THE ECONOMIC

INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY.

L

THE ECONOMIC SIDE OF HISTORY.

Narrow views on history and political economy-The abundance of materials - The philosophy of history - Speculative political economy The political influence of English wool-1272–1603, and the conquest of Egypt by the Turks, illustrations of the aid given to history by economical facts-Early English institutions in parishes and towns-Self-government in the villages-Famines— Labour and capital: their several functions—Incidents of labour and capital-The wages of labour and the profits of capital identical in principle-The Great Plague of 1349, and the insurrection of 1381.

In nearly all histories, and in nearly all political economy, the collection and interpretation of economical facts, by which I mean such records as illustrate social life and the distribution of wealth at different epochs of the history of mankind, have been habitually neglected. But the neglect renders history inaccurate or at least imperfect, political economy a mere mental effort, perhaps a mischievous illusion. Every historian will tell you that no history is

worth preserving which does not at once illustrate the progress of a race, or a permanent influence. So a political economist who does not, in his estimate of present industrial forces or agents, take into account the circumstances which have created or modified these forces would, except by a miracle, assuredly blunder in his inferences. History, which does not attempt to distinguish the relative importance of facts, and does not inquire how any contemporaneous set of facts can be pressed into the interpretation, is a mere disordered and imperfect dictionary. Political economy, when it disdains the correction of evidence, is a crude metaphysic, which gives a very artificial and erroneous account of actual life. I hope to be able to illustrate these positions by numerous instances.

I have said that nearly all history, and nearly all political economy, is in this condition. But the barest annals recognize some of these facts, even when they fail to interpret them. Every historian, for instance, notices the great plague of the fourteenth century. He observes that the English kings, in their attempts on France, invariably strove to get the Netherlands on their side. He records the fact that there was a formidable insurrection in England in the last quarter of the fourteenth century, an embittered civil war in the fifteenth, a serious weakening of English reputation in the sixteenth. But these historians have never attempted to discover whether any economical facts contributed powerfully to these events. So entirely was the seventeenth century absorbed in the great struggle of that time, that it has simply left unrecorded all facts of an economical character, which in any other country, even the rudest, would have arrested attention. The political history of this century has been written over and over again. Its social or economical history has been entirely neglected. To the study of this aspect of history I have given the best years of my life. I hope in these lectures to introduce you to some of the facts and some of the inferences which I have collected, and I think I shall be able to show that very often the cause of great political events and great social movements is economical, and has hitherto been undetected.

By far the largest amount of the materials which I have collected for my purpose are from documents which have probably never been read after the immediate object for which they were compiled was

VIEWS ON HISTORY AND POLITICAL ECONOMY. 3

satisfied. Farming accounts, elaborate accounts of buildings and the materials purchased for their erection, with the labour paid for, have been examined, audited, and laid aside. It may be asked, Why were such documents preserved at all after their use was over? The answer is that, up to recent times, the facts which they recite might be useful as evidence of property. Two generations ago a title to land might be impugned or defended by evidence adduced on either side for six centuries and a half, and, therefore, all proof of title might be valuable. We owe the vast mass of records preserved in public and private collections to a barbarous rule of law. It is likely that what prudence first dictated became a habit, and all papers and documents were preserved because it was necessary to

treasure some.

I do not make my charges against the historian and economist without reason. At the latter end of the eleventh century a most remarkable document was compiled, a survey of nearly all England. It is rightly deemed to be one of the choicest antiquarian and historical treasures which the nation possesses. It has long since been printed. It has frequently been examined for antiquarian purposes. But it has never been analysed. My friend, Professor Freeman, has published a very copious history of the Norman Conquest. He has, I do not doubt, collected every scrap of history, in the common meaning of the word, which could be procured from every source, domestic and foreign, and commented on them with a fulness which is almost overwhelming. But he has made little use of Domesday Book, which, after the skeleton of facts is arranged, contains far more genuine living material than all his other authorities.

