Committees and Councils Under the Restoration.
Charles II landed at Dover on May 25, 1660 and on the twenty-seventh named at Canterbury four men, General Monck, the Earl of Southampton, William Morrice, and Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, who took oath as privy councillors. Others who had been members of the Council on foreign soil or were added during the month following the return of the King swelled the number to more than twenty. The first meeting of the Privy Council was held on May 31, and it was inevitable that during the ensuing weeks many petitions concerning the various claims and controversies which had been agitating merchants and planters during the previous years and had been reported on by the Committee for America should have been brought to the attention of the Council. Such matters as appointments to governorships and other offices, the political disturbances in Antigua, Barbadoes, and Jamaica, the titles to Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and Barbadoes, became at once living issues. Many of the petitions were from the London merchants, and we may not doubt that the personal influence of those whose names have been already mentioned was brought to bear upon the members of the Council. It became necessary, therefore, for the King and his advisers to make early provision for the proper consideration of colonial business in order that the colonies might be placed in a position of greater security and in order that the West Indian and American trade, from which the King and his Chancellor expected important additions to the royal revenue, might be encouraged and extended. Among the petitions received in June, 1660, were two from rival groups of merchants interested in the governorship and trade of the island of Nevis. One of these petitions desired the confirmation of the appointment of Col. Philip Ward as governor of Nevis; the other the reappointment of the former governor, Russell. This was the first difficult question that had yet arisen, for Berkeley's return to Virginia was a foregone conclusion, while the condition and settlement of Nova Scotia, Barbadoes and Jamaica were to be of importance later. Acting on these petitions regarding Nevis, only the second of which is entered in the Privy Council Register, the King in Council appointed on July 4, 1660, a committee, known as "The Right Honorable the Lords appointed a Committee of this Board for Trade and Plantations." The members were Edward Montague, Earl of Manchester, the Lord Chamberlain; Thomas Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, the Lord Treasurer; Robert Sydney, Earl of Leicester; William Fiennes, Lord Say and Seale; John Lord Robartes; Denzil Holles, Arthur Annesley, Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, and the Secretaries of State, Sir Edward Nicholas and Sir William Morrice. The committee was instructed to meet on every Monday and Thursday at three o'clock in the afternoon, "to review, heare, examine, and deliberate upon any petitions, propositions, memorials, or other addresses, which shall be presented or brought in by any person or persons concerning the plantations, as well in the Continent as Islands of America, and from time to time make their report to this board of their proceedings."[1]
It is evident from the wording of these instructions that the committee was designed to be a continuous one and to carry on the work of the former committee for foreign plantations of the Council of State. There is no essential difference between these committees, except that one represented a commonwealth and the other a monarchy. We pass from the one arrangement to the other with very little jar, and with much less sense of a break in the continuity than when we pass from the system under the Republic to that under the Protectorate. The Privy Council committee had all the essential features of a standing committee and, after the experiment with separate and select councils had proved unsatisfactory, it assumed entire control of trade and plantation affairs in 1675, a control which it exercised until 1696. Though an occasional change was made in its membership and some reorganization was effected in 1668, the Lords of Trade of July 4, 1660, commissioned with plenary powers by patent under the great seal, became the Lords of Trade of February 9, 1675.
From 1660 to 1675 this committee of the Privy Council played no insignificant part although, after the creation of the councils, it was bound to be limited in the actual work that it performed. During the four months after its appointment it was the only body that had to do with trade and plantations except the Privy Council, which occasionally sat as a committee of the whole for plantation affairs. During the summer the committee considered with care and a due regard for all aspects of the case the claims of various persons to the government of Barbadoes. Despite the opposition of Modyford, who had been commissioned governor by the Council of State the April before, and John Colleton, one of the Council of Barbadoes, and despite the efforts of Alderman Riccard and other merchants of London, Francis Lord Willoughby was restored to the government under the claims of the Earl of Carlisle. At the same time the claims of the Kirks, Elliott, and Sterling to Nova Scotia were examined and eventually decided in favor of Col. Temple, the governor there. Willoughby immediately appointed Capt. Watts governor of the Caribbee Islands, himself, through his deputy, took the governorship of Barbadoes, Modyford became governor of Jamaica, Berkeley of Virginia, and Russell of Nevis. It is at least worthy of recall that Willoughby, Watts, Temple, and Russell were all within the circle of Povey's friends, that Povey and Noell both petitioned the King for Russell's reappointment, and that Temple wrote Povey begging him to exert his influence in his (Temple's) behalf, lest he lose the governorship. Povey was certainly in high favor with the monarchy; in 1660 he was appointed treasurer to the Duke of York and Master of Requests to his Majesty in Extraordinary June 22, 1660,[2] and during the years that followed he held office after office and with all the skill of a politician continued to find offices for his kinsmen. William Blathwayt, of later fame, was his nephew. Noell was no less honored; he became a member of the Royal Company of Merchants, the Royal African Company, the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England, and was finally knighted in 1663 and died in 1665.[3] As we shall see, both men became very active in the affairs of the plantations, and it is more than likely that the opinions of the King in Council were not infrequently shaped by their suggestions and advice.
How early the decision was reached to create separate councils of trade and foreign plantations it is impossible to say. Some time between May and August, 1660, Povey must have planned to recast his "Overtures" and to present them for the consideration of the King. At first he endeavored to adapt those of 1657 to the new situation by substituting "Foreign Plantations" for the "West Indies," "Matie" for "Highness," and "his Maties Privie Councill" for "the great Councill"; but he finally decided to present a new draft, in which, however, he retained many of the essential clauses of the former paper. Whether the recommendations of Povey as presented in the "Overtures" influenced Lord Clarendon to recommend such councils to the King we cannot say; it is more likely that the practice adopted under the Protectorate had already commended itself to the Chancellor, who was beginning to show that interest in the plantations which characterizes the early years of his administration. That he should have consulted Noell and Povey and other London merchants is to be expected of the man who for at least five years kept up a close correspondence with Maverick of New England, Ludwell of Virginia, and D'Oyley, Littleton, and Modyford in the West Indies,[4] and who was constantly urging upon the King the importance of the plantations as sources of revenue and the great financial possibilities that lay in the improvement of trade. On August 17, 1660, the King in Council drafted a letter to "Our very good Lord the Lord Maior of the Citty of London & to the Court of Aldermen of the said City," reading as follows:
"After our hearty commendations these are to acquaint you, That his Majesty having this day taken into his princely consideration how necessary it is for the good of this kingdom, that Trade and Commerce with foreign parts, be with all due care, incouraged and maintayned, And for the better settling thereof declared his gracious intention to appoint a Committee of understanding able persons, to take into their particular consideration all things conducible thereunto; We do by his Mats special command and in order to the better carrying on of this truly royal, profitable, and advantageous designe, desire you to give notice hereof unto the Turkey Merchants, the Merchant Adventurers, the East India, Greenland, and Eastland Companys, and likewise to the unincorporated Traders, for Spain, France, Portugal, Italy, and the West India Plantations; Willing them out of their respective societies to present unto his Majesty the names of fower of their most knowing active men (of whom, when his Majesty shall have chosen two and unto this number of merchants added some other able and well experienced persons, dignified also with the presence and assistance of some of his Majesty's Privy Council) All those to be by his Matie appointed constituted and authoried by commission under the Great Seal as a Standing Committee, to enquire into and rectify all things tending to the Advancement of Trade and Commerce; That so by their prudent and faithful council and advice, his Matie may (now in this conjuncture, whilst most Foraigne Princes and Potentates doe, upon his Maties most happy establishment upon his throne, seek to renew their former Allyances with this Crowne), insert into the several Treatyes, such Articles & Clauses as may render this Nation more prosperous and flourishing in Trade and Commerce. Thus by prudence, care, & industry improving those great advantages to the highest point of felicity, which by its admirable situation Nature seems to have indulged to this his Majesty's kingdom. So we bid you heartily farewell."[5]
This letter was signed by Chancellor Hyde, Earl of Southampton, George Monck, Earl of Albemarle, Lord Say and Seale, Earl of Manchester, Lord Robartes, Arthur Annesley, and Secretary Morrice, who probably formed a special committee appointed to draft it. Some time within the month the answer of the Aldermen must have been received, for on September 19 the Council ordered the attorney general "to make a draught of a commission for establishing a Councell of Trade according to the grounds layed" in the letter of the seventeenth of August, "upon the perusal whereof at the Board his Matie will insert the names of the said Counsell." It is more than likely that the project for the second council, that of plantations, went forward pari passu with the Council for Trade and that the letter to the Mayor and Aldermen served a double purpose. At any rate that must have been the understanding among those interested at the time, for on September 26, one Norwich, Captain of the Guards, who had been in Clarendon's employ, sent in a memorial to the Chancellor begging that the King employ him "in his customs and committees of trade and forraign plantations."[6] The matter of drafting the commissions must have taken some time, for they are not mentioned as ready for the addition of names before the last week in October. The business of making up the lists of members must have been a difficult and tedious matter. Many lists exist among the Domestic Papers which contain changes, erasures and additions, drafts and corrected drafts, which show how much pains Clarendon and the others took to make the membership of the Council of Trade satisfactory. A suggested list was first drawn up containing the names of privy councillors, country gentlemen, customers, merchants, traders, the navy officers, gentlemen versed in affairs, and doctors of civil law. With this list was considered another containing the names of the persons nominated by the different merchant companies. Other lists seem also to have been presented.[7] Probably in much the same way the list of the members of the Council for Foreign Plantations was made up, but more slowly.
