¹ See Chandaman, C. D., The English Public Revenue, 1660–1688 (Oxford, 1975), pp. 23–24, 212Google Scholar; Clay, C. G. A., “The Price of Freehold Land in the Later Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries,” Economic History Review, 2d ser., 27 (1974): 177–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Scott, W. R., The Constitution and Finance of English, Scottish and Irish Joint-Stock Companies to 1720 (Cambridge, 1912), 1:276–82Google Scholar; Thirsk, J., ed., The Agrarian History of England and Wales (Cambridge, 1985), 5Google Scholar, pt. 3:41–55, 74–79, 172–79; Wilson, C., Profit and Power: A Study of England and the Dutch Wars (London, 1957), p. 151Google Scholar.

² Clay, C. G. A., Economic Expansion and Social Change: 1500–1700 (Cambridge, 1984), 2:281Google Scholar.

³ The 1545 statute was repealed in 1552 but revived by Parliament in 1571. It should be noted that some types of lending were exempt from the 6 percent limit: e.g., in cases of borrowing by the crown. See ibid.

⁴ Ibid.; Allen, R. C., “The Price of Freehold Land and the Interest Rate in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries,” Economic History Review, 2d ser., 41 (1988): 45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grassby, R., “The Rate of Profit in Seventeenth-Century England,” English Historical Review 84 (1969): 747Google Scholar; Habakkuk, H. J., “The Long Term Rate of Interest and the Price of Land in the 17th Century,” Economic History Review, 2d ser., 5 (1952–1953): 26–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵ Reddaway, T. F., The Rebuilding of London and the Great Fire (London, 1940), pp. 178–79Google Scholar. See also Grassby, p. 746.

⁶ Pepys, writing in his diary in 1668, made frequent reference to the scarcity of money and the high level of interest, noting: “Where money is free, there is great plenty; where it is restrained, as here, there is great want.” See Latham, R. and Mathews, W., eds., The Diary of Samuel Pepys (London, 1972–1983), 6:23Google Scholar.

⁷ Skinner, Q., “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas,” History and Theory 8 (1969): 49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸ Child, Josiah, Brief Observations concerning Trade and Interest of Money (London, 1668), p. 9Google Scholar. This tract, according to Child, was first written in 1665 (at the height of the economic crisis) to persuade friends in Parliament of the need to imitate and initiate policies that had made the Dutch such formidable rivals in trade. The manuscript was not published until early 1668 to coincide with the Commons bill on interest rates. Of Child's fifteen proposals (including reforms in education, the erection of public banks, and the encouragement of naturalization and religious toleration), that of lowering the statutory rate of interest took center stage.

⁹ Ibid., pp. 8–9. For modern analysis of the relationship between the price of land and the rate of interest, see Allen; Clay, “The Price of Freehold Land”; Habakkuk; and Grassby.

¹⁰ Culpeper, Thomas Jr., The Necessity of Abating Usury Re-asserted: In a Reply to the Discourse of Mr. Thomas Manley … (London, 1670), p. 17Google Scholar. This was published as a direct reply to Manley, 's Usury at Six per Cent examined (London, 1669)Google Scholar.

¹¹ Appleby, J. O., Economic Thought and Ideology in Seventeenth-Century England (Princeton, N.J., 1978), pp. 92–93Google Scholar; Schumpeter, J. A., History of Economic Analysis (Oxford, 1954), quote on p. 328Google Scholar; Tucker, G. S. L., Progress and Profit in British Economic Thought, 1650–1850 (Cambridge, 1960), pp. 10, 17Google Scholar; Hutchison, T., Before Adam Smith: The Emergence of Political Economy, 1662–1776 (Oxford, 1988), pp. 58–60Google Scholar; Letwin, W., Sir Josiah Child: Merchant Economist (Cambridge, Mass, 1959), pp. 8–11Google Scholar; and Robinson, Henry, England's Safety, in Trades Encrease (London, 1641)Google Scholar.

