Series XXVI Nos. 1–2–3
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES
IN
Historical and Political Science
Under the Direction of the
Departments of History, Political Economy, and Political Science
BRITISH COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS,
AND COUNCILS OF TRADE AND
PLANTATIONS, 1622–1675
BY
CHARLES M. ANDREWS
Professor of History
BALTIMORE
THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS
PUBLISHED MONTHLY
January, February, March, 1908
Copyright 1908 by
THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
Control of Trade and Plantations under James I and Charles I.
Before 1622, Privy Council the sole authority 10 Commission of Trade, 1622–1623 11 Commission of Trade, 1625–1626 12 Privy Council Committee of Trade, 1630–1640 13 Temporary Plantation Commissions, 1630–1633 14 Laud Commission for Plantations, 1634–1641 14 Subcommittees for Plantations, 1632–1639 17 Privy Council in control, 1640–1642 21 Parliamentary Commission for Plantations, 1643–1648 21CHAPTER II.
Control of Trade and Plantations during the Interregnum.
The Council of Trade, 1650–1653 24 Plantation Affairs controlled by the Council of State, 1649–1651 30 Standing Committee of the Council for Plantations, 1651–April, 1653 33 Plantation Affairs controlled by the Council of State, April–Dec., 1653 35 Trade controlled by Council of State and Parliamentary Committees, Dec., 1653–June, 1655 36 Importance of the years 1654–1655 36 The great Trade Committee, 1655–1657 38 Parliamentary Committees of Trade, 1656–1658 43 Plantation Affairs controlled by Protector's Council and Council of the State, 1653–1660 43 Special Council Committees for Plantations, 1653–1659 44 Council Committee for Jamaica and Foreign Plantations, 1655–1660 44 Select Committee for Jamaica, known later as Committee for America, 1655–1660 45 Inadequacy of Control during the Interregnum 47CHAPTER
The Proposals of the Merchants: Noell and Povey.
Career of Martin Noell 49 Career of Thomas Povey 51 Enterprises of the Merchants, 1657–1659 53 Proposals of Noell and Povey 55 "Overtures" of 1654 55 "Queries" of 1656 58 Additional Proposals, 1656, 1657 58CHAPTER IV.
Committees and Councils under the Restoration.
Plantation Committee of Privy Council, June 4, 1660 61 Work of Privy Council Committee 63 Appointment of Select Councils of Trade and Plantations, 1660 64 Membership of these Councils 67 Comparison of Povey's "Overtures" with the Instructions for Council for Foreign Plantations 68 Comparison of Povey's "First Draft" with Instructions for Council of Trade 71 Work of Council for Foreign Plantations, 1660–1665 74 Control of Plantation Affairs, 1665–1670 79 Work of Council of Trade, 1660–1664 80 Parliamentary Committee of Trade, 1664 85 Commission for English-Scottish Trade, 1667–1668 86 Reorganization of Committees of the Privy Council, 1668 87 Work of Privy Council Committee for Foreign Plantations, 1668–1670 90 New Select Council of Trade, 1668–1672 91CHAPTER V.
The Plantation Councils of 1670 and 1672.
Influence of Ashley and Locke 96 Revival of Council for Foreign Plantations, 1670–1672 97 Membership 97 Commission and Instructions 99 Meetings and Work 101 Select Council of Trade and Foreign Plantations, 1672–1674 106 Membership 106 Commission and Instructions 107 Meetings and Work 109 Causes of the Revocation of the Commission of Select Council, 1674APPENDICES.
I. Instructions, Board of Trade, 1650 115 II. Instructions, Council for Foreign Plantations, 1670–1672 117 Additional Instructions for the Same 124 III. Draft of Instructions, Council of Trade and Foreign Plantations, 1672–1674 127 IV. Heads of Business; Councils of 1670 and 1672 133
BRITISH COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND COUNCILS OF TRADE AND PLANTATIONS, 1622–1675.
CHAPTER I.
Control of Trade and Plantations Under James I and Charles I.
