204

Britain, represented and mingled together in Parliament. And the Parliament regarded the colonies with nearly the same eyes, and held, in respect to them, nearly the same language, as had lately been used towards the Parliament itself, by those kings whom it afterwards overcame. An aristocratic senate is the most intractable of masters. Every member of it possesses the supreine power, and no one is responsible for its exercise.

"In the mean time, the colonies were rapidly increasing in population, in wealth, in strengta internally, and in importance externally. Instead of a few obscure establishments, solely occupied with their own affairs, and hardly able to sustain their own existence, a people was now forming itself, whose agriculture, commerce, enterprising spirit, and relative position to other states, were giving them a place and consideration among men. The mother country, unable to govern them well, had neither the leisure nor the ill will to oppress them absolutely. She vexed and annoyed them without checking their growth."

The acquisition of Canada, the Mississippi Valley and Florida, rendered America of vast importance in British politics, and the country loomed so large in the horizon that it seemed to the British government to require a new policy. The Lords of Trade had for some time been maintaining that America

was a

source from which large. revenues could be obtained to bolster up the parent government. In order to do this, it was necessary to alter territorial boundaries, to remodel local constitutions, to abridge the popular power, and to reorganize the aristocratic element-in short, to remake America in conformity with English laws, customs and institutions. The program included the enforcement of the Navigation Acts and the laws of trade, which had practically been dead letters for a number of years,

the collection of a stipulated amount of revenue, and the establishment of a standing army.

Let us, therefore, briefly review some of the causes which gave rise to the contentions between the colonies and the mother country. As the Navigation Acts or Acts of Trade were probably the greatest irritant, these shall receive first consideration.

These acts were not an innovation in the Eighteenth century, since such enactments had been on the statute books for many years. In 1381 Richard II. had caused a law to be enacted (5 R. II. St. I., c. 23) that

66

none of the king's liege people should ship any merchandise out of or into the realm, except in the ships of the king's legiance, on pain of forfeiture." A similar act was passed in 1463 (3 Ed. IV. c. I), but after three years it became inoperative. Under Henry VII. (1485-1509) laws were passed (1 H. VII., c. 8 and 4 H. VII., c. 10) prohibiting the importation of certain commodities except in English bottoms, manned by English sailors, thus attempting to enforce a monopoly for English ships. In 1540 the old laws were reenacted, the freights defined, and inducements offered to aliens to use British ships. Elizabeth was more liberal in her attitude toward commerce, and by the act of 1563 (5 Eliz., c. 5) merely reserved the coasting trade.

The early colonies had been exempted from the restrictions of these acts, and the Dutch, then the chief

"

carriers on the ocean, had succeeded in securing the bulk of the colonial trade. Therefore, as soon as the colonies evinced signs of prosperity, measures were taken to secure the growing trade for England and to exclude the Dutch entirely. Letters and proclamations were sent out to the colonial governors in 1621; 1624, 1629, and 1637, forbidding the importation of merchandise in foreign bottoms, and strictly and resolutely" forbidding all trade and traffic with the Dutch. In 1645 an act was passed, and in the following year amended so as to include the colonies, declaring that certain articles should be imported into England only in ships fitted out in England by English subjects and manned by Englishmen. English goods came into the colonies duty free, but no colonial goods could be exported in foreign ships.

In 1651, in 1660 and later, acts were passed (12 C. II., c. 18 and 14 C. II., c. 11) which struck particularly hard at the Dutch. It was declared that no goods" of the growth, production or manufacture of Asia, Africa, or America" should be imported into England save in ships built in England, by Englishmen, owned, and manned by a crew three parts English. Goods from Europe could come either in English ships or in ships of the country which produced the goods. Colonial shipping was also put on the same footing as English. Therefore, as Holland was not a producing country, she was practically shut out from