¹² A number of tracts were published in opposition to lowering the rate of interest between 1668 and 1672, of which only the authorship of Manley's Usury at Six per Cent examined is known. However, from 1668 to 1672, John Locke produced and altered a manuscript written in opposition to lowering the rate of interest. This paper formed the basis of Locke, 's Some Considerations of the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest and Raising the Value of Money (London, 1692)Google Scholar. See Cranston, M., John Locke (London, 1957), pp. 117–18Google Scholar; Hutchison, p. 61; Kelly, P., “A Note on Locke's Pamphlets on Money,” Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society 5 (1969): 62Google Scholar; and Letwin, W., The Origins of Scientific Economics: English Economic Thought, 1660–1776 (London, 1963)Google Scholar, app. 5.

¹³ Manley, preface.

¹⁴ Appleby, p. 93.

¹⁵ Ibid., p. 97. See also Browley, M., Studies in the History of Economic Thought before 1870 (London, 1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, chap. 1; Cowen, T., “Nicholas Barbon and the Origins of Economic Liberalism,” Research in the History of Economic Thought 4 (1987): 67–83Google Scholar; Grampp, W. D., “The Liberal Elements in English Mercantilism,” reprinted in Essays in Economic Thought, ed. Spengler, J. J. and Allen, W. R. (Chicago, 1960), pp. 71–73Google Scholar; Hutchison, chap. 5; Pribram, K., A History of Economic Reasoning (Baltimore, 1983). p. 73Google Scholar; and Schumpeter, pp. 328–29.

¹⁶ Quoted from Winch, D., “Economic Liberalism as Ideology: The Appleby Version,” Economic History Review, 2d ser., 38 (1985): 289, 293CrossRefGoogle Scholar, See also Pocock, J. G. A., “To Market, to Market: Economic Thought in Early Modern England,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 10 (1979): 307CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ Coleman, D. C., review of Appleby's, J. O.Economic Thought and Ideology in Seventeenth-Century England, Journal of Modern History 53 (1981): 106Google Scholar. See also Coleman, D. C., “Mercantilism Revisited,” Historical Journal 23 (1980): 773–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸ Indeed, from the evidence of tax receipts, it would appear that the trade depression was over by the end of 1667; certain sectors of the economy were clearly reviving. See Chandaman (n. 1 above), app. 2.

¹⁹ Commons Journal (hereafter C.J.), 9:5Google Scholar; Andrews, C. M., British Committees, Commissions, and Councils of Trade and Plantations, 1662–1675 (Baltimore, 1908), pp. 88–93Google Scholar.

²⁰ Some thirty-three pieces of economic legislation were initiated during the 1667–68 session. While most of these bills failed to pass into law before Parliament was adjourned, this was nevertheless one of the busiest sessions, regarding economic legislation, of the Cavalier Parliament.

²¹ See C. J., 9:79; Robbins, C., ed., The Diary of John Milward, Esq. (Cambridge, 1938), p. 253Google Scholar. The motion passed, 116 to 73.

