INSTRUCTIONS TO GOVERNORS 289 measure received the royal assent, a circular letter was despatched by the Lords of Trade to the governors of all the colonies with orders that this Act and "all other laws made for the encouragement of navigation and the securing the plantation trade to the kingdom" be published and "strictly put in execution".1 In Maryland, and perhaps elsewhere, the Act was submitted to the attorney-general of the province, who reported on it at length, and measures were taken at once for putting it in force. The lawyers were asked about any colonial legislation that had been passed contrary to the Act; public enquiry was set on foot as to whether there were any "Scotchmen” in places of trust; the clause about the registration of ships was ordered to be posted in every county court-house; the naval officers were instructed to give security; and all officials were warned to look out for forged or counterfeit certificates. Maryland sent to the Commissioners of the Customs for two dozen copies of the Act and as many of the book of rates for the use of the several counties of the province. The letter of the Lords of Trade was followed the next year (8 March 1697) by a new and elaborate set of instructions, and at about the same time (12 April 1697) the Commissioners of the Customs themselves wrote transmitting copies of the Act and requesting obedience and co-operation.3 From this time forward all newly appointed governors, sent from England, were given printed copies of all the Acts relating to trade before they went to the colonies, together with books of rates and blank specimens of all certificates. Regularly thereafter they received "trade instructions", drafted by the Commissioners of the Customs, as a part of their usual orders from the Crown. These instructions, relatively brief at first, became very formidable after 1715 and particularly after 1760. A thorough knowledge of the Acts was an essential part of the governor's business, for the instructions themselves were very perfunctory and of little value in enabling him to secure their enforcement. The machinery in the colonies for the carrying out of the Acts was at first very incomplete and imperfect, and the efforts which continued to be made for many years to render it more efficient were never very successful. The long and deeply indented coastline of the continent and the proximity of foreign possessions in the Gulf of St Lawrence and the West Indies made illicit trade difficult to control; the small salaries and fees, the scarcity of hard money, and the hostility of the colonists made connivance and fraud a not uncommon occurrence; while the inability of the Admiralty to furnish a sufficient number of frigates and scouting boats for the arrest of offenders in American waters rendered the risk of detection slight. In the matter of the enumerated commodities, the system worked fairly well; but in that of manufactured goods from England and the 1 C.O. 324/5, pp. 382-3. 2 Maryland Archives, XX, 567–70. House of Lords MŠS, N.S. 11, 483–8, 494–9; Maryland Archives, xxIII, 349. CHBEI 19 European continent it was perhaps less successful. As regards the later regulative and supplemental Act of 1733, commonly known as the Molasses Act, the system was not successful at all. It was rigid in theory and plan, but very elastic and adjustable in practice, and on the whole did not seriously interfere with either the growth or the prosperity of the colonies. The centre and mainstay of the whole system was the governor, who was the representative of the Crown in the royal colonies and the chief link in the chain of connection between mother country and colonies. Next in importance was the naval officer, who took the place of the governor as the eyes and ears of the Crown in all that concerned the shipping clauses of the Acts. The Act of 1663 provided (§ viii) that no ship or vessel should lade or unlade any goods or commodities whatsoever until the master or captain had first made known to the governor of the Plantation, or to such person or officer as should be by him thereunto authorised and appointed, the arrival of the ship, with her name and the name and surname of her master or captain, and have shown to him, by displaying a certificate of registration, that she was English-built and "that no foreigner, directly or indirectly, had any share or part or interest therein". The captain was also to deliver to the governor or his "appointee" a true and perfect inventory or invoice of the cargo. This "appointee" was made more specific in the Act of 1696, where he is called the "naval officer". The earliest naval officers in the royal colonies were the governors themselves, and where, as in Barbados and Jamaica, the term "naval office" appears, it undoubtedly meant a clerical office under the governor's immediate control. The first recorded appointment of a "clerk of the naval office" or naval officer seems to have been in 1676, and in Barbados and Jamaica regular appointments were made henceforth by the governor.1 In Virginia, where there were many rivers and no