Numerical Algorithms Methods for Computer Vision

Machine Learning and Graphics 1st Solomon

Solution Manual download

http://testbankbell.com/product/numerical-algorithms-methods-for-
computer-vision-machine-learning-and-graphics-1st-solomon-
solution-manual/
TestBankBell.com: Your Ultimate Source for Test Banks and Academic Resources

TestBankBell.com is a leading online platform offering instant access to a wide

variety of test banks and academic resources. Whether you're a student, educator, or
professional, we provide the tools and materials you need to excel in your studies and
career. Our website features test banks for textbooks across multiple disciplines,
offering comprehensive solutions to enhance your learning experience.

Keywords:
test bank, academic resources, study guides, test preparation, testbankbell, download test
bank, textbook solutions

Contact Information:
Visit us at: https://testbankbell.com - For inquiries, email us:
[email protected]

Important Links:
Download Test Banks: https://testbankbell.com/

Copyright © 2025 TestBankBell. All Rights Reserved.

 Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...

Start reading on any device today!

Numerical Methods and Optimization An Introduction 1st

Butenko Solution Manual

https://testbankbell.com/product/numerical-methods-and-optimization-
an-introduction-1st-butenko-solution-manual/

testbankbell.com

Numerical Methods in Engineering with MATLAB 3rd Kiusalaas

Solution Manual

https://testbankbell.com/product/numerical-methods-in-engineering-
with-matlab-3rd-kiusalaas-solution-manual/

testbankbell.com

Solution Manual for Computer Graphics with Open GL, 4/E

4th Edition : 0136053580

https://testbankbell.com/product/solution-manual-for-computer-
graphics-with-open-gl-4-e-4th-edition-0136053580/

testbankbell.com

Solution Manual for Computer Algorithms: Introduction to

Design and Analysis, 3/E 3rd Edition : 0201612445

https://testbankbell.com/product/solution-manual-for-computer-
algorithms-introduction-to-design-and-analysis-3-e-3rd-
edition-0201612445/
testbankbell.com
Solution Manual for Computer Vision: A Modern Approach,
2/E 2nd Edition : 013608592X

https://testbankbell.com/product/solution-manual-for-computer-vision-
a-modern-approach-2-e-2nd-edition-013608592x/

testbankbell.com

Solution manual for Applied Numerical Methods with MatLab

for Engineers and Science Chapra 3rd edition

https://testbankbell.com/product/solution-manual-for-applied-
numerical-methods-with-matlab-for-engineers-and-science-chapra-3rd-
edition/
testbankbell.com

Solution Manual for Data Structures and Algorithms in Java

1st Edition, Peter Drake

https://testbankbell.com/product/solution-manual-for-data-structures-
and-algorithms-in-java-1st-edition-peter-drake/

testbankbell.com

Solution Manual for Applied Numerical Methods with MATLAB

for Engineers and Scientists, 4th Edition, Steven Chapra

https://testbankbell.com/product/solution-manual-for-applied-
numerical-methods-with-matlab-for-engineers-and-scientists-4th-
edition-steven-chapra/
testbankbell.com

Solution Manual for Numerical Methods for Engineers, 8th

Edition By Steven Chapra Raymond Canale

https://testbankbell.com/product/solution-manual-for-numerical-
methods-for-engineers-8th-edition-by-steven-chapra-raymond-canale/

testbankbell.com
 3

Numerical Algorithms Methods for Computer Vision Machine Learning and

Graphics 1st Solomon Solution Manual
Download full chapter at: https://testbankbell.com/product/numerical-algorithms-methods-for-computer-
vision-machine-learning-and-graphics-1st-solomon-solution-manual/

1.15. (a) We expand the product:

[B(B B)−1 B ]2 = [B(B B)−1 B ] · [B(B B)−1 B ]

= B[(B B)−1 (B B)(B B)−1 ]B by associativity
−1
= B(B B) B by canceling out inverses.

(b) Again expanding the product,

(In×n − A)2 = In×n − 2A + A2

= In×n − 2A + A since A is idempotent

= In×n − A

(c) The inverse of 12 In×n − A is 2I n×n − 4A, since:

1 2
In×n − A (2In×n − 4A) = In×n − 2A − 2A + 4A
2
= In×n − 2A − 2A + 4A since A is idempotent
= In×n

(d) Aτx = λτx =⇒ A2 τx = λAτx = λ2 τx. But A2 = A, so A2 τx = Aτx = λτx. Thus, λτx = λ2 τx =⇒ λ = λ2 =⇒
λ ∈ {0, 1}.
1.16. The product AB is of size n2 . Obviously finding AB requires considering each element of AB at least once
(if nothing else, to write the result in memory!), already requiring O(n2 ) time even if each element of AB is
computed in O(1) time. The algorithms in the figure take O(n3 ) time to run due to the nested loops. Hence,
there is room for improvement, and indeed Strassen’s algorithm and several others achieve faster than O(n3 )
asymptotic runtime, at least for large n.
1.17. Define λ(τx) ≡ − ln p(τx). Since ln is monotonic, any local maximum of p(τx) is also a local maximum of λ(τx).
Hence, τx∗ is a critical point of λ(τx), implying ∇ λ(τx∗ ) = τ0. Let H be the Hessian of λ at τx∗ . Then, near τx∗ we
can approximate:
1 1
− ln p(τx) = λ(τx) ≈ λ(τx∗ ) + (τx − τx∗ ) H (τx − τx∗ ) = − ln p(τx∗ ) + (τx − τx∗ ) H (τx − τx∗ ).
2 2
The first derivative term of the expansion vanishes since ∇ λ(τx∗ ) = τ0. Exponentiating both sides shows

p(τx) ≈ const. · e− 2 (φx−φx x−φ

1 ∗ ) (−H)(φ x∗ )
.

Hence, a reasonable Gaussian approximation of p(τx) near τx∗ takes Σ = −H −1 and µ

τ = τx∗ .
2.1. Depending on the processor, fixed-point arithmetic can be faster than floating-point since it can be carried
out on the ALU with integer-type operations without the need for dealing with an exponent. Fixed-point
arithmetic also can be applicable when the scale of numbers under consideration is known ahead of time, e.g.,
in financial software. Floating-point representations are more accurate, especially when values care on many
scales.
2.2. (a) (answers may vary) Rounding error can come from multiplication and division to find the value n from
the other variables. Discretization error can come from the representations of values from the sensors.
Modeling error can result from inaccuracies of the Ideal Gas Law and/or failure to account for secondary
factors like sensor noise or pollutants. Input error can result from using an inaccurate value of the constant
R.

9781482251944_SM_Cover.indd 9 28/09/15 12:38 pm

 3
(b) From the ideal gas law, we can write
PV
n=
.
RT
Then, if we measure P̄ and T̄ rather than the ground-truth values, we can write the forward error as:

P̄ V PV V P̄ P
− = −
RT̄ RT R T̄ T

9781482251944_SM_Cover.indd 9 28/09/15 12:38 pm

 4
V P + δP P
= for |δP | ≤ εP , |δT | ≤ εT
−
R T + δT T
V (P + δP )T − P (T + δT )
=
R T (T + δT )
V P T + δP T − P T − δ T P
=
RT T + δT

δP T − P δT
=n
P (T + δT )

Hence, the relative forward error can be bounded as follows:

δP T − P δT T ε P + P εT
≤
P (T + δT ) P (T − εT )

(c) In this case,

PV (100 Pa)(0.5 m3 )
n= = = 0.0201 mol
RT (8.31 J · mol−1 · K−1 )(300 K)

With the given measurement bounds, the largest possible value is

(101 Pa)(0.5 m3 )
= 0.0203 mol = n + 0.000234 mol = n + 1.17%.
(8.31 J · mol−1 · K−1 )(299.5 K)
The smallest possible value is

