10
any goods from or to any countries, subject to the payment of differential duties, the coasting trade only being strictly reserved to British ships, This system we see had been substituted for that which preceded it, partly to conciliate foreign Powers, and partly to give ease to commerce.
Up to the time of Elizabeth we had no colo- nies. The American plantations sprang up in the interval between her reign and the time of the Commonwealth. In the reign of James I and Charles I, we find several Acts or orders in council regulating their trade; the main object being to compel them to send their produce to England.
In 1646 a general ordinance was made for ex- empting from duty all goods exported from Eng- land to the plantations, provided the produce of those plantations was in return shipped in Eng- lish vessels only. If it were shipped in foreign vessels, the exports from England were to be subject to the usual customs duties. Thus, up to the time of the Commonwealth, the colonial trade was regulated on the same principles as the foreign. Advantages were given to British ships in respect of the duties charged on goods carried by them, but there was no legislative monopoly.
The changes made in 1650 and 1651 had their origin in political considerations. The first of these related to the colonial trade. Certain of the colonies remained faithful to the Stuarts. This provoked the Parliament to prohibit all inter- course with them, on the ground of their disaffec- tion, and power was given to seize all ships attempting to trade with them. At the same time the following general regulation was made, which was the foundation of our whole Colonial system: "To prevent for the time to come, and to hinder the carrying over of any such persons as are enemies to the Commonwealth, or that may prove dangerous to any of the English plantations in America, the Parliament doth forbid and pro- hibit all ships of any foreign nation whatsoever
to come to, or trade in, or traffic with, any of the English plantations in America, or any islands, ports, or places thereof, which are planted by and in possession of the people of this Common
}
11
wealth, without licence first had and obtained from the Parliament or Council of State.' (Reeves' "Law of Shipping," p. 34.)
This ordinance was made in 1650. In 1651 the famous Act of Navigation was passed. This also originated in political jealousy. The Repub- lican Government had made overtures to the Government of the United Provinces, for a treaty of such close alliance as would have amounted almost to fusing the two Republics into one, and St. John had been sent over to negotiate the proposal. The proposal was rejected, and St. John came back in great anger at the treatment he had received. Other causes of jealousy are mentioned by historians-the murder of the Ambassador Dorislaus; the Amboyna massacre; and the harbouring of Charles II. were also causes of a domestic nature which, according to Hume, disposed a large party here to engage in war; and ultimately the Navigation Act was passed, apparently with the direct view of bringing about hostilities. Hume's expression is, that "to cover their bos- tile intentions, the Parliament, under the pretence of providing for the interests of commerce, em- braced such measures as they knew would give disgust to the States." Undoubtedly the blow thus dealt to the carrying trade of the Dutch immediately provoked war.
There
Mr.
Attempts have been made to show that the Navigation Act neither injured the Dutch, nor advanced the British Navy. It seems to me that this is unreasonable. Considering the number of Dutch vessels employed in the carrying trade to this country, which were excluded from our ports by this Act, it stands to reason that they must have suffered by it. Clearly it was not enough to crush them, for we find them maintaining their pre-eminence thirty years later, according to the testimony of Sir Josiah Child, a zealous admirer of the Navigation Law, and there are plenty of sufficient reasons for their subsequent decline, without attributing it to the effects of our law. Still the law must have been injurious
to them, and their going to war about it proves that they found it so. It is equally clear that it must have been of some benefit to ourselves,
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
19
Reference -
C.O.
885
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON