IRELAND AND THE NAVIGATION ACTS 279 Plantation duty was to be paid, but if the vessel had furnished no such bond or had come from another place than England, then the captain must give bond in the colony and pay the duty.1 The obscurity was not entirely cleared up until 1696, when in the Navigation Act of that year the Attorney-general's opinion was given statutory form. That the captain, in case he took his cargo to England, would have to pay the duty a second time is clearly stated;2 but that he would have to do so each time he went on from colony to colony, as in the case of a New England captain peddling Maryland tobacco in the West Indies, is not so evident. It is more than likely that no such instance ever occurred. Oddly enough, an Act of 1699, which forbade the importation of bulk tobacco from the colonies into England, said nothing about such importation into another colony, in consequence of which, wrote Edward Randolph, "great quantities are yearly carried from the tobacco plantations in bulk and from thence to Scotland to the discouragement and damage of fair traders and to the great diminution of her Majesty's revenue". Randolph never missed an opportunity of showing his animosity towards a Scot. 4 The relations of Scotland and Ireland to the Navigation Acts require a brief consideration. By the Acts of 1660 and 1662 Scotland was construed as a foreign country, Scotsmen were barred from the Plantation trade, Scottish shipping could not carry goods to America, and Scottish seamen were not classed as "English" under the meaning of the Acts. A slight concession was allowed in the Act of 1663, which permitted the transportation of servants, horses, and provisions, and a few licences were issued, but even these were not continued. When their efforts to obtain a modification of the Act were unsuccessful, Scotsmen entered upon an illicit trade that attained very considerable proportions. They carried their own coarse cloth, linen, stockings, and hats and Irish beef to the British Plantations and brought back tobacco, sugar, furs and skins,5 a trade that was countenanced by the Scottish authorities. The presence of many a Scot in the colonies, particularly in the middle continental section about New York and the Jerseys, aroused a good deal of suspicion that Scot was in league with Scot for the nullification of the Acts, and this suspicion, coupled with evidences of illegal commerce, became a conspicuous feature of the history of the period until 1707. The Irish situation is somewhat more complicated, for at first it was intended that Ireland should be deemed a Plantation and included within the privileged area to which the Acts applied, as regards both ships and seamen and the carrying trade. But in 1663 the latter privilege was revoked, and Ireland, construed as a commercial 2 1 Cal. St. Pap. Col. 1675-6, nos. 798, 814. Maryland Archives, v, 448, § 4; Cal. St. Pap. Col. 1677-80, p. 530. 10-11 William III, c. 21, § xxix. C.O. 388/8, E. 9, p. 3. Keith, Commercial Relations of England and Scotland, 1603-1707, p. 118; House of Lords MSS, N.S. 11, 462, 464. rival, was forbidden after that date to send to the Plantations any exports, except those named, or to receive directly any of the enumerated commodities. Henceforth Ireland's communication with the colonies had to be by way of England. But the situation was rendered legally ambiguous by the continued issuing of bonds in the form provided for by the Act of 1660. The ambiguity was removed by an Act of 1671, which ordered the omission of the word "Ireland" from the bonds, but as the Act expired in 1680 and was not immediately renewed-probably more because of the distractions of the times than by deliberate intent the former conditions recurred and it was again possible legally to ship enumerated commodities directly to Ireland. Though the commissioners of revenue in Ireland said that during the years from 1671 to 1680 Plantation goods were imported directly into Ireland as freely as when the trade was open, the trials of ships seized for illegal trade with Ireland during those years number nearly twenty-five, showing that while the Act was in force the importing of tobacco from Maryland or Virginia to Ireland was attended with no little risk of seizure.1 After the expiration of the Act in 1680 an attempt was made to control the situation by the issue of an Order in Council, 16 February 1681, confining shipment to England only, but it is doubtful if the order was ever obeyed.2 In the meantime, the Act of 1673 had been passed, imposing the Plantation duty. Consequently after 1680 the question arose as to whether tobacco and sugar, which after the expiration of the Act of 1671 could be legally carried to Ireland, should pay the duty as if taken to another Plantation or should be exempt from it as if trading directly with England. This was the difficulty that underlay the Badcock and Rousby cases in Maryland and the dispute between Lord Baltimore and the Commissioners of the Customs in 1681,3 the latter insisting that tobacco ships loading in Maryland for Ireland should pay the Plantation duty, required by the Act of 1673, upon goods shipped to another colony. Baltimore was right as to the facts of the case, for the shippers had been evading the payment, but he was wrong as to the law and so was penalised for his ignorance. 