In considering the subject which forms the chief topic of this paper, we are not primarily concerned with the question of settlement, intimately related though it be to the larger problem of colonial control. We are interested rather in the early history of the various commissions, councils, committees, and boards appointed at one time or another in the middle of the seventeenth century for the supervision and management of trade, domestic, foreign, and colonial, and for the general oversight of the colonies whose increase was furthered, particularly after 1650, in largest part for commercial purposes. The coupling of the terms "trade" and "foreign plantations" was due to the prevailing economic theory which viewed the colonies not so much as markets for British exports or as territories for the receipt of a surplus British population—for Great Britain had at that time no surplus population and manufactured but few commodities for export—but rather as sources of such raw materials as could not be produced at home, and of such tropical products as could not be obtained otherwise than from the East and West Indies. The two interests were not, however, finally consolidated in the hands of a single board until 1672, after which date they were not separated until the final abolition of the old Board of Trade in 1782. It is, therefore, to the period before 1675 that we shall chiefly direct our attention, in the hope of throwing some light upon a phase of British colonial control that has hitherto remained somewhat obscure. Familiar as are many of the facts connected with the early history of Great Britain's management of trade and the colonies, it is nevertheless true that no attempt has been made to trace in detail the various experiments undertaken by the authorities in England in the interest of trade and the plantations during the years before 1675. Many of the details are, and will always remain, unknown, nevertheless it is possible to make some additions to our knowledge of a subject which is more or less intimately related to our early colonial history.
At the beginning of colonization the control of all matters relating to trade and the plantations lay in the hands of the king and his council, forming the executive branch of the government. Parliament had not yet begun to legislate for the colonies, and in matters of trade and commerce the parliaments of James I accomplished much less than had those of Elizabeth. "In the time of James I," says Dr. Prothero, "it was more essential to assert constitutional principles and to maintain parliamentary rights than to pass new laws or to create new institutions." Thus the Privy Council became the controlling factor in all matters that concerned the colonies and it acted in the main without reference or delegation to others, since the practice of appointing advisory boards or deliberative committees, though not unknown, was at first employed only as an occasional expedient. The councils of James I were called upon to deal with a wide variety of colonial business—letters, petitions, complaints and reports from private individuals, such as merchants, captains of ships voyaging to the colonies, seamen, prisoners, and the like, from officials in England, merchant companies, church organizations, and colonial governments, notably the governor and council and assembly of Virginia. To all these communications the Council replied either by issuing orders which were always mandatory, or by sending letters which often contained information and advice as well as instructions. It dealt with the Virginia Company in London and sent letters, both before and after the dissolution of the company, to the governor and council in Virginia, and in all these letters trade played an important part. For example, the order of October 24, 1621, which forbade the colony to export tobacco and other commodities to foreign countries, declared that such a privilege as an open trade on the part of the colony was desirable "neither in policy nor for the honor of the state (that being but a colony derived from hence)," and that it could not be suffered "for that it may be a loss unto his Majesty in his customs, if not the hazarding of the trade which in future times is well hoped may be of much profit, use, and importance to the Commonalty."1 Similarly the Council issued a license to Lord Baltimore to export provisions for the relief of his colony at Avalon,2 ordered that the Ark and the Dove, containing Calvert and the settlers of Maryland, be held back at Tilbury until the oaths of allegiance had been taken,3 and instructed the governor and company of Virginia to give friendly assistance to Baltimore's undertaking.4
Of the
On April 15, 1625, less than three weeks after the death of James I, a warrant was issued by his successor for a commission of trade, the duties of which were of broader and more general character than were those of the previous body.9 The first record of its meeting is dated January 18, 1626, but it is probable that then the commission had been for some time in existence, though the exact date when its commission was issued is not known. The text of both commission and instructions are among the Domestic Papers.10 The board was to advance the exportations of home manufactures and to repress the "ungainful importation of foreign commodities." Looked upon as a subcommittee of the Privy Council, but having none of the privy councillors among its members, it was required to sit every week and to consider all questions that might be referred to it for examination and report. The fact that a complaint against the patent of Sir Ferdinando Gorges was referred to it shows that it was qualified to deal not only with questions of trade but also with plantation affairs.11 At about the same time a committee of the Council was appointed to take into consideration a special question of trade and to make report to the Council. Neither of these bodies appears to have had more than a temporary existence, although the commission sat for some time and accomplished no inconsiderable amount of work.
