Full text of "American Colonial Government 1696-1765: A Study of the British Board of Trade in Its Relation to ..."

See other formats

Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project

to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the

publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at |http: //books .google .com/I

I- •

AMERICAN
COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

1696-1765

^' f.fuJU.^ ^^

(, >

!• if/p J

CtUAji/yti

fLC.

hc^i o/ // e
r if* rt

iff:A<Li 6tf fff^ I'Aoual (flu if cf f^<

tVL,

• • • • •

.mar ' ^ArrjueT of ■'^'^ '/ycaift^ryj
Hi. fyiLi firif^-r iUU f U^ o/ c'L..^ t^'AJ j^ /£JA^

ic a.'nnAi.BtaJ. con J </*./ fl.ji^ 'a/vd. />t4^T fftSL rf^M^jmJir fft^U 6^
orru t frtjfo Y<Lcvt c in /fit^ /ri-wtwcv ^-^c "jCorr^iA tfrnju

■ • •

• ■ • ••

* •
• • •

I • • * •

//It' ^ / iff I -I J . O a ' f *^\ ' f I ^\\
^irifi t/uLu <J& i/Uur^JL AumSuj U lAxfrr^ tut mtA/t" Rn^«*#n.A

A l^RTVY Council Committki-: AIi-itinc

Note the nu'tliod of liandlln;^ appeals. Appeals from Vlr^rlm'a and Minorca wore

also disposed of at this ineetinp:
{Vr'ivy Council Res'tster, "Gcor\;c 11," vol. xii, ^5/";]

AMERICAN
>LONIAi, GOVERNMKNT

M i\ of thr Hriri:.!; I^);'f\! ol ■ ? m-. m
^ ciatioi* to r:u' \nuric.i?i r'f- -jo
['oiirit.Hj\ IndiiMiiai, Av-nraii-t.. -.^

:Mf PN iivr rlir lojrt^- o*^ J>" ff-r o^ ]^' I''>.»ph\ ff n'.s'fr

CLKV J.I«.\N1), OHIO
T[^E ARI'HL'R H. CI.AHK COMPANY

1911

AMERICAN
COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

1696-1765

A study of the British Board of Trade in

its relation to the American Colonies,

Political, Industrial, Administrative

• •

•• : ■ i»x :

• • •

OLIVER MORTON piCKERSON, Ph.D.

Professor of History^ Western Illinois State Normal Sckod

A thesis submitted in partial fuIfUlmeiit of the require-
ments for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History
in the Graduate School of die University of Illinois

CLEVELAND, OHIO
THE ARTHUR H. CLARK COMPANY

I 9 I 2

• • • •

OLIVER MORTON DICKERSON

-* . . s^ ,

CONTENTS

Preface . ii

I Organization and personnel of the Board of Trade 17

Colonial administration prior to 1696

Organization of the Board of Trade

The personnel of the Board

Political position and terms of service of members

Periods of varying activity

Office force

II Relations of the Board of Trade to other Depart-

ments OF ADMINISTRATION . 8l

The Privy Council and its committees

The secretary of state and executive boards

The administrative boards

The Bishop of London

Parliament
y»III Difficulties of Colonial Administration 133

Conmiunications

Lack of responsibility

Weakness of the governor's positioiT

The rise of the assembly -"
IV The Imperialistic Policy of the Board of Trade 181

The question of a fixed civil list

Control of the judidary

Plans of union
, V Treatment of Colonial Legislation . . 225

The royal veto

Methods of disallowance

Appeab to the king in council

Complaints

_ •'

■»-•

■ • •

• • •
•••••

•..••.

i ^4irifw teitncd J)LiVvLr n£Uma£

a/>uL0t/rjtA/i^r

^ fS.JJU<x. ^.

vV//for

Arrr u/>t4i> /hot (o&//t^ruS<£. Mta. ii^fniti l/rLff^/t fif \.//i4^m.^J o/Lb^tA

lATt^^ rt hx4 €a

{7u>i.e n^*^l 94u,a<>ta tiJl UfiKttj to trH'>i

cdu^l^ia T/i/Aa ' Tn yv W^y^r/ U isL AT^f^JfJ ^^ »^^fry'<4vHA,rMM^_

^yr7Cj*AJ ihjL UvvL^

07 wl^ (Win <^f i^fv«/r.er ' ^cvrimir fff ^li^^ ^/^uxj/c^ruj C'itAH'^KMJtj %^

k^. „iiel 6ri,.rr lUU /. ;?^^^r^*^ r^'A'^^/Lj^^

it. a/Hrtu&.J cuytJ ufJ i».fL/K. Wti? nt4)ir ffisL. '/ik4t,^rt£,r 79tM^ Oi

ttmu/fr/Ka

T 7

A Privy Council Committii; Afi-KTiNc,

Note the method of liandliiiii: appeals. Appeals from Vir^rinia ami Minorca were

also disposed of at this meeting;
[Privy Council Rrsister, "Gcorj^c 11," vol, xii, ^5^]

PREFACE

The period covered by this volume, 1696- 1765, is
one of the most important in the growth of the Amer-
ican nation. It was during this period that the orig-
inal colonies developed their traditions of political
liberty, and acquired by steady encroachments on the
part of the assemblies practically complete self-gov-
ernment. The year 1700 found the colonies outside
of New England weak dependencies under the direct
control of the crown or of proprietors: in each colony
an appointed council exercised the full legislative
powers of an upper house, an appointed governor held
the executive power unlimited by any written consti-
tution, the elected lower house was timid and inex-
perienced. By 1765 the councils had been robbed of
their chief legislative powers, judges and other officers
had become dependent upon the lower house, and the
governors had been reduced to inefficient figureheads,
dependent upon the assemblies for their daily bread,
and impotent to obey the orders they received from
England. There are few stories more fascinating
than the account of this gradual subversion of the old
colonial constitution by our stubborn forefathers, and
the substitution in its place of a government which
could be controlled independent of the mother coun-
try. On account of the steady evolution which was
taking place, no period affords a better opportunity
than this to study British colonial administration in

AMERICAN
COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

1696-1765

A study of the British Board of Trade in

its relation to the American Colonies,

Political, Industrial, Administrative

OLIVER MORTON piCKERSON, Ph.D.

Professor of History^ Western Illinois State Normal School

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the require-
ments for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History
in the Graduate School of the University of Illinois

CLEVELAND, OHIO
THE ARTHUR H. CLARK COMPANY

I 9 I 2

14 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

Another phase of the relations of the colonies to the
home gorernment which has never receired adequate
consideration, and which is dealt with at some length
in the present volume, is the treatment of colonial leg-
islation. Who directed the royal veto? What laws
were vetoed and for what reasons? Were such inter-
ferences with colonial legislation the result of the arbi-
trary action of an irresponsible monarch, or that of a
conservative judicial body? What was the effect of
such vetoes upon colonial legislation? Has our own
judicial practice inherited anything from colonial pre-
cedents in such matters? These are some of the ques-
tions which have been considered, and upon which,
it is believed, light has been thrown.

As there is no treatise which discusses in adequate
detail the changes in the English constitution during
the eighteenth century, it has been necessary to inves-
tigate rather carefully the operation of the Privy
Council and the work and development of its com-
mittees. This has led to conclusions somewhat novel,
and perhaps at variance with commonly accepted
ideas; but it is believed that these conclusions will
stand criticism and be fully sustained by more com-
plete investigation. The subject is one which prop-
erly belongs within the field of English constitutional
history ; but as an understanding of the matter is neces-
sary to an intelligent account of the organs of colonial
administration, there was.no alternative but to include
a rather detailed description of the committee system
and its operation.

As the field covered is one which has hitherto re-
mained undeveloped, the subject matter has of neces-
sity been drawn to a preponderant extent from original

PREFACE 15

sources. In the first place, these have been the man-
uscript records, formerly in the possession of the
Board of Trade, but now deposited in the Public Rec-
ord Office in London; secondly, the Privy Council
Register at Whitehall and the British Museum Addi-
tional Manuscripts^ sources which generally have been
neglected by former writers of this period ; and finally,
very careful use has been made of the readily accessi-
ble printed copies of colonial records, colonial laws,
and the correspondence of colonial governors. Sec-
ondary material has proved unusually disappointing,
although a small percentage of it was of real service.
No use has been made of transcripts, but in all cases
where manuscripts are cited, the reference is to the
original documents in London. In general these cita-
tions follow the present classifications and are by num-
ber instead of name : a glance at the table in the biblio-
graphy, however, will make clear the nature of all
papers cited.

The author wishes to express his appreciation of the
unfailing courtesy of the officials at the Privy Council
Office at Whitehall and of those at the Public Record
Office in London, especially Mr. Hubert H. Hall
whose vast knowledge of the material in the records
under his care is placed so unstintingly at the disposal
of American students. To Professor Edward Chan-
ning and Professor Evarts B. Greene special acknowl-
edgments are due. Help and advice have also been
received from Professor Charles M. Andrews, Her-
man V. Ames, and Clarence W. Alvord.

Oliver Morton Dickerson.

Macomb, Illinois, June, 191 1.

I. ORGANIZATION AND PERSONNEL OF

THE BOARD OF TRADE

Colonial Administration prior to i6q6

The first half of the seventeenth century had been a
period of beginnings and experiments in colonial ad-
ministration. The planters on the continent of Amer-
ica had not been numerous enough nor wealthy enough
to invite very serious attention from the British gov-
ernment until after the great Puritan migration was
well under way. What little control there was came
from the Privy Council; but in 1634, Archbishop
Laud was delegated to head a commission for foreign
plantations with almost royal powers over political,
judicial, and ecclesiastical affairs in the colonies. This
commission seems to have been created as a result of
the steady Puritan emigration to New England with
the object of enforcing the royal will beyond the sea,
but it accomplished practically nothing and came to
an end when Parliament seized control of the central
government.^

The periods of the Civil War, Commonwealth, and
Protectorate produced no new organs of colonial
administration; in fact the colonies were left pretty
much to their own devices. What control was exer-

^ Andrews, Charles McL. Britisk Committees, Commissions, and Coun^
cils of Trade and Plantations, 1622-16^$^ chap, i; Osgood, Herbert L.
American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century, vol. iii, chap, i; Egertoo,
Hug^ £. Short History of British Colonial Policy, 74.

•-•*:! • • • • : ••

i8 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

cised centered either in Parliament directly or in the
later Council of State where the protector's will was
dominant. The advent of Cromwell, however, had
instilled a new spirit of efficiency and aggressiveness
into every department of the government and pervad-
ed other phases of the nation's activity. Colonial
commerce attracted able and wealthy merchants and
soon acquired such importance that the administra-
tive machinery for both trade and plantations became
plainly inadequate. This led Martin Noell and
Thomas Povcy, two merchants who had considerable
financial investments in the colonies and in colonial
commerce, especially in the newly acquired West
India plantations, to lay before the protector a scheme
for colonial control which would weld the isolated
governments in America into a single government
under the control of a central board in England.*

Noell's plan was not put in operation during Crom-
well's rule, but with slight alterations it was presented
to the advisers of Charles II soon after the Restora-
tion and became the basis for the scheme which they
adopted in 1660. Instead of a single committee, how-
ever, two were created : one to deal with trade, and
the other with the plantations, although each assisted
the other. Both committees included in their mem-
bership privy councilors and merchants, and neither
acted independently of the Council, but reported their
findings to that body. The Committee for Foreign
Plantations was given very extensive powers, includ-
ing control over commercial, governmental, and re-
ligious conditions, and anything else which might
concern the existing colonies or those which should

'Andrewty C. Bridsk CommiUies, Commissions, and Councils^ H'S^*

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD 19

be acquired. Most of these powers were never exer-
cised and the committee seems to have come to an end
about 1665, although its commission does not appear
to have been suppressed at that time.* In one fomi
or another the dual arrangement of separate commit-
tees for trade and for the plantations continued until
1672 when they were merged into a single committee,*
which in turn was suppressed, and in 1675 the entire
control of trade and foreign plantations was trans-
ferred to a committee of the Privy Council.*

This body is known as the Lords of the Committee
of Trade and Plantations, or simply Lords of Trade,
a name which continued to be used for the members
of the later Board of Trade.* Aside from changes
in membership this committee continued to be used
for the control of both trade and colonial affairs until
1696, when the Board of Trade was created. Under
James II this committee became very energetic, espe-
cially in its efforts to suppress the proprietary and
charter colonies and to establish in New England a
single consolidated government modeled after that in
New York. It was the period of Andros and his
somewhat arbitrary methods and of the 9110 warranto
proceedings against the charters of Massachusetts
Bay, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.^ For the first

s Andrews, C. British Committees, Commissions, and Councils^ 61-95.

^This committee had even greater powers than its predecessors. See:
Andrews, C. British Committees, Commissions, and Councils^ 97-110;
Colonial Self Government, 25.

''New Yorlc Colonial Documents, vol. iii, p. xiv; Andrews, C. British
Committees, Commissions, and Councils, 111-113.

* New York Colonial Documents, vols, iii, iv, v, vi, vii, passim.

^Osgood, H. L. American Colonies, vol. iii, chap, ix-xiv; Andrews, C
Colomal Self Government, 26-40; Egerton, H. £. British Colonial Policy^

92-112.

ao - AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

time a serious attempt had been made to carry out a
definite plan of administration in the colonies, and it
came so near succeeding that direct control by the
crown acquired a most unsavory reputation in Amer-
ica. The Revolution of 1688 interrupted the plans
for colonial government and led directly to the restor-
ation of the charters, but it produced no change in the
existing machinery for managing the colonies. Wil-
liam III followed closely in the footsteps of his pred-
ecessor and appointed a new committee of the Privy
Council to take up the work of colonial administra-
tion where it had been laid down. With slight
changes in membership, this body continued to be em-
ployed by him for all questions concerning commerce
or the plantations until opposition in the House of
Commons forced him to abolish it and establish the
Board of Trade.*

Organization of the Board of Trade

The merchants had suffered severe losses during
the great continental war, and the opposition in the
House of Commons took advantage of the dissatisfac-
tion caused by these losses to attack the administra-
tion. There was a bitter debate in the committee of
the whole. Some even asserted that the administra-
tion had neglected the needs of English merchants
and had openly connived at the destruction of English
trade so that the Dutch traders and merchants might
be the gainers.* As a result of the debate in the com-
mittee, a series of fourteen resolutions were reported
to the house.

' New York Colonial Documents^ voL iii, p. ziv.

* Burnet, Gilbert History of his own Timt, 621 ; Cobbett, Wm. Par-
liamentary History of England^ vol. v, 977.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD ai

These resolutions provided for the creation, by act
of Parliament, of a council of trade whose members
should be named by that body and which should have
the power to control commerce, even to the extent of
appointing convoys for outgoing vessels. It was also
to take charge of the plantation and other trade of
the kingdom, supervise the administration of poor re-
lief, and could enforce its authority by examining
persons on oath/® Some of the resolutions, specify-
ing an oath of allegiance for members of this commit-
tee, prohibiting the appointment of members of Par-
liament, and directing the council to take steps to
improve the balance of trade, were rejected by the
house. The others were approved, January 31, 1696,
and a bill ordered brought in.^^

William III was opposed to any such body as the
bill would establish, as it contemplated a serious en-
croachment upon the royal prerogative. Many

Apprehended that, if the Parliament named the persons, how
low soever their powers might be at first, they would be en-
larged every session, and from being a council to look into
matters of trade, they would next be empowered to appoint
convoys and cruisers. This in time might draw in the whole
admiralty, and that part of the revenue or supply which was
appropriated to the navy;

and those who pushed the measure the most vigorously

Did not deny that they designed to ingraft many things
upon it.^*

Sunderland surprised many people by pushing the

^^ Journal of thi House of Commons^ vol. xi, 423-434; Burnet, G. His*
tory of his own Time, 621; Cobbett, Wm. Parliamentary History, vol.

▼» 977.

^^ Journal of the House of Commons, vol. zi, 424.

^* Gobbet^ Wm. Parliamentary History, vol. v, 978 ; Buraet, G. His-
tory of his own Time, 621.

22 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

bill, and William is said to have come near breaking
with him because of this fact. In spite of the king's
opposition, the bill passed its second reading, but was
afterwards dropped." Burnet says this was done
because of the threatened invasion of England and the
discovery of the plot against the life of William."
Perhaps that was the real reason, but it should also
be noted that the bill became unnecessary because of
the prompt issue of an Order in Council creating a
board to exercise almost the same functions as the
council of trade proposed by the bill.

The last action of the House of Commons on the
bill was March 3, 1696; ^'^ and the commission under
the privy seal which created the Board of Trade is
dated May 15, 1696." That the clamor in the House
of Commons had hastened the measure seems evident;
an examination of the terms of the commission corrob-
orates that opinion. The commission created a board
similar to other boards of the British government:
there were the real and the nominal members. The
real members were eight in number and were paid
annual salaries of one thousand pounds.^^ The pres-

^* Granville introduced the bill, February 12, 1696, when it was read
for the first time. February 18, it was read a second time and referred to
the committee of the whole house. See: Journal of the House of Commons^
vol. xi, 440, 454.

^^ This is very probable, as the plot was discovered between the first and
second postponements of the consideration of the bill in the committee to
which it was referred. See: Burnet, G. Hisiofj of his ovm Time, 621. Cf.
Andrews's British Committees, Commissions, and Councils^ 113-114.

^'^ Journal of the House of Commons, vol. xi, 488. On that day the con-
sideration of the bill by the committee was postponed to a fixed date, but
apparently it was never again taken up.

^* New York Colonial Documents, vol. iii, p. xv.

^7 Privy Seal for pa3rment of salaries, June 29, 1697. See: Board of
Trade Miscellanies, vol. ii, 34-38. Other payments are the same.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD 23

ident usually received an additional five hundred
pounds,*' but this was paid by the secretary of state
and so does not appear in the annual privy seal/* All
of the chief officers of state were ex officiis members,
but were excused from attendance upon the ordinary
meetings of the Board.*® They were not merely sham
members, however, as are similar officers in the case
of the so-called administrative boards of the present
time. They often met with the Board, sometimes at
the request of the latter, sometimes without special
request, and sometimes the Board was called upon to
attend cabinet meetings." On all ordinary occasions,
however, the eight paid members constituted the

^> Bedford in offering the position to Halifax, September 3, 1748, says:
"Mr. Pelham informs me that the salary of ye first Lord of Trade is the
same as to all the rest, viz. £1000 a year, but that the first Lord has always
been paid by him £500 a jrear additional." — British Museum Additional
Manuscripts, 32716, f. 337.

1* Nearly all of the privy seals for the payment of the salaries of the
Board are entered in Board of Trade Miscellanies.

*® The commission itself provides that the principal secretaries shall not
*^ obliged to give constant attendance at the meetings of our said com-
missioners, but only so often and when the presence of them or any of them
shall be necessary and requisite, and as their other public service will per-
mit" — New York Colonial Documents, vol. iv, 148.

*^ A few of the many cases of the attendance of some or all of the
principal secretaries of state are cited below:

April 19, 1700. Indian affairs and the danger of an uprising. Board of
Trade Journal, 13, pp. lo-ii.

June 12, 1700. Proposed treaty with the French as to the bounds pf die
Hudson's Bay region. Ibid,, pp. 70-73*

May 17, 1709. Board requests Sunderland to confer with them about
provisions for some poor Germans. Ibid., 21, p. 98.

February i8, 1712. Great officers summoned to consider the trade to
Africa. Attended on February 25, February 28, and March 3, 1712. Ibid.^
33, pp. 100-113.

April 7, 14, 20, 29, May 4, 11, 19, 1726. African Trade. Ibid., 3^
pp. 84-225.

July i2y 1749. Troubles in New Jersey. Ibid,, 57 (pages not nombeied).

24 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

Board ; and of these three or five constituted a quorum,
according to the nature of the business. Ordinary
questions of trade or matters touching the plantations
could be considered by three members, but formal
representations on plantation affairs to the king or the
council had to be signed by five members."
l>iy^/^d The new board was given an imposing array of

duties. In the first place, it was charged with the care
of the trade of England in general and with that .of
particular countries. It^ysras to consider plana for im-
proving such trade as was deemed beneficial ; to devise
means of fostering manufactures that were ^^useful
and profitable;" and to determine how "new and pro-
fitable manufactures may be introduced." " These
were the inevitable duties imposed by the general
mercantilist doctrines of the time. Secondly, the
Board was charged with the care of the poor and
the duty of employing them so as not to burden
the kingdom. The third, and for our purpose the
most important function of the Board, was the care
of the plantations. Even here, however, the commis-
sion shows the same general subordination of colonial
administration to mercantile ends. The whole ques-
tion of proper government for the colonies was con-
sidered a matter of minor importance. That alone
would not have precipitated the discussion in the
House of Commons," nor was it the principal func-
tion of the new organ of central control. The most

>' Copy of the commission in New York Colonial Documents, vol. iy, 146.

«» — Ibid.

*^ It is an interesting fact that, so far as the debates on the proposed bill
are reported, there is not a single word about proper administration in die
colonies. Hie vital question was coinmeroe and its protection.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD 25

important duty of the Board was to make the colonies
commercially profitable to the mother country. To
this end it was to consider what naval stores could be
secured from them, and how to people them so they
could furnish the raw materials which ''our subjects
of England are now oblidged to fetch and supply
themselves withall from other princes and states." "
It was also to find out what manufactures the colonies
already had, which ones were capable of development,
and which ones should be discouraged in the interests
of the home manufacturers.

In order to carry out this general task of colonial f :* //
supervision, the Board was given control of the gov-
ernors' instructions, with the duty of conducting the
correspondence with them, and was expected to em-
body in its reports to the king the important informa-
tion gleaned from this source. The Board was not
given control of the colonial patronage, but it was to
consider and recommend to the king for appointment
proper persons for governors, deputy governors, mem-
bers of the provincial councils, secretaries, and other
colonial officers. This was a power of nomination,
but not of appointment, as all final action had to be
taken by the king in council. All colonial legisla-
tion was intrusted to the care of the Board : it was to
examine the laws passed by the colonial assemblies,
decide which ones were fit to be confirmed and which
ones should be disallowed, and report its opinions to
the king in council. Likewise it was made the organ
for hearing all complaints of oppressions and malad-
ministration in the colonies and reporting to the king

'* See the Commitiioo, New York Colonial Docutmnts^ voL ir, 147.

26 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

in council what should be done in eacl\ case.'^ It was
also to require strict accounts of all funds raised by
the colonial assemblies and expended for public pur-
poses. Finally, in order to make the grant of powers
and duties effective, the Board was authorized to send
for persons and papers, to examine persons on oath,'^
and to '^execute and perform all other things neces-
sary or proper for answering our royal intentions in
the premises." If the Board desired legal advice on
any point of law, it could apply to the attorney- and
solicitor-general, either or both ; or it might employ
any other crown attorney."
P<2 r^cf The body which was to perform these various du-
ties was not a sham board, as are the present so-called
"Boards" of the British government; it was a real col-
legiate body, as all of its actions required the sanction
of three or five members. That was one of its defects
in organization, because responsibility was divided;
yet it was always possible for an able president to
assume responsibility, completely dominate the Board,
and raise himself to the position of secretary of state,
which is what finally happened.

Another criticism is that the Board lacked inde-
pendence. Those who make this charge seem to
mean by the word independence something akin to the
independence of the civil service officer, or an execu-
tive officer with independent functions such as we are

** New York Colonial DocumetUs^ vol. iv, 148.

S7 The only occasions I have found of the exercise of this power were
in connection with the charges against Surveyor of the Woods Armstrong
in 1722, and a case from St. Christophers which came before the Board for
investigation, when several witnesses were sworn before testifying. See:
Board of Trade Journals^ 22, p. 227, and 56, pp. 148-193.

'^ New York Colonial Documents^ vol. iv, 148.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD 27

accustomed to in the United States." The first con-
dition is one of dependence, and the second is impos-
sible under the parliamentary form of government
That man must finally shape the policy of the admin-
istration who is responsible to the House of Commons.
If he must answer for the actions of a board in his
department, that board cannot claim independence.
In such a government as that of England, important
administrative policies are the result of compromise
among those who are to assume responsibility for
them, and in reaching that compromise, that man's
opinion has most weight who can muster the greatest
support in the House of Commons. Thus the ques-
tion of independence is a personal one ; and the mem-
bers of the Board of Trade could be independent only
so far as their support was necessary to the stability
of the existing ministry. ,

The terms of the commission are by no means so '^^^'
important as the personal relations of the president
of the Board to the chief ministers. If the minister
were powerful enough he could, and sometimes did,
give the Board to understand that it should not pre-
sume to exercise some of the most important of its
commission powers. Under such circumstances the
will of the minister, not the terms of its commission,
determined what it could do. If, on the other hand,
the president of the Board secured his position be-
cause of the support which he commanded in the

^ Miss Kellogg, in her article on the "American Colonial Charter," in
discussing the defects of the Board and after comparing it with the earlier
committees of the Privy Council, adds: the powers given to the Board "indi-
cate an unwillingness to render the colonial administration independent of
die control of the crown and of its chief ministers." — American Historical
Report for igoSt vol. i» 217.

28 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

House of Commons, he became, by virtue of that fact,
one of the important crown officers and could insist
upon carrying out his own policies. All of these con-
ditions are illustrated in the history of the Board of
Trade.

The personnel of the Board

As the Board had been created largely to silence
criticism, its first list of members was designed to in-
spire confidence. John Egerton, Earl of Bridge-
water, was made president.** He was not especially
noted for his knowledge of colonial affairs, but he had
the confidence of the country and especially of Wil-
liam, was a member of the Privy Council, a stauncli
supporter of the Revolution, and a close personal
friend of the king." He was assisted by men who
were familiar with colonial affairs; the most noted
of whom was John Locke who had enjoyed the best
possible training for such a position, as he had long
been interested personally in trade affairs and had
written on various economic questions. He had been
associated with Lord Ashley, had drawn up the elabo-
rate constitution for Carolina, was made secretary of
the reorganized Council of Trade and had held that
position until he was forced to leave England because
of his complicity in the Monmouth plot. Returning to
England with William, he had been made one of the
commissioners of appeals and, on the creation of the
Board of Trade, was induced to become a member.
Although he was old and in failing health, he attended

*<> New York Colonial Documents, vol. iii, p. zv.

«i Dictionary of National Biography, vol. xvii, 1578 ; New York Colonial
Documents, vol. ir, 103, 146; MacauUy, Thoe. B. History of England from
the Accession of James the Second, rol. y, passim.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD 29

the meetings very regularly until he resigned in 1700."
John Pollexfen was another man who had special
knowledge of the colonies and of colonial affairs. He
had served as one of the Lords of Trade in 1675, and
was a man of great influence. He was noted as a
writer on economic subjects, and belonged to the mod-
erate school of mercantilists, who believed in state
regulation of industry but also in freedom of trade,
and was especially opposed to such monopolies as that
of the East India Company.** Another, and by no
means the least important of the men with colonial
experience, was William Blathwayt, a man of great
ability,*^ who had been secretary to the old committee
of the Privy Council, and had retained his position
after the Revolution.

Of the other members of the Board, Ford Grey,
Earl of Tankerville, who was second in the commis-
sion, had played a prominent part in politics. A man
of much parliamentary ability, he had voted for the
conviction of Strafford, was commander of the cavalry
in Monmouth's rebellion, and escaped punishment
only after giving excessive bonds, he had taken an
active part in the Revolution as one of the Convention
Lords, and was made a member of the Privy Council.

*' Dictionary of National Biography^ yol. zxxir, 37-36 ; Fowler. Life of
John Locke, 32-112; Cunningham. Growth of English Industry, vol. ii, jSo^
381, 385, 426.

** Dictionary of National Biography, vol. xlvi, 62 ; Cunningham. Growth
of English Industry, vol. ii, 280-391, footnote. See also the Discourse of
Trade, Coyne, etc., by Pollexfen.

** Because of his linguistic skill he was also a great favorite of William
ni and was with him in the campaign in Flanders. See: Dictionary of
National Biography, vol. ▼, 206 ; Macaulay, Thoe. B. History of England,
vol. ii, 378-381 ; Privy Council Register, ''George I" ; Pepyi, Sanmel. Diary
and Correspondence, vol. iv, 243, 295.

30 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

He was also a close friend of William and, on the
absence of that sovereign in 1700, was one of the Lords
Justices.*" Abraham Hill was a man of science, a
member of the Royal Society, and was, for many years,
treasurer of that organization." John Methuen, one
of the prominent Whig members of the House of Com-
mons, was a politician and a diplomat and after his
withdrawal from the Board of Trade was sent to
Portugal on important diplomatic duties."

From the above account, it is seen that the first
Board was of a very representative character. Two
of its members, and these the first two names in the
commission, were members of the Privy Council,
which made the Board in a certain sense a committee
of that body, as the older organization had been. Two
other members occupied seats in the House of Com-
mons; in that respect it recognized the demand for
popular control. Three of the members had served
on the earlier Council of Trade, consequently the ex-
pert knowledge gained by experience and the strong
government tendencies of the preceding reign were
represented. In politics, however, the Whigs were
the only party represented.

Great results were expected from the work of a
Board which apparently had very generous powers
and was composed of such able men; and, on the
whole, it cannot be said that the Board disappointed
these expectations. It organized at once at Whitehall,
the papers and records of the old Council for Foreign

>i^ Burnet, G. History of his own Time (td. of 1857), t^h 3S2> 359>
405, 411, 414; Dictionary of National Biography; New York Colonial Docu-
mints, yoL ir, 146, 6a8.

*^ Dictionary of National Biography, voL zxvi, s89-S90>

*v — Ibid^ voL zzzvii, $to.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD 31

Plantations and of the Committee of the Privy Coun-
cil were transferred to its offices, and it entered upon
its duties with vigor." Meetings were held at first
three, and later five times a week.

So far as colonial afiPairs are concerned, the action
of the Board shows efficiency at all points down to the
accession of George I. The acts of trade and navi-
gation were enforced, able men were sent out as gov-
ernors, piracy was suppressed, and the Indians kept
in alliance. It exercised a careful supervision of
colonial laws, and assailed the independence of the
proprietary and charter colonies so vigorously that the
power of the crown over them was considerably ex-
tended. Their governors not only had to be approved
by the Board, but they were also required to accept the
instructions of that body for the enforcement of the
acts of trade and navigation, and were compelled to
give bonds for observing them." Had it not been for
lack of ministerial support and the pressure of more
weighty matters, all the proprietary governments
would have been resumed by the crown, and possibly
the existing charters seized by quo warranto. In view
of the actual accomplishment of the Board during the
first twenty years of its history, it cannot be accused
of impotence or of not having justified its existence.

The personnel of the Board remained efficient until
1714, although there was a gradual change in mem-

**The first tession was held at Whitehall, June 25, 1696. See: Board
of Trade Papers, Journal A. (cited by Miss Kellogg, in "American Colonial
Charter" in American Historical Association Report for iQOS, vol. i, 217).
The commission required the Board to take charge of the existing records.
Sec: New York Colonial Documents, vol. iv, 147.

**See the correspondence of Bellomont with the Board in New York
Colonial Documents, vol. iy, passim; Penn-Logan corretpoodence, passim;
North Carolina Colonial Records, vol. ii, 51 and passim.

3a AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

bers, Sir Philip Meadows alone remaining of the orig-
inal appointments. The Earl of Bridgewater was
replaced in 1699 by Tliomas Grey, Earl of Stamford,
a rigid, narrow-minded Whig who had been one of
the active opponents of the policy of the Stuarts, had
been a member of the Privy Council during a part of
William Ill's reign, and continued to serve under
Anne. The work of the Board during his adminis-
tration shows him to have been an able officer. On
the accession of Anne, he was dismissed from all his
offices, but was soon restored to the presidency of the
Board, and continued in that position until the Tories
acquired the ascendency in 1711.^ The interim be-
tween his two periods of service was filled by William
Legge, Lord Dartmouth, a moderate Tory and also a
member of the Privy Council. He was afterwards
secretary of state for the Northern Department and
was influential in bringing about the downfall of
Marlborough.^ The change that swept Stamford
and Marlborough out of office brought in die Earl of
Winchelsea as president of die Board, only to be re-
placed after two years by Lord Guilford, who in turn
lost office at die deadi of Queen Anne.^

Aside from the presidents, many prominent men
served on die Board between die years 1696 and 171 5.

^Tbe lifllB of diangcs in the pcnomict of the Board in New Yofk
C^itumi D^cuwumis^ toL iii, p. zr, docs not show the disniiwal of Stamlbfd
and the pranodon oi Dsrtmoiith, hot the tiaienifni b made in the biograph-
ical notice oi him in the Dicli*mmty •/ Nmliwmml Bmgrmpkj, roL zziii, 307-
sot. Miss Kdlogg in the "American Colonial Charter^ also accepts this
See: A merican Historical Association, titpfU fmr igoSt ^roL

^ Bamet, G. Histurj •/ kis mom Tiwu (ed. of 1S57), %$€; DMsmtry
mf Nrnthwrni BUgrmpkj^ roL zzzii, 4i<.

^New Tofk C9hmud Dtmwuwts^ voL ra, p.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD 33

George Stepney, who succeeded Methuen in 1697, was
a diplomat and a poet, and his wide knowledge of for-
eign affairs was of much assistance to the Board in
framing some of its policies.** Locke, who retired in
1700, was replaced by Matthew Prior,** who had been
an under secretary of state, and who later was one of
Bolingbroke's secret agents in negotiating the Treaty
of Utrecht He was a Tory and, because of his active
relations with that party, was removed from the Board
in 1706.** Lord Herbert of Cherbury, who served
from 1706 to 17 10, was another man of considerable
prominence, active in the affairs of the House of Lords
and frequently chairman of its committees.**

The Tories acquired control of the government dur-
ing the last years of Queen Anne's reign, and the Board
of Trade reflects the change in politics. The Whig
members were gradually retired after 1710, and Tories
took their places. By 171 3 the Board had become al-
most entirely Tory, several new men being added that
year. The most prominent of these were John Hynde
Cotton,*^ a famous Jacobite politician, and Arthur
Moore. Of the latter, Burnet says he had

Risen up, from being a footman without any education, to be
a great dealer in trade, and was the person of that Board in
whom the lord treasurer confided most ;

and Mr. Speaker Onslow tells us he was a man

Of extraordinary talents, with great experience and knowl-
edge of the world, very able in Parliament, and capable of the

^' Dictionary of National Biography, vol. xliv, 190.

*^ Board of Trade Journal, July 17, 1700, 13, p. 114.

^B Burnet, G. History of his own Time (ed. of 1857), 872 and footnote.
Sec also Johnaoo's Lives of the Poets ; and Dictionary of NaHonal Biography ^
Tol. xlvi, 397.

** Dictionary of National Biography, yoL zzir, 193.

*^— Ihid., article "Cotton."

34 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

highest parts of business, with a manner in it, and indeed in
his general deportment, equal almost to any rank/*

He was, however, accused of having sacrificed the
commercial interests of England in the Treaty of
Utrecht.

The accession of George I, with its complete change
of ministry, caused a sweeping change in the person-
nel of the Board. As the last Board under Anne had
been Tory, the new one was completely Whig. The
new members had little or no previous experience in
colonial affairs, whatever their knowledge of trade
might have been. Many of the members of the Board
for the next three decades were either placemen of
the ministers in power or needy members of the House
of Commons, to whom the salary of a thousand pounds
a year was a sufficient inducement to secure their sup-
port of the ministerial policy. Too often, these men
looked upon their positions as sinecures and rendered
little or no real service. The whole period from
1 714 to 1748 is characterized by the insignificance of
the men who served on the Board of Trade. There
were really no members, during this time, who made
lasting reputations for themselves in the colonial field.

The first president under George I was William,
Lord Berkeley of Stratton. In a few months he was
superseded by Henry Howard, Earl of Suffolk and
Bindon, who held the position from 171 5 to I7i8.*'
In that year, Robert D'Arcy, Earl of Holderness, as-
sumed charge but he continued in office only one year,
when Thomas Fane, Earl of Westmoreland, was ap-

^* Burnet, G. History of his ovm Time (ed. of 1857), 898 and footnote;
Dictionary of National Biography, vol. zxxviii, 34a

** New York Colonial Documents, vol. iii, p. xvi ; Burke, Sir Bernard.
Genealogical and heraldic Dictionary of the Peerage and Baronetage, 140s.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD 35

pointed. There was no further change until 1735,"
when Benjamin Mildmay, Lord Fitzwalter, became
president and served for two years. He in turn was
succeeded by Sir John Monson, one of Marlborough's
soldiers and a close adherent of Newcastle and Bed-
ford, who continued in office for eleven years. There
is no evidence that he ever evinced any desire to make
his office anything but a sinecure,*^^ and it is during his
administration that the Board shows its least activity.

^ A letter written by Robert Hunter Morris, who was in London at that
time, to James Alexander offers a possible explanation for diis change.
Governor Cosby had removed certain members of the council in New Jersey
for opposing him. His letter, stating his action and asking the home govern-
ment to confirm it, was in the office of the Board and the confirmation was
opposed by the colonial agent, Mr. Paris. On account of thb oppoaition the
Board delayed action. Morris says, "the govemour's letter was dated in
December last and was committed to the care of the Duke New Castle who
has been all this time striving to get the report of the board of trade upon it,
and could not do it before. My Lord West Moreland was much against it, as
being unjust to condemn the parties unheard and without giving them an
opportunity to justifie their conduct, especially when there was a caveat
enter'd in their office against such a removaL Blagdon [Bladen] and
Dockmineque were also against it but my Lord West Moreland being re-
moved from the Board and Dockmineque being dead, my Lord Fitzwalter
and another new member made in the room of Dockmineque were fond of
obliging the secretary of state and so got a report in favour of Mr. Cosby."

— New Jersey Archives, vol, v, 431-433*

*^ Some idea can be formed of how much of a sinecure some of die mem-
bers made of their positions and how regularly others attended the Board
from the record of attendance [Board of Trade Journal^ 50, 51] during the
diree years, 1741-1743.

1741 174a 1743

Present Absent Present Absent Present Absent

Monson

xox

Bladen

100

ia3

xox

Plumer

iia

xa8

xx8

Brudenell

Ashe

Croft

iia

138

Herbert

X16

130

X15

Pelham

X08

Kccne

9«

36 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

Governors and other persons interested in colonial af-
fairs found little heed paid to their communications
addressed to the Board : they also learned that if it re-
fused to take any desired action the remedy lay in
an appeal directly to Newcastle. Under Monson's "
care, the Board became little more than a bureau of
information, and it was not even efficient in fulfilling
that function.

The records on their physical side show that the
Board was little more than a joke during his admin-
istration. The Journal had formerly been a very
bulky folio volume of several hundred pages. Each
succeeding volume grew steadily thinner after the as-
cendency of Newcastle, and after 1737 they were re-
duced to quartos, and in some cases only one hundred
fifteen pages of this were used in a year." The rec-
ords for each province show the same dearth of busi-
ness. This change is not directly chargeable to the
personnel of the Board, but must be ascribed to the
pernicious interference of Newcastle. The powers of
the Board were nominally the same as before ; but, as
Halifax says, the Board had been given to understand

*' Dictionary of National Biography, vol. zxxyiii, 196. For the neglect
of oolooial aflPairs, see the New York Colonial Documents for the period.
The abtence of any correspondence worth noting speaks for itself. It was
such periods as the above which justified Pownall's comment, "at one time
it hath had the powers, and held the part of a minister's office; and at
another, hath become a mere committee; inefficient as to execution; unat-
tended to, as reporting. The colonies, and the officers of the colonies, have
one while been taught to look up to the Board, as the minister for their
affairs: and at another, have learned to hold it in that contempt, which
inefficiency gives; which contempt, however, hath not alwa3rs stopped
ihert.** ^ Administration of thg British Colonies, vol. i, 37.

^^ Journal for 1738. The average from 1737-1748 was about one hun-
dred thirty of the small pages. The earlier volumes contain four hundred
or five hundred pages of folia

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD 37

that the chief business was to be referred to the secre-
tary of state's office." That remained the situation
until 1 75 1 when Halifax insisted upon doing the full
work assigned to the Board by the commission.

During the foregoing period, there were a few men
of real ability who served as individual members. One
of the best known of these was Daniel Pulteney, who
served during the years 1717-1721. He had been
envoy to Denmark in the reign of Queen Anne, and
had displayed marked ability as a diplomat and, after
his service on the Board, was transferred to the admir-
alty office. He was a member of Parliament and in
politics a close supporter of Sunderland." Paul Doc-
minique (1714-1735) was another very active mem-
ber. Having been an early member of the West Jer-
sey Society, he always took a lively interest in New
York and New Jersey affairs, was nearly always pres-
ent when the Board considered matters of interest to
those colonies, and his name is found on nearly all
the documents which concern them."

The most active member, however, was Martin
Bladen, who has the distinction of enjoying the longest
continuous service of any man who ever served on the
Board. For nearly thirty years, he discharged his

'^ Halifax to Newcastle, August as, 175 1. "Those powers in the oom-
mitsion of the Board of Trade, contained in the first and second clauses of
ye inclosed extract, of representing to the king upon all matters relating to
trade and plantations, of recommending what may be proper to be passed
in the Assemblies, of hearing complaints of oppressions and male-adminis-
tratioD and representing thereupon, have not for many years been exercised,
the Boaitl having been given to understand that they should represent only
on such points as should be referred to them by ye secretaiy of state or die
oooncil." — British Museum Additional Manuscripts^ 32725, f. 91.

** Dictionary of National Biography ^ vol. xlvii, 24.

** New Jersey Archives^ vol. iii, 51 and iio/#, and passim.

38 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

duties faithfully, both as a member of the Board and
as a member of Parliament. He was very regular in
his attendance at the Board meetings, and his name is
affixed to most of its representations." He frequently
spoke on questions of trade, commerce, and colonial
affairs in the House of Commons; and because of his
attention to business, he was known as '^Trade,'' while
his colleagues were referred to collectively as the
"Board." In politics he was a close adherent of Wal-
pole."

Joseph Addison ( 1715-1717) was another very well
known member during the early part of the period;
but his period of service was too short to enable him
at all to mould the policy of the Board, even if he had
displayed any particular interest in colonial affairs.
His appointment must be looked upon, not as a reward
for merit, but as a reward for political service."
Thomas Hay,'* Viscount Dupplin (1746-1754) was
a much abler man in administrative matters. He had
great parliamentary influence, was especially interest-
ed in Nova Scotia, usually spoke on money matters,
and is said to have refused the position of chancellor
of the exchequer in 1757. He was much talked of as
a successor to Halifax as head of the Board, and
helped to form the Newcastle ministry of 1758.

'^ During the ten years, xyja to 1742, he was present at nine hundred
seventy-eight diflPerent meetings of the Board and on seventeen occasions he
was the only member present His absence when it occurred was usually
consecutive, indicating sickness or pressure of other duties. — Board of Trade
Journals, 42-$ x.

^^ Dictionary of National Biography , vol. ii, 154; New York Colonial
Documents^ vol. iii, pp. zvi, xvii; Cobbett, Wm. Parliamentary History,

^^ Dictionary of National Biography, New York Colofdal Documents,
vol. iii, p. zvi.

^Dictionary of National Biography, vol. vi, 76a.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD 39

With the year 1748, the Board enters upon a new
period in its history.^ The change was due to the ap-
pointment of George Dunk, Earl of Halifax, as pres-
ident On the death of Monson, Newcastle sought to
have his brother-in-law, the Duke of Leeds, appoint-
ed to the vacancy, as he was anxious to have him in
some office which required little attendance and less
application. In this, however, he was balked by Bed-
ford who insisted upon having an able man at the head
of the Board.*^ His choice was Halifax and an ar-
rangement was finally made satisfactory to all. The
Duke of Leeds took the position of chief justice in
eyre, which Halifax then held and which required
little or no work, and Halifax came to the Board."
Bedford admits that his reason for desiring Halifax
was partly selfish, as the Board was under the South-
em Department of which he was secretary. Another
reason, however, was the pretty definite conclusion on
the part of both Newcastle and Bedford that the colo-
nial situation was such as to require the attention of
an able man.**

*^ Bedford to Newcastle, August 11, 1748, British Museum Additional
Manuscripts^ 327x6, f. 38.

*' His commission bean the date of November 5, 1748. Board of Trade
Journal^ 56, p. 269. He was sworn to the Privy Council, January 11, X749.
See: Privy Coundl Register^ "George II,*' vol. iv, 137.

** After referring to the conditions described above, Bedford in offering
die position to Halifax sa3rs: "I took the liberty (tho' I had not had an
opportunity of knowing ye sentiments upon it) to mention your Lordship to
Mr. Pelham as one whom I thought, on account of 3re application to, and
abilities in business the proper person to be put at the head of a board
which has under its care and inspection business of the highest national
concern, and which has alwa3rs had at its head, and more particularly in ye
last instance, persons of great consideration and worth.

'There were two other reasons which induced me to take the liberty — to
mention you as 3re properest person I could think of for this employment, die

40 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

Halifax came into his new office with little or no
knowledge of colonial affairs or of trade ; but his en-
ergy and zealy together with his ambition^ soon sup-
plied the deficiency. He belonged to the new gener-
ation of opponents of Walpole. Aldiough he allied
himself with Newcastle, he had sufficient wealth and
parliamentary influence to make his position one of
more than usual independence; and in the shifting
politics of the next few years his support became more
and more essential to that politician. When he ac-
cepted the position as head of the Board, he exacted
no promises as to the power which that body should
exercise, nor were any given him." He was hardly
familiar with his new duties, however, before he be-
gan to insist upon an extension of his power, and so
far as conditions permitted, made his influence felt.**
The settlement of Halifax, Nova Scotia, in 1749 by
discharged sailors and seamen was largely due to his

one was, that I look upon it as a post of business and useful business and a
Rood qualification for better and greater things; and the other (which I
own has a little the air of selfishness) was my desire to have a person of ye
Lordship's weight and consequence and for whom I have so true a regard,
at the head of a Board with which in my present situation as Secretaiy of
State for ye Southern Department I must have so close and frequent corre-
spondence. I am now authorized by His Majesty's command to offer this
employment to your Lordship, which if 3rou shall think proper to accept, the
king designs the Chief Justice in Eyre for jre Duke of Leeds.

''Mr. Pelham informs me that the salary of ye first Lord of Trade is die
same, as to all the rest, viz. £1000 a year, but that the first Lord has always
been paid by him £500 a year additional. He is willing either to continue
it on this footing or to make £500 addition to die salary which ever you
shall chuse." ^ Bedford to Halifax, September 3, 1748, British Museum
Additional Manuscripu, 31716, f. 337.

*^ Halifax to Bedford, September 7, 1748, British Museum Additional
Manuscripts, 32716, f. 339.

^ Letters of F. J. Paris to James Alexander, New Jersey Archives, vol.
vii, 295.

A,,/,..y^

, ■Y/^.^iU.iJ^^^ji

Wy /^ .y^ ~^.,-'^/!™. y5/

dad.. '/.,,. 'll..^U...

■'■r

■Juti..^

Bedford's most secret letter to Halifax
[Bri/wA Muteum AdSlioital Manuifripti, 32716, I 38']

• • »

• •

• ••

m #

••. •••

• ••

•
••

• 1

►• • •

: -.1

: : -J

• •
•• •

• •

► ••

• • •

• •

> • •
• •

A o4/ dp *y/, A* "V V m tm^£^ »

,, «/ji/*;yCf;:^^^ *,'/<;/«-.'///«■ »-^*y^-^^

• •

'•♦

I ^&. -Xi i! /- ^^i~ i! *"i '>/» «'^ "-^

• • •

• • • •

: • • •

m •

• •

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD 47

enterprise, and his services were recognized in naming
the new city. Colonial affairs everywhere received
more attention than they had for years. Affairs in
New York and in New Jersey were in a chaotic condi-
tion and had been steadily growing worse. A careful
investigation was undertaken of the dispatches which
had been left unnoticed in the office during the preced-
ing years, and the true condition of affairs in those
provinces was laid before the ministry. All the work
and records of the Board show new life and vigor, and
everything indicates that for the first time in years an
efficient man was at the head of affairs.**

No energetic man, however, could have been in-
duced to remain long at the head of the Board under
the conditions existing when Halifax was appointed.
The commission conferred upon the Board full power
over colonial affairs, but for years it had been given to
understand that all questions of importance should be
referred to the secretary of state and that no report
or representation was to be made on any matter which
had not been definitely referred to it either by the
secretary of state or by the council." That rule left
the Board only a shadow of its real powers, and, how-
ever efficient a president was, he could accomplish
nothing so long as that condition persisted. Halifax
determined to have conditions changed or to resign,
and wrote to Newcastle that he wished to be released
from the very disagreeable situation in which he found

*^ New York Colonial Documents, vol. vii, 745, footnote ind passim ;
Dictionary of National Biography, vol. iii, 363; Walpole, Horace. Letters^
vol. i, 137, 181, 324, vol. ii, 367, vol. ill, 49, 58, 373 ; Mahon, Lord. History
of England from the Peace of Utrecht to the Peace of Versailles, 1713-1783,
vol. iv, passim and vol. v, 28 ; Grenville Papers, vol. ii, 427, vol. iii, 221-222.

*^See footnote 54.

48 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

himself/* As his support could not be dispensed with,
this resignation was not accepted, and Newcastle be-
gan to arrange terms which Halifax could accept.

Halifax was frankly ambitious for a seat in the
cabinet or even higher honors, and made full use of
his position as head of the Board to secure the coveted
prize. The political situation in England contrib-
uted to his success, as his support was becoming more
and more necessary to Newcastle. When the min-
istry was reorganized in 175 1, Halifax asked that he,
as president of the Board, be made a secretary of state
for the West Indies, or at least that he be admitted
to the cabinet, and that the Board should be permitted
to act up to the full measure of its commission pow-
ers.** There was considerable delay in arranging
the terms upon which Halifax would continue in of-

*^ Hilifax to Newcastle, November a8, 1750, British Museum Additional
Manuscripts, 31713, f. 31a.