The commissions were both ready by October 25 and on November 7 had reached the Crown Office (Chancery), ready to pass the great seal. The commission for the Council of Trade passed the great seal on that day and is dated November 7, 1660; but the commission for the Council for Foreign Plantations was held back that the names of other members might be added and it became necessary to have a new bill passed and duly engrossed three weeks later.[8] Therefore the commission for the Council for Foreign Plantations is dated December 1, 1660.
An analysis of the membership of these two councils and of the membership of the Royal African Company, created soon after, shows many points of interest. The Council of Trade consisted of sixty-two members, that of Foreign Plantations of forty-eight,[9] and that of the African Company of sixty-six. Twenty-eight members are common to the first two bodies, eleven are common to the Council of Trade and the Royal African Company, and eight are common to all three groups. These eight are John Lord Berkeley of Stratton; Sir George Carteret, Sir Nicholas Crispe, Sir Andrew Riccard, Sir John Shaw, Thomas Povey, Martin Noell, and John Colleton. The other members common to the two councils are Lord Clarendon, the Earl of Southampton, Earl of Manchester, Earl of Marlborough, Earl of Portland, Lord Robartes, Francis Lord Willoughby, Denzil Holles, Sir Edward Nicholas, Sir William Morrice, Arthur Annesley, Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, William Coventry, Daniel O'Neale, Sir James Draxe, Edward Waller, Edward Digges, William Williams, Thomas Kendall, and John Lewis; while among the other members of the Council for Foreign Plantations are such well-known men as Sir William Berkeley, Capt. John Limbrey, Col. Edward Waldrond, Capt. Thomas Middleton, Capt. William Watts, and Capt. Alexander Howe. Thus the merchants, sea-captains, and planters, men thoroughly familiar with the questions of trade and plantations and intimately connected with the plantations themselves are members of the Council of Plantations and sometimes of that of Trade also. It is significant that among the four London merchants common to all three groups should be found the names of Noell and Povey. Their associates, Crispe and Riccard, were persons well known in the history of London trade, and probably the four names represent the four most influential men among the merchants of London who supported the King. When we turn to the work of these councils we shall see that Povey and Noell were active members also.
However uncertain we may be regarding the influence of Povey and Noell in shaping the policy of Clarendon and the King, that uncertainty disappears as soon as we examine the instructions which were drafted to accompany the commission for a Council for Foreign Plantations. The instructions are little more than a verbal reproduction of the "Overtures" which Povey drafted some time during the summer of 1660 for presentation to the King. They are based on the earlier overtures and proposals and certain passages can be traced back unchanged to the first "Overture" of 1654. Seven of the eleven clauses are taken from the Povey papers as follows:
In the "Overtures" there are no clauses corresponding to those in the Instructions relating to the enforcement of the Navigation Act or to the spread of the Christian religion; these may well be deemed Restoration additions, inserted at Clarendon's request. But the clause concerning the transportation of servants, poor men, and vagrants may well have been Povey's own, for both Povey and Noell were interested in the question and Noell had been in the business since 1654. In the "Queries" is the following paragraph:
"Whither the weeding of this Comon Wealth of Vagabonds, condemned Persons and such as are heere useless and hurtful in wars and peace, and a settled course taken for the transporting them to the Indias and thereby principally supplying Jamaica is not necessary to be consulted."
Among the Povey papers is one entitled "Certain propositions for the better accommodating the Forreigne Plantacons with Servants," which Povey may have drawn up. Hence, there is no good reason to doubt but that Povey wrote the entire draft of these instructions himself. Even those portions that are not to be found in the "Overtures" are written in Povey's peculiar and rather stilted style.
