IMPORTANCE OF THE CONTINENTAL COLONIES 589 plantations of Virginia and Maryland and the rice fields of Carolina. This growth of population-mostly by natural increase-had its effect on trade. In the first part of the century the export of tobacco, rice, etc., from the southern colonies had made the value of goods sent to Great Britain from the continental colonies taken as a whole exceed that of the imports from the mother country, i.e. the balance was unfavourable to the mother country. But by the middle of the century the development of the northern and middle colonies not only greatly increased the demand for British goods, but so changed the relative position of north and south that the trade with the continental colonies as a whole became favourable to Great Britain. Since this American demand was largely for manufactured articles, and industrial development in Great Britain was tending to give greater weight to home manufactures than to trade in tropical staples, a new value was set on the northern colonies. Suspicion of the objectives of French policy on the mainland also provoked thought on the question of the future of the British colonies. During the years following the War of the Austrian Succession the French pursued a policy of building forts with the apparent intention of connecting their settlements in Canada with those in Louisiana. The methodical way in which they set about their work aroused considerable alarm. Contemporaries contrasted the French unity of purpose with the suspicion existing between one British colony and another, the constant dissensions between governors and councils in particular colonies, and the illicit trade which was carried on with foreign Plantations. The French were at once enemies to be countered and models to be copied. In the West Indies they encouraged the settlement of white servants; they advanced capital in the form of stock and implements and made it repayable by instalments; and they limited the amount of land an individual could acquire.1 By the work of missionaries and by intermarriage, the French, it was said, had bound the Indians to their interest, and in the event of war they might unite with the French to drive the British into the sea.2 The defence of the continental colonies was indeed becoming a pressing issue. It meant expense, and the mercantilist conception of the colonial system did not include any clear view as to how the expense should be met. Colonies, it was supposed, should pay their way and by means of commercial regulations should be made to contribute something to the mother country. The possession of colonies ought to confer benefits and not involve liabilities. The sea might be policed by the Navy at the expense of the mother country, for this made trade possible and helped to enforce the rules that governed it; but colonies should in time of peace provide for their own defence against Indians and in time of war should assist the 1 Tucker, Josiah, Essay on the Advantages and Disadvantages which respectively attend France and Great Britain with regard to Trade (1753), pp. 22-3. 2 Postlethwayt, 1, 432. mother country if local difficulties arose. Imperial defence was a new problem. The mother country could neither assume full responsibility for it, nor could she induce the colonies to enter into a union among themselves. With the outbreak of the Seven Years' War the question became acute and the attempt to solve it was at the root of the subsequent misunderstandings. By her exertions Great Britain succeeded in expelling the French from Canada; but the effort had involved heavy expenditure, without, as was felt, proper support by the colonists. From the moment that war began between Great Britain and France the trade between British and French colonies should have ceased, no matter what the sacrifice might be. The very fact that the French depended on British supplies provided a weapon by which they could be easily reduced. In the course of the war, however, trade with the enemy, either direct or indirect, continued, much to the embarrassment of the British Navy. An attempt was made to suppress the brisk trade that developed with the Dutch ports of Curaçoa and St Eustatius by placing an embargo on the export of provisions. This was strengthened by an Act in 17571 which prohibited the export of all provisions, except fish and roots and rice under the existing rules, from all colonies to any destination other than Great Britain or a British colony. Still the temptations of the trade were so strong that ways and means for carrying it on were discovered. Under the "Rule of 1756", which laid down the principle that a trade prohibited in peace time cannot be thrown open during war,2 Dutch ships trading with French Plantations were seized by the Navy. But the rule did not apply to free ports. Monte Christi, an insignificant place actually in Spanish San Domingo but near the border of the French part of the island, developed an extensive trade. The irritation of the Home Government with these subterfuges was strongly expressed by Pitt in his