²² Of the known speakers and tellers for the bill, Hungerford, Robert Brooke (Aldeburgh), and Col. Henry Williams (Huntingdonshire) were all in financial trouble. Other supporters included the gentry M.P.s: Sir Humphrey Wynch (Bedfordshire), Sir Thomas Lee (Aylesbury), and Hugh Boscawen (Tregony). One merchant M.P., Sir Richard Ford (Southampton), acted as a teller for the bill. For speakers and tellers, see C.J., 9:79; Diary of John Milward, pp. 253, 270–71. For biographical detail, see Henning, B. D., The House of Commons, 1660–1690 (London, 1983)Google Scholar. It is also notable that the gentry promoted a Commons bill in 1661 to lower the rate of interest to 3 percent on royalist debts contracted prior to the Civil Wars. This measure was defeated in the House of Lords as a result of crown financial dependence on the City. However, gentry opposition was responsible for the defeat of legislative attempts in 1662 and 1665 to raise and regularize the payment of interest on money lent to the crown to 10 percent. See Seaward, Paul, The Cavalier Parliament and the Reconstruction of the Old Regime, 1661–1667 (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 112, 124–25, 208Google Scholar; and Habakkuk, H. J., “Landowners and the Civil War,” Economic History Review, 2d ser., 18 (1965): 130–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²³ Of the known speakers and tellers against the bill, Birch (Penryn), Love (London), and John Jones (London) were Presbyterians, merchants, and of the “Country” party. Sir Thomas Bludworth (Southwark) was also a merchant and a practitioner of opposition politics; though an Anglican he had close ties with Love and other Dissenters. Edmund Waller (Hastings) and Thompson (London) were not directly involved in trade but shared in the political and religious viewpoints of those above. For sources, see n. 22 above. For the politics of the Council of Trade and the London merchant community, see Lacey, D. R., Dissent and Parliamentry Politics in England, 1661–1689 (New Brunswick, N.J., 1969)Google Scholar; Letwin, , Sir Josiah Child (n. 11 above), pp. 13–15Google Scholar; Priestly, M., “London Merchants and Opposition Politics in Charles II's reign,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 29 (1956): 205–19Google Scholar.

²⁴ See n. 8 above.

²⁵ Culpeper, Thomas Jr., A Discourse Shewing the Many Advantages … (London, 1667/1668)Google Scholar. Culpeper Junior's pamphlet was licensed on March 9, 1667/8. Given that it makes mention of the Brief Observations, it would appear that Child's work was ready for publication or already published by that date. See Letwin, The Origins of Scientific Economics (n. 12 above), app. 1. Culpeper's Discourse was condensed into broadsheet form during the same year, presumably to allow for greater dissemination of his ideas. See his The advantages which will manifestly accrue to this Kingdom by abatements of Interest from six to four per. Cent (London, 1668)Google Scholar.

²⁶ Culpeper, Thomas Sr., A Tract against Usurie (London, 1621)Google Scholar, and A Tract against the high rate of Usurie (London, 1623)Google Scholar. See Gould, J. D., “The Trade Crisis of the Early 1620's and English Economic Thought,” Journal of Economic History 15 (1955): 121–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Supple, B. E., Commercial Crisis and Change in England, 1600–1642 (Cambridge, 1959)Google Scholar.

²⁷ Prichard, M. F. Lloyd, “The Significant Background of the Stuart Culpepers,” Notes and Queries 205 (1960): 411–16Google Scholar, quote at 412.

²⁸ April 11, 22, 1668, C.J., 9:79, 86. All extant tracts published against lowering the rate of interest in 1668 refer to Child's Brief Observations (n. 8 above). See, e.g., R., H., The Brief Observations of J.C. Concerning Trade and Interest of Money (London, 1668)Google Scholar; and The Interest of Money Mistaken (London, 1668)Google Scholar. Child answered some of these criticisms in his A Short Addition to the Observation Concerning Trade and Interest (London, 1668)Google Scholar. Culpeper, junior did likewise in his A Short Appendix to a Late Treatise Concerning Abatement of Usury (London, 1668)Google Scholar.

²⁹ Diary of John Milward, pp. 270–71.

³⁰ Historical Manuscripts Commission, Eighth Report (London, 1881), app., pt. 1 (hereafter H.M.C., 8th Rep.), pp. 133–35Google Scholar; Lords Journal (hereafter L.J.) 7:254–85Google Scholar; Letwin, , Sir Josiah Child, pp. 3–5Google Scholar; Thirsk, J. and Cooper, J. P., eds., Seventeenth Century Economic Documents (Oxford, 1972), pp. 68–78Google Scholar.

³¹ Papillon, A. F. W., ed., Memoirs of Thomas Papillon (Reading, 1887), p. 70Google Scholar.