Due weight has been given by some writers to the habits and life of primitive communities. But it is to be regretted that more attention has not been bestowed on their later development. The evidence on this, in the court rolls of manors, is exceedingly abundant in England. These documents are remarkably illustrative of village life and of the surviving relics of the communal system, and especially of that local self-government which has, perhaps, been disadvantageously superseded by the later expedients of justices and quarter sessions. But I should have learnt little of the life which our ancestors lived centuries ago, of the mutual liabilities of the villagers,

of their local courts, and their very effectual administration of justice, civil and criminal, if I had not read these manor rolls by hundreds. Mr. Hallam once regretted that we could not recall the life of a single medieval village. But the means for doing so exists in abundance, and the student of these documents must have a dull imagination indeed if he cannot picture to himself the life of an Englishman in the days of the Plantagenets from his cradle to his grave, realize all the persons with whom he was necessarily brought in contact, and give their weight to all the elements of the little society in which he lived.

Again, the materials for the history of administration of government and of finance are exceedingly abundant, but have been very inadequately pressed into the service of the historian. England has an enormous wealth of diplomatic instruments; not perhaps so copious as the great collection of Muratori, or the monumental work of Dumont, but still of remarkable fulness. The mass of financial records is absolutely prodigious, for the pipe rolls exist in an unbroken series from the days of the first Plantagenet king down to the fifth of the Hanoverian house. But they are hardly explored. Their volume would, I admit, daunt the boldest student. But there should be nothing to prevent the historian from examining the rolls of Parliament. I venture on asserting that if he did so, he could sweep away many ancient delusions as to persons and events, delusions which seem to be permanently imbedded in the popular histories.

I do not deny, I gladly acknowledge, that the solid study of history has made considerable progress. The narrative is no longer merely one of war and peace, of royal genealogies, of unrelated dates, of those annals about which the adage was uttered that happy is the nation which has no history. History has begun to include the study of constitutional antiquities, though even here there is too strong a tendency to anticipate a late development in early beginnings, and to lay too much stress on doubtful meanings. History, again, has begun to recognize the progress of jurisprudence, though it has rarely recognized the economical conditions to which the development of jurisprudence was due. It has touched lightly, very lightly, on social history, on the condition of the people, on the varying fortunes of land and labour, and on the circumstances under

ABUNDANCE OF MATERIALS.

5

which industries have been naturalized and developed amongst us. The seventeenth century is an age of intellectual and political giants, who carried on a long and unbroken warfare. It will always be studied. It is the favourite topic or theme of writers. But as it has been hitherto written, it is nothing but the record of their drama, the estimate of their characters, who were the agents of this colossal strife. To me the century has another and a very different aspect-the history of the people, whose fortunes have hitherto been passed over in silence.

In one direction, indeed, history has made great strides. I refer to that philosophy which seeks to interpret the characters and motives of statesmen and of princes, when princes were statesmen. It is almost needless to say that such writers, according to the vigour of their powers, are constantly open to the charge of partisanship or paradox. The historian may be honestly convinced that he is drawing a faithful picture of the men and their times, and he may be as faithful as he believes he is. But the more vigorous his imagination is, the better stored and more orderly it is, the more liable he is to the charge of overcolouring his picture, perhaps to the risk of its life. Latterly I have been engaged in an inquiry into the early years of the Bank of England, as I discovered some unknown and unexpected information as to the fluctuations in the price of its stock. I had to go for a few years, with the limited purpose of illustrating the fortunes of the Bank, over the same ground which Macaulay had traversed, and to use some of the same authorities which he used. My inquiry was simply into a new and great commercial adventure, not into the complicated problem of Revolution politics. As in duty bound, I bore testimony, for I had proof before me, to the cautious fairness of the historian. But a friend of mine, a very eminent statesman, demurred to my eulogy. "The vast colouring power of his fancy," he said, "was against his accuracy."

In the philosophy of history it is difficult to avoid partisanship; impossible, I believe, to escape the imputation of it. The volcano may be extinct, the crust of the lava may be crossed by the wayfarer, but deep in the crevices of the cooling mass there may remain a dull red glow. The criticism of great men in past times is sure to be interpreted as implying analogies in the present. The dispute