(99 Pa)(0.5 m3 )
= 0.0198 mol = n − 0.000234 mol = n − 1.17%.
(8.31 J · mol−1 · K−1 )(300.5 K)

Hence, the absolute error is bounded by 0.0198 mol and the relative error is bounded by 1.17%.
(d) At the range indicated by the problem, it is relatively well-conditioned. When the scale of εT is commen-
surate with that of T , the problem becomes ill-conditioned.
2.3. We can understand the relative error as the fraction
∆y|/|y| x∆y
|
κrel = = ,
|∆x|/|x| y∆x

where y + ∆y = f (x + ∆x) and y = f (x). By Taylor’s theorem, f (x + ∆x) = y + f (x)∆x + O(∆x2 ). Hence,
∆y = f (x)∆x + O(∆x2 ), so for small ∆x,

x · f (x)∆x xf (x)
κrel ≈ = .
f (x) · ∆x f (x)

The absolute condition number of this problem is:

∆y
≈ |f (x)| .
∆x

The function f (x) = ln x has a large relative condition number near x = 1, since κrel = 1/ln x, which blows up
near x = 1. Contrastingly, the function f(x) = x has relative condition number 1 for all x.
2.4. Since minima are roots of f , we can use the conditioning for root-finding, but with an extra derivative:
(a) |xest − x∗ |
(b) |f (xest ) − f (x∗ )| ≈ δx|f (x∗ )|

9781482251944_SM_Cover.indd 10 28/09/15 12:38 pm

 (c) 1/|f (x∗ )|

2.5. (a) The range is (−∞, 0] since limt→0 log t = −∞ and log 1 = 0.
(b) If the xk is very negative, then exk is exponentially close to zero. This near-zero value may not be repre-
sentable, and regardless a single slightly larger value will dominate the sum.

9781482251944_SM_Cover.indd 10 28/09/15 12:38 pm

 5
(c) We simplify directly:

χ(x1 , . . . , xn ) = ln e xk by definition
k

= ln exk −a+a
k

= ln ea exk −a
k

= ln ea + ln exk −a
k

= a + ln exk −a
k

Suppose we take a = mink xk . Then, rather than adding together tiny values we have moved the scale to
be around e0 = 1. (Other heuristics for choosing a are possible)
2.6. There are rendering artifacts because the two surfaces overlap and hence have the same depth values; rounding
during depth computation can make one surface appear on top of the other. Possible resolutions include
slightly offsetting one surface, adding a tie-breaking rule when depths are within some tolerance of each other,
or merging the geometry before rendering to avoid overlap altogether.
2.7. (a) Recall that floating point arithmetic changes spacing as the order of magnitude of the value changes. Thus,
it makes sense to have multiplicative error that is relative to the scale of x and y.
(b) (adapted from course notes by D. Bindel, Cornell CS) The recurrence for the ground-truth sum is simply
sk = sk−1 + xk yk . Error terms for the addition and multiplication steps show
ŝk = (ŝk−1 + xk yk (1 + ε×k ))(1 + εk+).
Subtracting the two shows:

ŝk − sk = [(ŝk−1 + xk yk (1 + ε×k ))(1 + εk+ )] − [sk−1 + xk yk ] by the recurrences above

= [ŝk−1 + ε+k ŝk−1 + xk yk (1 + εk×) + xk yk ε+k (1 + εk×)] − [sk−1 + xk yk ]

= [ŝk−1 − sk−1 ] + εk+ ŝk−1 + xk yk (ε× + + ×
k + ε k + ε k εk )
+ + × + + ×
= [ŝk−1 − sk−1 ](1 + εk ) + εk sk−1 + xk yk (εk + εk + εk εk )
= [ŝk−1 − sk−1 ](1 + ε+ + × + ×
k ) + εk sk + xk yk (εk + εk εk ) since sk = sk−1 + xk yk
= [ŝk−1 − sk−1 ](1 + ε+ + × + ×
k ) + ε k s k + xk y k ε k + x k y k ε k ε k

We can expand this inductively:

ŝ0 − s0 = 0
ŝ1 − s1 = [ŝ0 − s0 ](1 + ε1+ ) + ε+ × + ×
1 x1 y 1 + x1 y1 ε1 + x1 y 1 ε 1 ε 1
= x1 y1 (ε+ × + ×
1 + ε1 ) + x 1 y 1 ε 1 ε 1
ŝ2 − s2 = [ŝ1 − s1 ](1 + ε2+ ) + ε+ × + ×
2 (x1 y1 + x2 y2 ) + x2 y2 ε 2 + x2 y 2 ε 2 ε 2
= [x1 y1 (ε+ × + × + + × + ×
1 + ε1 ) + x1 y1 ε 1 ε 1 ](1 + ε2 ) + ε 2 (x1 y1 + x2 y2 ) + x2 y2 ε 2 + x2 y 2 ε 2 ε 2

= x1 y1 (ε+ × + + × + + + × + × + ×
1 + ε1 + ε1 ε2 + ε1 ε2 + ε 2 ) + x2 y2 (ε 2 + ε 2 ) + [x1 y1 ε 1 ε 1 + x2 y 2 ε 2 ε 2 ] + O(ε max)
3

Applying induction, this recurrence shows

k k

ŝk − sk = xi yi εi× + ε+
j
2
+ O(kεmax)
i=1 j=i

9781482251944_SM_Cover.indd 11 28/09/15 12:38 pm

 =⇒ en ≤ nεmax |xk ||yk | + O(nε2max
), as desired.
k

9781482251944_SM_Cover.indd 11 28/09/15 12:38 pm

 6

2.8. For convenience, define d ≡ x− y. We’ll start by simplifying the numerator of relative error and then substitute:

(1 + εx )x − (1 + εy )y = (x − y) + (εx x − εy y)
= d + εx d + (εx − εy )y
=⇒ (1 + ε− )((1 + εx )x − (1 + εy )y) = (1 + ε− )(d + εx d + (εx − εy )y)
= (1 + ε− )d + εx (1 + ε− )d + (1 + ε− )(εx − εy )y
(1 + ε− )((1 + εx )x − (1 + εy )y) − (x − y)
=⇒ E =
x− y
ε− d + εx (1 + ε− )d + (1 + ε− )(εx − εy )y
=
d
y
=
ε− + εx (1 + ε− ) + (1 + ε− )(εx − εy )
d
This can be unbounded as d → 0.

2.9. (a) Implicitly differentiating the relationship 0 = f (x(ε)) + εp(x(ε)) with respect to ε shows

d
0= [f (x(ε)) + εp(x(ε))]
dε
= f (x(ε))x (ε) + p(x(ε)) + εp (x(ε))x (ε) by the chain rule.

Substituting ε = 0 and using x∗ = x(0) shows

p(x∗ )
0 = f (x∗ )x (0) + p(x∗ ) =⇒ x (0) = − .
f (x∗ )

(b) We differentiate
d
f (x) = (x − 1) · (x − 2) · · · · · (x − 20)
dx
= (x − 2) · · · · · (x − 20) + (x − 1) · (x − 3) · · · · · (x − 20)
+ · · · + (x − 1) · · · · · (x − 19) by the product rule

Substituting x = j shows

f (j) = (j − 1) · (j − 2) · · · · · (j − (j − 1)) · (j − (j + 1)) · · · · · (j − 20)

For p(x) = x19 , from the previous part we have

j 19 j
x (j) = − =− .
(j − 1) · (j − 2) · · · · · (j − (j − 1)) · (j − (j + 1)) · · · · · (j − 20) j−k
k=j

(c) x (1) ≈ 8.2 × 10−18 and x (20) ≈ −4.3 × 107 ; hence, the root x∗ = 1 is far more stable.
2.10. (a) The alternative formula can be obtained by scaling the numerator and denominator of the quadratic
equation:
√ √ √
−b ± b2 − 4ac −b ± b2 − 4ac −b ∓ b2 − 4ac
= · √