** "There is no doubt but that the first Commissioner of Trade, being
admitted to frequent access to the king on all plantation matters would be ye
most eligible method. I therefore hope your Grace will propose it, and that
it will not be objected ta

"But if this method should fail and 3rour Grace should agree in opinion
with my Lord Granville that ye publick end may be answer'd by ye Com-
missioners of Trade being suffered to act up to die letter of their commis-
sion, by presenting to the Council the names of proper people to be employ'd
as governors, deputy governors, secretaiys, etc, and by taking cognizance of
the government of the colonies, (for which end two new instructions to the
governors will be necessaiy).

"That I may neither seem impracticable nor bigotted to my own opinion,
I am willing to submit to His Majesty's pleasure, and to try whether I can
serve with publick utility and satisfaction to m3rself on this new footing.

'Trovided I have the honour of being appointed a Cabinet Counsellor,
with such additional salary as His Majesty shall think proper; and that it
be fully understood by His Majesty's ministers that I shall have the same
weight in all plantation matters as if by my post I had frequent access to
his Majesty." - Halifax to Newcastle, August 6, 1751, British Museum
Additional Manuscripts, 33725, f. i.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD 49

fice. Newcastle says the king opposed his admission
to the cabinet because that body was already too
large/*^ Finally Halifax agreed to accept the powers
of a secretary of state without the honor of a portfolio,
and dictated the provisions of the Order in Council
which transferred all colonial business, including the
patiQoage, to the Board/^ He had now secured the
powers of a secretary of state, and he at once demand-
ed ^* and received the salary of one,'* but he was still
denied the public recognition he coveted, and which
he was still determined to have.

Newcastle evidently promised to aid him in his am-
bitions, but failed to keep his promises; consequently

''^ Newcastle to Halifax, November 7, 175 1, British Museum Additional
Manuscripts^ S^72St f. 378.

7^ The proposals which formed the basis for the Order in Council are
included in a letter of Halifax to Newcastle, Januaiy 5, 175a. These were
laid before the Privy Council, went through the regular course, and ap-
peared as an Order in Council, March 11, 175a. Admiralty and revenue
officers were not included in the patronage of the Board. See: British
Museum Additional Manuscripts, 32716, f. aa; Privy Council Registgr,
''George H," vol. xiii, 467, 511; Board of Trade Journal, 60.

7>If my friends had succeeded in the application to His Majesty that
I might be called to the Cabinet Council, it must have been understood that
a cabinet councillor's salary would have attended it. The honour, however,
was the principal thing I had in view, and I would have accepted it (as
Mr. Pelham knows) without any additional pecuniary emolument His
Majesty was pleased to object to my being a cabinet councillor; but from
the refusal of this mark of His Majesty's favour, it cannot, I apprehend,
be inferred that I am of course to be refused every other. Some sort of
one is necessary for my credit in the execution of the office, with which His
Majesty has entrusted me ; and no mark of the royal favour is more obvious
than such an augmentation of salary as would have been given, if I had
been called to the Cabinet Council. — Halifax to Newcastle, March 26, 1752,
British Museum Additional Manuscripts, 32726, f. 338.

^*A paper in the Newcastle correspondence entitled "Consideradoos
with Respect to the Matter of appointing a Secretary of State for Planta-
tion Affairs" states that the salary of Halifax as president of the Board was
£3850 a year. See: British Museum Additional Manuscripts, 33029, f. 104.

50 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

Halifax resigned in 1756/^ but was again induced to
remain in office. The next year he refused to serve
any longer under such unsatisfactory conditions ^* and^
as his services were indispensable^ he was admitted to
the cabinet. This made him virtually a secretary of
state for the colonies, in which capacity he continued
to serve until 1761, when he resigned to go to Ireland
as lord-lieutenant. His dominating influence in colo-
nial affairs is noticeable, however, for some years
afterward. During his presidency the Board occu-
pied a very different position from that which it had
ever before held in its history. Although it was still
nominally a collegiate body, the president was either
a secretary of state or exercised all or most of the pow-
ers of one. This change had been brought about by
two causes : the increased importance of colonial af-
fairs, and the energy and ambition of one man, backed
by the political influence he was able to wield in Par-
liament. It is a striking fact that this revolution in
the Board's position was accomplished without any
change in the terms of the commission.

Halifax was assisted by some able colleagues, a few
of whose appointments dated back to 1746. One of
these was Dupplin, already mentioned. Another was
James Grenville, an adherent of William Pitt and a
brother to George Grenville and Richard, Earl of
Temple, who continued on the Board till 1755. Still
another able man was the former attorney for the
Board, Francis Fane. From his long years of expe-
rience as legal adviser on colonial laws, he should

^^Walpole, Horace. Letters^ vol. iv, ii, 64, 66.

TB Halifax to Newcastle, June 16, 1757, British Museum Additional
Manuscripts^ 33S71, f. 313.

/■>«^v»'.<^^

^f^'- '/,^c4. A,^/- M^/ .«i^ fi" •^'^y^ ^ /^^

•^ /* -<;^ ^xC,/,^ ,«5-^.«*^> ^,„^«i.~-"' <<

I '--7- ^--

Halifax resigns the presidency
\Bntith Museum Additional Manuicriflt, 3x871, f 323']

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD 53

have been especially well qualified to give efficient
service.

Halifax also brought in men who were his own fol-
lowers, among whom Charles Townshend was the
ablest and best known. He had entered Parliament
in 1747, and had from the first attached himself to
Halifax. When the latter came to the Board, Town-
shend was soon given a place and continued in office
for nearly five years. He was ambitious, and a man
of remarkable ability. Halifax relied much upon
him and with reason, for he was one of the few men
who really made a name for himself as a member of
the Board. On his retirement, he found a place on
the admiralty board. He continued to rise in par-
liamentary power and was president of the Board of
Trade for one month in 1763. Three years later, he
was chancellor of the exchequer and head of the min-
istry. It was in the last capacity that he made dan-
gerous use of the knowledge he had gained of colonial
affairs, and brought forward the unfortunate bills
which have ever since borne his name.^* William
G. Hamilton, known as ^^single speech Hamilton,"
was another of the able personal followers of Halifax.
He served from 1756-1761 and retired with Halifax,
accompanying the latter to Ireland."

Even during the ascendency of Halifax, however,
all the members were not especially able men, nor nec-
essarily his own lieutenants. Newcastle's influence

^^ Wilpole, Horace. Letters, passim ; New York Colonial Documents ^ voL
iii, pp. zvii, zviii; Dictionary of National Biography ^ vol. Ivii, 117; Gren^
ville Papers^ volt, i, ii, iii, passim; Mahon, Lord. History of England, vol.
iv, 17, ai8, 249, vol. V, passim ; Lecky, Wm. History of England, tee index.

T^WalpoIe, Horace. Letters, vol. iii, 367, 403, vol. v, 76, 86, 391; Dic'
iionary of National Biography, vol. xxiv, 132.

5* AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

was sufficiently great to secure appointments when he
wished them, and several of the members continued to
be Newcastle's favorites. Andrew Stone (1749-1761)
was probably the best of these. He had been private
secretary to Newcastle and was a most active man in
politics, although he worked behind the scenes. He
had been an under secretary of state, and is famous
as the tutor of George III. It is said that it was due
to his unfortunate influence that the prerogative took
on the new growth which it did. Stone later became
notorious as one of the party known as "the king's
friends." " Other able men who represented the
Newcastle influence were Edward Bacon (1759-
1765) and George Rice (1761-1770). TTie less
worthy satellites of leading ministen were present
during the entire period: Richard Rigby" (1755-
1760), an unblushing placeman, who supported vari-
ous interests and so managed to maintain himself in
some position of profit; Edward Elliott" (1760-
1776), who owed his position to the fact that he had
vast borough influence at his command; and John
Roberts" (1761-1762), formerly secretary to Henry
Pelham and dispenser of the secret service money
which was used so largely for corrupt purposes, were
the most noted of these.
^ On the retirement of Halifax in 1761, Samuel

" Wilpole, Horace. Lrttm, vol. i, 31S, fottnoU, irtA. 'A, 157, 359, vol. iii,
46, 104, ijj, i]7, 140, aij; Mahon, Lord. Hitlory »f England, vol. it, 11,
ai; New YoHc Cehnial Dacumtnti, vol. iii, p. xvii, toL vi, 753, fooinott'.
Dictionary of National Biography, vol. liv, 405.

'"Walpole, Horace. Lttlrrs, aee index; Grtmnlh Fapert, vota. iii, iv,
faiiim; Mahon, Lord. Hitttrf tf England, voL iv, ia£, voL v, 40^ 359;
Dielionary of National Biagmfky, rot. zlviii, joi.

*^ Dicljonary of Natitnal Bitgraphj, \tA. xvii, 184.

" — 7^11^., vol. xlviii, 3S4.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD 55

Sandys was made president of the Board and contin-
ued in office for two years. He was a man of little
real ability, had risen into importance only because
of his opposition to Walpole, and his influence rapidly
waned after that statesman's fall. Horace Walpole
speaks of him as a member of a dish-clout ministry,"
and adds that the Board of Trade was to be reduced to
its former insignificance and that he was« not to get
the extra thousand pounds a year which had been
granted to Halifax." This was carried out only in
part." Colonial affairs were too important, at that
particular time, for the Board to be reduced to its
former impotence ; although the most important bus-
iness was transferred to the secretary of state's office,
and orders to that effect were sent to the colonial gov-
ernors.

Sandys was replaced by Townshend who, within a
month, gave way to William Fitzmaurice Petty, Earl
of Shelburne. The latter had acted as peacemaker in
the negotiations which brought Bute and Fox togeth-
er, had helped form the Grenville ministry, and would
have been made secretary of state for the colonies at
that time had Grenville not opposed it. He finally
accepted the presidency of the Board as a substitute,
and with it was given a seat in the cabinet. He soon
quarreled with his colleagues, resigned from the

** Walpole, Horace. Letters^ vol. iii, 379.

** Walpole, Horace. Letters, vol. v, 36, alto see index; DicHonary of
National Biography, vol. 1, 293 ; Mahoo, Lord. History of England, vol. iii»
68, iio» iza.

^The Order in Council was issued, May 15, 1761, and repealed so
much of the rule of 1752 aa vested appointments in the Board, but directed
that corvespoodeiice between the Board and colonial governors should ood-
tinue as directed in 1752. See: Board of Trade Journal, vol. Izxix, 265.

S6 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

Board, attached himself again to Pitt, and on the lat-
ter*8 return to office was made secretary for the South-
ern Department, August, 1766. As such, he again had
charge of colonial affairs and did all he could to con-
ciliate the colonies, being always opposed to coercive
measures. Hillsborough, who had followed Shel-
bume as president of the Board, was replaced for a
brief time by Dartmouth, but again came into office
at the time Shelburne was made secretary of state. At
Hillsborough's own request, however, the Board was
again shorn of its executive powers and reduced to
one of report only;" thus the entire responsibility for
the American policy was thrown upon Shelburne. As
the latter was unable to get on well with his colleagues,
and as they were out of sympathy with his American
policy, he was relieved by raising Hillsborough to the
full rank of secretary of state for the colonies, thus
ending Shelburne's control over colonial affairs. Very
soon after that event Shelburne resigned from office
and joined the opposition (October, 1768). •*

Hillsborough's colonial policy during his first term
of service (1763-1765) was marked by more than
usual rigor, and colonial laws had to be transmitted

^ '1 resolved to accept, provided the Board should be altered from a
Board of Representation to a Board of Report upon reference only; that the
order of the governors in America to correspond with the Board of Trade
only, should be rescinded; and that every executive business that has by
degrees crept into the Board should revert to the proper offices^ particularly
all treasury business; and that I should not be of the cabinet (which was
also o£Fered me). In this manner, which has been agreed to I have accepted
the office." — Letter of Hillsborough to Grenville, August 6, 1766, Grenvillt
Papers^ vol. iii, 294-296.

s* Fitzmaurice, Edmund. Life of Shelburne^ vol. i, 239, 241, 243, 245,
259, vol. ii, 2-3 ; Grenville Papers, vol. ii, 5, 38, 51 ; Mahon, Lord. History
of England^ vol. v, 27, 29, 42, 159, 203, 209, 235; Dictionary of National
Biography, vol. zlv, 119.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD 57

with a promptness hitherto unknown.*^ As secretary of
state for the colonies, Hillsborough stood for the full-
est exercise of the prerogative, was responsible for the
aggressive policy of the British government toward
the colonies, and demanded the most vigorous repres-
sive measures." He resigned his position as secretary
of state in 1772 because he could not consent to the set-
tlement of the Ohio country; hence he must have
looked upon his western policy as essential to the prop-
er carrying on of colonial affairs."

Political position and terms of service of members

Under the English parliamentary system, the Board
of Trade was very naturally subject to change with
the change in ministries. It has already been pointed
out how Stamford was dismissed from office on the
accession of Anne. On the change of ministry in

1705, three additional members were changed, and the
same was true when Sunderland replaced Hedges in

1706. Stamford again went out of office in 171 1 for
political reasons, and when Bolingbroke acquired the

B^ See Calvert's letters to Governor Sharpe of Maryland urging him to
tranamit copies of the laws passed in that colony, in Sharpens Comspond"
ence, vol. iii.

^ This attitude is well summed up by Junius, vol. iii, 172. ''In his new
department, I am soriy to say, he has shown neither abilities nor good sense.
His letters to the colonies contain nothing but expression equally loose and
violent . . Thb treatment of the colonies, added to his refusal to present
a petition of one of them to the king (a direct breach of the Declaration
of Rights) will naturally throw them all into a flame. . . The other
ministers were proceeding in their usual course, without foreseeing or re-
garding consequences; but this nobleman seems to have marked out by a
determined chmoetiii^ means to precipitate our destruction." — Grfiffrt7/#
Papers^ vol. iii, pp. til<»'liii.

** GrenvilU Papers, vols, iii, iv, passim ; Mahon, Lord. History of Eng*
land, voL v, 41, 185, 236-240^ 320; DicHonary of National Biography, vol.

437-

58 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

ascendency two years later, the Board was almost reor-
ganized, no fewer than four members being changed.
It also has been pointed out that at the close of Queen
Anne's reign the Board had become just as exclusively
Tory as the first one had been exclusively Whig. On
the accession of George I and the return of the Whigs
to power, there was an entire change in the personnel
of the Board.*^ After that, changes were a little less
sweeping, but the reason is evident: changes in minis-
tries were essentially changes within a single political
party and usually meant only a readjustment of per-
sonal followings, and men who had been in a dis-
charged ministry frequently found comfortable berths
in the one that succeeded to power.

Every important change in ministry meant consid-
erable changes in the Board.*^ Thus in 1742 when
Walpole was finally forced to resign, three members
of the Board followed him out of oflice, and none of
these was the president." When the ministry was
reorganized in 1755, three new men became members
of the Board ; John Pitt was dismissed, James Gren-
ville resigned, and Richard Edgecombe was trans-
ferred to the admiralty board." There were no more
radical changes in the ministry until 1761 ; but, along
with the numerous ministerial changes of that year,
one half the members of the Board of Trade were

^^ New York Colonial Documents^ vol. iii, pp. zv-xvi.

*^ Miss Kellogg in her monograph on the ''American Colonial Charter,"
in the American Historical Association Report for IQOJ, 220, says: ''But
while the fortunes of the presiding officers varied with the rise and fall of
political ministries, the active working members of the board were seldom
changed for such reasons." It is impossible to reconcile this statement
with the facts.

'^ New York Colotnal Documents^ vol. iii, p. zvii.

•• — Ihid,\ Walpole, Horace. Letters^ vol. iii, 379-381.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD 59

changed. Halifax resigned to go to Ireland; and
John Yorke, Edward Thomas, and George Rice re-
placed Thomas Pelham, William G. Hamilton, and
William Sloper, respectively.** In the readjustment
of the minor offices in 1763, three members of the
Board, including the president, were changed ; and in
1765 with the formation of the Grafton ministry, one
half of the Board including the president again lost
office.*" Such changes continued to occur until the
Board was finally abolished in 1782. It is tlH»& seenj
that the Board of Trade was considered ministerial so;
far as the men who directed its policy were concerned,
and that the positions of the ordinary working mem-
bers were regarded as either ministerial or the legiti-
mate spoils of victory; consequently they were also'
subject to change with the change of party.

Although the positions on the Board were political, Tc. r n^
the tenure of office was not so precarious as might be
supposed. Between the years 1696- 1765 inclusive,
there were, in all, ninety-five separate appointments.
Disregarding fractions of years of service, the aver-
age tenure during this time \yp^ j"^^ ^hont fiv^ y^fl^ ^

i^>tJ:ASi[ijjS]^)^^^^'^^' The average tenure for the
presidents of the Board was not greatly different.
There were in all eighteen different administrations,
counting interrupted administrations, like that of
Stamford and that of Hillsborough, as distinct periods
of service and not as constituting a single administra-
tion. This gives, as the average term of service, four
and nine-tenths years. If the broken administration

*^ New York Colonial Documents^ vol. iii, p. xvii ; Walpole, Horace.
Letters ^ vol. v, 36-37.

** New York Colonial Documents, vol. iii, p. xriii.

6o AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

of Stamford be considered as a single administration,
the average is a little more than five years, which is
almost the average tenure for the other members of
the Board.**

There were, however, some remarkable periods of
service on the part of some of the members. Four
men, during the period covered by this volume, served

^ continuously for periods of more than twenty years.
These were Paul Docminique, twenty-one years;
Thomas Pelham, the elder, twenty-five years ; Edward
Ashe, twenty-eight years ; and Martin Bladen, twenty-
nine years. These periods of service are rivalled by
that of Soame Jenyns, who had already served ten
years in 1765, and who continued to serve for fifteen
years after that date. Long tenure in ofiice does not
necessarily mean efiiciency. It should be noted that
only one of these men was especially faithful in the
performance of his duties ; *^ and he has not left a sin-
gle measure of his own, which can be called his con-
tribution to the colonial policy of the English gov-
ernment.*' The men of brains and ideas, the men who
had definite opinions regarding proper colonial poli-
cy, men like Townshend or Shelburne, enjoyed com-
paratively short terms in oflice. The very fact that they
were active and influential men meant their removal
when a ministry, to which they were opposed, came
into oflice. The longest term of office of the president
was that of Westmoreland, who served for sixteen

' years ; Halifax, with a tenure of thirteen years, comes

** In computing the above averages use was made of the data given io
the New York Colonial Documents, vol. iii, pp. xv-xviiL

*7 Martin Bladen.

** Poesibly an exoeptioo should be DMde in favor of his proposal for a
stamp duty in 1726.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD 6i

second ; and the next is Monson, who served for only
eleven years, and accomplished nothing in all that
time.

Periods of varying activity

The most casual examination of the printed colonial
records discloses that the Board of Trade was very
much more active in its correspondence at some times ^
than it was at others.** No satisfactory explanation
of this has been given, nor can any be had from an
examination of the printed records alone. The man-
uscript sources, however, throw some light upon the
matter.

As has been stated, the Board had other duties im-
posed upon it in addition to those of looking after the
government of the continental American colonies.***
There were the other colonies, especially the West In-
dian group, which required even more attention than
did those on the continent. Then there were the great
trading companies, and the merchants who had com-
plaints or demands to present. Last of all the Board
was charged with the consideration of England's trade
with the various countries. This was not a merely
nominal duty, but involved a great deal of hard work.
The various representatives of the British government
reported to and corresponded with the Board in much
the same way as our consular ojfHcers report to our
government today. This material alone comprises
many volumes, known as the Commercial Series I and
11.^^^ If one can judge from their bulk and from the

M See the oolooial records of New York, North Cuolina, and New Jer-
sey for illuttratiooe of this.
^<^ See pa0e 34.
^^^ Series I is made op of in-letters, memorials^ and enclosures. Series

62 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

entries in the Journaly the business involved required
much time and labor. To meet these constant demands
upon its time, the Board arranged regular schedules
for the business of each week. Thus in 1707, Tues-
days and Thursdays were set aside for the use of mer-
chants and others "trading to America" who desired
personal interviews with the Board.*^* Ten years later
the program had become much more definite: viz.,
Mondays for reading letters, memorials, petitions,
etc. ; Tuesdays and Wednesdays for plantation busi-
ness ; Thursdays for trade ; and Fridays for the con-
sideration of laws passed in the plantations.^^*

It would seem that the regular routine business was
more than enough to keep one set of ojfHcials busy,
especially as some of the public hearings required
several days ; but the Board was frequently called upon
for extraordinary work of the most exacting character.
,As it had charge of all trade and commercial relations,
Ht was required to consider all the various commercial
treaties that were negotiated,*®* was called upon to
prepare instructions for the envoys who drafted these
treaties,*®* and in some cases members of the Board
were themselves sent as envoys to negotiate treaties

II includes entry books of out-letters, representations to the king or Council,
instructions to envoys, etc Both are in the Public Record Office in London.

102 Board of Trade Journal^ 19, p. 137.

10s November 20, 17x7, Board of Trade Journal, 26, p. 438.

'^^^ See the treatment of the commercial treaties with Sweden and the
Sutes General in 1702, in Board of Trade, Trade Entry Book, 25, pp. 419,
427-444 et seq.; the proposed commercial treaty with France in 1712, in
Board of Trade Commercial Series II, 647, pp. 3-84; the proposed commer-
cial treaty with Spain in 17x3, Ibid,, pp. 404-411; that with Portugal in
17x4, Ibid,, 648, pp. 206-240. Many other references could be cited.

lo^See the call for information, June 2, 2709, CO. 324, 9, pp. 294-394;
the letter from Bolingbroke to the Board for instructions for the conunis-
sioners to treat with those of France, July 28, 17x4, Board of Trade Journal^

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD 63

of this character/^ As these treaties are among the
most important any nation makes, and as they are the
most liable to be complained of by the merchants, the
Board found its task onerous at times/^^

Other treaties which were very important and re-
quired a great amount of care and research to supply
the envoys with proper information in drafting were
those dealing with boundaries. When any treaty
which affected boundaries or British claims to terri-
tory was being made, the Board was required to furn-
ish instructions, documentary proof of claims, maps,
etc., in many cases very voluminous, for the use of the
envojrs.*®* In one important case, that of the bounds ,
of the Hudson's Bay Company, the southern limit of
49'' as stated by the Board has become the northern
boundary of the United States.*®*

35, p. 297; alto instructions prepared by the Board for Daniel Pulteney and
Martin Bladen, envoys to France, August 13, 17x9, Ibid,, 29, p. 135. The
following letter is perhaps most representative of all:

''Her Majesty having given directions for the immediate dispatch of
my Lord Bingley to Spain, I am commanded to give your Lordships this
notice of it, in order to your preparing such draughts of instructions as you
may judge necessary to be given his Lordship, as well on the Treaty of
Commerce lately concluded between Her Majesty and the Catholic King as
on any other matter relating to the trade of this Kingdom." ~ Bolingbroke
to the Board, April 27, 17x4, in Board of Trade Commercial Series 11, 6489
p. 189.

10* Daniel Pulteney and Martin Bladen were envoys to France Z7Z9-i73a
The latter's letters to the Board furnish a very interesting account of the
speculation in Paris at the time and of current gossip and rumor as to the
operation of Law's company in the Mississippi country. See: Board of
Trade Journal, 29.

^^"f See the numerous consultations with merchants in the references cited
above.

10^ Note what was done in 1700 in the negotiations with France in Board
of Trade Journals, 13, pp. 19, 70-73; in 1709 when a treaty was con-
templated with the same country, CO. 324, 37, pp. 294-394; uid when the
treaty was made in 17x4, Board of Trade Journal, 24, p. 277.

^^ August 26, 17x9, the following instructions for the envoys to France

64 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

The work of supplying information for envoys and
the consideration of old treaties with the object of ne-
gotiating new ones was, of necessity, badly distributed,
as it came in the form of sudden demands. Wars
abrogated most commercial treaties, consequently at
the close of a war there was a great deal of this treaty
work to be done. Especially was this true after the
War of the Spanish Succession, when so many com-
mercial treaties had to be prepared and so much in-
formation of one kind and another supplied that the
Board was literally swamped with work of this kind
for two years or more. This, together with the confu-
sion and accumulation of business resulting from war
conditions and the change in sovereigns, is sufficient to
explain the dearth of correspondence with the royal
governors between 1713 and 1718. Letters were not
answered for the simple reason that the Board could
not get to them, and, as they continued to arrive, a
considerable number of unanswered letters accumu-
lated in its office.

The correspondence was neglected for some time
after 171 3, but this was not wholly due to the ineffi-
ciency of the Board, as its work along other lines testi-
fies. During this period the Board wrote about one
letter a year to each of the governors, and stated that

were agreed to by the Board. ''And further that a line be drawn from the
iouth westward of the Island of Griminston or Cape Perdria (so as to in-
clude the same within the limits of the bay) to the great Lake of Misoosinke,
at Mistovenny, dividing the said lake into two parts, and that where the
said line shall cut the 49th degree of nordiem latitude, another line shall
htgin, and be extended westward from the said lake upon the 49th degree
of northern latitude, over which said line so to be described as above men-
tioned, the French and all persons by them employed shall be prohibited to
pass to the northward of said 49th degree of latitude." — Board of Trade
Journal, 29, p. 135.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD 65

his letters had not been answered because of the pres-
sure of other business immediately referred to it by
the king.^^^ No doubt these statements are essentially
true. Another reason for the unusual delay is sug-
gested in one of the letters to Gorernor Spotswood;
namely, that the Board lacked direction as to what it
should do in the case of some of the colonies/"

As soon as the most pressing work in regard to treat-
ies was out of the way, the Board took up the accumu-
lation of correspondence. As current business had to
be taken care of, only a small portion of the Board's
time could be devoted to unanswered letters. Those
which had been received most recently were consid-
ered first, and the earlier ones taken up as opportunity
offered."' In most cases it had been so long since the
letters were written that they did not require an
answer. It was not until 171 8 that all the letters re-
ceived by the Board about the close of the war were

^^<^ Secretary Popple to Governor Spottwood, Janutiy 14, 17x4, CO.
5, Z364, p. 23.

Alezander Spotswood, one of Virginia's most famous governors, served
from 17x0 to 2722. He was greatly interested in the development of his
colony, assisted in improving the culture of tobacco^ aided the cause of
education, and favored the westward movement of population.

Ill Board to Spotswood, August x8, 17x5, CO. 5, 1364, p. 236. In this let-
ter the receipt of eig^t letters from Spotswood bearing the following dates is
acknowledged: December 13, X7X3; March 9, X7X4; October 25, X7X4; De-
cember 5, X7X4; January 27, X7X5; March 28, X7X5; June 4, X7X5; and
November 26, X7X5. None of these was answered at that time.

^^* June 2x, X7X5, the Board considered the following letters from Gov-
ernor Hunter: September xo^ X7X3; May 7, X7X4; August 27, X7X4; Octo-
ber x8, X7X4; October x8, X7X4; November 8, X7X4; November 8, X7X4;
November 25, 17x4; March 28, X7X5; March 28, 17x5; April 9, X7X5. See:
Board of Trade Journal, 25, pp. x 3 5- 13 8. November 27, X7X7, the follow-
ing were considered: June 8, X7xx; June 8, X7X7; October 2, X7X6; Febru-
ary 3, X7X7; April 8, X7X7; May 3, 17x7; May 27, X7X7, and one undated.
See: Ibid., 27, pp. x-4.

Correspondence from the other colonies was considered in about the

AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

read."* After that, correspondence was attended to
with reasonable regularity for a time.

same way. None of this delay can be ascribed to slowness in transmission, as
the following table of letters from Governor Spotsvrood [CO. 5i 1317] shows:

Dated
November 16, 171 3
October 35, 1714
November 25, 1714
December 5, 1714
January 37, 1715
March 28, 1715
June 4, 1715
February 16, 1716
May 9, 1716

Rbceivbd
January 4, 17x4
December xo» 17x4
January 28, 17x5
January 28, X7X5
April 6, X7X5
June 27, X7X5
January x6, 17x6
April x8, 17x6

Read
May x6, X7X6

((

July xo^ X7x6

June 28, X7x6

On June (, X7x6, the Board wrote to Spotswood that it had just had
under coosideratioo his letters of the following dates: June 2, August X7,
September X4, November x6, and December 29, X7X3; March 29, October
25, and December, X7X4; January 27, March 28, June 4, July X5, August 9,
and October 24, X7X5; and January x6, X7X6, making fifteen letters in all,
many of them containing enclosures, which were considered and answered
at one time. CO. 5, X364, p. 376.

^^>0n June 25 and 26, X7x8, the Board cleared up the following list
of letters from New England [CO. 5, 9x5, pp. X20-X58]:

From Dated

Lieutenant-governor of Mass: December 30, X7X2

Governor Dudley of Mass. August 24, X7X3

Secretary Addington of Mass. August 24, X7X3

Governor Dudley of Mass. August 25, X7X3

November, X7X3
December x, X7X3
July X3, X7X4

((

«c

Secretary Addington of Mass.
Governor Dudley of Mass.

((

Colonel Shute of Mass.
Lieutenant-governor of N. H.
Governor Dudley of Mass.

((

Council of Mass.
Governor Dudley of Mass.

((

August x6, X7X4
August 9, X7X4
August X9, X7X4
October 3, X7X4
July 23, X7X7
August x6, X7X6
July 5, X7X5
June 27, X7XS
May 7, X7X5
May 2, X7X5
March 2, X7X4
November 29, X7X4
November x8, X7X4

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD 67

The lack of force in the action of the Board, which
gradually appeared and culminated in 1737, was due
to the steady transfer of business from the Board to
the secretary of state's office and to the gradual decay
which resulted from lack of authority. A good part
of the delay in answering the letters of the royal gov-
ernors after 1730, however, was due to downright
indifference and neglect by the Board. There was
no period of excessive pressure of other business,
such as there was immediately after 1713; con-
sequently there is no valid excuse for letters ly-
ing in the Board's office for a year or more be-
fore they were read, neither is there any reason why
it should allow a period of three years to elapse be-
tween its own letters to the governors of the most im-
portant colonies. Nevertheless these things are com-
mon in the Board's records for the period."* Its other
duties were neglected about as badly, especially after
1737, ^^d in no field did it show vigor or efficiency.

The change which appears after 1748 is due wholly
to the energy and ambition of Halifax, who recovered
the powers which had gradually been usurped by the
secretary of state, and even acquired new ones which
the Board had never before exercised ; such, for in-
stance, as the power to appoint colonial officials and
to perform other executive functions.

^^^ A letter from Lieutenant-governor Wentworth of New Hampshire
bears the following endorsement: "Written April 2, 1730; Rec'd. June a,
1730; Readf June 9, 173 1." — CO. 5, 87a. No letter was written by the Board
to Lieutenant-governor Gooch of Virginia from September 13, 1732, to
September 4, 1735. See: CO. 5, 1336, p. 131. A letter from the Board
to Governor Belcher of Massachusetts, dated September zo, 1735, acknowl-
edges the receipt of eighteen letters from him, covering a period of two
years. See: CO. 5, 9x7, p. 138.

AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

Office force

To transact the voluminous work of the Board there
was at first a modest office force of a secretary and five
clerks/" As all the work had to be done with the pen,
this force must have been kept very busy preparing
the many letters, representations, commissions, in-
structions, and other documents for which the Board
was responsible, to say nothing of the numerous entry
books which had to be kept up. Although the task
was a heavy one, it was very well done, as the records
themselves testify. This office force was gradually
increased until, in 1708, there were, besides the secre-
tary, eight clerks, one door keeper, two messengers,
and a "necessary woman." The salaries paid were
small, ranging from five hundred pounds for the secre-
tary to forty pounds for the lower clerks and door-
keeper. The total pay roll was one thousand one
hundred fifty pounds."* Even these small salaries

lift Board of Trade Miscellanies, zi, pp. 34-38.

ii^The following annual report [January 22, 1708, Board of Trade
Journal, ao, p. 23] of the office force shows the salaries and penoonel of
the entire establishment:

'Tor himself as Secretary . . . . £ 500

" Adrian Drift Deputy Secr'y or Chief Clerk . . 100

« Wm. Barker Clerk 80

Bryan Wheelock

((

'' Maurice Carroll

" Justinian Loggan

*' Nathaniel Estwidc

'' Samuel Gellibrand

" Matthew Bertin

" Daniel Child, Doorkeeper

^ Samuel Clark, Doorkeeper and Assistant Messenger

" John Gray, Messenger and Assistant Doorkeeper

" Mary Wright, Necessary Woman .

70
60

50
50

45
30

In all amounting to the aforesaid sum of

. £1150^

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD 69

were often in arrears, and the Board was repeatedly
petitioned to assist the clerks in getting their pay/"
In one of these petitions the clerks stated that the
treasury had offered them a quarter's pay in ''tin
tallies/' but they could sell these only at a discount.
The doorkeeper, who received only forty-five pounds
a year, added that he had paid out thirty-four pounds
for coal and unless he could get his money ''he would
be a great loser." "'

In spite of the low salaries and the slow payments,
the clerks were probably not so badly off as their
statements indicate. They state in their petition that
"they had no perquisite or other advantages in this
office or other way of supporting themselves, but from
their salary." This statement is not quite true, for
the general tipping system prevailed in England then
as it does now; and the man who wished any work
done, even in a public office, had to pay for it. There
was no direct charge, nor any fixed scale of fees, but
there were other ways of making it plain that the
clerks expected gratuities for every service rendered.
There was no secret about this, for in 17 14 the Board
found it necessary to make a rule that no clerk should
"presume to demand any money from any person for
any business done in the office." "* Evidently, how-
ever, the clerks received their customary fees without
demanding them, for the fee system continued to
flourish. This source of revenue for the clerks was

^^' See Board of Trade Journal, X2, pp. 99, Z05, 123, 308 ; 13, pp. 320^

424-

^^* Petitloo of the clerks, November 17, 1710, in Board of Trade MiS'

cellanies, zi, pp. 465-467.

110 Order of the Board respecting clerks, salaries, and hours of work,

December 20, 1714, in Board of Trade Journal, 24, pp. 242-243.

70 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

SO firmly established that they protested in 1722
against Mr. West's clerk giving out copies of colonial
statutes which had been referred to him by the Board
and were awaiting his report in point of law."® Had
the clerks not received extra pay for copies of laws,
they would have been the last persons to object to a
clerk in another ofiice doing the work. The Board
recognized the legitimacy of their monopoly over such
papers and directed that in future Mr. West should
not permit his clerk to give out any copy of acts or
other matters referred to him by the Board."^

From many sources it is evident that money was
necessary for the successful transaction of business at
the Board, and that the clerks systematically increased
their small annual allowances by whatever opportuni-
ties fell in their way. There is no direct proof that the
members of the Board themselves required these
money favors, but it is plain that they knew of the prac-
tices of the clerks. They did, however, try to keep
conditions in their ofiice such as not to excite serious
criticism or seriously to hamper the oflicial work.
This is seen in the rule preventing a clerk acting as
agent for any American plantation ; "* and the rules

^20 Board of Trade Journal^ 33, pw 25.

^21 Ordered by the Board, February 8, 1722. See: Board of Trade
Journal^ 33, p. 25.

^22 April 30, 1724, the Journal has this entry: "Their Lordships con-
sidering the inconvenience of any clerk in their office acting as agent for any
American plantation do hereby direct, that if any such be employed as agents,
the secretary do acquaint them with this resolution, and dismiss them if they
continue to act as such." — Board of Trade Journal^ 34, p. zza

The next day one of the clerks, a Mr. Sanderson, petitioned that he be
permitted to act as agent for the Massachusetts assembly until the dispute
between it and the governor had been settled; but the Board refused to
grant him the indulgence he desired. As he continued as clerk, it is pre-
sumed he resigned as agent. See: Ibid,^ p. xxx.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD 71

as to hours of service and returning all papers to the
secretary before leaving the office."*

The line between accepting a gratuity for doing a
service which should be done without one, and the
accepting of one for a service which should not be
rendered at all, is a shadowy one; but that is the line
which separates tipping and bribery in a public of-
fice. That money would secure any desired informa-
tion as to the position of business in the plantation
office is evident from the letters of Richard Partridge
and Ferdinando John Paris to their American em-
ployers."* We would call their methods bribery to-
day; the clerks called it accepting gratuities. In
1730 the Board considered conditions so serious that
they forbade the clerks demanding or accepting any
gratuities for ordinary services, but did not restrain

^2* September 15, 1724. "The Board observing that several books of
entry io this office were very much in arrears by neglect of clerks, their
Lordships have thought fit to order, that for the future the clerks should
attend here every day from 9 a.m.-2 p.m., and as much longer as the Board
shall at any time sit."

They were also required to attend evenings, when directed to do so by
the secretary, were to deliver to him or to the under secretary, before leaving
the office, all books and papers in their custody, and the secretary was ordered
to give an account of the attendance of the clerks for each week. Board of
Trade Journal^ 34, pp. 250-251.

^2^ Complaint had been made to the Board that a copy of a letter of
Governor Thomas to the Board had been secured surreptitiously by Richard
Partridge and transmitted to Philadelphia, to the great injury of the govern-
or. The Board called Partridge before it, but he refused to answer any
quesdoos. He was considered guilty of the charge and an order was en-
tered excluding him from transacting any business before the Board as agent
for any colony until he had cleared his record. It was further ordered
that no clerk should give out any copies of papers in the office unless directed
to do so by the secretary, on pain of immediate dismissal; and also that no
one should be permitted to inspect books or papers in the office or to enter
the clerk's room without an order from the Board. March 17, 1741, Board
of Trade Journal^ 50^ pp. 30-31.

72 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

them from receiving such reasonable gratuities as
^^any person shall think fit to bestow for extraordinary
service" or for copies of papers "made at the request
of parties therein concerned." ^" This rule sounds
well, but it accomplished little more than to bring
about the establishing of fixed fees for the work of the
clerks. This was done at the request of Secretary
Popple, who states in his petition that the annexed
schedule "is much less than the voluntary gratuities"
formerly received. The matter was settled in the
usual way by an Order in Council **• which required
the table of fees to be posted in the Plantation Office,
and all other fees prohibited.^*^

^'* August 6, 173a The Board was informed that several penons had
paid money to their secretaries or clerks for dieir trouble in matters trana-
acted in the office, ''more particularly, on the passing of commissiona and
instructions for governors^ on reports for appointing of councillors, and
upon hearings before their Lordships in matters of cont r oversy. As these
gratuities h«ye been received without their Lordship's priviQr or consent,
who do neither know nor allow of any fees or gratuities due^ or to be taken
for business in their office." The Board expressed its utter disapproval of
the practice and strictly forbade its secretaries, clerks, or other officers de-
manding, taking, or receiving any fee, gratuiQr, or reward, under any pre-
tense whatever, for business done in the office. But they were not restrained
from receiving "such reasonable gratuities as any person should think fit to
bestow for eztraordinaiy attendance, out of the office, or for copies of papers
made at the request of parties therein concerned." See: Board of Trade
Journal, 40, p. 203.

»»• Order dated August la, 1731, Privy Council Register, "George II,"
vol. ii, 447.

isTXable of fees annexed to the representation of the Board, June i,
1731 [Board of Trade Miscellanies, it, p. 328] :

Draught of commission for governor . £ 6- 6-0

Draught of general instructions for governor • 12-12-0

Draught of instructions for trade .... 6- 6-0

Representation for recommending ooundllors for plantations 4- 4-0

Representation on private business at request of persons coi>-

cemed ••••••. 2- 2-0

Caveat entered by private persons with relation to any business

depending in the office ..... lo-o

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD 73

In 1730 a new officer, known as the '^solicitor and
clerk of reports," was appointed."' His duties were
to solicit business for the Board at other offices, and to
secure reports upon matters which had been referred
to the attorney-general and other law officers - a duty
which had formerly been cared for by a solicitor from
the treasury department"* In addition the new officer
had the task of getting out the special reports to Par-
liament and other papers which required a search of
the records of the office.

The creation of this office was caused by the growth
of business. Parliament was demanding many re-
ports upon the conditions in the colonies and upon
various matters connected with the trade of the plan-
tations and foreign countries. In addition to this.

Examining the proprietary gcnrernor's wcuriQr and the draught

of a bond for liis observance of the acts of trade £4- 4-0

Reference! to the Attorney, or Solicitor General or to any of the
king's counsel upon private business at the request of the
parties ....... lo-o

Entering patents for employment in the plantations . 2- a-o

Certificates of the dates of commissions or of any matter

granted at the request of private persons lO-o

Issuing summons at the particular request of any party zo-o

For copies of papers ...... zo-o

These are the fees which the clerks demanded in their petition) and the
ones finally established.

128 7*110 request was made August zz, zysa The new officer was to
receive a salary of £300 per 3rear, to be paid out of the incidental fund of
the office. The request was promptly granted and Mr. Onslow Burrish was
appointed by the Board, August z8, Z73a See: Board of Trade Miscel'
UnUs, za, pp. 3Z4-3Z5; Board of Trade Journal^ 40^ p. aza.

^'*Mr. Borrett of the treasury department was frequently used. See
the requests for him to secure reports on laws which had been in the hands
of the attorney-general more than a jrear, February z8, zyza, Board of
Trade Joumaif 23, p. zoa In other cases the laws of Pennsylvania were
sent to him with directions to secure the solicitor-general's report as
promptly as posaible. See: Letter to Mr. Borrett, August 3, 171 3, in CO.
5, 139a, p. 393.

74 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

commissioners had been appointed to settle matters
left unsettled by the Treaty of Seville with Spain. The
Board had been directed to correspond with these
commissioners and to supply them with whatever in-
formation they needed in their negotiations."® These
demands were more than the regular office force could
meet, especially as some required much time and spe-
cial talents for research; consequently an additional
clerk was appointed to do the work.

Mr. Onslow Burrish "^ was the first of these offi-
cers. He was succeeded by Alured Popple/" a for-
mer secretary of the Board, and he in turn by John
Pownall,"* who later became secretary. The careful
and detailed reports upon conditions in New York,
New Jersey, and other provinces during the presiden-
cy of Halifax are most probably the work of Pownall.
As it became more and more necessary to go over back
records in order to understand how conditions had
developed and thus be in a position to suggest proper
remedies, the efficiency of the Board was more and
more dependent upon an able clerk of this kind."*

The special attorney for the Board was also a very
important official. Until 171 8 the Lords of Trade
had referred all questions of law to the attorney- or

180 Board of Trade Journal^ 40, p. 205 ; Board of Trade Miscellanies^ Z2,

pp. 310-315.

^'^ The Board itself appointed him the same as it did all other clerks,
August z8, 1730.

1*2 June 3, 1737. See: Board of Trade Journal^ 47, p. 107.

188 May X, X745, Ibid,, 53, p. 63.

^'^ Pownall continued to act as clerk of reports until he was appointed
joint secretary of the Board, June 6, 1753. Mr. Edward Sedgwick succeeded
him as clerk of reports and, as will be noted later, was appointed secretary
when Pownall accompanied Halifax to Ireland. See: Board of Trade
Joumaif 6x.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD 75

solicitor-general, but in time the business became so
great that these officials could not attend to it. To
relieve them of some of their least important work, a
crown counsel was assigned to the Board. He was
not intended to replace the attorneys- and solicitors-
general so far as the work of the Board was concerned ;
but only to take over such "Law business relating to
trade and plantations as the Board do not conceive
important enough" to require the opinions of the high-
er officers."' The latter could still be appealed to
upon any knotty questions of law, but the board had
to pay their fees out of its incidental fund, instead of
having the treasury defray all such charges,"' for ap-
parently the attorneys- and solicitors-general gave no
opinions, even to official boards, without charging the
usual fees.

Three men, Richard West,"^ Francis Fane,"* and
Matthew Lamb,"* successively filled the office of con-
sulting counsel. Wherever tfie policy of the Board
turned upon a point of law, these men did much to
shape it; hence they played an especially important
part in the treatment of colonial legislation. Prac-
tically all the laws passed in the colonies were referred

^*^ Letter of Stanhope to the Board announcing the appointment of
Richard West as attorney, April 2z, 17x8, in Board of Trade Journal^ ay,
p. 206.

^** Order of the Treasury Board, August 17, 1720. See: Ibid., 30, p. 326.

^'^ He resigned in 1725 to become Chancellor of Ireland. See: Chalmers^
George. Opinions^ 26.

^** The patent under the great seal for his appointment was received by
the Board, September 9, 1725. Board of Trade Journal, 35, p. 227. He
served until 1746 when he resigned to become a member of the Board. Mat-
thew Lamb was appointed as attorney at this time. See: Board of Trade
Journal, 54, p. 91; Chalmers, George. Opinions, 26.

^** Apparently he died in office in 1768. See: Chalmers, George. Opin'
ions, 37.

76 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

to them for consideration; if they found any objec-
tions to such acts, they were pretty sure to be disal-
lowed. Generally they confined their opinions to
"objections in point of law," but at times they took
into consideration the effect of an act upon the whole
constitutional development of a colony, and sometimes
they even offered advice as to administrative policy."®
These men, although they were behind the scenes and
are seldom heard of in the historical accounts, must
be taken into serious consideration in any adequate
treatment of the relations of the American colonies
to the mother country in the eighteenth century.

The secretary, however, was the one official in the
office who exercised the greatest power in shaping the
administrative policy of the Board. He opened and
read the letters, arranged the business for the consider-
ation of the Board, drafted its letters, prepared the
commissions and instructions for the governors, and
in many cases drafted the representations of the Board.
Many of the letters to the governors and to other offi-
cials are signed by him alone."^ He was the man who
knew what was going on, who was familiar with the
precedents of the office and who could advise as to the
proper action in a particular case. In fact, it was he
who conducted the whole work of the office under the
direction of the Board."* In addition to that, those

^*® See Chalmers, George. Opinions, passim^ especially Francis Fane's
opinion on the Virginia acts of 1726 for the relief of William and Mary
College, page 403.

*** See: New York Colonial Documents^ vols, iv, v, vi, passim,

1^2 How important he was in the eyes of the Board may be seen from the

following incident Mr. Charles and Mr. Franklin desired copies of some

observations of the proprietors of Pennsylvania on the complaints of Sir

Wm. Johnson of land purchases in the Indian country. These had been

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD 77

transacting business with the Board had to deal with
him. His influence and information were always val-
uable, and he received the lion's share of the fees of
the ofiice,"* and no doubt a similarly large proportion
of the gratuities.

John Pownall is probably the most noted of all these
secretaries."* He was a brother to the governor of
Massachusetts and far more than a mere permanent
secretary. Coming to the Board in 1745 as clerk of
reports/" he became the trusted confidential adviser
of Halifax,"* was made joint secretary in 1753,"^ full
secretary in 1758,"* and continued to serve in that
capacity until he was given leave of absence to accom-

refused and Charles complained of the actioo of the secretary in refusing his
request. The Board resolved that his action was "arrogant and indecent,"
and "that the calling in question the propriety of the rules and orders made
by this Board with respect to the delivery of copies of papers, and to the
conduct of their officers in relation thereto, is highly insolent and indecent,
and that Mr. Charles' complaint against the secretary concerning a motion
which Mr. Charles desired might be made to the Board for leave to have
copies of certain papers is groundless and injurious, inasmuch as it is the
secretaiy's duty to arrange the business for the Board and to bring the
several matters before them for their consideration in such method, time and
place as he shall judge best for the convenience and dispatch of business, or
as their Lordships shall think proper to direct" — December ax, 1757, Board
of Trade Journal, 65.

i**The secretary received, by order of the Board, two-fifths of all the
fees. See: Board of Trade Journal, 42, pp. 97-98.

1** The secretaries in their order of service were:

William Popple, 1696-1707 — Board of Trade Journal, 19, p. 165.

William Popple, Jr., 1707-1722 — /^iV., 32, p. 64.

Alured Popple, 1722-1737 — /^iV., 47, p. 107.

Thomas Hill, 1737-1758-/^1^., p. 186.

John Pownall, 1758-1761-/^1^., 66, Oct 25, 1758.

Edward Sedgwick, acting secretary, 1761. — Ibid., 69, p. 305.

146 — Ibid,, 53, p. 63.

!*• Dictionary of National Biography, article "Halifax."

1^7 Board of Trade Journal, 61, June 6, 1753.

^^^ — Ibid^ 66, October 25, 1758.

78 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

pany Halifax to Ireland/" Even after the retirement
of his patron from the Board, he continued to exercise
much personal influence. His support of any meas-
ure was especially valuable, because he knew so well
how influence in its favor could best be exerted. It is
evident from the letters of Cadwallader Colden that
the chief "back stair" access to the whole Halifax in-
fluence was byway of Pownall."® Because of this fact,
Colden offered him the position of agent for New
York ; he refused, but suggested the name of Edmund
Burke as a proper person for such duties. It was
through this suggestion that Burke was afterward se-
lected by the assembly for its representative.

All of the clerks got their positions through the per-
sonal support of either a member of the Board or a
chief minister; the general practice being to allow
members of the Board to name the subordinate clerks
and helpers, while the secretary and attorney were
appointed by a secretary of state."^ Once appointed,
however, their positions were permanent. Only con-
tinued persistent neglect of duty or disregard of rules
was suflicient cause for removal.*" There was no "ro-

^*^ June 23, 176X. At the request of Halifax, Pownall was permitted to
accompany him to Ireland. Mr. Sedgwick, the clerk of reports, was ap-
pointed clerk during PownalPs absence. See: Board of Trade Journal,
69, p. 305.

