Page images
PDF
EPUB

.

But there is nothing to show that either Bland or Berkeley had any sufficient justification for their complaints, beyond the self-interest of each as a planter. In later years complaints grew fewer in number, and in 1721 William Byrd of Virginia could find "no inconvenience' in an extension of the enumeration.1 Like Barbados, Virginia and Maryland probably soon learned that there was no use in further expostulation, and that their best policy was to improve their output and adjust themselves to the situation.2

Jamaica occupied a different position from Barbados and Virginia, because it began as a conquered colony in 1655 and so was late in reaching a settled industrial condition. The planters there do not appear to have found the Acts a grievance, partly, no doubt, because they were less dependent on one commodity as a staple, partly because peace with Spain had opened up a lucrative trade with the Spanish-American continent, and partly because their commercial development followed, rather than preceded, the passage of the Navigation Acts. Governor Vaughan, in a report of 1676, said that the colony traded only with England and that the Acts of Trade were regularly observed.

New England, by which term is meant at this time the colony of Massachusetts Bay, had existed as an independent Puritan commonwealth since 1652, and its people looked upon themselves as outside the operation of the Acts, because they had not been represented in the Parliament that passed them. The Puritans had developed an open and free-trade system of their own, which at many points was in conflict with the regulations of the mother country. They did not want to have anything to do with the English system and tried in every way to avoid it. They wished to trade freely with the Dutch and to take their surplus products where they pleased. They ignored the Acts as much as they could, trading directly to Europe and encouraging foreigners to trade with them, hoping to win by their persistence.5 Though England relaxed the operation of the Acts many times in New England's favour, she had no intention of exempting the New Englanders permanently, as appears from the instructions given to the royal commissioners sent over in 1664, requiring them to see that the Acts were "punctually observed" and that all necessary information about ships, masters, and cargoes be duly sent to the "farmers or officers of the customs" in London. The resistance of the Puritan commonwealth was long and determined, but in the end

1 B.T. Journal, 1718-22, p. 328.

2 Sioussat, "Economics and Politics in Maryland, 1720-1750", Johns Hopkins University Studies, XXI, pp. 10 seqq.

Barnes, V., Dominion of New England, chap. vii.

4 New York Colonial Documents, III, 46; Plymouth Records, XII, 198, 302.

Cal. St. Pap. Col. 1661-8, nos. 28, 539, 711; 1675-6, nos. 787, 840, 843, pp. 407, 466-9; A.P.C., Colonial, 1, no. 1068.

A.P.C., Colonial, 1, nos. 504, 606, 730, 1047, and elsewhere.

New York Colonial Documents, III, 51-4, § 11.

THE ACTS LOOSELY ENFORCED

283

the English system won the day, though it required the overthrow of the Massachusetts Bay charter to complete the victory.

It is not surprising that this attempt to put in force a new system of commercial and colonial control, which required so many changes in existing habits and practices in the Plantations, Ireland and elsewhere, should have been at first largely a failure. Until 1675 the Acts were very loosely enforced and it was frequently necessary to ease the situation by granting licences and authorising occasional suspensions of the Act of 1660.1 But in 1665 and again in 1667 the King revoked a previous order granting dispensations, and in 1675 the Privy Council refused further suspensions, asserting that His Majesty was "very tender" in all cases that encroached upon the Act.2 Breaches were numerous during these years. Secret trade with the Dutch prevailed widely; direct commerce with the European continent continued, particularly with Holland and Hamburg-the chief distributing centres for the continental trade in colonial products; and "unfree" ships or foreign-built ships illegally made "free" were employed in the service of the colonies. The colonial governors were clearly not living up to the obligations imposed by their oaths and their bonds, and Governor Wheler of the Leeward Islands wrote in 1672 that he believed he was the only one who was doing his duty. Both the commissioners and the farmers of the customs reported in 1675 that no information had been received as to what the governors were doing to enforce the Acts and they further stated that, with certain exceptions, no copies of bonds had been received in England and no lists of ships lading at colonial ports." It was fast becoming evident that the laws were not obeyed, and that if the system were not to break down at the beginning, vigorous measures must be taken and the machinery of enforcement greatly improved. Therefore the Lords of Trade, newly commissioned in February 1675, and vested with additional functions and powers, decided on a more active policy.