³² L.J., 7:273–74, 278, 280.

³³ In the Brief Observations, Child is at his most bellicose in denoting the strict determinist relationship between the level of interest and the creation of wealth. In the Lords, his testimony (and that of his supporters) was more tempered, admitting, e.g., that “usury is only one of the causes of the depression.” See Thirsk and Cooper, eds., pp. 69–77; H.M.C., 8th Rep., pp. 133–34. Buckworth and Papillon were merchants. Blount was a “traveler” and an expert in foreign affairs. The London merchants Thomas Gold and James Houblon also spoke in favor of reduction. See Letwin, , Sir Josiah Child (n. 11 above), p. 14Google Scholar, n. 45; and Woodward, J. R., The Rulers of London (London, 1965)Google Scholar.

³⁴ Thirsk and Cooper, eds., p. 76.

³⁵ Ibid., p. 72; H. M. C., 8th Rep., pp. 133–34. Clayton had expertise in this subject. He and his partner John Morris had developed a major innovation in banking by introducing the mortgage in fee, the success of which relied on Clayton's accurate knowledge of land assessment and value. For the operations of Clayton and Morris, see Melton, F. T., Sir Robert Clayton and the Origins of English Deposit Banking, 1658–1685 (Cambridge, 1986)Google Scholar.

³⁶ Given that Culpeper's testimony before the Lords, on November 10, 1669, refers directly to Manley's text by name, it would appear that the work was published prior to (or during) the Lords' debates. See H.M.C., 8th Rep., pp. 133–34. In 1670, Culpeper extended and published his rebuttals to Manley in The Necessity of Abating Usury Reasserted (n. 10 above).

³⁷ Hopwood, C. E., ed., Middle Temple Records (London, 1905), 3:1121Google Scholar; Venn, J. and Venn, J. A., eds., Alumni Cantabrigienses (Cambridge, 1924), 3:134Google Scholar; SirMacgeagh, H. F. and Sturgess, H. A. C., eds., Register of Admissions to the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple (London, 1909), 1:155Google Scholar. The biographical essay of Manley in the Dictionary of National Biography (hereafter D.N.B.) is very inaccurate, having been based solely on evidence found within Manley's published texts.

³⁸ Manley, published the Solicitor (London) in 1663Google Scholar, a book in his words “truly usefull for all sorts of persons who have any important Business in Law or Equity” (preface). Manley also added an appendix to, and published, the seventh edition of Wentworth's, ThomasThe Office and Duty of Executors (London, 1676)Google Scholar. See also Melton.

³⁹ Accounting ledger, Guildford Muniment Room, July, Guildford, Surrey, Clayton MS 84/1/2 fol. 59r. Two successive ledgers kept from 1663 to 1669 are now missing, unfortunately, but other evidence connects the two men during the late 1660s, about the time of the debate on interest.

⁴⁰ See the Appendix. The proposed second treatise appears never to have been published.

⁴¹ Clayton feared that, if the interest rate was lowered, clients could call in their mortgages to refinance at the lower value. See Melton, p. 178.

⁴² In addition to experience gained while in Clayton's employ, Manley also had knowledge of London property values, before and after the Great Fire, as he notes in Usury at Six per Cent examined (n. 10 above), p. 47Google Scholar. He had leased property in Sweethings Lane to tenants since at least 1657. See Jones, P. E., ed., The Fire Court (London, 1967), 1:87–88Google Scholar. London property holdings are also noted in Manley's will, November 10, 1687; see Public Record Office (hereafter P.R.O), London, Prob. 11/404 fol. 70.

⁴³ Manley, Thomas, “The Legal Part of Surveying,” in The Compleat Surveyor, by Leybourne, William (London, 1671)Google Scholar. See also Melton, p. 166.