150 "Cadwallader Colden Papers" in New York Historical Society Col-
lections, vol. ix, 37, 38, 80-8 X.

isi por appointments of clerks by the Board see Board of Trade Journal,
x6, p. xzz; 24, pp. 342-343; 26, p. 223; 31, p. 336; 32, p. zoa Many others
could be cited. For appointments of clerks of report by the Board, see Board
of Trade Journal, 40, p. 2x2; 47, p. X07; 53, p. 63. For appointments of
secretaries, see ibid,

^^^May 8, X745, George Armitage, chamber-keeper, was dismissed for
neglecting his duty ''for some months past" See: Board of Trade Journal,
53, p. 66. Other cases of similar indulgence may be found.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD 79

tation in office," nor were men dismissed when they
became more or less incapacitated by age; they were
retained on full or on part pay until they resigned or
died/"' In some cases sons succeeded fathers and, in
the case of the secretary, the office was filled succes-
sively by father, son, and grandson/" Changes in
ministry and monarchs did not in the least affect the
clerks, as they were regularly advanced according to
seniority of service/" When a man got an appoint-
ment as clerk, he could feel that he was entering upon
a career; and for efficient service promotion was al-
most certain. Practically all the higher officers, as
the clerk of reports and the secretary, began work in
the office as subordinate clerks/" One, Alured Pop-
ple, rose from a minor clerkship to secretary, clerk
of reports, and finally was appointed governor of Ber-
muda/" Thus, while the Board was subject to sweep-
ing changes in its personnel, the efficiency of the plan-
tation office was not seriously afiPected so far as its
working force was concerned. This may be one rea-
son why British colonial policy shows as much con-
sistency as it does during the eighteenth century.

IBS December 20, 17x4, Maurice Carroll was allowed to retire because of
age 00 an allowance of £30 a year ; he was receiving j£8o. Another case it
that of Mr. Gedney, who was allowed to retire in 1738 and a half pay clerk
employed to fill his place. The case of Thos. Hill has already been referred
to. Numerous entries in the Journal may be cited of clerks dying in office.
See: Board of Trade Journal^ 24, p. 343; 48, part i, p. 63; 31, p. 336; 45,

PP- 50» 74.

^'^^ William Popple, William Popple, Jr., and Alured Popple. The re-
lationship is stated in the Journal at the time of the changes. See references
in footnote 153.

^^B This was the regular rule, as indicated by many Journal entries.

!»• This was true of William Popple Jr., Alured Popple, Thomas Hill,
and Edward Sedgwidc

1*7 Board of Trade Journal^ 53, p. 63.

n-1

II. RELATIONS OF THE BOARD OF TRADE

TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS OF

ADMINISTRATION

The Privy Council and its Committees

By its commission the Board was not empowered to «^
issue important executive orders on its own authority,
but was directed to make representations to the king
or to the king in council ; and the final action appeared
as an Order in Council. That fact raises the impor-
tant question of the relation of the Board to the Privy
Council. As first organized, the former was con-
sidered a committee of the latter body and is still so
considered by the officials of the Privy Council office.
All of the chief officers of state were members of the
Council and ex officiis members of the Board."* In
addition to this two or more of the active working
members of the Board were sworn to the Privy Coun-
cil and frequently attended its meetings."' During
the reigns of William and Anne the ordinary repre-
sentations of the Board were disposed of by the Coun-
cil very much as were reports from its other commit-
tees, and orders issued on the strength of such repre-
sentations do not show the action of any intermediate
committee.

IBS See the copy of the oommission of the Board of Trade in New Yoik
Colonial Documents^ vol. iv. Cf. Board of Trade Miscellanies, za, pp.

439-453-

^^* See the Privy Council Register for these reigns.

82 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

The regular form of order was like the one of
March 14, 1700, approving the boundary agreement
between New York and Connecticut. The day pre-
ceding, the Board had made a representation to the
king, stating the dispute as to the jurisdiction over the
towns of Rye and Bedford, and recommending that
the question be settled according to the agreement
arrived at by commissioners appointed by the two
colonies. At the meeting of the king in council, this
representation was read and approved in the follow-
ing words :

Upon reading this day at the Board a representation from
the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations dated the
13 th of this month relating to the boundaries between the Prov-
ince of New Yorke and the Colony of Connecticut in Amer-
ica. . . His Majesty in Council, approving the said repre-
sentation is pleased to order, as it is hereby ordered, that the
Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations do prepare the
draughts of letters to be sent to the Earle of Bellomont, and to
the governor and company of Connecticut from His Majesty,
signifying to them His Majesty's approbation and confirmation
of the said agreement in 1683 1 With such other directions, as
are proposed by the said representation; and that the said
draughts be presented at this Board, for His Majesty's further
directions thereupon.^*®

In this order there is no mention of any previous
action by a committee ; it is also evident that the action
of the Board was approved without serious question
and without limitation. This order is typical of scores
of others printed in the documents relating to New
York, North Carolina, Massachusetts, New Jersey,
and Pennsylvania, as late as 1720. In that year an
Order in Council regarding bills of credit in New

itto ^^^ York Colonial Documents, vol. iv, 626.

RELATIONS TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS 83

York recites that the order had been recommended by
the "Lords of the Committee for Hearing Appeals
from the Plantations." "^ Two years later a reference
to such a committee appears for the first time in the
New Jersey Archives. This was an order issued on a
report from the "Lords of the Committee of his Maj-
esty's most Honorable Privy Council ;" "* and from
that time on, a committee of the Privy Council is
usually mentioned. This change in the wording of
the orders indicates that it was becoming more and
more the practice to transact all important council
business in the committees and consider only formal
reports in the king's presence. This practice relieved
the king of much wearisome service and at the same
time diminished his actual participation in determin-
ing the policy of the government. The committees
reported only their conclusions. There is no record
of any dissenting opinions, and whatever action the
committees recommended appears to have been car-
ried into execution by the council without question.

At the time the Board of Trade was established,
executive and judicial business from the Channel Is-
lands and appeals from the plantations were regularly
referred to committees. So far as the Privy Council

161 New York Colonial Documents^ vol. v, 539.

!•* New Jersey Archives, vol. v, 28. The first reference in the Pennsyl-
vania Archives to the action of such a committee occurs in 1726 in an order
for repealing an act of the assembly of that colony. There is a slight refer-
ence to such a committee in the scheme of government submitted to die
Board by Stanhope in 17x4. In this case, its recommendation was adverse
to an instruction given by the Board to the governors as regards appeals.
The Board got the matter recommitted to its consideration and finally carried
its point See: Pennsylvania Archives, vol. i, 190; North Carolina Colonial
Records, vol. ii, 162. The Massachusetts Acts and Resolves [vol. ii, 272]
record die first action of a committee on the laws of diat province in 1723.

84 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

Register shows, questions of this character from the
non-contiguous territories, which had their relations
with the British government chiefly through the
crown, were treated alike. The form of procedure
developed for judicial appeals from Jersey and
Guernsey was used for the same class of business from
the various British colonies. Each petition for an ap-
peal was referred to a committee which investigated
the merits of the case, determined what should be
done, and reported its findings to the council with
recommendations.*"

When committees of the Privy Council are men-
tioned they must not be thought of as standing or
special committees, such as are common in modern
legislative bodies ; they correspond more to commit-
tees of the whole, as in fact they were. Names for
these committees describe the business done instead of
designating a certain group of men, consequently
there is considerable variety in the names used in the
Register. Thus out of nineteen such committee meet-
ings between May, 1700, and December, 1701, there
are no less than seven different names used to describe
them; the most common being, "At the Committee
for Hearing of Appeals from the Plantations and for
the Affaires of Jersey and Guernsey." *** Evidently

^**The Privy Council Register shows this to have been the constant
practice, and no distinction is to be noticed between the manner of determin-
ing appeals from the plantations and those from Jersey and Guernsey. The
action of July 9, 1701, was typical of many others. On that day appeals
were considered by the same committee from Barbadoes, from Jersey, and
from Guernsey. See: Privy Council Register, "William III," vol. vi, 231.

^*^The names were: "At the Conmiittee of the Councill for Hearing of
Appeals from the Plantations." — May 3, 1700, Privy Council Register,
"William III," vol. vi, 2X.

"At the Committee of the Council] for Hearing of Appeals from the
Plantations, Jersey, Guernsey, etc." -May 22, 1700^ Ibid., 31.

RELATIONS TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS 85

it is one committee and not a series of committees
which is referred to by these seven different names.
This is indicated by the looseness with which the
names are used/** by the character of the business
transacted at the various meetings, by the general
presence of the same group of men, and by the lack
of consistency in changes in personnel with changes
in the name of the committee. Not only is it a single
committee, but it also appears to be the one great
committee of the British government, the cabinet
council; for one or both of the chief secretaries of
state were nearly always present,^** usually accompa-
nied by the lord president and one of the chief jus-
tices,^'^ and sometimes by the chancellor of the ex-
chequer. As the attendance in the above cases was

"At the Committee of the Councill of the Affaires of Jersey and Guernsey
and for Appeals from the Plancatioos." — June 38» 1700, Privy Council
Register, "William III," vol. vi, 69.

"At the Committee for Hearing of Appeals from the Plantations, etc." —
July 8, 1700, Ibid., 70.

"At the Committee for Hearing of Appeals from the Plantations and for
the Affaires of Jersey and Guernsey." — November 2, 1700, Ibid,, 93.

"At the Committee for the Affaires of Jersey and Guernsey." ~ December
19, 1700, Ibid., 121.

"At the Committee for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey and the Plan-
tations." ~ April 9, 1701, Ibid,, 183.

A still more descriptive title was used on September 2, 1698 : "At the Com-
mittee for hearing Appeales from the Plantations, For the Affaires of Jersey
and Guernsey and for the Redemption of Captives." _ /^u/., vol. v, 223-324.

i^^The Committee is called one on appeals when no appellate business
was done [Privy Council Register, "William HI," vol. vi, 223] ; on appeals
from the plantations when only those from Jersey were heard [Ibid,, 263] ;
and a committee with the common heading given above considered the
question of a light house at Dublin [Ibid., 123]

i«« Secretary Vemon was present fourteen out of the seventeen meetings,
while Hedges attended eight of them. Both Hedges and Venioa were pres-
ent on six occasions. See: Privy Council Register, "William III," toL
vi, 21-316.

1*^ Chief Justice Holt was absent three times, and the lord president Kven.

86 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

never more than six nor less than three, and was most
commonly four, the resemblance to a cabinet council
is still further emphasized/"

During Queen Anne's reign this committee of the
Privy Council was very much the same as during the
reign of William. It was still a committee for dis-
posing of various business from Jersey, Guernsey, and
the plantations. The attendance, in general, was
somewhat larger ; and there was a little more regular-
ity in the title, although there was still the general
variation to make the titles descriptive of the work
which was done at each meeting; "* and in one case
where a variety of business was transacted, no attempt
was made to name the committee."®

The tendency to refer all matters requiring investi-
gation or deliberation to committees continued; and
these references are to committees of the whole coun-

i«8 September 17, Z701, when ooly appellate business was considered, the
committee consisted of Secretary Vernon, Secretary Hedges, Chancellor of
the Exchequer, and Chief Justice Holt See: Privy Council Register^ ''Wil-
liam III,'' vol. vi, 263.

169 xhe titles which were most commonly used were:

A Conmiittee for the King's funeral and the Queen's coronation; Com-
mittee for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey; Committee of the Whole
Council and to Consider of Barbadoes Lawes, and for ye Affaires of Jersey
and Guernsey ; At a Conmiittee for hearing of Appeals from the Plantations
and for Jersey and Guernsey; Committee for Jersey and Guernsey; Com-
mittee for hearing Appeals from the Plantations and for the Affaires of
Jersey and Guernsey ; At the Councill Chamber at Whitehall ; the Committee
for hearing Appeals from the Plantations; and At the Committee of the
Whole Councill for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey and for hearing of
Appeals from the Plantations. See : Privy Council Register, ''Anne," vols, i,
iii, iv, v, passim.

170 This entry is "At the Councill Chamber at Whitehall." A variety of
business was transacted, among other things an order was entered for hearing
an appeal from Barbadoes. This is preceded with the statement that the
petition for an appeal "had been referred to the Right Honourable the Lords
of this Conmiittee," but the reference was to the Committee on Appeals from
the Plantations. See: Ilnd,, vol. iv, 248, 359.

RELATIONS TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS 87

cil, instead of to specially named groups."^ The one
exception was bills from Ireland which were regular-
ly referred to a special committee."* That and the
two special committees for the king's funeral and the
queen's coronation are the only committees which
were specially appointed; all others are simply com-
mittees of the whole council.

The principal secretaries of state, members of the
Board, the lord president, and other officers attended
these committees very much as they did in the preced-
ing reign. It was still a compact group of the most
influential men in the administration. There is ad-
ditional proof that it was but one committee, which
was still masquerading under various names ; for bus-
iness which was referred to the Committee for Hear-
ing Appeals from the Plantations was considered by a
committee which also calls itself one on the Affairs
of Jersey and Guernsey, and vice versa."*

^^^ July 15, 1710: "It is this day ordered by Her Majesty in Council that
a committee of the whole Council do meet on Wednesday next being the Z9th
of this instant, July, at ten of the clock in the morning, to consider of proper
expedients for furnishing the city of London with coals, and regulating the
coal trade, and to report their opinion what Her Majesty may fitly doe there-
in." -Privy Council Register^ "Anne," vol. iv, 24. When this committee
met to consider the matter, it consisted of the Lord Treasurer, Lord Presi-
dent, Earl of Radnor, Dartmouth, and Vemoo, or in other words the Cab-
inet See: Ibid.f 27.

Another entry which is still more descriptive of the tendency to refer
business to committees is that of November 2, 17x0: "It is this day ordered
by Her Majesty in Council that the cause of the Canary merchants against
Mr. Pauldon, Her Majest/s consul of the Canary Islands, which was to be
heard this day before Her Majesty be, and it is hereby referred to a com-
mittee of the whole council, who are to meet at the Council Chamber at White-
hall on Saturday evening xxth instant, whereof the several parties concerned
are to take notice and come prepared to be heard accordingly." — /^u/., 138.

*" — /W</., vol. i, 5x2; vol. iv, 347.

iTS^ny 20^ 1708, two appeals from Barbadoes were referred to the
Committee on Appeals from the Plantations. They were oontidered eight

88 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

The relations of the Board of Trade to the Privy
Council during Queen Anne's reign were essentially
those of a committee of that body; and its represen-
tations, in general, were confirmed without reference
to any other committee. There are a few exceptions,
however, which seem to indicate that any objection
to a representation, or a petition against it, would lead
to the reference of both to the Committee on Appeals
from the Plantations."* If there was no objection to a
representation of the Board, it was not so referred.
Another fact stands out prominently. The commit-
tee of the Privy Council, so far as plantation business
was concerned, confined itself almost wholly to the
consideration of appeals, petitions, and complaints.
It was not a committee for general plantation business,
nor did any such committee exist.

It is well known that George I, because of his in-
ability to understand English, left the general man-
agement of affairs much more in the hands of his
ministers than had preceding kings; but it is possible

days later by a "Committee for hearing of Appeals frxMii the Plantations and
for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey/* The entry in the latter case, how-
ever, states that they had been referred "to this Committee." The same
thing occurred on October 27, of the same year. August 9, 1710, an appeal
of Rawlin Robbins from Jersey was referred to the "Committee on Jersey
and Guernsey." October 24, following, this appeal was considered by the
"Committee of the Whole Council for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey and
^r hearing Appeals from the Plantations^" with the entry that it had been
referred "to the Committee." See: Privy Council Register, "Anne," vol.
iv, 95-96, 101, 176, 79, 135.

^7* July 2, 1702, a representation of the Board of Trade on some laws of
Barbadoes was referred to the "Committee of the Whole Council." See:
Privy Council Register, "Anne," vol. x, 166. October 25, 1714, a repre-
sentation of the Board for the disallowance of a Jamaica law was referred
to the Conunittee on Appeals from the Plantations. The petition against
the representation in this case was contested. See: Ibid,, "George I," vol.
i, Z02, 122.

RELATIONS TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS 89

that this change, so far as colonial affairs were con-
cerned, has been exaggerated/" It has already been
shown that the Privy Council was rapidly becoming
a registering body instead of a deliberative one. The
action of George I only tended to complete this move-
ment. All colonial business, except that of register-
ing actions already decided upon, was transferred to
committees, or rather to a committee. October i,
1 714, it was ordered:

That the whole Privy Council or any three or more of them
be, and hereby are appointed a Committee for the Affairs of
Jersey and Guernsey, Hearing of Appeab from ye Plantations,
and other Matters that shall be referred to them, and that they
proceed to hear and examine such causes as have been referred
to committees of ye council by her late Majesty and report the
same with their opinions thereupon to this Board.^tt

This was followed up in February, 171 5, by another
order referring all petitions already before the council
to this committee of the whole."^

It should be noted that these two orders transferred
business from the Privy Council to one committee and
not to a series of committees. Nevertheless the Privy
Council Register for the next few years shows a be-

^^*The Privy Council Register shows that during the reign of Anne
extraordinary matters which came before the sovereign in council were re-
ferred to a committee to investigate and recommend whatever action seemed
desirable.

176 Privy Council Register, "George I," vol. 1, 89. This order supplied
a genera] rule for cases which had received a similar disposition under Anne,
the difference being that during her reign each case was disposed of sep-
arately.

177 February 23, 1715. "It is this day ordered by His Majesty in Couocil,
That all petitions presented and depending before the Board be, and they
are hereby referred to the Right Hono^*® the Lords of the Committee of the
whole Council to examine the same and give such directions thereupon as their
Lordships shall judge proper." -. Privy Council Register, "George I/' vol.
I, Z89-Z9Q.

go AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

wildering array of variously named committees. There
arc committees on "Appeals from the Plantations ;" of
the "whole Council ;" "for Appeals from the Planta-
tions and for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey;" for
"the Irish bills and other Affairs ;" for "Jersey and
Guernsey;" ^^* for "Appeals from the Plantations and
from Jersey and Guernsey;" for hearing "Appeals,
Complaints, etc. ;" for hearing "Appeals, Complaints,
etc., from the Plantations and for the Affairs of Jer-
sey and Guernsey;" "* for the "Affairs of the Planta-
from the Plantations, Jersey and Guernsey;""^ and
the Plantations;" for the "Affairs of the Planta-
tions;""** for the "Irish Bills and to hear Appeals
from the Plantations, Jersey and Guernsey ;" "^ and
simply "Committees" with no further title."* Here
are a dozen different names used to describe commit-
tees and the list is not exhaustive.*" It looks as if the
clerks in the Privy Council ofRce exercised their wits
to get every possible variation in the names.

Aside from the different names used to designate
these committees, there is nothing to indicate that
there was more than the one committee of the whole
at work. General plantation business was considered
by the committee on appeals from the plantations as
were also appeals from Guernsey."* The Committee

178 Privy Council Register, "George I," vol. x, 102, 304, 222, 402, 248.

iTO — Ibid,, vol. ii, 8x, 112, 124.

^*® — Ibid,, vol. illy 44Z, 76, 34a

^^ — Ibid., vol. V, Z24.

*** — Ibid,, vol. iv, 93, 129, 162.

188 Several variations of the above titles occur ihd each name appears
more than once, some of them very frequently, although for the sake of
brevity one reference only is cited.

1** January 29, 17x7, the "Committee for hearing Appeals from the Plan-

RELATIONS TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS 91

for the Affairs of Jersey, Guernsey and the Planta-
tions heard appeals from Jersey and from the planta-
tions/" Questions concerning the internal administra-
tion of England, such as waterworks for Chelsea, and
a charter of incorporation for the musicians and danc-
ing-masters of London, and colonial business were
considered at the same committee meeting."* Most
significant of all, however, is the very common refer-
ence of business to a committee of the whole council
and the later consideration of this same business by
some committee calling itself by a different name,
though the entry states that it had been referred "to
this committee." "^

Utioos" considered appeals from New York and from Guernsey [Privy
Council Register, "George I," vol. ii, 84]. July 35, 1722, a committee with
this title prepared heads of a scheme for a civil court in Gibraltar [/^nl.,
vol. iv, 66]. December 17, 1720^ a committee "for hearing Appeals, etc,
from the Plantations" considered an appeal from Guemaey [^Ibid,, vol. iii,
88]. November 8, 1714, a committee "for hearing of Appeals from the
Plantations" reported upon a representation of the Board of Trade on an
act passed in Jamaica, which later became the most common business for the
"Conunittee on Plantation Affairs" llbid., vol. i, 102].

^•' — Ibid,f vol. V, 80.

is« December 14, 1722, "a Committee" disposed of the following: acts and
appeals from Barbadoes ; business from Jersey, Guernsey, Gibraltar, and the
Isle of Man; and waterworks for Chelsea, England. May 29, 1725, a
similar conmiittee investigated a murder case at Newgate prison, London,
and the dispute between Governor Shute of Massachusetts and the House of
Representatives of that colony. May 10, 17x7, a committee "for hearing
Appeales, Complaints, etc" examined a petition against a charter incorporat-
ing the musicians and dancing-masters of London, considered Mumford's
appeal from New York, and disposed of some miscellaneous business from
Jersey and Guernsey. See: Privy Council Register, "George I," vol. iv,
162, vol. V, 60, vol. ii, XZ2.

18T July 6, 1716, Peter Somnas' petition for lands in New Jersey was re-
ferred "to a Conmiittee of the Whole Council." January 14, 1717, this peti-
tion was reported upon by a conunittee on "Appeals from the Plantations
from Jersey and Guernsey." Numerous other entries similar to this occur.
Sec: Privy Council Register, "George I," vol. i, 425, vol. ii, 8z.

92 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

The personnel of this variously named committee
during the reign of George I is very much the same
as it was under Anne. One or more of the chief
secretaries of state were frequently present, the lord
president and one or both of the chief justices nearly
always so, and usually the president or some other
member of the board/" The attendance is frequently
larger than under Anne or William, being as high as
fourteen, although four, ^\Xy and eight are common.

This committee coifitilcred a much wider range of
plantation business than it did during the preceding
reigns. Practically all of the representations from
the Board were referred to it by the council, the only
exceptions, apparently, being those for the appoint-
ment of colonial councillors.^" Petitions, complaints,
memorials, etc. were regularly referred to the same
committee. In most cases these were further referred
to the Board of Trade for examination, and the com-
mittee usually confined itself to a consideration of the
facts as reported by that body."** The most important
member of the committee was the secretary of state
for the Southern Department, who was responsible

^^^The attendance at the ''Committee on Plantation Affairs" on October
25, 1721 [Privy Council Register, "George I," vol. iii, 340], is fairly repre-
sentative of the regular attendance at these various committees. Those
present were: Lord President, L. Lechmere, £. of Sutherland, Mr. Comp-
troller, L. Vis. Townsend, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, L. Carteret,
Master of the Rolls.

isspnyy Council Register, "George I," vol. iv, 60. See also the other
volumes for this reign.

^^0 December 17, 1720, the committee had before it a representation of the
Board of Trade upon a petition of William West for some waste lands in
Maine. Counsel for Mr. West, that against his claims, and the committee
examined the maps submitted in proof of the various claims. It is apparent
that this is the work of a court of appeals and not of a court of first in-
stance. See: Privy Council Register, "George I," vol. iii, 88.

RELATIONS TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS 93

for the colonics."^ This would seem to indicate that
the relation of the Board of Trade to the Privy Coun- ^
cil was gradually resolving itself into its relation to
the secretary of state. It has already been shown that
the latter official was gradually taking over the func-
tions of the Board after 171 5. This change synchro-
nizes with the growth in the activity and the increase
in the general range of colonial business considered
by the Committee of Council.

September 20, 1727, the Privy Council was again
dissolved and a new one appointed.^" In almost the
same words as those used in 17 14, the whole of the
Privy Council or any three or more of them were
appointed "a Committee" for the affairs of Jersey and
Guernsey, for hearing appeals from the plantations,
and other matters which might be referred to them.
They were also to take over such questions as were
still pending before "committees" of the Privy Coun-
cil."* This again is a record of the appointment of one
committee and not a series of committees ; but, never-
theless, the record shows the same general confusion
of titles as before.

The three names which appear regularly in the

^^^ He was not always present at the meetings, but frequently was. New-
castle was much more regular in his attendance during the first few years of
his administration than be was in the later years.

102 Privy Council Register, "George II," vol. x, xi8.

^^*"It is this day ordered by His Majesty in Council that the whole
Privy Council or any three or more of them be and they are hereby appointed
a committee for the affairs of Jersey and Guernsey, Hearing of Appeals from
the Plantations and other matters that shall be referred to them, and that
they proceed to hear and examine such causes as have been already referred
to committees of the Council and report the same with their opinion there-
upon to His Majesty at this Board." — Privy Council Register, "George 11,**

vol. 1, Z2Z.

94 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

printed colonial records are: "A Committee of the
Lords of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy
Council," "The Right Honourable the Lords of the
Committee of Council for Hearing Appeals from the
Plantations," and the "Committee of Council for
Plantation Affairs." *•* These are used so constantly,
especially after 1722, as to give the impression that
they were permanent organs of the Privy Council, and
writers on colonial history have assumed that there
were at least two distinct committees; one on gen-
eral plantation affairs and one on appeals. This
impression is almost inevitable if only the printed
records or even the Board of Trade papers are ex-
amined; but an investigation of the Privy Council
Register soon convinces one that no such distinct com-
mittees existed in function, in organization, or in
personnel.

The "Committee on Plantation Affaira" appears in
the colonial records to have limited its activity to mis-
cellaneous administrative questions from the colonies ;
but it did not, for on January 15, 1735, a committee
bearing this title issued orders for hearing appeals
from Massachusetts, Virginia, Rhode Island, and
Jamaica, and also considered a complaint from
Guernsey. '^ Another such committee reported on a
scheme for supporting sea officers' poor widows.'**
Others considered appeals from Jersey,'" issued or-

*'* See the printed recordi for New York, New Jeney, North Ciroliue,
and Pemwylvania.

^**Thii ume oommittee approred en additional inttmctioa for the
Goremor of Soqih CaiolinB. Sm: Privr Coondl RtfiiUr, "George 11,"
vol. iv, Sa-S;.

tea July jj_ 17J3, Itid^ vol. iii, t.

'°' July ai, 17x9, Ikid^ voL ii, jo.

RELATIONS TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS 95

ders for sending supplies to Alderney,^** ordered the
Northumberland militia to be put in readiness,*** re-
ported on building a hospital in Jersey,**^ and issued
orders on appeals from the plantations and from the
Isle of Man.**^*

Appeals were usually heard by a committee specif-
ically called one for "Hearing Appeals from the
Plantations," but such committees by no means lim-
ited their activity to judicial business, as the work
done on two different dates will show, July i, 1740,
such a committee considered appeals and in addition
reported on the commission for settling the boundary
dispute between Massachusetts and Rhode Island,
confirmed the appointment of councilors for Nevis,
recommended that stores be sent to Jersey and referred
back to the Board a proposed instruction about bills
of credit/®* Another committee of the same name dis-
posed of some appeals from Jamaica, and then re-
ported on the laws of Massachusetts and of Pennsyl-
vania, recommended that ordnance stores should be
sent to North Carolina, and reported upon a petition
for some islands in the Delaware River/®* Almost any
number of similar illustrations could be given of the
action of committees on appeals, as they appear to
have disposed of whatever miscellaneous business
awaited the action of a committee.*®*

!•• November 19, 1745, Privy Council Register, "George 11," vol. x, 250-

a55.

iw December 3, 1745, Ibid,

*®® May 3, 1750, Ihid,, vol. xiii, 4.

«oi October 6, 1763, Privy Council Register, "George III," vol. iii, iza.

202 — Ibid., vol. vii, 13a.

*o* June a4, 1756, Ibid., vol. xvi, aio-aaS.

204 July 3^ iy^$, a "Committee oo Appeals" after disposing of some tp-

96 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

The work of the "Committee of the Privy Council"
shows about the same variety as the two committees
considered above. At one session it considered an
appeal from Guernsey, heard a complaint about the
election of a vintner for Cambridge University, and
examined and revised the instructions for the gov-
ernor of Barbadoes.'^®'* At another meeting it had un-
der consideration the dispute between Governor Bur-
net and the assembly of Massachusetts; complaints
against Governor Everard of North Carolina and of
the obstruction to admiralty jurisdiction in the same
colony; ^^ disputes about the ofRce of town clerk in
Falmouth, England ;"^ referred numerous petitions to
the Board of Trade; considered representations from
that body on the laws of various colonies ; and trans-
acted a variety of other business. Thus this commit-
tee heard appeals and took charge of general planta-
tion matters.

Appeals from the plantations were considered, not
only by the above committees, but also by those called
"Committees for the Affairs of Jersey and Guern-
sey," ^®* and even by those "to consider the Irish

pellate business considered the draft of a charter for Maidstone in the county
of Kent, a subject rather far removed from appeals from the plantations.
December 8, 1736, another committee with the same name heard appeals from
Jamaica ; made orders on appeals from Barbadoes, Jersey, Guernsey, Rhode
Island, and Gibraltar ; considered a representation of the Board of Trade on
a petition from Messrs. Crimble and Huey of North Carolina; and referred
to the Board a report of the exports of the East India Company and a com-
plaint of South Carolina against the government of Georgia. See: Privy
Council Register, "George II," vol. v, 27-33, ▼<>'• *> *48.

20s July x6, 1728, Ibid., vol. i, 336.

'^^All of the above matters were disposed of, October 23, 1729. See:
Privy Council Register, "George II," vol. ii, 63.

*<>^ November 1, 1734, Ibid,, vol. iv, 22.

208 November 21, 1745, Ibid,, vol. x, 255.

.^^..^,

A Privy Council Committki
Note the presence of the principal cabinet officer

question from Virginia

\_Pr\vy Cq\

sidered business fro
the West Indies
c\l Register, "Ceorgr II,"

After disposing of this
1 Jersey, Guernsey, and

• _ •

'•• • • •
• • > • • •

I • • • •

• ••

- * • •

* • ••

• • • •
• • • -

• •

RELATIONS TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS 99

Bills ;" ^^^ consequently, even on judicial business,
there were no absolutely distinct committees other
than the "Committee of the whole Council." The
same is true for all general plantation business. This
is further emphasized by the continual consideration
of affairs at a committee bearing one name when the
record shows it was referred to, or was appointed to
be heard before, one of a different name.

So far as mere names are concerned, however, usage
in the council ofRce was gradually evolving a some-
what settled phraseology. For the first twenty years
after the Board was organized the most common ref-
erence of colonial business was to the Committee for
Hearing Appeals from the Plantations."** That be-
came a settled form of reference for petitions, for
appeals, and, in general, for specific complaints. Gen-
eral plantation business was regularly referred ife "a
Committee" of the Privy Council until about 1732,
when the more familiar reference to the "Committee
for Plantation Affairs" becomes the accepted form of
entry. The other forms of reference, however, were
still used more or less. The change in the form of
entry by the clerks accounts for most of the changes
in the name of the committee of the Privy Council
which occur in the printed colonial records.

The personnel of none of these differently named
committees distinguishes it from the others. The
secretaries of state were occasionally present, but
somewhat more frequently when the committee is

200 November 25, 1745, the ''Committee to consider the Irish Bills" after
finishing that business heard appeals from Jersey and Rhode Island. Privy
Council Regisieff "George 11/' vol. x, 258.

*i® See the Privy Council Register for the period.

loo AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

called one for plantation affairs.'^^ The attendance of
others, such as the president of the Board, the presi-
dent of the council, and one or both of the chief jus-
tices is not materially different from what it was dur-
ing the earlier reigns. Halifax seems to have been a
little less constant in his attendance after the increase
in the authority of the Board than he was before. He
and the others mentioned above, however, attended
committees bearing different names without apparent
discrimination.

A great deal of the work of council committees was
of a purely formal character, such as referring papers
to the proper officials or boards. It was, apparently,
only more important business which brought out the
chief officers of state, routine matters being largely
left to the president of the council and its minor mem-
bers.

As this committee had no special title, the clerks
evidently tried to make the name descriptive of the
chief business transacted at the meeting, which was
the simplest method of making the entries. As time
went on usage settled upon three or four descriptive
titles for the various meetings, and these appear in the
Board of Trade papers, and in the colonial records.
Such names, however, are descriptive and not specific,
and do not represent distinct organs of the Privy Coun-
cil, as there was but one committee of that body, name-
ly, the Committee of the whole Council, which had
power to hear and dispose of any business that await-
ed the action of a committee.

The relation of the Board of Trade to the Privy

>^^ Newcastle rarely attended these committee meetings from 1735 to 1748.
Bedford attended frequently while he was in office.

RELATIONS TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS loi

Council was a combination of its relation to the coun- .
cil and to this committee of many names. Colonial '
laws, especially those from the charter colonies, were
transmitted to the council and by it referred to the
Board. The same was true of petitions, complaints,
etc."' All formal actions of the Board, such as ap-
pointment of members of colonial councils, instruc-
tions, recommendations, and representations had to be
transmitted to the council for registration and approv-
al before they were binding. For many years these
were disposed of directly by the council, but after-
ward they were regularly referred to the committee
and were approved and registered only on its favora-
ble report.

This committee was not hostile to the Board as the \
latter's president was usually one of the most regular
attendants at its meetings. It was the body, however,
which coordinated all the various divisions of colonial
administration. Here was represented in the per-
sons of the secretaries of state and the chief justices the
highest administrative and legal authority in the na-
tion. So long as the Board of Trade was not itself
responsible for colonial affairs, it was necessary that
the men who were responsible to the nation should
direct and control the final action in important cases.
This responsibility was in part secured by having all
the important work of the Board reviewed by the
committee. If the Board desired to explain any of
its actions to the committee, the president was so in-
structed; and the committee occasionally directed the
president of the Board to see that certain things were

>^> After 1722 they were regularly referred, first to the committee, and
by it to the Board of Trade.

• ••• • • •• •"•":.• •

".• .• • • • ; r* • '

I02 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

stated in his letters to colonial officials."' The comnniit-
tee sometimes ignored and sometimes disapproved
the recommendations of the Board ; but, considering
the importance of this body and its responsibility to
the nation, such action was to be expected, although it
might lead to delays in colonial administration at
critical times.

The relations of the Board and the council are best
seen in a case that actually came up for determination.
X .. The intestate law of Connecticut is a good illustra-
tion. This had been annulled by the decision in the
famous case of Winthrop vs. Lechmere, and the eflFect
of the decision was of such importance that Governor
Talcott and the legislature of Connecticut determined
to use every agency possible and to spare no expense
in getting the decision reversed. A petition to the
king was drawn up by the agents of the colony, who
asked that a bill might be brought into Parliament for
quieting the people in their estates and enabling them
to bequeath their property in future in the manner
they had been accustomed to under their former law."*
This petition was read before the council and referred
to the "Committee for hearing Appeales, Complaints,
etc.,"*" which in turn referred it to the Board of Trade
to investigate the facts and report with recommenda-

218 March 15, 1742, a Committee of Council coDsidered a representation
of the Board of Trade on a law of Massachusetts creating £3600 in bills of
credit. The representation was read and ''the Committee desired Lord
Monsoo, first Commissioner for Trade and Plantations, to recommend it to
that Board, to write to Governor Shirley, acquainting him with the ob-
jections against the bill." — Privy Council Register^ "George II," vol. vii, xia.

214 ««Talcott Papers" in Connecticut Historical Society Collections^ vol. iv,
Z87.

21B Order in Council dated June 10, 1730. Ibid., 200.

RELATIONS TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS 103

tions."* The Board summoned the agents, heard their
testimony, accepted such documentary material as they
oflFered, and after much deliberation reported its con-
clusions in the form of a representation. This pro-
posed a bill which granted the desired legislation, but
at the same time abrogated the charter. Any pro-
ceedings which could call the charter in question were
most undesirable from the point of view of the Con-
necticut officers; consequently the agents, through
their attorneys, opposed the representation of the
Board before the Committee of Council."^

That case brings out the essential difference in the
nature of the proceedings before the Board and before y
the committee. The Board called witnesses, heard
testimony, asked questions, examined written proofs,
and so arrived at the facts in the case. These facts
were then submitted in writing, together with recom-
mendations, to the committee. If no one interfered,
this body took final action on the data before it. If
the interested parties objected, they could contest the
representation before the Council Committee. If it
were a question in which one party was working for a
certain representation and another against it, both
parties could be and usually were heard,"* but the
hearing in this case was purely of the nature of an
appeal. No witnesses were called; the agent could
not present his case in person, but had to present it

2^^ Reference to the Board of Trade by the Committee of Council, June 15
of the same year. "Talcott Papers" in Connecticut Historical Society Cot'
lectiofUf vol. iv, aoi.

2^^ Letter of Francis Wilks, the London agent for Connecticut, to Gover-
nor Talcott. Ibid,f 216-2x9.

2^B See the complaint of the Mohegan Indians against the colony of Con-
necticut. Ibid,f vols, iv, V, passim.

I04 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

through his counsel, and the hearing took the form of
a legal argument of opposing lawyers. With the
facts as found by the Board and the case of each party,
as presented by the lawyers, before it, the committee
either made a definite recommendation to the Privy
Council or remanded the whole matter to the Board
of Trade for further investigation. Thus the com-
mittee was not only a body for keeping colonial af-
fairs, as administered by the Board, closely coordi-
nated with the policy of the cabinet, but it was also a
court of review for all actions of the Board.

The whole machinery of the British government for
colonial administration included a Board of Trade
to investigate, gather facts, and make recommenda-
tions ; a Committee of the Privy Council to act as a
board of review and a court of appeals, both adminis-
trative and legal ; and the Privy Council, meeting with
the king, before which all final actions of importance
- were registered. This machinery was often slow in
aotion, but the provision for appeals before registra-
tion, and even the necessity of registration, afforded
all interests an opportunity to be heard, and in the
long run it was better to sacrifice speed for fairness.

Frequently the opposing interests abused the privi-
lege of appeal by dilatory motions before the Board
and the Committee, such as requests for time to secure
proofs from America, delays to enable an agent to
secure instructions in regard to some matter that was
being considered, and even repetitions of these re-
quests. Another method of delaying final action was
to present a counter proposal in some form. The de-
lays and evasive tactics became so apparent in the
case of the boundary dispute between Massachusetts

RELATIONS TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS 105

and Rhode Island, that the Committee of Council at-
tempted a reform.

This boundary controversy had existed since 1664.
In 1734 Rhode Island petitioned the king to deter-
mine the question, inasmuch as the colonies had failed
to do so through their own commissioners. This peti*
tion passed through the regular form of reference, by
Order of Council to the Committee of the Privy
Council for Plantation Affairs, and by that body to
the Board of Trade. There each party was heard by
agents and counsel and proofs were submitted on both
sides. Finally, in 1738, the Board reported that com-
missioners should be appointed by the crown to mark
out and settle the disputed boundary. This represen-
tation went to the committee ; and while it was pend-
ing there, Francis Wilks, the agent for Massachusetts
Bay, petitioned to be heard against the said represen-
tation."* This petition was referred by Order in Coun-
cil to the committee,"® which heard what Wilks had
to offer against the representation of the Board, and
reported to the king in council that the petition should
be denied, and that the proposed commission should
be appointed.

In addition, however, the committee sought to
check such dilatory motions for the future, by the
following recommendation :

And the said petition appearing to the Lords of the commit-
tee to be frivolous and vexatious and to have been preferred
only with intent to delay and prevent the settling of the boun«

219 priyy Council Register, "George II," vol. vi, la.

2*0 This oomniittee is designated as the one on "Plantation Affairs." The
meeting was held November i, 1738. Those present were the Lord Presi-
dent, Earl of Abercome, Lord Harrington, Lord Monsoo, Mr. Speaker, Lord
Chief Justice Willes.

io6 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

daries of the said provinces, their Lordships humbly conceive
it may be necessary in order to prevent such frivolous and
vexatious applications for the future which tend not only to
delay and interrupt the course of proceedings but also to bring
unnecessary expense upon those who are obliged to defend
themselves against such application that Your Majesty
may be pleased to order that the Lords of Your Majesty's
most honorable Privy Council for Plantation Affairs do not
proceed upon any applications by petition or otherwise prajring
to be beard against any determinations of the Lords Commis-
sioners for Trade and Plantations upon any matters which
have or shall be referred to them by Your Majesty in Council
or by the Lords of the Committee for Plantation Affairs, upon
which it shall appear that the said Lords Commissioners have
heard the persons concerned, either by themselves their coun-
sel or agents unless such petitioner or petitioners or some
person in his or their behalf do first enter into some sufficient
security to pay such costs as shall be awarded by Your Majesty
in Council thereupon. And their Lordships do further humbly
pray that Your Majesty may be pleased to order the same rule
to be observed in all cases, which shall come before the said
committee of Council in consequence of any conunissions that
may have been or shall hereafter be issued by order of Your
Majesty in council for settling or adjusting any boundaries or
other special matters in dispute in any of Your Majesty's Col-
onies on Plantations in America.

This recommendation was embodied in an Order in
Council and remained as a rule of procedure before
the committee."^

By this order the Committee of Council was made
even more strictly a court of appeals than before, and
from its date, November 30, 1738, it was necessary to
give bond before any person would be heard before
the committee against any representation, order, in-

«2i Privy Council Register, "George II," vol. vi, ia-36.

RELATIONS TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS 107

struction, or recommendation of the Board."* This
added to the expense of the prosecution of affairs at
the Board of Trade and before the council, yet the
colonies could not safely spare any expense when their
interests were at stake.

The pleading of causes before the committee was a
phase of legal practice which became so important
that some lawyers made a specialty of that class of
business. The best legal talent in England was fre-
quently employed by contestants, and even the attor-
ney- and solicitor-generals at times appeared as coun-
sel."' Ferdinando John Paris was perhaps the most
efficient of the lawyers who were frequently employed
by the colonies, and his letters reveal both the custom-
ary methods of procedure and the tricks which were
sometimes employed to win a case."*

The Secretary of State and Executive Boards

The relation of the Board of Trade to the secretary
of state for the Southern Department is difficult to
state, as it varied from time to time. The secretary
was responsible for all colonial business and the Board
was in a great measure only a division of his depart-
ment. Some colonial business was transacted direct-
ly by the secretary, although much of it was in the
hands of the Board. The amount of work done in
the secretary's office was not the .same under different

2^' References to this regulation are frequently met with. See especially
the letters of Ferdinando John Paris in the New Jersey Archives, passim,

228 Attorney-general York and Solicitor-general Talbot were attorneys for
Winthrop in his case against Lechmere. Connecticut Historical Society
Collections, vol. v, 77.

22^ See the tricks of Winthrop*s attorneys in the hearing before the
council in the case of Winthrop vs, Lechmere, cited in Ibid., vol. v, 78.

io8 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

administrations, and seems to have been determined
by the personal wishes of the official in charge. At
^ times he left the whole management of colonial af-
fairs to the Board ; at other times he transferred almost
all of its work to his own office.

Until after the accession of George I the general
rule was to give the Board a free hand, and to hold it
responsible for all colonial correspondence, instruc-
tions, and even the main features of administrative
policy. The secretary of state, however, was the head
of the colonial department and kept a close grasp of
all that went on. William Penn appears to have de-
pended upon his influence with the chief ministers to
ward off any hostile attacks from the Board ; but his
letters indicate that it was not an easy task at times,
especially when the Board was attacking his proprie-
tary rights."** None of the secretaries permitted any
action which had even the appearance of ignoring
their office. Sunderland at one time required that
all representations of the Board to the queen should
be sent to him, as he had a right to know the contents
of any document relating to his department before it
was submitted to the sovereign."' Carteret enforced
the same rule during his administration, and there are
many entries in the Board of Trade Journal of re-

«24a See the PenD-Logan Correspondence, vol. i, passim.

'^B "Amongst the papers which were carried yesterday to the Council
to be laid before the queen there was one from your Board in behalf of
Colonel Lambert to be Lieutenant-governor of Nevis ; which I was surprised
to find, having never seen it, or heard an3rthing of that matter from you
before. I thought it had been usual to acquaint the secretary of state with
all business that relates immediately to his province before it be brought to
the Council; I am sure it is so reasonable that I may very well expect it;
therefore I must desire that it may be so for the future." — Sunderland to
the Board, January 3, 1707, CO. 324, 9, p. 133.

RELATIONS TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS 109

quests that he lay the enclosed representation before
the king."* The nniore connimon practice, however, was
to send the original representation to the council and
a copy of it to the secretary of state for his informa-
tion/" In addition to this the Board regularly sent a
letter to the secretary of state summarizing the changes
in such long documents as the instructions to a gov-
ernor,*" which could be done in one or two pages,
while the document itself covered nearly a hundred.

Certain kinds of business were regularly referred! ,
directly to the secretary of state by the Board. In
general these were questions which involved the rela-
tions of the colonies to foreign countries, such as dis-
putes over the boundary between the French and the
English in the Ohio country or in the region of the
Great Lakes;"* events which concerned the regula-
tion or disposal of the armed forces in America; rela- *
tions with the Indians, especially if they threatened *
trouble;"® violations of the trade and navigation =
laws ; "^ and domestic disorders, such as the riots in
New Jersey over land titles or the resistance to the

226 ^cvf York Colonial Documents^ vol. v, 584, 650, and passim give
copies of many of these letters.

227 Sunderland made this the rule, June i, 1708, for the rest of his admin-
istration.

228 Sometimes these were also addressed to the Privy Council or its
Committee. See the Journal for the years 1725-1749.

22» New York Colonial Documents, vol. v, 815, 845 , vols, vi, vii, passim,
*'® — Ibid., vol. V, 468, 815, and passim, vol. vi, 772-773 and passim,
vol. vii, passim; North Carolina Colonial Records, vol. iii, 334.

2^^ January 5, 1708, the Board notified Sunderland of illegal trading it
had discovered between Carolina and Portugal by way of Rhode Island. It
advised that the only successful method of breaking it up would be to em-
power the British consul in Portugal to examine all ships from the plantations
and seize all that carried prohibited goods. See: Board to Sunderland, CO.
5, 1292, p. 73. Many similar instances are given in the records. See, also:
Beer, Geo. British Colonial Policy, 1754-176$, 229-244, for a full discussion

no AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

Stamp Act.*" Sometimes information on the above
was received in the letters of the colonial officials and
sometimes by direct testimony before the Board.'" In
either case it was promptly transmitted to the secre-
^ry of state for his information.

The secretaries of state were members of the Board
of Trade but were excused from regular attendance.
When questions of more than ordinary importance
came up, they were summoned to attend, and were
occasionally present without special invitation."* The
secretary of state for the Southern Department at-
tended more frequently than did other members of the
ministry, but on several occasions practically the whole
cabinet was present at the Board meetings."' The
subjects under consideration which led to these con-
ferences with the ministers were Indian Wars in
America, bounties on naval stores,"* provisions for the
settlement of the Germans from the Palatinate,"^ and
the disorders in New Jersey. The Board was request-

of illegal trade and the general reference of such information to the secre-
tary of state.

^'^ Any serious situation in the government of any colony was regularly
brought to the attention of the secretary of state. See: New York Colonial
Documents^ vol. vi, 597 ; New Jersey Archives, vol. vii, 299.

23* For an investigation of illegal trade to Curagoa, in which witnesses
appeared before the Board, see: Board of Trade Journal, 2z, pp. 270-336.

2'^ See: Board of Trade Journal, 21, p. 98; 23, p. 100; 28, January 8,
«3. 27, *8; 36, pp. 84, 87, lis.

23* April 14, 1726, Newcastle and Townshend were in attendance as

members of the Board. Trade to Africa was under consideration and they

attended regularly for several days. Newcastle, Bedford, Sandwich, and

Pelham attended the Board, July X2, 1749, to consider the disorders in New

Jersey. See: Board of Trade Journal, 36, pp. $7, 84-225; also Board of

Trade Commercial Series I, 13, M. 88 and Commercial Series II, 646, pp.

256, 284.

2'^ January 8 and 13, 17x9, Board of Trade Journal, 28.
287 _ 7^,-^.^ jx^ p. ^g.

RELATIONS TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS iii

ed to attend cabinet meetings and the Comnniittee of
the Privy Council, even more frequently than it sum-
moned the chief officers of state to attend its own meet-
ings.*" In this way the work of the secretary of state's
office was closely connected with that of the Board of
Trade.

The Board was kept informed of whatever was
done in the secretary of state's office relating to the
colonies until the accession of George I. April 14,
171 5, the Board requested Secretary Stanhope to give
it notice of any nominations of lieutenant-governors
in the colonies before their commissions were issued,
so that it could object to unsatisfactory or unsuitable
officers. This request was disregarded, and George
Vaughn was appointed lieutenant-governor of New
Hampshire without consulting the Board. This ac-
tion brought forth an unusually crisp note from the
latter on the unfitness of Vaughn for his office, be-
cause he was a trader and an owner of saw-mills and
hence was not interested in protecting the woods."*

288 October 14, 1729, the Board was summoDed to attend the Committee of
Council on a hearing of two of its representations. In January, 173 1, it
was asked to appear before the same Committee to assist in the consideration
of the bill advocated by the sugar islands. See: Board of Trade Journal,
39, p. 262; 41, p. 16.

^^* In stating the unfitness of Vaughn, the Board quoted from a letter of
Bellomoot*s in regard to the appointment of Partridge to the same position
as more to the point than anything it could say.

"Mr. Partridge is a millwright by trade, which is a sort of carpenter, and
to set a carpenter to prcMrve wooda, is like setting a wolf to keep sheep ; I
ny, to preserve woods, for I take it to be the chiefeit part of the trust and
business of a lieutenant-governor of that province, to preserve the woods for
the king's use.

