Religion and Antitrust

• Author: Jerrold G. Van Cise
• Published date: 01 September 1978
• Date: 01 September 1978
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X7802300301
• Subject Matter: Article

RELIGION AND ANTITRUST

by

JERROLD

G.

VAN

Crss"

Henry

Isigned "Good queen Mold's" Charter, in which

he agreed to respect the rights of Englishmen,

at

the re-

quest of his Saxon bride, and the Lion of

Justice

with the

aid

of Anglo-Saxons then extended the protection of the

King's courts to these rights throughout England. Norman

Ibarons, in their turn, forced King

John

to accept the Great

Charter

which reaffirmed these rights. The

Peasant

Revolt

thereafter

so terrified King Richard

II

and the nobility

that

gradually serfs came also to share in the privileges of

English freemen.'

This freedom, however, did not include the

right

of a

businessman freely to engage in trade.

It

is to religion

that

we must look

primarily

for

the

birth

of our economic

liberty. Principles of a moral ethic

that

were formulated

in the Age of

Faith,

revised by the

Puritans,

and

trans-

ported to the New World,

are

the springs from which flow

our

inheritance of a free economy.

Currently, some critics reject this ethical approach to

economic problems. Their alternatives, however,

merit

Sophocles' observation

that

"it

is terrible to speak well

and

be wrong."

What

these cynics view as "foolishness of the

past"

appears

still to be the "wisdom of the future."

ORIGIN

OF

ANTITRUST

Medieval Church

The three

great

religions of medieval society were in

agreement

that

"what

the

Lord

requires" of a businessman

- Cahill Gordon & Reindel, New York, N.Y.

1T. B. Costain, The Conquerors 54, 62-65, 357 et seq. (1949),

and

The Last Plantaaenet« 80 (1962).

455

456

THE

ANTITRUST

BULLETIN

is

"to

do

justly

and

to love mercy" in dealing with his

neighbor. Thus, Mohammed denounced monopolists

and

threatened hell to lying or cheating merchants; Jewish rabbis

branded monopoly and

"corners"

as sin;

and

Catholic school-

men were hostile to "engrossing," "forestalling"

and

"usury." 2

In

England, the clergy formulated three moral principles from

this common religious ethic

for

the guidance of businessmen;

and (in the course of serving Anglo-Saxon

and

Norman kings

as advisors, administrators

and

chancellors) they caused

their

views on ethical business conduct to be "changed into law with

physical penalties attached." 8

The first principle of this business ethic was

that

of equal-

ity

between businessmen (subject to Crown monopolies).

If

one businessman should take into his hands the living

for

two, it was thought

that

a fellow tradesman would go short.

Accordingly, merchant guilds were

granted

local monopolies

in

part

to ensure this equality;

and

their

officers took an oath,

on the relics of a saint,'

"to

repress by a

strict

corporate

discipline the

natural

appetite of [a member] to snatch spe-

cial advantages

for

himself to the

injury

of all." 8The num-

ber

of journeymen and apprentices

for

each

master

was fixed

by guild regulations, in

order

that

no one

master

could

"by

reason of superior capacity

and

enterprise" build up a domi-

nant

business

and

squeeze out his fellow masters."

In

addi-

tion, a covenant in a contract

for

the sale of a business was

not enforceable in the common law courts if the vendor

thereby bound himself not to engage in the

craft

for

which

he had been

trained

and so would fail to

perform

his share

2W. Durant, The Age of Faith 180, 378

and

630 (1950).

8M. B. Anderson, Relations of Christianity to the Common Law

6 (1879).

4M. Kranzberg

and

J. Gies,

By

the Sweat of

Thy

Brow 66

(1975).

8R. H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism 28 (1962).

6G. C. Sellery

and

A. C. Krey, Medieval Foundations of Western

Civilization 335 (1929).