That Povey and Noell were the authors of the instructions given to the Council of Trade it is not so easy to demonstrate. A preliminary sketch of "Instructions for a Councill of Trade" as well as a copy of the final instructions are to be found among the Povey papers and both Povey and Noell were sufficiently familiar with the requirements of trade at that period to have drafted such a document. The fact that the second paper is but an elaboration of the first leads to the conclusion that they bear to each other much the same relation that the "Overtures" bear to the Instructions for the Council of Plantations:
| First Draft. | Final Instructions. |
| 1. You shall in the first place consider, and propound how to remedy inconveniencys of the the English trade, in all the respective dominions of those Princes and States with whom his Matie may renew Alliance, and to that end make due enquiry into such former treaties as relate to Trade. | 1. You shall take into your consideration the inconveniences wch the English Trade hath suffered in any Partes beyond the Seas, And are to inquire into such Articles of former Treaties as have been made with any Princes or States in relation to Trade, And to draw out such Observations or Resolutions from thence, as may be necessary for us to advise or insist upon in any forreigne Leagues or Allyances. That such evills as have befallen these our Kingdomes through the want of good information in these great and publique concernmts may be provided against in tyme to come. |
| What Articles have bin provided in favour of the Trade of his Maties Subjects, How they have been neglected & Violated, What new Capitulations may be necessary pro Ratione Rerum, et temporum. And those, either in Relation: 1. To the freedome of Sale of your Commodities of all sorts, as to price & payment. 2. To the best expedition of Justice for recovery of your debts. 3. To the security of the Estates of all factors, and their Principalls in case of the factor's death. 4. To the Prevention of the Interruption of the Trade & Navigation, by Embargos of forraigne Princes & States, or imprestinge your Shipps to their Service. 5. To the Interest of all Trades that are or shall be incorporated by his Maties Charters, what jurisdictyon is necessary to be obtained from our Allies, for the more regular government of the Trade & members of those Corporations in forraigne factoryes. 2ly. And next you shall consider, how the reputation of all the manufactures of his Maties Kingdome may be recovered by a just regulation and standard of weight, length, and breadth, that soe the more profitable and ample Vent of them may be procured. | 2. You are to consider how & by whome any former Articles or Treatyes have been neglected or violated, what new Capitulations are necessary either to the freedome of Sale of your Commodities of all sorts, as to price & payment, Or to the best expedition of Justice to the recovery of Debts, or to the Security of Estates of all factors & their Principalls in case of the factor's Death, Or to the prevention of those interruptions wch the Trade & Navigations of our Kingdomes have suffered by Imbargoes of forreigne Princes or States, Or Imprestinge the Shipps of any of our Subjects, for their Service. 3. You are to consider well the Interest of all such trades as are or shall be Incorporated by our Royall Charters, & what Jurisdictions are necessary to be obteyned from such as are, or shall be in Allyance with us, for the more regular managemt & governmt of the Trade, & of the members of those our Corporations & forreigne factories. 4. You are to consider of the several Manufactures of these our Kingdomes how & by what occasions they are corrupted, debased & disparaged, And by what probable meanes they may be restored & maintained in their auncyent goodness & reputation, And how they may be farther improved to there utmost advantage by a just Regulation & Standard of weight Length & Breadth, that soe the private profitt of the Tradesmen or Merchants may not destroy the Creditt of the Commodity, & thereby render it neglected & unvended abroad, to the great loss & scandall of these our Kingdomes. 5. You are also to take into your Consideration all the native Commodities of the growth & production of these our Kingdomes, and how they may be ordered, nourished, increased & manifactured to the ymployment of our People and to the best advantage of the Publique. |
| 4ly. How the fishinge Trades of Newfound Land, the Coasts of England, Irland, & New England may be most improoved, and regulated to the greatest advantage of the Stocke and navigation of the nation, by excludinge the intrusion of our neighbors into it. | 6. You are especially to consider of the whole business of fishings of these our Kingdomes or any other of our distant Dominions or Plantations & to consult of some effectuall meanes for the reinforceing encouraging & encreasinge, and for the regulating & carryinge on of the Trade in all the Parts thereof. To the end That the People and Stock, and Navigation of these our Kingdomes may be ymployed therein and our Neighbors may not be enricht with that which soe properly & advantagiously may be undertooke & carryed on by our own Subjects. |
| 3ly. How the Trade of the Kingdome to forraigne parts may be soe menaged and proportioned, that we may in every part be more Sellers than buyers, that thereby the Coyne and present Stocke of money may be preserved and increased. | 7. You are seriously to consider & enquire whether the Importation of forreigne Commodityes doe not over-ballance the Exportations of such as are Native, And how it may be soe Ordered remedied, & proportioned that we may have more Sellers than Buyers in every parte abroad, And that the Coyne & present Stock of these our Kingdomes, may be preserved & increased, We judging, that such a Scale & Rule of proportion is one of the highest and most prudentiall points of Trade by wch the riches & strength of these our Kingdomes, are best to be understood & maintained. 8. You are to consider & examine by what wayes & means other Nations doe preferr their owne growths & Manifactures, & Importations, & doe discourage & suppress those of these our Kingdomes, & how the best contrivances and managemt of Trade, exercysed by other Nations may be rendred applicable & practicable by these our Kingdomes. 9. You are well to consider all matters relatinge to Navigation, & to the increase, & the Security thereof. 10. You are thoroughly to consider the severall matters relatinge to Money, how Bullonge may be best drawne in hither, & how any Obstructions upon our Mynt may be best removed. |
| 5ly. How the forraigne Plantations may be made most useful to the Trade & Navigation of these Kingdomes. | 11. You are to consider the general State & Condition of our forreigne Plantations & of the Navigation Trade & severall Commodityes ariseinge thereupon, & how farr theire future Improvemt & Prosperitie may bee advanced by any discouragement Imposition or Restraint, upon the Importation of all goods or Commodityes wth which those Plantations doe abound, and may supply these our Kingdomes, And you are alsoe in all matters wherein our forreigne Plantations are concerned to take advise or information (as occasion shall require) from the Councell appointed & sett apart by us to the more perticuler Inspection Regulation and Care of our forreigne plantations. 12. You are to consider how the transportation of such things may be best restreined and prevented, as are either forbidden by the Lawe, or may be inconvenient, or of disadvantage by being transported out of these our Kingdomes and dominions.[10] |
The councils thus commissioned and instructed soon met for organization and business, the Council for Plantations holding its preliminary session December 10, 1660, in the Star Chamber, and all remaining meetings in the Inner Court of Wards; the Council for Trade meeting, first, in Mercer's Hall, near Old Jewry, afterwards in certain rooms in Whitehall, still later in a rented house which was consumed in the great fire, and, after 1667, in Exeter House, Strand. Philip Frowde became the clerical secretary of the Plantation Council and George Duke secretary of the Council of Trade, a position that he seems to have lost in 1663 but to have resumed again before 1667. The meetings were attended chiefly by the non-conciliar members, for it was usually the rule that privy councillors were to be present only when some special business required their coöperation. Both councils were organized in much the same manner, with a number, at least seven, of inferior officers, clerks, messengers, and servants, and in both cases journals of proceedings and entry books containing copies of documents, patents, charters, petitions, and reports were kept.[11] Whether minutes were taken of the meetings of the subcommittees is doubtful; no such papers have anywhere been found.
The Council for Plantations had a continuous existence from December 10, 1660, when the preliminary meeting was held, probably until the spring of 1665, though August 24, 1664, is the date of its last recorded sitting. During that time it shared in the extraordinary activity which characterized the early years of the Restoration and represents, as far as such activity can represent any one person, the enthusiasm of the Earl of Clarendon. There was not an important phase of colonial life and government, not a colonial claim or dispute, that was not considered carefully, thoroughly, and, in the main, impartially by the Council.[12] The business was nearly always handled, in the first instance, by experts, for with few exceptions the working committees were made up of men who had had intimate experience with colonial affairs or were financially interested in their prosperity. The first committee, that of January 7, 1661, for example, was composed of Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, who had been on plantation committees during the Interregnum; Robert Boyle, president of the Corporation for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England and one of the founders of the Royal Society; Sir Peter Leere and Sir James Draxe, old Barbadian planters; Edmund Waller, poet and parliamentarian, who had been interested in colonial affairs for some years; General Venables, who knew Jamaica well; Thomas Povey, Edward Digges, John Colleton (soon to be Sir John), Martin Noell (soon to be Sir Martin), and Thomas Kendall, all merchants and experts on colonial trade, and Middleton, Jefferies, Watts, and Howe, sea-captains and merchants in frequent touch with the colonies. Other committees were made up in much the same way, although the number of members was usually smaller. When letters were to be written or reports drafted that required skill in composition and embodiment in literary form, we find the task entrusted to Povey alone or to Povey assisted by the poets Waller and Sir John Denham. Povey was, indeed, the most active member of the Council, serving as its secretary in much the same capacity as on the Committee for America from 1657 to 1660.[13] On both these boards he exemplified his own recommendation that there should be on the Council "a Person who is to be more imediately concern'd and active than the rest ... allwaies readie to give a full and digested account and consideracon of any particular relating to those Affaires." Among the Povey papers are many drafts of letters and reports in process of construction, bearing erasures and additions which point to Povey as their author.[14]
The Council for Plantations and its committees sat and deliberated apart, the latter in Grocer's Hall; but the subjects under examination were considered by both bodies. The subcommittees were frequently instructed to call in persons interested, to write to others from whom information could be obtained, and to pursue their investigations with due regard for both sides of the case. Sometimes questions would be submitted to the attorney general, to Dr. Walter Walker and others from Doctors Commons, to special members of the Council who were more familiar than the rest with the facts in the case. On at least one occasion all the members of the Council were requested to bring in what information they could obtain regarding a particular matter. Question after question was postponed from one meeting to another, because the Council had not obtained all the details that it felt should be in hand before the report was sent to the King in Council. On a few occasions members of the Council accompanied the report to the Privy Council apparently with the intention of explaining or emphasizing their recommendations. The subjects under debate concerned the internal or external affairs of all the colonies. They related to Jamaica, Barbadoes, Maryland, Virginia, and New England, including Nova Scotia, Massachusetts, Maine, and Long Island; they dealt with Quakers, Jews, vagrants, and servants, supplies, provisions, naval stores, emigrant registration, and abuses in colonial trade; they included that burning question of the period, the Dutch at New Amsterdam and the complaints that arose regarding Holland as an obstruction to English trade. The amount of time taken and pains expended on controversial points can be inferred from an examination of the New England case, which was taken up at the first regular meeting in January and was under examination from that time until April 30, when the Council sent in its report. Even then it was taken up by the Privy Council, referred to its own committee, called the Committee for New England, and in one or two particulars was sent back to the Council for further consideration. In the performance of its duties the Council for Plantations can never be charged with indolence or neglect. In the year 1661 alone it held forty meetings, or an average of one every nine days.
