William Cunningham

Compared with Schmoller, Cunningham proposes a description of mercantilism focused on British political history where the two objectives of this system are quite clearly ranked: plenty is an element or a condition of power (Cunningham 1882-92 [1910], I: 471).

Mercantilism is a constituent part of modernity in so far as it is the expression of a patriotic spirit and a national ambition unlike the medieval municipal spirit. The emer­gence of this system was promoted by “the rise of nationalities and the increasing bit­terness of national rivalries, the discoveries of the New World and the struggle for the possession of its treasures” (ibid.). Cunningham (ibid., II: 20, 25) placed the mercantilist period between the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth and the accession to power of William Pitt. This period is itself divided into three sub-periods corresponding to English political chronology: first, the Elizabethan period that was more concerned with the need to manage the national economy, to control some of its production and to become a leading maritime power than the need to increase finances and attract precious metals; then the Stuart period, which favoured the growth in privileged companies and had a dual objective, both to obtain goods that were lacking from abroad and to procure the means to acquire money; finally, the period of the Whig ascendency, which favoured the development of credit and no longer made the accumulation of precious metals its primary purpose.

This periodisation allows Cunningham to distinguish “bullionism”, namely, the doc­trine that wealth consists in precious metals and subsequently the policy of accumulat­ing them, from mercantilism stricto sensu, namely, the doctrine of a positive balance of trade (Cunningham 1882-92 [1910], II: 177, 195, 260, 601-2). Mercantilism lato sensu was no more and no less than the extension of the regulatory action of the State in the maritime sector (Navigation Acts), in industry (protective tariffs), and agriculture (Corn Laws) (ibid., II: 829-30). This system was advocated by politicians until Smith’s time, until public opinion noticed the failings of this system as implemented by the politics of the Whig ascendency. Thus it was by rejecting collusion between the monied interest and the Whig oligarchy in power that public opinion became favourable to laissez-faire.