History of merchant shipping and ancient commerce, Volume 2 (of 4)

by W. S. Lindsay

England had now asserted the practical right to carry on her own over-sea trade in her own ships, and to obtain as much foreign trade as she could by her own industry and energy, and as this action was practically a defiance of the maritime supremacy of Holland, a struggle was evidently impending which could only be decided by an appeal to arms. But the Dutch amused the English Parliament with negotiations for a treaty, although in point of fact they had nothing to give as an equivalent for any concessions that England might make. In the meanwhile they got together one hundred and fifty vessels, and placing them under the command of Martin Tromp,[178] declared war against her in April 1652. As the desperate and sanguinary struggles which followed are matters of general history, it will be sufficient for our purpose if we recapitulate some only of the leading facts which show the effect of the war upon the merchant shipping of both countries.

The Dutch were at first, if not throughout, by far the heavier sufferers. Within a month of the declaration of war Blake captured one hundred of their herring fleet, together with twelve frigates of their convoy, sinking the thirteenth. He also made efforts to intercept five East Indiamen under the Dutch flag, which had endeavoured to get into port by sailing round Scotland, and he contrived to carry six more frigates into Yarmouth Roads. About the same period Sir George Ayscough, the admiral commanding in the Channel, having thirty-eight ships under him, made an attempt to stop the passage of a fleet of Dutch merchantmen, sailing under the protection of De Ruyter, another distinguished Dutch admiral, but after a furious engagement he was compelled to retire into Plymouth, and to leave a free passage for De Ruyter’s convoy down Channel.

The English capture prizes.

Peace of 1654.

The English, however, again took possession of the Channel, and scarcely a day passed without Dutch prizes being brought into English ports: many of these having made long voyages to distant parts of the world, were on their homeward voyage without apprehension of war. Nor is it surprising that booty so valuable should have whetted the appetite of the English people for war. But happily, on the 5th of April 1654, a treaty of peace was concluded. Cromwell’s enemies complained that in the treaty no mention was made of the sole right of the English to the fishing on their own coast, nor of any annual tribute to be paid by the Dutch for that privilege, which had been the case in the reign of Charles. They were displeased also that he gave up the right of search which Parliament had insisted upon; and, further, that he did not limit the number of Dutch men-of-war to be thereafter employed for the protection of their commerce. Cromwell, however, required in the treaty an admission of the English sovereignty of the seas, and the Dutch consented to strike their flag to the ships of the Commonwealth.[179] We may add that this treaty made no reference to the obnoxious Navigation Act, although this was in all probability the actual cause of the war; as on this point neither Cromwell, the Parliament, nor the nation felt disposed to yield in the smallest degree.

Alleged complaints against the Navigation Acts of Cromwell.

It has been asserted that these laws at first occasioned loud complaints, to the effect “that while our own people (the English) had not shipping enough to import from all parts the goods they wanted, they were, nevertheless, by the Navigation Act debarred from receiving new supplies of merchandise from other nations, who only could, and till then, did import them.”[180] At a later period it was said “No doubt the people were right, the injustice was not seen at first, but the complaints being unheeded, the wrong dropped out of sight.”[181] No sudden revulsion, however, of a long established policy ever takes place without deep complaints from the parties whose monopoly, real or virtual, has been destroyed. But in this instance these alleged complaints had doubtless their origin in the mortification felt by foreign agents in London, whose principals abroad had for centuries enjoyed an undue share of the shipping trade of this country.

Navigation Act of Charles II.

The Maritime Charter of England.

During the ten years which followed the passing of the Act of 1651, the Legislature became more and more convinced of the efficacy of these prohibitive laws, and was prepared to render them practically even more stringent. If Charles II. could have reversed any of Cromwell’s legislative measures with advantage or popularity, he and his court would gladly have taken such a step. But Charles and his ministers perceived the advantages which had already accrued from the legislation of the preceding government, and in the first year of his actual reign[182] passed an Act (12 Charles II.) which obtained even from Sir Josiah Child, a liberal and enlightened merchant, the title of ‘The Maritime Charter of England.’[183] This Act may be deemed the complement of the Acts of 1646 and 1651, and its principles continued in force until the year 1849, when, under a totally different state of circumstances, they gave way to a system more liberal and better adapted to preserve that share of the trade of the world, both as manufacturers and carriers of merchandise, which Great Britain had acquired on the transfer of the maritime power of the Dutch to her own people two centuries before.