After August, 1664, the records of the Council come to an end, but there is reason to believe that the Council continued its sessions at least until the spring of 1665. That the last meeting was not held on August 24 is certain, not only from the wording of the minute, which reads: "ordered, being a matter of great moment and the day far spent, that the further consideration be deferred for a week," but also from two further references to the existence of the Council, of later date,—one dated September 7, when the Council sent in a report regarding the proposed establishment of a registry office, and the other in the form of an endorsement upon a letter from Lord Willoughby which says: "Refd to the Council, Feb. 24," that is February 24, 1665. It seems probable, therefore, that the Council was sitting as late as February-March of that year.[15] Probably its meetings were broken up by the plague which started in London about that time, in the westernmost parish, St. Giles-in-the-Fields, and lasted until the end of October. Whether the Council resumed its sessions after the plague had subsided it is almost impossible to say. No definite record exists of its meetings or work. Some of its members had died, Sir Martin Noell in October, 1665, and Sir Nicholas Crispe the next year; others had left England, Lord Willoughby, Capts. Watts and Kendall, and possibly Sir James Draxe; while others had accepted posts that took them away from London, as in the case of Capt. Middleton, who became commissioner of the navy at Portsmouth. Certainly Povey could have had very little to do with the affairs of a council in London in 1664–1666, when as surveyor-general of the victualling department he was required to be frequently at Plymouth and to spend a considerable amount of time travelling about England.[16] Yet there is nothing to show that its commission was revoked, and an order of the Privy Council, September 23, 1667, to which further reference will be made below, reads as if the Council were in existence at that time. If so, it must have been merely a nominal body.
After 1665, and until 1670, plantation affairs seem to have been controlled entirely by the Privy Council and its committees, which proved themselves capable and vigorous bodies. Before 1666, besides the Committee for Foreign Plantations, which has already been noticed, other committees were appointed as occasion arose,—committees for Jamaica, for Jamaica and Algiers, for the Guinea trade, for the Royal Company, for fishing in Newfoundland, for Jersey and Guernsey, and for New England. Committees for Trade and for hearing appeals from the Plantations also existed. On December 7, 1666, after the plague had subsided and the great fire had spent itself, the Privy Council reappointed its plantation committee, which now entered upon a career of greatly increased activity.[17] At the same time the Council made use of its other committees, particularly the "Committee for the Affaires of New England and for the bounding of Acadia," October 2, 4, 1667, which took into consideration the question of the restitution of Acadia to the French;[18] and it referred important matters of business to committees of selected experts. Under these conditions the affairs of the colonies were managed until the appointment of a new Plantation Council in August, 1670.
The Council for Trade met in Mercer's Hall some time before November 13, 1660, and at its preliminary session considered that part of its instructions which related to bullion and coin. On December 13, 1660, it passed a resolution urging and inviting people and merchants to send in petitions, and it requested the King to issue a proclamation defining its powers in all matters relating to trade and manufactures and calling on "any person, concerned in the matters therein to be debated or who have any petition or invention to offer, to apply to them for redress of evils brought on by the late times or for the improvement of trade regulations."[19] In response to, this appeal a large number of petitions, sent either to the Privy Council or directly to the Select Council itself, were received, and the discussion of these petitions and the preparing of reports upon them occupied the attention of the Council during the first two years. These reports show that the Council took its duties seriously and was thoroughly in earnest to improve, if possible, the trade of the kingdom, and to carry out to the full the commands which the King had laid upon it. There is not a clause of the instructions to which it did not pay some attention, and upon many matters it debated long and ardently, making reports that are as valuable for the student of the trade policy of the seventeenth century as are the familiar writings of well-known mercantilists. The Council took up and discussed the export of bullion and coin, expressing its opinion that the penalties should be withdrawn as injurious to trade, because they prevented the English merchants from bringing their money into the kingdom where it would be detained, and saying that money most abounded in countries which enjoyed freedom from restraints on exports. The trade in the Baltic, the East Indies, and the Levant to which trade freedom to export bullion was preeminently important; the Merchant Adventurers, regarding whose history and position the Council made a valuable report, viewing the subject from the beginning; the East India Company, whose petition,—largely reproduced in the report of the Council,—contained a bitter arraignment of the Dutch, calling to mind the "impudent affronts to the honor of this nation and the horrid injuries done to the stock and commerce thereof," and demanding damages and a definite regulation of trade in the forthcoming treaty with Holland then under debate; treaties with foreign powers, clauses in which concerning trade were taken up at the early meetings of the Council; prohibition of imposts on foreign cloths and stuffs, regarding which sundry shopkeepers, tradesmen, and artificers of London had petitioned the Privy Council in November, 1660,[20]—all these matters the Council took under consideration. It dealt with the granting of patents, with the encouragement of home industries, particularly the business of the framework knitters, silk-dyeing, and the manufacture of tapestry, and with the establishment of an insurance company.[21] As far as the plantations were concerned, its recommendations were few, and were made chiefly in connection with reports on the ninth and eleventh articles of its instructions, which touched upon convoys, imports, and composition-ports. It drafted a carefully drawn list of necessary convoys in which, of all the American plantations, only Newfoundland is mentioned. It considered the importation of logwood and tobacco, and upon the latter point made the suggestion "that all tobacco of English Plantations do pay at importation 1/2d. a pound and at exportation nothing." This recommendation was accompanied by a valuable essay on trade in general. It dealt with the question of making Dover a free port for composition trade and took the ground that the Acts of Navigation should be inviolably kept. On this question the Earl of Southampton, the Treasurer, and Lord Ashley (Cooper), Chancellor of the Exchequer, took the opposite ground, favoring the freedom of the port, "Dover having formerly been a port for free trade," and adding that "a free trade thus settled we conceive might conduce to the advantage of your Majesty's customs," trade being injured by the "tyes and observances which the Act of Navigation places upon it." They reported further that the farmers of the customs wished the Act to be dispensed with in some cases.[22]
Regarding the attitude of the Council toward the sixth article of its instructions, the promotion of the fisheries, we have fuller information. At the session of December 17, 1663, there were present the Earl of Sandwich, William Coventry, Sir Nicholas Crispe, Henry Slingsby, Christopher Boone, John Lord Berkeley, Sir Sackville Crowe, Thomas Povey, John Jolliffe, and George Toriano. Acting on a special order from the King, they debated how best the fishing trade might be gained and promoted, and how encouraged and advanced when gained. They considered the respective merits of a commission and a corporation, and whether, if a corporation should be agreed upon, it ought to be universal or exclusive, perpetual or limited, a joint stock or a divided stock, and what immunities and powers should be granted, the character of the persons to be admitted and the number. Taking up each point in turn, the members of the Council first considered "How to gain the Trade of Fishery" and laid down seven methods: 1, 2, by raising money either through voluntary contributions or through lotteries; 3, 4, by restraint of foreign importation or by impositions upon all foreign importation; 5, by letters to all countries urging them to contribute such especial commodities as cordage, lumber, boards, and the like, in exchange for fish; 6, by declaring a war against the Dutch, and at the same time, 7, by naturalizing or indenizing all Hollanders who would come into the English fishery. For the support of the trade when gained the Council proposed: 1, to impose a proportion of fish upon every vintner, innkeeper, alehouse-keeper, victualler, and coffee house in England; 2, to refuse all licenses for fish, which were to be paid for to the corporation; 3, to take the stock of the poor of every parish and provide for the impotent and aged only out of the product, and employ such as were able to work in the fishery—the impotent in the making of nets, etc.; 4, to require the gentlemen of all maritime counties to raise a stock of money in their counties to be employed toward the advance of the fishery; 5, to raise busses, i. e., Dutch herring boats, and to set them forth to their own use and to receive the profits in fish or in the product of it; 6, to employ the imposition laid upon fish by the last Parliament for the purpose of advancing the trade; to accept the offer of fishmongers to raise busses and money; 8, to require the master and wardens of the company, and, 9, to encourage private persons to do the same; 10, to bring over Dutchmen to teach the English the art of curing, salting, and marking fish, and of making casks. It was then decided, "after a long and solemne debate of the whole matter," nemine contradicente, "that there being no disadvantage in a corporation But many great Advantages, powers and Immunities that cannot be had by Commission That the best way of advancing & encouraging the Fishing Trade is by way of [a] Corporation." To this corporation were to be granted "the sole power of Lycensing the Eating and killing of flesh in Lent," the power to make by-laws, to dispose of "guifts that are or shalbee given for carrying on of this Trade," to administer oaths, to constitute officers, to exercise coercion in case of contempt against orders, to fine and in some cases to imprison, to send for papers, persons, books, etc. The corporation was to be universal, perpetual, and a joint stock company.[23] As a result of the report of the Council a charter of incorporation was issued to the Duke of York and thirty-six others, forming the Governor and Company of the Royal Fishery of Great Britain and Ireland, and George Duke, "late Secretary to the Committee of Trade," was recommended by the King as its secretary.[24]
