OF THE
STOCK EXCHANGE.
CHAPTER I.
Ancient Mode of supporting Governments.—Ignorance of Political Economy.—Mercantile Greatness.—Early Supplies.—Tulip Mania.—Accession of William.
The national debt has been designated by some a national nuisance; by others it has been termed a national necessity. In the earlier history of the world, when war was a war for dominion, and spoliation followed conquest, the victor returned rich with the treasures of conquered states, and his captive paid trebly the expenses of the war. It was thus that the mistress of the world became an emporium for the gathered wealth of temples, for the gorgeous ornaments of a subdued aristocracy, and for the gold which had filled the treasury of barbarous but luxurious nations. These accumulations, together with annual tributes, prevented the formation of a public debt. The Goth, when he poured from his barren recesses upon the cultivated plains of Italy, ignorant of political economy as a science, felt it as a principle, and more than repaid the expenses of his foray by exacting the riches of imperial Rome. Modern Europe teaches us to similar purport; and Napoleon, in those wars which, to some a memory, are to others history, acted upon the same plan, and made Paris a receptacle for the spoil of many nations.
In the early annals of England, the feudal system prevented the creation of a national debt. The Saxon serf was compelled to follow the banner of his Norman master. The Norman baron, at the command of his sovereign, called his followers to the field, and having, if successful, enriched himself, retraced his path to his mountain fastness and his island home. In these rude ages the art of levying money was unknown; and victorious armies were often dispersed for want of funds. The conqueror of Pavia was compelled to disband 24,000 men because he could not raise taxes to support them; and it is a suggestive fact, that when, during the reign of the third Henry, it was necessary to procure £50,000, and a tax of £1 2s. 4d. was levied on each parish in England, it only produced about £9,500, there being but 8,500 parishes; so ignorant were the authorities of the very machinery of the state they governed.
From a very early period, the mercantile capacity of England has been developed; and her insular position, which at once suggested and favored commerce, was taken advantage of by laymen and churchmen. Bishops entered into speculations in herrings, and abbots did not disdain to unite the smuggling with a more saintly calling. But there were other and more legitimate followers of that pursuit which has since made the name of an English merchant a symbol of English greatness. Among these, William de la Pole stands prominently forward; and the founder of the House of Suffolk is familiar to the student of commercial history. William Canyng—that name so intimately connected with the fortunes of “the marvellous boy who perished in his pride”—and Richard Whittington—dear to household memories, and the founder of many princely charities—were others whose munificence was only surpassed by their wealth.
A slight sketch of the tyranny and injustice employed by our earlier monarchs in the production of revenue, may not be unamusing to the readers of the present volume. The records of the Exchequer prove that barbaric acts were performed to obtain money; that justice was openly bought and sold; that the supreme judicature of the country could only be approached by bribes to the monarch. The county of Norfolk paid a large sum to Henry I. to secure fair dealing. Yarmouth paid heavily to prevent a king from violating his own charter. Commerce was controlled, and trade was harassed. Corporations and monopolies were created at the monarch’s pleasure; and, as nothing was too small to escape his notice, so nothing was too large to escape his grasp. The wife of Hugh de Neville paid two hundred hens to enjoy the society of her husband twelve hours in prison; and an abbot paid largely for permission to secure his wood from being stolen. To mitigate the king’s anger, or obtain the king’s services, money was equally necessary. When peer and prior were sufficiently strong to resist, or sufficiently poor to escape, the farmer and the peasant were visited. The approach of the court was like the approach of the plague; and men ran to conceal their effects and their persons until the royal plunderer had passed.
Extraordinary emergencies caused extraordinary expenses; and the call to arms which resounded throughout Europe when Peter the Hermit preached deliverance to the captive Sepulchre, was responded to by Richard I. with the vehemence and energy of his character. To compass his aim, he mortgaged the customs and he farmed the revenues. He exacted money from his subjects in proportion to their wealth, and declared he would sell London itself rather than forego his cherished object. He feigned the loss of his signet, to procure fees; and, to crown all, resumed, on his return, the property he had previously sold, on the pretence that he had no right to alienate it.