2a 2a −b ∓ b2 − 4ac

b2 − (b2 − 4ac)
= √
−2ab ∓ 2a b2 − 4ac
4ac
= √
−2ab ∓ 2a b2 − 4ac
−2c
=

9781482251944_SM_Cover.indd 12 28/09/15 12:38 pm

 √
b ± b2 − 4ac

9781482251944_SM_Cover.indd 12 28/09/15 12:38 pm

 7
(b) When b ≤ 0, take
√
−b + b2 − 4ac c
x1 = , x2 = ,
2a ax1
and otherwise take
√
−b − b2 − 4ac , x2 = c .
x2 = ax2
2a

This way, there never can be cancellation because we always move b farther from the origin in the numer-
ator.
2.11. The bounds are worked out below:

[x] + [y] = [x + y, x + y]
[x] − [y] = [x − y, x − y]
value sign(x) sign(x) sign(y) sign(y)
xy, xy + + + +
xy, xy + + − +

yx, yx + + − −
[xy, xy] − + + +
[x] × [y] =
min(xy, yx), max(xy, xy) − + − +
xy, x − + − −

xy, xy − − + +
[xy, xy] − − − +
xy, xy − − − −
1 1
[x] ÷ [y] = [x] × ,
y y
[x]1/2 = [x1/2 , x1/2 ]

In finite-precision arithmetic, always round down the lower bounds and round up the upper bounds.
2.12. (a) Perturbing any of three collinear points slightly makes them not collinear. Furthermore, points may appear
collinear if you zoom out far enough but appear less so as you zoom in.

ε
q
ε

p
ε
ε

(b)

9781482251944_SM_Cover.indd 13 28/09/15 12:38 pm

 8

ε
φq
ε

pφ
ε

(c)
(d) Obvious from drawings above; ε-collinear points form the intersection of four half-planes, two of which
come from the ε-clockwise condition and two of which come from the ε-counterclockwise condition.
(e) No. See §3.1 of [55] for an example.
3.1. No; LU may not be possible for matrices requiring pivoting.
3.2. The steps of Gaussian elimination are below:

2 4 2 1 2 1 1/2 0
∼ , with elimina tion matrix
3 5 4 3 5 4 0 1

1 2 1 1 0
∼ , with elimination matrix
0 1 −1 3 −1

1 0 3 1 −2
∼ , with elimination matrix
0 1 −1 0 1

So, x = 3 and y = −1.

From the steps above, we know
1 2
U= ,
0 1
and

−1 −1
1/2 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 0
L= = = .
0 1 3 −1 0 1 3 −1 3 −1

3.3. Computed using Gaussian elimination:

1 0 0 1 2 7

L= 3 1 0 U= 0 −1 −22
6 11 1 0 0 204

3.4. Where it states “optionally insert pivoting code here,” find row r with largest value in column p; then swap
row r and row p of both A and φb.
3.5. No. Full pivoting can be preferable numerically but technically does not make a difference. The only way partial
pivoting would fail is if there is an all-zero column, which would indicate that A is not invertible.
3.6. Write A = A1 + A2 i, φb = φb1 + φb2 i, and φx = φx1 + φx2 i. Then, Aφx = φb =⇒ (A1 + A2 i)(φx1 + φx2 i) = φb1 + φb2 i =⇒
(A1 φx1 − A2 φx2 ) + (A2 φx1 + A1 φx2 )i = φb1 + φb2 i. So, we can solve the block system
A2
A1 −A2 A1 φx1

9781482251944_SM_Cover.indd 14 28/09/15 12:38 pm

 φx2

φb1 = .
φ
b
2

3.7. Carrying out Gaussian elimination is the same as pre-multiplying by the inverse of the leftmost n × n block.
Hence, the output is A−1 (A|In ×n ) = (A−1 A|A−1 ) = (I n×n |A−1 ).

9781482251944_SM_Cover.indd 14 28/09/15 12:38 pm

Other documents randomly have
different content
 corn, which they keep always ready besides what they sell; and
the like with other commodities, so that if a Dearth of Fish,
wine, grain, or anything else begins in the country, forthwith the
Dutch are ready with fifty or a hundred ships dispersing
themselves at every ‘Port-Town’ in England, trading away their
cargoes and carrying off English gold. Moreover, the Dutch have
in their hands the greater part of the carrying trade of France,
Portugal, Spain, Italy, Turkey, the East Indies, and the West
Indies. Yet London is a much more convenient port for a store-
house and for the carrying trade if our merchants would but
bend their course for it.”

As for small duties in foreign countries compared with the

excessive customs in ours. James, it will be remembered, relied on
his Customs duties, which were heavy, thereby keeping off foreign
trade. In Holland the Customs duties were so much lighter that a
ship which would pay £900 in the port of London could be cleared at
Amsterdam for £50. Raleigh points out that what is lost by lowering
the duties is more than made up by the increase of trade when the
duties are low. He advocates Free Trade, observe, long before that
innovation was thought of.
By the “fashion” of the ships he means the Dutch merchant
vessels called “Boyers, Hoy-barks, and Hoys,” constructed to contain
a great bulk of merchandise and to sail with a small crew. Thus an
English ship of 200 tons required a crew of thirty hands, while a ship
of the same tonnage built in Holland wanted no more than nine or
ten mariners.
 Go to transcription of text

Then, again, as to their “forwardness” in trading. In one year and

a half the merchants of Holland, Hamburg, and Emden carried off
from Southampton, Exeter, and Bristol alone near £200,000 in gold.
And perhaps £2,000,000, taking the whole of the kingdom into
account. The Dutch alone sent 500 or 600 ships every year to
England, while we sent but thirty to Holland.
A warning and an example is presented by the fallen and decayed
condition of Genoa. Formerly this city was the most prosperous of all
trading cities. All nations traded there; but in an evil moment Genoa
declared a Customs duty of 10 per cent, which caused the whole of
her trade to vanish. Why, again, Raleigh asks, do we not secure for
ourselves the magnificent fisheries which lie off our shores? In four
towns within the Sound are sold every year between 30,000 and
40,000 casts of herrings, representing £620,000. In Denmark,
Norway, Sweden, etc., are sold our herrings, caught on our shores,
to the amount of £170,000. This fishery represents over a million
sterling in addition to all this. They are herrings caught off our
shores, and yet we have no share in this great trade.
The Dutch employ a thousand ships in carrying salt to the East
Kingdoms; we none. They have 600 ships in the timber trade; we
none; they send into the East Kingdoms 3000 ships every year; we
100 only. They carry goods from the East Kingdoms to France,
Spain, Portugal, and Italy in 2000 ships; we have none in that trade.
They trade to all the ports of France; we to five or six only. They
trade with every one of our ports—with 600 ships; we with three
only of these ports, and but forty ships.

Walker & Cockerell.

THE SOVERAIGNE OF THE SEAS, BUILT 1637

 From a contemporary engraving by John Payne.
We neglect to take advantage of what we have. For instance, we
send to Holland our cloth undressed; we let them take, for purposes
of trade, our iron, our coal, our copper, lead, tin, alum, copperas,
and other things on which we might employ thousands of people,
and this country, which produces nothing, is enriched by carrying
commodities about the world.
The arguments of Raleigh in favour of taking up the fisheries
appear elementary. He thus sums up the advantages:—

“1. For taking God’s blessing out of the Sea to enrich the
Realm, which otherwise we lose.
2. For setting the People on work.
3. For making Plenty of Cheapness in the Realm.
4. For increasing of Shipping, to make the Land powerful.
5. For a continual Nursery for breeding and increasing our
Mariners.
6. For making employment of all Sorts of People, as blind,
lame, and others, by Sea and Land, from ten or twelve years
and upwards.
7. For inriching your Majesty’s Coffers, by Merchandises
returned from other Countries for Fish and Herrings.
8. For the increase and enabling of Merchants, which now
droop and daily decay.”

