we have not relied in vain, for our subsequent experience has confirmed the condemnation of monopolies which was pronounced in the seventeenth century. Had the results of granting them been satisfactory to the kingdom at large the inconvenience of a few private citizens would have seemed to parliament itself a matter of no account at all: the real question was as to the amount of advantage accruing, and the amount of discomfort endured. In most cases the general inconvenience outweighed the good that might be anticipated from the new departure or what was worse, a general inconvenience seemed likely to produce no benefit to the public at large, but only a profit to those who were engaged in the business. But the failure to guide the industry of the commerce discreetly was not the least grave fault which was laid to the charge of the kings who claimed to rule by divine right. The interests involved were too complicated for their calculations; the indirect results of their policy were undesired, and the machinery by which the interests of industry was supposed to be promoted was often inefficient and corrupt. The scheme of policy which trusted to royal forethought and royal care for the direction of the industry of the country had been weighed in the balance and found wanting. The English Parliament expressed more vigorously the same conviction as was afterwards forced on the minds of the French manufacturers who politely entreated their patron Laissez faire, laissez passer. However benevolent the royal intentions might be, the practical difficulties in carrying them out were so great that the national interests, as far at least as the consumers of manufactured goods were concerned, prospered better when let alone. 3. National Interests. 20. The political doctrines of Locke were so directly affected by the struggles of the age in which he lived, and the form of constitution he approved was so very different from that which King James I. designed, that it seems strange to find that the principles with which he starts are so little removed from those of the royalists. He too takes his stand on natural law-a natural law of which he speaks in terms that are carefully borrowed from the first book of Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity; he too regards the business of the governor as that of framing human laws in accordance with the divine prin ciples of morals. Thus far there is little breach with the older theorists; and Locke seems nervously anxious to prove the affinity of his teaching to that of an orthodox champion like Hooker. But Locke supplements their teaching by justifying the imposition of checks on the king's exercise of his powers, and by suggesting a clear criterion through which the wisdom of his government might be readily appraised. He altogether denied that an English king could claim to be directly called by God to do his work it was on the other hand through the consent of the people, whether explicit or merely implied, that the king's authority was really conferred. His power was intrusted to him, but for the exercise of that trust he was responsible, not merely to God, but to the people as well: at the coronation, the promises he made were not vows to God as to the manner of performing a duty, but rather an agreement with the people solemnised as in the presence of God. The people had thus intrusted him with authority, and agreed to be subject to him, and the people might call him to account if he abused that trust, and broke his side of the compact. The notion of a social contract was destined to play a great part in the world: and the force of Locke's argument depends upon it. Still to say that royal power was derived in the last resort from the people was not to enunciate a principle that gave any security for a free constitution. Hobbes had put this quite clearly, but he had maintained that the authority had been granted to the king by the people, and that just because the people had granted it, they could never be justified in resuming that grant. To Locke, on the other hand, it seemed absurd to suppose that the people could ever have done such |