This account of the debate in the Council upon the fishery question is important not only because it gives an interesting glimpse of the Council at work, and the only glimpse that we have at any length of its procedure, but because it illustrates a phase of mercantilism in the making. It shows, also, the intensity of the rivalry that existed between England and Holland, and furnishes an admirable example of one of the causes of that rivalry, the Dutch predominance in the fishing business.[25] The Council frequently appealed to the methods employed by the Dutch as a sufficient argument to support its contention, and when objections were raised against the universal corporation it answered, "You destroy the essence of a Corporation by lymitting it, And if you lymitt it, no man will venture their Stocke, and the mayne reason why the Dutch employ not only their Stocke but their whole families in the fisheries, is because their corporation is perpetual."
How much longer the Council of Trade continued its sessions it is impossible to say. Its last recorded action is a report, dated July, 1664, which contained its opinion upon the question of trade with Scotland, a matter soon to be taken up by the higher authorities. It is probable that, as in the case of the Council of Plantations, its sessions were suspended because of the plague and the fire and were not resumed. Its commission was not revoked and it certainly had a nominal existence until 1667. That it had no actual existence in April, 1665, seems likely from a letter sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury at that time, begging that the King appoint a council of trade to find out the cause of the decay in the coal trade.[26] By the summer of 1665 trade was reported dead and money scarce and to the plague was ascribed "an infinite interruption to the whole trade of the Nation." The fire and the Dutch war completed the demoralization of commerce and in 1666 the plantations were deemed in great want of necessaries on account of the obstructions of trade by the war. Though in that year many questions arose that might naturally have been referred to such a council had it been in session, no such references appear among the records. The advancement of trade was looked after by the Privy Council and its trade committee, and particularly by the Committee of Trade appointed by Parliament. The latter body had been named as early as March, 1664, to investigate the export of wool, wool-fells, and fullers' earth. A few weeks later it was entrusted with the duty of inquiring into the reasons for the general decay of trade. As this function was conferred on the Parliamentary Committee at a time when the Select Council was still holding its sessions, it is reasonable to suppose that the work of the latter body had not proved satisfactory. There is some slight evidence to show that the meetings of the Council were at this time but little attended and that its members were not working in harmony.[27] The Parliamentary Committee, acting as a Council of Trade, ordered representatives from all the merchant companies to prepare an account of the causes of obstruction in their different branches, and when the latter, among other obstacles, named the Dutch as the chief enemies of English trade, resolved that the wrongs inflicted by the Dutch were the greatest obstructions to foreign trade, and recommended that the King should seek redress. Other causes were considered and debated.[28]
An excellent idea of procedure can be obtained from studying the history of trade relations with Scotland during this decade. Immediately after the passage of the Navigation Act of 1660, the Scots petitioned that the Act might be dispensed with for Scotland, and special deputies were sent from the Scottish to the English Parliament to prevent, if possible, the extension of the Act to their country. The matter was referred to the Customs Commissioners and to the Privy Council, and the latter appointed a special committee to investigate it. Both of these bodies reported that the grant of such liberties to the Scots would frustrate the object of the Act, and gave elaborate reasons for this opinion.[29] As an act of retaliation the Scottish Parliament laid heavy impositions upon English goods, and English merchants in 1664 petitioned Parliament for relief. Parliament recommended the appointment of referees on both sides and in July, 1664, the Privy Council placed the matter in the hands of Southampton, Ashley, and Secretary Bennet. This committee laid the question before the Council of Trade, which suggested a compromise, whereby duties on both sides should be reduced to 5 per cent., the Scots should have the benefits of the Act of Navigation but no intercourse with foreign plantations, and should not buy any more foreign built ships. As a result of these and further negotiations Parliament passed an act in 1667,[30] "for settling freedom and intercourse of trade between England and Scotland," and under the terms of that act commissioners were appointed to meet with commissioners for Scotland in the Inner Star Chamber to negotiate a freedom of trade between the two countries. The commissioners duly met on January 13, 1668, and the papers recording their negotiations are full and explicit. The whole question of the relations between England and Scotland since the union, both political and economic, was investigated with great care; papers were searched for, records examined, memorials and petitions received, and various conditions of trade inquired into. The commissioners frequently disagreed and harmony was by no means always attained, resulting in delays in drafting the treaty and the eventual failure of the negotiations. In October the Scottish commissioners returned to Edinburgh, and the conditions remained as before.[31]
The fall of Clarendon, at the end of the year 1667, led to important changes in the organization of the government, and the widespread demoralization in trade demanded an improvement of the system of trade and plantation control. The year 1668 is significant as the starting point for a number of attempted remedies in matters of finance and trade supervision. We have no opportunity here to examine the political aspects of these changes or to determine how far they were effected in the interest of mere political control. Suffice it to say that too many conditions of the reign of Charles II have been attributed to extravagance and political intrigue, and too few to an honest desire on the part of those concerned to restore the realm to a condition of solvency and prosperity. Heavily burdened with debt at the outset of the reign, distracted by plague, fire, and foreign war during the years from 1665 to 1668, the kingdom needed the services of all its statesmen, and even the most selfish politician must have realized the need of reorganization. Acting upon a suggestion which Clarendon himself had made to the King, the Privy Council in 1667 began by strengthening its own committee system, and on January 31, 1668, established four standing committees—for foreign affairs, military affairs, trade and plantations, and petitions and grievances. These committees had almost the character of state departments, though they had no final authority of their own, all orders emanating from the Privy Council only. They became, however, more independent than had been previous committees by virtue of the fact that no order was to be issued by the Council until it had been "first perused by the Reporter of each Committee respectively," The following is a copy of the regulations:
His Matie among other the important parts of his Affairs having taken into his princely consideration the way & method of managing matters at the Council Board, And reflecting that his Councills would have more reputation if they were put into a more settled & established course, Hath thought it fit to appoint certaine Standing Comitties of the Council for several Businesses together with regular days & places for their assembling in such sort as followeth:
1. The Committee of Forraine Affaires is already settled to consist of these Persons following (besides his Royall Highness, who is understood to be of all comittees, where he pleases to be) vizt. Prince Rupert, Ld Keeper [Sir Orlando Bridgeman], Lord Privy Scale [Lord Robartes], Duke of Buckingham, Lord General [Duke of Albemarle], Ld Arlington, & Mr Secry Morice, To which Committee His Matie doth also hereby referr the corresponding wth Justices of peace & other officers & ministers in the Severall Countys of the Kingdome, concerning the Temper of the Kingdome &c. The constant day for this Committee to meete to be every Monday besides such other dayes wherein any extraordinary Action shall oblige them to assemble, And the place for their meeting to be at the Lord Arlington's Lodgings in Whitehall.