The trade of London during the first half of the seventeenth

century decayed. The decay was due partly to the monopoly of the
privileged companies, which stifled or discouraged enterprise; partly
to the civil wars; partly to the Customs duties; and partly, it would
seem, to a falling off in the vigour and enterprise which had marked
the Elizabethan period. In trade, as in everything, there are times of
reaction and of torpor. Meantime, in spite of everything, foreign
trade increased. But Raleigh’s comparison between the trade of
Holland and that of London shows how small our foreign trade was,
in comparison with the vast bulk carried on by the Dutch.
After Sir Walter Raleigh’s “observations” let me quote Howell on
the profession or calling of the merchant:—

“For my part I do not know any profession of Life (especially

in an Island) more to be cherished and countenanced with
honourable employments than the Merchant-Adventurer (I do
not mean only the staplers of Hamburgh and Rotterdam); for if
valiant and dangerous actions do enoble a Man, and make him
merit, surely the Merchant-Adventurer deserves more Honour
than any; for he is to encounter not only with Men of all
Tempers and Humours (as a French Counsellor hath it), but he
contests and tugs oft-time with all the Elements; nor do I see
how some of our Country Squires, who sell Calves and Runts,
and their Wives perhaps Cheese and Apples, should be held
more genteel than the noble Merchant-Adventurer who sells
Silks and Satins, Tissues and Cloths of Gold, Diamonds and
Pearl, with Silver and Gold.”

In the year 1606 James made an attempt to introduce the

breeding of silkworms. He sent mulberry-trees into the country with
instructions for the feeding of the worms. There was a certain
amount of English-grown silk manufactured, as is shown by an entry
in Thoresby’s Diary. “Saw at Mr. Gale’s a sample of the satin lately
made at Chelsea of English silkworms, for the Princess of Wales,
which was very rich and beautiful.” The experiment proved
unsuccessful, yet it caused the immigration of a great number of silk
throwsters, weavers, and dyers, who settled here and entered upon
the silk trade in London. The raw silk was brought from India and
China by the East India Company.
A table of imports from India in 1620 gives the most astonishing
difference between the cost in India and the selling price in London
(see Capper, Port and Trade of London, p. 82):—
 Cost on Board Ship in Selling Prices in
Imports, 1620.
India. London.
s. d. £ s. d. s. d. £ s. d.
250,000 lbs. Pepper 0 2-1/2 2,604 3 4 1 8 20,833 6 8
150,000 lbs. Cloves 0 9 5,625 0 0 6 0 45,000 0 0
150,000 lbs. Nutmegs 0 4 2,500 0 0 2 6 18,750 0 0
50,000 lbs. Mace 0 8 1,666 13 4 6 0 15,000 0 0
200,000 lbs. Indigo 1 2 11,666 13 4 5 0 50,000 0 0
107,140 lbs. China
7 0 0 0 0 0
Raw Silk 37,499 0 20 107,140
50,000 pieces Calico 7 0 17,500 0 0 20 0 50,000 0 0
79,061 10 0 306,723 6 8

In 1620 the East India Company established themselves at

Madras, where they had a trade in diamonds, muslin, and chintzes in
return for English or European goods. They had in their service 2500
mariners, 500 ship carpenters, and 120 factors.
The story of Cockaine’s patent should be (but it was not) a lesson
in Free Trade. It was this man’s custom to send white cloth from
England to Holland to be dyed and dressed, and then sent back for
sale. Alderman Cockaine proposed to the King to do the dyeing and
dressing himself if he had a patent. He represented that the whole
profit made by the Dutch would be saved by this arrangement. The
King consented; he prohibited the exportation of white cloth to
Holland, and seized the charter of the Merchant Adventurers which
allowed them to export it. The Dutch naturally retaliated by
prohibiting the importation of English dye cloths. It was then
discovered that Cockaine could not do what he proposed to do; his
cloths were worse dyed and were dearer than those dyed by the
Dutch. After seven years of complaints over this business, the patent
was removed and the charter restored.
The following is a statement of the trade of England at this time:—

“We trade to Naples, Genoa, Leghorn, Marseilles, Malaga,

etc., with only twenty ships, chiefly herrings, and thirty sail
more laden with pipes-staves from Ireland.
 To Portugal and Andalusia we sent twenty ships for wines,
sugar, fruit, and West Indian drugs.
To Bordeaux we send sixty ships and barks for wines.
To Hamburgh and Middleburgh, thirty-five ships are sent by
our Merchant Adventurers’ Company.
To Dantzic, Koningsburg, etc., we send yearly about thirty
ships, viz. six from London, six from Ipswich, and the rest from
Hull, Lynn, and Newcastle, but the Dutch many more.
To Norway we send not above five ships, and the Dutch
above forty, and great ships too.
Our Newcastle coal trade employs 400 sail of ships; viz. 200
for supplying of London, and 200 for the rest of England.
And besides our own ships, hither, even to the mine’s mouth,
come all our neighbouring nations with their ships continually,
employing their own shipping and mariners. I doubt not
whether, if they had such a treasure, they would employ not
their own shipping solely therein. The French sail thither in
whole fleets of fifty sail together, serving all their ports of
Picardie, Normandie, Bretagne, etc., even as far as Rochel and
Bordeaux. And the ships of Bremen, Emden, Holland, and
Zealand supply those of Flanders, etc., whose shipping is not
great, with our coals.
Our Iceland fishery employs 120 ships and barks of our own.
And the Newfoundland fishery 150 small ships.
And our Greenland whale fishery fourteen ships.
As for the Bermudas, we know not yet what they will do; and
for Virginia, we know not what to do with it; the present profit
of these two colonies not employing any store of shipping”
(Capper, p. 84).

