J 
2 
T 
£ 
S 
tf 
al 
i. 
Je 
h 
Y 
'he 
ne 
PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL OVER PUBLIC BORROWING 409 
from the legislative body and was forced from time to time AD. 1659 
os ; ~—1776. 
to justify itself to an elected assembly. But this was not 
all clear gain; parliamentary legislation was a much more a puss 
. . « « cally con- 
cumbrous instrument for regulating industry and commerce trolled. the 
than the administrative machinery which had been in 29min 
vogue in the time of Elizabeth or Charles I. Under these system 
monarchs the Privy Council had been able to watch the 
course of affairs from day to day, and to issue temporary 
orders which were enforced by the justices; Parliament had 
to be content with more general measures! and had no 
means of adapting them to circumstances from time to time. 
The Corn Bounty Law took account of an immense variety 
of conditions, and was intended to be a self-acting measure, 
under which a useful control might be exercised over the 
corn trade, and a steady stimulus given to agriculture. It 
was not possible, however, to devise similar means for 
dealing with the changing circumstances of commercial or 
manufacturing pursuits. Nor was Parliament in a position 
bo give special concessions to individuals in order to pro- 
mote any special branch of industry; the favourite expedient 
of the legislature was that of voting bounties. These re- 
wards were open to all who practised the art which it was 
intended to encourage, and thus had no exclusive character; 
but whereas the system of patents had been inexpensive to 
the Government, this new scheme was very costly, as 16 proved 
« . cu: rous 
afforded a minimum of advantage to the public at a and costly 
maximum of cost to the State? Such grants were only 
boo likely to call forth fraudulent attempts to obtain the 
bounties, without regard to the conditions on which they 
were offered. Malpractices of various kinds appear to have 
occurred in the linen? and had to be guarded against in 
old traditions. Compare W. G. Caxroll, Life of Hely Hutchinson, Introduction to 
the Commercial Restraints of Ireland, p. Lxviii. 
1 Ag had been advocated by Milles, see above, p. 223. The English method of 
settling all details by legislation rendered the system much less flexible than 
would have been the case if the practice of the French legislature had been 
adopted. See p. 207 n. 2, above. 
? Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, ‘On Bounties,’ Book rv. chapter 5. 
¥ ¢ Whereas by reason of the bounty or allowances granted on the exportation 
of British and Irish linens, evil-minded persons may fraudulently endeavour to 
export linens of foreign fabrick and manufacture, and to receive the said bounties 
or allowances for the same, as if the same were of the manufacture of Great 
Britain and Ireland: and whereas certain stamps are required by law, to be put