Page images
PDF
EPUB

ECONOMIC SUBJECTION OF COLONIES

567 make sacrifices to attain them. Ships were necessary for the defence and extension of trade, they represented one of the chief forms of fixed capital, and the Navigation Acts offered an indirect subsidy to the builders and owners of them. Capital might have been more profitably invested in other directions, but it was desirable in the national interest to divert it to shipping. The colonial trade, on account of the long voyages and the bulky nature of the cargoes, demanded more ships for the handling of commodities of a given value than the European trade did. This was thought to be in its favour. Private enterprise would have avoided such a trade had it not been able to secure adequate returns. The Navigation Acts by limiting competition offered such returns. Thus the colonists had little of which to complain. If the restrictions were a benefit to the Thames shipbuilders, they were also a benefit to the New England shipbuilders; if they increased the freights which the Virginia tobacco exporters had to pay, they also increased the freights which some English merchants had to pay. Special interests reaped advantages at the expense of other interests; but the mercantilists were satisfied if the upshot was that the amount of shipping-English and colonial -was augmented.

The Navigation Act of 1660, however, gave definite expression to the principle of "enumeration", which obviously involved the subordination of the colonies to the mother country. The intention was to make sure that the commodities enumerated, if sent to Europe, should in the first instance be shipped to England. The mother country was thus to become the entrepôt for important colonial staples, viz. sugar, tobacco, cotton-wool, indigo, ginger, fustic or other dyeing woods. She was herself to be independent of supplies from foreign countries, and what she did not require for her own use she was to re-export. This would mean that to the extent that hopes were realised the balance of trade would be redressed in her favour. The colonies, for their part, were limited to a single market, which tended to reduce the price they received for the commodities. A supplementary Act was passed in 1663 which forbade direct trade between the continent of Europe and the colonies, and constituted England 'a staple, not only of the commodities of those Plantations, but also of the commodities of other countries and places for the supplying of them". A few exceptions were made to this general rule-salt could be sent direct from the continent for the fisheries of New England and Newfoundland, and wines could be shipped from Madeira and the Azores.1

[ocr errors]

Since the colonies were not included within the fiscal system of the mother country, all commodities they sent to England and all commodities shipped from England to them paid import and export duties respectively, unless special provision was made in specific

1 15 Car. II, cap. 7.

cases, e.g. enumerated articles enjoyed a preferential rate. The trade regulations, therefore, were the source of a direct contribution to the State, apart from the indirect advantages the entrepôt trade afforded. Contemporaries were apt to exaggerate the fiscal benefits of the staple system. The main imports from the colonies were sugar and tobacco; if these were re-exported, one-half of the duty in the case of sugar and three-quarters in the case of tobacco was refunded, and, although these duties became much more complicated later, the principle of preference was maintained. The Government received the difference between the tax and the drawback, less the costs of collection, as well as the whole duty on the sugar and tobacco consumed within the country. It was frequently supposed that the colonies paid the duty on the sugar and tobacco consumed in England, a naïve piece of economic analysis which tended to strengthen the impression that the mother country was gaining more than she actually was. The export duties paid on goods sent to the colonies fell on the colonial consumers, but they were generally light. An anomaly of the original system of enumeration was that goods exported from the colonies to England paid import duties, while those which were sent to another colony did not necessarily do so; if the importing colony levied no duties on the goods, or levied lighter duties than the mother country did, it was in effect offering preference. This was met by the Act of 16731 which imposed export duties on enumerated articles if they were shipped to another colony. While the import duties on colonial goods landed in England and the export duties levied on goods sent to the colonies were collected by the Custom House officers in this country, provision had to be made for the collection of the export duties under this Act in the colonies themselves. As already explained, collectors were appointed for this purpose by the Commissioners of Customs, and many difficulties arose.2

After the Revolution of 1688-9 his constant preoccupation with the European war and difficulties at home prevented William III from taking any definite steps with regard to trade affairs until the spring of 1696. By that time considerable outcry had arisen among merchants, for they were suffering from many embarrassments owing to the continuance of the war. It was freely said that the country's economic interests were being neglected. Suggestions were put forward that a council of merchants should be appointed and charged under the terms of an Act of Parliament with the supervision and furtherance of the trade interests of the country. The agitation was met by the establishment of a new Committee for Trade and Plantations subsequently known as the "Board of Trade". The commission issued to this body in May 1696 illustrates very clearly the mercantilist conception of the duties that the State should 125 Car. II, cap. 7, sec. 2. 2 Vide supra, p. 268. 3 Vide supra, pp. 269, 413.

CONSOLIDATION OF THE COLONIAL SYSTEM 569 undertake and of the place that colonies should occupy in a national scheme. The Committee was to enquire what trades were advantageous and what disadvantageous to the country, and it was to explore means of fostering the former and of correcting the latter. It was to consider the "setting on work and employing the poor' of the country. Special attention had to be paid to the colonies, for in the successful development of these new areas might well be found the solution of some of the mother country's more difficult problems. Commodities for which she had hitherto been dependent on foreign countries might be secured from the colonies if the proper steps were taken. This might involve the giving of special encouragement to certain activities in the colonies and the definite discouragement of others. The Committee was in fact expected to work out a complete mercantilist programme; and throughout the period of its existence it certainly attempted to do so, though not with uniform persistency. Its functions were limited to enquiry and report, a fact which largely explains its later ineffectiveness; for the compilation of reports and recommendations, which were either completely ignored or only accepted with serious modifications, did not supply a sufficient stimulus for continuous activity.