The completion of the New River in 1620 was a great boon and
blessing to the people, but the greatest benefit to trade in the reign
of James I. was the improvement of the navigation of the upper part
of the Thames by deepening the channel, so that not only was
Oxford placed in communication with London, but the country all
round Oxford.
The granting of monopolies was an interference with trade which
would now cause a revolution. There were many complaints.
Parliament declared that all monopolies were void. That was under
James. Charles began, notwithstanding, to sell monopolies to
whomsoever would pay him most for them. Thus the importation of
alum was prohibited, for the protection of the alum works of Whitby;
also brick-making, the manufacture of saltpetre, of tapestry, the
coining of farthings, the making of steel, the making of stone pots
and jugs, making guns, melting iron ore, and many other things.
More than this, Charles made the sale of tobacco a royal monopoly;
he forbade the infant colony of Virginia to sell tobacco to any foreign
state; he levied a duty of four shillings a chaldron on all coal
exported to foreign parts; and he actually endeavoured to establish
a malting and a brewing monopoly. When we read the historian on
the despotic acts of Charles and his attempts on the liberties of his
people, let us bear in mind the constant exasperations of these
interferences with trade—that is, with the livelihood of the people.
When at last he became awakened to the danger of the position, he
revoked all their “grants, licences, and privileges”; but it was then
too late—revolution had already arisen.
Shops which had been open stalls confined to one or two markets
in London, such as East and West Chepe, began, towards the end of
the sixteenth century and early in the seventeenth, to appear along
Fleet Street, the Strand, and in King Street, Westminster.
Haberdashers, milliners, woollen drapers, cutlers, upholsterers,
glassmen, perfumers, and others established themselves
everywhere, making so brave a show every day, that, as Stow
complains, “the people of London began to expend extravagantly.”
There were offered, among other wares, “French and Spanish
gloves, and French cloth or frigarde (frieze), Flanders-dyed kersies,
daggers, swords, knives, Spanish girdles, painted cruses, dials,
tables, cards, balls, glasses, fine earthen pots, salt-cellars, spoons,
tin dishes, puppets, pennons, ink-horns, toothpicks, silk, and silver
buttons. All which ‘made such a show in passengers’ eyes, that they
could not help gazing on and buying these knicknacks.’ This great
offence a contemporary writer, quoted by Stow, bitterly
apostrophises. He ‘marvels’ that ‘no man taketh heed to it what
number of trifles cometh hither from beyond the seas, that we might
either clean spare, or else make them within our own realm; for the
which we either pay inestimable treasure every year, or else
exchange substantial wares and necessaries for them, for the which
we might receive great treasure.”
There had then arisen outside the City a new class, and one which
was becoming wealthy and important, namely, the suburban
shopkeepers. They were certainly not a class that Charles could
afford to exasperate. But apparently he never asked himself how far
it was prudent to exasperate any class. Thus, in the blindness of his
wrath against the Puritans, whose emigration was the best thing
that could happen to him, he forbade them to emigrate without a
certificate of having taken the oath of allegiance and supremacy, and
likewise from the minister of their parish a certificate of their
conversation and conformity to the orders and discipline of the
Church of England. He therefore did what he could to preserve his
own enemies in his kingdom, and to increase their hostility. Again,
he ordered that the Weavers’ Company should admit to its freedom
none but members of the Church of England. He even interfered
with trade to the extent of trading on his own account, on one
occasion buying up all the pepper imported by the East India
Company and selling it again at a profit.
The foundation of the banking business is said to date from the
outbreak of the Civil War; perhaps it was partly due to that event.
Banking was impossible in earlier times for several reasons: there
was no system of commercial credit; there were no bank-notes;
goods were bought or sold for actual coin; there was no Exchange;
when men went abroad or came home, they had to take their
foreign money to the Mint for re-coinage, or they had to get foreign
money at the Mint; there was no recognised system of lending or
borrowing; if a man borrowed money he did so as a special occasion
and for a special purpose, and paid a large interest for the
accommodation. The money-lenders were the Jews first, who carried
on the trade as a Royal monopoly, followed by the Lombards, who
came as the agents of Papal taxation; and afterwards the London
merchants and goldsmiths.
When the Civil War broke out it became a serious consideration
with the merchants to place their money in some place of security.
The Mint, their former place of deposit, could not be trusted because
Charles had already seized upon £200,000 belonging to merchants,
and placed there for safety; their own strong rooms would not do,
because if the City fell into the hands of the Royalists, the strong
room would most certainly be plundered first.[8] They therefore
began to lodge their cash in the hands of goldsmiths, keeping what
was called a “running cash” account. They probably thought that in
case of need the goldsmiths could take their money and plate
abroad. Country gentlemen also began to send their money up to
London for greater security. This method was found so convenient
that banking quickly spread and the bankers began to flourish.
During the Commonwealth one Henry Robinson proposed the
establishment of a “Land Bank,” with branches in the country to lend
money upon mortgage, the payments to be by paper.
 THE FIRST ROYAL EXCHANGE—EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR

The wars with the Dutch and the extraordinary developments of

French industries caused our imports to vastly exceed our exports;
every maid-servant, it was said, paid the French King half her
wages; when peace came and trade was recovering, the madness of
Charles II. in closing the Exchequer paralysed and ruined the City for
a while. Never did monarch inflict a blow so cruel upon his people.
And never did the Stuarts recover the confidence which this measure
lost them.
The Plague of 1665, followed by the Fire, proved, as might be
expected, a temporary check to the prosperity of the City. But the
people kept up their courage.
After the Fire there was built, in place of Gresham’s Exchange,
which had been burned, a new Royal Exchange of which the first
stone was laid by King Charles II.
The increase of trade, although petty trade, in the West was
recognised in the foundation of the New Exchange, an institution
which has been mostly overlooked by historians.
“This building was erected by Robert, Earl of Salisbury, somewhat
after the shape of the Royal Exchange, having cellars underneath
and paved walks above with rows of shops. The first stone was laid
on the 10th of June 1608. It was opened by King James I., April
10th, 1609, who came attended by the Queen, the Duke of York, the
Lady Elizabeth, and many great lords and ladies, but it was not
successful” (Stow).
“In the Strand on the N. side of Durham House stood an olde long
stable, the outer wall whereof on the street side was very olde and
ruinate, all which was taken down and a stately building sodainely
erected in the place by Robert, E. of Salisbury, Lord High Treasurer
of England. The first stone of this beautiful building was laid the
10th of June last past, and was fully finished in November following.
And on Tuesday, the 10th April, the year (1609), many of the upper
shoppes were richly furnished with wares, and the next day after
that, the King, Queen and Prince, the Lady Elizabeth and the D. of
York, with many great Lordes and chief ladies, came thither, and
were there entertained with pleasant speeches, gifts, and ingenious
devices: there the King gave it a name and called it Britain’s Burse”
(Nich., Progresses, vol. ii. p. 248).
 The exports and the imports of London during fifty years of this
century are thus tabulated. It will be seen that they show a steady
increase in the bulk of trade:—
Exports. Imports.
1614 2,090,640 2,141,283
1622 2,320,436 2,619,315
1663 2,022,812 4,016,019
1669 2,063,274 4,196,139
The prosperity of the country was shown by the contemporary
writers to have been advancing steadily and rapidly, in spite of the
civil wars, the Dutch wars, the pestilence which on five separate
occasions devastated the country and the City, and the Great Fire
which destroyed all the “Stock” of the merchants. Sir William Petty
(1676) observes that the number of houses in London was double
that of 1636, and that there had been a great increase of houses in
many towns of the United Kingdom, that the Royal Navy was four
times as powerful as in later years, that the coal trade of Newcastle
had quadrupled, the Customs yielded three times their former value,
that more than 40,000 tons of shipping were employed in the
Guinea and American trade, that the King’s revenue was trebled, and
that the postage of letters had increased from one to twenty.
Davenant also (1698) speaks twenty years later to the same
effect. He shows that the value of land had risen from twelve years’
purchase in former times to fourteen, sixteen, and twenty years’
purchase in 1666; and by the end of the century to twenty-six or
even more; that great quantities of waste land had been enclosed
and cultivated; that the merchant marine had doubled between 1666
and 1688; that many noble buildings had been erected; that the
Customs duties had increased in twenty years by a third; that the
standard of comfort among the working-classes was greatly
improved; and that property in cattle, stock-in-trade, and personal
effects had risen from £17,000,000 in 1600 to £88,000,000 in 1688.
 As already mentioned, the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes
brought to this country some 70,000 of the most highly skilled
artificers. Many thousands settled in the suburbs of London,
especially in Bethnal Green, Spitalfields, and St. Giles. Among the
things they made or prepared were “light woollens, silk, linen,
writing-paper, glass, hats, lute-string, silks, brocades, satins, velvets,
watches, cutlery, clocks, jacks, locks, surgeons’ instruments,
hardware, and toys” (Capper, p. 103).
These refugees gave the country a large and valuable industry in
silk-weaving; it is also supposed that the manufacture of fine paper
was due to the French immigrants. In 1670 the Duke of Buckingham
brought Venetians over here who introduced the manufacture of fine
glass.
The making of linen cloth and tapestry was encouraged by an Act
of 1666, which offered special advantages to those who set up the
trade of hemp dressing. In 1669 certain French Protestants settled
at Ipswich and engaged in this trade.
The old industry of woollen cloth was protected by the prohibition
to export wool. In 1666 a law was passed directing that every one
should be buried in wool, and the clergy were required to take an
affidavit to that effect at every interment.
In 1676 the printing of calicoes was commenced in London. A
writer of the day says that “instead of green say, that was wont to
be used for children’s frocks, is now used painted and Indian and
striped calico, and instead of perpetuam or shalloon to line men’s
coats with is used sometimes glazed calico, which in the whole is not
a shilling cheaper, and abundantly worse.”
An Act passed in 1662 forbade the importation of foreign bone
lace, cut work, embroidery, fringe, band-strings, buttons, and
needlework on the ground that many persons in this country made
their living by this work.
The art of tinning plate-iron was brought over from Germany. The
first wire-mill was also put up at this period by a Dutchman.
 In short, the development of the arts was largely advanced during
the century, and almost entirely by foreigners—French, German,
Venetian, and Dutch.
The income of the Crown does not belong to the history of
London, except that the City furnished a large part of it. That of
Charles II. was ordered by the Parliament, August 31, 1660, to be
made up to £1,200,000 a year. To raise this sum various Acts were
passed. Thus there was the subsidy called “tonnage” levied upon
foreign wine, and that called “pundage” levied upon the export and
import of certain commodities. These taxes were collected at the
Custom House. There was also the excise upon beer, ale, and other
liquors sold within the kingdom. There was the tax of hearth money,
which was two shillings upon any fire, hearth, or stove in every
house worth more than twenty shillings a year. There were also the
Royal lands, such as the Forest of Dean, the duties on the mines in
the Duchy of Cornwall, the first-fruits and tenths of church
benefices, the Post Office, etc. Other duties were laid occasionally on
land, on personal property, on the sale of wine, etc. It must be
remembered, however, that the King maintained out of this income
the Fleet and the Army.
The coinage current in London consisted of more kinds than the
present simpler system. In gold there were sovereigns, half-
sovereigns, crowns, and half-crowns; in silver, crowns, half-crowns,
shillings, sixpences, half-groats, pennies, and halfpennies. To this
there were added from time to time the Thistle crown of four
shillings, the Scottish six pound gold coin valued at ten shillings, the
French crown called “The Sun,” valued at seven shillings. There were
also farthing tokens in lead, tin, copper, and leather.
Ben Jonson shows us what kind of money was carried about. “The
man had 120 Edward’s shillings, one old Harry sovereign, three
James shillings, an Elizabeth groat: in all twenty nobles”—a noble
was worth 7s. 2d.; “also he had some Philip and Marias, a half-
crown of gold about his wrist that his love gave him, and a leaden
heart when she forsook him.”
 “Before the reign of James I. nothing beyond pennies and
halfpennies in silver appear to have been attempted to supply the
poor with a currency. In 1611 Sir Robert Cotton propounded a
scheme for a copper coinage; this was not, however, carried out. A
scheme to enrich the king produced the farthing token, weighing six
grains, and producing 24s. 3d. for the pound weight of copper; half
the profit was to be the king’s and the other half the patentee’s. The
first patent was granted to Baron Harrington of Exton, Rutlandshire,
April 10, 1613, and a Proclamation was issued May 19, 1613,
forbidding the use of traders’ tokens in lead, copper, or brass. The
new coin was to bear, on the one side, the King’s title, ‘Jaco. D. G.
Mag. Bri., two sceptres through a crown;’ on the reverse, ‘Fra. et.
Hib. Rex., a harp crowned.’ The mint mark, a rose. A Proclamation
was published June 4, 1625, prohibiting any one from counterfeiting
this coin. Upon the death of Lord Harrington, in 1614, the Patent
was confirmed to Lady Harrington and her assigns; subsequently it
was granted to the Duke of Lennox and James, Marquis of Hamilton,
and on the 11th of July 1625 to Frances, Duchess Dowager of
Richmond and Lennox, and Sir Francis Crane, Knight, for seventeen
years, the patentees paying to the King one hundred marks yearly.
By a Proclamation issued in 1633, the counterfeiters of these tokens
were, upon conviction, to be fined £100 apiece, to be set on the
pillory in Cheapside, and from thence whipped through the streets to
Old Bridewell, and there kept to work; and when enlarged, to find
sureties for their good behaviour. On the 3rd of August 1644 the
Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of the City of London petitioned the
House of Commons against the inconvenience of this coin, and the
hardship suffered by the poor in consequence. No farthing tokens
being issued during the Commonwealth, private persons were under
the necessity of striking their own tokens. The practice being,
however, contrary to law, was subsequently prohibited by a
Proclamation issued August 16, 1672. It further appears, by an
advertisement in the London Gazette, No. 714, September 23, 1672,
that an office called the ‘Farthing Office’ was opened in Fenchurch
Street, near Mincing Lane, for the issue of these coins on Tuesday in
each week, and in 1673–4 an order was passed to open the office
daily. These measures not proving effectual to prevent private
coinage of tokens, another Proclamation was issued on October 17,
1673, and another on December 12, 1674. These farthing tokens
encountered the contempt and scorn of all persons to whom they
were tendered, as being of the smallest possible value. Sarcastic
allusions were made to them by dramatists, poets, and wits.
‘Meercroft,’ in Ben Jonson’s Devill is an Asse, Act ii. sc. 1, played in
1616, alludes to this coin and its patentee” (Index to Remem. pp.
89, 90, note).
In 1694 the London tradesmen began to cry out about the
badness of the coinage; vast numbers of halfpence and farthings
were forged, and the chipping of the silver went on almost openly.
The Government resolved on an entirely new issue, which was
complete in 1699.
COINS OF THE PERIOD
 1. Old Harry sovereign
2. Edward shilling.
3. James I. shilling.
4. Charles II. gold crown.
5. Elizabeth groat.
6. Charles II. half groat.
7. Charles II. sixpence.
8. Charles II. gold sovereign.
9. Charles II. half broad (gold)
10. Charles II. shilling.
11. Charles II. crown.
12. Charles II. half crown.
13. Charles II. silver Maundy penny.

It was not a time of universal prosperity; witness the following

account of the Grocers’ Company (Ninth Report, Historical MSS.):—

“27th March 1673. The Grocers’ proposal for payment of their

debts. The Company’s year rents and revenues amount to only
£722:5:4, and are charged with a yearly payment of £7571:19:8
in charity. Their debts are £24,000. In 1640 they lent the king
£4500, for repayment whereof some of the Peers became
bound. In 1642 they advanced £9000 for suppressing the Irish
Rebellion. In 1643 they lent the City of London £4500. The
principal and interest of these several debts, still owing to the
Company as aforesaid, amount to above £40,000. The greater
part of their estate was in houses burnt down in the late Fire,
and since leased out for 60, 70, and 80 years, by decrees made
in the late Court of Judicature established by Act of Parliament.
The several sums they owe were voluntarily lent them. They
propose that £12,000 be raised by voluntary subscriptions and
equally distributed among all their creditors within six months;
that, to discharge the rest of their debt, the debts owing to the
Company be assigned to trustees; that a special memorandum
be entered in the Company’s books, that, in case the creditors
be not satisfied by the means proposed, the Company shall, if
ever in a capacity hereafter, pay the whole remainder to every
creditor; and that, on performance of these proposals, the
Company be absolutely discharged from all their debts.
Meanwhile all prosecutions against the Company to be stayed,
that the Company may be animated cheerfully to raise the
money. The Company submit, in conclusion, that a Hall
encumbered and not half finished is all the Company of Grocers
have to encourage their members to a voluntary contribution to
satisfy debts contracted before most of them were born, and
before all the residue, save some few only, were free of the
Company. (Offered this day, having been called for by the
Committee on the 24th. Rejected as ‘not satisfactory’ on the
28th. Com. Book of date.)

