A Short History of British Colonial Policy

Hugh Edward Egerton

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351348201
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Histoire
• Subtopic: Histoire de la Grande-Bretagne

This volume discusses a short history of British Colonial policy. With all its faults the book represents much reading and some thought. In writing what is, to some extent, a history of opinion, it has been impossible altogether to suppress my own individual opinions. I trust, however that I have not seemed to attach importance to them. In dealing with the later periods, I remembered Sir Walter Raleigh's remark on the fate which awaits the treatment of contemporary history; but obscurity may claim its compensations, and atleast I am not conscious of having written under the bias of personal or party prejudice.

BOOK II

THE PERIOD OF TRADE ASCENDENCY

1651–1830

πᾶσα ἀπoiχíα εὖ μεv πάσχouσα τiμᾷ τὴv μητρπoλiv, ἀδixovμέvη δὲ ἀλλoτρioῦταi.

That baleful spirit of Commerce that wished to govern great Nations on the Maxims of the Counter.

CHAPTER I

ENOUGH has been perhaps said to show how hesitating and uncertain were the first steps of English Colonial policy. So many Colonies—we may almost say—so many different types. Virginia, New England, Maryland, all present special features, are all examples of a distinct method of treatment. But for whoever had eyes to read the signs of the times, there could be no question which type would, in the long run, prevail. As surely as the house built upon the rock is firmer than the house built upon the sand, so surely would the New England character become the predominant one in the eastern states of the future. We know how large were the powers in fact possessed by Massachusetts. It elected its own governors; it carried on its domestic affairs in complete independence of England. We even find it going to war with the French without consulting the Home Government. When Connecticut set up as a separate Colony, it did not ask the leave of England. New Hampshire, and at a later date Maine,¹ were absorbed by Massachusetts in the same independent fashion. When, in 1643, the four Colonies of Plymouth, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Newhaven formed a confederation, as the United Colonies of New England, no leave was asked of the Mother country. It is true that, in the preamble to the Articles. “those sad distractions in England” are alluded to as to some extent necessitating the measure; but the confederation in all probability would have been formed in any case. In the same spirit, Massachusetts set up its own Mint in 1652.

Virtual independence of New England Colonies.

Nor did the New England Colonies confine themselves to the field of practice. They also maintained in theory what they claimed to be their rights. In 1646 the court of elders and assistants drew up a formal statement of their views. Opinions were not quite unanimous, but the prevailing doctrine was, as given by Winthrop, that “by our charter we have absolute power of government, for thereby we have power to make laws, to erect all sorts of magistracy, to correct, punish, pardon, govern, and rule the people absolutely.” Their allegiance only bound them to the laws of England while they lived in England; “for the laws of the Parliament of England reach no further, nor do the King’s writs under the Great Seal go any further.”¹ Their dependence upon England lay in owing allegiance and fidelity. Such allegiance was shown by “the erecting such a government as the patent prescribes, and subjecting ourselves to the laws here ordained by that government.” On the whole, the practical conclusion seemed to be that England had the right to interfere in the single case of the Colony acting in violation of the provisions of its charter.

Such being the temper of Massachusetts, of the leaven which was to leaven the United States, the sequel of the story may well seem inevitable: but if we turn to a Royalist Colony, to Barbados, a West Indian Island,² “principally inhabited by men who had retired thither only to be quiet and to be free from the noise and oppression in England,” we find the same note of independence. The declaration issued by Barbados protests against the doctrine that they should “be subjected to the will and command of those that stay at home.” Two years later we are told that some persons had a design to make this place “a free State and not to run any fortune with England either in peace or war.” Such being the temper of men of both parties it is obvious how dangerous for the future of English Empire were the distractions of the Civil War. In the Bermudas, for a time, power was practically in the hands of the ministers, who went “to such lengths as to make a man quite out of love with the government of the clergy.”³ We are not surprised that henceforth the Bermudas inclined to the royalist side.

Attitude of Colonies.

1651.

1653.