single port of entry, six naval officers existed, generally members of the council, collectors, and sometimes justices of the peace, a form of pluralism common in the colonies,2 and forbidden in Maryland and Virginia, though nowhere else, by the governor's instructions, because, as the Board of Trade wrote, it was not proper that incumbents of these offices should sit on the council, which had the duty of receiving the reports and examining the accounts of the collectors and naval officers. Maryland had five naval officers, but less pluralism, though distances were almost as great there as in Virginia and available men equally scarce. Massachusetts in 1682 appointed two, at Boston and Salem, named by the Assembly and 1 Cal. St. Pap. Col. 1675-6, no. 960, p. 422; 1677-80, no. 482; 1681-5, nos. 732, I200. 2 Maryland Archives, v, 291; Cal. St. Pap. Col. 1696-7, p. 609; 1699, p. 312; 1700, pp. 310-11; 1702, p. 84; 1704-5, pp. 497, 627, 737, 742; 1711-12, § 345. THE NAVAL OFFICER 291 commissioned by the governor,1 but after 1691, under the new charter, the appointment fell into the hands of the royal governor. In Connecticut the office was controlled by the Assembly at first and afterwards by the governor;2 in Rhode Island by the governor only.3 The question of the appointment of a naval officer presented some difficulties and led to some important variations in practice. The controversy that arose over the King's selecting in 1676 one Abraham Langford as clerk of the naval office in Barbados first raised the issue as to whether, in the face of the wording of the Act of 1663, the King could select his own nominee over the head of the governor, a matter of some concern on account of the significance of the office. Governor Atkins of Barbados claimed that under his commission the seal of the province was good against the King, but he was unable to establish his claim. During the last quarter of the seventeenth century so many rumours arose of collusion between the governors and the naval officers, of duties unperformed or badly performed, and of extravagant fees and charges, that about 1700 the practice arose of appointing the naval officer in England. This marked an ominous extension of the royal control in America and was a direct encroachment on the statutory powers of the governor. Thus there arose three ways of appointing the naval officer: under the great seal of England as a patent office; under the royal sign manual, whereby the office was still retained in the king's hand; and under the seal of the province, with security given to the Commissioners of the Customs in England. The most noteworthy contest that arose was in Massachusetts Bay, where the governor had assigned Byfield Lyde as his deputy, only to have the King in 1733 override the choice by naming Benjamin Pemberton in Lyde's place. By 1752 the governors of the royal colonies everywhere, except in Nova Scotia, had lost control of the office. Inevitably, however, they continued to exercise considerable influence over the management of the office, greater indeed than the orthodox mercantilists deemed wise in view of the need, as they saw it, of greater centralisation of authority. After 1696, definite instructions were issued for the guidance of the naval officers in the performance of their duties. 10 They were to give bond to the governor," with sufficient security, that they would 1 Massachusetts Colonial Records, v, 337-8. 2 Colonial Records of Connecticut, 1689-1706, pp. 374-5; Talcott Papers (Collections, Connecticut Historical Society, IV), 1, 164, 229. 3 Rhode Island Colonial Records, III, 110, 119; IV, 58, 133-5. Cal. St. Pap. Col. 1675-6, no. 947; 1677-80, no. 482, I, p. 535. $ Ibid. 1702, pp. 82-3, 84, 701; 1708-9, no. 39. 7 St. Pap. Dom., George II, CLVI, no. 198. 9 6 North Carolina Records, 1, 497. P.R.O. Chatham MSS, 95, "Lists of Offices"; Brit. Mus., Add. MSS, 22, 129. Abercromby, "Examination", clauses 3 and 4. 13 House of Lords MSS, N.S. II, 475, § 11, 486, §5; Maryland Archives, XXIII, 254-6. For earlier instructions see Cal. St. Pap. Col. 1681-5, nos. 295, 617. 11 Cal. St. Pap. Col. 1702, nos. 428, 537, 925. For a copy, Collections, Connecticut Historical Society, XVI, 214. faithfully and truly execute the Acts; to keep lists of all entrances and clearances, with detailed information regarding the kind of ship, its build, when and where registered, master's name, owner's name, tonnage, guns (if any), men, cargo, etc., and to deliver these lists to the governor, who would transmit them to England; to examine al' certificates, cockets, and navigation bonds, to see that they were correct and authentic, to sign and seal them, and to turn them over to the collector, who would sign them and either retain them himself or lodge them with the governor; and finally to certify to the collector that ships were properly entered and cleared. In some of the colonies they seem to have co-operated in seizing vessels for illegal trading, and in the tobacco and sugar colonies, particularly in times of war, to have acted with the collector in getting "the trade