"Besides he is of the country, and the interest of England is neither in
his head or heart If it be not presumption in me to give advice, I wish
some few things were observed in the management of the plantations for the
time to come. First, that there be great care uken in the choice of the per-

112 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

Apparently Stanhope ignored this protest; and as colo-
nial business was gradually transferred to the secretary
of state's office, the Board became a mere bureau of
information for other parts of the government

Correspondence with the royal governors had regu-
larly been conducted by the Board of Trade, although
governors also frequently sent almost identical letters
to the secretary of state. Any matter of grave impor-
tance in a colony was reported directly to the latter by
the governor, and a statement of the matter also sent
to the Board. During the administration of Newcas-
tle all this was changed, as he took over practically
the entire correspondence with the colonial governors.
Their important letters were then addressed to him;
and more or less frequently a summary of their con-
tents was sent to the Board. As Newcastle had also
taken over practically all of the executive and admin-
istrative work of the Board, there was very little for
the latter body to do, except when it had matters di-
rectly referred to it for consideration. For that rea-
son the letters of the Board to the colonial governors
became short and infrequent. The average of one
letter to each governor every two years during this
time was not due to any difficulty of communication
or of getting work done in the plantation office. It
was simply because the Board had nothing to say. If

■008 employ'd by the king, from the govemor to the meanest officer; I mean
that they be men of undoubted probity and well born; secondly, that they
be not men of the country, but Englishmen. Thirdly, that they be men of
some fortune in England, to be a tye upon them to behave themselves hon-
ourably in their respective trusts."

The Board expressed its hearty agreement with this opinion and added
that, as Vaughn was interested in several saw mills, he was not one who
would care for the woods. See: Board of Trade to Stanhope, August 3,
X715, CO. 5, 914, pp. 85-87. Cf. Chalmers, Geo. Introduction to the Revolt.

RELATIONS TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS 113

letters from America required replies, they were sup-
posed to emanate from Newcastle's office, and not from
the Board.**** The latter was inefficient, of course, but
it was solely because the secretary of state had made it
so. This period of inefficiency is in marked contrast
with the energy shown in the earlier years of the Board
and can be explained only by the pernicious influence
of Newcastle."^

He practically ignored the Board on all questions
of colonial administration and did not even take the
trouble to inform it of the various orders which were
issued by his office, the instructions given to colonial
officials, or the permits for them to absent themselves
from their posts of duty. This condition is disclosed
by the regular and repeated requests of the Board for
Newcastle to furnish information as to what was done,

^*^ Governor Belcher in his letters to his brother-in-law and agent in
London, Mr. Richard Partridge, frequently speaks of appealing over die
heads of the Board to the secretary of state, indicating a clear knowledge
of where the real authority resided. See: Massachusetts Historical Society
Collectioru, sixth series, vol. vi, passim,

^^^ Channing [History of the United States, vol. ii, 235-236] indicates
that the delay in answering letters at times was chargeable to the clerks.
He has evidently overlooked the periods of varying efficiency due to varying
authority.

Apparent slowness in reading communications after they were received
may easily lead to wrong inferences, as the term "read'' was used by the
Board in a technical sense. It meant read officially to a quorum of the Board.
No doubt all letters were opened by the secretary of that body and their
contents known to some of the members long before they were read in a
technical sense.

In 1700 letters from Maryland, written on February 2, March 12, and
May 28 were read respectively on May 14, July 26, and July 30, following.
This shows an average of only a little more than two months between the
writing of a letter and its reading by the Board. See: Board of Trade
Journal, 13. The New York Colonial Documents show the same promptnesa
for letters from that colony. They also show similar efficiency after Halifax
became president of the Board.

114 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

and further requests that it be notified f ronni time to
time of the business transacted in his office. But the
later repetition of similar requests indicates that they
were ignored by Newcastle and that the Plantation
Office remained in ignorance of what was or was not
done.*" This condition, added to the absorption by
the secretary of state of the chief work of the Board,
made membership on the latter a mere sinecure ; but
it was only because Newcastle had made it so. The
whole responsibility for conditions, good or bad, rests
upon him.

Conditions changed soon after the appointment of
Halifax as head of the Board, because the relations
with the secretary of state were changed."' Business
was transferred back to the Plantation Office ; and, be-
cause of the insistent demands of Halifax, more and
more authority was given to the Board, until it had
practically the full power of a secretary of state. It
retained this power for a number of years, was reduced

^^2 March 12, 1725, the Board requested Newcastle to apprise it of what-
ever passed in his office relating to the plantations. See: Board of Trade
Journal^ 35, p. 63. August 23, 1727, it wrote him again that: "Upon looking
into our books, we find our predecessors have sometimes found themselves
under difficulties for want of being informed of such conmiissions, orders or
instructions as may have passed in the secretaries' offices for persons and
matters relating to the plantations. And therefore we desire your Grace
would be pleased to give directions that for the future proper notice may be
given to this Board of all such commissions, orders and instructions which
we apprehend will be for His Majesty's service." -. CO. 324, xi, p. 50.

July 31, 1735, the Board addressed a similar letter to him and called his
attention to its letter of 1727, and asked for particular information about
leaves of absence. See: Ibtd.t 12, p. 123.

>^'The friendly relations between Bedford and Halifax have already
been indicated. The letters of F. J. Paris to James Alexander also indicate
that whatever information reached the secretary of state was soon known
to the president of the Board. This was particularly true in 1749. See:
New Jersey Archives, vol. vii, 238.

RELATIONS TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS 115

in authority for a short time in 1761,"* and again in
1766; but in 1768 the president was made a full secre-
tary of state for the colonies, thus rendering him en-
tirely independent of the secretary for the Southern
Department, and remained so until the Board was
abolished in 1782.

The Administrative Boards

The Board of Trade and the commissioners of cus-
toms were mutually helpful to each other. The en-
forcement of the acts of trade rested largely with the
customs officials ; but it was necessary that they should
have the countenance and support of the governors,***
all instructions to whom were drawn up in the planta-
tion office. A part of these instructions dealt specif-
ically with the enforcement of the acts of trade and
navigation, and before they were submitted to the king
in council, they were sent to the commissioners of
customs for their ratification.*** This gave the latter
an opportunity to add any new clauses or omit any old
ones in order to make the instructions correspond with
changes which were made in the laws from time to
time. Thus, while the Board drafted the governors'

3«« Board of Trade Journal, 69, p. 26s-

2«B "A complaint made by the commissioners of her Majesty's customs in
Barbadoes to the Lords commissioners of her Majesty's treasury having been
referred to our consideration," it was found that he and other officers had
become unpopular because of their enforcement of the laws of trade. ''We
found it absolutely necessary that not only the officers of the customs, but
also of the admiralty should be very particularly recommended to the re-
spective governors of all His Majesty's plantations." — Report of Matthew
Prior to the House of Commons, April 24, 1702, in Commons Journal, vol.
xiii, S02*

>^* Note the modification of Governor Lovelace's instructions at the
request of the conunissioneri of customs. See: New York Colonial Docu"
minis, vol. V, 41.

ii6 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

instructions, their content, so far as trade laws were
concerned, was determined by the commissioners of
customs.**^

Sometimes the latter officials conferred directly
with the Board, as they did in January, 1709, when
they discussed the desirability of a Virginia law estab-
lishing ports in that province, the administration of
the law recently passed by Parliament granting boun-
ties on naval stores imported from the plantations, and
the question of proper convoys for the merchant fleets
from America."* Other similar conferences were held
from time to time as business seemed to require it. All
laws passed in the colonies, which in any way affected
the customs or the enforcement of the trade laws, were
sent to the commissioners of customs for their criti-
cism. If they found any serious objections to any such
laws, the Board recommended them for the royal
veto."*

The Board of Trade and the customs officials were
also mutually helpful to each other as information
bureaus. Governors were called upon to furnish re-
ports of the violation of the acts of trade and the best
means of enforcing them. This information was

247 Every copy of an instruction was not necessarily sent to the commis-
tioners of customs, but this was done when changes were made in them.
Note the revision in 1752 and the reference to the opinion of the customs
officials on the instructions in 1737. See: CO. 324, 15, p. 324.

*** Board of Trade Journal^ 19, pp. 31-33.

'^* In December, 1730, the Board sent a law of Virginia regulating the
shipping of tobacco, to the commissioners of customs for their opinion. They
returned the law with a polite refusal to express an opinion unless particu-
larly directed to do so by the king. When it was explained to them that
it was only an opinion so far as their own board was concerned, the report
was given. See: Board of Trade Journal, 12, pp. 3x3, 326. Other reports
were regularly made and will be discussed more fully under the head of
disallowed colonial legislation.

RELATIONS TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS 117

transmitted to the secretary for the commissioners of
customs to be laid before that board.'*'^ On the other
hand, the Board of Trade had frequent recourse to the
customs officials for information. Some of this was
for statistical data of the exportation of various articles
from America to England and the colonial imports
of British goods, the trade of various ports, and the
actual workings of various trade laws affecting the
colonies."^ These accounts are among the most impor-
tant extant for a study of the trade conditions in Amer-
ica. They also show the actual operation of such
laws as those paying bounties for naval stores pro-
duced in America,"* and the famous Molasses Act
of 1733, including the eloquent story of its evasion
for a long period of years."'

The customs officials in America were also used by
the Board to gather information, and Randolph and
Quary became its most active secret agents. They
were untiring in their search for evidence which
could be used against the proprietary and charter

^^0 See the Bellomont correspondence, in New York Colonial Documents,
vol. iv, passim. Not infrequently information of this character was also sent
to the secretary of state. See: Board of Trade Journal, sz, p. 31 ; Board of
Trade Proprieties, 30, p. 73.

^^^ These are bound up mainly in the Board of Trade papers known as
Commercial Series /, although many are to be found in the set known as
Plantations General, and a few are bound up in the most unexpected places.
Beer in his British Colonial Policy, iys4'iy65, has made extensive use of
this information and it is copiously cited in his footnotes.

^^^ Board of Trade Commercial Series I, 13, M 12; CO. 323, ix, K. 64.

268 This report is characteristic of all and was as follows :

"An account of the amount of the duties paid in the northern colonies
upon the importation of rum or spirits, molasses or syrups, sugar and panels
of the growth and produce of any foreign settlements from the year 1733 to
the present time, in pursuance of the acts passed in the 6th of his present
Majesty's reign for the better encouraging the trade of his Majesty's sugar

ii8 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

colonies;"* and, as the encouragement given to pirates
and the failure to observe the acts of trade were the
main charges against those governments, the policy
of the Board readily dovetailed into the plans of the
customs officials.

The Board had no control over these men, although
it did at one time use them as agents.'" Their appoint-
ment belonged to the commissioners of customs or
their political superiors. If members of the Board
played any part in their selection, it was because of
their personal inlduence with those who held the ap-

Golooies in

America, distinguishing each year, also,

how much of the said

dudet was

received on merchandise and how much on

i prizes.

Duties

Merchandise

)

Prize

From Xmas To Xmas £

1733

1734 330

xVt

1734

1735 151

1735

1736 29a

1736

1737 320

X737

1738 68

1738

Z739 X08

1739

1740 35

1740

174X 100

X741

Z742 722

X40

1742

1743 461

iVt

X743

X744 234

1744

X745 98

308 X

6V4,

X745

1746 354

X24

X746

1747 460

SVt

X259

SV4,

X747

X748 693

2762

X748

1749 X279

4y»

139

5603 4 4% 7616 4 2

Customs House London, 3 Dec, X750." CO. 5, 38, Appendix 4.

2^^ See the numerous letters of Quary to the Board, in New York Colonial
Documents^ vols, iv, v, passim; Chalmers, Geo. Introduction to the Revolt,
vol. X, 380; Penn-Logan Correspondence, passim; Shepherd, Wm. Proprie-
tary Government in Pennsylvania, 355, 502-503, 508, 542.

2^^ See the correspondence with Robert Quary and Edward Randolph, in
New York Colonial Documents, vol. iv, passim.

RELATIONS TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS 119

pointing power, and not because of their official con-
nection with the Board of Trade. The surveyors of
customs were members of the councils in each of the
royal provinces in their departments, which enabled
them to perform their duties to better advantage and
afforded them additional opportunities of securing in-
formation for the Board.

As in the case of the customs and the admiralty the >
Board of Trade and the treasury assisted each other.
Claims from America for money were referred to the
Board for its opinion as to whether they should be
paid. Colonial officers also appealed to it for aid in
securing a settlement of their claims upon the treasury.
Perhaps the most prominent case of this is that of
Bridger who, for many years, was surveyor of the
woods in America."* According to his own accounts
he was a most efficient officer, but for some reason he
was finally dismissed by the treasury without a settle-
ment of his salary and expenses. As he had consid-
ered himself chiefly responsible to the Board of Trade
and had reported most regularly to that body, he ap-
pealed to it for support in pressing his claims upon
the treasury. The Board also asked for the support
of the treasury in securing such a revision of the laws
of trade as would encourage non-competitive Ameri-
can industries, such as the production of potash "^
and pig iron.

In time of war the treasury as well as the secretary

2oe Board of Trade to the commissioners of the treasury, October 22, 1719,
CO. 5, 9x5, pp. 306-307.

2B^ March 1$, 17 Sh the Board advised the treasury officials that the re-
moval of the tariff of 1672 upon American potash would encourage its
production in the colonies. See: CO. 324, 15, pp. 172-174.

120 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

of State had recourse to the Board. The latter needed
information as to the condition of the colonies for de-
fense, how many troops each could furnish, what kind
and what quantity of arms they had, and the time nee-
essary for them to supply their forces for any under-
taking.'"

In the last two wars against the French, the crown
adopted the policy of repaying to the colonies the
principal part of the expenditures which they had in-
curred in aid of the British arms. It was no small
task to apportion the parliamentary grant in just pro-
portion to the actual expenditures of the different
colonial governments. The treasury did not attempt
the task, but asked the Board to investigate the ac-
counts and claims of various kinds and to determine
the amount of money justly due each claimant."*
Some of these accounts were very complicated, as
each colony had its own paper money the value of
which was not the same in any two ; and, as colonial
accounts were in terms of paper money, it was diffi-
cult to reduce them to equivalent sterling values.
Prices of clothing and supplies also varied in the dif-
ferent colonies, and some commissaries had paid
higher prices for their supplies than had been paid by
other colonies for similar goods. It was manifestly
unfair to pay for the bad bargaining of colonial agents,
as it might become a means of fleecing the British

*58 See the report of the Board of Trade, May ii, 1756, for the detailed
information it supplied for the use of other departments of the government
in time of war, in New Jersey Archives^ vol. viii, part ii, 2x7.

^* In the latter part of 1749 the Board had under its consideration the
claims of the northern colonies because of the expedition to Canada. See:
Board of Trade Journal^ 57.

RELATIONS TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS 121

treasury. New Jersey had a number of claims for
unusual charges and after careful investigation the
Board rejected them.***^

During the French and Indian War the Chancellor
of the Exchequer asked the Board for advance esti-
mates of the colonial expenditures, which were fur-
nished and show the probable expenses of each col-
ony.**^ Thus the Board was made the agency for
determining the amount of aid the colonies should
receive and for distributing these large sums of money
among them in accordance with their deserts. Even
in time of peace, any unusual expenditure in behalf
of the colonies was entrusted to the Board, such, for
example, as the distribution of the £103,300 for the
relief of the settjers in Nevis and St. Christopher Is-
lands.*" In this case the act of Parliament which ap-
propriated the money specified that the Board should
take charge of the disbursements.

The relations of the Board of Trade to the admiral-
ty were very similar to those with the customs officers.
All governors were given instructions as to admiralty,
jurisdiction ; but these, like the instructions in regard
to trade, were prepared by the law officers of the
crown and the Admiralty Board. The governor's
commission for holding admiralty courts came direct-
ly from the admiralty, and the Board of Trade only

290 s^ tii^ detailed report of the Board, February 28, Z75o» on the above,
especially its discussion of the claims of New Jersey, in New Jersey Archives^
vol. yii, 383-400.

'*^ See the request of Secretary Hardinge of February 5, 1756, and the
answer of the Board a week later, in New Jersey Archives^ vol. viii, part ii,
205 and note,

'^^ The above provision is a part of the tot for licensing hackney coaches.
See: Commons Journal^ vol. zvii, 224.

122 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

acted as a forwarding agent. The latter was also able
to furnish the Admiralty Board with information
which came to it from its correspondence with the
royal governors, the surveyors of the customs, and
from direct testimony in regard to illegal trade. In
some cases of this kind the admiralty was asked to
furnish protection for witnesses who had promised
to testify before the Board.'*' It was also informed by
the latter body of the need of revenue cutters in Amer-
ica to enforce the trade laws, and the places where
they could render the most efficient service. The
Board also rendered efficient aid to the admiralty in
stamping out piracy in America by instructing all
its officers to assist in destroying the nefarious prac-
tice, and the first governor sent to New York under
the Board rendered the greatest possible service in this
cause.***

The admiralty had the general disposition of the
fleet, and at times the Board of Trade asked that war
vessels be sent to America to protect colonial inter-
ests; sometimes the admiralty opposed these requests.
Halifax was not content to take no for an answer in
1750 when he desired ships of force for the protection
of Nova Scotia and appealed to Newcastle and the
rest of the cabinet to overrule the admiralty in the
matter.*" Such cases are not common, but this inci-

^^3 January 16, 1760, the Board of Trade asked the admiralty to furnish
protection for one» Radcliffe Cross, a mariner who had promised to testify
about illegal trade, but was afraid he would be pressed if he attended the
Board as often as the latter wished. See: Board of Trade Commercial
Series 11, 645, p. 19.

^^^ See the correspondence of Bellomont with the various executive boards,
in New York Colonial Documents^ vol. iv, passim.

260 "The Board of Admiralty being of opinioo that it will not be neces-
sary to send any ships of force to Nov» Scotia, I take it for granted Lord

RELATIONS TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS 123

dent shows how insistent an able and energetic man
at the head of the Board could be in securing what he
conceived necessary from the admiralty.

The Bishop of London

The Bishop of London exercised ecclesiastical jur-
isdiction in the colonies, and was an ex officio mem-
ber of the Board of Trade."* His relations to that
body were very similar to those of the Admiralty
Board and the commissioners of customs. He used
it as a clearing house for many of his dealings with
the colonies and through it controlled the governors'
instructions in regard to ecclesiastical affairs. He
usually attended the Board when commissions or in-
structions were under consideration, and in case he
could not be present, copies were sent to him for his
approval before they were submitted to the council.'"

Information in the governors' letters which con-
cerned his ecclesiastical jurisdiction was transcribed
and sent to him for his information.'" In this way

Sandwich will not think himself obliged to lay the affair before the Cabinet
Council.

"As I conceive it to be a measure absolutely necessary and one, which if
neglected, is likely to be attended with the worst consequences, I have in the
inclosed paper thrown together my reasons in support of it in as short and
clear a manner as I have been able to do and beg leave to submit them to
your Grace's consideration. If they have weight with you, My Lord, I
hope you will support the measure proposed, and recommend it to such other
ministers as compose his Majest3r's Cabinet Council. The pursuance of it,
My Lord, will be attended by neither hazard nor expense; the neglect of it
will probably be attended by both." ~ Halifax to Newcastle, March 6, 1750, in
British Museum Additional Manuscripts^ 32724, f. 265.

2^^ His name is given among the other great officers of state in the com-
mission of the Board, in Board of Trade Miscellanies^ za, pp. 439-453* '^^
Journal shows he was present on many occasions.

^^^ This was done only in case of changes in that portion of the instruc-
tions relating to ecclesiastical affairs.

2<*s This was done in the case of Bellomont's statements as to the needs

;

124 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

he was supplied with a great deal of first-hand knowl-
edge of religious needs and conditions in America.
He frequently gave suggestions as to how conditions
could be improved, and at his instance the Board add-
ed a new clause to the governors' instructions which
directed them to see that suitable laws were enacted
for the punishment of blasphemy, profanity, adultery,
polygamy, profanation of the Sabbath, and other
crimes against common morality. The instructions
also specified that these laws should be enforced by
the civil courts upon testimony furnished by the
church wardens."*

When new members of the provincial councils
were to be approved, their names were submitted to
the bishop for any objections he might have to the
religious principles of any of the men."® Colonial
laws touching religion or religious questions were
referred to him for his consideration as regarded his
ecclesiastical jurisdiction,"^ just as they were sent to
the crown attorneys for any objection "in point of
law." Sometimes the bishop was requested to be

of religious instruction among the Indians. See: Board of Trade Journal^
12, p. 429. Extracts from Hunter's letters were also sent to him. See: CO.

5i 995, p. 301.

269 xhe bishop had petitioned the king to have new instructions given on
this point and also in regard to schools. This petition was referred to the
Committee of Council, which on May 3, 1727, ordered the Board to prepare
instructions in accordance with the petition. See: New Jersey Archives^
vol. V, 160-161. When the Board took up the matter the bishop was sum-
moned to assist in the work. See: Board of Trade Journal, 37, p. 128. See
also the bishop's request that protestant ministers alone should celebrate
marriages, Bishop to the Board, November 12, 1764, New Jersey Archives,
vol. ix, 504.

270 __ nn^^ yol. iv, X68-X69.

^^^ Note what was done with the North Carolina laws in 1761, CO. 5,
325, p. 170.

RELATIONS TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS 125

present and assist the Board in the consideration of
such laws, as was done in 1705 in the case of a Mary-
land law relating to popery;"* at other times the
bishop insisted that he should be heard before laws
were confirmed.*" Any serious objection by him was
fatal to an act and was certain to lead to the royal
veto."*

The Board did not always show entire sympathy
with the way the bishop exercised his ecclesiastical
control, especially with the class of ministers which
were sent to the colonies. Complaints of the char-
acter of several of these had come to the Board, and
in 171 5 that body informed the bishop that he should
see that "persons of piety, principles and exemplary
life" should be sent to America. It also informed
him that it had received accounts of some ministers
"which rather administers to the occasion of scandal
than contributes to the propagation of Christiani-
ty." "•

Two years later it took occasion to administer an-

2^^ The following entry appears in the Journal, November 28, 1705:
"Ordered that a letter be writ to the Lord Bishop of London to acquaint
him that the Board are desirous of his Lordship's assistance tomorrow morn-
ing in the consideration of two laws lately received from Maryland relating
to popery." He was present the next day and was listed with the regular
members. Such entries are common in similar cases. See: Board of Trade
Journal, i8, p. Z17; 37, pp. 250-251.

2^^ See his caveat against the laws of Massachusetts for the support of
ministers, May 24, 1704, Ibid., 17, p. 48.

274 xhe repeal of the Virginia law for the pa)rment of ministers' salaries
in tobacco was due in part to an objection of the bishop, CO. 5, 1329, X, 64.
It was this repeal which finally led to the famous "Parsons' Cause" in which
Patrick Henry figured as an attorney. See also the reference to the bishop
of the North Carolina Act of 2755 establishing parishes and providing for
the clergy, CO. 5, 324, p. 278.

«" CO. 5, 995, p. 4S.

126 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

Other slight rebuff and also some excellent advice to
his lordship. A complaint had been made against
the operation of the bishop's ecclesiastical court re-
cently set up in Barbadoes. This complaint had gone
to the Board for investigation and was finally reported
upon as follows :

We thought it our duty to examine upon what foot the
bishops' authority is established in the plantations ; but by the
best enquiry we have been able to make, we can find no other
foundation for the same, but an article in the general instruc-
tions to all your Majesty's governors in America; nor could
the bishop inform us of any other; tho' in all probability the
plantations may have been formerly recommended to the in-
spection of the bishops of London by some Order in Council,
from whence this instruction might take its rise.

Considering therefore that the Lord Bishop of London's
ecclesiastical jurisdiction in America depends entirely upon
Your Majesty's pleasure, that his Lordship's present commis-
sary in Barbadoes is reported to be a very indiscreet person
and that Your Majesty's good subjects in the said island are
extremely uneasy under his authority, we would humbly sub-
mit to Your Majestj'*? great wisdom, whether it may not be
proper my Lord Bishop should be directed to supersede the
said Gordon, and for the present to employ his care and in-
spection more immediately upon the clergy there; since the
lives and conversation of the laity will in all humane proba-
bility much sooner be reformed by the pious examples of their
spiritual pastors than by any ecclesiastical censure, or coercion
from the secular arm.*^*

This seems a fair illustration of the policy of the
Board. It was willing to take every reasonable pre-
caution in checking legislation which encroached up-
on the rights of the clergy or upon the bishop's right-
ful authority, but it did not readily lend itself to any

*^« Board of Trade Commercial Series /, 23, pp. 3x9-328.

RELATIONS TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS 127

schemes for pernicious and irritating ecclesiastical
activity in America.

Parliament

The relations of the Board to Parliament were
more intimate than has generally been supposed. The
members occupied seats either in the House of Lords
or in the House of Commons. Whenever questions
of special interest to the plantations were under con-
sideration, the members of the Board in each house
were most frequently charged with the duties con-
nected with such consideration, whatever they hap-
pened to be. The Board prepared all bills which
affected the colonies alone, and sometimes it asked for
and received permission to offer bills embodying its
favorite ptlicies. Such, for example, were the vari-
ous bills for resuming to the crown the powers of
government in the charter and proprietary colonies,
which were almost constantly before Parliament dur-
ing the years 17001706.*" Other favorite measures
of the Board were the bills for establishing a fixed
civil list in New York,"* those for protecting such
white pine trees as were suitable for masts for the

277 North CaroHiia Colonial Records, yoI. i, 538-539; Commons Journal,
vol. XV, 151, 168, 183. Sometimes this was varied somewhat by the secre*
tary of state sending a bill to the Board with a request to examine it and
to make any alterations it saw fit See the letter of Secretary Hedges to
the Board, February 18, 1706, in CO. 5, 1263, O, 30.

278 One of these bills was drafted by the Board in accordance with an
Order in Council of March x, Z71X. It was then sent to the attorney- and
solicitor-general for their examination before it was oflfered in Parliament
Another was drafted two years later and Sir John Hynd Cotton, one of the
members of the Board, was ordered to present it to the House of Commons.
See: Board of Trade Journal, 22, p. 257; 23, p. 349; New York Colonial
Documents, vol. v, 389 and passim.

128 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

royal navy, bills to encourage the production of naval
stores in America,'^* and the bills against legal tender
acts in the colonies.

The Privy Council and both houses of Parliament
frequently called upon the Board to draft bills for
special purposes. The request of 1708 for a draft of
a bill to enforce the proclamation regulating the value
of foreign coins in the plantations,*** and that for a
bill for punishing murders committed in the admi-
ralty jurisdiction of the plantations are good illustra-
tions. Besides these bills that were officially drafted
by the Board, numerous others were practically so
drawn. The House of Commons would direct that
certain men, of whom the most important were mem-
bers of the Board, should prepare and bring in bills;
and when these were afterwards reported to the house,
they were presented by one of the members of the
Board. To all intents and purposes such bills were
drawn by the Board and may have been actually pre-
pared in its offices. The names of Molesworth,
Blathwayt, Chetwind, Docminique, Bladen, Dupplin,

^^* See the letter of Secretary Hedges, December i8» 1704 [CO. 324, 9,
p. 45], notifying the Board that the House of Commont had given leave for
the introduction of such a bill and requesting that it be prepared and sent
to him for presentation to the House. The Board was empowered to include
in the bill whatever it saw fit Another similar measure sought to encourage
the colonial production of raw iron. January 26, 17x1, Dartmouth gave the
Board permission to prepare a clause for insertion in some bill which would
prevent the payment of drawbacks on foreign iron, re-exported to the colo-
nies llbid., p. 4So]. The clause was drawn and Sir Charles Turner, a mem-
ber of the Board, was directed *'to follow it in the House of Commons.*' See :
Board of Trade Journal^ 22, p. 220 ; also the recommendations of the Board
to the House of Lords for removing the duty on colonial pig iron and for per-
mitting the sale of colonial rice to southern Europe, January 24, 173 Si C*0.
324, 12, p. 1x7.

280 Chalmers* Geo. Introduction to the Revolt^ vol. i, 320-321.

RELATIONS TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS 129

Fane, Grenville, Pitt, Bacon, and Oswald constantly
appear in the lists of the committees on bills affecting
the colonies."*

In addition to preparing legislation for the consid-
eration of Parliament, the Board was the source of
information upon all questions of trade or colonial
affairs. In the House of Commons addresses were
constantly being presented which called for reports
on such questions as the following: the production of
naval stores, indigo, silk, rice, and other staples; com-
mercial questions, such as piracy, violations of the
trade laws, and the increase in bills of credit; and
such questions as the administration of justice, rela-
tions with the Indians, and the condition of the colo-
nial defenses. The reports in answer to these ad-
dresses were usually prepared by the Board and pre-
sented to the two houses by prominent Lords of
Trade, and the names which occur so frequently in
the lists of committees are met with again in this con-
nection.*" At other times some of the members of the
Board were summoned before one or the other of the
houses of Parliament to give information "' on some

'"^ See the Comnions Journal for the period, especially vol. xv, X57, yoI.
xxiy, 658, vol. XXV, 746.

2^2 Commons Journal, vol. xiii, $02, vol. xv, 436, vol. xvii, 334, vol. xviii,
698, vol. xix, 352, vol. xxiii, 6og, vol. xxv, 568, vols, xxvi-xxx, passim.

288 The Board of Trade Journal has many entries like the following:
''Another order of the House of Lords, dated yesterday, requiring some of
the commissioners of trade and plantations with their secretary to attend
that house tomorrow at Z2 o'clock, was rezd" — Journal , 24, p. 262. The
secretary of the Board was also frequently called upon to attend committee
meetings of the houses with such books and papers as bore upon the matter
under consideration. This was done when the bill to regulate the charter
and proprietary colonies was under consideration. See: August 17-18, 17x5,
CO. 5, 1292, pp. 464-465.

I30 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

measure. Nothing shows the really ministerial
character of the Board more than the fact that its
members were evidently accustomed to speak for it
in the House of Commons."*

The ministerial character of the Board is still more
apparent after the settlement of Nova Scotia, the sur-
render of Georgia to the crown, and the acquisition
of Florida. In all of these colonies the charges of
government were paid by the crown from annual
grants made by Parliament, and the control of these
expenditures was vested in the Board. When esti-
mates for the coming year were laid before the House
of Commons, those for these three colonies did not
come from the chancellor of the exchequer but from
the Board of Trade. They were presented by one of
its members as the representative of the Board,*** and
if they should be attacked, he and his colleagues had
to defend them.

In view of the close relations between the Board of
Trade and Parliament, the reasons advanced for its
establishment by Order in Council appear insignifi-
cant. Created originally in such a way as to prevent
its control falling into the hands of the House of
Commons, it had come to be chosen almost exclusive-
ly from that house. Its authority depended upon the
influence it could muster in the Commons, it was con-
stantly called upon to furnish information to that
body, and in its representation of estimates for cer-

28* See Commons Journal.

28B — Ibid.f vol. xxvi, 629, 935, vol. xxviiy 363, 653, vol. xxviii, 103, 396,
693, 1019, vol. TxiXf 99, 468, 877. The names of Oswald, Hamilton, Bacon,
and Jenyns, all of whom were members of the Board, are constantly con-
nected with these estimates.

RELATIONS TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS 131

tain colonial expenditures, it might have subjected
the entire ministry to an attack by the opposition. It
is thus seen that the very thing had happened which
William III feared, namely, the control of this Board
by Parliament instead of by the sovereign.

III. DIFFICULTIES OF COLONIAL
ADMINISTRATION

Communications

One of the serious difficulties of colonial adminis-
tration was the lack of communication between Eng-
land and the plantations. There was no regular mail
service of any kind until 1755,"* and all letters and
other communications were entrusted to the ordinary
merchant vessels. This method furnished reasonably
prompt service between Boston, New York, Vir-
ginia '^^ (and later Charleston), and the home coun-
try ; but other colonies were not so fortunate, for they
had to depend upon more precarious means for send-
ing letters. Connecticut and North Carolina were
probably the worst situated in this respect, for very
few ocean-going vessels touched at the coast of either,
and what ships did enter their ports were usually
small coasting vessels, which were worthless for pur-
poses of communication. The records show that the
governor of Connecticut received his letters by way
of Boston and sent them by the same route."* In
North Carolina some of the governor's letters could

2^^ See the letter of the Board of Trade to Secretary Robinson, September
18, 1755, in New Jersey Archives, vol. viii, part ii, 138.

^^ Letters from Virginia and Maryland reached the Board in from two
to three months in 1700. See: Board of Trade Journal, 13.

2^B Talcott Papers, in Connecticut Historical Society Collections, vols, iv,
y, passim.

134 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

have been sent directly to England and some reached
him by that route, but many more of them had to go
by way of Virginia,"* and letters for the latter colony
frequently went by way of New York.**^ Even the
colonies which had direct communications with Eng-
land were not so much better situated, so far as the
governor's correspondence was concerned. Trading
vessels seldom made ports at regular intervals. They
came in unannounced and sailed again as soon as car-
goes could be discharged and new ones taken on ; con-
sequently the governors often had to prepare their
dispatches in haste while ships were in port, and such
is frequently stated to be the case in their letters."^

The ports having the best means of communication
could not expect vessels to enter at all times of year.
Apparently Boston had almost no transoceanic com-
merce in the winter months. Governor Talcott's let-
ters to the Board of Trade were frequently written in
the late fall months, but usually they were not deliv-
ered to that body until the latter part of April or the
first of May. In preparing reports for the houses of
Parliament, the Board was frequently disappointed
by receiving the information too late to be of use that
year. It was thus practically impossible for the
Board to furnish Parliament with information from
Connecticut, even though it had been instructed to

289 Letters frequently took even a more circuitous route. See the North
Carolina Colonial Records^ vol. ii, 185, vol. v, 586, and passim; also vols,
lily iv, passim.

290 This was true of a nunaber of letters of the Board written in 1712 and
1713. See: Spotswood to the Board, December 29, 1713, CO. 5, 1364.

*•! See the New York Colonial Documents, vol. iv, passim ; vol. v, 24Z
and passim. Letters from or to New York frequently went by way of Bos-
ton. See: Bellomonfs letters, Ibid,, vol. iv, passim.

DIFFICULTIES OF ADMINISTRATION 135

secure it before the adjournment of the previous ses-
sion ; consequently reports from that colony were reg-
ularly about a year behind what they should have
been.^**

The most striking example of bad communications,
however, is furnished by North Carolina. In June,
1745, the Board wrote Governor Johnson that it had
received no letter from him for three years, that it
had complained of his negligence in its letter of the
previous year, and that it had great reason to renew its
complaint on that head."* Johnson answered a year
later that he had been a regular correspondent and
that he was very much surprised at the complaint of
the Board, which apparently had just reached him.***
The case was so serious that the Board informed New-
castle in 1746 that it had received no letters from the
governor since April, i742.**' The discrepancy be-
tween the existing correspondence and Johnson's
statements could easily be explained by assuming
that his letters were lost, or possibly by assuming
that he never wrote and that he simply lied when he
insisted that he had. That the former may have
been true is evident from his letter of January 20,

202 See the letter of the Board of Trade to Talcott, October 23, 1736.
The tatter's letter of October 28, i735» in answer to a request for informatioii,
had not reached the Board until April 12, too late to be of any value in
making the report to Parliament See: Talcott Papers, in Connecticut His-
torical Society Coilectiotu, vol. iv, 378; also vol. v, passim, for other illus-
trations.

2»8 North Carolina Colonial Records, vol. iv, 756.

304 «it Js ^jt}| YQiy great surprize and concern that I read in your Lord-
ship's [letter] of the 27th of June last, which I have received but lately." —
Letter of Johnson to the Board, June 6, Z746. North Carolina Colonial
Records, vol. iv, 792.

2^^ This letter was written in December, 1741, and was the last received
until the one of June, 1746. See: Ibid^ 797, 844.

136 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

1747, in which he stated that the Board of Trade's
letter of July 19, 1744, had just reached him and that
he had been a regular correspondent since 1741. Two
years and a half for a letter to cross the ocean was
certainly not very rapid transit. ^n.cUxA, vu>

The last illustration was, of course, exceptional,***
but it is enough to condemn conditions which made
such an occurrence possible. Letters, packets, and
other communications were entrusted to the master
of any convenient sailing vessel, who might be bound
to another port and have to transfer them to some
other master who could deliver them in England.
After reaching there, it was by no means certain that
they would be delivered promptly to the Board, as
packages of papers addressed to it were sometimes
allowed to lie in the customs house for a year or more
before they were delivered."^ In a letter of May 17,

1748, Johnson makes the following statement concern-
ing some legislative records he had sent over:

I am informed these pacquets got safe home in the month of
May 1747. And jret I am now told by a gentleman lately
arrived from London that they were never sent to your Lord-
ship but lay at Mr. Samuel Wragg's house last Christmas.***

2®* The communication with Boston was almost as bad, at times, as with
the southern coloniesi June i8, 1748, the Board wrote Governor Shirley
that it had received his letters dated December z, Z747, and January 6, 1748,
and no others since his letter of November z6, Z745, although Shirley says
he wrote five letters in addition to the two which were received. See: CO.

5, 918, p. 2ZO.

SB7 February 20^ Z738, the Board sent a messenger to the customs office
to get a package of papers which had been l3ring in the customs warehouse
since January Z7, 1727. At the same time the Board requested that any
future packages of that kind should be delivered, or that notice of their
receipt should be given. Evidently this was not always done, for similar
requests are found in after years. See: Board of Trade Journal, 39, p. 62;
45, p. Z76.

«»8 North Carolina Colonial Records, vol. iv, S68.

DIFFICULTIES OF ADMINISTRATION 137

Possibly his letters suflfered a similar fate,*** for dis-
patches to the governors sometimes had to undergo
just as strange adventures. It is evident that those
addressed to the governors of North Carolina were
frequently passed on from hand to hand across Vir-
ginia and Carolina until they reached the governor.
Occasionally a special messenger was employed, but
only in cases of unusual urgency, and even in those
cases the governors had to bear the charges.'**

Postal conditions in England also contributed to
the rather haphazard method of handling mail ad-
dressed to the Board. None of its communications
were permitted a free passage through the mails until
1746.**^ Before that time the postage had to be paid
by the Board, both on its own letters and those ad-
dressed to it. As this charge had to be defrayed out
of the incidental fund of the office, the Board en-
deavored to economize by having the large packages
of papers delivered to it through other channels than
the post-office.**'

^^^ It is evident from the letter of Governor Everard to Carteret in 1739
that such things did happen. One Mr. Durley had been entrusted with many
letters, public papers, and similar packets to deliver to Carteret, but he was
"lately informed by some gentlemen here that he either gave the said writ-
ings to Lovicks Brother in London or de8tro3'ed them.*' — North Carolina
Colonial Records, vol. iii, 27.

800 See the correspondence between the governors of Virginia and of
North Carolina, in North Carolina Colonial Records, vols, iv, v, passim.

801 August Z9, 1746, an Order in Council directed the postmaster-general
to pass through the mail, free of charge, all letters and packages addressed
to the Board of Trade. Prior to that time the records of the plantation'
office show numerous expenditures for postage. The Board of Trade had
asked for free pottage, but it was informed that all the revenues of the poal-
office were appropriated, and that it should pay its own postage. Postage
from April, Z699, to September, 1700, amounted to £63 zs. See: Board of
Trade Journal, Z3, p. 244; 54, p. 85; Order in Council of July 6, 1697,
Board of Trade Miscellanies, zz, pp. 40-4Z.

*®2 September 5, Z739, the Board informed Governor Gooch diat the last

138 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

f The slowness of the service was not its worst fault
yirom an administrative point of view. Letters which
/were passed from person to person, and entrusted to
' parties who were not responsible and who were prob-
ably curious, enjoyed no protection against being
opened before they were delivered. Under such cir-
cumstances it was difficult to secure that secrecy which
is often necessary in directing the policy of a governor
in difficult situations. The following extract from
one of Governor Talcott's letters illustrates a not un-
common occurrence : The packet from London,

Together with a duplicate from our agent, of his of Feb.
1 2th, came to Boston, so along to Fairfield, then back to me;
both of which I have great cause to suspect, had been opened
and closed again, before they came to my hand, and I doubt by
our adversaries, but can't learn by whom."'

Under such conditions it was possible for the plans
of the Board to be nullified by being known in ad-
vance by the opposition.

The existence of war during more than a third of
the period from 1696 to 1765 greatly increased the
danger of dispatches being lost. Duplicates, tripli-
cates, and even five copies of letters were sent by the

box of papers from him had been sent by post from one of the out ports and
the charges amounted to £ii i6s. id. As such charges fell heavily upon
the incidental fund, he was directed to have the masters of vessels not to
deliver such packages, in future, until they reached the Thames; then they
were to be turned over to some individual to deliver to the Board. In that
way only a messenger fee was paid. See: CO. 5, Z366, p. 325.

^^^ Letter to Governor Belcher of Massachusetts, July 6, 1731, in Talcott
Papers, Connecticut Historical Society Collections^ vol. iv, 238. Similar
statements are met with in the New York and the North Carolina Corres-
pendence. Letters opened by mistake are also not infrequently mentioned.
March z, 1705, Governor Nicholson of Virginia informed the Board that he
had reason to think that some of his letters had been intercepted. See:
CO. s» i36»» P' *39-

DIFFICULTIES OF ADMINISTRATION 139

governors,*^ and usually the Board resorted to the
same precaution.'®* As these different copies were
sent by different routes, one of them ordinarily got
through safely, although frequently all were lost. As
the letters and papers from America often contained
information of great value to the enemy, the govern-
ors were given strict orders to direct the captains of
all vessels carrying dispatches to sink them if there
was danger of their capture.*^ Probably this accounts
for the great number of papers lost during the war,
although many were captured. The danger of loss
was not only increased, but since fewer ships ventured
out, the opportunity for sending letters was greatly
diminished during the periods of hostility. Thus
communications were seriously crippled at the very

*<^ The letters of Governor Ellis of Georgia to the Board, dated March
zz and 20, Z757, were not received, except a fifth copy which finally arrived
by way of New York. Board to Ellis, April 2Z, Z758. CO. 5, 673, p. 4.
See also the letters of the governors to the Board of Trade in the New
York Coiotdal Documents^ vol. iv, passim.

805 November 24, Z758, the Board, in answering letters of Governor Ellis^
said that it was much concerned that its letter of April 2z had not reached
him, as it contained much information as to conditions in Georgia. Two
copies of this letter had been sent, one by a direct conveyance and the other
by the New York packet, a third was included in this letter. See: CO. 5,
673, p. z82 ; also the letters of the Board of Trade to the governors, in the
New York Colonial Documents, vol. iv, passim.

806 «The directions given you relating to the sinking of letters, are the
same as were sent to the governors of all his Majestys other plantations,
and was done in order to prevent the enemies getting intelligence of the
state of the plantations by letters taken on board of ships coming from
thence.

'*We understand the assembly are of another opinion, but we continue
nevertheless to enjoin you to direct that all your letters, and such as in any
manner relate to her Majesty's service, be thrown overboard in such case of
imminent danger, and you nevertheless recommend to the people, the causing
their letters to be thrown overboard as aforesaid, as being for the benefit
and safety of the colony and the trade thereof.'' ~ Board of Trade to Gov-
ernor Nott of Virginia, February 4, 1706, CO. 5, 1361, p. 438.

I40 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

time the governors needed the most encouragement
and support from the home authorities to prevent the
assemblies from assuming full control of all branches
of the government.

The Board of Trade was not indifferent to the lack
of proper facilities for transmitting dispatches, and
looked with favor upon the proposal of 1703 to estab-
lish regular packet boats to ply between New York
and the Isle of Wight. As the owners of the vessels
wished unlimited privileges of carrying freight, how-
ever, the scheme was abandoned,*®^ and there was no
improvement in methods of communication until the
presidency of Halifax. As the quarrel with the
French in America developed into open war, the
Board •®® realized the necessity for better postal ser-
vice. September 18, 1755, it made a representation
to the king in which the conditions of the existing
systems were described.

Th€ great delays, miscarriages and other accidents, which
have always, but more especially of late, attended the corres-
pondence between this kingdom and Your Majesty's colonies
and plantations in America from the very precarious and un-
certain method, in which it is usually carried on by merchant
ships, have been attended with great inconvenience and preju-
dice to Your Majesty's service and to the trade and commerce
of Your Majesty's subjects.'®*

As a remedy, it was proposed to establish regular
packet boats to ply between Falmouth and New York

^07 Letters of the Board of Trade to tbe Earl of Nottingham in regard to
the proposals of Sir J. Jeffiys, in New York Colonial Documents, vol. iv,
Z030, Z03Z.

808 During the period from 1748 to Z76Z Halifax was the Board of Trade,
and practically all questions of policy put forward by that body were his
personal ideas.

»o* Board of Trade Journal, 63 ; New Jersey Archives, vol. viii, part ii, 138.

DIFFICULTIES OF ADMINISTRATION 141

or some other important colonial port. The recom-
mendation was acted upon, and October 25, follow-
ing, the postmaster-general informed the Board that
he had put on boats to make monthly voyages to both
the West Indies and New York, "with which it shall
be our endeavor that nothing except unavoidable ac-
cidents shall interfere, and Your Lordships shall con-
stantly have the earliest notice of every intended dis-
patch." As this was the first step that had been taken
"in the establishment of a regular correspondence
with the main of His Majesty's American dominions,"
the boats were to be allowed to stay at New York for
twenty days on the first trip and could be held for a
short time while dispatches were being prepared.*"
The ships were of two hundred tons and fitted for
war.'^^ By this measure correspondence with Amer-
ica was rendered much more certain and regular;
and the Board had scored at least one important ad-
ministrative triumph. The governors were prompt-
' ly informed of the establishment of the new service
and instructed to transmit reports and dispatches ev-
ery month.''^ From this time on the whole colonial cor-
respondence shows that the Board had the details of
colonial administration much more completely at its
command than at any time before.

Lack of responsibility

The commission which created the Board of Trade
gave it the power to nominate but no power to ap-

^^® Board of Trade Journal^ p. 144. Cf. Board of Trade Journal^ 63,
October 29, 175 s.

•11 New Jersey Archives^ vol. viii, part 11, 145.

*^2 Circular letter signed by John Pownall and dated November 4, 1755,
in New Jersey Archives^ vol. viii, part ii, 146.

142 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

point colonial officers."* This was one of the funda-
mental weaknesses of the Board as an administrative
body, as officials readily obey only when they know
they must. The Board was not the agency through
which most of the governors and other officials se-
cured their positions, nor was it able to secure their
removal for failure to obey its orders. Quite fre-
quently both governor and Board were appointed by
the same influence. Governors knew this and at times
presumed to treat the Board with indiflFerence. The
plan of placing administrative affairs in the hands of
the Board and expecting that body to carry out an
effective policy through officials who were not re-
sponsible to it could not have been expected to work
successfully, as there was too much division of re-
sponsibility at a time when effective administration
was most essential.

The colonial patronage belonged to and was exer-
cised by the secretary of state for the Southern De-
partment, who appointed the governors and other
chief officers. If the members of the Board were con-
sulted before such appointments were made, there is
little evidence to show that such was the custom.
Frequently their protests against an appointment
which seemed especially ill advised were useless.

The remonstrance of the Board in 1714 against the
appointment of Vaughn as lieutenant-governor of
New Hampshire has already been cited. When his
successor, Wentworth, was appointed the Board filed
a similar objection, on the ground that it was not for
the best interest of Britain to appoint men of the coun-

'^^ See the commission in the New York Colonial Documents^ vol. iv,
145-X47.

DIFFICULTIES OF ADMINISTRATION 143

try to hold such important positions/" Neither of
these protests, however, was eflFective. Each secre*
tary of state retained full control over the selection of
governors and lieutenant-governors, and the Board
was communicated with only after the appointments
were made.*" The records, down to 1752, show the
brief official notice of such appointments, with an oc-
casional period when even this notice was not sent
until the information was asked for by the Board.*"
The only successful interposition of the latter in the
selection of a lieutenant-governor appears to have
been in 1731, when there was a vacancy in New
Hampshire caused by the death of Lieutenant-gov-
ernor Wentworth. The Board recommended Dun-
bar, who was then surveyor of the woods, and urged
his appointment on the ground that it would greatly
strengthen his authority as a protector of the forests;
and added that, as there was no salary nor other per-
quisites attached to the office in question, Newcastle
would probably have few applicants for it. After
some hesitation on the part of Newcastle, the nomi-

*^* Chalmers, Gea Introduction to the Revolt, vol. ii, 34.

*^B See the notice of the appointment of Robert Dudley as governor of
Massachusetts Bay, in CO. 5, 911, p. 424. The note from Craggs, April Z9,
z72o^ notifying the Board that Burnet had been selected for the governor-
ship of New York is in the same form. All of these notices were essentially
like the following: ''His Majesty having been pleased to appoint John
Montgomery, Esq., to be Governor of New York and New Jersey in the
room of William Burnet, Esq., it is His Majesty's pleasure that the draughts
of his commission and instructions may be prepared in order to be laid before
His Majesty, for his approbatioD." — Townshend to the Board, April la,
Z727. See also: New York Colonial Documents, vol. v, 536, 823.

3^* April 14, 1715, the Board asked Stanhope for a list of the governors
and lieutenant-governors that had been appointed, in order that it might
know with whom to correspond. This was answered. May 2, and a list of
nine such appointments enclosed. CO. 324, zo, pp. 60-69. Similar re-
quests were addressed to Newcastle from time to time.

144 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

nation was confirmed.'" With this exception, that poli-
tician kept the control of the patronage in his own
hands and seldom consulted the Board when appoint-
ments were to be made.

Office seekers naturally ignored the Board and ap-
plied directly to Newcastle, as is seen in the attempts
of William Keith to secure the governorship of New
Jersey."* Merit and proper qualifications were not
always carefully looked after by Newcastle, and some
of his officers were far from efficient. Two of these
were commented upon by Governor Burrington of
North Carolina, in a letter to Newcastle in 1732, as
follows :

The chief justice and attorney general of this province
ought to be men of understanding and lawyers ; neither of the .
persons your Grace bestow'd these places upon in this govern-
ment ever knew law enough to be clarke to a justice of the
peace.'**

In the same letter there is an intimation that Mar-
tin Bladen, who was so long an energetic member of
the Board, had a certain amount of influence over
colonial appointments and that he was opposed to
Burrington."** Governor Belcher of Massachusetts

•1^ Governor Belcher had tried to prevent the appointment of Dunbar,
and Newcastle asked the Board to consider the charges he had made against
hioL In spite of these, the Board again recommended the latter for the
office and finally secured his appointment See Letter of the Board to New-
castle, February lo, 173 1, in CO. 5, 9x6, pp. 400, 403, 420.