OLD GROCERS’ HALL USED FOR BANK OF ENGLAND, 1695

28th March. Answer of the Appellants. The Company, besides

their £722:15:4 for rents in England, have an estate of nearly
£400 rental in Ireland, and their Hall, with appurtenances worth
£200 a year more. The lands charged with charitable uses are
expressly excepted by the decree. The estate is let at quit-rents,
and, if rack-rented, would yield another £12,000. The yearly
contributions of members amount to another £1000.
Their disbursements in 1671 were:—
£ s. d.
17 1 1
For payment for dinners and collations
2 3 0
1
To the Wardens
12 0 0
Corn money 25 0 0
28
Reparation of their Hall
1 4 6
In Gratuity given 89 0 0
1
Suit in Chancery and in Parliament with Appellants
89 8 1
Lord Mayor’s Day 44 4 0
1
Interest money
46 4 0

Besides this they can at pleasure raise in a month’s time, by

fines for offices and calling to livery, £4000. Most of their debts
are recent. Their loans to the City should be sued for by
themselves. The loan of 1643 was to defend the City against the
King. The Company did not suffer much by the Fire, as most of
their estate was let on long leases. All the creditors have
received one-sixth of their claims, except the Cholmleys, who
have been promised payment since the decree, but have
received nothing. The Company itself is willing to pay its debts,
but is prevented by a small minority, who are the authors of the
proposal, and dishonestly deny liability. Appellants cannot agree
to stand equally with the rest of the creditors, who refused to
join them at first before the suit commenced, and only sued the
Company at its own litigation, with a view to forestall
Appellants. They cannot accept the Grocers’ proposals in lieu of
the decree they hold. The Company have already offered more
favourable terms, which have been refused. The Hall is actually
sequestered, and was so before its conveyance to the Lord
 Mayor, etc. of London, as Governors of Christ’s Hospital. The
Company’s estate is sufficient to cover their claim, in which
Appellants are supported by several members of the Company
itself. If the Company will give good personal security to
discharge their debts in seven years, and to pay at once the
sixth part of the principal to the Cholmleys, with interest from
the time others had it, with costs, Appellants will accept these
terms, assign over their sequestration, and help them to pay
their other creditors; otherwise they pray the sale may be
enforced. (Put in this day, but rejected by the Grocers’ Counsel.
Com. Book of date.”)

Another company was also struggling with difficulties, as the

following extract from the same Report shows:—

“10th March, 1675. The petition of the Master, Warden,

Assistants and Commonaltie of the Corporation of Pin-makers,
London, to the King; with paper of proposals attached thereto
Reminding his Majesty of a contract made between Him and
their Company, for the benefit alike of His Majesty and the
London Pin-makers, that came to nought in consequence of the
Great Plague and the Dutch, the Pin-makers beg for an aid of
£20,000—£10,000 thereof to be laid out in wire, to be bought of
His Majesty at 30d. per hundred weight about the current rate
of such wire; and the other £10,000 thereof to be used as a
fund by Commissioners, and the pins being distributed to buyers
at a cost sufficient only to cover the charge of production. By
operation of the scheme, embodied in these proposals, it is
urged the trade of the pin-making will revive, the pin-makers
will have full and lucrative employment, and his Majesty will by
his profit on the wire receive a revenue of at least £4000 per
annum.”

The most important civic event in the reign of William was the
foundation of the Bank of England. The bankers of the City had
been, as we have seen, the goldsmiths, who not only received and
kept money for their customers, but lent it out, for them and for
themselves, on interest. Thus, when Charles the Second, on January
2, 1672, closed the Exchequer, his creditors could obtain neither
principal nor interest. He then owed the goldsmiths of London the
sum of £1,328,526. Some of the older banks of London trace a
descent to the goldsmiths of the seventeenth century—Child’s, for
instance, Hoare’s, and others.
 A PERSPECTIVE VIEW OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND, 1743
From Maitland’s History and Survey of London.

The idea of a National Bank seems to have been considered and

discussed for some years before it was carried into effect. The
principal advocate of the scheme was a Scotchman named William
Anderson. The advantages which he put forward in defence of the
Bank were the support of public credit and the relief of the
Government from the ruinous terms upon which supplies were then
raised. There was great difficulty in getting the scheme considered,
but it was at last passed by an Act of Parliament in 1693. By the
terms of this Act it was provided that the Government should take a
loan of £1,200,000 from the Bank, this amount to be subscribed;
additional taxes were imposed which would produce about £140,000
a year, out of which the Bank was to receive £100,000 a year,
including interest at 8 per cent, and £4000 a year for management.
The Company was empowered to purchase lands, and to deal in bills
of exchange and gold and silver bullion, but not to buy or sell
merchandise, though they might sell unredeemed goods on which
they had made advances.
The subscription for the £1,200,000 was completed in ten days.
The Bank began its business on July 27, 1694.
Its offices were at first the Grocers’ Hall, where they continued
until the year 1743. In this year the new building, part of the present
edifice, was completed.
Maitland describes it as

“A most magnificent structure; the front next the street is

about 80 feet in length, adorned with columns, entablature,
etc., of the Ionick order. There is a handsome courtyard
between this and the main building, which, like the other, is of
stone, and adorned with pillars, pilasters, entablature, and
triangular pediment of the Corinthian Order. The hall is 79 feet
in length, and 40 in breadth, is wainscotted about 8 feet high,
has a fine fretwork ceiling, and a large Venetian window at the
west end of it. Beyond this is another quadrangle, with an
arcade on the east and west sides of it: and on the north is the
Accomptant’s Office, which is 60 feet long, and 28 feet broad.
There are handsome apartments over this and the other sides
of the quadrangle, with a fine staircase adorned with fretwork;
 and under it are large vaults, that have very strong walls and
iron gates for the p reservation of the cash.”

By the charter they constituted a Governor, who must have £4000

in Bank stock; a Deputy Governor, who must have £3000; and
twenty-four Directors, who must have £2000 each.
The Bank, although a year or two after its foundation its utility
was fully recognised by merchants, did not command complete
confidence for many years. Pamphlets were written against it. They
were answered in 1707 by Nathaniel Tench, a merchant. The
defence is instructive. Maitland sums it up:—

“The chief purpose of this defence was to vindicate a

corporation, and the management thereof; not so much from
crimes they had already been guilty of in the experiment of
eleven or twelve years, as the fear of what they might do
hereafter.”

The charter of the Bank was renewed in 1697 to 1711; in 1708 to

1733; in 1712 to 1743; in 1742 to 1765; in 1763 to 1786; in 1781 to
1812; and so on. There have been times of tightness. In 1697 the
Bank was forced to suspend partially payment in coin, giving 10 per
cent once a fortnight, and afterwards at the rate of 3 per cent once
in three months. In 1720 it escaped the disaster of the South Sea
Bubble. In 1745, when London was thrown into a panic by the
approach of the Pretender, there was a run upon the Bank. This was
staved off by paying slowly in silver. In the year 1797, by an order in
Council, last payments were suspended. These events, however,
belong to the after history of the Bank.
The foundation of the Bank of England brought about a complete
revolution in the relations of Crown and City. We have seen that
hitherto the City was called the King’s Chamber; when the King
wanted money he sent to the City for a loan; sometimes he asked
more than the City could lend; generally the City readily conceded
the loan.
 In a note, Sharpe calls attention to the absurdity of representing
the Chancellor of the Exchequer going about, hat in hand, borrowing
£100 of this hosier and £100 from that ironmonger:—

“The mode of procedure was nearly always the same. The

lords of the treasury would appear some morning before the
Common Council, and after a few words of explanation as to the
necessities of the time, would ask for a loan, offering in most
cases undeniable security. Supposing that the Council agreed to
raise the required loan, which it nearly always did, the mayor for
the time being was usually instructed to issue his precept to the
aldermen to collect subscriptions within their several wards,
whilst other precepts were (in later times at least) sent to the
master of wardens of the livery companies to do the same
among the members of their companies. There were times,
also, when the companies were called upon to subscribe in
proportion to their assessment for supplying the City with corn
in times of distress” (London and the Kingdom, vol. ii. pp. 586,
587).