despatch of August 1760, when he asserted that owing to the continuance of the trade France was "principally, if not alone, enabled to sustain, and protract, this long and expensive war". Since the French mainly exchanged sugar and molasses for the provisions supplied by the northern colonies the mother country proposed rigorously to enforce the Molasses Act of 1733. But the capture of the French islands—of Guadeloupe in 1759 and of Martinique in 1762—somewhat relieved the situation in the later phases of the struggle. The conclusion of the war precipitated a question which, it has been shown, was becoming more insistent as the respective colonies developed their resources. Did the true economic interests of Great Britain lie in the West Indies or on the American continent? The conquests which had been made at the expense of the French forced politicians to answer this question; for it was recognised that if a 2 Vide supra, p. 551. Kimball, G. S., Corresp. of Pitt with Col. Governors, II, 320. 1 30 Geo. II, cap. 9. GUADELOUPE VERSUS CANADA 591 peace was to be arranged by the new Bute administration it would be necessary to restore some of the French possessions. The problem was what should be retained and what returned. There were those who still contended that it was desirable that colonies should produce commodities different from those of the mother country. Great Britain, they pointed out, needed more sugar plantations. The comparative exhaustion of the old soils, with the consequent high price of sugar in the home market, the loss of European markets and the persistent trade between the British and foreign colonies in sugar and molasses, could be adduced as an argument in favour of this view.1 If Guadeloupe-and possibly Martinique-were retained, the whole position would be changed. The advocates of this plan could show how valuable the trade of Guadeloupe had proved to be since its capture in 1759, and how its temporary incorporation in the British system had eased the position for the northern colonies. The island gave immediate promise of returns which would assist to meet the heavy costs of the war. From the mercantilist point of view the case for its retention was overwhelming. It seems practically certain that public opinion was opposed to returning it to France. But the British West Indian interest strenuously resisted this course. They realised that the acquisition of any of the French islands would mean the relative decline of the older British possessions because they would not be able to compete in costs of production. Monopoly of the market of the mother country was necessary to maintain their prosperity. The West Indian interest, therefore, supported the restoration of the sugar islands to France; and they gained their point, despite the fact that it meant dear sugar in Great Britain and that it limited the British market to which the northern colonies had access. Thus the creation of a vested interest by mercantilist policy engendered an opposition to the further extension of the very principle on which it was grounded. The chief consideration in favour of keeping Canada was that so long as France was able to pursue her designs on the mainland the continental colonies would not enjoy security. Imperial defence could be advanced as a reason for new territorial commitments. But no obvious and immediate commercial advantage could be alleged. The value of the trade of Canada was not to be compared with that of Guadeloupe. It was somewhat cynically pointed out, too, that to give the continental colonies a sense of security was to run the risk that they would become even less submissive to the mother country than they had been.2 It was to give them opportunities of indefinite expansion in a climate in which crops could be grown and cattle raised for which a market could most easily be found in the West Indies. The British area in the West Indies had been restricted by 1 Vide supra, p. 503. * [Burke, William], Remarks on the Letter Address'd to Two Great Men (1760), p. 50. the restoration of the islands to France. If the colonists, therefore, returned to their old practice of disregarding the Acts of Trade, the French Plantations would again reap the advantages of adequate supplies of provisions and a good market for sugar and molasses. If the mother country used her experience during the war to suppress illicit trading, she would be countering the natural development of the colonies and provoking opposition. Now that the French menace in Canada had been removed, opposition might well take a new form. In justice to the colonial system as it worked before 1763 it ought to be judged without reference to subsequent events. But it is difficult to do so. The older writers were inclined to seize upon the details of the commercial policy as a deep-rooted cause of and ample justification for the ultimate revolt of the continental colonies. A reaction against this view has almost gone to the extreme of denying that commercial regulations caused any friction. The truth is that there are no means of establishing