•^* New Jersey Archives^ vol. v, 446-447 and note,

'^^ North Carolina Colonial Records, vol. iii, 438. Burrington was him-
self one of Newcastle's appointees and apparently was little more competent
than the men he condemns. Some allowance must be made for Burrington's
choleric disposition, in accepting his opinion of the qualifications of the two
officers.

820 «*Your Grace I hope has not forgot, that I made bold to mention a
suspicion I had of Col. Bladens ill intentions to me, nor the generous

DIFFICULTIES OF ADMINISTRATION 145

makes similar statements as to Bladen's hostility to
himself.*" Lieutenant-governor Dunbar of New
Hampshire apparently owed his appointment to Mar-
tin Bladen's influence, and Belcher seems to think
that all his efforts to displace him failed because of
Bladen's opposition.'" These incidents show that
some members of the Board had at least sufficient
power to make themselves feared. Probably it was
the power of the Board to present and encourage com-
plaints, which caused the governors somewhat to
/ dread its anger or opposition. But it was a serious
I administrative situation when the leading members
: of the Board of Trade and the governors were intri-
guing against each other. The real difficulty lay in
the apparent inability of Newcastle to use men, to
assign them responsible duties, and to trust them to
perform them faithfully. Jealous of his own author-
ity, he insisted upon keeping all the essential threads
of administration in his own hands, apparently heed*
less of his inability to attend to everything personally
or too vain of his authority to entrust any portion of it
to others.

answer you were pleased to give (viz,) that if I faithfully performed my
duty I need not fear any man; I presume to mention this because it waa
reported in London, I should very suddenly be turned out, the same haa been
constantly said here and declared particularly by Montgomery the attorney-
general the first day he came." — North Carolina Colonial Records^ vol.

i", 437-

221 «*I find Col. B — n is my enemy, yet he always writes me fair and
plausible. It must be on Dunbar's account and for no other reason, and no
doubt he influences the Board of Trade to my prejudice ; we must therefore
constantly apply to their superiours that I may be always treated with
justice and reason." — Letter to Richard Partridge, April 27, 1732, in Belcher
Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society ColUctiotts, sixth series, vol. vi,

Z20-Z2Z.

•** — IbiiLf vol. vi, 83 and passim.

146 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

The Board of Trade had control of a certain class
of appointments. The members of the provincial ;
councils were usually appointed on the suggestion of :
the governor and the subsequent nomination by the
Board. This was true in the time of Bellomont,
Cosby, Hunter, Belcher, Burrington,"* and by 1730
had become an established custom with which New-
castle apparently did not interfere.*** It was intended
that the governor should have control of his council as
far as possible, and the Board regularly honored his
recommendations and usually supported his removals.
There was an exception, however, in the case of
Belcher during the later years of his administration
of New Jersey. The disorders in that province and
the complaints against him had resulted in his losing
caste with Halifax who refused to honor his nomina-
tions. April 21, 1749, Belcher protested in vain
against the appointment of Richard Saltar as a mem-
ber of the council,*" and in November of the next
year he wrote to Partridge, his agent in London, to

'2* See the numerous illustrations of this in the correspondence of the dif-
ferent governors, in New York Colonial Documents; New Jersey Archives;
Belcher Papers; North Carolina Colonial Records.

*** Among the papers in the Public Record Office known as Plantations
General there is a bundle containing four note-books, which were used to
keep lists of colonial councillors. These show, in most cases, when an ap-
pointment was made, vacancies from time to time, and upon whose recom-
mendation the appointment was made. Usually the governor's recommenda-
tion was accepted, although there are several cases of nominations by
Bladen, Fane, Halifax, and Bridger. Bladen's and Badger's activities
were confined largely to New Hampshire. In New Jersey the proprietors
frequently recommended, and the same was true for Maryland while it was
a royal province.

^^^ Letter of Belcher to the Board of Trade. One of the objections he
made to this appointment was that it violated his instructions to keep the
council composed of an equal number of men from each division of the
province. See: New Jersey Archives, vol. vii, 247.

DIFFICULTIES OF ADMINISTRATION 147

endeavor by every possible means to secure the ap-
pointment of William Morris. His letter indicates
that Bedford's influence was important as was also
that of Halifax.'" The favor of the latter was not se-
cured, however, and in a letter to Halifax complain-
ing of the lack of credit given his nominations. Belch-
er says :

When I was formerly for eleven years governor of His
Majesty's province of New Hampshire I never had one nomi-
nation of a counsellor for that province set aside at your Lord-
ship's honourable board and if it must be otherways now it
cannot tend to support the honour and dignity of the king's
government intrusted to me.'*'

He was right in saying that the lack of credit given
his nominations weakened his position and influence
as governor, but the Board continued to disregard
them.'" Thus the Board exercised at all times pretty
complete control over the appointment of councillors.
The Board also selected the colonial secretaries,
apparently without interference on-' the part of the

*2« New Jersey Archives^ vol. vii, 578.

*^^ New Jersey Archives^ vol. vii, 595. August xo, 1751, he wrote a
letter to Lord Hardwicke in regard to this matter: "I am sorry to acquaint
your Lordship that the Lords commissioners for trade and plantations have
lately rejected my nomination for filling vacancies of councillors . . .
and in their stead recommended others I suppose named to them by young
Mr Morris. . . I would earnestly intreat your Lordship to interpose, etc.
that I may be treated as one of His Majest/s governors." — /^u^., 6xz.

*'" Some reason for this action of the Board is found in its letter to
Belcher of March 27, 1751: "We have enquired into the character of
Mr. Samuel Smith, whom you reconunend to us as a proper person to supply
the vacancy in the council occasioned by the death of Richard Smith Esq.,
and we find that he is a wellwisher to the rioters, and his family active in
that faction. When we recollect that Mr. Morris, the last person you
reconmiended to the same office, was found upon enquiry to bear the same
character, we cannot but express our surprise, that . . . you should thus
attempt to fill the Council Board with persons disaffected to His Majesty's
government" » New Jersey Archives^ vol. vii, 586.

148 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

secretary of state ; *" but as these were merely clerical
offices with exceeedingly small salaries attached to
them, the power of filling them did not amount to
much. Law officers, such as the colonial chief jus-
tices and attorneys-general, were usually appointed by
the Board on the recommendation of the chief justice
and the attorney-general in England."® As long as
this was the practice, it would seem that men should
have been appointed because of merit. Apparently
Newcastle seized upon this portion of the colonial
patronage, however, with the result indicated by the
blustering Burrington. If the latter is correct in say-
ing that Newcastle appointed the officers in question,
it indicates a wide departure from the earlier practice
in colonial affairs and is but another evidence of that
politician's pernicious activity. The appointment of
these minor officers, however, was of little impor-
tance. The one officer in each colony with whom the
Board had to deal and wl^o should have acted in har-
mony with its plans was the chief executive, and so
long as the latter held his position independent of the
former, the Board could not be an effective adminis-
trative body.

'2» Applications for these offices were frequently made to the secretary of
state, but were by him referred to the Board. The latter investigated each
application, heard what the candidates had to say, and secured from them
assurances that they intended to reside in the colony to which they were
accredited before they were recommended for appointment. See the ap-
pointment of Edmund Jennings, secretary of Virginia, and Sir Thomas
Lawrence of Maryland in 170Z-1702, in Board of Trade Journal^ 14, pp.
^ 28, 53, 56, 68, 247, 296; also the letter to Sunderland, December 17, 1708,
recommending Mr. Rhodes for a similar position, Ibid,^ 20, p. 381.

880 3ee the appointment of an attorney-general for Virginia in 1703, in
Board of Trade Journal^ z6, pp. 168-197, also that of a similar officer for
New York in 1705, Ibid.^ 17, p. 398.

DIFFICULTIES OF ADMINISTRATION 149

The governors of the proprietary colonies were ap-
pointed by the proprietaries, but had to receive the
royal approbation. In practice the Board of Trade
exercised the power of accepting a proposed govern-
or. Thus Markham was not approved as governor
of Pennsylvania in 1699,*" and, on the death of Gov-
ernor Hamilton in 1700, William Penn named a new
governor and asked that he might be approved. His
request was referred to the Board, which promptly
returned a favorable report."* In 171 1 the Board re-
ported that it had no objections to the approval by the
queen of the appointment of Edward Hyde as gov-
ernor of North Carojina, provided he gave bond and
qualified according to law."* Not only did the Board
exercise a sort of royal veto on the nominations of the
proprietaries on general grounds; but it was respon-
sible for seeing that the governors, when accepted,
gave sufficient security for their observance of the
laws of trade and navigation. This is clearly shown
by the Journal of the Board for July 28, 1702. Sir
Matthew Johnson had been appointed governor of
North Carolina; Archibald Hutcheson attended with
him and asked that Mr. Johnson, a son of the govern-
or, and Thomas Carey might be accepted as security.
The Board consented and directed them to lodge the
bond with the treasurer. Similar action was taken

*3i Board of Trade Journal, 12, p. 157. Sec also the difficulty over the
approval of Captain Haskett as governor of the Bahama Islands, Ibid,, 13,
pp. 4-66. Also Proprieties^ 26, pp. 203-245.

^32 Penn-Logan Correspondence, vol. i, p. 206.

^^^ The usual bond was two thousand pounds, but as the trade of North
Carolina was insignificant, the Board suggested that a bond of half that
amount should be accepted. See: North Carolina Colonial Records, vol.

>. 773.

150 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

when Charles Eden was appointed governor of the
same province in 1713.*" This power over the selec-
tion of the proprietary governors, such as it was, af-
forded the Board one of its most effective weapons for
extending the royal control over those governments.*"
> The absence of the appointing power in the
/ hands of the men who were entrusted with colo-
nial affairs, causing division of responsibility and lack
of control, was doubtless one of the most fundamental
weaknesses of the Board of Trade ; but it was no long-
er a defect after 1752. It has already been stated that
/ 7 ri'^one part of the bargain by which Halifax assisted in
. forming the ministry in 175 1 was that control of colo-
I nial affairs, including the patronage, should be en-
trusted to him.**' The arrangement was made legal
March 11, 1752, by an Order in Council which em-
1/ powered the Board of Trade to appoint all colonial
officers from governor down to the lowest appointee.**^

>'^ North Carolina Colonial Records, vol. i, 557; vol. ii, 51.

^^^ See the Penn-Logan Correspondence [vol. i, 136 and passimi for the
difficulties Penn encountered because the Board of Trade condentned Gover-
nor Hamilton as not properly qualified.

*•• See page 49.

887 "It is therefore hereby further ordered, that the said Lords commis-
sioners for trade and plantations do, from time to time, as vacancies shall
happen by death or removals, present unto His Majesty in Council, for his ap-
probation, the name or names of such person or persons, as the said conmiis-
sioners from the best of their judgment and information, shall think duly
qualified to be governors or deputy governors, or to be of His Majesty's coun-
cil or his council at law, or secretaries in the respective plantations, and
likewise to present to His Majesty for his approbation, the names of all oth-
er officers, whidi have been, or may be found necessary for the administra-
tion of justice, and the execution of government there, excepting only such as
are or may be appointed for the direction and regulation of His Majesty's
customs and revenues, and such as are or may be under the directions and
authority of the Lords Conunissioners of the admiralty." — New Jersey
Archives, vol. viii, part i, 24-25.

DIFFICULTIES OF ADMINISTRATION 151

The Board of Trade in this case meant Halifax, but
he soon found that he had to insist upon his legal
rights to prevent Newcastle from continuing his poli-
cy of conferring colonial governorships upon men un-
fitted for the offices, and who had no intention of doing
anything more strenuous than drawing their salaries.
Nothing shows more plainly the pernicious side of
Newcastle's control of colonial affairs than the blunt
demand from Halifax for him to keep his hands off
of the Virginia governorship and to permit the selec-
tion of an able man for that place.*"

Halifax not only insisted upon his rights, but ex-
ercised them vigorously himself. Officials in Amer-
ica soon learned that they must look to him for pre-

^s^The sudden death of the Earl of Albemarle in 1754 left a vacancy
in the goveraorship of Virginia and called forth the following personal
letter from Halifax to Newcastle: "You are sensible, my dear Lord, that in
consequence of the late order in council, which your Grace has so frequently
assured me, you would strictly observe, the right of recommending to this
emplojrment belongs to the Board .of Trade. . . It is unnecessary for me
to trouble you with the several reasons that occur to me, evincing the inex-
pediency of any longer suffering the government of Virginia to remain a
sinecure, yet it is my duty to observe that at this time it would be attended
with the worst consequences." The people of Virginia had long complained
that though they have given a considerable salary to a governor they have
been ruled by a substitute. "And I think they have the greater reason to
complain, as being the only province in North America who have granted
a permanent revenue to the crown for the support of government, and indeed
this complaint so justly founded has been constantly used by the other
provinces as an argument in support of their disobedience to the king's
oonunands, and their refusal to pass revenue laws of the same sort, but if
at this critical conjuncture when both from ye danger that threatens them,
and the efforts they are exerting by his Majesty's orders in their defense
they have more than a common rig^ht to be well governed and by the person
they pay, late precedents should be suffered to prevail, and that employ-
ment which ought to be so busy and is so important an one should be con-
tinued a sinecure — I leave your Grace to judge what uneasiness it would
create and how little serious the world would think us in the present measure

152 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

ferment,'" and the records all indicate that apppoint-
ments emanated from the Board. This not only
strengthened the control of that body over colonial
administration, but enabled it to carry out a general
merit system as regards promotions. Some governor-
ships were looked upon as more important than others,
and the remuneration varied greatly. Under Hali-
fax, when a vacancy occurred in a desirable position,
there was a general shifting of governors, which
amounted to a promotion for each one. Thus in 1759
the death of Governor Haldane of Jamaica resulted
in the following changes: Governor Littleton of
South Carolina became governor of Jamaica; Thom-
as Pownall, governor of Massachusetts Bay, went to
South Carolina ; Francis Bernard, governor of New
Jersey, went to Massachusetts Bay; and Thomas
\j/ Boone was appointed governor of New Jersey to fill
the vacancy thus created."®

The most striking example of the new spirit back
of the Board was its treatment of Governor Hardy of
New Jersey, who had succeeded Thomas Boone in
1761, and in less than a year had violated his in-
structions by appointing the justices of the supreme
court during good behavior instead of during pleas-

of embarking troops for the defense of Virginia, should she be denied what
she has a title to expect in time of ye profoundest peace, the use of her own
governor.

**A man of quality, a military man, and a sensible and honest one should
be sent and such an one I hope may be found." — British Museum Addi-
tional Manuscripts^ 32737, f. 505.

'8» See the letter of Governor Sharpe to William Sharpe, July 6, 1756,
in ''Sharpens Correspondence,*' Maryland ArchiveSy vol. ix, 47; also that of
Thomas Cant to Reverend Doctor Johnson, November 4, 1760, in New York
Colonial Documents^ vol. vii, 449.

**® Board of Trade Journal, 67, p. 245. At the meeting of the Board

DIFFICULTIES OF ADMINISTRATION 153

ure. January 20, 1762, he wrote the Board of his
action.'" Two months later that body sent a strong
representation to Secretary Egremont stating the of-
fense of Governor Hardy and concluding:

But aggravated as his guilt is by the mode of the appoint-
ment and by the influence which it will necessary have in the
neighboring Provinces of Pennsylvania and New York, and
particularly in the latter, where the utmost real and efforts of
the lieutenant-governor has been hardly sufficient to restrain
the intemperate zeal and indecent opposition of the assembly
to your Majesty's authority and royal determination upon this
point : It becomes under these circumstances our indispensable
duty to propose that this gentleman may be forthwith recalled
from his government as a necessary example to deter others in
the same situation from acts of disobedience to Your Majesty's
orders, and as a measure necessary to support your Majesty's
just rights and authority in the colonies and to enable us to do
our duty in the station your Majesty has been graciously
pleased to place us in, and effectually to execute the trust com-
mitted to us.**^

This representation was promptly confirmed and Wil-
liam Franklin appointed in the place of Hardy."*
Councillors were removed in the same summary way
for partisan opposition to the governor, and the long,
tedious investigations and delays which were former-

which prepared the formal recommendations, Halifax informed the members
that the royal assent had already been secured to the changes. This indi-
cates clearly that Halifax personally controlled appointments during his
administration. See: Board of Trade Journal, 67, p. 247.

s^^ ''I must observe to Your Lordships likewise that I found the general
assembly had come to a resolution not to make any provision for the judges
in the bill for support of government if they accepted commissions during
pleasure." — New Jersey Archives, vol. ix, 346-347.

'^2 Representation of the Board of Trade, March 27, 1762, in CO. 5,

999i PP- 137-138.

'^'Franklin was probably appointed directly by Egremont See: New

Jersey Archives, vol. ix, 368.

1 54 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

ly so common were no longer allowed.*** In a word,
the control of the Board of Trade over appointments
after 1752 was as direct and unlimited as any execu-
tive board could desire, division of responsibility had
ceased, and direct, responsible authority on the part
of the Board was on trial.

Weakness of the governor's position

There was another serious difficulty in colonial ad-
ministration very closely connected with the division
of responsibility so characteristic of the period down
to the time of the appointment of Halifax. This was
the weakness of the position of the governor, due to
the method of his appointment and the conditions
; under which he had to work. At home he was con-
stantly subject to intrigues connected with the vicissi-
tudes of English politics. His position was coveted
by other men who were anxious for an opportunity
to try their fortunes in official life in America, and
who exerted more or less constant pressure upon the
leading ministers to secure an appointment. Each
governor was thus under the necessity of keeping the
good will of the secretary of state through whom he
had secured his appointment or by whom he could
be removed.

r More important, however, and farther reaching
in its influence was the effect of these attacks upon his
position in his government. British administrative
control of the American colonies centered in the exec-

'^^ See the case of the suspension of Jonathan Rutherford from the
council of North Carolina. In this case the Board confirmed the action of
Governor Dobbs in removing him, without even awaiting his defense, and
maintained that its action was justified. See: Board of Trade to the Com-

DIFFICULTIES OF ADMINISTRATION 155

utiye, and anything which weakened the position of
the executive was certain to weaken the control by
the home government.

Sent over with instructions requiring him to keep
administrative affairs closely under his own supervi-
sion, and which if followed would have prevented any
growth of independence on the part of the colonies,
he found he could not even secure his own salary, ex-
cept on such conditions as the assemblies chose to
make with him. His commission made him com-
mander of the military forces, but he found none to
command, none even to protect him from insult. Such
military stores as existed were the property of the
assembly and were controlled by it. If the militia
was needed in any emergency, the money for its sup-
port had to be voted by the local legislature,
and too often the entire control of it was as-
sumed by that all powerful body. Instead of being
independent, he found that the few powers he still
had were slowly but surely slipping from him, and
there was a constant temptation to bargain them away
for what he could get. Under such conditions it was
of the greatest importance for imperial purposes that
the governor should have the most constant and un-
qualified support by the home officials. It was at
this point that the system of divided responsibility
showed its greatest weakness.

Each governor had to contend with more or leis
intractable elements. If he observed his instructions,
he had to face strong opposition, which sometimes

mittee of the Privy Council, July a8, 1758, in North Carolina Colonial
Records, vol. v, 959-96a

156 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

centered in his own council,*" sometimes in the as-
sembly, and at times in both. It was always an easy
matter for the opposition to find grounds for com-
plaints against him. These complaints were referred
to the Board of Trade for investigation, which al-
ways gave the governor an opportunity to deny the
charges and justify his conduct. But it took his time,
and it cost money. As he could not go to England
to defend himself, he was nearly always required to
maintaiq an agent in London to look after his interests
and protect him from attacks.*" Sometimes this agent
was paid by the assembly but more frequently by the
governor himself, and at times he even had to face
complaints which were prosecuted by the assembly
through its own paid agent in London. Under such
conditions, any rumors of lack of support by the home
government rendered the position of the governor
doubly difficult and increased the opposition to him.
Governor Bellomont found it necessary to convince
the factions in New York that he had the full sup-
port of the Board of Trade and the king."^ Hunter
was subject to constant attacks and intrigues for his

845 Such was the situation when Bellomont entered upon his adminis-
tration in New York. See his correspondence, in New York Colonial
Documents, vol. iv, passim,

849 Not only did the interests of the governor require the presence of an
agent in London, but the Board of Trade insisted that he maintain one. In
a letter to Governor Hunter in 17x3 concerning the taking out of the orders
for the appointment of members of the council it said: "If you had an
agent here, we could send to him to do it, but as you have none, we do not
know how long the orders may lie before they are dispatch'd to you. This
shows 3rou the necessity of having an agent for each of your governments,
and we desire therefore that you use your utmost endeavours to get such a
one established.'' — New Jersey Archives, vol. iv, 183. See other letters on
pages 375, 388, and passim,

•*^ New York Colonial Documents, vol. iv, 395.

DIFFICULTIES OF ADMINISTRATION 157

removal, but his actions were finally fully approved
in England, the news of which apparently greatly de-
creased the activity of his opponents.*"

The most striking illustration of the effect upon the
position of the governor of lack of support by the
home officials is that of Belcher in New Jersey. It
was confidently expected that he would lose his posi-
tion, and people were awaiting news of the appoint-
ment of his successor; consequently he was helpless, as
he could get no effective support from either council
or assembly. In the meantime rioters held control
of a considerable portion of the colony and prevented
the courts from sitting."' That was the situation of
affairs when Halifax secured an extraordinary meet-
ing of the Board for the consideration of conditions
in that colony.**^

Governor Burrington of North Carolina also found
his difficulties greatly increased on account of the
real or fancied opposition of Martin Bladen. He
says in one of his letters to Newcastle that his enemies
are confidently asserting that his recall is imminent.**^
Governor Sharpe of Maryland, in his long struggle
with his assembly over financial affairs, could not con-
vince that body that the authorities in London really
supported him, and it took a letter from the secretary
of state himself to convince the assembly that it would

848 ^(^ York Colonial Documents, vol. v, 173, 405-4x1, and passim. See
also the efforts to secure an act of Parliament in his behalf.

s^* New Jersey Archives, vol. vi, passim, especially the letters of Morris,
Partridge, Alexander, and Paris.

'BO See the report of the Board of Trade, June i, 1750, in New Jersey
Archives, vol. vii, 466-528.

SSI Korth Carolina Colonial Records, voL iii, 437.

158 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

not receive enough support from that source to force
Sharpe and his council to give way."'

Illustrations could be multiplied, for almost every
governor had to face the problem. After the ap-
pointing and investigating powers were consolidated
in the hands of the Board, the difficulty does not ap-
pear to have been so great, but the mischief was al-
ready done. A half century of such conditions had
resulted in a serious situation for the empire. The
hands of the executive had been weakened by lack of
support and even by opposition in England at the
very time that the assembly was usurping the whole
field of government within each colony.

The Rise of the Assembly

The greatest problem before the Board of Trade,
however, was not one of poor communications, of
divided responsibility, nor of lack of power to issue
orders unchecked. Its greatest task was to operate a
constitution which contemplated what was really an
impossible form of government. The constitution of
the royal province was embraced in the commissions
and instructions of the governors, which corresponded
to the charters in the proprietary and charter colonies,
and regularly supplanted them as the proprietary
colonies were transformed into royal provinces.

The commissions and instructions contemplated a
government by a governor and a two-chambered leg-

8(^2 Egremont to Sharpe, July zo, 1762. "His Majesty has judged it
proper to direct me to express His sentiments on the conduct of the assembly
of your province, which you will make known to them in the manner you
shall judge most expedient for the King's service, in order that they may
not deceive themselves by supposing that their behavior is not seen here in
Its true light" — Sharpens Comspondenci, vol. iii, 63.

DIFFICULTIES OF ADMINISTRATION 159

islature, one chamber of which was to be elected by
the people and the other appointed by the crown. The
upper house acted as an executive and advisory coun-
cil for the governor, and was also supposed to have
as much voice in legislation as the lower house. All
executive power was vested in the governor and his
council, and the governor had a veto on all legisla-
tion.'"

Aside from the somewhat insignificant sums real-
ized from quit rents, all public money had to be raised
by taxation on votes of the assembly. The money so
raised should have been lodged with the receiver-gen-
eral appointed by the crown, and should have been
paid out on warrants drawn by the governor in coun-
cil."* Thus while the assembly voted the taxes, it had
nothing to do with their expenditure.

Such was the constitution of New York in 1696 and
such continued' t(^4^e the constitution de jure of that
Knd the other rciji^I provinces. History has proved
that such a coiiatitution is unworkable for any great
le{igth of time, for the. power that grants the taxes
is bound sooner or later to control their expenditure.
The constitutional history of the American colonies

*^' Commission of Governor Bellomoot, in New York Colonial DocU'
mentSt vol. iv, 266-273, 284-292; instructions to George Burringtoni 1730^
in North Carolina Colonial Records, vol. iii, 90-1x8; instructions to Arthur
Dobbs, 1754, Ibid., vol. v, 1x07-1 144; instructions to Francis Bernard as
governor of Massachusetts, X758, in Greene's Provincial Governor, 234-260^

*^^ Bellomont's instructions: "You shall not suffer any publick money
whatsoever to be issued or disposed of otherwise than by warrant under
your hand, by and with the advice and consent of the council." — New York
Colonial Document, vol. iv, 286. This clause was later changed so as to
allow the assembly to examine the records of receipts and expenditures.
Instructions to George Burrington and to Arthur Dobbs, in North Carolina
Colonial Records, vol. iii, xoo^ vol. v, XXX5.

i6o AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

during the first half of the eighteenth century is a
history of the subversion of the constitution by the
growing ascendency of the colonial assemblies.

The financial power of the assembly was the device
by which the council was excluded from all effective
control over legislation, and by which the executive
powers of the governor and council were successfully
usurped. The process in all the colonies was essen-
tially the same, but the stages in the development of
the assumptions by the assembly are best seen in the
case of New York, where the movement began in the
administration of Combury. His mismanagement
and corrupt use of the public money led the assembly,
in 1704, to demand that money raised by taxation
should be lodged with its own treasurer who was ac-
countable only to the assembly itself.*" This proposal
involved a clear infraction of Cornbury's instruc-
tions.*" The council sought to amend the revenue
bill so as to remove this objection, but it was met by
the point blank assertion that the assembly would
permit no amendment of a money bill.*" As a conse-
quence of this difference of opinion, the money bill
failed; but the dangers to the colony made some pro-
vision necessary, and two years later the governor
and the council were forced to give way. The money
was raised, Abraham de Peyster was made treasurer,
commissioners were appointed to supervise the ex-

>^° Letter of Combury to the Board of Trade, New York Colonial Docu-
mentjf vol. iv, 1x45-1x49.

^* His instrucdons directed him ''not to permit any clause whatsoever
to be inserted in any law for levying money or the value of money, whereby
the same shall not be made liable to be accounted for unto us here in
England, and to our high treasurer or our commissioners for our treasury
for the time htmg^ — Ibid,

*^^ Combury says this is a "new Doctrine in this part of the world."

DIFFICULTIES OF ADMINISTRATION i6i

penditures, and the treasurer was directed to pay out
money, on their warrants and "by no other order
mandate or warrants whatsoever." '"

Cornbury reported the attempted encroachments
to the Board of Trade in 1705, but the members of
that bureau did not fully grasp the significance of the
movement. They answered him as follows :

The assembly was very much to blame in disputing the
council's amendments in that bill, for that the council has
undoubtedly as much to do in the forming of bills for the
granting and raising of money as the assembly, and conse-
quently have a right to alter or mend any such money bills as
well as the assembly. In other Her Majesty's plantations, the
assemblies do not pretend to the sole right of framing money
bills, but admit of the council's amendments to such bills, as
there may be occasion. No assembly in the plantations oug^t
to pretend to all the privileges of the House of Commons in
England, which will no more be allowed them, then it would
be to the council, if they should pretend to all the privileges
of the House of Lords here.*"*

The letter went on to say that the assembly might be
permitted to have its own treasurer when it raised
extraordinary taxes, and that in such cases receipts
could be used instead of warrants from the governor
in council.**®

The point once gained by the assembly was never
surrendered. Money continued to be raised and
lodged with the treasurer instead of with the receiver-
general, and the receipt of the party to whom the

^^^ Act for raising three thousand pounds for the defense of the city of
New York, passed October 2x, 1706, cited in New York Colonial Laws, vol.

i, 596.

*°® New York Colonial Documents, vol. iv, xzyz-xxya.

^*® In such cases the instructions required the treasurer to be accountable
to the officers of the treasury in England. See clause 30 of the instructions
to Dobbs, in North Carolina Colonial Records, vol. v, 1116.

i62 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

money was paid was the only warrant which was re-
quired or allowed."^ In some cases the troops were
paid on the presentation of their muster rolls, and in
171 1 even the governor was paid his salary on his own
receipt.*" The act of 171 3, levying import duties to
pay the ordinary charges of government, lodged the
proceeds of such duties with the receiver-general but
made that officer accountable to the treasurer.*" In
the final settlement two years later, the assembly al-
lowed the ordinary expenses of government to be paid
out on warrants of the governor in council, but Hunter
had to consent to the issue of bills of credit and to the
treasurer becoming the sole custodian of the public
taxes.*** The arrangements of that year were reen-
acted from time to time until the administration of
Lieutenant-governor Clarke. When the last five-
year revenue act expired in 1737,*** that gentleman
was engaged in a quarrel with his assembly over the
question of accounts, consequently no appropriation
bill was passed for two years.*** Finally in 1739, the

**^ See the acts of 1708, 1709, 17x1, 17x3, in New York Colonial Laws^
vd. i, 607, 628, 654, 66% 693, 74^, 8x2.
«e« — /^|-^.^ yjo, 753.

*^ New York Colonial Laws, vol. i, 779-78a It seems a curious anomaly
that the receiver-general of the province should be made accountable to an
officer who was himself not accountable to the crown.

**^ — Ibid^ 847-858. This involved two violations of his instructions,
one in the issuing of bills of credit, the other in lodging public money with
an officer not accountable to the auditor^general in England. The power of
the governor and council to lay out the money was also limited by the oath
imposed on the treasurer not to issue any money except as provided for by
specific appropriation acts.

**BThe last five year act was passed in X732. See: New York Colonial
Laws, vol. ii, 768-806.

*** A tax bill was passed in X737, but the last clause forbade the treas-
urer to disburse the money until an appropriation bill had been passed.
Ibid,, i<yji.

DIFFICULTIES OF ADMINISTRATION 163

governor and council had to give way and accept a
bill on the terms offered by the assembly. This bill
constitutes a landmark in the growing power of the
assembly. Salaries of officers were ordered paid by
name and amount; **^ and as the bill was an annual
one, the governor was practically forced to select of-
ficers who were acceptable to the assembly or that
body would grant them no salaries.

The power to issue public money had been taken
from the governor and council in 1706; and while it
was partly restored in 171 5, it could only be exer-
cised according to the specifications of the appropria-
tion acts. In 1739 all control over expenditures was
taken away and the treasurer ordered to accept re-
ceipts as vouchers.'** In addition the assembly had
used the money bill as a means of controlling appoint-
ments. This result had been achieved by the exclu-
sion of the council from all power to amend a revenue
measure; for had the power of amendment been pre-
served, the most objectionable features of these bills
might have been eliminated. '

The Board of Trade was not allowed to remain
ignorant of the change which was taking place, as
Hunter besieged it with complaints and appeals for
assistance.*** It assured him again and again of its
hearty support and that the council was a coordinate
branch of the legislature with full power to amend
any bill laid before it, that the assembly had no rights
other than those given by the commission and instruc-

««T New York Colonial Laws, vol. Hi, sS-sa

>*® Except the salaries of the governor and the other chief officers of the
colony, for which warrants were to be issued by the governor in counciL

>** See his numerous letters to the Board, in New York Colomal DocU'-
menUj vol. v, passim.

[64 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

jiions of the governor, and that '^the assuming a right
^no ways inherent in them, is a violation of the consti-
■tution of the government of that province and is
derogatory to her Majesty's royal prerogative." *''^
Such opinions, however, were futile unless they were
backed by actions. Hunter had seen this and had
asked for a settlement by act of Parliament, and added
"that if the remedy for these evils be long delay'd it
may cost more than the province is worth." A bill to
establish by act of Parliament a permanent civil list
for the colony was prepared, but for some reason it
was never introduced ; * consequently Hunter was
left to make the best terms he could with his all-pow-
erful assembly.

That body having once acquired a privilege never
surrendered it. The appropriation bill continued to
be drawn in the form of that of 1739. The governor

*^^ Letter of the Board of Trade to Governor Hunter, June Z2, 17x2, in
New York Colonial Documents, vol. v, 333, 359. The effect of the example
of New York upon the action of the other colonies was also considered.
''Most of them have already shewn too much inclination to assume pretended
rights tending to an independency on the crown of Great Britain."

* Two attempts were made to secure a settlement by act of Parliament,
one in 17x1, another in 17x3. See the letters of the Board to Governor
Hunter and Dartmouth. There is a manuscript copy of this bill among the
Newcastle papers. It states that, whereas the general assembly of New York
had enacted a general revenue act for two years, beginning May, X693,
which was afterward extended to May, X709; and whereas, upon frequent
application to the assembly it had refused to grant other subsidies sufficient
to run the government, in spite of the fact that four companies of soldiers
and many ships of war were maintained at the expense of the crown for
their defense ; the Commons of Great Britain, being desirous that a revenue
should be settled in that province upon her Majesty, sufficient to defray the
expenses of that government and equal to what had formerly been granted,
grant that the following rates should hereafter be maintained. Then fol-
lows a detailed customs act in apparently the same form as the former rev-
enue act See: British Museum Additional Manuscripts, 33028, ff. 23 -3 x;
New York Colonial Documents, vol. v, 285, 359.

DIFFICULTIES OF ADMINISTRATION 165

was permitted, however, to issue warrants for the pay-
ment of those officers who were appointed directly
by the crown, although their names and salaries con-
tinued to be inserted in the appropriation bill. A
small contingent fund of one hundred pounds was
also placed at the disposal of the governor."^

The war from 1744 to 1748 only tended to expand
the functions of the assembly. Large sums were
needed for military purposes, but their expenditure
was always kept closely in the hands of the assembly
or its commissioners.*" Even the control of the troops
was practically assumed. Governor Clinton could
not resist as long as the war lasted, but at its conclu-
sion he entered into a struggle to regain the executive
functions which had been assumed by the assembly.
He, too, made continuous appeals to the Board of
Trade, and to the secretary of state for the Southern
Department.*^* These resulted in an investigation by
the Board, which was begun in 1750 and continued
for more than a year. The report of this investiga-
tion is a most complete statement of the gradual sub-
version of the whole constitution by the assembly, and
its exclusion of the governor and council from all con-
trol over the administration.*^*

The movement by which the council was steadily
excluded from the field of financial legislation was
not confined to New York, but extended practically
to all the colonies. Mr. Lewis Morris, in a letter to

^^^ New York Colonial Laws, vol. iii, 996.

^^^ See the various acts providing for the defense of the colony, in New
York Colonial Laws, vol. iii, 442, 450, 452, 528, 577, 634, 660, 700^ 733.

>7s See his letters, in New York Colonial Documents, vol. vi, 305, 307, 352.

*^^ See the report with the abstract of the evidence, in New York Colonial
Documents, vol. vi, 6x4-703.

i66 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

Sir Charles Wager in 1739, says that the assembly of
New Jersey

When they rais'd any money by act have pretended a right not
to admit the council to amend a money bill and the council on
the other side have insisted on a right to amend any bill if
they thought fit; tho* they often dedin'd doing of it rather
than hazard the support of ye government.*^'

In the case of the bill disposing of the interest on the
money accruing from the loanf scheme, the council
determined to amend it and asked tor a conference.
The assembly "declar'd it to be inconsistent both with
the interest of the province and the priveleges of
their house to admit of any alterations to be made in
it" Morris concludes, "the excluding one of the
branches of the legislature I conceived to be a matter
of too dangerous tendency and too open an attempt
on the constitution for me to let pass unnoticed." The
next year a bill granting two thousand pounds for
transporting troops to the West Indies provided that
the sum should be disbursed by commissioners. The
council obtained a conference, but the assembly would
permit no alteration in what they called a money
bill.*^* The assembly's control over the treasurers in
that colony was just as absolute as it was in New York.
Their accounts were audited by a joint committee of

•^* New Jersey Archives, vol. vi, 63.

t79 xhe /luarrel over land titles, resulting in the disorders and riots of
Belcher's administration, furnishes several other illustrations. In 1749 the
council sought to amend a bill for the support of government. The assembly
resolved that ''the Council had no right to amend any money bill whatever,
and therefore rejected the said amendments and sent the Council a message
that they look'd upon the mending of said bill to be a manifest infringement
upon the rights and privileges of the House of Assembly and those they
represented." -. Report of the Board on the state of New Jersey, June i, X750>
in New Jersey Archives^ vol. vii, 466-528.

DIFFICULTIES OF ADMINISTRATION 167

the two houses, but the majority of that committee
was always made up of the assembly members.'" The
assembly also used its powers to grant money as a
weapon for making itself dominant in executive af-
fairs, especially in all military operations.

Massachusetts exhibits a similar practice. Condi-
tions there can best be described by quoting from
Governor Shute's memorial to the Board in 1723. He
says that on his arrival in the province in 171 6 he
found the house of representatives possessed of all the
powers of the House of Commons of Great Britain
and much greater, as it had the power to select, once
a year, the members of the council. It also had the
power to fix the salaries of the governor and lieuten-
ant-governor, which it did every half year.

By appointing the salary of the treasurer every year they have
full control over that office, which they often use to intimidate
the treasurer from obeying the proper orders for issuing
money, if such are not agreeable to their views. . • Not
content with the privileges they enjoy by virtue of their
charter, they have for some years been making attempts upon
the few prerogatives remaining to the crown.

The following are instances : The house of represen-
tatives tried to refuse his power of a negative in the
choice of its speaker. It voted a public fast, ^'a thing
never attempted by their predecessors," as "that power
was vested in the governors of that and all other
provinces in America." It adjourned itself and re-
fused to meet on the day to which the governor pro-
rogued it.

^^^ On this joint committee, the anembly appointed five members, diree
of whom constituted a quorum ; the council appointed three, two being neces-
sary to act. See : New Jersey Archives^ vol. xvii, 248.

i68 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

Tho the charter as well as Governor's commission gives
to the governor the command of all forts in the province, and
the power of building and demolishing such forts, the House
voted a committee to go down to Castle William and take an
account of all the stores there, and receipts from the officers
for the same, without any application to me ; and in the same
n^anner, without my consent, ordered the treasurer to pay no
mpre subsistence to the officers and soldiers of Fort Mary at
Winter Harbor, and ordered that all the stores of war be re-
moved from thence to Boston. As this is the only fort that
can secure the fishing vessels in the eastern parts, the inhabi-
tant! to the number of one hundred and thirty-two petitioned
them to desist from the dismantling; which they did, and
ordered the fort to be supported. The people are thus taught
to address themselve<( to the Assembly, whereas they should
appeal to the Commander. . . The House voted to sus-
pend Mr. Moody, a major in the forces there, and that with-
out being paid, and sent their vote to the council for concur-
rence ; the council not concurring they ordered his pay to be
discontinued; when I expostulated, they sent me a message
justifying their proceedings in terms not usually used in ad-
dressing the Governor.

The House of Representatives order'd a committee to com-
mand the officers at the eastern and western parts of the
province, to draw out their forces and muster there; only
under colour of an order sign'd by their speaker . . .
[and the house] has been so far from returning to a just sense
of their duty -that they have, since my departure from the
province - repeated this unprecedented attempt, by pretending
to the power of drawing off the forces from the place where
they were. . . [And in the last session Governor Shute
had received no salary at all because of his attempts] to pre-
vent encroachments upon the Royal Prerogative.*^'

Although the Massachusetts council was much
more dependent upon the assembly, because of the
manner of its selection, than that of the other royal

»7a c.0. 5, 915, p,%66et seg.

(

DIFFICULTIES OF ADMINISTRATION 169

provinces, the popular house showed the same jeal-
ousy of its control over finance. While the council
not infrequently managed to secure changes in a rev-
enue or appropriation bill, the control of accounts
was in the hands of the house of representatives. Gov-
ernor Belcher in 1732 shows his appreciation of the
danger involved in the practice.

If every account of the province must be subjected to a House
of Representatives, the king's governor will be of very little
signification. They that have the controul of the money will
certainly have the power ; and I take the single question on this
head to be, whether the king shall appoint his own governor,
or whether the House of Representatives shall be governor of
the Province.'^*

His warning bore no fruit and the lower house con-
tinued its encroachments. No branch of executive
authority escaped, and in time of war the control and
payment of the forces was directed by the agents of
the House of Representatives instead of by the gov-
ernor."®

In Maryland there was a permanent revenue suf-
ficient for the ordinary charges of government, but
wholly inadequate in time of war. There, as else-
where, the council could refuse but was unable to
amend a money bill. The colony was unable to play
any important part in the French and Indian War
because of the disputes between the council and the
assembly.'" The former could not accept the bill as
offered, and the latter would permit no change."*

«^* Belcher Papers, vol. i, aay.

^^^ MaMachusetts Acts and Resolves, vol. iv, 95-96 ; Hutchinson, Thomii.
History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, vol. Hi, 66; Greene, Evarts
B. Provincial Governor, x89-x9a

'^^ See Sharpe's Correspondence, vols, i, ii, iii, passim.

>®' In a letter of April 2$, 1762, to Secretary Egremont, Sharpe, in speak-

I70 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

Governor Sharpe in a letter to Calvert in 1756 says:
"It would be thought a little irregular for the Upper
House to offer amendments to a money bill." '" This
remark shows it was a well recognized custom of the
constitution to leave financial affairs to the exclusive
control of the assembly.

The Pennsylvania council had very doubtful legis-
lative powers; and although it acted in a very similar
capacity to the councils of the other colonies, the as-
sembly never recognized it as a coordinate branch of
the legislature.'" It is not surprising that it was ex-
cluded from all control over financial affairs ; yet F. J.
Paris says, "The assembly taking upon themselves,
solely, to grant, apply issue, and pay the money, is
very irregular." *"

In 1755 the assembly did something still more ir-
regular, for on a resolve, without the knowledge or
consent of the governor, it authorized a committee of
its own members to borrow any sum up to five thou-
sand pounds on the credit of the house."* Two months
later when Governor Morris vetoed a bill creating

ing of the failure of the money bill eight tiroes before refused by the upper
house, says it was "because in their opinion it was calculated to introduce
such innovations in our constitution as would create the greatest confusion
and disorder, sacrifice a part of the inhabitants to the humour of the rest
and invest the lower house of Assembly with executive powers which have
been hitherto exercised by other branches of our legislature." _ Sharpens
Correspondence, vol. iii, 47.

••• — Ibid., vol. i, 419.

*•* See: Shepherd, Wm. Proprietary Government in Pennsylvania, part ii,
chaps, iv, V.

>^" Letter to R. Peters, in Pennsylvania Archives, first series, vol. i, 628.

>^' Letter of Governor Morris to Secretary Robinson, January 30, 1755.
He concludes, "if a house of assembly by their own authority, without the
consent or approbation of a governor, can borrow and dispose of money as
they think proper, they may hereafter use that power in a nunner inconsistent

DIFFICULTIES OF ADMINISTRATION 171

twenty-five thousand pounds in bills of credit, the
house, on its own responsibility, and again without
consulting the governor, issued notes of credit to the
extent of ten thousand pounds.'" In the face of such
action any attempt to thwart the power of the assem-
bly was vain. Yet it was but the logical step in such
a case, and the other assemblies might just as appro-
priately have taken similar action. It only remained
for the Pennsylvania assembly deliberately to cor-
rupt the governor, which it did most successfully, and
in that way secured whatever laws it desired.*"

In North Carolina the power of the lower house
over revenue had developed under the proprietary
government, and the crown acquired that difficulty
by purchase, along with the other proprietary rights,
^he treasurer was an appointee of the assembly and
was responsible to that body.*'* The council was rep-
resented on a joint committee, similar to that in New
Jersey, but the members from that house had no real

with the publick good, and the jutt dependence of thii province upon the
crown." -. Pennsylvania Archives^ first series, vol. ii, 25a

••^Morris to Robinson, April 9, 1755, in Pennsylvania Archives^ first
series, vol. ii, 284.

388 Governor Denny like all governors was under bond to observe Jiis
instructions. He signed the law taxing the proprietary estates on condition
that the assembly indemnify him for his bond, which would thereby become
forfeited. See: Shepherd, Wm. Proprietary Government in Penmyhania^
456-461 ; Sharpens Correspondence, voL ii, 178, 344, 351.

*^* Edward Mosley, who was for so long a time treasurer and speaker
of the assembly, sa3rs in a letter to Governor Burrington, April 13, 1733:
"To the best of my remembrance for upwards of twenty-eight years I have
been concerned in the publick affairs of this province. The constant prac-
tice has been for the assembly to appoint the treasurers and gatherers of
money raised by the assembly. And this was always the practice before as
far as I can learn by those journals and acts of assembly which I have seen
nor do I remember to have met with any precedents to the contrary." —
Nordi Carolina Colonial Records, vol. iii, 49a

172 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

voice in auditing the accounts.*"^ The council was
also denied the right to amend money bills, and
money was issued on the letter of the speaker, even
after the governor had refused his warrant.

South Carolina offers little that is new, as the as-
sembly there was practically supreme. By a law of
1 72 1, which was apparently never disallowed, prac-
tically all officers were to be appointed by the lower
house,**^ which made the constitution very little dif-
ferent from that of Massachusetts. South Carolina
developed the committee system to the fullest extent;
if there were forts to be built, troops to be raised, pro-
visions to be bought, Indians to be treated with, or
any other ordinary executive act to be performed,
commissioners were appointed for the purpose. This
left comparatively little for the council and the gov-
ernor to do.

So wide spread in fact was the tendency of the as-
semblies to assume new powers and to usurp the ex-
ecutive functions of government, that the Board of
Trade, in 1730, sought to check it by instructions to
the governors. In those issued to Governor Burring-
ton of North Carolina the fourteenth clause was as
follows :

S9oxhe assembly "receive the accounts from the treasurers and pretend
to keep all the vouchers which the assembly pass or reject at their pleasure,
I may say exclusive of the council which they do by the majority of the
vmces of a joint committee from the two houses which generally consists of
two members of the council and six or eight of the lower house in two
separate committees of claims and accounts and tho the members of the
council should dissent they are outvoted and the report is made by the ma-
jority and agreed to by the Assembly." ^ Letter of Governor Dobbs to the
Board of Trade, December, 1761, in North Carolina Colonial Records^
vol. vi, 619.

>®^ South Carolina Statutes at Large,

DIFFICULTIES OF ADMINISTRATION 173

And whereas the members of several assemblies in the planta-
tions have frequently assumed to themselves privileges no way
belonging to them especially of being protected from suits at
law during the term they remain of the assembly . . •
and some have presumed to adjourn themselves at pleasure
without leave from our governor first obtained and others have
taken upon them the sole framing of money bills refusing to
let the Council alter or amend the same all which are very
detrimental to our prerogative. If upon your calling an
assembly in North Carolina you find them insist upon any of
the abovesaid privileges you are to signify to them that it is
our will and pleasure you do not allow [them any unusual
immunity from arrest, nor permit them to adjourn, except
from day to day, unless by consent of the governor, and that]
the council have the like power of framing money bills as the
assembly.'**

This clause continued to be inserted in the instruc-
tions to the governors of North Carolina, but as has
been shown, was powerless to accomplish its purpose.
It is not the purpose of this monograph to describe
in detail the extent to which the assembly had ac-
quired control of affairs. It is only intended to point
out the actual change in the colonial constitutions in

^ half a century, by which the center of gravity of colo-
nial administration had been shifted from England
to America. The Board of Trade had exercised what

j authority it could by directions given to the governors
and by controlling them, their councils, and the chief
law officers. The assemblies had usurped the chief

. functions of the first two, and had made the last de-
pendent upon the popular house for their salaries.***

^^2 North Carolina Colonial Records^ vol. iii, 93-94.

s^s The attempt was made to use the power over salaries to regulate the
form of the judges' commissions. See: Cadwallader Golden papers, in New
York Historical Society, Collections^ vol. ix, 159 and passim \ New Jersey

^ . *■

174 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

The change had lifted into power a body of men who
were able to put forth the entire power of the prov-
ince and over whom the Board could exercise no
efficient control.

The far reaching effect of the actual change which
had taken place can hardly be exaggerated. Gov-
ernment rests ultimately upon force, and that no long-
remained in the hands of British officials. As
long as the governor and council had control of ex-
\.^ penditureSy it was possible to exert force when neces-

I ^ sary, but the absence of money paralyzed all efforts

which were not supported by the lower house. The
^\^ trade laws could not be enforced because there was

no fund to employ attorneys to prosecute offenders.
Officers refused or neglected to make reports to the
govemor, because they were not responsible to him.'**
Riots and insults to the executive could not be sup-
pressed or prevented for lack of money to pay a mili-
tary force.**' There could be no secret service, no
central police, no standing military force. The mi-
litia was practically useless on account of lack of
munitions and supplies or funds to purchase them,*"'
consequently the frontiers could not be protected in
an emergency.

Archives^ vol. ix, 34.6-347, 348-34.9, 350, 360, 364; North Carolina Colonial
Records^ vol. vi, 900; New York Colonial Documents^ vol. vii, 470, 483,

503, 505, S^7'

^^^ See the letters of the governors in answer to requests from the Board
of Trade for information, in the colonial records of New York, New Jersey,
and North Carolina.

