Theocratic democracy was in Tucker's mind.

"Rewards and Punishments are the grand Hinges, on which, not only Government, and Religion, but national Commerce, and national Industry, ought to turn: And indeed, the nearer you bring your Commercial Ideas to the Standard of good Government, and sound Religion, the more lasting, the more extensive, and the more perfect is your Plan." pp. 169-70.

In the course of time, and that in matters which concerned the poor, Tucker was found in opposition to the great Edmund Burke, a close friend of Adam Smith. The opposition is stated by the Barrister-at-Law, J. D. Rogers, who in short words shows the fire of the Dean's soul.

"Burke upheld the trade laws, and reviled 'the profane herd of those vulgar and mechanical politicians who think that nothing exists but what is gross and material Tucker replied with the audacity of Cobden, that

he was proud to belong to the latter class." 192

Though born eleven years before Adam Smith, Tucker was destined to outlive him nine years. Only Burke could defeat his plans for the poor, and it came about shortly before Burke's death, which occurred in 1797 in the sixty-eighth year of his life, two years before the death of Tucker, who died at eighty-seven.

Burke, who was praised by Adam Smith, as "the only man he had met with who thought as he did on the chief topics of political economy without previous communication," 2 drew into the year 1795 determined to thwart what threatened to be the overthrow of the corn merchant in England. There is an inspired bit of history, apparently the work of grateful members of the corn-fraternity, that is good reading for the student of democracy. It stands as an "Introduction" to Burke's successful "Memorial" to Parliament. The self-praise of the forestallers, couched in glorification of Burke, runs thus:

"He (Burke) zealously promoted the repeal of the statutes against forestallers; a measure not lightly and hastily pro

posed or adopted in the liberal impulse of an unguarded moment, but the result of various investigations made by the House (of Commons), or in different committees, during six years of scarcity and high prices; a measure which, although two Bills of a contrary tendency had formerly been introduced and lost, so approved itself, at length, to the reason of all, that it was ordered to be brought in, without a single dissenting voice. Yet, though such was his early pre-eminence in these pursuits, to the last hour of his life, as his fame spread wider and wider over Europe, he availed himself of the advantage which this afforded him, to enlarge his sphere of enquiries into the state of other countries, that he might benefit his own. "The consequence of all was, he every day became more firmly convinced, that the unrestrained freedom of buying and selling is the great animating principle of production and supply." 193

There is much more of this praise for Peter that carries as much for Paul, and then we are upon Burke's words to Parliament.

"I beseech the Government-which I take in the largest sense of the word, comprehending the two Houses of Parliamentmanfully to resist the very first idea, speculative or practical, that it is within the competence of Government, taken as Government, or even of the rich, as rich, to supply the poor, those necessaries which it has pleased the Divine Providence for a while to withhold from them. We, the people, ought to be made sensible, that it is not in breaking the laws of commerce, which are the laws of nature, and consequently the laws of God, that we are to place our hope of softening the divine displeasure to remove any calamity under which we suffer, or which hangs over us." 484. 194

"I do not wonder the papers are full of this matter, but I am a little surprised it should be mentioned in parliament (is referring to the scarcity of provisions and high prices)

Let us be saved from too much wisdom of our own, and we shall do tolerably well. It is one of the finest problems in legislation, and what has often engaged my thoughts whilst I followed that profession, 'What the state ought to take upon itself to direct by the public wisdom, and what it ought to leave with as little interference as possible, to individual discretion.' The clearest line of distinction which I could draw, whilst I had any chalk to draw my line, was this: That the state ought to confine itself to what regards the state, or the creatures of state, namely, the exterior establishment of religion; its magistry; its revenue; its military force by sea and land; the corporations that owe their existence to its fiat; in a word, to everything that is truly and properly public, to the public peace, to the public safety, to the public order, to the public prosperity. Statesmen who know themselves will, with the dignity

that belongs to wisdom, proceed only in this the superior orb and first mover of their duty, steadily, vigilantly, courageously; whatever remains will, in a manner provide for itself. But as they descend from a state to a province, from a province to a parish, and from a parish to a private house, they go on accelerated in their fall.

