New England -- History -- Colonial period, ca. 1600-1775
As the effects upon New England, until the following century, were
mainly indirect, it is not necessary to give the details of the various
acts in the order in which they were passed. Their aim was
twofold—destructive and constructive. In the former aspect, they aimed
at diminishing, if not wholly destroying, the shipping, and so both the
commerce and the naval power of competing states. On their constructive
side, their design was to build up the shipping of the English Empire,
and, in reference to certain articles, to make England the sole market
for their trade. As to the first point, the colonies were put upon the
same basis as England herself; and, in exchange for the advantages
derived by her from the second, she offered the colonists certain
privileges in the home markets. It was, therefore, enacted that no trade
could be carried on between England and her dominions except in ships
owned by her or them, and manned by English or colonial crews, the same
restriction applying to all goods imported into either from any foreign
country or colony in America, Asia, and Africa.[754] This was merely an
extension of acts already frequently passed, or provisions in the early
charters, such as we have already noted.
Footnote 754:
Macdonald, _Select Charters_, pp. 106 _ff._, 110 _ff._, 133 _ff._
The other main point, that of limiting the markets in certain goods to
England, was also merely an extension of another long-familiar idea.
When the economic organization, in the later Middle Ages, was still
largely municipal, it had been found advantageous to designate certain
towns as the sole markets, or “staple,” for certain goods. For some
centuries, the belief in the economic soundness of this practice
continued to be held; and, as we noted in the very first charter
relating to America,—that of Cabot, in 1496,—it was required that all
goods should pass through the port of Bristol. The Navigation Act of
Charles II required that certain “enumerated” commodities produced in
the colonies should be sold only in England, and not directly to
foreigners, thus making England the “staple” for the Empire in the same
way in which certain municipalities had formerly been the staples for
the kingdom. Theoretically, the colonists were in the same relative
position to England in the matter as were Englishmen at home to the
staple municipalities, although, of course, the practical disadvantages
and injustice to the colonists were much greater when the scheme was
made imperial.
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