MONOPOLY, from the Greek, signifies sole selling or individual selling, and has always been used to express a limitation to one or more persons of the right or power to conduct business as a trader. It is generally used in a bad sense to express something injurious, but economic science has lately very much narrowed the field over which its injurious character is supposed to extend. In the first place, it must be created by force; if it cone in the natural course of trade, it is generally beneficial. Thus, to a village where three or four traders have conducted a small lazy business, drawing large profits, there comes a capitalist, who sets up a large concern on the ready-money system, and, by selling good articles at a low rate, absorbs all the business. He is of course abused as a monopolist by the ineffective persons lie has superseded; but his presence is a bless ing to the community generally. If, however, he had gone to the village, not to com pete with others, but with a royal patent in his pocket securing to him the exclusive trade of the village, as he could sell at his own price, and make a fortune without trou ble, he would of course be, like the old royal monopolists, a calamity to the people.
A careful distinction must be preserved between monopoly and property—that is to say, an exclusive right to trade must be separated from an exclusive right to possess— for, while the law of property exists, possession will always be exclusive. If, then, a trade can only be conducted with large capital, it must fall to those who either singly, or by co-operation, can command that capital; and the answer to all complaints on the part of others is, that since capitalists can best serve the public, it is best for the public that capitalists should be allowed to do so. The old corn-laws and landed property con joined to produce one of the best illustrations of the distinction. The power of produc ing grain within Britain has always been of necessity limited to those who have, either as owners or tenants, the command of the land. Forfeit all the land in the country to-morrow, and proclaim the production of grain to be free, the result would only be a change of ownership; for those who by their good-luck, or more probably by their power, got hold of rich old wheat-lands, would produce their grain much cheaper than those who got the poor lands, and, selling the produce at the same price, would pocket the difference, which would, in fact, just be rent gained by them as the new landlords.
But when dealers offered the people grain from abroad, and the corn-laws rendered it impossible to sell that grain in this country, then there was a monopoly in favor of the home-producer, having the effect of artificially raising prices, and otherwise disturbing trade.
A deal of legislation was wasted by our ancestors in enactments to prohibit people from creating monopolies by that fair competition which is now considered the true healthy development of trade. Some account of them and of their repeal will be found in the article ENcinossma. British trade was increasing in the 16th c., it found some old powers alleged to be inherent in the royal prerogative for conferring exclusive — – trading rights, which led to much oppression and loss. In queen Elizabeth's parliament of 1597 a complaint was made that, for the benefit of favored courtiers, oppressive monopolies had been granted, not only for the sale of foreign luxuries, but for salt, leather, coal, and other articles of ordinary consumption. Queen Elizabeth said she "hoped her dutiful and loving subjects would not takeaway her prerogative, which is the choicest flower in her garden, and the principal and head pearl in her crown and diadem." Parliament returned to the charge, however, in 1601, when, on the reading over of the list of monopolies, a theatrical scene occurred by a member calling out "Is not bread oug the number?" and on this producing a sensation, continuing: "Nay, if no remedy s found, bread will be there before the next parliament." In 1621 parliament took proceedings against sir Giles Mompesson, charged with an oppressive use of his patent's monopoly. Four years afterwards, an act was passed limiting this power in the crown. It leaves only the right to grant a limited monopoly in the manufacture of his invention to any inventor, and this is the origin of the present patent law. See PATENT.