Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 16.djvu/787

Rh M O N M O N 757 guards. The attempt, however, miscarried ; and, after summoning Bath in vain, Monmouth, with a disordered force, began his retrograde march through Philips-Norton and Frome, continually harassed by Feversham s soldiers. At the latter place he heard of Argyll s total rout in the western Highlands. He was now anxious to give up the enterprise, but was overruled by Grey, Wade, and others. On the 3d of July he reached Bridgwater again, with an army little better than a rabble, living at free quarters and behaving with reckless violence. On Sunday the 5th Feversham entered Sedgemoor in pursuit ; Monmouth the same night attempted a surprise, but his troops were hope lessly routed. He himself, with Grey and a few others, fled over the Mendip Hills to the New Forest, hoping to reach the coast and escape by sea. The whole country, however, was on the alert, and at midnight on the 8th, within a month of their landing, James heard that the revolt, desperate from the first, was over, and that his rival had been captured close to Ringwood, in Hampshire. The poor strain in Monmouth s character was now shown. On the day of his capture he wrote to James in terms of the most unmanly contrition, ascribing his wrong doings to the action of others, and imploring an interview. On the 13th the prisoners reached the Tower, and on the next day Monmouth was allowed to see James. The accounts of this interview are difficult to reconcile in some points, but all agree that Monmouth s behaviour was un manly in the extreme. No mercy was shown him, nor did he in the least deserve mercy ; he had wantonly attacked the peace of the country, and had cruelly libelled James. The king had not, even in his own mind, any family tie to restrain him from exercising just severity, for he had never believed Monmouth to be the son of any one but Robert Sidney. Two painful interviews followed with the wife for whom he bore no love, and who for him could feel no respect ; another imploring letter was sent to the king, and abject protestations and beseechings were made to all whom he saw. He offered, as the last hope, to become a Roman Catholic, and this might possibly have proved successful, but the priests sent by James to ascertain the sincerity of his &quot; conversion &quot; declared that he cared only for his life and not for his soul. He met his death on the scaffold with calmness and dignity. In the paper which he left signed, and to which he referred in answer to the questions wherewith the busy bishops plied him, he expressed his sorrow for having assumed the royal style, and at the last moment confessed that Charles had denied to him privately, as he had publicly, that he was ever married to Lucy Walters. He died at the age of thirty-six, on the 15th of July 1685. &quot; Thus ended,&quot; says Evelyn, &quot;this quondam duke, darling of his father and the ladies, being extremely handsome and adroit ; an excellent souldier and dancer, a favourite of the people, of an easy nature, debauched by lusts, seduced by crafty knaves, who would have set him up only to make a pro perty, and took the opportunity of the king being of another religion to gather a party of discontented men. He failed and perished.&quot; Authorities for Monmouth s career are, besides the known modern histories, Roberts s Life (1844), Evelyn s and Pepys s Diaries, Old- mixon s History (1724), James II. s Memoirs, Clarke s Life of James, Keresby s Memoirs, Sidney s Diary (1843), Scott s notes to Absalom and Achitophel, and The Heroic Life, &c. (1683). For the rebellion, Lord Grey s Secret History should be consulted. (0. A.) MONMOUTH, GEOFFREY OF. See GEOFFREY OF MON MOUTH. MONOPHYSITES. See EUTYCHES and JACOBITE CHURCH. MONOPOLI, a city of Italy, in the province of Bari, is situated on the coast of the Adriatic, 25 miles by rail south-east of Bari. It is a bishop s see, is surrounded by ancient walls, and possesses a castle built by Charles V. in 1552, a cathedral, and a hospital dating from 1368. The harbour is neither large nor well protected, but a certain amount of trade is carried on in the export of local pro ducts. The population was about 12,000 in the 17th century; 12,377 in 1861; and 13,000 in 1871, that of the commune being 20,918. Monopoli probably grew up after the destruction of Egnatia (5th century), the ruins of which lie a few miles to the south. MONOPOLY (/xovoTTwXia, exclusive sale). Though still used in the sense of the original Greek, the term is more accurately applied only to grants from the crown or from parliament, the private act of an individual whereby he obtains control over the supply of any particular article being properly defined as &quot; engrossing.&quot; It was from the practice of the sovereign granting to a favourite, or as a reward for good service, a monopoly in the sale or manu facture of some particular class of goods that the system of protecting inventions arose, and this fact lends additional interest to the history of monopolies (see PATENTS). When the practice of making such grants first arose it does not appear easy to say. Sir Edward Coke laid it down that by the ancient common law the king could grant to an inventor, or to the importer of an invention from abroad, a temporary monopoly in his invention, but that grants in restraint of trade were illegal. Such, too, was the law laid down in the first recorded case, Darcy.v. Allin (the case of monopolies, 1602), and this decision was never overruled, though the law was frequently evaded. The patent rolls of the Plantagenets show few instances of grants of mono polies (the earliest known is temp. Edw. III.), and we come down to the reign of Henry VIII. before we find much evidence of this exercise of the prerogative in the case of either new inventions or known articles of trade. Elizabeth, as is well known, granted patents of monopoly so freely that the practice became a grave abuse, and on several occasions gave rise to serious complaints in the House of Commons. Lists prepared at the time show that many of the commonest necessaries of life were the subjects of monopolies, by which their price was grievously enhanced. That the queen did not assume the right of making these grants entirely at her pleasure is shown, not only by her own statements in answer to addresses from the House, but by the fact that the preambles to the instruments convey ing the grants always set forth some public benefit to be derived from their action. Thus a grant of a monopoly to sell playing-cards is made, because &quot; divers subjects of able bodies, which might go to plough, did employ them selves in the art of making of cards&quot;; and one for the sale of starch is justified on the ground that it would prevent wheat being wasted for the purpose. Accounts of the angry debates in 1565 and 1601 are given in Hume and elsewhere. The former debate produced a promise from the queen that she would be careful in exercising her privileges ; the latter a proclamation which, received with great joy by the House, really had but little effect in stopping the abuses complained of. A few grants were cancelled, others limited, and others again left to the action of the ordinary law courts (instead of the privy council). In speaking of the results of the proclamation, previous writers seem to have been misled by the promises made in the queen s speech, promises by no means carried out in the text of the document itself, a copy of which still exists in the British Museum. In the first parliament of James I. a &quot;committee of grievances &quot; was appointed, of which Sir Edward Coke was chairman. Numerous monopoly patents were brought up before them, and were cancelled. Many more, however, were granted by the king, and there grew up a race of &quot;purveyors,&quot; who made use of the privileges granted them