⁴⁴ See Manley, Thomas, The Present State of Europe Briefly Examined and Found Languishing, Occasioned By the Greatness of the French Monarchy (London, 1689)Google Scholar. This Whig tract, arguing for aggressive policies against Louis XIV and French trade, was first written in 1672 but not published until after the Glorious Revolution. For Clayton's political sentiments, see Henning (n. 22 above), 2:84–87.

⁴⁵ Calendar of State Papers Domestic, 1672, p. 632. On April 15, 1672, Charles II attended a party at Clayton's residence in “masquerade”; see ibid., 1671–72, p. 609.

⁴⁶ See Letwin, Sir Josiah Child (n. 11 above); and Prichard (n. 27 above).

⁴⁷ See the Appendix.

⁴⁸ Coleman, , “Mercantilism Revisited” (n. 17 above), p. 782Google Scholar, n. 44.

⁴⁹ See the Appendix. Child also appears to have lost fascination with the interestrate issue at about the same time. In 1670, he had written a retort to both Interest of Money Mistaken (n. 28 above) and Manley's Usury at Six per Cent examined, which was not published until incorporated into the preface of his A Discourse about Trade (London, 1690)Google Scholar. See Letwin, Origins of Scientific Economics (n. 12 above), app. 1. Other earlier anonymous works dealing with the interest rate issue include Several Objections against the Reducement of Interest Propounded in a Letter, with the Answer thereunto (London, 1671)Google Scholar; A Brief Survey of the Growth of Usury in England (London, 1673)Google Scholar; and The Case of Interest or, Usury (London, 1673)Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Manley to Williamson, November 25, 1691, P.R.O., State Papers (S.P.) 32/3 fol. 49.

⁵¹ 13 Anne c.15, Statutes of the Realm. For the 1691/92 bill and the continuance of the controvesy between the ideas of Manley and Child, see the prefaces to SirChild's, JosiahA Discourse about Trade (London, 1690)Google Scholar and A New Discourse of Trade (London, 1693)Google Scholar; Horwitz, H., ed., The Parliamentary Diary of Narcissus Luttrell, 1691–1693 (Oxford, 1972), pp. 117, 130, and 150Google Scholar. For background to the pressure on interest rates in the 1690s, see Dickson, P. G. M., The Financial Revolution in England (London, 1967)Google Scholar; and Jones, D. W., War and Economy in the Age of William III and Marlborough (Oxford, 1988)Google Scholar.

⁵² See nn. 10 and 28 above, and the Appendix. The personalized nature of the Culpeper/Manley-published dialogue may also reveal an old acquaintance. Both were from Kent and were resident at the Middle Temple concurrently. See Prichard; and Hopwood, ed. (n. 37 above), p. 1128.

⁵³ By the end of the century, this discourse was played out before a much wider public as well as political audience. See Keirn, T., “Economic Ideas and Legislation: The Regulation of English Textile Industries, 1689–1714,” in Reform and Regulation: The Response to Social and Economic Problems in England, 1689–1750, ed. Davison, L., Hitchcock, T., Keirn, T., and Shoemaker, R. (Macmillan, in press)Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ See the Appendix.

⁵⁵ Child, Brief Observations (n. 8 above).

⁵⁶ Letwin, , Sir Josiah Child (n. 11 above), p. 29Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ Culpeper, , A Discourse (n. 25 above), pp. 9–10Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ Ibid., pp. 4–9; cf. SirCulpeper, Thomas Sr., A Tract against the high rate of Usurie (London, 1641 ed.), pp. 5–6Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ Culpeper, , A Discourse, p. 21Google Scholar. Indeed, this is no different from the view of his father, who noted: “it is the plenty of money within the Land that maketh money easier to be borrowed.” See Culpeper, Thomas Sr., A Tract against Usurie (n. 26 above), p. 13Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Mun argued that trade and usury “rise and fall together.” See Mun, Thomas, England's Treasure by Forraign Trade (London, 1664)Google Scholar, reprinted in McCulloch, J. R., ed., Early English Tracts on Commerce (London, 1856), p. 179Google Scholar. This tract was written in 1623 but not published until 1664. For Mun's work, see Gomes, L., Foreign Trade and the National Economy: Mercantilist and Classical Perspectives (London, 1987), pp. 50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Indeed, the quantity theory of money predates the 1620s and can be found in the sixteenth-century writings of Copernicus and Jean Bodin. See Hutchison (n. 11 above), pp. 16–17.