In the American Colonies there was in New England naturally no royalist party, as the method of the colonists in dealing with those who differed on fundamentals had been to put them on a ship and send them home again. In Virginia parties were more divided. It is difficult to believe that among the Virginian settlers there were many who really sympathised with Puritanism, but undoubtedly there was a popular party, strongly represented in the house of Burgesses, who saw in the success of the parliamentary party at home a means to improve their own position. In Maryland, on the other hand, there appears to have been little independent feeling on the question, the one thought in the mind of its astute proprietor being how, whoever prevailed, he might feather his own private nest. In this state of things all seems drifting towards disruption, and yet what we find is the exact opposite, a definite Colonial policy first deliberately adopted which was to prevail for more than a hundred and fifty years. It has been often noticed how many of the leaders of the Long Parliament had passed their political apprenticeship in New England. The younger Sir Henry Vane and S. Vassall were among those who could speak with practical experience on colonial affairs, but the men who were now ruling England, whatever their faults, were not the men to cower before difficulties. Already in 1643, Lord Warwick had been appointed Governor-in-Chief of all Plantations, as well as Lord High Admiral. Commissioners for the Plantations were, at the same time, appointed, among whom we find the names of Lord Pembroke, Lord Saye and Seal, Sir Henry Vane, John Pym, Oliver Cromwell, and S. Vassall. After the execution of Charles I., one of the first measures taken was to apprise the Colonies of the change of Government. When Barbados, Antigua, Virginia, and Somers Islands, appeared to be still Royalist, an Ordinance of Parliament was at once passed, prohibiting trade with them. In the next year a Fleet was despatched against Barbados, and Commissioners sent to settle the affairs of Virginia. With regard to Barbados, the terms offered by Sir G. Ayscue, the Parliamentary Admiral, were very generous. Liberty of conscience was allowed, except to such, whose tenets were “inconsistent with a Civil government,” and an undertaking was given against the imposition of taxes, customs and impositions, without the consent of the Colony. It is noteworthy that Barbados, which resisted, seems to have obtained better terms than Virginia, which at once yielded on the arrival of the Commissioners. When the Articles signed by the Commissioners were presented to Parliament, those referring to the Charter and to the granting to Virginia as great privileges as to any plantation in America, together with the article guaranteeing freedom from all taxes, customs, and impositions whatsoever, without consent of the Grand Assembly, were referred to the Committee of the Navy; and in the Report¹ of that Committee no mention is made of these questions thus referred to them. When we remember that the Colony had no less than four times solemnly asserted its exclusive right of imposing taxes the omission is noteworthy. The settlement in Maryland need not detain us, as it illustrated no question of principle. The art of statesmanship has been compared to the walking on a tight rope, and no more triumphant exhibition of such statesmanship was ever given than when the Papist son of the Stuart favourite was able to plead his fidelity to the Commonwealth as opposed to the stubborn Royalism of Virginia. Finally, the adroit schemer “without force or fraud, without one substantial sacrifice, by the bloodless arts of diplomacy,”² won back every position for which he had fought. Look where one will, one finds, in the dealings of Parliament, no thought of surrendering an inch of British territory. At the same time active brains are at work over the problem of the Empire. When the ready-witted Colonel Modyford, anticipating later views, makes the “immodest” suggestion that Barbados should be allowed representation in the Imperial Parliament, the suggestion is approved by the Committee for Foreign affairs.

Policy of Navigation Acts.

1643.

Nov. 24.

1650.

Feb. 16, 1652.