2. Such matters as concerne the Admiralty & Navy as also all Military matters, Fortifications &c, so far as they are fit to be brought to the Councill Board, without intermedling in what concernes the proper officers (unlesse it shall by them be desired). If his Matie is pleased to appoint that they be undr the consideracon of this following Committee, vizt, Prince Rupert, Ld General [Duke of Albemarle], E. of Anglesy, Ea. of Carlisle, Ea. of Craven, Lord Arlington, Lord Berkeley, Mr Comptroller [Sir Thomas Clifford], Mr Secry Morice, Sr Wm Coventry & Sr John Duncombe. The usuall day of meeting to be Wensdays, & oftner, as he that presides shall direct, & the place to be the Councill Chamber, and hereof Three or more of them to be a Quorum.
3. Another Committee his Matie is pleased to constitute for the Business of Trade under whose consideration is to come whatsoever concernes his Mats: Forraine Plantations, as also what relates to his Kingdomes of Ireland or Scotland, the Isles of Jersey & Guernsey, which is to consist of the Lord Privy Scale [Lord Robartes], Duke of Buckingham, Earle of Ossory, Ea. of Bridgewater, Ea: of Lauderdail, Ld: Arlington, Ld: Holles, Ld: Ashley, Mr. Comptroller [Sir Thomas Clifford], Mr Vice Chamberlain [Sir George Carteret], Mr Secry. Morice, & Sr Wm Coventry. The usuall day of meeting to be every Thursday in the Councill Chamber, or oftner as he that presides shall direct, and hereof 3 or more of them to be a Quorum.
4. His Matie is pleased to appoint one other Committee to whom all Petitions of Complaint & Greivance are to be referred in which His Matie hath thought fit hereby particularly to prescribe not to meddle wth Property or what relates to Meum & Tuum. And to this Committee his Matie is pleased that all matters which concerne Acts of State or of the Councill be referred. The persons to be the Arch. Bp: of Canterbury, Lord Keeper [Sir Orlando Bridgeman], Ld: Privy Seale [Lord Robartes], Ld: Great Chamberlain [?], Ld Chamberlain [Edward, Earl of Manchester], Ea: of Bridgewater, Ea: of Anglesey, Ea: of Bathe, Ea: of Carbery, Viscount Fitzharding, Ld: Arlington, Ld: Holles, Ld: Ashley, Mr Secry: Morice, Mr: Chancellor of the Dutchy [of Lancaster, Sir Thomas Ingram], and Sr: John Duncombe. The constant day of meeting to be Friday in the Councill Chamber. And his Mats further meaning is, that to these two last committees, any of the Councill may have Liberty to come & vote and that his two principall Secries: of State [at this time Lord Arlington and Sir William Morrice] be ever understood to be of all Comtees:, And hereof 3 or more of them to be a Quorum.
And for the better carrying on of Business at those severall Comittees, his Matie: thinks fit, and accordingly is pleased to appoint, That each of these Committees be assigned to the particular care of some one person, who is constantly to attend it. In that of the Navy & Military matters his Royal Highness may prside, if he so please, or else the Lord Generall [Duke of Albemarle]. In Forraine matters the Ld Arlington. In Trade & Plantations the Ld: Privy Seale [Lord Robartes]. In matters of State & Greivances, the Lord Keeper [Sir Orlando Bridgeman].
Besides which fixt & established Committees, if there shall happen anything extraordinary that requires Advice, whether in matters relating to the Treasury, or of any other mixt nature other than what is afore determined His Maties meaning and intention is, that particular Committees be in such Cases appointed for them, as hath been accustomed. And that such Committees do make their Report in Writing, to be offered to his Matie: the next Councill day following, in which, if any Debate arise, the old Rule is ever strictly to be observed, that the youngest Councellr: do begin, and not to speake a second time without Leave first obteyned. And that as on the one side nothing is hereafter to be resolved in Councill, till the matter hath been first examined, And have received the Opinion of some Committee or other, So on the other hand, that nothing be referred to any Committee, untill it have been first read at the Board, except in Forraine Affaires. And his Mats express pleasure is, That no Order of Councill be henceforth any time issued out by the Clerks of the Councill till the same have been first perused by the Reporter of each Committee respectively.[32]
There is very little evidence to show that the Committee of the Council for Trade and Plantations played any very conspicuous part in regulating either trade or plantations during the years from 1668 to 1675, though a number of petitions were referred to it. Its most important report was that recommending the restoration of the province of Maine to the grandson of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, but even that matter was taken out of its hands by the further reference of the Gorges' petition to the Committee for Foreign Affairs. In 1668, it dealt with the restitution of Surinam to the Dutch and the settlement of Lord Willoughby's claims; with relief for Barbadoes after the disastrous fire which destroyed St. Michaels in April of that year; with the equipment of Sir Tobias Bridges' regiment in the same island; and with the liberty granted to certain Dutch ships of trading to New York despite the Navigation Act. In 1669, it considered a few petitions and reported on Gorges' memorial. After 1670 it did little, as far as actual evidence of its activity is concerned, but it is entirely clear that it had to transact a great deal more business than is recorded either in the Register or in the Colonial Papers.[33] Many of the questions that were referred to the Select Council of Trade and the Select Council of Trade and Plantations were first passed upon by this committee or were referred to it after the report from the separate body had come in. Furthermore, we know that in the case of this committee, as of similar committees of the Privy Council after 1696, many questions were never allowed to pass out of its hands, except as they were reported to the Council itself. Though not conspicuous, it was potentially active and quite ready in 1675 to take up the burden of colonial control that the King placed upon it.[34]
Even before it had begun the reorganization of its committee system, the Privy Council made known its decision to revive the system of separate and select councils which had probably been in abeyance since 1665. On September 23, 1667, it ordered its Committee for Trade and Foreign Plantations to take into consideration the advisability of revoking the commissions of the two councils of 1660,—which councils must, therefore, have been deemed still legally in existence—and of uniting these bodies so as to form a single select council for trade and plantations. To this end it instructed the secretaries of those councils, Philip Frowde and George Duke, to appear before it. For reasons that are nowhere found among the official papers this plan was given up and the decision reached to revoke only the commission of the Council of Trade and to issue a patent for a new body. Roger North, in his Examen, published in 1740, a work little to be depended on as far as historical accuracy is concerned, declares that this move was merely a piece of political manœuvering and never was designed to accomplish anything of importance for the trade or revenue of the kingdom. He says:
"The courtiers, for his Majesty's Ease, moved that there might be a commission to several of the greatest Traders in London to examine all matters of that kind, and to report their Opinion to the Council; upon which his Majesty might determine. This plausible project was put in Execution and the Leaders of the Fanatic party in the city [especially Alderman Love and Josiah Child] were the Commissioners; for so it was plotted. The great House in Queen Street was taken for the use of this Commission. Mr. Henry Slingsby, sometime Master of the Mint was the Secretary; and they had a formal Board with Green Cloth and Standishes, Clerks good store, a tall Porter and Staff, and fitting Attendance below, and a huge Luminary at the Door. And in Winter Time, when the Board met, as was two or three Times a Week, or oftener, all the Rooms were lighted, Coaches at the Door, and great passing in and out, as if a Council of State in good Earnest had been sitting. All Cases, Complaints, and Deliberations of Trade were referred to this Commission, and they reported their opinion."[35]