*•* See the riots in New Jersey, cited in New Jersey Archives^ vol. vii,
passim,

*** See the letters of Govemor Clinton of New York for a description
of the method of keeping the supplies of munitions in its own hands and ita
practice of selling any surplus of gunpowder, in New York Colonial Docu'
ments, vol. vi, passim.

DIFFICULTIES OF ADMINISTRATION 175

The governors were also powerless to carry out the
Indian policy of the Board of Trade, which would
have required some kind of police to protect the In-
dians against illegal traders and unscrupulous adven-
turers. A force was necessary to protect the whites
against violence and compel the Indians to observe
their treaties. Attorneys and courts would also have
been required to prevent the whites from encroaching
upon the Indian lands, and for breaking illegally ac-
quired titles."" Almost every policy which the Board
attempted to carry out under the efficient administra-
tion of Halifax - and the Board was efficient at that
time ~ failed, because the officers in America had sur-
rendered their control of financial affa irs. The fact
was the colonies Tiad secured the power to govern
themselves so far as internal matters were concerned.

It has been said that Grenville lost the American
colonies because he read the dispatches,*** which im-
plies that before his administration the dispatches
were not read. That is far from the truth, as Halifax
knew the real situation in America in 1750, and was
thoroughly in earnest about checking the movement.'**
Although it cannot be shown that the extensions of
authority given to the Board were due to the needs
of a more vigorous administrative policy in the plan-
tations, nevertheless that change marks the beginning
of what may well be termed a fighting ministry, so

^^^ See chapter vi for details of the Indian policy of the Board of Trade.

<*9 Quoted by Egertoo in his History of British Colonial Policy, 179.

'®* See the letter of F. J. Paris to James Alexander, July 4, 1748, for an
account of the keen interest taken by Halifax in New Jersey a£Fair% in New
Jersey Archives, vol. vii, 295. See also the numerous re pre s entations of the
Board to the king, Ibid,, vols, viii, ix, passim; New Yoik Colonial Docu-
ments, vols, vi, vii, passim.

lU AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

The change had lifted into power a body of men who
were able to put forth the entire power of the prov-
ince and over whom the Board could exercise no
efficient control.

The far reaching effect of the actual change which
had taken place can hardly be exaggerated. Gov-
ernment rests ultimately upon force, and that no long-
^^.^.ar remained in the hands of British officials. As
-^ long as the governor and council had control of ex-
V penditures, it was possible to exert force when neccs-

J sary, but the absence of money paralyzed all efforts

^; which were not supported by the lower house. The

^^^A;^,^^ trade laws could not be enforced because there was

? '■'v^-- 10 ^und to employ attorneys to prosecute offenders.

( .^ Officers refused or neglected to make reports to the

governor, because they were not responsible to him.***
Riots and insults to the executive could not be sup-
pressed or prevented for lack of money to pay a mili-
tary force."* There could be no secret service, no
central police, no standing military force. The mi-
litia was practically useless on account of lack of
munitions and supplies or funds to purchase them,*"
consequently the frontiers could not be protected in
an emergency.

Archwti, Y<A. k, J44-347, J4B-J49, 350, ]6o, ]64; North Ciroliaa CohnUt
Rttordi, vtA. vi, 900; N«w Yoik Cahmal Documenlt, vol. vii, 4.7^ 4.S],
503. SOS. Sa?-

'** See the lettcn of the goremara in imwer to request! from the BoanI
of Tnde for inforniition, in the colonial record* of New York, New Jeti«Ti
and North Carolina.

'*• See the rioM in New Jeney, ciled in New Jersey Arthivei, yoI. vii,

'** See the letten of Governor Clioton of New York for a description
of the method of keepiDK the aupplin of munitiona in ita own hiodi and ttl
practice of aelling anr tnrplu* of gunpowder, in New York Colonial £
menu, voL vi, pajtim.

DIFFICULTIES OF ADMINISTRATION 177

blies, and did not dare endanger the success of the
English arms by entering upon a prolonged struggle
with that body. The Board of Trade also realized
this necessity and instructed Governor Hardy of New
York not to press the question of a permanent revc-
nue,*°* but at the same time it by no means counte-
nanced continued encroachments upon the preroga-
tive. Governor Bernard of New Jersey received the
following warning on this point:

By the nature and form of the laws pass'd in New Jersey,
all those powers and prerogatives of the crown on the one
hand and the security to the rights and properties of the sub-
ject on the other, are set aside. Commissioners are appointed
for carrying into execution, independent of the governor, all
the purposes of the acts. The treasurers are authorized and
directed to issue into their hands whatever sums they shall
require, without the warrant or interposition of the governor,
and those commissioners and other officers are made account-
able to the assembly only. . . Such proceedings as these,
must, in the end terminate in a total disarrangement of gov-
ernment.*®'

Other colonies were offending in the same way.
Only a few months before the letter just quoted, the
Board called the attention of Governor Pownall to
irregularities in the Massachusetts laws.

The facts resulting from an examination into the acts

^o^The Board instructed him that in the "present situation of aflFaira,
when peace and unanimity and a good understanding between his governor
and the people, are so absolutely necessary for the good of the service, to
direct that you should not press the establishment of a perpetual revenue for
the present, and to allow and permit you to assent to such temporary bills
as the Assembly shall, from time to time form and pass for the support of
government.'' ^ Board to Hardy, March 4, 1756, in New Yoik Colonial
Documents, vol. vii, 40W

^^^ Board of Trade to Francis Bernard, February 8, 1759, in New Jersey
Archives, vol. is, 155.

178 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

and proceedings of the Council and House of Representa-
tives . . . are such as convince us that the dependence
which by the constitution the colony ought to have upon the
executive part of the government of the mother country and
the sovereignty of the crown stands upon a very precarious
foot and that unless some effectual remedy is at a proper time
applied, it will be in great danger of being totally set aside.

From these facts it appears that almost every act of execu-
tive and legislative power, whether it be political, judicial, or
military is ordered and directed by votes and resolves of the
general court, in most cases originating in the House of Rep-
resentatives to which all applications, petitions and representa-
tions are addressed and where the resolves are drawn up and
prepared, and tho' we apprehend that such resolves are insuf-
ficient and invalid, without the concurrence of the Council in
the first instance and ultimately that of the governor, yet such
concurrence seems to be rather matter of form in proceeding
than essential and that the measure whatever it be derives its
effect and operation from die judgment and sense of the
House of Representatives.****

On account of the exigencies of the military situation,
however, the Board informed Pownall that the time
was not opportune for correcting the dangerous ten-
dencies summarized in its letter.

Illustrations of similar conditions could be drawn
from the other colonies,*®^ but enough have been cited
to show the general movement. In spite of protests

40« Massachusetts Acts and Resolves, vol. iv, 95.

407 «it is not only in the laws for providing for temporary services, that
they appear to deviate from the principles and practice established in this
kingdom; the annual act for the support of government is equally excep-
tionable in many parts, for we observe, that the salaries are payable to the
officers by name, and not for the time being, which has a direct tendency
to establish in the Assembly a negative in the nomination of those officers,
and that the said act does of itself create appointments of officers, that ought
to be appointed by commission from the governor." ~ Board to Governor
Franklin, July 13, 1764, in New Jersey Archives, vol. ix, 444.

DIFFICULTIES OF ADMINISTRATION 179

from governors and from the Board of Trade, and
in spite of frequent representations of the state of af-
fairs to the chief ministers, the assemblies steadily
extended their power. As long as war lasted no
remedy could be applied effectively, and peace was
looked forward to eagerly, because of the opportunity
it would give for combating the usurpations of the
assembly and restoring the constitution to its previous
form. This is shown by the frequent expressions
found in letters and communications of the governors
and of the Board of Trade.*** The specific remedy
which the latter had to offer is discussed in the next
chapter.

408 "I hope by the blewing of God we shall toon after this campaign
have a glorious peace, and then His Majesty will have no great demands
upon this province, which will prevent the encroachments of the assembly
upon the prerogative." — Governor Dobbs to the Board, May 18, 1759, in
North Carolina Coloniai Records^ vol. vi, 33.

IV. THE IMPERIALISTIC POLICY OF THE

BOARD OF TRADE

In the maze of administrative details of colonial
government there were the larger questions of the
relations of the colonies to the empire. Throughout
its history the Board of Trade displayed remarkable
consistency in dealing with these questions. Unaf-
fected by changing ministries, and in spite of its vary-
ing personnel and its lack of responsibility for long
periods of time, the Board held tenaciously to certain
principles of imperial government. It sought to pre-
serve the dependence of the colonies upon the home
government by retaining control of the executive and
the judiciary and by making the colonies conform to
one administrative type of government. Closely con-
nected with these schemes were its plans for protect-
ing the colonies by the creation of a central military
government in America, which could be used to main-
tain order and to protect the frontiers.

The question of a fixed civil list

Early in its history the Board realized that im-
perial interests required the establishment of a fixed
civil list in each colony. The question was not prom-
inent when the Board was organized, but soon became
so by conditions which developed in New York,
where unusual expenditures were required for de-
fense. The main source of income for a colonial

i82 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

government was the revenue derived from the import
and excise duties. These were granted to the crown
for terms of years, were lodged with the receiver-gen-
eral, and could be expended only on warrants issued
by the governor in council/®* So long as such an ar-
rangement existed, there was no necessity for a per-
manent law, nor could the payment of official salaries
by a grant of Parliament have made the governor
more independent, since all control of expenditures
was vested in the hands of the direct appointees of the
crown, who were responsible only to the British gov-
ernment for their actions. Under such conditions
there was no anomaly in the Board instructing the
governor what salary he and the other officers should
receive, nor in specifying exactly what sums each
colony should contribute to the common defense in
time of war.*'®

The revenue act in New York, which had been con-
tinued from 1 69 1 to 1709, had never yielded much
more than enough to pay the immediate expenses of
the civil establishment.*" The encroachments upon
the authority of the governor and council, through
the power of the assembly to control the unusual ex-
penditures caused by the war, had roused the Board to

^®*See the acts of 1692, 1699, i70>* These granted the revenue in
periods of six or three years. That of 1699 did not expire till May, i7o6»
yet it was continued by the act of 1702 until 1709. See: New York Colonial
Laws, vol. i, 287, 419, 517; New York Colonial Documents, vol. v, izi,
545-547. Cf. Spencer's Phases of Royal Government in New York, zoo- 107.

^^^ Had the revenue acts been permanent and all expenditures remained
at the option of the governor and council, Hunter's instructions would have
been a proper means for securing the cooperation of the other colonies.
See: New York Colonial Documents, vol. v, 138-139.

*^^ Report of Bellomont, in New York Colonial Documents, vol. iv, 319,
538, 602, 721. Cf. Spencer's Phases of Royal Government in New York,
100- Z06.

IMPERIALISTIC POLICY OF THE BOARD 183

a full realization of the danger involved.*" The rem-
edy was simple enough. If a permanent revenue
could be established, the assembly would no longer
have the means of extending its audiority, consequent-
ly Hunter was instructed to insist upon an act for
establishing such a revenue."'

Hunter arrived in New York in June, 17 10, with
this instruction and at the first session of the assembly
endeavored to secure a law in accordance with it. In
spite of all the influence he could exert, however, the
assembly would neither provide a permanent revenue
nor enact such a temporary law as he was permitted
to accept. He reported the refusal of the assembly
to conform to his instructions;"* whereupon the
Board at once took up the matter and in a represen-
tation to the queen recommended that a standing
revenue for the government of New York should be
established by act of Parliament.*" The recommenda-
tion met with the approval of the ministry, and the
Board was instructed to draw up heads of a bill for
that purpose,*" but for some reason the bill was never
presented to either house.*"

^^> See the letters of the Board to Combury and its reprcaentatioos to
the king» in New York Colonial Documents^ vol. iv, passim,

^^> His instructions, clause 34, provided, '^hat all laws whatsoever, for
the good govemnkent and support of the said province be made indefinite
and without limitation of time, except the same be for a temporary end,
and whidi shall expire and have its full e£Fect within a certain time."-
New York Colonial Documents, vol. v, 129.

*i* Hunter to the Board, in New York Colonial Documents, vol. v,
177, 183.

*i* New York Colonial Documents, vol. v, 190-193.

^1* Order in Council, March i, 17x1, in Board of Trade Journal, 22, pp.
254-255. There is a copy of the proposed law in British Museum AdM'
tional Manuscripts, 33028, ff. 23-31.

^^7 Hunter to the Earl of Stair, October x8, 17x4, in New Yoik Colomal

i84 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

In the meantime Hunter was encouraged by the
Board to persist in his struggle for a permanent set-
tlement and assured that it did not doubt ^^but proper
measures will be taken here for fixing that matter for
the future." "• Soon after Parliament assembled in
the following autumn another representation was laid
before the queen, which gave a very succinct state-
ment of the conditions in New York and the danger-
ous example it was setting for other colonies. ^^And
we having reason to believe from their proceedings
that they are not likely to settle such a revenue, we
humbly offer that provision be made in Parliament
here for that purpose." ""

This representation failed to accomplish its pur-
pose, as did a similar one some months later. No bill
was brought in, though the Board continued to en-
courage Hunter with promises of support. April i,
17 1 3, the whole matter, with a draft of a bill for a
permanent revenue, was laid before Dartmouth who,
from his long connection with the Board, must have
been familiar with the condition of affairs in the col-
onies.**® He approved the bill and directed the Board
to lay it before Parliament, but the session was so far
advanced that nothing was done.*" The Board, how-

Documentif vol. v, 451-453. The Board wrote Hunter that the bill could
not be presented on account of the early rising of Parliament

«is Board of Trade to Hunter, November 13, 17x1, in New York Colonial
DocumenU, vol. v, 285.

^^* Representation of the Board of Trade, in New York Colonial Docu-
ments, vol. V, 288.

«20 3oard of Trade to Dartmouth, in New York Colonial Documents,
vol. V, 359. Cf. Spencer's Phases of Royal Government in Nev) York,
137-139.

^2^ Board to Hunter, July 20, 1713, in New York Colonial Documents,
vol. V, 367.

IMPERIALISTIC POLICY OF THE BOARD 185

ever, promised Hunter that the matter would be
pushed at the next session.*"

In the meantime Hunter had despaired of securing
any help from England and had been forced to make
the best terms he could with his assembly. Early in
1 71 5 he secured a settlement for five years, and the
Board said no more about the bill. It is doubtful if
there was any intention of enacting the legislation
thus constantly demanded by the Board for five years,
and even Hunter's friends appear to have questioned
the expediency of the measure, since a permanent
revenue might have meant his own recall."' The
Board of Trade, however, was not disposed to aban-
don its demands and the instructions to Hunter were
renewed to his successors, but with no better results.

Instructions similar to those of the governor of
New York had been given to the governor of Massa-
chusetts, but the issue was not fought out there until
the arrival of Governor Burnet. His instructions,
which had originally been prepared for Governor
Shute, required the assembly to establish a fixed sal-
ary of at least one thousand pounds per annum on

4SS "You may be assured that now we have Her Majesty's commands as
aforesaid, we shall not fall at ye beginning of the next Parliament, to take
all the care possible that Her Majesty's oonomands for the future be no
more slighted by a people who owe their whole protection to Her Majesty's
goodnessw" -i New York Colonial Documents, voL v, 367.

^2* "Meanwhile I was left to beg my daily bread from a hard hearted
Assembly here, tho' Her Majesty, upon a representation from the Lords
of trade of the state and behaviour of this province had ordered a bill to
be drawn and laid before ye Parliament for settling the revenue here during
her life, which was accordingly drawn but never presented to either house.
Some of my friends wrote me word that they thought it was better for me
it should not pass, because if there was a revenue settled I might depend oo
being superseded." — Hunter to the Earl of Stair, October 18, 1714, in New
York Colonial Documents, vol. v, 451.

i86 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

threat of action by Parliament"* The assembly re-
fused to comply, and a bitter controversy ensued. Fi-
nally the matter was taken up by the Board, which
sustained the governor and, in a representation to the
Privy Council, asked that the matter be laid before
Parliament.

The action of the Board was approved by the min-
istry, and the impression given out that action by
Parliament was imminent; but it seems more than
probable that Newcastle had no intention whatever
of resorting to such drastic methods, and that the
threat was little more than an attempt to frighten
Massachusetts into doing what the Board demanded.
There is even evidence to indicate that he saw the
bluff would fail, and that the action which was finally
taken was in the direction of "saving the face" of the
administration.**"

The premature death of Burnet left the matter to
be settled by his successor, Jonathan Belcher, who
arrived in Boston in August, 1730, with even more

^*^ Instnicdooi of March 20, 1728, id CO. 5, 916; Massachusetts Acts
and Resolves^ vol. ii, 632 ; Palfrey's History of New England^ vol. iv, 50 ;
Greene's Provincial Governor^ 171-172 ; Hutchinson's History of Massachu-
setts, vol. iy chap, iii; A collection of the Proceedings of the Great and
General Court or Assembly of His Majesty's Province of Massachusetts
Bay, 41.

42B There is in the Public Record Office in London, an unsigned draft of
a letter to Burnet, dated June 26, 1729, which would seem to be from New-
castle, the substance of which follows:

"By my other letter and the copy of the Order in Council inclosed in
it, 3rou will plainly see it is the intention of the crown, that the affair of
settling a salary on you should be laid before the Parliament at their first
meeting, as it undoubtedly will, unless the House of Representation take
care to prevent it in time by complying with what is expected of them.
[It is hoped that things will not come to such a pass ; and, as luckily hap-
pens, they have a long time to consider better of it and may improve their

IMPERIALISTIC POLICY OF THE BOARD i8y

peremptory instructions than had previously been
given. By these he was forbidden to accept any gift
or present from the assembly on any account or in
any way whatsoever, upon pain of the king's highest
displeasure, except under an act fixing a permanent
salary of at least one thousand pounds sterling, free
from all deductions, to be constantly paid out of such
money as should, from time to time, be raised for the
support of the government."' If the assembly failed
to comply with this instruction, he was directed either
to proceed at once to England or send an agent, so
that the matter might be laid before Parliament."^

The assembly offered Belcher his salary in the cus-
tomary form of a temporary grant, but his instruc-
tions forbade his receiving it in that way. After con-
siderable delay he secured permission to accept the
grant, but was still directed to insist upon a permanent
establishment. This he was unable to get, conse-
quently the annual form of securing special permis-

opportunity.] Therefore I write you this letter at His Majesty's command,
so that you may try to bring them to a better temper, and make them realize
that this is the only way of recommending themselves to His Majesty's favor
and protection. Tho you were to insist upon their settling the salaries of
all future governors as well as your own» you are now at liberty to accept
a settlement for yourself only — but during the whole time of your goveror
ment, Her Majesty depends upon your skill and prudence to make use of
these hints to influence the Assembly to pay due obedience to His Majesty's
commands; but whatever you do is to come from yourself in private capacity,
so as not to appear like a new overture on the part of the crown, as if it
were not really intended to lay the matter before Parliament But in case
of their voluntary compliance and if it is done before Parliament meets, you
may let them know that you will use your endeavors to prevent any Par-
liamentary Enquiry." -. Board of Trade, America and West Indies, 5, p. 19.

**« Massachusetts Acts and Resolves, vol. ii, 633 ; Palfrey, John. History
of Nev3 England, vol. iv, chap. vi.

**^ Massachusetts Acts and Resolves, vol. ii, 633 ; Palfrey, John. History
of Neva England, vol. iv, chap. vi.

i88 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

sion to accept his salary was gone through with until
1735, when the permission was made general."*

That the idea of a permanent civil list was no mere
whim of the Board, but was one of its most funda-
mental policies, is seen in the action of Martin Bla-
den, who according to Belcher, constantly opposed
giving permission to accept the temporary grants of
the Massachusetts assembly/^ His opposition may
have been based upon personal grounds, but that is
not the only possible explanation. No doubt he would
have preferred to see the question settled once for all
in the interests of the empire, rather than postponed
from year to year; for as early as 1726, in his essay on
the colonies, he advocated a stamp tax for America,
the proceeds of which should go to establish a per-
manent civil list. In this way the question of salaries
could be settled and dangers of further encroachments
by the assembly removed."® This proposal was not ac-

^2* The reason given by the Board for recommending the withdrawal
of the former instruction regarding a fixed salary was that the charter
did not admit of any audi interpretation as the instruction implied. But in
recommending that the clause in question should be omitted, the Board again
pointed out that it would be much better to fix a salary on the governor,
payable out of some of the rc^al revenues from the plantations, ''By which
the governor will become entirely independent of the people, and no longer
laid under any temptation of giving up the prerogative of the crown or
sacrificing the interest of Great Britain to any private advantage." — CO. 5,

9X7» pp. X31-X32.

^^ Letter of Belcher to Richard Partridge, in Massachusetts Historical
Society Collections^ sixth series, vol. vi, 81-84.

4So«^]I that has been said with respect to the improvement of the
plantations will it is supposed signify very little unless a sufficient revenue
can be raised to support the useful expence, in order to which it is humbly
submitted whether the duties of stamps upon parchment and paper in
England may not with good reason be extended by act of Parliament to all
the American Plantations.'' ~ Bladen's ''A Short Discourse on the Present
State of the Colonies in America widi Respect to the Interest of Great
Britain, submitted to Secretary Townshend, 1726," in North Carolina Colo-

IMPERIALISTIC POLICY OF THE BOARD 189

cepted by the chief ministers, but it shows the attitude
of the most active member of the Board of Trade, who
was ready to resort to a method which offered the only
practical solution of the dilSiculty.

What has been said concerning a civil list for New
York applies in a general way to New Jersey, as the
instructions to the governors were essentially the
same. Those to Cornbury required the assembly to
settle forthwith ^'a constant and fixed allowance on
you, our govemour and lieutenant-governour for the
time being, suitable to their respective characters and
dignity, and that the same be done without limitation
of time." ^'^ Later he was especially instructed to re-
quire a settlement for twenty-one years, and failing in
that, to demand that it be for not less than eleven
years. He was compelled, however, to accept a grant
for two years, and afterwards for but one year.*"
Hunter and his successors, Montgomerie and Cosby,
were no more successful in securing what their in-
structions required.

The continued failure of the governors on this
point caused the Board of Trade to make the instruc-
tions still more specific. When New Jersey was sep-
arated from New York in 1738 and Lewis Morris
sent over as governor, the Board considered the time
opportune for securing its cherished object; there-
fore Morris was given instructions similar to those
sent to Governor Burnet of Massachusetts.

nial Records f vol. ii, 635. This discourse is identical with the one ascribed to
Sir William Keith, which was transmitted to the Board, December, 1728,
New Jersey Archives, vol. v, 2i4-23a

*^^ Special instructions as to salary, 1703, in New Jersey Archives, vol.

". 537-538.

*•* — Ibid^ vol. iii, 69-71, 99.

190 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

You are therefor to propose unto the Assembly at their first
meeting, after your arrival, and to use your utmost endeavours
with them that an act be pass'd for raising and settling a pub-
lick revenue for defraying the necessary charge of the govern-
ment of our said province, and that therein provision be par-
ticularly made for a competant salary, to yourself as captain
general and governor-in-chief of our said province, and to
other our succeeding captains-general for supporting the dignity
of the said office, as likewise due provision for the contingent
charges of our council and Assembly, and for the salaries of
the respective clerks and other officers thereunto belonging, as
likewise of all other officers necessary for the administration
of that government. [The salaries were to be a fixed annual
amount payable in sterling, and the governor was forbidden
to accept any presents or other remuneration on] pain of our
highest displeasure and of being recalled from that our gov-
ernment."*

In spite of these peremptory orders, Morris ob-
tained a settlement for only three years. In 1746 the
same instructions were given to Belcher, but he found
himself helpless on account of the riots in the prov-
ince, and was even less successful than his predeces-
sors had been. No action of importance was taken
by the Board until after the appointment of Halifax
as president. The condition of affairs in New Jer-
sey and New York had become so serious that the
Board made an investigation and reported its findings
with recommendations of proper remedies.

In its report on New Jersey, which appeared in
1750, the Board pointed out that the fundamental
weakness of the government was the dependence of
the executive upon the financial support of the assem-
bly. In accordance with its traditional policy, it

^^^ Instructions to Morris, clause 26, in New Jersey ArchiveSy vol. vi,
36-37.

IMPERIALISTIC POLICY OF THE BOARD 191

proposed to make the governor independent by grant-
ing him a fixed salary out of the British exchequer,
and as the riots in the province would require the
presence of some effective military force, it proposed
to place a sufficient number of regular troops at his
disposal to restore order.*** The recommendation,
however, was too radical for the ministry of the day
and no positive action was taken.

Within a year the Board made its elaborate report
on New York. Although the situation there was not
complicated with riots, as was the case in New Jersey,
conditions were serious. The difficulty there was also
one of revenue, and the Board proposed its regular
remedy of a permanent act, such as had been passed
in Jamaica. There is an intimation at the close of the
report that the only means of securing such an act
would be by action of the home government,*" which
was a step which the ministry was not prepared to
take.

Halifax apparently still had hopes of accomplish-
ing the desired end by means of instructions, and in
1752 the governors were ordered not to deviate from

*** See the report of the Board, June i, 1750, in New Jersey Archwtt,
vol. vii, 466-538.

*'B In oommenting on the action of the last assembly the report concludes:
'*But, my Lords, they have passed these Acts of supply in the same improper
manner, and with the same usurpations on the prerogative, and liable to
every objection, which induced Mr. Clinton in the year 1748, to dissolve the
Assembly, and leave the province without support rather than in a time of
peace, give his consent and sanction to such destructive encroachments upon
the legal and just prerogative of the crown . . . tho* the Assembly have
agreed to make some provision for the charges of Government, their usurpa-
tions on the prerogative are rather confirmed than regained by this last
meeting, and as great a necessity as ever remains for the councils of this
kingdom to interpose and take some measures, for the better settlement of
this most valuable and divided province." — New York Colonial Documents,
vol. vi, 638.

192 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

them "in any point, but upon evident necessity." The
passing of laws in a manner contrary to their instruc-
tions was given as the chief cause of the difficulties
which had developed in several colonies. "We must
therefore in a particular manner insist that in the
passing of all laws you have a proper regard to the
regulations contained in your instructions." *"

Clinton was soon relieved at his own request, and
Sir Danvers Osborn sent in his place. The instruc-
tions to the latter show the temper of Halifax; he
was to charge the assembly to recede from the unwar-
rantable assumptions, and require the enactment of a
permanent revenue.*" Furthermore, his instructions
would not have permitted him to accept a temporary
grant of revenue in any form,*" and the assembly was
literally to be forced to give way. He was also di-
rected at once to remove any member of his council
who should acquiesce in, or who should not actively
resist, encroachments from the assembly. On the
whole these were the strictest instructions ever given
to a governor, but Osborn did not live to carry them
out, as he committed suicide soon after his arrival.
Lieutenant-governor De Lancey succeeded to the gov-
ernment and attempted to enforce the stringent orders
brought over by his predecessor.

«stt Circular letter to the governors, June 3, 1753, in New York Colonial
Documents, vol. vi, 760.

^'^ Chalmers, George. Introduction to the Revolt, vol. ii, 3x5.

488 *<Wg must however beg leave humbly to represent to your Excellencies
that it being doubtful whether by the words of the former instruction His
Majesty's governor was not tied up from assenting to any law for making
provision for temporary services until he should have obtained a permanent
revenue." Representation on Hardy's Instructions, April 22, 1755, in New
York Colonial Documents, vol. vi, 948.

IMPERIALISTIC POLICY OF THE BOARD 193

The outbreak of the French and Indian War, how-
ever, compelled the Board to allow the governors to
accept revenue bills of a temporary character. As
the war went on, it became more and more necessary
not to arouse the opposition of the assemblies ; conse-
quently the Board was compelled to abandon, for the
time, its aggressive policy. Governor Hardy's in-
structions, which were issued in 1755, directed him
to accept temporary grants but to continue to insist
upon a permanent law."* Even this point had to be
waived, and the Board finally instructed the governors
of Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York not to
insist upon a permanent revenue, but to accept what-
ever financial aid the assemblies would vote."®

The point was not abandoned by the Board but was
only waived for the time being, for the general in-
structions remained as stringent as ever. The con-
tinued military necessities only postponed the final
solution of the question. The Board had done all it
could to secure a fixed civil list so as to make the
governors independent of their local assemblies, but
could accomplish very little without the intervention
of Parliament. The ministry would not ask for that,
however, until the failure of the Stamp Act convinced
it of the necessity of the Step. Then the Board was
ordered to lay before Parliament a detailed statement
of the cost of the civil establishment in America,"*
but the measure had been postponed too long.

<>• New York Colonial Documents, vol. ▼!, 948, par. 19.

**® New York Colonial Documents, vol. vii, 32-33 ; Massachusetts Acts
and Resolves, vol. iv, 95 ; New Jersey Archives, vol. ix, 156.

**i New Jersej- Archives, vol. ix, 533-534; Journal of the House of Com'
mons, vol. xxx, 484.

194 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

In Maryland and Virginia permanent laws had
been secured, which provided for nearly all the
charges upon the civil list in time of peace. In North
Carolina the governor and other officers were as-
signed permanent salaries out of the quit rents; but
as these were seldom collected, the regular clause
regarding a fixed revenue was inserted in the instruc-
tions given to Governor Dobbs in 1754.*" In Jamaica
the assembly was finally induced to yield to the con-
tinued demands of the Board of Trade and enact the
desired legislation. The crown itself bore the charges
of government in Nova Scotia and in Georgia ; ***
consequently the struggle over the civil list centered
in the three provinces of Massachusetts, New Jersey,
and New York. Pennsylvania and New Hampshire
should be included, were it not for the fact that the
latter occasionally granted the revenue for a period
of years, and in the former the proprietaries were
sponsors for the salary of the governor. Even then
Penn's government was objected to on account of the
absence of an established revenue.***

From the foregoing account it is clear that the
Board realized the fundamental weakness in the im-

*^^ North Carolina Colonial Records , vol. v, XI14, par. 24.

^^^ It is significant that in both of these younger colonies the Board of
Trade took no steps to place the governors and other officers at the mercy of
the assemblies by asking the latter to pay their salaries. Instead, the neces-
sary sums were annually appropriated by Parliament and the officials thus
kept strictly responsible to the home government For reports on Georgia,
see CO. 5, 672, pp. 26-39, 40-4X, 47, 322, 373.

444 ^'I shall write to the council to represent how it is taken that there is
no settled revenue in the province to answer the exigencies of government,
especially for a governor, a judge, and an attorney-general: without this be
got in hand with, I fear our own enemies there will have but too plausible
a pretence against us here, especially in war time." — Penn to Logan, June
27, X703, in Penn-Logan Correspondence, vol. i, 210.

IMPERIALISTIC POLICY OF THE BOARD 195

/ perial constitution, and throughout a period of sixty
years constantly endeavored to correct it by securing
a fixed civil list in the colonies. This was its favorite
policy, and the one to which it adhered in spite of
changing personnel and the rise and fall of minis-
tries. The officers of the later colonies of Nova
Scotia and Georgia were paid by the crown; and in
every colony in which the government was supported
by temporary grants the Board sought to bring about
a similar situation or force the colonies themselves
to make the salaries permanent. Jamaica, however,
is the only colony which yielded.

Control of the judiciary

The question of the control of the judiciary was
very closely connected with that of a fixed civil list;
but in this case it turned upon the form of the judges'
comniissipns rather than upon their salaries. As to
the tenure which the judges were to enjoy, the in-
structions to the governors during the earlier years
of the Board of Trade were not clear. They simply
directed the governors not to express "any limita-
tion of time'' in any commissions they should issue to
judicial officers."* This was avowedly to protect the
judges from arbitrary removal at the hands of the
governors; but what did the phrase, "no limitation of
/im^," mean? It could mean either during good be-

^^" See the instnictioiu to BellomoQt, in New York Colonial Documents,
vol. iv, 386; to C^nibury, in New Jersey Archives^ vol. ii, 5x8-5x9. The
clause remained unchanged until X753 and was as follows: You shall not
displace any of the judges, justices, or other officers or ministers within our
said province, without good and sufficient cause to be signified unto us, and
to our said commissioners for trade and plantations; and to prevent arbitrary
renaovals of judges and justices of the peace, you shall not express any
limitation of time in the commissioni you are to grant

196 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

havior or during the pleasure of the crown. The
general practice seems to have been to issue commis-
sions at pleasure during the first third of the eight-
eenth century, and the question did not become of
importance to imperial interests until the administra-
tion of Halifax.

The early problem of the Board was to secure able
men for the chief judicial positions in the colonies, for
the governors found themselves seriously handi-
capped by the lack of efficient and trustworthy men
for chief justices and attorneys-general. Bellomont
of New York urgently demanded that such pfficers
should be sent from England. Finally the Board took
the matter in hand and secured the appointment of
William Atwood as chief justice and Sampson Shel-
ton Broughton as attorney-general.*** These men were
appointed by request of the Board of Trade, after
they had been recommended by the attorney- and the
solicitor-general in England, as was done in all sim-
ilar cases of judicial appointments for the colonies
where commissions were issued in England.**^

Similar officers were appointed by the crown for
the other colonies,*" but in some cases the governors
appointed when a vacancy occurred. There was no
regularity about the procedure. Thus while both At-
wood and his successor. Dr. Bridges, were sent from
England, Cornbury commissioned Mompesson as
chief justice on the death of Bridges, and requested

*^^ Letters to the Board of Trade, in New York Colonial Documents, vol.
iv, 667, and passim,

447 Board of Trade Journal, 13, pp. 76-94.

**• Mr. Stephens Thompson was appointed as attorney-general for Vir-
ginia in X703» on the request of Governor Nicholson and the recommendatioo

IMPERIALISTIC POLICY OF THE BOARD 197

the Board to secure his confirmation ; but that body
replied that he needed no confirmation, "since by the
commission given him by your Lordship he is actually
chief justice."*" Numerous illustrations could be
cited of appointments by governors, and also many
in which they were commissioned in England."® The
Board, however, does not appear to have controlled
the appointments until after 1752, after which date it
became less common for the governors to select them.
In its representation of December, 1699, which re-
quested the appointment of a chief justice and an at-
torney-general for New York, the Board gave an
indication of what was to be its later policy toward
the judiciary. After pointing out the meager allow-
ance the assembly of New York had granted to pre-
vious incumbents of these offices, it said :

We . . . are humbly of opinion that a dependance upon
the General Assembly there for a further allowance will by no
ways suit with your Majesty's service in the administration
of justice against piracy and irregular trade. . . We do
therefore humbly represent to your Majesty that much greater
allowances will be. necessary to invite fit persons to accept of
those employments, and that they be assured thereof by an
establishment here; which extraordinary charge we humbly
conceive will be abundantly recompensed by a very great in-
crease of your Majesty's customs.*"*

of the attorney-general in England. See: Board of Trade Journal^ x6, pp.
168-197.

^^* New York Colonial Documents, vol. iv, XX38-X139. On the death of
Mompesson, Governor Hunter appointed Lewis Morris. See: Ibid,, vol. v,
40a

^^®See: New York Colonial Documents, vol. ▼, 400, 705, 949, 977; vol.
vii, 464, 500 ; New Jersey Archives, vol. ix, 379 ; Smith, W. R. South CarO'
Una as a Royal Province, 333-334.

*^^ New York Colonial Documents, vol. iv, 599.

198 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

Apparently this representation was acted upon in
fulL Atwood and Broughton were appointed, but it
is not quite clear that they received their pay from
England. Cornbury says Atwood received three hun-
dred pounds from there and asked a similar salary
for Dr. Bridges,**^ but the Board states, in a letter to
Bellomont, that the men had received some check at
the treasury,*" and fails to inform us whether or not
they overcame the difficulty. The principle laid
down by the Board was an excellent one, but required
money to carry it into operation. As there was prac-
tically no money in the imperial treasury to the credit
of New York, the treasury officials resisted any pro-
posal to pay salaries to such officers. In Virginia
conditions were a little better as there was a consider-
able fund arising from the quit rents, and the salary
of the attorney-general was paid out of that. In this
way he was made independent of the local legisla-
ture.***
Jf There is but little doubt that the power of the As-
sembly to fix salaries rendered all the judges practi-
cally dependent upon that body, except in the few
cases in which they received their salaries from the
crown. In New York the salaries were varied from
time to time,*" and in one case apparently for the pur-

*** Cornbury to the Board, New York Colonial Documents^ vol. iv, 1142.

«B8 ''Notwithstanding all that we have been able to do, towards the pro-
moting of what your Lordship has so oft desired, in relation to a chief justice
and attorney-general for the Province of New York, yet Mr. Atwood and
Mr. Broughton met with some stop in the treasury, and we do not see that
anything further will be done in that business at present.'' — New York
Colonial Documents, vol. iv, 700.

*** Board of Trade Journal, x6, pp. 168-197.

**5 See the appropriation bills in the New York Colonial Laws, vols, i,
ii, iii, passim.

IMPERIALISTIC POLICY OF THE BOARD 199

pose of showing disapproval of a decision of the Su-
preme Court."* These encroachments upon the ju-
diciary, however, did not attract the serious attention )
of the Board of Trade for many years, and the ob- /
scure clause of Bellomont's instructions was contin-''
ued in those given to other governors. Govemor
Clinton of New York was induced to interpret this
clause as a direction to make the judges' commissions
read during good behavior.*" His successor, De
Lancey, followed the same custom and governors of
other colonies may have issued similar commissions;
it is certain that they did in New Jersey.

In 1752 the Board of Trade carefully revised the
general instructions to the governors, and the clause
regarding the commissions for judges shows the at-
tempt of the Board to check the growing changes in
the colonial constitijtion. Certain events had called
the attention of the Board to the uncertain meaning
/ of the former clause. The town clerk of Albany had

been appointed in 1728 by the crown to hold office
during pleasure, but upon his death, in 1750, Govern-
or Clinton appointed Mr. Gansevoert during good
behavior. In the meantime, however, the Board had
secured a commission for Mr. Wraxall to hold the
office during pleasure. When the latter arrived at
Albany, he found Gansevoert in possession of the of-
fice; and, as the latter was not disposed to recognize
the commission from England, Mr. Wraxall ap-
pealed to the Board. That body, after a careful in-
vestigation, proposed that the attorney-general of

^^® Chalmers, George. Introduction to the Revolt, vol. ii.
^^^ Golden to the Board of Trade, August X2, 1761. He does not state
what the practice was prior to Clinton's administration.

200 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

New York should take the proper measures to vacate
the commission issued by Clinton/"

Another of Clinton's commissions, that to Chief
Justice De Lancey, was considered by the Board at
almost the same time as that to the town clerk of Al-
bany. This commission had been issued soon after
Clinton's arrival in New York and was for good be-
havior, while that office "had before that time been
usually held during pleasure." "* The Board referred
the case of the attorney- and the solicitor-general with
the following queries :

Had Mr. Clinton any power to grant such commission during
good behavior, contrary to what had been practised in former
cases? Can the crown legally revoke the said conunission?
if it can what will be the proper method of doing it?

The law officers answered that,

As the power given by conunission is general we apprehend
the grant is good in point of law and cannot be revoked with-
; out misbehavior.*'®

The Board thus had sufficient information before
it to know the limitations of the previous instructions
and to change those for the future so as to prevent
similar occurrences. In 1754 Governor Dobbs of
North Carolina and Governor Reynolds of Georgia
were instructed, "that all commissions to be granted
by you to any person or persons to be judges, justices
of the peace or other necessary officer be granted dur-
ing pleasure only." "^ This clause was also inserted
in the instructions afterwards given to other govern-

*68 New York Colonial Documents^ vol. vi, 768-769.
^B® This would 9eem to indicate that the practice had been irregular.
4«o New York Colonial Documents , vol. vi, 792.

**i North Carolina Colonial Records, vol. v, 1x34, clause 62; CO. 5, 672,
p. 163.

IMPERIALISTIC POLICY OF THE BOARD 201

ors ; *®^ and as the governors were strictly enjoined to
observe their instructions in all particulars, the ques-
tion was certain to come to an issue.

The first move came from the assemblies. That of
Pennsylvania took advantage of the venality of Gov-
ernor Denny and secured a judiciary act, by which
the judges were to hold their commissions during
good behavior instead of at the pleasure of the pro-
prietary. This law was passed in September, 1759,
and provided that judges could be removed only on
an address of the assembly,*" but the proprietaries at
once complained of the act and asked for its disallow-
ance by the crown. The Board of Trade reported
strongly against the law, because its object

Is to change the tenure by which the judges now hold their
offices ; not only in the province of Pennsylvania but in every
other colony in North America and the West Indies from
"durante bene placitia*^ to "Quamdiu se bene gesserent" *•*

and upon this representation the act was promptly
disallowed.

This report is interesting as showing that the
Board interpreted the early indefinite instruction as
meaning that commissions should be during pleasure.
It had already announced its policy in the case of a
similar law passed by the assembly of Jamaica, upon
which the attorney- and solicitor-general were of
opinion, that it was not expedient for the interests of
either the mother country or the colonies that judges
in the plantations should hold their places quamdiu

4«3Goyeraore Osboni, De Lancey, and Hardy of New York, and was
the only clause on the subject in Colden's instructions in 1761.

*** Pennsylvania Statutes at Larger vol. ▼, 463.

^*^ Representation of the Board of Trade, in Pennqrlvania Statutes at
Large, voL v, 722.

202 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

se bene gesserenU The decision on the Pennsylvania
act had scarcely been announced when the death of
the king terminated all commissions in the colonies
and brought the whole question to a head.

The judges in New York refused to act until their
commissions had been renewed, and demanded them,
as they had formerly held them, on good behavior.
In August, 1 761, Governor Golden wrote the Board
that he might be compelled to issue their commissions
in that form in spite of his instructions.*** In the pre-
ceding June the assembly had sent up a bill providing
that the judges' commissions should be during good
behavior, and when it met again in the following Sep-
tember, it insisted that the governor should sign this
bill, which he had hitherto refused to do. Golden
oflFered to yield, provided the assembly would grant
the judges permanent salaries, so that they would not
be too dependent upon the assembly."* The lower
house refused to do this, consequently the courts
were at a standstill. In the meantime Golden was
waiting anxiously for instructions from the Board.

The question of judges' commissions had also been
raised in other colonies. The assembly of North
Garolina passed a judiciary act by which the judges
were to hold these during good behavior, and in spite
of his instructions, Governor Dobbs allowed this to

4«6 "x have been informed that the judges design to forbear acting until
their commissions are renewed and that they will not accept of them other-
wise than during good behaviour as they had their commissions formerly.

"It may be of most dangerous consequence to stop the course of justice,
and this may lay me under a necessity of complying in a matter which is so
popular, tho the doing of it be against my own judgment (as well as His
Majesty's instructions) /' — New York Colonial Documents^ vol. vii, 47a

^** Letter of Colden to the Board, January 11, 1762, Colden Papers, in
New York Historical Society Collections, vol. ix, 148.

IMPERIALISTIC POLICY OF THE BOARD 203

become a law/" Governor Hardy arrived in New
Jersey late in 1761 and found all judicial proceed-
ings stopped because of the expiration of the judges'
commissions. He met his assembly in a short time,
and having been informed that it would grant no
salaries to the judges if they accepted their commis-
sions other than during good behavior, he renewed
them "in the same manner as they have hitherto been
granted." *"

In the meantime letters from the governors had
reached the Board of Trade, by which that body was
fully informed of the situation in America. It
realized the importance of the question at issue and
grasped the opportunity to enforce its policy. No-
vember II, 1761, in a long representation to the com-
mittee of the Privy Council, it entered into a careful
argument against allowing judges' commissions to be
granted except for pleasure.

Late years have produced too many examples of governors
having been obliged for want of such an establishment as
might induce able persons to offer their service, to confer the
office on those who have accepted it merely with a view to
make it subservient to their own private interests, and who
added to their ignorance, of the law, have too frequently be-
come the partisans of a factious Assembly upon whom they
have been dependent for their support, and who have withheld
or enlarged that support according as the conduct of the judges
was more or less favorable to their interests.

That it is difficult to conceive a state of government more
dangerous to the rights and liberties of the subject, but aggra-
vated as the evil would be by making the judges' commissions

^^^ The judges in the Carolinas had previously held only during pleasure.
See: Smith, W. R. South Carolina as a Royal Province , 333-334-

*®* Hardy to the Board of Trade, January 20, 176a, in New Jersey
Archives^ vol. ix, 346.

204 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

during good behavior without rendering them at the same time
independent of the factious will and caprice of an assembly,
the said Lords Commissioners cannot but consider the propo-
sition as subversive of all true policy, destructive of the in-
terests of Your Majesty's subjects, and tending to lessen that
just dependence which the colonies ought to have upon the
government of the mother country.*'*

This representation was followed up on December
2, 1 76 1, by general instructions to all the governors in
America. These recited the fact that several colonies
had passed or attempted to pass laws for commission-
ing judges during good behavior, and that in several
colonies the governors had issued such commissions.*^®

And whereas it does not appear to us, that, in the present
situation and circumstances of our said colonies it would
either be for the interests or advantage of the said colonies, or
of this our kingdom of Great Britain that the judges or other
chief officers of justice, should hold their offices, during good
behavior ; it is therefore our express will and pleasure that you
do not upon any pretense whatever upon pain of being re-
moved from your government give your assent to any act, by
which the tenure of the commissions to be granted to the chief
judges, or other justices of the several courts of judicature shall
be regulated, or ascertained in any manner whatever; and you
are to take particular care in all commissions to be by you
granted to the said chief judges, or other justices of the courts
of judicature that the said commissions are granted, during
pleasure only, agreeable to what has been the antient practice
and usage in our said colonies and plantations.*^^

Before this order reached America, Governor
Hardy of New Jersey, as has been noted, had broken
through his instructions and renewed the commis-

*«» CO. 324, X7, pp. X33, flF.

*^° North Carolina Colonial Records^ vol. vi, 591.

*" CO. 5, 334, pp. 170-173.

IMPERIALISTIC POLICY OF THE BOARD 205

sions during good behavior.*" As soon as the news of
his action reached England, the Board demanded and
obtained his immediate removal from office. At the
same time it asked the attorney- and solicitor-general
for an opinion as to the validity of the commissions
thus issued in violation of the governor's instructions,
and as to the possibility of vacating them by legal
process.*" It was nine months before an opinion was
returned, and then it was that of Attorney-general
Yorke alone. He considered the action of the govern-
or as illegal, because he had committed an act which
was not only unauthorized, but was positively forbid-
den ; but as the judges had been de facto officers their
acts should be considered valid. The only feasible
method of removing them from office, however, was
by an appeal to the king in council.*" Fortunately
such a remedy was not required, for Governor Hardy
induced the judges to resign their commissions and
accept new ones during pleasure only; but such action
came too late to prevent his recall.

While Hardy was yielding to the demands of the
former judges. Lieutenant-governor Golden was en-
deavoring to make terms with his assembly. Early in

^7^ Cf. Beer's British Colonial Policy ^ 191. There is an implication in
this that Hardy had received these later instructions before he issued the
commissions, which is probably erroneous, as the instructions were not com-
pleted until December 2, 176I1 and on January 20^ 17621 Hardy writes that
the commissions had already been granted.

*^* New Jersey A r chives ^ vol. ix, 349-351.

^^^ "I am of opinion that the appointment of judges of the Supreme Court,
during good behavior, instead of during pleasure, contrary to the king's
instructions, in governments subsisting solely by his Majesty's authority, is
illegal and invalid. The letters patent empower the governor to constitute
judges, without prescribing anything as to the form or mode of constituting
them; but the instructions, which are referred to by the letters patent, and

ao6 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

1762 he was forced to sign the appropriation bill, /
which granted salaries to the judges only on condition \
that they accept commissions during good behavior.*"
In the meantime the situation was further compli-
cated by the arrival of Benjamin Pratt with a warrant
under the sign manual, directing the governor to com-
mission him chief justice during pleasure.*" He re-
ceived his commission and entered upon his duties,
but received no salary. Naturally he could not afford
to continue to work without pay, and at the urgent
request of Colden, the Board of Trade secured a sal-
ary for him to be paid out of the quit rents.*" The
other judges refused to accept commissions during
pleasure, for in that case they would receive no sal-
aries ; and the governor could not issue commissions
in any other manner without danger of being imme-
diately removed from office, consequently Chief Jus-
tice Pratt acted alone for some time.*" Finally, how-
ever, the judges gave way and consented to accept
their commissions in accordance with the governor's
instructions.

ooosequently must be incorporated into them, regulate the mode of the con-
ttitutioa" — New Jersey Archives, vol. ix, 380-381.

^^^ Letter of Lieutenant-goyemor Colden to the Board, February 11, 1762.
Colden Papers, New York Historical Society Collections, vol. ix, 159.

^7^ Pratt had been appointed by the Board early in 1761, and arrived in
New York in October of the same year. New York Colonial Documents,
vol. vii, 464, 483.

477 "Wc entirely agree in opinion with the lieutenant-governor that if
this gentleman be neglected under so singular a hardship, the consequences
will greatly affect your Majesty's authority in every part of administration,
we cannot but adopt and humbly recommend Mr. Colden's proposition that
your Majesty would be graciously pleased to grant Mr. Pratt as chief justice
of New York a salary out of your quit rents in that province." — Representa-
tion of the Board, New York Colonial Documents, vol. vii, 506.

*^» Colden to the Board, February xi, 1762, in New York Historical So-
ciety Collections, vol. ix, 159.

IMPERIALISTIC POLICY OF THE BOARD 207

A similar struggle had occurred in some of the
other colonies, but in all cases the Board was success-
ful, and from that time on judges were commissioned
only during pleasure. Two acts of North Carolina
for regulating judicial procedure were disallowed,
largely because the judges were to be commissioned
during good behavior.*^* These incidents settled the
question of the position of the judges until it again
became prominent on the eve of the Revolution.