⁶¹ H.M.C., 8th Rep. (n. 30 above), p. 133.

⁶² For example, Manley states: “how vast the difference is between the kindly workings of nature, and the violent acting of a Law.” See his Usury at Six per Cent examined (n. 10 above), p. 69.

⁶³ Child, , Brief Observations, p. 16Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ Indeed, the rather ambiguous use of such words proliferates in the “classic” mercantilist tracts of the 1620s. See, e.g., De Malynes, Gerald, The Maintenance of Free Trade (London, 1622)Google Scholar; Misselden, Edward, Free Trade or the Means to make Trade Flourish (London, 1622)Google Scholar; and Mun.

⁶⁵ See the Appendix.

⁶⁶ Manley, , Usury at Six per Cent examined, pp. 4, 9–10Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ See the Appendix. See also Manley, , Usury at Six per Cent examined, pp. 39–40Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ H. R. (n. 28 above), pp. 26–27; and see Interest of Money Mistaken (n. 28 above), pp. 10–11.

⁶⁹ Manley, , Usury at Six per Cent examined, pp. 30, 41Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ This argument was attacked in a tract, attributed to Culpeper Junior, where it was noted: “If you look upon Usury with both your Eyes at once, and count, as well the real Widows and Orphans that now groan under it, and would find, that perhaps it makes three Holes for one it mends.” See [Culpeper, Thomas Jr.], Plain English in a Familiar Conference Betwixt Three Friends, Rusticus, Civis, and Veridicus, Concerning the Deadness of our Markets (London, 1673), p. 1Google Scholar.

⁷¹ Manley, , Usury at Six per Cent examined, pp. 3–4, 22, 42, 56Google Scholar; H.M.C., 8th Rep. (n. 30 above), pp. 133–35; Mun (n. 60 above), esp. pp. 178–79.

⁷² Appleby (n. 11 above), p. 92.

⁷³ Manley, , Usury at Six per Cent examined (n. 10 above), pp. 36–37Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ H. R., pp. 28–29.

⁷⁵ Thirsk and Cooper, eds. (n. 30 above), p. 75.

⁷⁶ Locke (n. 12 above), pp. 6, 14.

⁷⁷ Coleman, , “Mercantilism Revisited” (n. 17 above), p. 786Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ Manley, Usury at Six per Cent examined, preface.

⁷⁹ Culpeper, , A Discourse (n. 25 above), p. 14Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ Quoted in Letwin, , Origins of Scientific Economics (n. 12 above), p. 44Google Scholar.

⁸¹ Manley is difficult to tack down on this point. While he spends most of his time arguing in “defense of 6%,“ at other times he seems to advocate letting the interest rate float. Manley does agree with Culpeper in that he does “wish” for interest rates to be lower, if conditions were opportune for such a reduction. See Manley, , Usury at Six per Cent examined, pp. 40, 44Google Scholar.

⁸² Ibid., p. 55.

⁸³ Ibid., p. 9. See also Manley, Thomas, A discourse Shewing That the Exportation of Woole is destructive to this Kingdom (London, 1677)Google Scholar.

⁸⁴ Culpeper, , The Necessity of Abating Usury Re-asserted (n. 10 above), pp. 16–17Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ Culpeper, , A Discourse, p. 16Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ See the Appendix. The projected second treatise is concerned almost entirely with the effect of interest rates on trade.

⁸⁷ Manley to Clayton, February 13, 1672/73, Fairfax Collection, Clayton MS 53.