The main principles of the colonial system had been defined in the laws of trade and navigation, but it was already quite clear that the enforcement of this code presented considerable difficulties. Evasion was undoubtedly common enough when it offered any advantage. It was impossible to supervise all the shipping along the miles of coast of the mainland of North America and among the intricacies of the West Indies. The war with France made the task more arduous than it would otherwise have been. Further, the Customs officers found that the privileges enjoyed by the charter and proprietary colonies hampered them at every turn. As has been mentioned, Edward Randolph, who had already had much experience as an official in the colonies, was in 1691 appointed surveyor-general of the customs in America. After an extensive tour of inspection he drew up a long indictment against the colonists for breaches of the trade laws. He declared that it was practically impossible to get the juries in the common law courts to return a verdict against those charged with breaking the law.1 In some cases advantage was taken of omissions from or ambiguities in the existing legislation. Many of these difficulties were removed by the comprehensive Navigation Act of 1696,2 the main purpose of which was to define so precisely the application of principles already enunciated that evasion would be more difficult.

The establishment of the new Committee for Trade and Plantations and the passing of the comprehensive Navigation Act coincided with

1 St. Pap. Col., Board of Trade, Plantations Genl., rv, 57; cf. Toppan, R. N., Edward Randolph, v, 117-24. 7 and 8 Will. III, cap. 22.

2

the making of definite provision for the assessing of the volume of trade. In 1696 William Culliford was appointed Inspector-General of Exports and Imports in order that he "might make a balance of the trade between this kingdom and the other parts of the world". He was required to submit regular returns to the House of Commons. From the year of his appointment there is a continuous series of these returns which gave the mercantilists in general and the Board of Trade in particular an indication of the state of trade and guidance as to the policy it was necessary to pursue to correct adverse balances. It is easy to criticise the general idea underlying these compilations and the form in which the figures are presented. The values expressed, for instance, are based on official values as given in the current book of rates and consequently they bear no definite relation to real values. Strictly speaking they are not values at all but quantitative terms (tons, cwts., lbs., yards, feet, etc.) multiplied by the official monetary value for the time being attached to the unit of weight or measure in the case of each commodity. Since the balance of trade was to be found by setting the real value of exports against the real value of imports these figures are not a true means of measuring it. These criticisms, however, are beside the point. The mercantilists had no other statistical method of judging whether commercial policy was or was not achieving the ends at which they aimed. The returns were generally regarded as an "abundant source of parliamentary information". The significance of the figures is, not that they accurately represented the true state of affairs, but that they were generally supposed to be reliable enough for practical purposes.

If the figures for a series of years be taken, a fairly clear conception can be formed of the relative importance contemporaries would attach to trade with the various colonies. The favourite distinction made by mercantilist writers was between Plantations which produced commodities of a different nature from those of the mother country and those which did not; a distinction which was ultimately based on climatic conditions. Tropical and sub-tropical colonies were highly valued. The original system of enumeration was designed to secure the fullest possible benefit from them. In the first place in order of importance according to this theory were Barbados and Jamaica, together with Antigua, Montserrat, Nevis and St Christopher. These Plantations mainly exported sugar and other enumerated articles such as indigo and ginger.

Since sugar cultivation was carried on by means of slave labour, it was intimately connected with the African trade. It is, therefore, necessary to consider the exports from England to Africa as related to and consequent upon the development of the West Indies. The heavy exports to Africa were largely paid for by the purchasers of slaves in the West Indies, and in the circumstances the contention 1 Burke, Edmund, Speeches in the House of Commons, 1, 280.

MERCANTILIST EVALUATION OF THE COLONIES 571 that the institution of slavery was essential to the maintenance of the colonial system could hardly be challenged. Eighteenth-century mercantilists, such as William Wood, Joshua Gee and Malachy

trade that of the West Indies-could not be carried on without slave labour.

Of the continental colonies Virginia and Maryland were regarded as the most valuable because they supplied tobacco. In the earlier part of the seventeenth century attempts had been made to diversify the products of the southern colonies, but the tobacco crop had established itself. By the end of the century it was generally raised on large holdings worked by slave labour. Tobacco was the only important product of the mainland which was included in the original list of enumerated articles. It was not quite in the same category as sugar and other exotics. Alone of the enumerated articles it could be grown in England, but it was felt that the advantages of getting the supply from America—the amount of shipping employed, the market for English manufactures in the colonies, and the heavy yield of the customs duties levied on its importationjustified the step of forbidding the cultivation of the plant in England. The Government took drastic measures to enforce this prohibition, and though English farmers made persistent efforts to evade the regulation, a virtual monopoly for colonial tobacco in the English market was ultimately secured.

Trade with Carolina was as yet of slight importance. The settlements in this area had been promoted with very definite ends in view. They were to produce commodities for which England was then dependent on the countries of southern Europe. For seven years they were to be exempt from the payment of English customs duties on silks, wines, currants, raisins, capers, wax, almonds and olives. If the settlers produced these commodities, they would not find themselves in competition with the existing Plantations, either West Indian or continental, and they would contribute to correct the adverse balance of trade between England and the Mediterranean countries. But the idea that they could fit themselves into such a preconceived scheme is typical of the crude notions which were entertained about the possibilities of colonisation. It is scarcely necessary to say that Carolina fulfilled none of these high expectations, but mercantilists continued to draw attention to her supposed potentialities. In 1729 Joshua Gee is still calling for special measures to induce the colonists to supply what the mother country counted desirable.1 Carolina, however, found a staple crop by a mere accident. A captain of a ship from Madagascar happened to give a settler a bag of seed-rice, and experiment proved that the climate and soil were suitable for its cultivation. It was soon grown in large 1 Gee, Joshua, Trade and Navigation of Great Britain considered (1729), pp. 21-2.

« PreviousContinue »