"I believe that no Government ever yet perished from any other direct cause than its own weakness. My opinion is against this most momentous of all meddling on the part of authority; the meddling with the subsistence of the people." 1.

The result of this indoctrination of the policy of letting well-enough alone, for the good of one's professional advancement, is told by the representative of invisible government who writes the Introduction.

"The scheme of public granaries (for that was the proposal to reduce the exorbitant prices), if it ever existed, was abandoned. In parliament the ministers maintained a prudent and dignified forbearance; and repressed in others, or where they could not entirely controul, interposed to moderate and divert, that restless spirit of legislation, which is an evil that seems to grow up, as the vehemence of party-contention debates. The consistency and good sense of the Commons defeated an attempt, which was made toward the close of the sessions, to revive against forestallers of one particular, some portions of the exploded laws." 458.

David Davies and Josiah Tucker had failed. Expediency and Burke's memorial to Parliament above is as fine an exposition of the art of expediency in its command over the legislature as we have in the literature of the favors of law-was full in the saddle. It will be in order now to look in upon England when the laws against the forestallers were by no means 'exploded; thence to follow the earliest steps which led up to the explosion.

CHAPTER XIII

England's Ancient Exchanges

Beware of breaking "the law of commerce, which are the laws of nature, and consequently the laws of God," Edmund Burke had successfully besought the government. We rub our eyes in astonishment at his arugment which prevailed:-If the price of the necessaries of life is held too high for the poor, "resist the very first idea, speculative or practical, that it is within the province of Government," to do anything about it, since by the laws of commerce "it has pleased the Divine Providence for awhile to withhold" food from the poor.

In the face of the "prudent and dignified forbearance" of the legislature to relieve the poor of the extortion, somehow England cannot rid herself of the feeling that her ancient self, when it was all so very different, was her real self, while the oppressive if sentimental nonsense of the two hundred recent years has been the disordered working of a haunted dream.

It was Archbishop Whately (1784-1863), in his lectures to the students of Oxford in the early thirties of the past century, who endeavored to set the ball rolling for a better day of government in seven simple words:-"Man is a being who makes exchanges." Once, even the England of Burke's day knew, the AngloSaxons had fashioned their laws in the belief that if all exchanges between man and man could be made perfectly equitable, there wuold be little left to be desired of government. Yet Burke, some centuries later, had triumphantly argued with the legislature that laws

122

were things too divine to be concerned with exchanges. The laws could indeed charter corporations to make the exchanges for the people. But thereafter and by virtue of their charters, these corporations, in determining the conditions of exchange, could not do otherwise than promulgate "the laws of nature and .... of God."

What can we do better, as we are taking our advance through successive areas of facts for the sake of democracy, than to put England in the days of her ancient exchanges under our glass? Go back to the Middle Ages for democratic sense and reason? Yes. Chesterton for example:

"The Middle Ages were a rational epoch at its best, an age of prejudice. 195

Our age is,

Undoubtedly it was from the Middle Ages that Benjamin Franklin gleaned his preferential judgment concerning the truest form of government:

"Were it possible for men, remote from each other, to know easily one another's wants and abundances, and practicable for them on all occasions conveniently. . . . to make fair exchanges of their respective commodities, there would be no use of the middle man . . . . . But since that is not possible, were all governments to appoint a number of public officers, whose duty and business it should be to inform themselves thoroughly of those wants and abundances, and to procure, by proper management, all the exchanges that would tend to increase the general happiness, such officers, if they could well discharge their trust, would deserve honors and salaries equivalent to their industry and fidelity." 196

The survey made by John Stow through the first half century when privilege began to find expedients for the overthrow of direct exchanges toward the close of the Middle Ages, is recommended to the reader for his leisure hours. A single biographical note will inIdicate what Stow has done for us. It is at the hand of Henry Morley. 197