inclusion of rice in the clause of a bill of 1705 which enumerated molasses, maintaining that the carrying of such a commodity directly to the European continent was "to the great prejudice of the trade of the kingdom and the lessening of the correspondence and relation between this kingdom and the plantations". But so manifestly disadvantageous was this enumeration of rice and so many were the protests raised against it, that at least as early as 1721 and finally in 1731 and 1735 the restriction was in part removed and both South Carolina and Georgia were allowed to export rice directly to points south of Cape Finisterre. This privilege was further extended in 1764 and 1765 to include other colonies and a wider southern area. Naval stores, copper, beaver and all other furs followed rice and molasses, thereby adding staples that affected the northern as well as the southern colonies. Beaver was enumerated to keep it out of the hands of the French, with whom Great Britain was in continuous conflict over the monopoly of fish and furs. After 1764 the list was further extended by the addition of coffee, pimento, cocoanuts, whale fins, raw silk, hides and skins, pot and pearl ashes, iron, and lumber from America, and gum senega from Senegambia, a royal colony for twenty years after 1763.1 In 1766 and 1767, when England was endeavouring to tighten up her whole colonial system, the rule was laid down that even if a commodity were not enumerated it had to be sent to England or to some country south of Cape Finisterre, thus making complete the monopoly of the colonial market, as far as northern Europe was concerned. This was what many mercantilists had wanted from the beginning, for it prohibited all direct trade in colonial products north of Spain. Mercantilism in its relation to the colonies had now reached its peak.

The Act of 1660 covered two of the three main objects of the Navigation Acts-shipping and the enumeration. The third-the staple-was dealt with in 1663. The measure then passed was known as "An Act for the Encouragement of Trade", and in two of its clauses provided that all commodities of the growth, production, and manufacture of Europe, destined for the Plantations, should first be carried to England, Wales, or Berwick-on-Tweed in lawful shipping, lawfully manned, and there put on shore before being carried to America. This meant that with a few exceptions all the foreign import trade of the Plantations had to pass through England as a staple, and that foreign or manufactured goods had to be unladen in one or other of her ports and there reladen as if they were English commodities. The same drawbacks were allowed (except in the case of foreign ironware and cordage) on all continental goods re-exported from England to Newfoundland and the Plantations that were allowed under the same circumstances to foreign countries. The exceptions

1

5 George III, c. 37; Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (The World's Classics edition), II, 273. * Board of Trade Journal, 1714-8, p. 119.

THE STAPLE ACT OF 1663

275

admitted by the law were three. First, salt for the fisheries of New England, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland, much of which came from the Isle of May (Maio) of the Cape Verde group belonging to Portugal, the sole right of exportation having been granted to England by Portugal in the marriage treaty of 1661. Secondly, servants, horses, and provisions from Scotland and Ireland, and, later, linen from the latter country. The exception ceased to apply to Scotland after 1707,1 and in the case of Ireland led to some ingenious attempts at evasion, as when shippers listed candles and soap as "provisions" and when called to book offered to prove their point by eating them.2 Thirdly, wines from Madeira and the Azores, a traffic that attained considerable dimensions in the northern colonies, in which wheat, flour, and pipe staves were exchanged for wine. In this connection the question arose as to whether or not wines from the Canary Islands were similarly excepted. The matter was first brought up in 1686; then in 1702 Randolph called attention to it and asked for a ruling. As might have been expected, the customs officials and the Board of Trade replied in the negative, but the legal authorities had their doubts, for they thought that the Canaries were more African than were either Madeira or the Azores and so ought to be equally privileged. A decision in a New York vice-admiralty court in 1704 was adverse, and it was generally conceded in the colonies that Canary wines could not be imported directly. Hence much smuggling took place. 5

The idea of the staple was old, but its application to the colonies, with the whole realm of England as the staple, was new. The objects of the Act were to maintain "a greater correspondence between [the Plantations, peopled by the king's subjects] and this kingdom of England", to keep them "in a firmer dependence upon it", to render them "more beneficial and advantageous unto it in the further employment and increase of English shipping, vent of English woollen and other manufactures and commodities", to render "the navigation from the same more safe and cheap", to make "the kingdom a staple, not only of the commodities of those Plantations but also of the commodities of other countries and places, for the shipping of them"; and to follow "the usage of other nations" of keeping "their plantation trade to themselves". The colonies were increasing in number and importance; old settlements were being strengthened and new settlements proposed. Plans for the seizure of New Amsterdam were under consideration, and a general advance for the benefit of trade

1 Cal. St. Pap. Col. 1661-8, p. 526.

* Some Thoughts humbly offered toward a Union between Great Britain and Ireland (1708), p. 19;

Cal. St. Pap. Col. 1677-80, no. 1304.

*P.R.O., C.O. 388/8, E. 9, p. 13.

Ibid. 389/28, pp. 43-5. Representation of 15 August 1721.

Historical MSS Comm., Polwarth MSS, 11, 14.

* Repeated in 22-23 Charles II, c. 26, §§ x, xi.

and colonisation was already in the minds of the Duke of York and those in his confidence, who were projecting the founding of new colonies-the Jerseys, the Carolinas, and the Bahamas. To Englishmen colonies were becoming a part of the fixed scheme of things and the proper principles according to which their relationship with the mother country was to be determined were already undergoing definition. A new era was opening, and the dependence, even subserviency, of the colonies upon England had to be made clear at the outset. To allow the colonists to buy elsewhere their woollens and the finished products of countries other than England and to carry them from the place of purchase directly to their own ports, passing by the merchants and manufacturers of the mother country and taking advantage of the lower French and Dutch prices, to their own advantage and the injury of English trade-such a policy was inconceivable. It was necessary to consider not only the loss of the customs revenue, the injury to the balance of trade, and the political disadvantages that might accrue, but also the possible frustration of the efforts the Government was making to recover from the bankruptcy of the Puritan administration and to place the kingdom once more on a sound financial basis. Trade was becoming essential to the attainment of solvency, and this fact was never more evident than during the first years of the Restoration when the Navigation Acts were passed.