any simple generalisation. It has been contended that the attitude of the mother country towards the colonies was dictated by the political exigencies of the moment and was not based on any intelligible economic principles. On the contrary, it has been argued that a clear conception of a well-knit system guided successive governments in attempting to realise the ideal of a self-contained empire. The first view makes it possible to approve or disapprove of isolated cases of interference with the normal economic development of the colonies, or even to applaud a certain amount of "salutary neglect." The latter admits that there was a system against which an indictment might be drawn. But the discussion as to whether there was or was not a system is hardly a fruitful one. A survey of the period as a whole points to the conclusion that the opportunities opened up by colonisation suggested to an age obsessed by mercantilist ideas that the movement could be employed to promote national prosperity, particularly by eliminating adverse balances of trade. In practice, however, the material proved to be intractable. Schemes miscarried and compromises had to be effected. "Sometimes indeed there is a mighty enquiry into trade", complained Joshua Gee, "and persons are called upon to give their thoughts, but commonly those enquiries die."2 The advocates of a thorough-going application of principles were apt to overlook the difficulty of reconciling opposing interests, and they were too often unmindful of Matthew Decker's warning that "in endeavouring to force nature the expense is certain but the success is doubtful". There are no means of assessing at all precisely the balance of advantage and disadvantage of such measures as were adopted. The principle of enumeration was undoubtedly designed to bring profit Beer, G. L., Commercial Policy of England towards the American Colonies, p. 89. 2 Gee (ed. of 1767), p. 115. 3 Decker, Matthew, Essay on the Causes of the Decline of Foreign Trade (1749), p. vi. EFFECTS OF COMMERCIAL REGULATIONS 593 to the mother country. This applied especially to the two important staples, tobacco and sugar. The results in these two cases were quite different, though this could not have been foreseen. The supply of tobacco so greatly increased that the price fell and a larger proportion was re-exported. Whether the price would have been higher had the planters been free to export to any market is problematical. The countries of southern Europe would almost certainly have continued to exclude it in favour of other sources of supply, and there is much force in the contention that for northern Europe Great Britain was the natural entrepôt for the trade.1 The sugar planters had a monopoly of the British market, and there is good evidence that they exploited it to their own advantage. When they secured the right of direct export to Europe in 1731, they were not able to make much use of it. The enumeration of copper, beavers and furs in 1722 was of slight importance. Permission was given to export rice to southern Europe when it was shown that its strict enumeration damaged the interests of Carolina. The policy of paying bounties on the production of certain commodities in the colonies was of course a benefit to particular colonial interests. It was mostly unsuccessful with respect to hemp and timber, but large sums were paid out for tar and pitch throughout the colonial period. The Carolinas profited from this expenditure, for they possessed great pine forests; so, although the mother country did not succeed in the original intention of inducing the northern colonies to produce naval stores, she did stimulate a development in the south which was a benefit to the shipbuilding industry in the north. The payment of a bounty on indigo in 1748 promoted the cultivation of it to such an extent that the older trade with India suffered an eclipse.2 The Carolinas, and to a lesser extent Jamaica and Barbados, benefited from this expenditure. As to the northern colonies the Navigation Acts operated as a bounty on shipbuilding in so far as they restricted the carrying-trade to British ships. The Thames shipbuilders found that the New England colonies with their great supplies of cheap timber could undersell them in the home market. American-built ships were sent either direct to Great Britain for sale or with cargoes to the West Indies, where they unloaded and took freights consigned to British merchants. This sale of ships was a considerable means of making remittances to the mother country. The restrictions on the manufacture of woollens, on the export of hats and on the development of the iron industry were objectionable in principle and to some degree appear to have been oppressive in practice. Contemporaries were satisfied that the colonial system attained its purpose of promoting the prosperity of the mother country. Statistics 1 Ashley, Sir Wm., "The Commercial Legislation of England and the American Colonies, 1660-1760" in Surveys Historic and Economic, pp. 317-18. 2 Econ. Journal, XXII, 237. CHBE I 38 |