On 24 November 1675 a proclamation, evidently originating with the Lords of Trade, was issued in the name of the King requiring and commanding "all and every his subjects" that they do not for the future presume to disobey the Acts, and enjoining the governors to command all those under their authority to aid the collectors and other officers of the customs in the execution of their respective duties. Then a month later (20 December) the same committee instituted an enquiry into the conduct of the governors and later 1 A.P.C., Colonial, 1, no. 649; Cal. St. Pap. Col. 1661-8, nos. 178, 848, 1340; 1669-74, nos. 43, 50, 51.

* Proclamation of 23 August 1667, Brigham, Proclamations, pp. 114-16; for the Order in Council of 22 March 1665, ibid. p. 114, note 2; for the Order in Council of 24 November 1675, A.P.C., Colonial, 1, no. 1047.

Cal. St. Pap. Col. 1685-8, no. 1221.
Ibid. 1675-6, nos. 694, 695; cf. no. 728.

• Brigham, Proclamations, pp. 126-8.

▲ Ibid. 1669-74, p. 328.

drew up a circular letter regarding the administering of the oaths (a more stringent form being drafted in the following May),1 the taking out of bonds, and the strict execution of the Acts. Already orders had been sent to the Admiralty that the Navy should seize all foreign ships in the Plantations and that additional frigates should be despatched to such waters as the Caribbean and the Chesapeake.2 In 1681 an Order in Council was issued enforcing the rules about bonds and certificates and requiring that these rules be posted in all the customs houses in the kingdom.3 Two years later the Commissioners of the Customs recommended that instructions be sent to the farmers in Ireland ordering them to transmit to England all information possible regarding ships trading between Ireland and the Plantations, and letters were despatched to the King's ministers and consuls in Europe to watch in European ports for enumerated commodities illegally shipped from the colonies. During the next few years additional instructions were prepared by the Commissioners of the Customs, in 1684, 1685 and 1686, which constitute a veritable code for the guidance of the royal officials in America and the West Indies. 5

6

But even these and other efforts, expended during the years from 1675 to 1689, did not bring satisfactory results. Complaints came in from the Commissioners of the Customs to the Treasury of continued evasions of the Acts and of the connivance or negligence of the governors, particularly in connection with the French and the Dutch in the West Indies. Edward Randolph's reports from New England had been largely influential in effecting the annulment of the Massachusetts Bay charter in 1684, and the Dominion of New England that followed under Andros came to a disastrous end in 1689. The troubles in Maryland, the ill-treatment there of the collector Badcock, the murders of Rousby and Payne, the complaints of Blakiston, their successor as collector, the hostility of the planters to the royal frigate that cruised up and down the Chesapeake, and the further comments of Randolph on the derelictions of the colonists in general, were all causes of embarrassment to the authorities at home. The carrying of enumerated commodities to Ireland and particularly to Scotland was becoming far too common an occurrence; the forging of certificates and cockets and the controversies that were arising as to the interpretation of the Acts were making it difficult to enforce them; while the efforts of the Scots to establish a colonial commerce of their own, as seen in the Scottish Act of 1693 encouraging foreign trade and that of 1695 creating the "Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies," commonly known as the Darien Company, combined with 1 A.P.C., Colonial, nos. 1080, 1171. 2 Cal. St. Pap. Col. 1661-8, no. 1884. 3A.P.C., Colonial, п, no. 26.

4 Cal. St. Pap. Col. 1681-5, no. 1200.

5 The circular letter for 1684 has not been found, but it is mentioned in Cal. St. Pap. Col. 1693-6, no. 553.

• Cal. St. Pap. Col. 1685–8, no. 1288; 1689–92, no. 2295; 1693–6, passim.

THE NAVIGATION ACT OF 1696

285

the Scottish liking for illicit trade, aroused consternation and wrath among English statesmen and merchants.1

The years from 1689 to 1696 mark the beginning of a new era in the history of England's commercial and colonial systems. The whole matter of English trade and commerce assumed a new importance after the accession of William III and the naval battle of La Hogue, which firmly re-established England's supremacy at sea. Serious enquiry began to be made by Parliament into the state of the nation and the condition of trade in general, with the special purpose of checking the growth of illicit trade and of determining how far the Scottish Act was likely to be prejudicial to the commerce of the kingdom. Edward Randolph had already suggested many methods of preventing the illegal trade that he was sure existed between the tobacco plantations and Scotland, and of regulating other abuses; and on the recommendation of the Commissioners of the Customs, which was based on memorials sent in by Randolph, the decision was reached to bring in a bill for a new Act of navigation and trade, the object of which was to checkmate the Scottish movement and to remedy “a great many things which the former Acts [were] short in".3 The preparation of this bill was entrusted to the Commissioners of the Customs, who on 16 January 1696 reported that the draft was finished and in the hands of the Attorney-general for presentation to Parliament. After amendment in committee, the bill passed both Houses and on 10 April received the royal assent.*

