Page images
PDF
EPUB

COLONIAL IRON MANUFACTURE

587

masters; and it did not become law, for the crisis caused by the strained relations with Sweden ended with the death of Charles XII.

In the following twenty years the production of iron made steady progress in the American colonies, and the export from Virginia and Maryland slowly increased. Great Britain itself still depended on Sweden and to a growing extent on Russia for considerable supplies

of bar iron. It was computed that England imported annually

3

Sweden and 5000 tons from Russia. Between 1729 and 1735 the annual import of iron from the American Colonies was 2111 tons. "It is strange", Gee says ruefully, "that this great charge to the nation should not be thought of, and encouragement given to the subjects of this kingdom to set up iron works in the Plantations, and there employ the national stock, rather than let foreigners run away with so great a sum."2 A number of merchants did raise the question of encouraging the importation of pig and bar iron from the colonies in 1737; but they found the opposition as powerful as ever. The Committee of the House of Commons, to which the matter was referred, reported that any encouragement would be prejudicial to iron smelting at home, and the House itself so far from sympathising with the petitioners was prepared to impose restrictions on the colonial industry. Again the question was allowed to drop. In the presence of the divergent interests legislation was impossible until 1750 when the French orientation of Swedish policy induced the House of Commons to attempt to find a solution. A compromise was embodied in the Act then passed. Colonial bar iron was to be imported to London-and London only-duty free, for since the London craftsmen normally used Swedish iron, the English ironmasters had no strong objection to this concession. It was, however, laid down that colonial bar iron should not be sent coastwise or more than ten miles by land from London. These limitations, which were removed in 1757, were based on apprehensions which had little foundation, for the importation of bar iron from America remained small during the whole colonial period. Before the passing of the Act large quantities of pig iron were being imported on the payment of a duty of 3s. 9 d. a ton, and the removal of this charge together with the growth of the industry in the colonies was followed by an increase in importation. But colonial iron-pig and bar-was never more than about a tenth of the total import of Great Britain, and dependence on Sweden and Russia was ultimately removed by technical changes in the industry itself. The removal of duties on the import of colonial iron, since the duty on pig iron was small and bar iron could only enter through the port of London, was a slight concession to the colonies; yet it was counterbalanced in the Act by clauses which forbade the colonists to

1 Scrivenor, H., History of the Iron Trade, pp. 72 and 81.
2 Gee (ed. of 1767), pp. 116–17.

3 23

Geo. II, cap. 29.

establish mills for rolling and slitting iron, or to set up plating forges and steel furnaces. These restrictions, so far as they were enforced, affected the northern colonies rather than the southern, for in the latter it was pig iron that was usually produced. The extent of the hardship they involved is impossible to assess. In some cases they were seriously regarded, in others they were not; but the colonial iron industry as a whole was as yet in too primitive a condition to feel the full effect of such prohibitions. It is significant, however, that with iron as with sugar, colonial policy threatened to bear heavily on the northern colonies.

By the middle of the century circumstances were calling for a revision of opinion on the relative importance of the colonies. The fact could not be disguised that the potentialities of the West Indies had been over-estimated. Jamaica, which had been declared "the most valuable Plantation belonging to the Crown", the loss of which would "probably be followed with the ruin of our interest in America",1 had proved a disappointment. Despite the variety of its soil and the diversity of its crops-sugar, coffee, cotton, ginger and pimento— its white population was only about 12,000. There and elsewhere in the West Indies the growth of the white population seemed to be arrested. This was due to a number of causes. White settlers were ignorant of the nature of tropical diseases; their diet, with an excessive consumption of meat and rum, made them easy victims to the frequent epidemics. The mortality among children was high. Consequently any increase in population depended on immigration, and this was discouraged by the prevailing economic system. Planters found it profitable to cultivate large areas by means of slave labour, and there was little opening for poor whites. Attempts were made indeed by means of "deficiency laws" to insist that a certain proportion should be maintained between the number of blacks and whites employed; but these were unsuccessful because planters preferred paying the fine for breaking the law to incurring the expense of observing it. In fact, the fines became a recognised source of local revenue. In Barbados, which was the most flourishing island in the first part of the eighteenth century, the white population never reached 20,000, while the number of slaves is said to have amounted to 70,000 in 1762. Such figures as can be obtained reveal a similar position in the Leeward Islands-a stationary or even declining white and an increasing slave population. While the white population of the British West Indies was possibly 40,000 and showed no tendency to a natural increase, the population of the continental colonies exhibited that capacity for doubling itself in a generation which afterwards attracted the attention of Malthus. By the middle of the century there were well over a million white inhabitants in these colonies and something like 300,000 negroes, mostly in the tobacco

1 Wood, A Survey of Trade, pp. 173-4.

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 con tinental 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.

1 30 Geo. II, cap. 9.

* Kimball, G. S., Corresp. of Pitt with Col. Governors, 11, 320.

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. 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.

« PreviousContinue »