in readiness against the time the convoys should arrive". Usually they were paid by fees but sometimes by percentages, both of which were as a rule insufficient to attract the best men unless other employment furnished additional income. Fees were controlled at first by the governor, later by the Assembly, and after 1760 by the Home Government, which endeavoured to effect a reform of the whole system.1 There were in the colonies collectors of provincial revenues, levied by the colonial Assemblies, and collectors of the king's casual revenues, such as quit-rents, licences, escheats, fines, and forfeitures, and of royal export dues, such as the two shillings a hogshead on tobacco in Virginia and the 4 per cent. export duty in Barbados and the Leeward Islands. The collectors of the latter were appointed from England and held office under the commissioners of the 4 per cent. there. But the only collectors in America on the English establishment were those designated in the Act of 1673 to collect the Plantation duty provided for by that Act. Appointments were made in England of collectors for this purpose as early as 27 November 1673, but it is quite certain that none of these early appointees ever went to the colonies, though it appears that in some of the colonies collections were made in 1674 and 1675 by other officials and by them transmitted to England.2 Gradually in one colony after another the system was set in motion-in North Carolina in 1677, New England in 1678, Pennsylvania in 1682, Rhode Island in 1709, Connecticut and Nova Scotia in 1715-until finally along the mainland and in the West Indies a chain of officials came into being, located at fortyseven different ports and including nearly ninety surveyors, riding surveyors, comptrollers, collectors, searchers, preventive officers, land waiters, and tide waiters. In addition there were watermen, boatmen, 1 North Carolina Records, xxv, 196-8, 225; 5 George III, c. 45, § xlvii; 10 George III, c. 37, § ii; 19 George III, c. 22, § v. C. 2 Calendar of Treasury Books, 1672-5, pp. 424, 427, 460. CUSTOMS OFFICIALS 293 and clerks.1 At first the chief officials were paid by percentage allowances, but after 1698 by salaries, ranging from £200 (Philadelphia) to £30 (Roanoke) for a collector, £75 for a searcher, and £30 and £25 for a waiter. In addition the collector had fees, and a share in forfeitures whenever he acted as informant. Over all were the surveyors-general, who took the place of the governors as responsible supervisors, beginning with Randolph in New England in 1678, Patrick Mein and Robert Quary later, for the whole territory in America. After 1709 there were three surveyors-general, one for the northern district, one for the southern including Jamaica and the Bahamas, and one for Barbados and the Leeward Islands. Still later, three were provided for the mainland alone. In the eighteenth century the surveyor-general was paid £495 a year, including transportation expenses.2 This arrangement continued until 1767 when, with the creation of the American Board of Customs Commissioners sitting at Boston, only the customs officials of the island colonies remained on the English establishment, the others constituting a separate establishment under the Commissioners at Boston. In 1753 Grenville estimated the returns from the Plantation duty as averaging in seven years from £1000 to £2000 a year and the cost of collection from £7000 to £8000, leaving a deficit to be made up from the Exchequer of at least £5000 annually. So much was England willing to pay for what she considered the proper regulation of colonial trade. 3 Instructions to the American customs officials were issued as early as 1685 and were repeated a number of times after 1696.4 The surveyors-general were to serve as supervisors at large within certain prescribed areas. They were authorised to give such orders and directions as they should find necessary for the service and were empowered to enter any ship or dwelling to search for prohibited or uncustomed goods, to seize the same, and to put in force all laws and orders for the better collecting of the rates and duties. Though individual surveyors-general had sat on governors' councils from early times, yet after 1733 all were formally so privileged, ex officiis, in the region over which they had jurisdiction. They appointed the riding surveyor, whose business it was to watch over regions remote and sparsely settled where smuggling was likely to be carried on, and who was empowered, as he moved from place to place, to inspect, search, and seize, whenever necessary, all suspicious vessels. The comptroller served as a check on the collector, inspecting his accounts, joining with him in examining vessels and seeing that the Navigation Acts were enforced. 1 P.R.O. Audit Office, Declared Accounts, Bundle 757, Rolls 801, 803; Auditors of Imprest Accounts, New York Public Library. Cal. Treas. Books and Papers, 1729–33, no. 167. 3 Grenville Papers, II, 113-4: Maryland Archives, xx, 167-71, 351-5, 505-7; xxIII, 4, 358-60; v, 521; House of Lords MSS, N.S. 11, 473-5. |