The first Privy Council committee of trade that had any claim to permanency was that appointed in March, 1630, consisting at first of thirteen members, the Lord Keeper, the Lord Treasurer, the Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal, Earl Marshall, the Lord Steward, Earl of Dorset, Earl of Holland, Earl of Carlisle, Lord Dorchester, the Vice-Chamberlain, Sir Henry Cottington and Mr. Secretary Coke. This committee was to meet on Friday mornings. The same committee, with the omission of one member, was appointed the next year to meet on Tuesdays in the afternoon. In 1634 the membership was reduced to nine, but in 1636, 1638 and 1639, by the addition of the Lord Treasurer, the number was raised to ten, as follows: the Lord President, the Lord Treasurer, the Lord Keeper, the Lord Privy Seal, Earl Marshall, Earl of Dorset, Lord Cottington, Mr. Comptroller, Mr. Secretary Coke and Mr. Secretary Windebank. The meetings were again held on Fridays, though on special occasions the committee was warned to meet on other days by order of the Council, and on one occasion at least assembled at Hampton Court.12 To this committee were referred all matters of trade which came to the attention of the Council during the ten years, from 1630 to 1640. Notes of its meetings between 1631 and 1637 were kept by Secretaries Coke and Windebank and show the extent and variety of its activities. Except for the garbling of tobacco it does not appear to have concerned itself with plantation affairs.13 As the King was generally present at its meetings, it possessed executive as well as advisory powers, not only making reports to the Council, but also drafting regulations and issuing orders on its own account. Occasionally it appointed special committees to examine into certain trade difficulties, and on September 21, 1638, and again on February 3, 1639, we find notice of a separate board of commissioners for trade constituted under the great seal to inquire into the decay of the clothing industry. This board sat for two years and made an elaborate report to the Privy Council on June 9, 1640.14
Though committees for trade, ordnance, foreign affairs, and Ireland had a more or less continuous existence during the period after 1630, no similar committee for plantations was created during this decade. Temporary commissions and committees of the Council had been, however, frequently appointed. In 1623 and 1624 several sets of commissioners for Virginia were named "to inquire into the true state of Virginia and the Somers Islands plantations," "to resolve upon the well settling of the colony of Virginia," "and to advise on a fit patent for the Virginia Company." In 1631 a commission of twenty-three persons, of whom four constituted a quorum, was created, partly from within and partly from without the Privy Council, "to advise upon some course for establishing the advancement of the plantations of Virginia."15 Similar
The first separate commission, though, in reality, a committee of the Privy Council, appointed to concern itself with all the plantations, was created by Charles I, April 28, 1634. It was officially styled the Commission for Foreign Plantations; one petitioner called it "the Lords Commissioners for Plantations in General," and another "the learned Commissioners appointed by the King to examine and rectify all complaints from the plantations." It is probable that the term "Committee of Foreign Plantations" was occasionally applied to it, as there is nothing to show that the committee of 1633 remained in existence after April, 1634.18 Recommissioned, April 10, 1636, it continued to sit as an active body certainly as late as August, 1641, and possibly longer,19 though there is no formal record of its discontinuance. Its original membership was as follows: William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury; Richard Neile, Archbishop of York; Sir Thomas Coventry, the Lord Keeper; Earl of Portland, the Lord Treasurer, Earl of Manchester, the Lord Privy Seal, Earl of Arundel, the Earl Marshall, Earl of Dorset, Lord Cottington, Sir Thomas Edmondes, the Master Treasurer, Sir Henry Vane, the Master Comptroller, and the secretaries, Coke and Windebank. Later the Earl of Sterling was added.20 Five constituted a quorum. The powers granted to the commission were extensive and almost royal in character: to make laws and orders for the government of the English colonies in foreign parts; to impose penalties and imprisonment for offenses in ecclesiastical matters; to remove governors and require an account of their government; to appoint judges and magistrates, and to establish courts, both civil and ecclesiastical; to hear and determine all manner of complaints from the colonies; to have power over all charters and patents, and to revoke those surreptitiously or unduly obtained. Such powers clearly show that the commission was designed as an instrument for enforcing the royal will in the colonies, and furnishes no precedent for the later councils and boards of trade and foreign plantations. Called into being probably because of the continued emigration of Puritans to New England, the complaints against the Massachusetts charter, and the growth of Independency in that colony, it was in origin a coercive, not an inquisitory, body, in the same class with the courts of Star Chamber and High Commission, and the Councils of Wales and the North. Unlike these bodies, it proved practically impotent, and there is nothing to show that it took any active part in the attempt to repeal the Massachusetts charter or in any important particular exercised the powers granted to it. It did not remove or appoint a governor, establish a court, or grant or revoke a charter. It received petitions either directly or from the Privy Council and made recommendations, but it never attempted to establish uniformity in New England or to bring the New England colonies more directly under the authority of the Crown. Whether it was the failure of the attempt to vacate the Massachusetts charter, or the poverty of the King, or the approach of civil war that prevented the enforcement of the royal policy, we cannot say, but the fact remains that the Laud commission played a comparatively inconspicuous part during the seven years of its existence and has gained a prominence in the history of our subject out of all proportion to its importance.
