History of merchant shipping and ancient commerce, Volume 2 (of 4)Lindsay, W. S. (William Schaw)
History
History of merchant shipping and ancient commerce, Volume 2 (of 4)
Lindsay, W. S. (William Schaw)
Commerce -- History; Shipping -- History; Steam navigation -- History
But commercial jealousy had already seized the English colonists in the
West Indies, and had led them to claim an exclusive monopoly of the
trade with the colonies on the continent; while, at the same time, the
contraband traffic carried on by the French and the Dutch was pressed
on the consideration of parliament. Hence it was that a Bill received
the sanction of the House of Commons prohibiting, under forfeiture of
ship and cargo, the importation into any part of English America of
sugar, rum, or molasses grown in plantations not of English origin.
Although this bill failed in the House of Lords, an Act was passed in
1733[211] for encouraging the sugar trade, the effect of which was to
grant drawbacks on re-exportations from Great Britain of West India
sugar, and to impose duties on the importation into America of the
produce of foreign plantations. From the preamble of this Act foreign
rivals appear to have surpassed the English colonists in the quality
of their sugar, and to have supplanted their shipping in the carrying
trade: so that the English professed they were unable to carry it on
without relief from the parliament of Great Britain.
Following this example, all classes, as a matter of course, appealed
for protection, and an artificial system grew up which, even if
justifiable at the beginning, proved, when the separation of the
colonies took place, to be altogether impracticable. The shipowners at
home were equally ready to find pretexts for parliamentary interference
in their favour. Thus, in 1749-50, they held a meeting in the city
of London, “to promote British shipping and British navigation,” at
which sixty gentlemen were present, and “the Case” then drawn up was
signed by fifty-nine of them.[212] Their object seems to have been to
prevent foreign ships taking away, as back-freight, goods entitled to
drawback or bounty; the system of bounties practised by other nations
operating against English shipping, though the policy of retaliation
then adopted did not always remedy the evil complained of. Hence it
is that we find incessant remonstrances by shipowners that foreigners
came to English ports with freights and cargoes of small value, and
loaded tin, lead, and other goods only to be obtained in England, and
their assertion that, by the help of drawbacks and of bounties freely
conceded abroad, the foreigners gained, on the whole, a larger freight
than English vessels could do in the same time. English shipowners
sought, therefore, to obtain fresh limitations on the foreigner, so as
to raise their freights to an equality with those earned in the general
market of the world. In the statements thus set forth, the shipowners,
however, were compelled to admit that “at all foreign ports which had
no shipping of their own, ours (English) are always chosen preferable
to the ships of any other nation.”
[Sidenote: Seven Years’ War, 1756-1763.]
[Sidenote: Its effect on the colonies.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account