This Navigation Act of 16965 was a comprehensive measure of administration, containing nothing that was new in principle, but much, derived from the experience of the preceding twenty-five years, that was new as to the methods of enforcement. It was supplemental only to the Acts of 1660 and 1673, and to that part only of the first Act which had to do with shipping. It did not deal directly with either the enumeration or the staple, though in its application it touched the enumeration very closely. Its main purpose was to prevent "the great abuses that were daily being committed, to the prejudice of English navigation and the loss of a great part of the plantation trade of this kingdom, by the artifice and cunning of illdisposed persons [i.e. the Scots?]". Therefore it enacted as follows: That after 28 March 1698 no goods or merchandise whatsoever should be imported into or exported out of any colony or Plantation of His Majesty in Asia, Africa or America, or be laden or carried from any one port or place in the said colonies or Plantations to any other port or place in the same [or to the kingdom of England, Dominion

1 Insh, G. P., "Darien Shipping Papers", Publications of Scottish Historical Society, N.S. III, vol. vi, Introduction; Bingham, H., "Early History of the Scots Darien Company", Scottish Historical Review, III, nos. 10, 11, 12. 3 Ibid. p. 7.

2 House of Lords MSS, N.S. 11, § 955.

Ibid. pp. 17, 21, 22–3, 233-4; Čal. St. Pap. Col. 1693-6, nos. 2187, 2243. 5 7-8 William III, c. 22.

of Wales, or town of Berwick-on-Tweed] in any but English-built ships, or the build of Ireland, or of the said colonies or Plantations (including the build of Guernsey and Jersey (§ xvii)), and wholly owned by the people thereof, except such ships as should be taken as prizes and condemnation thereof made in one of the courts of Admiralty in England, Ireland or the Plantations, and navigated with masters and three-quarters of the men English or colonials. Prize ships were to be manned in the same way.

All governors were to take oath to carry out the terms of the Acts, which oath was to be administered by such persons as His Majesty might commission. In default of such oath, the governors were liable to be deprived of their posts and to forfeit £1000 each. As time went on, these penalising clauses lengthened and became increasingly severe. Early instructions, such as those to Dongan of New York, imposed no penalty, while those of sixty and seventy-five years later— such as the instructions to Cornwallis of Nova Scotia and Bernard of New Jersey, for example-declare that in case of dereliction the governor would lose his position and forfeit £1000 and in addition "suffer such other fines, forfeitures, pains, and penalties [as are provided for in the laws] and also receive the most rigorous marks of our highest displeasure and be prosecuted with the utmost severity of law for your offence against us". The guilty governor would also forfeit all right to further employment under the Crown.2 In 1701 some doubt arose as to whether a lieutenant-governor-in this case, of St Christopher-could be removed and fined, the Attorney-general ruling that he could be removed but not fined.3

The powers and functions of all royal officials for collecting and managing the King's revenue in the colonies and for inspecting the Plantation trade were defined as those laid down for the corresponding officials in England (§ vi). Inasmuch as the clauses of the Act of 1673 relating to the Plantation duty had never been clearly understood, the Act declared that even if the duty were paid at the colonial port of clearance, bond must still be furnished by the captain to carry enumerated commodities to England, in case such commodities were not landed for actual consumption at the first colonial port of entry (§ viii). The colonies were to pass no laws contrary to the spirit or letter of the Act or of any other Act that related to the Plantations. Provision was made against false or forged certificates— such as had frequently been used by Scotsmen and others trading to the Plantations-by a penalty of £500 fine. These certificates were of three varieties: of bonds given in England; of bonds given in the

1 For the commissions see House of Lords MSS, N.S. 11, 422-5. Those for New Hampshire are not given, but see New Hampshire Province Papers, 11, 312.

2 New York Colonial Documents, III, 383-5 (Dongan); ibid. v, 151 (Hunter); New Hampshire Province Laws, II, 650 (B. Wentworth); C.O. 218 3, pp. 391-439 (Cornwallis); New Jersey Archives, 1st ser. IX, 107 (Bernard).

3 Cal. St. Pap. Col. 1701, nos. 390, 507.

« PreviousContinue »