More directly connected with the commercial and colonial interests of the realm were the subcommittees which the Privy Council used during these years and earlier as advisory and inquisitory bodies. In addition to committees of its own, the Privy Council called on various outside persons known to be familiar with the circumstances of a particular case or experts in the general subject involved, and entrusted to them the consideration of important matters that had been called to its attention. As we have already seen, such a subcommittee on trade had been appointed in 1625, and after 1630 we meet with many references to individuals or groups of experts. The attorney general was called upon to examine complaints regarding New England and Maryland in 1632 and 1635; the Chancellor of London was requested to examine the parties in a controversy over a living in St. Christopher in 1637; many commercial questions were referred to special bodies of merchants or others holding official positions. In 1631 a complaint regarding interlopers in Canada was referred to a committee of three, Sir William Becher, clerk of the Council; Serj. (Wm.) Berkeley, afterward governor of Virginia, and Edward Nicholas, afterward clerk of the Council, and a new committee in which Sir William Alexander and Robert Charlton
From 1640 to 1642 plantation business was managed by the Privy Council with the aid of occasional committees of its own appointed to consider special questions. The term "subcommittee," as we have seen, does not appear to have been used after 1639,32 but commissions authorizing experts to make inquiry and report are referred to, and committees of the Council took into consideration questions of trade and the plantations. During the year from July 5, 1642, to June, 1643, no measures relating to the colonies appear to have been taken, for civil war was in full swing. In 1643, Parliament assumed to itself the functions of King and Council and became the executive head of the kingdom. Among the earliest acts was the appointment of a parliamentary commission of eighteen members, November 24, 1643, authorized to control plantation affairs. At its head was Robert Rich, Earl of Warwick, and among its members were Philip, Earl of Pembroke, Edward, Earl of Manchester, William, Viscount Say and Seale, Philip, Lord Wharton, and such well known Puritan commoners as Sir Arthur Haslerigg, John Pym, Sir Harry Vane, Junior, Oliver Cromwell, Samuel Vassall, and others. Four members constituted a quorum. The powers granted to this commission were
In the exercise of these powers the commissioners never embraced the full opportunity offered to them by their charter. They did appoint one governor, Sir Thomas Warner, governor of the Caribbee Islands. They granted to the inhabitants of Providence, Portsmouth, and Newport a patent of incorporation and conferred upon the patentees authority "to rule themselves by such form of civil government as by voluntary consent of all or the greater part of them they should find most suitable to their estate or condition.33 They also endeavored to make a grant of the Narragansett country to Massachusetts, at the special request of Massachusetts' agents in 1643, but failed, partly because they had no certain authority to grant land and partly because the only clause of their commission which seemed to give such authority required the consent of a majority, and the agents could obtain but nine signatures to the grant. Even these activities on the part of the board lasted but little over a year, and after 1644 the commissioners played a more or less passive role. They continued to sit but their only recorded interest in colonial affairs concerned New England. From 1645 to 1648 they became involved in the controversy over the Narragansett country, and in the attempt of Massachusetts to thwart her enemies, the Gortonists and the Presbyterians.34 Whether the commission continued to sit after the execution of the King is uncertain; there are no further references to its existence. That many of its members remained influential in colonial affairs is evident from the fact that at least seven of the commissioners became members of the Council of State, appointed February 13, 1649: Philip, Earl of Pembroke (died 1650); Sir Arthur Haslerigg, Sir Harry Vane, the younger; Oliver Cromwell, Dennis Bond, Miles Corbet, and Cornelius Holland. Haslerigg was a conspicuous leader in colonial as well as other matters during the entire period of the Commonwealth and the Protectorate; Vane became president of the new board of trade created in August, 1650, was at the head of the Committee of the Admiralty, which often had colonial matters referred to it, and served frequently on plantation committees from 1649 to 1659; while Bond, Corbet, and Holland, though never very active, were members of one general and a few special committees that concerned themselves with trade and plantations. Thus the spirit of the Independent wing of the old commission continued to influence the policy of the government in the early years of the Commonwealth period. The Council of State, appointed by act of the Rump Parliament, was given full authority to provide for England's trade at home and abroad and to regulate the affairs of the plantations. Though its membership underwent yearly changes and its composition and members were altered many times before 1660, its policy and machinery of control remained constant except as far as they were affected by the greater power which the Council gained in the face of the growing weakness of Parliament.