North's implication that the Council was a contrivance of the enemies of the King to effect a prohibition of trade with France which the government wished to keep open seems deserving of little credence. In the past, facts regarding this Council and its work have not been complete, and even a full list of its members has been wanting. Even now the commission and instructions, which, after considerable delay, were issued on October 20, 1668, have eluded discovery, and we can present little more than the terms of the docket as entered in the books of the Crown Office. The docket reads: "A Commission with instructions annexed establishing a Counsell of Trade, for Keeping a control and super-inspection of his Majesty's Trade and Commerce." From another source we learn that the Council was to take into consideration "the Conditions of your Majtyes Plantations abroad, in order to the improvement of Trade and increase of Navigation, and for the further encouragement of yor Majtyes Subjects in their Trade and Commerce both at home and abroad."[36] A second commission was issued on April 13, 1669, "directed to the same persons in the same form & with the same powers and instructions ... with a confirmation of all Acts done in pursuance of the said late commission in election of officers and otherwise."[37] The clerical secretary was Peter du Moulin, though Dr. Benjamin Worsley seems to have had some official position on the board. The members of the Council were as follows: Duke of York, Prince Rupert, Lord Keeper, Lord Privy Seal, Duke of Buckingham, Duke of Albemarle, Duke of Ormond, Earl of Bridgewater, Earl of Ossory, Earl of Anglesey, Earl of Carlisle, Earl of Craven, Earl of Lauderdale, Lord Arlington, Lord Berkeley of Stratton, Lord Holles, Lord Ashley, Sir Thomas Clifford, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Trevor, Sir William Morrice, Sir William Coventry, Sir Thomas Osborne, Sir Thomas Littleton, Sir Henry Blount, Sir George Downing, Sir Andrew Riccard, Sir William Thompson, Silas Titus, William Garroway, Henry Slingsby, Thomas Grey, John Birch, William Love, Esq., Benjamin Worsley, Doctor of Physic; John Buckworth, Thomas Papillion, John Page, Josiah Child, Thomas Tyte, Benjamin Albyn, and John Shorter. In 1669 were added the Earl of Devonshire, Earl of Sandwich, Viscount Halifax, and George, Lord Berkeley, making forty-six members in all.[38] This is an extraordinary body of men to be engaged in pulling the wool over the eyes of the King, and though Professor Ashley is inclined to view North's account with approval, we doubt if it will stand the test of examination. Professor Ashley's further belief that from this Council emanated the document called "A Scheme of Trade," is capable of satisfactory disproof, since but few of the signers of that document were members of the Council and the date when it was issued, November 29, 1674, was after the Council as a separate body had been abolished.[39]
The Council lasted from 1668 to 1672 and during that time it did nothing, so far as we can discover, either for or against the trade with France. It considered the granting of patents, foreign trade with Piedmont and elsewhere, the export of wool, disputes among the merchant companies, dispensations from the operation of the Navigation Act, and a few matters relating to home industry, particularly as regards abuses in the baize trade. It took into consideration the order in Council of October 23, 1667, permitting the Dutch to send three or more ships yearly for seven years to trade from Holland to New York, and reported so strongly against it that the Privy Council revoked the order.[40] More important still, it took up the whole question of the operation of the navigation acts in the colonies, called upon the merchants and the farmers of the customs for information, and made a careful report to the Privy Council, which the latter, on January 20,1669, embodied in the following order:
"His Matie this day taking into consideration the great importance the Trade of his severall plantations is to his Matie & his Kingdome, and being informed that severall Governments of the sd Plantations have been wanting to their duty in the following particulars, viz:
1. That Governors have not taken the oath enjoined by law,
2. That shipps have been permitted to trade to and from the Plantations not qualified according to law,
3. That there has been omission in taking Bond and Security and returning those Bonds according as directed by the severall Acts of Parliament.
For redresse it is ordered, that the Farmers of the Customs do and are hereby required (at their owne charge) to send over and make choice of upon the place & from time to time commissionate & maynteyne one or more persons in each Plantation (whom his Matie shall approve & authorize) to administer the usual oaths to the severall Governors, that no vessels be admitted to trade there till said officer has the perusal of the passes and certificates and certifies that they may trade there, and that no Bond or security be admitted without the allowance of said officer,
That letters be written to all said Governors to take said oaths before said officer and also to give them countenance and assistance,
That Directions be given to the Commanders of his Maties ships and to any merchant shipps to arrest any ship trading to His Maties Plantations contrary to the law."[41]
Under this order Edward Digges, former governor of Virginia and a London merchant well known to us, was appointed by the farmers of the customs as a fit person to execute for the colony of Virginia the articles and instructions contained in this order. No other appointments, however, appear to have been made at this time.[42]
After 1670 activities of the Council of Trade, as far as they are recorded, are very few. It considered the trade of the Eastland Company, provided for a supply of coal for London at reasonable rates, and discussed a few minor petitions, but as compared with its contemporary, the Council for Foreign Plantations, it accomplished little.[43]
([1]) Cal. State Papers, Col., 1514–1660, pp. 482, 483; P.C.R., Charles II, Vol. II, p. 63; New York Colonial Docts., III, p. 30.
([2]) P.C.R., Charles II, Vol. II, p. 37; Bodleian, Rawlinson A., 117, No. 20.
([3]) Professor Osgood thinks that a part of Noell's fortune was made in the slave trade. Beyond the fact that he was a member of the Royal African Company, I cannot find any evidence whatever to prove this statement. Noell certainly was not a slave trader before 1660.
([4]) Bodleian, Clarendon Papers, passim, New York Hist. Soc. Collections, 1869; Brit. Museum, Add. MSS., 11410, ff. 18 et seq. Clarendon had an agent in Jamaica, Major Ivy, who was considering the setting up of plantations and planting cocoa walks in the interest of the King's revenue. Clarendon's policy toward the continental colonies overshadows somewhat his policy toward the West Indies and in consequence this phase of the subject has been neglected by those who have dealt with Clarendon's colonial relations.
([5]) P.C.R., Charles II, Vol. II, pp. 131–132; printed in part in Analytical Index to the Series of Records known as the Remembrancia, preserved among the Archives of the City of London, 1579–1664. (Privately printed, 1878); and in very much abbreviated form in Bannister, Writings of William Patterson, III, 251–252, from whom it has been copied by both Egerton and Cunningham. It seems somewhat strange that there should be no entry of the receipt of this letter in the journal of the court of Aldermen nor any draft of an answer among the Remembrancia or elsewhere. A careful search has failed to disclose any reference to action taken upon this letter among the papers in the Town Clerk's office at the Guildhall.
([6]) Bodleian, Clarendon Papers, 73, f. 232.
([7]) Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1660–1661, p. 319.
([8]) Public Record Office, Chancery, Crown Dockets, 6, p. 50. On the docket for the commission of the council of trade the names of the members are inserted; but on that of the commission for the council for foreign plantations the place is left blank. A marginal note on the latter docket gives the explanation noted above.