205

commercial activities at least with the English- and practically all foreign vessels were shut out from the carrying trade. The colonists did not object to these provisions, as the colonies were favored as much as England and were therefore on precisely the same footing. But there was a clause in this act to which the colonists did make objection that prohibiting the colonies from exporting sugar, tobacco, cotton, hemp, grain, meats, pitch, indigo, ginger, fustic, or other dye-wood to any country other than England-the British merchants arguing that, if the colonies were allowed to do so, they would reap all the profits and the mother country should gain nothing; whereas, if the colonies were compelled to ship these articles to England at a small profit, the merchants of the mother country could re-sell these goods at a profit to the continental merchants, and thus the whole profit would not be monopolized by the colonies, but would be shared between them and England.†

In 1663 another act was passed (15 C. II., c. 7) by which all European commodities needed by the colonists were required to be shipped from England in English or colonial ves

* Doyle, Colonies under Hanover, p. 116.

Fisher, Struggle for American Independence, vol. i., pp. 38-39; Doyle, p. 116. The prohibited articles became known as "enumerated articles," and in 1704 molasses and in 1705 South Carolina rice were added to the list, though in 1770 it was provided that rice could be carried to European ports south of Cape Finisterre, the act becoming law in 1731 (North Carolina Records, vol. ii., p. 499).

206

sels.

Thus the colonists were hampered on both sides, being compelled to ship the bulk of the native products to England and to take their manufactured products from or through her.* It was also provided that a bond should be given insuring the landing of the cargo in an English or Scotch port unless destined for a port in an English colony, in which case the duty must be paid at the time of landing. The colonists interpreted this as allowing them to ship goods to any foreign port on the payment of a duty upon loading. In 1696, however, this part of the act was amended so that the wording could not be misconstrued as to the provision requiring a security to be given that the goods would be shipped to English, Scotch or colonial ports.†

In 1733 the British merchants interested in the sugar trade complained that the colonists were obtaining large quantities of sugar and molasses from the French West Indies free of the intercolonial duties to which "enumerated articles " from British colonies were subject. The New Englanders had begun the manufacture of rum from molasses bought of the French, thus becoming competitors with the British merchants. The chief seats of distillation were Boston and Newport. In order to stop this traffic and to compel the

On the results of these acts see Fiske, Old Virginia and Her Neighbours, vol. ii., pp. 44-53; P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century.

Doyle, Colonies under Hanover, p. 116.

colonists to purchase their rum, sugar and molasses from the British West Indies, Parliament imposed a duty equivalent to one cent per pound. on sugar, 12 cents per gallon on molasses, and 18 cents per gallon on rum imported from the French or Dutch West Indies. Rhode Island protested that this act was "highly prejudicial to her charter;" and Partridge, the New York agent in London, in a letter to the Duke of Newcastle said: castle said: "Besides the injury the bill will be in itself, almost tantamount to a prohibition, it is divesting the colonists of their rights as the king's natural born subjects and Englishmen, in levying subsidies upon them against their consent, when they are annexed to no county in Great Britain, have no representatives in Parliament, nor are any part of the Legislature of this kingdom." Massachusetts was also sorely vexed at the passage of this "Molasses Act," and took a firm stand against its enforcement, and as Hildreth says: "It was easier, however, to pass the act than to collect duties systematically evaded, not by a few smugglers only, but by the whole body of colonial traders. Large quantities of foreign molasses were imported, but the amount of duty paid upon it was very small."'*

A brisk trade had now sprung up between the Northern and Southern colonies which was greatly injuring

Hildreth, History of the United States, vol. ii.,

p. 357.

the English merchants, for the colonists would not purchase in England what they could buy cheaper at home. Consequently, in 1763, an act was passed which seriously crippled this intercolonial trade, those commodities that England could supply being subjected to a duty equivalent to that imposed on their consumption in England. This act resulted only in more extensive evasions of the law than were already taking place, and smuggling became an accepted profession, it being estimated that 40,000 persons were engaged in it by sea and by land.†

*

In the opinion of many of the political economists of that time, the colonists should gladly have accepted the terms of the Navigation Acts, as they were far more fair and liberal than those many other nations were giving to their colonies.. Furthermore, the restrictions were not all against the colonies, as by the act of 1663 tobacco planting was prohibited in England, thus creating a monopoly in that staple for the Virginia and Maryland planters. Attempts were also made to offset the harsh features of the Acts by giving compensatory advantages in other directions. Bounties were paid to the colonists on hemp, flax, lumber and all naval stores that they produced, and South Carolina had a bounty on indigo, beside being

*See Doyle, Colonies under Hanover, p. 118 et seq.