The last loan ever asked by the King of the City was that asked by
William the Third in 1697 to pay off his navy after the Peace of
Utrecht. Instead of going to the City the King went to the Bank, but
not then without the authority of Parliament. The City was no longer
to be the Treasurer—or the Pawnbroker—of the King and the nation.
This event, though the citizens did not apprehend its full meaning
for many years, deprived London of that special power which had
made her from the Norman Conquest alternately the object of the
Sovereign’s affections or of his hatred. Henceforth it mattered
nothing to London whether the King loved or hated her. The power
of the City was now exercised legitimately by her representatives in
the House of Commons.
 CH APTER VII
THE IRISH ESTATES

The following history of the Irish estates is taken from London and
Londonderry, published in Belfast (1890) by Messrs. Marcus Ward
and Co.
In the year 1608 the first steps were taken towards the settlement
of Ulster by English and Scotch emigrants—a measure whose
wisdom was shown eighty years later, when the grandson of James
the First owed his expulsion largely to the descendants of the
original settlers.
The greater part of six counties in the Province of Ulster, viz.
Donegal, Fermanagh, Cavan, Tyrone, Armagh, and Coleraine, after
the rebellions of O’Neill and O’Donnell, were declared to be
escheated to the Crown. James conceived a plan for securing the
peace and welfare of Ulster by replacing the Irish rebels by
Protestant settlers, together with those of the Irish who were willing
to conform to the English rule and religion. He therefore invited
“undertakers” who would accept of lands in Ulster on his conditions.
These were, that they should not ask for large portions “in tending
their private property only;” that there should be three classes of
undertakers:
(1) Those who would plant with English or Scotch tenants.
(2) Servitors or military undertakers.
(3) Native Irish admitted as freeholders.
The first class were to pay to the Crown the great rent of £5:6:8
for every thousand acres. The second class, when they planted with
English or Scotch tenants, were to pay the same; otherwise, the
second class were to pay £8 for every thousand acres; and the third
class were to pay £10:13:4 for every thousand acres.
 The third condition was, that all were required to provide
strongholds and arms for defence, to let their lands on easy terms,
to “avoid Irish exactions,” and to be resident; they were not to
accept the “mere” Irish as tenants at all; they were required to
create market towns, and to found at least one free school in every
county for education in religion and learning. They were also
privileged to import from Great Britain for three years, free of
custom, everything requisite to put the plantation on a satisfactory
footing.
In 1609 Commissioners were appointed to survey the escheated
lands and to divide them into convenient parcels for allocation.
In the same year proposals were made in the King’s name to the
City that the Corporation itself should undertake the restoration of
the city of Derry and the town of Coleraine, and should plant the
rest of the county with undertakers. The City was offered the
Customs for twenty-one years at 6s. 8d. per annum, the fisheries of
the Bann and the Foyle, free license to export wares grown on their
own land, and the admiralty of Tyrconnel and Coleraine.
The following were the inducements held out to the City:—

“If multitudes of men were employed proportionally to these

commodities which might be there by industry attained, many
thousands would be set on work to the great service of the
King, strength of his realm, advancement of several trades, and
benefit of particular persons, whom the infinite increasing
greatness (that often doth minister occasion of ruin to itself) of
this city might not only conveniently spare, but also reap a
singular commodity by easing themselves of an insupportable
burthen which so surcharged all the parts of the city that one
tradesman can scarce live by another, which in all probability
would be a means also and preserve the city from infection; and
by consequence the whole kingdom, of necessity, must have
recourse thither, which persons pestered or closed up together
 can neither otherwise or very hardly avoid” (London and
Londonderry, p. 7).

On July 1, 1609, the Court of Aldermen sent a precept to each of

the City Companies asking them to appoint representatives to
consider the propositions. The Companies refused to undertake this
work. Thereupon the Mayor appointed a Committee, ignoring the
refusal of the Companies, to carry out the undertaking. This
Committee sent an order to the Companies to ascertain what each
member would willingly undertake.
On August 1, 1609, the City sent out four “viewers” to survey the
place intended for the new Plantation and “to make report to this
City.” The viewers returned in December, when it was resolved that
£15,000 should be raised to meet preliminary expenses. The money
was to be raised in the Companies, not by the Companies. Meantime
the City asked for certain additional advantages, including forces for
defence to be maintained at the King’s charges. It was agreed that
200 houses should be built at Derry, leaving room for 300 more, and
that 100 houses should be built at Coleraine, leaving room for 200
more, and that fortifications should be constructed. Another sum of
£5000 was then ordered to be raised. In January 1610 the demands
of the City were granted by the Privy Council. It is important to
observe that the “undertaking” by the City was not a purchase by
the Companies, but taxation of the members of the Companies by
order of the City, just as any other tax was imposed and collected.
Some of the poorer Companies were exempted, but not the “abler”
men among them.
In July 1611 another contribution of £20,000 was raised by tax. In
this case those Companies which might choose to lose the benefits
resulting from their previous contributions were exempt—a privilege
accepted by two of the Companies.
Power was given by the Common Council to the Committee of the
Corporation, afterwards the Irish Society, to divide the land among
those Companies willing to accept them, and so “to build and plant
the same at their own cost and charges, accordingly as by the
Printed Book of Plantation is required.” Eight of the great Companies
accepted at once, and the other four shortly afterwards.
Meantime the Privy Council made certain conditions, among them
the following:—

“The Londoners are first to provide habitations for such poor

and necessary men as they draw thither for their business, and
afterwards to let for such rents as shall be fitting as well for the
good of the Plantation as for some valuable rent (the charges
considered), the Londoners always performing the Articles of
Plantation” (London and Londonderry, pp. 12, 13).

It would appear from this that the subscribers were intended to

get rent in return for their outlay, but they never did, because the
Companies added the rents of the land to their own corporate funds.
As the subscribers do not appear to have objected, this was
probably done openly and without any remonstrance or objection.
Complaints began to be made that the conditions were not carried
out; only twenty houses were built at Derry instead of the 200
promised; the Londoners were converting the timber to their own
profit. In December 1612 the King wrote to Sir Arthur Chichester, the
Lord Deputy:—

“‘If there were no reason of State to press it forward, yet we

would pursue and effect that work with the same earnestness,
merely for the goodness and morality of it, esteeming the
settling of religion, the introducing of civility, order, and
government among a barbarous and unsubjected people to be
the acts of piety and glory, and worthy also a Christian Prince to
endeavour’” (London and Londonderry, p. 13).

On March 29, 1613, the first charter was granted to the Irish
Society as representing not the Companies, but the Corporation of
the City of London for the Plantations. This charter constitutes and
incorporates the Irish Society:—

“‘For the better ordering, directing, and governing all and all
manner of things for and concerning the City and Citizens of
Londonderry aforesaid, and the aforesaid County of
Londonderry, and the Plantation to be made within the same
City and County of Londonderry, and other businesses belonging
to the same,’ giving the Society power to purchase and hold in
fee, for these purposes, lands, goods, etc., in England or in
Ireland, to have a common seal, and to sue or be sued” (p. 14).

A grant of timber is made only for the Plantation and “not for any
other causes to be merchandized or sold.” In other words, the Irish
Society was incorporated for the purpose of a Trust; the members
were originally Trustees.
It is charged against the Society that they began by neglecting the
conditions, setting too high a rent upon their lands, and trying to
make a profit for the Londoners out of the property. James himself
was much dissatisfied with the conduct of the estates. He wrote to
Sir Arthur again in August 1615, adding a postscript in his own hand:
—“My Lord, in this service I expect that zeal and uprightness from
you, that you will spare no flesh, English or Scotch, for no private
man’s worth is able to counterbalance the particular safety of a
kingdom, which this Plantation, being well accomplished, will
procure.”
A year afterwards the King granted a licence to the twelve
Companies to hold in mortmain whatever lands the Irish Society
might grant them.
These grants contained a reservation of the right of re-entry if the
conditions specified were not kept.
It is, of course, evident that if the Irish Society were Trustees they
could not give away their lands, and that they could only make
grants under the conditions of their Trust.