([9]) There is a list of the members in 1661, containing but forty-seven names with some omissions and additions.
([10]) Egerton, 2395, ff. 268, 269; Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1660–1661, pp. 353–354; P.R.O. State Papers, Domestic, XXI, No. 27; Cunningham, Growth of English Industry and Commerce, 4 ed., Appendix.
([11]) The journal of the Council of Plantations is among the Colonial Papers in the Public Record Office, XIV, No. 59, ff. 1–57, December 1, 1660–August 4, 1664, entitled "Orders and Proceedings at his Mats Counsell for Forraigne Plantacons." There is no journal of the Council of Trade known to exist, but minutes of one or two meetings, which have been preserved, show that a journal must have been kept. An entry-book for patents is mentioned, Cal. State Papers, Col., 1661–1668, § 15, and an entry-book of petitions and reports, November 13, 1660–March 12, 1662, is in Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 25115.
Regarding the history of the papers of the Council of Trade the following information may be of interest. The records probably remained in the possession of George Duke, secretary to the Council, and were called for by Dr. Worsley, secretary of the Council of 1672 in a letter dated November 28, 1672 (Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1672–1673, pp. 213–214). No answer was received from Duke and evidently the papers were not handed over, for when in 1698 the Board of Trade applied for them to Col. Duke's son-in-law, Henry Crispe, it was informed by Mr. Crispe that he had never even seen any of the papers but had heard that some of them were burnt in the Temple when in Col. Duke's possession (Journal of the Board of Trade, XI, p. 55, May 10, 1698). In June and July, 1707, the Board of Trade attempted again to get hold of the papers and wrote to Crispe on June 30. Crispe's reply is worth printing:
"If I am rightly informed there are divers original books and papers relating to the Royal Fishery and the establishing thereof from the year 1660 for divers successive years in which are contained several projections concerning the promoting the same. And there are also books and minutes of the proceedings of the Council of Trade from the year 1660 to 1668, which also contain several material things in relation to Trade and the improvement thereof, which I understand are in the power of a friend of mine.
"These books and papers will be disposed of as the Honble Board the Council of Trade shall direct or order.
"But it is humbly desired that consideration be allowed the party that shall produce these Books and Papers. And that it may be ascertained what that consideration shall be and by whom it shall be given.
"I was desired to inform you of this to the end you may take such steps therein as you in your great prudence shall judge most proper.
"If any orders or commands shall be given about this affair that I can be useful or serviceable therein & they be transmitted for me or be left at Johns Coffee House in Bedford St. near the Church in Convent Garden such orders will be faithfully observed by
"Srs Your faithfull humble Servant
"H. Crispe."
Crispe sent a list of the books with his letter, but that list is missing. The Board answered that it would not buy the books without seeing them first, but as we find no further mention of the matter in the Journal and as the books and papers are not to be found to-day the probabilities are that the negotiations fell through. Journal, XIX, p. 296; Board of Trade Papers, Trade, H Nos. 74, 76.
([12]) This may be inferred from the following note attached to one of the reports: "The council conceiving themselves to be in noe capacitie of giving any judgment therein having heard but one side." Egerton, 2395, f. 299.
([13]) See Cal. State Papers, Col., 1675–1676, §§ 338, 339, where he is called "Secretary for Foreign Plantations."
([14]) Egerton, 2395, ff. 286, 291, 299, 335, 336.
([15]) Cal. State Papers, Col., 1661–1668, §§ 790, 833; Dom., 1664–1665, p. 4.
([16]) In December, 1665, he wrote of "an uncomfortable journey on unfrequented roads, with none to break the ice, in a hackney coach which receives the wind in all parts." Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1665, p. 105.
([17]) P.C.R., Charles II, Vol. VI, p. 231; Cal. State Papers, Col., 1661–1668, § 1685.
([18]) Egerton, 2395, ff. 449, 451, 452, 453; Cal. State Papers, Col., 1661–1668, §§ 1598–1600.
([19]) Brit. Mus., Add. MSS., 25115, f. 156; Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1661–1662, pp. 411–412.
([20]) Brit. Mus., Add. MSS., 25115; Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1660–1661, pp. 356, 359, 363, 372, 412; 1661–1662 pp. 28, 80.
([21]) Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1660–1661, pp. 383, 532; 1661–1662, pp. 111, 277, 529, 446; Bodleian, Rawlinson MSS., A. 478, f. 81.
([22]) Brit. Mus., Add. MSS., 25115, ff. 133–140; Cal. State Papers, Treasury Books, 1660–1667, pp. 245–247, containing the list of convoys, a duplicate of that in the British Museum volume; p. 250, the Treasurer's report.
([23]) Brit. Mus., Egerton, 2543, ff. 137–139.
([24]) Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1663–1664, pp. 515, 549. The Fishing Commission, appointed in 1661, had proved a failure, but the council borrowed from the patent of that commission many of the suggestions which it recommended. Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1661–1662, p. 83.
([25]) Cf. Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1661–1662, p. 83.
([26]) Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1665–1666, p. 330. Yet Crispe's letter (ante, p. 75, note) certainly speaks as if the Council had a continuous existence from 1660 to 1668, and the mention of Exeter House as its place of meeting after 1667 points in the same direction.
([27]) "Some considerations about the commission for trade," P.R.O. Shaftesbury MSS., Div. X, 8(1).
([28]) Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1663–1664, pp. 528, 531, 543, 572, 573, 588.
([29]) Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1661–1662, pp. 75, 135–136, 149.
([30]) 19 Charles II, c. 13.
([31]) Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1667–1668, pp. 156, 158, 165, 173, 180, 187, 191, 247, 321, 433, 444, 452, 511, 593, 594; 1668–1669, pp. 35, 40.
([32]) Brit. Mus., Egerton MSS., 2543, ff. 205–205b. Endorsed "Regulation of Committees of the Councill. Read & Ordered in Councill the 31st January, 1667b." For reasons that cannot be explained this regulation is not entered in the Privy Council Register. It is a similar order of February 12, 1668, P.C.R., Charles II, Vol. VII, pp. 176–177, but otherwise omitted. For this reason the document is here printed in full. Cf. Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1667–1668, p. 261.
([33]) For instance, there are among the Colonial Papers memoranda of proceedings at various sittings of this committee held between April 7, 1668, and February 18, 1669, relative to domestic, colonial, and foreign trade, that are not recorded elsewhere.
([34]) Cal. State Papers, Col., 1661–1668, §§ 1685, 1712, 1759, 1769, 1791, 1870, 1883; 1660–1674, §§ 30, 66, 150, 184–186, 751, 837, 1226, I, II, III; 1320, 1353, 1390. Dom., 1668–1669, pp. 62, 201.
([35]) Roger North, Examen, p. 461, quoted by Prof. Ashley in Surveys, Historic and Economic, pp. 274–275.
([36]) New York Colonial Docts., III, p. 175.
([37]) P.R.O. Chancery, Crown Office, Docket Books, 7, pp. 335, 344; Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1668–1669, pp. 6, 18, 224–225.
([38]) Bodleian, Rawlinson MSS. A, 478, f. 77; Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1668–1669, pp. 224–225, 651.
([39]) Ashley, Surveys, pp. 275–276.
([40]) New York Colonial Docts., III, pp. 175–178; Cal. State Papers, Col., 1661–1668, §§ 1874, 1875.
([41]) P.C.R., Charles II, Vol. VIII, p. 169; Cal. State Papers, Col., 1661–1668, § 1884, 1669–1674, §§ 6, 9.
([42]) Cal. State Papers, Col., 1669–1674, §§ 104, 696.
([43]) Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1671, p. 210; 1671–1672, pp. 450–451.