Fisher, Struggle for American Independence, vol. 6, p. 51.

207

allowed to ship her goods to all European ports south of Cape Finisterre. Irish linen was allowed to be shipped to the colonists duty free, salt needed for curing fish might be imported from any European port, and drawbacks were allowed on goods warehoused in England and then shipped to the colonies. The colonists were also allowed to ship grain, lumber, salt, provisions, fish, sugar, and rum to any port in the world, provided these goods were carried in English or colonial ships, of which the owners and three-fourths of the crews were British subjects. The British West Indies were also compelled to purchase their provisions and lumber from the American colonies.*

Finding, however, that the Navigation Acts did not create the trade monopoly the merchants had expected, Parliament from 1731 on passed many acts to repress colonial manufacture of such articles as could be made in England. This only added. to the irritation already existing in the colonies.

In May, 1718, a duty on English manufactures was imposed by Massachusetts, and the ship-building industry, which turned out 6,000 tons of shipping annually, was also favored by a small discrimination. But this aroused the indignation of the British. ship-builders and manufacturers, who thought that the colonists would soon

Fisher, Struggle for American Independence, vol. i., p. 44; Doyle, Colonies under Hanover, p.

117.

208

"be able to live without Great Britain; and their ability, joined to their inclination, [would] be of very ill consequence." The king therefore annulled the import duty. Thereafter, every form of colonial industry which competed with British interests was discouraged or forbidden. The London hat-makers ascertained that hats were being made in America and petitioned to be protected against this competition.* Governor Shute wrote home that "the inhabitants worked up their wool and flax, and made a coarse cloth for their own use; that they manufactured a great part of their leather; that there were hatters in the maritime towns; and that six furnaces and nineteen forges were set up for making iron." An act was therefore passed in 1732, forbidding the manufacture of hats in the colonies by all except those who had served an apprenticeship of seven years, and only two apprentices were allowed to a hatter. The act also prohibited the shipment of hats to Europe and from one colony to another. This was done to keep the industry within bounds, and for the same reason acts were passed forbidding the exportation of wool or woolen goods from the colonies. The Board of Trade was also informed that the manufacture of woolen and

Doyle, Colonies under Hanover, p. 123; N. J. Archives, vol. iii., p. 301. Quoted from Bancroft, vol. ii., p. 239.

8 George I., c. 15, sec. 24; 5 George II., c. 22; 23 George II., c. 29., sec. 9; 10 and 11 William III., c. 10, sec. 19; 12 George II., c. 21, sec. 11.

linen goods in New York had increased to such proportions that twothirds of the articles used in the colonies were made there,* and they therefore instructed Governor Hunter to take some steps to restrict the industry, but we do not find that Hunter adopted any such repressive measures or that there were any further complaints.† The British ironmasters then becoming jealous, a bill was passed by the House of Commons containing the clause, "that none in the plantations should manufacture iron wares of any kind out of any sows, pigs or bars whatsoever," to which clause the House of Lords added the further proviso that "no forge, going by water, or other works should be erected in any of the said plantations, for the making, working, or converting of any sows, pigs, or cast iron into bar or sod iron." The bill, however, was defeated. In September, 1721, the Board of Trade compiled an elaborate statistical report of colonial commerce, by which it was shown that the colonies yielded an annual balance of £200,000 in favor of Great Britain, and that the colonies employed more than one-fourth and nearly one-third of all the ships of the mother country. This report only stimulated the desire of the home authorities to lay still heavier taxes on the colonies, in order that the home industries might not be forced to sus

*N. Y. Col. Docs., vol. v., p. 413. + Doyle, p. 124.