4 The murder of the collector, Rousby, caused considerable excitement in England and led to the omission of the word "Ireland" from the instructions to the collectors in 1685 and to the decision in the same year to revive the Act of 1671.5 This decision evoked a heated protest from the Irish commissioners of revenue, who declared that the Act ought not to be renewed as it brought in no revenue, while the commissioners in England, knowing that the Acts of 1671 and 1673 were designed not to produce a revenue but to preserve England's monopoly of the Plantation trade, declared that to recognise the Irish 2 A.P.C., Colonial, п, no. 26. 1 Beer, Old Colonial System, 1, 96. 3 Maryland Archives, V, 289, 293, 294, 306, 345. 4 Cal. St. Pap. Col. 1681-5, no. 403; 1685-8, no. 567. 5 Maryland Archives, V, 448. PROTESTS FROM THE COLONIES 281 claim would "rob this kingdom in great measure of this flourishing trade".1 The Treasury refused to redress Ireland's grievances and with the renewal of the Act in 1685, confirmed by further legislation in 1696, Ireland's relations with the Plantations were defined for a century. This incident had been of no little importance in shaping England's commercial policy during this formative period. Serious objections to the Acts on the part of the colonists were mainly confined to the years immediately following their passage, when so far-reaching an interference with the freedom of trade that all had enjoyed during the Civil War and the Interregnum was found to lead to strenuous protests. Barbados almost at once petitioned to be released from the operation of the Acts, on the ground that free trade was the life of all colonies and that such restrictive measures would ruin them.2 It declared that "whosoever he be that advised his Majesty to restrain and tie up his colonies in point of trade is more a merchant than a good subject", one who "would have his Majesty's islands but nursed up to work for him and such men".3 The Home Government replied that all such petitions were contrary to "the nation's best interests at home"; and despite further expostulation, which continued for a decade, refused to make any concessions, on the ground that the whole frame of trade and navigation would be destroyed if the requests of the colony should be granted.4 Virginia and Bermuda were in a situation similar to that of Barbados, in that they too had enjoyed freedom of trade, chiefly with the Dutch, during the Interregnum. Their tobacco, it is true, had been enumerated as early as 1621, and from that time forward they had been enjoined to send what they produced for export only to England. In 1641 a mandatory clause to that effect was inserted in Berkeley's instructions. But there is reason to believe that this requirement was not strictly enforced, if enforced at all, from 1642 to 1660.6 Consequently, after 1660 complaints inevitably arose, e.g. one from John Bland, a local planter, who had doubtless enjoyed much trading with the Dutch merchant vessels, and another from Governor Berkeley, who, himself interested in tobacco planting, was not willing, as he said, to enrich some forty English merchants to the impoverishment of a whole people. The Acts, he further complained, gave a restricted market, kept the price of tobacco low, prevented the population from growing, and brought poverty and distress to the colony.8 1 Cal. St. Pap. Col. 1685-8, nos. 613, 638, 670, 932; Historical MSS Comm., Ormonde MSS, N.S. vi, 128, 242, 244; House of Lords MSS, N.S. 11, 485; Beer, Old Colonial System, 1, 96-109. 3 Ibid. pp. 382-3. 2 Cal. St. Pap. Col. 1661-8, nos. 129, 578, p. 205; no. 1679. Ibid. no. 561; 1675-6, nos. 526, 707, 714 11; for the Leeward Islands, 1661-8, no. 792. 5 Virginia Historical Magazine, 11, 280, § 30; vII, 267; XVI, 124. New York Colonial Documents, III, 43-4. ? Virginia Historical Magazine, 1, 141-51; Beer, 1, 108-12. * "A Perfect View of Virginia", Force's Tracts, II. 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. 3 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. 3 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. 7 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.4 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. ▲ Ibid. 1669-74, p. 328. Cal. St. Pap. Col. 1685-8, no. 1221. |