(1) Privy Council Register, James I, Vol. V, p. 173; repeated p. 618.
(2) P.C.R., Charles I. Vol. V, p. 106.
(3) P.C.R., Charles I, Vol. IX, p. 291.
(4) Cal. State Papers, Colonial, 1574–1660, p. 170, § 78.
(5) Rymer, Fœdera XVII. pp. 410–414.
(6) Public Record Office, Chancery, Crown Dockets, 4, p. 280, June 26, 1622.
(7) P.C.R., James I, Vol. VI, pp. 333, 365–368, July, 1624.
(8) Analytical Index to the Series of Records known as Remembrancia preserved among the Archives of the City of London, 1579–1644, p. 526.
(9) Cal. State Papers, Domestic, 1625–1649, pp. 4, 84.
(10) Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1625–1649, pp. 225, 522, §§ 19, 20, p. 495.
(11) P.C.R., Charles I, Vol. II, Pt. I, p. 68.
(12) P.C.R., Charles I, Vols. V, p. 10; VI, p. 7; X., p. 3; XII, p. 1; XV, p. 1.
(
(14) Historical MSS. Commission, Report XV. Manuscripts of the Duke of Portland, VIII, pp. 2–3.
(15) Cal. State Papers, Col., 1574–1660, pp. 44, 62, 63, 64, 130; Virginia Magazine, VIII, pp. 29, 33–46, 149.
(16) Bradford, pp. 352–355; P.C.R., Charles I, Vol. VIII, pp. 346–347; Cal. State Papers, Col., 1574–1660, p. 158.
(17) P.C.R., Charles I, Vol. IX, p. 1. The order in Council of July 3, 1633, regarding Virginia and Lord Baltimore, is headed "Lords Commissioners for Foreign Plantations." It is evident, however, that this body is not a separate board of commissioners but the Privy Council sitting as a committee of the whole for plantations. The membership does not agree with that of the committee of 1632, that committee did not sit in the Star Chamber, and such a committee could not issue an order which the Privy Council alone could send out. There was no separate commission of this kind in July, 1633, as Tyler, England in America, pp. 122–123 (Amer. Nation Series, IV) seems to think.
(18) Cal. State Papers, Col., 1574–1660, pp. 184, 200, 251, 259.
(19) Cal. State Papers, Col., 1675–1676, § 193.
(20) P.C.R., Charles I, Vol. X, p. 1; XII, p. 1; XV, p. 1; Cal. State Papers, Col., 1574–1660, pp. 177, 232.
(21) Cal. State Papers, Col., 1574–1660, pp. 9, 140, 151, 158, 211, 258.
(22) Cal. State Papers, Col., 1574–1600, p. 129.
(23) Cal. State Papers, Col., pp. 197–198, 207.
(24) P.C.R., Charles I, Vol. XV, p. 300.
(25) Virginia Magazine, X, p. 428; XI, p. 46.
(26) P.C.R., Charles I, Vol. XV, p. 508.
(27) "Att Whitehall, 8th of March, 1638(9)
Their Lordships do pray and require the subcommittee for foreign plantations to consider of this petition at their next meeting and to make report to their Lordships of their opinion concerning the same.
Will. Becher."
(28) P.C.R., Charles I, Vols. XV, p. 343; XVI, pp. 542–543.
(29) P.C.R., Charles I, Vol. XVI, p. 558; Cal. State Papers, Col., 1574–1660, p. 301.
(30) Cal. State Papers, Col., 1675–1676, § 190.
(31) The commissioners frequently formed a majority of those present at a Privy Council meeting. For example, in 1638, the Council wrote a letter to the governor of Virgina. This letter was signed by eleven councillors, of whom eight were members of the Commission. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish the different capacities in which Archbishop Laud acted. A series of minutes drawn up by him in 1638 of the subjects upon which he had prepared reports to the King notes the following: concerning the six plantations, grants of offices in reversion, new patent offices and monopolies, the execution of the King's former directions, and trade and commerce. In making these reports Archbishop Laud acted as president of the Council, president of the Commission for Foreign Plantations, president of the committee for Foreign Affairs, High Commission Court, etc.
(32) The term "subcommittee" is used by petitioners as late as August, 1640 (Cal. Col., 1574–1660, p. 314), but no references and reports of so late a date are to be found in the Calendar or the Register.
(33) This is, of course, the well-known Williams patent of 1644. Rhode Island, Colonial Records, I, pp. 143–146.
(