Immediate steps were taken to put the Acts into execution. Letters were written to the governors of all the colonies ordering them to see that all foreign trade with the Plantations be strictly prohibited, and reminding them that any neglect or connivance on their part would be followed by heavy penalties. The Act of 1660 required of them, at the risk of being discharged from their employment if they failed, a solemn oath binding them to do their utmost that the Act "be punctually and bona fide observed", an obligation that was repeated and reinforced by the Order in Council of June 1663.1 The governors were also to keep accounts of all vessels trading to their particular colonies and twice a year to send to England the names of both ships and masters. They were to transmit copies of all bonds, such as the Act required all masters to furnish at the port of clearance to the effect that they would carry their cargoes to England or to some other Plantation. They were to scrutinise all foreign-built ships coming to the colony to see whether or not such ships were trading legally, had the proper certificates, and had given the proper bond. The Act of 1663 required all masters to furnish the governors with complete information regarding their ships and cargoes, and placed the governors themselves under the additional obligation of taking oath in England before departure and of giving security at the Exchequer or elsewhere. According to later rulings all governors appointed by proprietors were to have their bonds approved by the Attorney1 New York Colonial Documents, III, 45-6.

THE PLANTATION DUTY

277

general, their securities accepted at the Exchequer, and their certificates issued out of the office of the King's Remembrancer.1 Bonds in the case of the corporate colonies were to be given in America, though the form of such bonds had not been drawn up even as late as 1722.2 From time to time special trade instructions were issued to the governors, which in the case of the proprietary colonies were sent to the proprietors. Thus in all the colonies-royal, proprietary, and corporate the governors were made the sole responsible agents for carrying out the Acts of Trade in America. 3

During the period from 1660 to 1673, experience showed that an effective administration of the Acts was going to be both difficult and slow. One obstacle was removed by the capture of New Netherland from the Dutch in 1664, but even that event was far from ending the Dutch trade with the colonies. Trouble also arose because of the exclusion of the Scots, while within a few years the place of Ireland in the commercial scheme was to prove so unsatisfactory as to become a matter of acute controversy. But for the moment the most pressing issue was not the problem of Holland, Scotland, or Ireland, but a defect which revealed itself in the Act of 1660 and which called for early attention because the colonials were taking advantage of it. The situation was as follows. Under the Act all persons wishing to trade in enumerated commodities had to furnish a bond in England, the value of which was determined by the tonnage of their ships, to carry the staple-sugar, tobacco, etc.-either directly to England or to one of the Plantations. This carrying of an enumerated commodity from one Plantation to another, without customs duty at either end, was permitted in order that a coastwise trade might be built up for the benefit of the colonists themselves. But in operation this privilege was abused and led to what was considered in England an evasion of the law. When once tobacco or sugar had been shipped from one colony to another, the shipper, who was generally a New Englander dealing in Maryland or North Carolina tobacco, believed that the letter of the law had been met and his security released from the penalty of the Act, and, disregarding the manifest intent of the law that such commodity should be set ashore for the use of the colonists, proceeded to reship all or a part of the cargo to some European port, Amsterdam or Hamburg.4

This practice was clearly illegal, and, as the evidence in the case seemed ample, Parliament in 1672 took the matter in hand and passed the supplementary or explanatory Act of 1672-3. By this Act provision was made that all vessels arriving at the Plantations and intending to take on a lading of enumerated commodities, the captains of which could not show to the governor (or later to the naval officer or the royal collector) a certificate that they had taken out bond in England to carry their cargo directly back to the mother country, should pay a duty at the colonial port of clearance. This payment, which came to be known as the "plantation duty", was a penny a pound in the case of tobacco and other amounts for other enumerated commodities. Even if the captain paid the duty, he was still obliged to deposit a bond with the governor, naval officer, or collector, binding himself, in case he did not unload the goods at another colony, to take them directly to England.

This Act of 1673 played a very important part in the commercial relations between England and her colonies and in the relations of the colonies with each other. Nearly all the chief ports of the mainland did an extensive re-exporting trade, sending either to England or to some other British continental or West Indian port enumerated products that were of the growth of other colonies. Under the law, this coastwise and West Indian trade, which employed almost entirely vessels that were colonial built and colonial owned, increased very rapidly. Tobacco was carried to the West Indies, and sugar and molasses in return were brought to Boston, Newport, New York, Philadelphia, Norfolk, Brunswick, and Charleston, either for local use or for reshipment. Hence the imposition of the duty affected many mercantile transactions and raised many questions as to its operation. The law created in colonial ports many royal customs officials, who were appointed by the Commissioners of the Customs in England under authority from the Treasury, and whose business it was to collect the duties, which were those of the English book of rates of 1660 and which had to be paid in silver or its equivalent at sterling values.1

The object of the Act was not revenue but the regulation of trade, that is, its aim was to prevent evasions of the Act of 1660, by rendering unprofitable a direct trade in enumerated commodities with the European continent. Even if the captain took out bond in the colony and paid the duty, he would still have to carry the goods to England unless he unloaded them in the colony to which he was bound. There is reason to think that even after the Act was passed, the Boston merchants, inclined at this time to follow, if they could, their own bent in trade, believed that if they paid the duty they could still carry their goods to Europe.2 So uncertain was the phraseology of the law that in 1676 the Lords of Trade asked the Attorney-general, Sir William Jones, for an opinion. The latter replied that if bonds were taken out in England to bring the enumerated commodities thither, then no