Meanwhile a more powerful engine for moulding the Empire into one was to be fashioned. The Navigation Acts, as a whole, had two objects in view: the one, the encouragement of English shipping; the other, the encouragement of English manufactures. It was with the former only that the Ordinance of 1651 was concerned. It is, of course, true that this measure represented no new policy. As early as the time of Richard II., an Act “to increase the Navy, which is now greatly diminished,” had made it compulsory for English subjects to export and import goods in English ships, having the majority of the crew British subjects. This Act, however, had remained a dead letter. In the reign of Edward IV. another Navigation Act was enacted, but this lapsed at the expiration of three years. A further statute forbade the importation of foreign wines in any but English, Irish, or Welsh owned ships. As was to be expected, the legislature, during the reign of Elizabeth, was much occupied with the question. Old enactments were varied or renewed, in six different sessions, while an attempt was, at the same time, made to enforce stringently the law. According to the opinion of the time, these measures bore fruit in the large increase of merchant shipping. In 1624 a Proclamation was issued, followed at a later date by orders in council, prohibiting the use of foreign bottoms for the carriage of Virginian tobacco, and in 1641 a number of English merchants urged that these rules should be embodied in an Act of Parliament. That the Ordinance of 1651 was framed in no spirit of hostility to the Colonies is clear. In 1646 the Long Parliament, with the double purpose of at once conciliating the Colonies and encouraging English shipping, had enacted, that no duty should be levied on goods intended for the Colonies, provided that they were forwarded by English ships. Under the measure of 1651, no goods were allowed to be exported to the Colonies or imported thence into England, except in English or colonial built ships, the property of English subjects, having English commanders, and a crew three-fourths of whom were English. Attention should be directed to the provision allowing the use of ships built in the Plantations. It may well have been expected that the great natural advantages of the Colonies would call into being an important ship-building industry. That the Navigation Ordinance of the Interregnum led to the measure of 1660 is undoubted. But that, in itself, it contained the full mischief of the Mercantile system, cannot be fairly maintained. The object against which the measure was directed was the naval supremacy of Holland; and it is by its success or failure in wresting the carrying trade from the hands of the Dutch that it must be judged. The opinion of the men of the Commonwealth with regard to the Dutch may be recognized in the words of Thomas Mun, who has been generally recognized as the earliest English exponent of that Mercantile system, which for so long dominated in the fields of practice and of thought. Anticipating the views of the next generation, we find him, as early as about 1628,¹ breaking through the chains of political and religious prejudice and boldly asserting that England’s true enemy was not the Spaniards or the French, but the Dutch,² “who undermine, hurt, and eclipse us daily in our Navigation and Trade.”

Navigation Ordinance 1651.

5 Ric. ii. c. 13.

4 H. vii. c. 10.

1640.

The Navigation Acts have been generally condemned by modern economists, as having neither conduced to the naval nor commercial greatness of England, but this seems a difficult thesis to maintain in the face of the well-attested fact that the carrying trade of England was, before their enactment, in the hands of the Dutch, and that afterwards, though of course not at once or at one bound, England became the great carrier of Europe. The secret of the success of the Dutch in the carrying trade lay in the greater cheapness with which they were able to transport goods. This was owing to the fact that they were able to build ships at a less cost and to navigate them with a smaller crew. The Navigation Acts gave the English the opportunity to make good the lost ground. To say that because the English mercantile marine has never flourished so much as since the repeal of the Navigation Acts, therefore these Acts must have been useless, is as though one should call crutches needless, because a man who is no longer lame can walk better without them. The mischief of artificial protection is that too often it resembles not a crutch but a bandage, under which the muscles become atrophied; but the modern history of English shipping is eloquent to show that no such charge can be fairly brought against the Navigation Acts. It is, of course, true that these Acts by themselves did not win England naval supremacy, but they were only a portion of a complete policy, which included the maintenance of the State Navy on a scale of organization and efficiency such as the world had never before seen. Whatever, however, be the truth as to this, we are here only concerned with the Navigation Acts, so far as they affected the Colonies, and here, undoubtedly, in their effects they represented a retrograde policy.

In another and more surprising direction we find the victorious Parliamentary party embarking in a spirited Colonial policy. If there were any who might be deemed bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh, they were the settlers in that Massachusetts, the founders of which were so strongly represented in the Parliamentary party; and yet we find that party granting a charter to Rhode Island against the wishes of Massachusetts, and in effect rebuking the parent colony for “the want of good feeling between men who had so much in common.” A more practical question had arisen in 1644 as to the jurisdiction of the Parliament over Massachusetts. A Bristol ship was captured in New England waters by a captain holding a commission from Warwick, and the question arose whether the Parliamentary Commission overrode the jurisdiction created by the patent. In the end the colonists yielded, but the fact that they hesitated is in itself sufficiently significant. In 1651 Massachusetts was indirectly informed “that it was the Parliament’s pleasure that we should take a new patent from them, and keep our Court and issue our warrants in their name.” The Colony temporised with its answer, making it just when the Dutch War broke out, hinting thereby, as the New England historian complacently suggests,¹ that there were other Protestant powers to which appeal might be made besides England. Certainly, the reluctance to take part in the Dutch War seems significant. The Colonial authorities gave formal leave for five hundred volunteers, if so many could be found to be enrolled; but they did not throw themselves heart and soul into the cause of the Mother country.

Policy of Parliament towards New England.

Considering all these things, we seem to find the clue to what at first appears a stran...