From the foregoing account it is seen that the atti-
tude of the Board of Trade toward the judiciary was
fairly consistent. As early as 1699, it had proposed
■ that the chief judicial officers should be paid by the
; home government, and at no time did it countenance
any movements which would render them independ-
ent of the crown. The Board understood its instruc-
tions to the governors to mean that judges' commis-
sions should be for pleasure only, and for years most
of them appear to have been issued in that form.**®
The first problem was to make them secure from
arbitrary removal by the governors, and for that rea- /
son judicial officers could be removed only for suffi- /
cient cause. The irregular practice of commission-. /
ing them during good behavior grew up at a time'

^^^The first act was that of 1760, which was disallowed on a repre-
sentation of the Board of December, 1761. The second act, passed in
176X, was a supplement to the first and had other objectionable features
which induced the Board to disallow it The agent of the colony, Couchet
Jouvencal, entered a strong protest against this action of the Board, in
which he advanced the reasons for demanding that the tenure of judges'
conunissions should be changed from pleasure to good behavior. See: North
Carolina Colonial Records^ vol. vi, 587-589, 70X, 983-989.

^^^The writer has found no clear cases of commissions which were
issued during good behavior before those of Governor Clinton, who com-
menced his administration in 1744. Certainly all commissions issued by the
home government were for pleasure only.

2o8 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

\ when the Board was most inefficient and the assem-
^': blies were making their greatest encroachments upon
the constitution.

After 1752 the Board recognized the dangers to
the empire from the dependence of all crown officers
upon the assembly, and made the instructions so clear
that they could not be misunderstood. From that
time on commissions could be granted legally only
during pleasure. The attempt by the assemblies to
regulate commissions by colonial laws was immedi-
ately opposed by the Board; and when all commis-
sions were vacated by the death of George II, it
compelled the governors to observe their instructions
on this point.

As far as this part of its policy is concerned, it
must be admitted that the Board scored a brilliant
victory, but in doing so it created considerable ill
'. feeling in America. The average man in 1761 was
' totally ignorant of the form of the judges' commissions
thirty years earlier, and to him this action of the
Board was an uncalled-for and arbitrary attack upon
the independence of the judiciary. This is the view
that is presented in the Declaration of Independence,
with the blame laid at the door of George III, be-
cause the change had been effected at his accession.
This was the natural conclusion of men who were
familiar only with the conditions after 1740, but it is
evident that the charge is an erroneous one. The
change in itself was not an attack upon the independ-
ence of the judiciary, but an effort to restore an earlier
custom of appointing judges during the pleasure of
the crown, which for a time had been evaded without
authority from the home government, and in direct

IMPERIALISTIC POLICY OF THE BOARD 209

opposition to what was supposed to be the instruc-
tions to the governors. George III could not be re-
sponsible for the action of the Board, because the
latter had been trying for ten years before his acces-
sion to restore the earlier practice, but was ham-
pered by the terms of the existing commissions. There
■ was nothing new in the policy of George III. The
Board simply took advantage of the opportunity sud-
denly offered it by the termination of all existing
commissions on the death of George II and carried
into execution a policy which it had long before
determined upon.

Plans of union

When the Board of Trade was organized, the col-
onies were engaged in the closing struggles of the
first of the French wars, and the immediate admin-
istrative problems were those of defense. There
were plenty of inhabitants in the northern provinces
to protect that region against all aggressions from
the French, if they could only be brought to act to-
gether. The great obstacles to concerted action were
the separation of the colonies, due to geographical
situation, and the existence of independent govern-
ments over which the crown had no direct control.

In trying to remove the latter difficulty, the Board
had before it the previous attempt of the British
government to centralize the military power of the
northern provinces in the hands of the governors of
New York and Massachusetts. Fletcher was gov-
ernor of Pennsylvania, New York, the Jerseys, and
in addition was given command of the militia of
Connecticut. Phips was governor of the enlarged

210 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

province of Massachusetts and also commander of
the Rhode Island militia. Neither of these men,
however, had succeeded in enforcing his military
authority over the charter colonies, because the latter
insisted that their charters gave the command of the
militia to their own officers.**^

The Board, however, challenged this contention,
and after a careful examination of the charters of
Connecticut, Rhode Island, and the Jerseys, it re-
ported that the crown had the power to appoint a
captain-general for all these provinces. As this opin-
ion was supported by the Board's legal advisers, the
first plan of union was made to hinge on this reserve
power of the crown. The Board proposed that an
able man should be sent over, commissioned as cap-
tain-general of all the forces.

And all the miliria of all the provinces* colonies, and planta-
tions on the continent of the Northern America, with a power
to levy arms, muster, command and employ them on all neces-
sary occasions for the defence of those countries ... to
appoint and commission officers to train and exercise at con-
venient times such of the inhabitants as are fit to bear arms.^^'

In addition to this military power vested in him, the
captain-general was to be given authority to super-
sede any royal governor in whose province he hap-
pened to be.

No action was taken at that time ; but five months

I later the Board submitted another representation, in

T^hich it considered the various arguments for and

against the scheme proposed in its former report, and

again urged the military union under one man.

*** Greene, Evarts B. Provincial America, 117.
482 New York Colonial Documents, vol. iv, aaS.

IMPERIALISTIC POLICY OF THE BOARD 211

The distinct proprieties, charters, and difiEerent forms of gov-
ernment in several of those neighboring colonies, make all
other union, except under such a military head (in our opin-
ion) at present impracticable, and that what hath yet been done
towards such a military union for common defence (by the
appointment of a quota in the year 1694) hath been so little
complied with, that it requires the exertion of a more vigorous
power than hath hitherto been practised, to make it produce
the desired effect.***

The Board proposed, as a proper plan for effecting
and supplementing the military union, that some suit-
able person should be sent out as governor of New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York, with his
residence in the latter colony. This recommendation
was acted upon, and commissions granting the neces-
sary civil and military powers were issued to the Earl
of Bellomont,*" who was thus constituted military
governor over all the colonies north and east of Penn-
sylvania.

The war closed so soon after his commission was is-
sued that there was no opportunity to test the military
efficiency of the arrangement. Connecticut and
Rhode Island, as they had done in the case of the
Phips and Fletcher commission, protested vigorous-
ly against what they considered an infringement upon
their charters. In spite of these protests, however,
the Board continued the policy of giving the control
of their military forces to the governors of the other
colonies. Under Bellomont^s commission this mili-
tary power was annexed to the governorship of Mass-
achusetts. Upon his death, New York and Massa-

*** Representation of the Board, February 25, 1697, in New York Colonial
Documents^ vol. iv, 26a
484 — Ibid.^ 261, 266-273.

212 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

chusetts were again separated and the command of
the Connecticut militia attached to the governorship
of New York,*'' which policy was continued during
the administrations of both Cornbury and Hunter.

The command of the Rhode Island militia was left
in the hands of Governor Dudley of Massachusetts,
who had secured the appointment to that province on
the death of Bellomont, but he found considerable
difficulty in exercising his commission."* Cornbury
and Hunter experienced similar difficulties in Con-
necticut, as both colonies continued to deny the valid-
ity of the military commissions of the governors of
Massachusetts and New York.*"
{^ The Board had recognized the impossibility of
bringing about any effective union, unless the powers
of government which had been granted to the charter
/and proprietary colonies were restored to the crown.
While it aimed to reduce these governments to the
same form as the royal provinces as a means of secur-
ing administrative efficiency, it also attacked their
independent position, because they neither defended
themselves nor furnished suitable assistance to the
neighboring colonies in the time of war.*" If they
could be deprived of their charter rights, the Board
could see its way clear to put all North America un-
der a uniform type of government.

^^B Representation of the Board on Combury's commission, in New York
Colonial Documents^ vol. iv, 884.

**• Palfrey, John. History of New England^ vol. iv, 354.

^^7 See their letters to the Board complaining of the action of Connecticut,
in New York Colonial Documents^ vols, iv, v, passim,

^^^ Representations of the Board, in North Carolina Colonial Records^
vol. i, 537, 540^ 630-633, 889. Of. Kellogg's ^'American Colonial Charter,"
in American Historical Asaociation Report for IQOS, vol. i, 284-321.

IMPERIALISTIC POLICY OF THE BOARD 213

It was one of the constant policies of the Board to
oppose the charter and proprietary governments and
curtail their privileges as much as possible. The
first opposition culminated in the attempt of 1701 to
abolish the charters by act of Parliament. This at-
tempt failed, but it was renewed the next year and
still again in the years, 1706, 1715, and 1722.*" In all
of these attempts, the Board encountered so much
opposition from the colonial governments, as well as
from vested interests in England, that the desired
legislation failed. Action by quo warranto was no
more successful as a direct means of attack;***^ but
the constant opposition resulted in voluntary surren-
ders of the proprietary rights of government in the
Jerseys and the Carolinas, and weakened the inde-
pendence of the charter colonies.'

491

*^^ Rindolph was pushiDg it in the Houie of Lords and when it became
evident that the bill could not pass that session, he was ordered to take affi-
davits of such witnesses as could not be present at another session and file
them with the Board.

William Penn himself made out a bill for this purpose and submitted it
to Manchester, who in turn transmitted it to the Board. That body rejected
the bill and insisted upon the former measure. Manchester directed that
Mr. Henry Baker, solicitor of the treasury should push the bill before the
House of Lords. See: C O. 5, 13 ^9, p. la; CO. 5, 1365, p. 323; Board of
Trade Journal, 14, pp. 55, 335-338. Cf. Miss Kellogg's admirable treatment
of this topic in American Historical Association Report for iQOSi vol. i,
284-321.

^^ See the Order in Council of June 26, 1706, which states that although
the law officers had sufficient evidence for a successful prosecution in the
Court of Queen's Bench, it was very doubtful if a peer of the realm, such as
the proprietor of North Carolina, could be proceeded against by 7110 war*
ranto. See: North Carolina Colonial Records, vol. i, 644.

^^^ Cf. the evident desire of Connecticut not to give any cause for com-
plaint, described in "Talcott Papers,** in Connecticut Historical Sodety
Collections, vols, iv, v, passim. See also the urgent letters of Calvert to
Governor Sharpe to send over the laws so they could be laid before the
Board, in Sharpens Correspondence, vol. ii, passim.

214 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

The Board had abandoned, for the time, its scheme
of consolidating the various governments, except so
far as it subsisted in appointing a single govemor for
New Hampshire and Massachusetts and later for
New Jersey and New York. The plan had been
brought forward as a war measure, and was based
upon military rather than administrative needs. The
' next plan of union, however, was proposed in time
of peace and was intended to secure administrative
) improvement, as well as military efficiency.

This plan is a part of the representation made by
the Board in 1721. After describing the conditions
existing in each colony, the report takes up the ques-
tion of measures which would improve the govern-
ment in all the colonies. The first great difficulty
was the existence of the proprietary and charter gov-
ernments ;

Nor is it to be expected that either our Indians or Euro-
pean neighbours should pay that respect to your Majesty's
subjects, which all those who have the happiness to be under
Your Majesty's protection, might otherwise reasonably hope
for, until it shall appear, that all the British Colonies in
America hold immediately of one Lord and have but one joint
interest to pursue ; for which reason and many others, we shall
first humbly propose, that all the proprietary governments
should be reassumed to the crown, either by purchase, agree-
ment, or otherwise, as conceiving this to be one of those
essential points, without which your Majesty's colonies can
never be put upon a right footing.*®^

After considering means of increasing the trade
of the colonies, securing larger returns from the quit
rents, and of protecting the woods, the report takes
up the question of union.

*®2 titvr York Colonial Documents^ vol. v, 627-630.

IMPERIALISTIC POLICY OF THE BOARD 215

But the most effectual way to put in execution what we
have already offered upon this subject to your Majesty's
consideration and to render the several provinces on the con-
tinent of America, from Nova Scotia to South Carolina,
mutually subservient to each others support, will be to put
the whole under the gpvemment of one Lord-lieutenant, or
captain-general, from whom all other governors of particular
provinces should receive their orders, in all cases, for your
Majesty's service, and cease to have any command respective-
ly in such province, where the said captain-general shall at any
time reside, as it is at present practised in the Leeward Islands,
where each island has a particular governor, but one general
over the whole.

The said captain-general should be constantly attended by
two or more councillors deputed from each plantation, he
should have a fixed salary, sufficient to support the dignity of
so important an employment, independent of the pleasure of
the inhabitants; and, in our humble opinion, ought to be a
person of good fortune, distinction, and experience.

By this means, a general contribution of men or money
may be raised upon the several colonies, in proportion to their
respective abilities.**'

These recommendations were seriously considered
and the plan so far matured that the Earl of Stair
was offered the office of captain-general ; but he re-
fused,"* and the plan was abandoned. It is of inter-
est chiefly as an indication of the persistence of the
ideas which led to the Bellomont commission. The
plan, however, shows some improvement over the .
earlier one. The proposed governor-general would
have occupied a position in the colonies as a whole

498 It ^ag Id this connection that the Board proposed that the president
of the Board of Trade should be charged with the execution of all orders
concerning the colonies, which would have nude that officer a full-fledged
colonial minister. Cf. the similar proposal of Martin Bladen in 1726, in
North Carolina Colonial Records, vol. ii, 634.

^*^ Chalmers, George. Introduction to the Revolt, vol. ii, 43.

2i6 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

similar to that of each governor in his respective gov-
ernment. The position of the councilors who were
to be delegated from each colony is not clear, as it
is not told who was to select them, what their powers
should be, or whether they were to have power to
bind the colonies which they represented. Con-
fessedly the plan was patterned after the government
in the Leeward Islands, where conditions were quite
different from those on the continent of America.

Schemes for the formation of some central govern-
ment for America were also proposed by various per-
sons interested in the welfare of the colonies. One
of these was sent from England to Governor Clarke
of New York, we are not told by whom. He showed
it to his successor. Governor Clinton, who felt under
the necessity of writing at once to Newcastle, in order
to express his disapproval of the plan.*" The scheme
proposed the raising of a fund by means of a general
stamp tax in America, the proceeds of which should
be used to defray the expenses of a governor-general
and his establishment and to provide for the general
defense. The scheme is mentioned in this connec-
tion, only because it is so similar to the one proposed
by Martin Bladen in 1726 that it may well be con-
sidered a paraphrase of his plan.

The Board made no further definite proposals for
union, until the approach of the French and Indian
War rendered some concerted action necessary. In
August, 1753, general instructions were sent to the
governors, warning them of the danger from the
French encroachments and directing them to main-

*•* Letter of December 13, 1744, in New York Colonial Documents^ vol.
vii 268.

IMPERIALISTIC POLICY OF THE BOARD 217

tain regular correspondence with each other. In
case one colony should be attacked, the governors of
the others were directed to take prompt measures for
its relief.***

This was followed by instructions to the governor
of New York to call a conference at Albany for the
purpose of making a treaty with the Six Nations.
Circular letters were also sent to the executives of
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Mary-
land, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, by which they were
notified of the meeting and requested to send commis-
sioners to it. The purpose of this gathering was
solely to arrange a treaty with the Indians, and the
commissioners were not asked to consider plans for a
confederation.**^ One clause of the instructions to
Governor Osborn, however, indicates that the Board
no longer looked upon the colonies as isolated gov-
ernments independent of each other. He was

To take care that all the provinces .be (if practicable)
comprised in one general treaty to be made in His Majesty's
name it appearing to us that the practice of each province
making a separate treaty for itself in its own name is very
improper and may be attended with great inconveniency to
His Majesty's service.***

The meeting at Albany was held as directed, a
treaty with the Six Nations was negotiated, and the
plan of union for which it has become famous was
promulgated. Five days before the conference at

*•* New York Colonial Documents^ vol. vi, 794.

^*^ Letter of September 18, 1753, in New York Colonial Documents^ vol.
vi, 802. In a letter to Governor De Lancey, July 5, 1754, however, the
Board expresses a hope that the commissioner! at Albany may agree upon
some plan of union. Ibid.^ 846.

*»• — Ibid., 801.

2i8 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

Albany was opened, Secretary Robinson requested
the Board of Trade to prepare a

Plan of general concert tx) be entered into by His Majesty's
several colonies upon the continent [for their mutual defense,
in order] that the same may be sent to the several governors
of His Majesty's colonies in North America,***

The Board had its plan completed in a short time and
submitted it to the king, August 9, 1754. Although
it could not have been put in operation soon enough
to meet the exigencies of the approaching struggle,
and the Board held out no delusions on this point,
it is of sufficient interest to merit careful considera-
tion.

This plan of union *^ was avowedly based upon
military necessity, and the only organs of central
government it proposed to create were of a military
nature. The governors of each province were to be
instructed to secure the appointment by the council
and assembly of a commissioner, acceptable to the
governor. These commissioners were to meet at
New York to formulate details for the military es-
tablishment, such as the number of forts necessary
for the proper defense of the frontier, the probable
garrison required for each, and the cost of mainte-
nance. To enable them to do this, they were to be
furnished with authentic copies of each colony's ex-
penditure for twenty years past. Having determined
the regular establishment required in time of peace,
they were to apportion the cost in men and money
upon the various colonies in accordance with the
ability of each to bear the burden.

*•• New York Colonial Documents, vol. vi, 844.
800 _ /^,-^.^ 9oa-9o6.

IMPERIALISTIC POLICY OF THE BOARD 219

The head of the new military establishment was a
commander-in-chief and commissary-general for In-
dian Affairs, who was to be appointed by the crown
and given a fixed salary which was to be charged up-
on the regular establishment No central treasurer
or taxing machinery was provided, but the command-
er-in-chief was to be empowered to draw upon the
treasurer of each colony for its quota of the regular
annual charges. These warrants were to be paid by
the treasurer upon whom they were drawn from any
moneys in his hands, and if he should not have suffi-
cient funds to pay the drafts, he was required to bor-
row the amount at once on the credit of the colony.
The commander-in-chief was to submit annually to
each colony an attested statement of his expenditures,
and also transmit a copy of the same to the exchequer
in England.

A curious provision was made for emergencies. In
all cases of invasion or other grave danger which
should require a greater military force than the regu-
lar establishment afforded, the colony attacked should
furnish an estimate of the probable extra charges re-
quired for its defense. Copies of this estimate were
then to be sent to the governor of each colony, to be
laid before his council and assembly. As soon as
such copies were received by a colony, a commissioner
should be appointed, who should meet similar com-
missioners from other colonies wherever the com-
mander-in-chief should designate. Representatives
from five colonies constituted a quorum, with power
to revise the estimate furnished by the colony in dan-
ger and apportion the charges upon each colony. As

220 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

soon as this was done, the commander-in-chief was
authorized to draw upon the several treasurers for
the quotas, in which case his warrants had to be hon-
ored just the same as those for the regular establish-
ment.

The plan was to be put into operation by action of
the colonies themselves. The commissioners, as soon
as they could agree upon the financial details of the
scheme, were to draw up a formal convention. This
was then to be transmitted to each colony

To be forthwith laid before the governors, councils, and as-
semblies, who are to take the same into immediate consid-
eration, and having made such alterations therein or addi-
tions thereto as they shall think necessary, shall return them
to the commissioners within two months, and when all the
copies shall have been returned the commissioners shall re-
sume their deliberations: and having finally settled the whole,
the convention shall be fairly drawn up and signed by each
commissioner and transmitted hither in order to be laid before
His Majesty for his approbation.*®^

It should be noted that the final action by the colo-
nies was to be taken by their commissioners, upon
whom the various amendments which each colony
might oflFer were not binding. Seven commissioners
constituted a quorum and were competent to make
decisions which, when ratified by the crown, should
be binding upon the whole. Thus seven of the orig-
inal thirteen colonies could have adopted a form of
union, which the other six would have been com-
pelled to accept.

Only as a last resort did the Board contemplate
establishing this military government by act of Par-
liament.

*®^ New York Colonial Documents^ vol. vi, 905.

IMPERIALISTIC POLICY OF THE BOARD 221

If however it should be found upon trial that this meas-
ure should be defeated by any of the colonies either refusing
or neglecting to enter into a consideration of the points re-
ferred to their deliberation ; or, after they are settled, by re-
fusing to raise such supplies as are proposed by this plan to
be the fund for the execution of it: We see no other method
that can be taken, but that of an application for an interposi-
tion of the authority of Parliament.**^

This plan deviates from that of 1721 by omitting j
the council for the governor-general and by not giv- 1
ing him any control over civil matters. His powers }
were limited to military affairs and questions of In-
dian relations. The plan does, however, show a very
clear comprehension of the jealous regard of each
colony for its own special privileges. Halifax says:

We have endeavored as much as possible to adapt the plan
to the constitution of the colonies, and to form it as unex-
ceptionable in point of powers invested in the commander-
in-chief as the nature of the thing, and the design of uniting
the colonies under one general direction would admit of,

and adds that the chief executive would not be em-
powered

To draw upon any piovince for one shilling more than the
conunissioners from each colony shall have agreed to be the
just proportion of expense which each colony is to bear.'®*

It is evident that Halifax was endeavoring not to
arouse any fear on the part of the colonists that their
cherished local independence, especially in financial
matters, might be endangered.

The absence of a central legislative body is per-
haps the strangest feature in the scheme, but the coun-
cil of commissioners would supply its place. The

*®* New York Colonial Documents^ vol. vi, 90a.
*<^* Letter of Halifax to Newcastle, August 15, 1754, in British Museum
Additional Manuscripts^ 33726, f. 243.

222 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

whole scheme is very incomplete as a plan for estab-
lishing a general government for the colonies, and in
this respect is in strong contrast with the plan of
union which was being drafted at Albany.

Both plans suffered a similar fate; that of the
Board was apparently never submitted to the colonies
for their consideration; and the Board of Trade laid
the Albany plan before the king with the remark,

The commissioners having agreed upon a plan of union,
whidi, as far as their sense and opinion of It goes, is com-
plete in itself, we shall not presume to make any observa-
tions upon it, but transmit it simply for Your Majesty's con-
sideration.

It could not have done more; for the plan was not
officially before the Board and could not be until it
had been adopted by the separate colonies.***

From the foregoing account, it is seen that, as far as
devising a central government for the colonies wasi
concerned, the Board showed very little foresight or s
creative genius. Its plans were usually hastily drawn /
in the hour of danger, and were really but little more v
than temporary makeshifts to meet an emergency. ;
The plan of 1721, alone, shows evidences of a desire
to create an eflFective central government, and the first
provision of that contemplated the reduction of all
the colonies to the condition of royal provinces. If
the Board of Trade had any continuous policy on the
question of union, it was that embraced in the Bello-
mont commission, but it is difficult to trace even that
in the plan of 1754.

*^* Rcp r eie nta tion od tilie proceedings at Albany, October 39, 1754, in
New York Colonial Docutmnts, vol. ri, 917. Cf. McDonald's Select
Charters, 253-253 ; also Beer's British Colonial Policy, 33-33.

IMPERIALISTIC POLICY OF THE BOARD 223

As compared with its success in dealing with the
judiciary, the plans of the Board for securing a union j
of the colonies must be considered failures. Its pol-
icy in this particular was too imperialistic, as the
schemes which it proposed placed all control in the
hands of the crown officers, and left so little space for'
initiative on the part of the colonies that the latter
would not accept them. Judging by its attitude to-
ward the judiciary and a fixed civil list, the Board
would have preferred no central government at all to
one that might get out of hand, and in that respect its
policy was consistent.

V. TREATMENT OF COLONIAL

LEGISLATION

The royal veto

None of the colonial governments was complete
in itself; all were subordinate to the central power
in legislation, as well as in other matters. Colonial
laws had to be transmitted to England and submitted
to the crown for approval. Royal provinces were
expected to transmit their laws rather promptly,
while charter and proprietary colonies had special
privileges in the matter. Connecticut, Rhode Island,
and Maryland were not required by their charters
to oflFer their laws to the crown, nevertheless, each
found it convenient to do so when the latter became
insistent.

*The royal veto fell into disuse early in the eight-
eenth century as far as laws passed by parliament
were concerned, but was continued in regard to colo-
nial laws. In the case of royal provinces, a law could
be disallowed by the crown at any time, even many
years after it had gone into effect; the only limita-
tion being that laws once approved were forever be-
yond the royal control. In the charter colonies,
where any veto was provided for, the time within
which it could be exercised was limited by the terms
of the charter, and varied from six months for Penn-
sylvania laws to three years for those of Massachu-

226 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

setts. A failure to veto within the limited period
had the effect of a positive approval, and tied the
hands of the crown for the future/^

Some laws contained a clause suspending the oper-
ation of the law until it was formally approved in
England. In such cases the royal disapproval was
practically the same as a veto by the colonial governor
or by any other executive, except that it could be
postponed indefinitely, and a failure to act had all the
effect of a positive negation of the law. Because of
the delays accompanying laws so drawn, colonial leg-^
islatures consented to such clauses reluctantly and
then only as a last resort in securing the desired legis-
lation. . ^

The great majority of the laws were drawn in the
usual way and, if signed by the governor, went into
immediate operation, and continued in force until
they expired by limitation or repeal. The royal dis-
approval of such a law is very different, both in form
and in effect, from what is usually known as a veto.
A veto prevents a proposed law from going into Ef-
fect, while the great majority of colonial laws re-
ferred to here were already in force and would so
continue. The royal disapproval of such a law con-
sequently had the effect of a legislative repeal: all
acts already done under the authority of a law of this
kind were valid, but the act itself terminated with
the day of its disapproval. In this respect the action
was also different from a judicial invalidation of a
law; for in such cases no action under color of such
a law is legal, while colonial laws were legal during

805 5^ the terms of the charters, in Poore's Charters and Constitutions.

TREATMENT OF COLONIAL LEGISLATION 227

the period of their operation. The following dis-
cussion deals primarily with the royal repeal, which
may well be described by the term disallowance,
rather than with the veto.

During the period covered by this discussion,
nearly four hundred different laws from the conti-
nental American colonies alone were disallowed by
the crown.*®* As there were probably as many more
from the other colonies, it is at once apparent that
the British government was pretty active in its con-
sideration of colonial laws.

The Declaration of Independence lays the responsi-
bility for the royal vetoes at the door of the king, but
probably unjustly. Although every Order in Council
for the disallowance of a law stated that it was done
by "the King in Council," the king had nothing to do
with the matter personally. The phrase is only one
of the numerous fictions of the British government.
The rea l work of considerinja: coloniaLiaws wa6>4oae
by.lhfi_JSpardj3f JTrade, and the final action was only
recorded as done by the king in the presence of and
with the advise of his Privy Council. Hence "dis-
allowed by the King in Council" must be understood
to mean by the Board of Trade on the advise of able
legal opinion and finally ratified by the Privy Coun-
cil. As will be shown later, this action corresponded
very closely to that of a careful court of record, rather
than to the hasty, arbitrary action of an irresponsible
individual.

The Board of Trade was thus charged with the

^0* This does not include laws which had suspending clauses and which
were not approved in England.

228 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

consideration of colonial laws, and practically every
approval or disapproval was made upon its recom-
mendation. This proved one of its most effective
means of enforcing its authority in the colonies. Here
was a power to control colonial affairs, far removed
from the exigencies of local politics and the petty
shortcomings of colonial governors. While every
law was considered individually, the Board was evi-
dently guided by general principles in refusing its
approval or recommending a disallowance. These
were based upon a consideration of the proper field
for colonial legislation, the relations of the colonies to
each other and to the mother country, and upon a de-
sire to protect the colonists themselves from ill ad-
vised legislation.

One of the foremost reasons for the disallowance
of laws was that they encroached upon the royal pre-
rogative; that is, they tended to hamper the home
government or lessen its authority over local officials
or governments. Good illustrations of such laws are
the New Jersey and the New York triennial acts,**®^
and th^North Carolina biennial act.*^"** Both were

^^ In repotting on the first of these tilie Board said: "We take leave to
observe that this is an Act of so very extraordinary nature importing a
great change in the constitution of the province of New Jersey." — Repre-
sentation of the Board, June 33, 1731, in CO. 5, 996, pp. 370-i73. Repealed,
November 2$, 173 1. See: Privy Council Register^ "George II," vol. ii, 450,
470^ 478-480. In reporting on the second of these Francis Fane said : "I beg
leave to observe to your Lordships, that I think this act a very high infringe-
ment upon the prerogative of the crown; for it takes away that undoubted
right, which the crown has always exercised of calling and continuing the
Assembly of this colony at such times and so long as it was thought necessary
for the publick service." — Report to the Board, July 20, 1738, in New York
Colonial Documents^ vol. vi, za9-z3a This act was repealed, November 30,
X738. See: Privy Council Register, "George II," vol. vi, 34.

'<>• Repealed, July 2x, 1737. CO. 5, 323, pp. 257-258; Privy Council
Register, "George II," vol. v, 228, 234, 256.

TREATMENT OF COLONIAL LEGISLATION 229

objectionable because, in providing for regular meet-
ings of the assemblies, they took away from the gov-
ernor his power to summon, prorogue, and dissolve
the local legislatures.*^'

Inadequate or unnecessary military laws, such as
those passed by Pennsylvania in 1755, come in this
group, because they were looked upon as hampering
rather than aiding the military operations, and were
consequently disallowed."®

Other acts which more specifically come under this
general head were those regulating the duties of or
taking away the income of a patent officer,'" chang-
ing his commission,"" or acts which limited the ap-
pointing or executive power of such officers."* Others

B®* An act passed by the legislature of Jamaica, in 1741, providing for
triennial assemblies, was also promptly disallowed. See: Board of Trade,
Jamaica^ 66, pp. loS-iia.

^^^ One of these purported to extend to Pennsylrania the prorisions of
the Mutiny Act which regulated the quartering of soldiers in England.
The other regulated enlistments in the colony and established rules for the
emplojrment of the provincial troops. CO. 5, 1295, pp. aiS-aaj.

811 See the New Jersey Act of 17x4 to enforce the ordinance regulating
fees, cited in CO. 5, 996, pp. 108-iia Repealed, January ao^ 17.3. See:
Privy Council Regutgr, ''George I,^ vol. iii, 463. See also the North Caro-
lina Act of 1740 for the appointment of clerks for the county c ^ cited
in Report of the Board, October 14, 1742, CO. (. 323, pp. 294-396. Re-
pealed, January 19, 1743. See: Privy Council ReguUr, "George 11," vol.
vii, 283, 293. The South Carolina Act of 1736 regulating fees of public
officers reduced the income of patent officers, and for this reason was dis-
allowed. See: CO. 5, 40X, pp. 202-204; Privy Council Registeff "George
II,'' vol. V, 180-209. Numerous other acts of a similar character were
repealed for the above reason.

B^' The various acts to change the commissions of the judges come under
this head. The North Carolina judiciary act of 1760 is typical of all, and
the objections made to it are similar to those already cited. See the report
of the Board on this act, December 3, 1761, in CO. 5, 325, pp. 17Z-Z85;
Privy Council Register, "George III," vol. i, 606, 6x1, 616.

518 A Virginia act of X705 "declaring who should hold office," made
residence within the colony for three years one of the requirements. This

230 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

sought to change the charters of towns incorporated
by charter direct from the king, as in the case of Nor-
folk, Virginia."* Perhaps oddest of all was the disal-
lowance of Virginia laws appointing and regulating
fairs, on the ground that they encroached upon the
prerogatives of the governor.""

Since most of the encroachments upon the preroga-
tive were through the power of the assembly to con-
trol the purse; the eflForts of the Board to prevent
them usually came to naught, as the assembly could
frequently accomplish by indirect means what it was
forbidden to do by direct legislation. There were
occasions, however, when the Board used its power of
disallowance to prevent encroachments of the assem-
bly through its abuse of the money bill. In 1741 the
Jamaica assembly passed a triennial act, which the
governor refused to sign because it contained no sus-
pending clause.

After which the assembly compelled him to give his consent
to it without such a clause by keeping back an annual bill
usually passed for raising several sums of money for defray-
ing the necessary charges of the government, and we are of
opinion that this practice which . . . is so fundamentally

was fouDd to rettrict the operations of the surveyor of the customs, Wm.
Keith, and was disallowed. See: the report of the Board, July 6, 17x5, in
CO. 5, 1364, pp. 224-229; Privy Council Register, "George I," vol. i, 274.

°^^ Representation of the Board, June 14, 1754, in CO. 5, 13^, p. 67.
Repealed, June 21, following. See: Privy Council Register, "George II,"
vol. XV, Z48, Z53, x6i.

015 Two acts of this character were disallowed, October 31, 1751. The
first was entitled, "An Act for allowing fairs to be kept in the Town of
Suffolk, and preventing hogs and goats going at large therein, and for
altering the times of holding fairs in the Town of New Castle." The sec-
ond was, "An Act for establishing a town in Augusta County, and allowing
fairs to be held therein." See: CO. 5, 1366, p. 498; Privy Council Register,
"George II," vol. xiii, 347.

TREATMENT OF COLONIAL LEGISLATION 231

destructive of your Majesty's authority ought to be discouraged
whenever it occurs.*^*

Thus the Board could and did prevent forbidden
legislation from remaining on the statute books, even
though the colonial governors were forced to consent
to it.

' Ecclesiastical reasons led to the repeal of several
laws. Some of these concerned the Church of Eng-
land, such as laws for the disposal of parish prop-
erty,"^ laws reducing the revenues of the ministers of
the church, as in the famous "Parson's Cause" in Vir-
ginia,"* or laws which provided for the punishment
of ministers guilty of immoral conduct."' Other laws
encroached upon the general freedom of worship in
the colonies or gave special privileges to certain
sects. An act of Maryland, passed in 1696, was re-

^^* Repmentatiofi of the Board for the repeal of the triennial act of
Jamaica, in Board of Trade, Jamaica^ 66, pp. xo8-zia.

B^7 A New York act of 1733, which empowered the vestry of Jamaica in
Queen's County to dispose of some sixty pounds which it held, was disal-
lowed, August 8, 1734. Other acts permitted restries to sell real estate.
One passed by Virgima allowed the parish vestry of Bruton to sell certain
lots it owned in Williamsburg and loan the money on personal security.
The Board objected on the ground that the property had been given for the
benefit of the poor, and under the proposed plan it might become lost, con-
sequently the act was disallowed, July ao, 1764. See: CO. 5, 1368, 247-348;
Privy Council Register^ "George II," vol. iv, 6 ; "George III," vol. iii, 544.

^^^ See CO. 5, 1367, pp. 375-381, for the complaint of the clergy against
the four laws changing their pay from tobacco to money, also the action of
the Board of Trade in the matter. Repealed, August 10, 1759. See: Privy
Council Register, "George II," vol. xviii, loz. An act of New York passed
in Z700, which divided the parishes of East Chester and West Chester,
was also rejected by the Board because it lessened the remuneration of the
minister. See: CO. 5, 1x19, p. 362.

^^^ Act of North Carolina, passed in 1760, entitled: "An Act for makihg
provision for an Orthodox clergy." The main objections were those of the
Bishop of London. See: CO. 5, 325, pp. 201-207. The act was repealed,
June 3, 1762. See: Privy Council Register, "George III," vol. ii, 251.

232 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

pealed by the king, on the recommendation of the
Board, because it discriminated too severely against
Catholics."^ A later law was amended by the legis-
lature on the demand of the Board, for similar rea-
sons.*" Other acts passed in 1704 by the same prov-
ince, one to prevent the growth of popery, and the
other to permit, for eighteen months only, the min-
istration of Catholic priests in private families were
disallowed because they tended "to depopulate that
profitable colony." "*

The Board also tried to prevent the persecution of
Quakers. A law of Virginia, passed in 1663, pro-
hibited the importation of Quakers and punished by
heavy fines their assembling for religious worship.
This law was not discovered by the Board until 171 8,
but it was then promptly disallowed."* Six years
later two acts of Massachusetts Bay were repealed by
the king, because they taxed the Quakers in Dart-
mouth and Tiverton unfairly."* On the other hand

MO Privy Council Register, 'William III." vol. vi. 396.

^^^ This act in its final form was practically framed by the Board and
enacted by the Maryland Assembly. See: Board of Trade Journal, 13, 14.
and 15 for the history of this act.

^2' January 3, 1706, the Board reported on these acts. It stated that the
first of them forbade the exercise of the Catholic religion eren in private
families and in the most inoffensive form, "which is not your Majestsr's
intention as it would tend to depopulate that profitable colony." See : CO. 5,

7*^. PP- 35^-357.

62S This act provided that any Quaker more than sixteen years old, who

should go from his own house and join in any assembly of &vt or more

persons, should forfeit two hundred pounds of tobacco for the first offense

and five hundred pounds for the second, and should be banished for a third

offense. It also punished by a fine of two thousand pounds of tobacco any

shipmaster who brought into the colony any Quaker more than fourteen years

old. This act was recommended for repeal, because, if enforced, it would

drive out of the colony many industrious persons and because it was not in

harmony with the English toleration act See: CO. 5, 1365, pp. 45-46.

^2* Act of 1723. The Board in recommending the repeal of this act held

TREATMENT OF COLONIAL LEGISLATION 233

no unusual privileges were permitted the Quakers,
and several laws of Pennsylvania were vetoed be-
cause they granted greater freedom in affirmations
than were permitted by the laws of England."* Thus
the Board of Trade not only protected the interests of
the established church, but enforced such a degree
of toleration for persecuted sects as would not inter-
fere with colonial growth and prosperity.

Any law which affected the material interests of |
the crown was pretty sure to be disallowed. This !
fact made it almost impossible for the assembly of
North Carolina to frame a quit rent law in such a
way that the Board would accept it. As there was
little or no coin in the colony, such a law had to pro-
vide some equitable rate at which rents could be paid
in commodities. This arrangement, however, was
open to two objections. In the first place, it infringed
the act of Parliament regulating the value of foreign
coins ; and in the second place, in the opinion of the
Board values upon commodities were placed too
high. The effect would be to diminish the existing
too slender income of the government and still
further weaken the independence of the officials
whose salaries were paid from the quit rents - per-
haps this was what the authors of the acts intended

that, as the charter granted freedom of cooscienoe to all except Catholics, and
the regular practice within the colony was to permit each congregation to
select its own pastor, it was manifestly unfair to tax a majority of people
who were Quakers for the benefit of a Congregational ist minister who was
supported by only a small minority of the people in the two towns. See:
CO. 5, 915, p. 400; also the proceedings before the Privy Council, in Privy
Council Register^ "George I," vol. iv.

B^^Acts of this character were repealed in Z71X, 1714, and 1719. See:
CO. 5, 1292, pp. 330, 399; 1293, p. 206; Privy Council RegtsUr^ "Anne,"
vol. V, 293, and ''George I," vol. i, 293 ; Pennqrlvania Statutes at Large,

234 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

to accomplish. Consequently the Board disallowed
every such law prepared by the legislature of that
colony."* Quit rent laws passed by Virginia '" and
by New York "• met similar fates and for similar
reasons. If the Board was unable to secure the en-
actment of effective laws for the collection of quit
rents, it at least stood in the way of their confiscation
by action of the colonists themselves.

The Board insisted that colonial laws should not
be inconsistent with the laws of England, and always
submitted them to an attorney for his opinion on this
point. Any conflict between them and those laws of
England which extended to America was considered
suflicient ground for a repeal. Thus the Board con-
stantly submitted the provincial laws to a kind of
constitutional test, and in this way accustomed the
colonists to a limitation upon their local legislatures,
similar to that which was afterward embodied in the
Constitution of the United States. The laws passed

'** The act of 1738, disallowed in 1740, was open to leveral objections,
the most serious of which turned upon the power it gave a small group of
men of regulating the value of money, which would have enabled them to
manipulate it in their own interests. See: CO. 5, 333, pp. 373-276; North
Carolina Colonial Reeords^ vol. iv, 434-435 ; Privy Council RegtrtiTy ''Geori^
11/' vol. vii, 163, 177. The act of X748, repealed in X754, besides regulating
tilie payment in commodities, was especially unfair to the remaining pro-
prietary interest It also made twenty yearaf occupancy of land a valid
title. See: Report of the Board, March 35, X754, in CO. 5, 333.

^^'^ In recommending the repeal of the Virginia act of X730, the Board
said that it "deminished His Majesty's revenue, and weakens the process
for the crown in the recovery of forfeitures and arrears of quit rents." —
Representation of the Board, July 18, 1733, in CO. 5, X365, p. 353; also
Privy Council Register^ "George I," vol. iv, 337.

B'" The main reason for recommending the repeal of the New York acts
of 1744 was that they made the collection of quit rents more difficult See:
New '-York Colonial Documents, vol. vii, 504; Privy Council Register,
"George II," vol. viii, 86, 96.

TREATMENT OF COLONIAL LEGISLATION 235

by Parliament and binding upon all the colonies cor-
responded to the Constitution and the acts of Con-
gress. The work of the Board of Trade and its of-
ficers in maintaining the supremacy of the general
law, when a local law conflicted with it, corresponded
to the action of the Supreme Court of the United
States. The question at issue was largely a judicial
one -were the laws in conflict? If they were, the
local one must give way.

The parallel between British colonial practice and
present day United States practice is clear in the case
of laws from chartered colonies, as the charter was a
written constitution. The local legislature was lim-
ited by the terms of the grant ; if a power had not been
granted, it could not be exercised legally. The law
of Rhode Island establishing an admiralty court il-
lustrates this point. The Board submitted the law to
Attorney-general Northey for his opinion,"* who re-
ported that he had examined the act and the charter
of the colony and was of the opinion that the charter
gave the legislature

Power to erect only courts for determining all actions, causes,
matters, and things happening within that island which doth
not tmpower them to erect a Court of Admiralty, the juris-
diction of such court being of matters arising on the hig^ sea,
which IS out of the island."*®

Although the charter did not provide for a royal veto,
on the basis of this report the Board recommended
the act for disallowance, which was promptly done
by an Order in Council.'

6S1

B'* December a, 1703, CO. 5, 1290^ p. 587.

^*^ Northey to the Board, December 34, 1703, CO. 5, 126a.

Bsi February, 1704, CO. 5, 1290, p. 422.

236 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

The above is rather an uncommon case, but it
brings out very clearly the American idea of a con-
stitutional test of laws passed by a subordinate di-
vision of the government. The settlement of conflicts
between laws passed by Parliament and acts of colo-
nial legislatures, unlimited by a specific charter, in-
volved just as strictly a constitutional test as in the
case cited from Rhode Island. Tests of this kind had
to be applied by the legal advisers of the crown in-
stead of the administrative officers ; consequently the
Board simply took the advice of its counsel in such
matters. If their opinion was adverse to a law, the
Board promptly asked for its repeal.
I The legislatures of all the colonies "* were made to
■; feel this check upon their law-making powers. The
judiciary act of Massachusetts was objected to on the
ground that it infringed the right of the Admiralty
Courts to try cases without a jury,'** and that of Vir-
ginia because it did not specifically recognize the
right of appeal to the king in council."* Pennsyl-
vania, New Jersey, and several other colonies at-
tempted to establish rules for affirmations different
from those in the acts of Parliament, and many of
their laws received the royal veto."' Other attempted

**'With the possible ezceprion of Rhode Island; Delaware was not
recognized as a separate province by the British government

68S «The Act entituled, An Act for establishing of Courts, providing,
amongst other things, that all matters and issues in fact shall be tried by a
juiy of twelve men, has, in that particular, been looked upon to be directly
contrary to the intention of the act of Parliament ... by which it is
provided that all causes relating to the breach of the acts of trade may, at
the pleasure of the officer or informer, be tried in the Court of Admiralty,
etc" — Board to Bellomont, February 3, 1699, in Massachusetts Acts and
Resolves^ vol. i, 287.

**^ Chalmers, George. Introduction to the Revolt, vol. i, 3x8.

BBS Objections were made to both Georgia and South Carolina laws be-

TREATMENT OF COLONIAL LEGISLATION 237

variations from English law, to which the Board ob-
jected, were laws establishing novel rules of proce-
dure in the courts,*** laws defining the privileges of
freemen,**" and criminal laws with uncommon meth-
ods of punishment"*

The two great classes of laws, however, which were ■
repealed because tliey conflicted with the laws of
England were those creating bills of credit or regu-
lating their value in coin, and laws governing the

cause they departed from the rules laid down in the Toleration Act Georgia
sought to extend the privileges granted to Quakers to all protestants and
dissenters by an act passed in 1756, but the act was disallowed. See:
Pennsylvania Archives^ first series, vol. i, X55-X58 ; CO. 5, 673, pp. 228-229.

*^* A great variety of laws of this character were disallowed. A South
Carolina act of 1759, regulating the proof of wills, permitted methods of
proof not allowed by the laws of England [CO. 5, 404, pp. 59-61]. Methods
of selecting jurors, unfamiliar to English lawyers, were attempted by several
of the colonies with the usual result The treatment of the Georgia act of
X756 is typical of all [CO. 5, 673, pp. 224-231]. Several colonies passed
laws greatly extending the jurisdiction of county courts. These were ob-
jected to because of the ignorance of the county judges. The North Caro-
lina act of 1755 illustrates both the laws and their treatment [CO. 5, 324, pp.
299-308]. Pennsylvania attempted to limit grand jury presentments, but the
Board objected [CO. 5, 1291, p. 266; Privy Council Register^ "Anne," vol.
iv, 4$i]. In 1726 South Carolina attempted to make the first action in civil
cases a capias instead of a summons, but the British lawyers objected to the
innovation [CO. 5, 401, pp. 28-30].

°'7 Three acts of Pennsylvania for this purpose were repealed in 1706,
1 714, and X719 because they were held to interfere in some measure with
the work of the admiralty courts. See: CO. 5, 1291, p. 283; 1292, p. 399;
1293, pp. 206, ff.

688 More laws of Pennsylvania than of any other, or perhaps all of the
other colonies, were objected to because of the unusual punishments provided.
These included divorce for the injured husband or wife as a punishment
for adultery, marriage for those guilty of fornication, castration for rape and
bestiality, selling for fourfold the value of the property destro3red for in-
cendiarism, the death penalty for manslaughter, and the same penalty for
false swearing as the person against whom the evidence was given would
have suffered had he been convicted. Some of these were reSnacted with
amendments so as to meet the objections of the Board, but others were again
repealed by order of that body. See: CO. 5, 1291, pp. 254-289; Privy Coun-
cil Register^ "Anne,'' vol. iii, 99-xox ; Pennsylvania Statutes at Large,

338 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

(descent of property. The first class of laws violated
the act of Parliament regulating the value of foreign
coins in the colonies. Nearly every colony had some
of its acts disallowed for this reason, because all were
confronted with the problem of securing some form
of circulating medium.*** The second class is well
illustrated by Connecticut's inteState law and by that
of North Carolina which allowed illegitimate as
well as legitimate children to inherit property. The
last was ordered repealed and the first held invalid,
although that decision was finally reversed.*** Other
colonies attempted to pass similar laws, but the Board
uniformly interposed the royal veto.'"
^ om rn€>r ce ■ ^^ was in dealing with laws which were intended to
'Reau'siriDh&i'^gulate commerce, or which laid duties upon im-
ports, that the Board exercised its greatest control.
While its attitude was greatly influenced by the pre-
vailing mercantilist doctrines, its reasons for repeal
in many cases are actuated by administrative, as well

^**See: New York Colonial Documents^ vol. ▼, 67 and passim; Chal-
men, George. Introduction to the Revolt, vol. i, subject, bills of credit

'^^^ Coooecdcut Historical Society Collections, vol. iv, 1x4-115, 143-1 50,
and passim ; vol. v, 74-87, 4B9-494, and passim ; Trumbull. History of Con-
necticut, vol. ii, chap. iv.

*^^ A Pennsylvania act of this character was disallowed in 1706 because
it was contrary to the English law of inheritance [CO. 5, 1291, p. 267;
Privy Council Register, "Anne," vol. iii, 99-101]. Two laws of New
Hampshire met a similar fate the same year, and for similar reasons. An
additional objection was made to one of these acts, namely, that it not only
altered the law of descent but it also applied to persona residing in Eng-
land as well as to those in the colony [CO. $, 912, pp. 186-190; Privy Coun-
cil Register, "Anne," vol. iii, 269]. A North Carolina act of 1762 for
the distribution of intestate estates was apparently drawn so as to be in
entire agreement with the laws of England; yet, because it failed to make
provision for the legal representation of the heirs of a dead child, the act
was disallowed, July 20, 1764 [CO. 5, 325, pp. 240-241; Privy Council
Register, "George III," vol. iii, 514, 544].

TREATMENT OF COLONIAL LEGISLATION 239

as commercial, motives. The merchants in England
were extremely sensitive about any burdens whatever
being laid upon their commerce with the colonies,
consequendy they were always prepared to urge the
repeal of any provincial law which they found ob-
jectionable. Usually the Board was very prompt in
taking such action as the merchants demanded, but
sometimes it refused. The following are the kind of
acts which were objected to.

In 1700, the Board reported against a law of
Massachusetts, which included a clause establishing
sea-ports, on the ground that it encroached upon the
power granted to the commissioners of customs "to
appoint ports in all His Majesty^s plantations for the
lading and unlading" •" of enumerated goods. The
power to appoint ports was thus denied to the colony,
because the exercise of such a power might interfere
with the enforcement of the acts of trade. An act
regulating the building of ships was repealed at the
same time as the above act, on the ground that it
might subject British merchants who had ships built
in the province to inconvenient regulations.'**

Eight years later the Board condemned a Virginia
revenue law because it laid a tonnage duty in such a
way as to discriminate in favor of ships wholly owned
within the province, and made use of a scheme for
estimating the tonnage of vessels which the mer-
chants claimed was unfair. The act was promptly
disallowed.'** A little later two acts of Maryland,

**^ Massachusetta Ads and Resolves^ vol. i, 336, note,
**• — Ibid.f 353, note,

B^* RepresenutioD of the Board, January 5, 1708, in CO. 5, 1362, pp.
275-278 ; Privy Council Register, "Anne," vol. iii, 519.

240 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

one of which regulated the size of tobacco hogsheads,
and the other forbade cutting and defacing them in
loading upon ships, were disallowed : the first on the
complaints of ship-owners that the special size of
cask required was different from that in use in Vir-
ginia and consequently would not pack to advantage
in the holds of the ships; and the second because it
required a bond from the shipmaster to observe its
provisions and so laid a burden upon British ship-
ping/«

The next year the Board had before it the acts of
both Virginia and Maryland establishing ports and
towns."* It had previously advised the enactment of
such a law in Virginia, but not the kind of a law
which was passed. Ports were desired but not towns.
The colonial legislatures, however, sought to develop
towns as well. The ports were erected into boroughs,
with markets, fairs, merchants' guilds, and special
exemptions from a portion of the duties regularly
paid by persons not residing within their limits. To
encourage immediate growth in population, the resi-
dents were also exempted from the poll-tax of to-
bacco for a period of fifteen years. The Board found
two serious objections to these laws. By encouraging

*^(^ Many of the papers relating to Maryland are included with those of
Virginia, as in this and the following cases. The bond required was two
hundred pounds sterling. The penalty for defacing a cask was three pounds
for each cask or hogshead so injured. As the casks were of such a size
that screws had to be used in loading them into the holds of vessels, de-
facing was almost unavoidable. Representation of the Board, March 23,
1708, in CO. 5, 1362, pp. 291-293 ; Privy Council Register, "Anne," vol. iv,

45.

546 xhe Virginia act was passed in 1706. There were three Maryland

acts; the first passed in the same year as that of Virgima, and two addi-
tional and supplementary acts passed in 1707 and in 1708.

TREATMENT OF COLONIAL LEGISLATION 241

the growth of towns they might finally lead to the
development of manufacturing, especially of wool-
ens, and thus reduce the English exports of goods of
that kind. By attracting persons to the towns they
would diminish the number engaged in the produc-
tion of tobacco, lessen the total crop, and so diminish
the export trade of the provinces. Thus English
trade would suffer a double injury. The usual veto
followed."^

In 1 717 two more acts of Virginia received the
royal veto. One, passed in 1713-1714, was to prevent
frauds in tobacco payments and was held to impose a
"great burden" upon trade."* The other, passed in
1714, regulated the Indian trade, excluding un-
authorized persons from such trade. The Board held
that this act infringed acts of Parliament preserving
to all British subjects the right to trade with the In-
dians, and hence was essentially illegal.

Other colonies found the Board obstinate in resist-
ing attempts to monopolize the Indian trade for their
own inhabitants. In 1729 a series of ten acts, which
had been passed by New York since 1720, was dis-
allowed."* A few years later a South Carolina ordi-
nance, which was designed to assert the rights of the

^^^This whole incident started from a petition of the merchants who
traded to Virginia, asking the commissioners of customs to have certain
places designated as ports. The matter came before the Board of Trade in
170$ and it recommended that such action was desirable on account of the
scattered settlements and large navigable rivers in that colony. Instructions
were sent to the governor to secure the necessary legislation, and the acts
described above were passed. Representation of the Board, November 30,
1709, in CO. 5, 1362, pp. 43a ft; Privy Council Register, "Anne," vol. iv, 491.

°^^ See the report of Solicitor-general Thompson and the representation of
the Board, June 29, 1717, in CO. $, 1364, pp. 463-464.

**• Privy Council Register, "George II," vol. ii, 97-106.

342 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

people of that colony to the trade with the Creek and
Cherokee Indians, also met the fatal objection of the
Board/*^ This opposition to colonial laws regulating
the Indian trade probably did not assist in the solu-
tion of that vexed problem, but did prevent any one
colony from solving it in its own favor.

A Massachusetts revenue act of 171 8 laid higher du-
ties upon English goods than upon those from any oth-
er country or province,**^ and also double duties upon
wines and other products not imported directly from
the place of their production,"* provisions which
were discriminations against English commerce. The
law also discriminated against English ships by re-
quiring all such vessels to pay the powder duty, while*
the ships of that and the neighboring provinces were
exempted from such tax."' Such a law not only laid
a burden upon English merchants, hut was clearly an
attempt to regulate foreign commerce. The Board
lost no time in TayuigTt before the king with the
recommendation that it be disallowed.

And forasmuch as this act seems designed to be an annual
one, we would propose that in case it shall have been re-
enacted this year before the said governor receives Your
Majesty's orders on this head, he may be enjoined forth-
with to declare your Majesty's disapprobation thereof and

^^ This act was objected to because of the way it was passed. See the
report of the Committee of the Privy Council, March x8, 1738, in Privy
Council Register^ "George II," vol. v, 499.

B*i English merchandise was taxed at the rate of twenty shillings for
every hundred pounds, cost value. Other goods were taxed but one penny
per pound. See: Massachusetts Acts and Resolves^ vol. ii, 108, sec. x.

^^^ The double duties had to be paid by all importers who were not bona
fide residents of Massachusetts.

B(^* Act passed, June 28, 1718, in Massachusetts Acts and Resolves^ vol. ii,
X07-X12.

TREATMENT OF CX)LONIAL LEGISLATION 243

not tD pennit die said act or any part of it to be put in
executioiL^^

The recommendation was promptly approved by the
king in council and orders issued in accordance there-
with.

In the meantime other colonies had attempted to \
pass similar laws, which caused the Board to issue •
its first special instruction to the governors not to
enact any law which would aiSfect the navigation of
the kingdom/" The New York revenue act of 171 5
had laid a tariiSf duty on all European goods. The
Board examined the act and wrote Hunter that it
considered that particular clause objectionable, and
that if he could not secure its repeal, the law would
be disallowed."* Hunter obtained the desired amend-
ment, but protested against a regulation which was
opposed to former practice."^

A North Carolina revenue act laid a direct import
duty of ten per cent upon all goods of British manu-
facture. It was not regularly submitted to the crown
for confirmation, but had been transmitted to the
Board of Trade by the customs officers, and without

^** Representarion of the Board of Trade, April 34, 17x9, in CO. 5, 9xs»
pp. 267 ff.

*<^B Instructions sent to Governor Hunter, September 27, 17x7, in New
York Colonial Documents^ vol. v, 50X.

55« **y/t have considered the Revenue Act and have some objectioos to
it particularly that it affects the shipping and navigation of this kingdom as
you will lee from the inclosed paper of observations, however we would not
lay it before His Majesty to be repealed, because you say the repealing it
would ruin the trade of the province ; you must therefore move the Assembly
to pass a new act not liable to the said objections, otherwise we shall be
obliged to lay this act before His Majesty for his disallowance, for no acts are
to be passed in ye plantadoos whereby the shipping and navigation of this
kingdom are affected." .- Letter to Hunter, February 25, X7X8, Ibid,, 500-508.

667 — llfid,^ pp. 5x7-5x9.

244 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

waiting for further information the Board laid it be-
fore the king for disallowance. At the same time the
proprietors of the colony were directed to reprimand
their governor for consenting to a law, so "repugnant
to the laws of Great Britain and no ways warranted
by the charter." They were also informed that a
repetition of the offense would be sufficient ground
for annulling their charter.*"

The New York revenue act of 1720 again laid a
nvo per cent duty on European goods, but had a
clause suspending its operation until it had been con-
firmed."* In 1724 the Board of Trade recommended
that the act should be "passed into law," although it
objected to the principle of the tax; but it was over-
ruled by the Committee of the Privy Council which
insisted upon the disallowance of the act."^

In order to prevent the enactment of similar laws
for the future, instructions were at once sent to all
the governors forbidding them to consent to any law
which laid any duty whatsoever on European goods
imported in English vessels."^ The Board did not

^^" RepresentatioD of the Board to the king. May i, 1718, in CO. $, 1293,
pp. X48-152. The act waa anoulled by an Order in Council, May 14, 1718,
10 Privy Council Register, "George I," vol. ii, 141.

'*• New York Colonial Laws, vol. ii, 32.

B«o xhe Board of Trade reported in favor of confirming the law, July,
1722. The report was opposed by the London merchants and the conunittee
did not take any action on it for two years. Finally, in 1724, it took Mp the
report of the Board and the petition of the merchants, heard counsel for and
against the act, "And do agree humbly to oiler their opinion that the said
act is not fit for your Majesty's royal approbation." — New York Colonial
Documents, vol. v, 706 ; Privy Council Register, "George I," vol. iv, 46, 76,
501, 502, 507.

B^^This instruction was issued at the demand of the Committee of the
Privy Council. See: Order in Council, April 30, 1724, in New York Colonial
Documents, vol. v.

TREATMENT OF CX)LONIAL LEGISLATION 245

recommend the disallowance of all laws which vio-
lated this instruction ; but it refrained from doing so,
only because of the confusion which might result
from the repeal of a revenue law after the taxes had
been collected and in some cases expended. In such
cases, however, it demanded that the law should be
amended so as to remove the objectionable f eatures.'**

The Board did not even permit evasions of this rule
by indirect methods of taxation. Massachusetts at-
tempted to do this in 1752 by an excise tax levied upon
retailers of certain goods. The retailers had to have
licenses and importers were forbidden to sell to any
but licensed retailers. As this was considered a bur-
den upon the import trade, the act was disallowed."*

The jealous care with which the Board of Trade
excluded the assemblies from all legislation which in
any way burdened British commerce is also seen in
its attitude toward laws, other than those imposing
ordinary tariff duties. A Massachusetts act of 171 8
"for the better regulating of the culling of fish" was
objected to by certain merchants and recommended
by the Board for repeal, on the ground that it im-
posed upon British traders undesirable restrictions in
purchasing fish."* Virginia and New Jersey at-
tempted to prevent the importation of convicted

°*2 Representation of the Board of Trade on the New York revenue law,
August 6, lysSt in New York Colonial Documents^ vol. vi, 33-36.

^••C.O. 5, 918, p. 276; Privy Council Register^ "George II," vol. xiv,
146.

'^^^The merchants complained that the fish were badly culled by the
persons appointed under this act, and as they had to be accepted, even though
inferior, the trade was injured. Before the passage of this act the merchant
had his own culler present while the fish were being culled, and so could
control the quality of his purchase, which under the new law was impossible.
See: Representation of the Board, May 4, 1721, in CO. 5, 915, p. 324.

246 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

criminals, but the acts were promptly vetoed in Eng-
land.'*' Other colonies tried with equally ill success
to exclude paupers and other indigent persons,''' the
Board interposing a steadfast objection.

Pennsylvania passed a series of laws which laid
heavy burdens on the importation of convicted crimi-
nals, paupers, and other indigent persons. Some of
these were not transmitted to England for some time
and so escaped the vigilance of the Board. One
passed in 1738 was objected to and recommended for
disallowance, but the Privy Council was so dilatory
that the six months expired before any action was
taken,"^ which had the eiSfect of confirming the act.

In 1746 the Board considered the acts of 1742- 1743,
one of which laid an import duty upon criminals and
paupers. Although Francis Fane reported that he
had no objection to the act ^4n point of law," the
Board recommended that it should be disallowed
and also three similar acts passed in 1722 and 1729.'"
The reason for the repeal of the act of 1742 was that

**(^ The Virginia Act was passed in 1732 and vetoed the next year. See:
CO. 5, 1365, p. 352. For the New Jersey Act see the repiesentatioii of the
Board, March 17, 1733, in CO. 5, 996, pp. 283-284; Privy Council Register^
"George II," vol. ii, 624.

B«« A South Carolina act of 1738, regulating the coasting trader included
this among its provisions. Another reason for its disallowance was the at-
tempted special privileges given to vessels owned wholly within the prov-
ince. See: Representation of the Board, May 9, 175$, in CO. 5, 403, pp.
6-8 ; Privy Council Register, "George II," vol. zv, 452.

^*'The duties and penalties were held to be sufficient to prevent the
transportation of felons. The Board reported for repeal, February 2X, 1739,
but no action was taken by the Privy Council until 1747. See: CO. 5, 1294;
Privy Council Regtster, "George II," vol. xi, 127.

s<s This report provoked an indignant protest from the Penns against the
proposed repeal of laws which had been so long in force, and against which
no objection had previously been made. This protest saved the act of 1722
and the two acts of 1729, as two of them had been repealed several years

TREATMENT OF COLONIAL LEGISLATION 047

^"f"

the duties and the amount of security required of the
importer of indigent persons made the act virtually
prohibitory. The report also indicates that the vital
objection to this and the other acts was that they im-
posed duties in such a way as to regulate immigration,
although they specifically exempted from their op-
eration such persons as could be legally imported
according to the laws of England. But as the ex-
emptions did not include the penalties imposed upon
masters of ships for violating the acts, which would
"probably deter them from importing" such persons,
the Board concluded that the acts were clearly regu-
lative and intended to evade the acts of Parliament."*
In 1746 Pennsylvania passed another act, laying du-
ties only on persons "Convicted of heinous Crimes,"
but the Board secured the repeal of this act, just as it
had the others and on similar grounds.'^^

The question of the slave trade early attracted at-
tention. The colonies attempted to regulate the im-
portation of slaves, just as Pennsylvania did that of
criminals, by means of tariff duties. In doing this,
they were actuated by different motives. The south-
ern colonies usually desired nothing more than
revenue, but at times they attempted to regulate the
quantity and quality of the slaves imported; the
northern colonies more frequently intended that their

before by the attembly. See: Petition of the Penns agaimt a Repretenta-
tion of the Board, in CO. 5, 1271, v, 38 ; Privy Council Register^ "George
II," vol. xi, 51-52, 79.

B** Representation of the Board, December 5, 1746, in CO. 5, 1294, pp.
252 ff. See, also: Pennsylvania Archives^ vol. i, 721, and Pennsylvania
Statutes at Large, vol. iv, 509-5x1.

B7<>This act was supplementary to the act of 1742. See: Representation
of the Board, July 29, 1748, in CO. 5, 1294, P* 355 ! Privy Council Register,
"George II,** vol. xii, 107.

348 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

laws should be exclusive. In either case the laws
could be and frequently were regulative. The Board
conceded that the assemblies might lay a tax upon ne-
groes for purposes of revenue ; but it insisted that such
a tax should not be so laid as to amount to a regulation
or impose a burden upon commerce.

Virginia had passed three different acts between
1710 and 1718 which laid an import duty of five
pounds per head on negroes; but, as no one com-
plained, the Board paid little attention to them. In
1723, and again in 1728, new laws were framed which
levied but two pounds duty per head. Both of these,
however, received the royal disapproval, on demand
of the Board, because they laid a burden upon Brit-
ish merchants.*^^^ Another reason was that the tax
would increase the value of slaves, make it practically
impossible for poor planters to purchase them, hence
delay the settling up of the country, and so indirectly
reduce the potential quantity of tobacco for export."*
The action in the case of the Virginia laws indicates
that it was not the amount, but the principle of the
taxation, which was opposed by the Board.

The difficulty was solved in 1735 as a result of the
Board's consideration of the last five-year revenue
act of New York, which had been passed in 1732 "*
and contained a clause laying a heavy import duty on
slaves. The act had been in operation three years,

^^^ The tax was to be paid by the importer. The most serious objection,
however, was the indirect effect upon English trade of an increase in the
cost of slaves, and the consequent limitation of the tobacco fields.

*^2 See the representations of the Board of January 29, 1723, and May 23,
1729, in CO. 5, 136$, pp. 269-271; 1366, pp. 28 ff. See, also: the Privy
Council Register^ "George I," vol. iv, 546 ; "George II," vol. ii, 47.

■^' New York Colonial Lavos^ vol. ii, 768-787.

TREATMENT OF COLONIAL LEGISLATION 249

and had been complained of so often by the merchants
that finally the Board sent the governor instructions
to have the law amended at once so that

No duty be laid on any slaves imported payable by the inv-
porter . . . also to signify our royal intention to our
council and the Assembly of our said province that if they do
not immediately comply with this our instruction we shall re-
peal the act now complained of."'*

Similar instructions were issued to other governors,
and from that time on, colonial laws which imposed
duties on negroes had to specify that the tax should
not be paid by the importer."^

The Board of Trade also took exception to acts of
the colonial assemblies which were intended to place
restrictions upon intercolonial trade; but in practice
did not demand the repeal of very many laws for that
reason. A law of North Carolina levying a duty
upon Indian traders from Virginia who traded with
the Indians to the south and west was repealed in
1709."* The Massachusetts tariff act which laid re-
taliatory duties on the products of New Hampshire
was passed in 172 1. Mr. West, the attorney for the
Board, gave an opinion on this law in 1725, in the
course of which he said.

If any province injures another by any undue tax on their
trade the remedy I think ought to be by application to the

*^^ Additional iDstnictions to Governor Cosby, August, 1735, in New
York Colonial DocumenUf vol. vi, 33-34.

^^B See the instructions to Francis Bernard, 1758, in New Jersey Archives ^
vol. ix, 52-53; to Arthur Dobb% 1754, North Carolina Colonial Records,
vol. v, XX 18. Of. Du Bois's Suppression of the Slave Trade, chaps, ii-iv.

*7« Order in Council of September 26, X709, in CO. 5, X3X6, O, 40. In
X7XX this act was renewed by North Carolina in the form of an export duty,
as it was claimed that the Virginia traders passed through North Carolina
territory in going to and from the Indian country. The Board at once de-

aso AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

crown to prevent any such acts being pass'd into Uw, and not
by way of reprisals enacted among themselves.*^^

The Board was evidently of the same opinion as
Mr West; for in 1731, when the residents of Albe-
marle County, North Carolina, complained of Vir-
ginia's laying a heavy import duty upon their tobac-
co, it at once ordered the secretary to prepare the
draft of a representation for the repeal of the acts.*"
Four years later, when Massachusetts excluded New
Hampshire bills of credit, the Board ordered the act
to be laid before the king for his disallowance.'"
Other cases could be cited in which the Board showed
a similar attitude. Thus when Governor Dobbs com-
plained of a South Carolina statute which taxed
naval stores imported from the northward, the Board
wrote him that it must be in its consequence destruc-
tive to

The commerce of His Majesty's subjects in North Carolina
and have an improper effect thereupon and therefore we shall
lose no time in enquiring into diis matter iand taking such
measures as shall appear to us to be proper."'®

nianded that the act be disallowed. See: Representation of the Board, De-
cember Z9, 17x2, in CO. 5, Z363, pp. 437-438.

*^^ Massachusetts Acts and Resolves^ vol. ii, 335.

B^* There were two of these acts, one passed in 1705 and the other in
Z736; both intended to prevent the importation of tobacco from North
Carolina. In recommending the repeal of these laws the Board pointed out
that the only good port in Nordi Carolina was near the southern boundary,
and that it was therefore necessary that the planters use those of Virginia.
If the planters to the northward were cut off from Virginia by both land and
sea, as these laws contemplated, they would be placed under difficulties so
great that they might be forced to give up the production of tobacco and go
to manufacturing. See: Representation of the Board, July 29, 1731, CO. 5,
Z366, pp. 76-78. The acts were disallowed, November 25, 1731. See:
Privy Council Register^ "George II," vol. ii, 477.

*T* Massachusetts Acts and Resolves ^ vol. ii, 747.

**^ Letter of November 9, 1757, in North Carolina Colonial Records^ vol.
V, 786-787.

TREATMENT OF COLONIAL LEGISLATION 251

The policy of the Board on the subject of inter-
colonial commerce is just as clear as it was on the
question of external trade, although there are fewer
instances of its use. The few instances of action, how-
ever, were eflfectire in preventing the growth of dis-
criminating trade laws. The most striking illustra-
tion of this is the rapidity with which commercial
retaliation of all kinds developed as soon as the colo-
nies threw off British control, and the absence of such
controversies during the preceding century. After
the colonies became independent they were unre-
strained, there was no body to disallow their laws,
they had no common superior, nor was there any
place where unfair and discriminating laws of other
colonies could be effectually impeached. The little
which the Board did in this field made a world of dif-
ference -the difference between commercial har-
mony and commercial anarchy.

Efforts to prevent conditions in any colony which
might lead to a retardation of its development,
or which might cause a depopulation of neigh-
boring provinces, are closely related to the Board's
commercial policy. Overlarge individual land
holdings hindered rapid growth in population,
consequently the Board insisted upon laws break-
ing the exorbitant land grants in New York, and
refused its consent to land grant, seating, and
cultivation laws in other colonies because they
would encourage the growth"^ of large hold-
ings. It also put its stamp of disapproval upon laws

'^^ Id Z707 the Board secured the repeal of t Virginia Uw regulating
land grants and their seating. This act permitted anybody to take up two
hundred acres of land for each taxable senrant above five in number, be-

aS2 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

oflfering to newcomers temporary exemption from
prosecutions for debts contracted in other prov-
inces."*

Another important class of acts which the Board
rery frequently offered for the royal veto included
those which affected private property. A wide range
of laws could be included under this general head;
but the most common can be grouped into two gen-
eral divisions. The first and larger class included
laws which in some way affected credit transactions,

sides the fifty acres he could take up for bringing a servant into the colony.
Not more than four thousand acres could be granted in one patent, but a
person could take out as nuuiy patents as he chose. Under this law any
person with one hundred slaves could patent nineteen thousand acres of
land, or other areas in proportion. The Board maintained that this was
far more than any one man could cultivate, and would enable a few rich
men to secure control of all the good land. Thus the law would delay the
actual settling of the colony.

The provision in regard to seating was equally objectionable. Building
a house twelve by twelve, clearing, planting, and tending one acre was
suflicient for "seating and planting," without any provision as to the number
of acres. The Board insisted that this should suffice for but fifty acres, in-
stead of a possible four thousand. See: Representation of the Board, March
27, X707, in CO. 5, 1362, pp. ti7 ff.

The repeal of the above law left a law of 1666 in force which defined
"•eating" as building a house and keeping stock for one whole year, without
mentioning the number of acres. This too was disallowed in 171 1, having
been in force forty-five years. See: Representation of the Board, February
22, X711, in Privy Council Register^ "Anne," vol. v, 227.

Other colonies attempted to change the terms of granting lands and
failed. North Carolina in 1738 tried to reduce the requirement by one half,
but the law was vetoed in 1740. See: CO. 5, 323, pp. 279-281 ; Privy Coun-
cil Register, "George II," vol. vii, 257. A number of other acts of North
Carolina affecting land grants were repealed in 1754. See: Representation
of the Board, March 25, 1754, in CO. 5, 323; Privy Council Register^
"George II," vol. xv, xx8-i2x.

B^^ The act of North Carolina, vetoed in 1707, is a good illustration. By
this act persons coming from other colonies were not to be proceeded against
for debts due in places from which they came for a period of five years
after coming to the colony. See: Representation of the Board, November
X2, X707, in CO. 5, X292, pp. 17-X9.

TREATMENT OF COLONIAL LEGISLATION 253

such as acts giving the claims of resident creditors
precedence over those of non-residents,'" various
forms of bankruptcy laws,"** legal tender acts,"" stay
laws,"* statutes of limitations,"' and usury laws."*
The second class embraced those which affected land
titles, such as cultivation laws, and acts regulating the
method of recording deeds and proving titles, espe-
cially if such acts were retroactive.
As the colonies grew and the population flowed

B'*See: North Carolint Colonial Records, vol. iv, 844; PennsylvanU
Archives, first teriea, vol. i, 157.

584 Mji 2s easy to foresee that such a law can be beneficial to the very
small part of the creditors resident in the colony only and that die nine-
tenths of them who reside here would be exposed to frauds and difficulties
of every sort and might be greatly injured in their properties.

"For these reasons we beg leave to lay the said act before jrour Lordships,
with our humble opinion, that it should forthwith receive His Majesty's
disallowance." ~ Report of die Board to the Privy Council, June 39, 1758, on
the Massachusetts bankruptcy law, passed August 31, 1757, in Massachusetts
Acts and Resolves, vol. iv, 44.

The Maryland act for the relief of poor debtors, repealed in 1709, comes
under this head, although it affected English merchants less. The Vir-
ginia insolvency law of 1762 was a bankruptcy law in all but name, and
affected English creditors almost as much as did that of Massachusetts. It
was disallowed in 1763, after a full hearing of the complaints and objections
of merchants who might be affected. CO. 5, 727, p. 132 ; 1368, pp. 234-241 ;
Privy Council Register, "George III," vol. iii, 54.

•88 New Jersey Archives, voL viii, part ii, xoi, 125, and passim ; New
York Colonial Documents, vols, vi, vii, passim,

*"* New Jersey act for the suspension of civil actions from February to
September, 1748. See: Representation of the Board, July 21, 1749, in New
Jersey Archives, vol. vii, 307-308.

B^ See the representation of the Board on a Virginia act fixing a limi-
tation of obligations for judgments, bonds, etc, March 21, 1729, in Board
of Trade Journal, 39, pp. 60-61 ; Privy Council Register, "George II," vol.

1, 509. •

888 ^ew York act to prevent the lev3ring on specialties more than the
principal, interest, and cost of suit; disallowed, August X2, 1731. See:
Privy Council Register, "George II," vol. ii, 402. Maryland act to limit
damages upon protested bills of exchange to ten per cent ; passed, December
XX, X708; repealed, December X5, X709, because the limit did not permit

254 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

westward and filled up the back country, it became
necessary to increase the original number of civil di-
visions. In Massachusetts it had been the custom,
when a new town was created, to allow it to send dele-
gates to the House of Representatives the same as the
older towns. In 1743 ^^^ Board of Trade instructed
the governor not to give his assent to any similar law
in the f liture, on the ground that

This practice of erecting new towns and vesting them with
this privilege, having formerly by its frequency been found to
produce many inconveniences and particularly that of contin-
ually increasing the number of Representatives.***

Although the lower house of the Massachusetts legis-
lature objected to the instruction as an illegal attempt
to limit the legislative privileges granted by the
charter, it observed the new order, in form at least,
until 1757. In that year Danvers was erected into a
town with the privilege of sending representatives to
the House ; but the act was disallowed at the request
of the Board in 1759, because it was clearly in viola-
tion of the governor's instructions on this point.**®

In the meantime the same question had arisen in
North Carolina in a somewhat similar form. From
time to time, new counties had been created with the
privilege of sending two delegates to the assembly.

even ordinary interest on protested bills, when unavoidable delays were
considered. Sec: CO. 5, 727, p. 141; Privy Council Register, "Anne,"
vol. iv, 491.

°^* Representation of the Board, July 31, 1759, in Massachusetts Acts and
Resolves, vol. iv, 5. The above quotation is the Board's own reason for
issuing the instruction. Cf. the report of the Board on laws creating town-
ships passed in 1739-1740^ Ibid,, vol. ii, 1006-1007.

<^^^ Massachusetts Acts and Resolves, vol. iv, 5, 93-94; CO. 5, 919, pp.
40-41. Notice of the disallowance apparently never reached Massachusetts,
and Danvers continued to send representatives to the General Court.

TREATMENT OF COLONIAL LEGISLATION 255

Some of the older counties claimed the right of send-
ing five representatives, consequently there was dis-
satisfaction in the other counties. In 1746, Governor
Johnson, by some shrewd parliamentary practice, se-
cured the enactment of a law rearranging the repre-
sentation. This act was considered by the Board be-
tween the years 1750- 1754 and finally recommended
for disapproval, together with all the previous acts
creating counties."^ Governor Dobbs was then in-
structed to incorporate the counties by charters, is-
sued with the consent of his council, and at the same
time directed what representation he should permit
each county to have in the assembly. This arrange-
ment failed, and he was finally instructed to reenact
the laws creating counties, but such acts should not
confer upon them the right to elect members of the
assembly."*

Probably the Board had no real conception of the
growth of an American commonwealth, else it would
not have taken the hostile attitude it did toward an
increase of the representative body. Possibly the
members were so profoundly impressed with the evils
of the "rotten borough" that they feared its introduc-
tion into the colonies. The constantly increasing
numbers of local units, and the automatic acquisition
of representation, tended to make some of the lower

°^^ Representation of the Board of Trade on the condition of North Caro-
lina, March 14, 1754, in Nordi Carolina Colonial Records, vol. v, 81-108.
March 2$, the Board recommended the repeal of thirteen different acts for
the creation of counties, precincts, and townships, which was done, April 8,
1754. See: CO. 5, 323; Privy Council Register, "George II," vol. xv,

II8-I2I.

^<* 2 Instructions to Arthur Dobbs, in Nordi Carolina Colonial Records,
vol. V, 340-341, ZIIZ.

256 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

houses unwieldy. As they had steadily encroached
upon the council, the growing disparity in numbers
between the two houses only added to the powers and
authority of the popular chamber; hence the Board
felt justified in checking further additions to that
body.'"

Except in Massachusetts, the Board interfered only
when the governor and his legislature disagreed, and
in the case of New Hampshire "* and North Caro-
lina it finally permitted the colonists to settle the ques-
tion for themselves. Even the objection to the prac-
tice in Massachusetts was finally withdrawn as ille-
gal, so that the colonies were left to work out the
problem, each in its own way."* ^

In its attempt to eliminate irregularities in colonial
legislation, the Board of Trade made an attempt to
introduce into the colonies a system of private bill
procedure similar to that in use in England. The
first instruction to the governors of Massachusetts on
the subject was issued in 171 5 to Governor Burgess.
It provided that every private law should have a
clause saving the rights of the crown and all persons
other than those mentioned in the act."*

No further instructions appeared until 1723, when

**»By the letters of Governor Shirley it appears to us that there have
been no fewer than thirty-three new townships since 1692, each of which has
a right to send one or two representatives to the assembly. There are now
one hundred and sixty towns in the province, most of which send two repre-
sentatives. We think this enough. This destroys the balance between the
assembly and council. — Representation of the Board on a Massachusetts
act creating new townships, June 8, 1743, in CO. 5, 918, pp. 93-95.

^^ See the representations of the Board of July 9 and December 22, 1752,
on the acts of New Hampshire, in CO. 5, 941, pp. 277-280, 293-294.

B0B Massachusetts Acts and Resolves^ vol. iv, 94, 452.

896 — Jbid,, vol. vi, p.v.

TREATMENT OF COLONIAL LEGISLATION 257

the governor was directed to require all such laws to
have a clause suspending their action until they were
approved by the crown."^ In addition he was di-
rected

Not to give your assent to any private act untQ proof be made
before you in council (and entred in the council books) that
publick notification ^as made of the parties' intention to
apply for such act in the several parish churches where the
premises in question lie, for three Sundays at least, succes-
sively, before any such act shall be brought into the Assem-
bly; and that a certificate under your hand be transmitted
with and annexed to every such private act signifying that
the same has pass'd thro* all the forms above mention'd."**

The House of Representatives in Massachusetts
refused to follow the above instructions, and no
private acts were passed until 1742,"* when one was
attempted. As there was no evidence, however, that
the instructions had been observed it was disallowed.*®^
Six more private acts were passed in the next fifteen
years, but as all were for the purpose of granting
divorces and did not especially affect property, no at-
tention was paid to them.**^' In 1757 another attempt
was made to evade the instructions, but the Board se-
cured the disallowance of the one act of that year, as

59TXhi8 instruction was added at the request of the Committee of the
Privy Council. Previous to 1723 such instructions had only been given to
the governors of Jamaica, Bermudas, Barbadoes, and the Leeward Islands.
See: Privy Council Register, "George I," vol. iv, 183.

*•* Massachusetts Acts and Resolves, vol. vi, pp. iv, v. The same in-
struction was issued to all the governors in America. See that to Governor
Lewis Morris, in New Jersey Archives, vol. vi, 24. Cf. Todd's Parity
mentary Government, private bill procedure.

B99 Massachusetts Acts and Resolves, vol. vi, p. iv.

*®^ — Ibid,, 161. Private Act, no. 80, passed, June 18, 1742; disallowed,
May 28, Z746.

601 — Ibid,, Z63-Z77. Private Acts, not. 8z, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86.

258 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

well as one which passed the following year.*" Be-
tween the years 1760- 1767, eight more private bills
were passed, three of which were repealed. Appar-
ently the forms of procedure required by the govern-
or's instructions had not been followed ; but that was
not the only cause for disallowance, as the Board con-
sidered the laws objectionable in themselves.

While the Board failed to induce Massachusetts
to follow the forms laid down for legislation of this
kind, it did successfully stand in the way of the enact-
ment of many laws in violation of its orders. It
should be noted, however, that the real objection of
Massachusetts to the instruction was that it was an
unwarranted infringement of its charter, and without
legal force.

The safeguards thrown about private bills were
certainly reasonable, for in most cases such laws were
extrajudicial in character, affected property rights,
and might easily do great injustice to innocent parties.
The Board was quite inexorable when such a law
failed to indicate that due notice had been given of
the application for such a bill,***' and that the rights

•02 3Q|h Qf these laws were to expedite the settlement of estates. After
reciting the limitation in the governors' instructions, the representation of the
Board concludes: 'These regulations have ever been esteem'd essentially
necessary for the security of private property in His Majesty's plantations;
and as they have not in either respect been observed in the passing of the
two private acts above mentioned" they should be disallowed. See: Repre-
sentation of the Board, July 31, 1759, in CO. 5, 919, pp. 41-44; Massachusetts
Ads and Resolves^ vol. vi, 178-180.

008 See the representation of the Board of May 16, 1760, for the repeal
of three private acts of Virginia, passed in 1758-1759. "In these acts there
is no certificate of any previous notification, in the parish church, of the
intention of the respective parties to apply for such act," etc. See: CO. 5,
1367, pp. 401-405. Many other illustrations are found in the Virginia and
Carolina Entry Books,

TREATMENT OF COLONIAL LEGISLATION 259

of minor heirs had been conserved.*®* In practically
all of the royal provinces these regulations were fol-
lowed without complaint Where they were evaded,
a repeal was almost inevitable. The southern group
of colonies made more extensive use of such laws than
did the northern, as there were more occasions there
to break through entails of land/®"

The Board was not only particular of the proce-
dure in such bills, it carefully looked into their con-
tents to see that no great innovations were creeping in.
Private divorce acts different from those in England
were objected to but not repealed, for obvious rea-

*^^An act of PeDotylvama passed in xyzS, placing die property of
William Clark, deceased, in the hands of trustees to be sold for the payment
of his debts, is typical of several which the Board rejected. William Clarke
the son, had become bound for Xaaa Afterwards his father died, leaving
property valued at £3000 to his son and his son's wife for life, after which
it was to go to their children. The son died, leaving a wife and three
children, who were still minors and were living in Barbadoes. The act
proposed to sell a portion of the property left by the elder Mr. Clark to
pay his debts without any notice to the minor heirs to whom it belonged, nor
any saving of their rights. Needless to say, it met the royal veto. See:
Representation of the Board, November 26, 17x9, in CO. 5, 1293; Privy
Council Rigister, "George I," vol. i, 3^

^^^ The Entry Books for Virginia and the Carolinas contain many entries
like the following: "We have consulted Mr. Fane, one of your Majesty's
council, upon the several acts, who has no objection to any of them in point
of law ; and as they have pass'd thro* the forms in Virginia prescribed by
Your Majesty's instrucdona for die enacdng of private laws, and no com-
plaint has been offered to us against any of them during the six months in
which they have lain by in our office," we recommend their confirmadon.
See: Representadon of the Board, June 29, 1733, for the confirmadon of
thirteen private acts of Virginia, passed in 1730-1732, in CO. 5, 1366, pp.
103-107.

"This Act appears to have been passed with the consent of all the pardes
Qoncemed, and in exact conformity to the regulations prescribed by Your
Majesty's Instructional." — Representadon of the Board for the confirmadon
of a North Carolina act of 1761 "to dock the entail of Lands therein men-
doned," March 15, 1763, in CO. 5, 305, pp. 224-225.

26o AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

sons.*** If a party had an easy remedy at law, the
private bill was frequently repealed.**' Laws, public
in form but private in application, were not tolerated,
if they were detected; *** nor were private bills of an
unusual character, such as permitting a married
woman to sell her real estate during the lifetime of
her husband without his consent,*** or exempting par-

606 Three divorce acts of M asstchusetts, passed in tysSt 1756, and 1757,
were considered by the Board in 1758. Two of these divorces were for
adultery on the part of the husband, and the wife in each case was given
the divorce and permitted to marry again. Matthew Lamb said they were
''the first of their kind he ever saw in the colonies or elsewhere." Only one
recited a previous divorce from bed and board, the other two contained no
evidence that the charges recited had been proved before a competent tri-
bunal, and all three acts were defective because they dissolved the marriage
on one side only. As the laws had already had their effect, the Board did
not recommend a disallowance; but as it was doubtful whether any colony
had power to pass laws of that nature, and consequently an open question
whether the laws were not in themselves "null and void," they were sent to
the attorney- and solicitor-general for their opinion. This was done "to the
end that proper instructions may be form'd for the governor of this and
other His Majesty's colonies to regulate their conduct in the like cases."
These acts, however, were not disallowed. See: Representation of die
Board, June 6, 1758. CO. 5, 9x8, pp. 486-49a

These are not the first divorce laws, for general divorce laws existed in
several colonies, but are the first private divorce acts of a particular char-
acter. See the Pennsylvania laws for the punishment of adultery, of 1702
and Z705-I706. The first was repealed because it was not specific in regard
to the kind of divorce it allowed. The other specified ''from Bed and
Board" and was not objected to. See: CO. 5, 1291, p. 260; Pennsylvania
Statutes at Large, vol. ii, z8a Of. Channing's History of the United States,
vol. ii, 235.

607 pSyq private acts of New Hampshire were repealed at one time for
this reason. Representation of the Board, July zo, 1764, in CO. 5, 942, pp.
268-284.

cos s^^ the action of the Board in regard to a Georgia law of 1759 con-
firming titles to certain lands. Representation of the Board, June 23, 1761,
in CO. 5, 674, pp. 192-Z96.

*^*A Virginia act of 1732 enabled Frances Greenbill to dispose of her
lands and other estate by either will or deed, even though her husband were
living. Francis Fane in his report to the Board said: ''This is the first
instance wherein the legislature in any of the colonies abroad have taken

TREATMENT OF COLONIAL LEGISLATION 261

ticular indiri duals from prosecution for debt for a
term of years."® Much less did the Board tolerate
private acts which were in effect only bills of attain-
der."" It was as scrupulous about innovations contrary
to the law of England as any court, and the impor-
tance of a private bill as a dangerous precedent was
frequently considered, and led to many vetoes.*" On
the whole the Board's private bill policy was a suc-
cess from an administrative standpoint, and of very
considerable value to the colonists themselves.

In addition to the kinds of laws mentioned above,
the Board of Trade found reasons for disallowing
many others. Some were of an ecclesiastical nature,
such as laws regulating riotous sports,*" the action of

upon themselves to alter the law in so settled and known a point as giving
a power to a femme convert to sell or dispose of her real or personal estate
in the supposed lifetime of her husband." -. Representation of die Board,
March ax, 17^$, in CO. 5, 1366, pp. 371-372. The act was promptly dis-
allowed. A Massachusetts act of 1762 was disallowed for similar reasons.
See: Privy Council Register, ''George 11/' vol. viii, 527; CO. 5, 920, pp.
X49-151.

*^® See the Board's report of May 12, Z75S, on an act of Pennsylvania
for the relief of George Croghan and William Trent, passed in 1755, >^
disallowed in 1758, in CO. 5, 1295, pp. 249-251.

*^^ Six private acts of Massachusetts for the punishment of six individuals
for trading with the French were disallowed in 1707. See: CO. 5, 9x2,

pp. 356, 388.

*^^ A South Carolina act of X733, or 1723 (the date is variously given),

was repealed in 1734, largely because of the precedent it might establish.

The act altered a will by taking property from one son and giving it to

another, and changed several other provisions. See: Representation of die

Board, April x8, 1734, in CO. 5, 40X, p. 95.

A New Hampshire act of 1742 changed an estate from an estate tail
to one in fee simple by changing the terms of a mortgage. It was repealed
because it might create a dangerous precedent Representation of the Board,
June X4, 1754, in CO. 5, 94X, pp. 351-354. The eflPect of several of the
laws cited above as precedents for others was also a reason for their dis-
allowance.

*i* Pennsylvania Archives, first series, vol. i, X55, X57.

a6a AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

vestries,*" and the observance of the Sabbath. Some
were badly drawn, uncertain in their meaning, or
absurd in their provisions.*'' Many others were in
violation of instructions, repealed laws formerly con-
firmed,*" or reenacted laws already disallowed. Still
others attempted to change slaves from real to per-
sonal property.*"

The foregoing account shows that the Board,
through its power to secure the repeal of colonial
laws, was able to mould and develop certain phases
of the provincial constitutions. The power to regu-
late external commerce was carefully retained in the
hands of the home government, and restrictions placed
upon the power of the colonies to regulate commerce
of a purely intercolonial nature. Trade was given a
chance to expand by the Board's preventing the co-
lonial legislatures from laying legal obstacles in the

•1* North Ctrolina Colonial Records, yol. vi, 716.

•IS February 7, 1706, thirty-five acts of Pennsylvania were disallowed,
mainly for one of these defects. See: CO. 5, 1291, pp. 254 ff.

•i^The Virginia acts of 1705 for the better regulation of William and
Mary College and to prevent the "tending of seconds'' were disallowed for
this reason. See: Representation of the Board, August 6, 173 1, in CO. 5,
i$66, p. 502. Scores of similar cases could be cited.

•^7 slaves had been declared real estate by an act of Virginia, passed in
1705 and confirmed by a later one about 1725. The Board steadily refused
to permit any changes from that definition. In a letter to Governor Fauquier,
May 6, 1763, the Board said: 'The royal negative has been twice given to
the proposition of making slaves personal estate, and after fullest considera-
tion, both by this Board and by His Majesty in council, so it would not be-
come us, whatever our opinion might be, to revive the discussion of it; but
as we are convinced of the rectitude of that principle of policy which has
made slaves real estate, and annexed them to the plant's, in all British colo-
nies which depend on slave labor, we cannot approve this bill, and are at
a loss to guess what motive could have induced the Virginia legislature to
attempt to subvert a policy long established, which has after forty years
experience been found so beneficial and advantageous as this is represented
to have been." — CO. 5, 1368, p. 226.

TREATMENT OF COLONIAL LEGISLATION 263

way of the collection of debts, private bills were care-
fully hedged about with legal restrictions, judicial
procedure was kept closely patterned after that of
England, and much was done to prevent the introduc-
tion of innovations of uncertain value.

Under the threat of repeal if they refused to com-
ply, the assemblies were forced to consent to modifi-
cations of revenue measures which the governor and
council had been unable or unwilling to secure; and
in case of the Pennsylvania law taxing the proprietary
estates, the agents of the province, in order to pre-
vent its disallowance, entered into bonds before the
Board to secure certain amendments.*^* Last but not
least, the Board was able to prevent the enactment or
secure the repeal of unjust or discriminating laws thus
affording the residents of the colonies some protec-
tion against the action of an ignorant or partisan as-
sembly.

Method of disallowance

Having examined the causes for repealing colonial
legislation, let us now consider the method of pro-

618 «Wc the undersigned, Benjamin Franklin and Robert Charles, agents
for the province of Pennsylvania, do hereby consent, that in case an act
passed in the said province io April, 1759, entitled 'An Act for granting«tD
His Majesty the sum of one hundred thousand pounds and for striking die
same in bills of credit . . . and for providing a fund for sinking the
said bills of credit by a tax on all estates real and p«rsonal and taxablea
within this province' shall not be repealed by His Majesty io council, we,
the said agents, do undertake that the assembly of Pennsylvania will prepare
and pass and ofiFer to the governor of the said province of Pennsylvania, an
act to amend the aforementioned act according to the amendments proposed
in the report made by the Lords of the Committee of Council this
day . . . and will indemnify the proprietaries from any damage that
they may sustain by such act not being so prepared and passed by the
assembly and offered to the governor. Witness our hands this twenty-eighth
day of August, 176a" — Pennsylvania Statutes at Largty vol. v, 656-657.

264 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

cedure by which a law was finally disallowed. The
laws were transmitted to England and could come
before the Board of Trade in any one of four ways.
They could be delivered to one of the principal secre-
taries of state, who would either transmit them to the
Board or lay them before the council. In the latter
case they were referred to the Committee of Council,
which in turn referred them to the Board.*^* As the
crown lawyers had held that the time clause limiting
repeals dated from the time the laws were submitted
to the Privy Council, it was to the interest of the
colony to submit them to the council with the least
possible delay. The most expeditious way to do this
was to deliver them to the clerk of the Privy Council.
In such cases the laws went by reference to the com-
mittee and thence to the Board, which was the third
method and the one most frequently used by the Mas-
sachusetts agents. Lastly, the laws could be deliv-
ered directly to the Board of Trade. This practice
was abandoned by Massachusetts and Pennsylvania
because the Board claimed the power to have a law
disallowed at any time, unless it had been before the
Privy Council.

yNo matter how and to what officers the laws were
submitted in the first instance, they were always ulti-
mately referred to the Board of Trade for considera-
tion. The first point to be settled was, whether a
law conflicted with any act of Parliament. The mem-
bers of the Board did not presume to pass on ques-
tions of that kind, but referred them to its legal ad-
visers. Whatever laws aflFected the customs or the
admiralty in any way were referred to the comission-

*^* Before 1721 the reference was usually directly to the Board of Trade.

TREATMENT OF COLONIAL LEGISLATION 265

ers of customs or to the admiralty board respectively
for their opinion. These officials confined their ob-
servations wholly to the effect of the law upon their
own field of activity."®

The Bishop of London was always consulted in re-
gard to laws which in any way might affect his ec-
clesiastical jurisdiction, or which concerned religious
conditions, or regulated morals. He was quite ready
to give his opinion and even insisted upon being
heard. The Journal of the Board frequently has
entries like the following:

The Lord Bishop of London desired the board when the
acts of New York and of the Leeward Islands shall come
under consideration, that they would be mindful of his ob-
jections against the particular acts mentioned in the minutes
of June 15th last.**^

The Lord Bishop of London desired that an act past in the
Massachusetts Bay entitled An Act more e£Eectually providing
for the support of Ministers . . . may not be confirmed
by His Majesty 'till he be heard thereupon."*

Ordered that the Bishop of London be notified that the
Board wish to speak with him, Tuesday morning next.***

Many other illustrations could be cited, but enough
have been given to show the general custom of the
Board in the matter."*

If a law did not seem to affect any particular de-

*2®See the correspondence in regard to the Massachusetts act of 1716,
fixing fees in the admiralty offices, in Massachusetts Acts and Resolves ^ vol.
ii, 68-69.

*^^ Quoted from the Journal of December 3, 170a, in Pennsylvania
Statutes at Large^ vol. ii, 461.

*<2 Board of Trade Journal^ May 24, 1704; Massachusetts Acts and Rf
solves, vol. i, 505.

^^^ Journal, November 10^ 1727; Massachusetts Acts and Resolves, voL
ii, 481.

*>* Cross in his Anglican Episcopate and the American Colonies does not
discuss this important phase of the Bishop of London's work.

266 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

partment of the home government, it was sent to one
of the crown lawyers for an opinion "in point of
law," and there it was likely to remain until some one
paid that officer his fee and saw that he made his re-
port. If no one looked after the act, it might remain
in his hands for years. This was especially true of
private acts, and the Board frequently reminded the
governors that interested parties should have an agent
on hand to attend to such matters."* For the same rea-
son it insisted upon'each colony maintaining a repre-
sentative to look after public laws, and in the course
of time this was done.***

As it was to the interest of each colony to secure
a favorable report from the attorney to whom the
laws had been referred, an active agent began his
campaign for their confirmation with that official.
By calling on him and explaining the purpose and
the necessity of each law, he could frequently secure a
favorable report, which otherwise might have been
adverse.*"

^*^ June 4, 1719, the Board commeDted on a private act of Massachusetts,
and after stating that the act itself was unobjectionable added: ''Some
persons should be appmnted here to solicit the dispatch of this and all other
private acts, and to pay the fees in the several offices, when His Majesty's
pleasure is declared upon them." At the same time it wrote Governor
Shute: "It will be necessary for the future that when any private bills are
sent over, the parties concerned in those acts do appoint some person here
to solicit the dispatch of them, otherways they will lie unconfirmed/* - CO.

5» 915, pp. ao» ay^.

^^^ September 4, 1701, the Board wrote Governor Blakiston of Maryland,

"We wonder the Assembly should not think fit to constitute an agent for

soliciting their affairs here. There are occasions (tho' not at our Board) in

which business cannot be done without some charge: and inconveniences have

arisen by the delay of reports upon some laws, and otherwise; all of which

will grow worse and worse if some fit person be not appointed to look after

such like matters." - CO. 5, 726, p. 99.

«27 "The fate of the act depends in a great measure on this gentleman's

TREATMENT OF COLONIAL LEGISLATION 267

When the opinion of the attorneys had been re-
ceived the Board was ready for the serious consider-
ation of the law. Here again the work of a friendly
agent was of the utmost importance. The Board
could not possibly know the local demands for a law,
which on its face appeared objectionable, and had to
depend upon such information as the legislature or its
representative might furnish. On several occasions
the Board had already prepared a formal represen-
tation for the repeal of acts, when the appearance of
some one familiar with conditions in the colony from
which the acts came changed the whole appearance
of things, and caused the Board to abandon its rep-
resentation, and allow the acts to remain in force.*'*

The whole method of procedure can best be seen,
however, in a typical case, such as the repeal of the
Massachusetts Act of 1722 which laid a tax on the
Quaker towns of Dartmouth and Tiverton for the

report; and which report must again entirely depend upon the idea, and
information he receives of the reasons, circumstances and views with which
the act was passed in the provincial Assembly. Here is the heavy and
useful part of the duty of an agent; to attend the reporting counsel, tp ex-
plain circumstances, and lead his opinion to a report favorable to the wishes
of the province for which he acts; as a person in the reporting counsel's
situation must be unacquainted with a thousand things an agent can ex-
plain, and consequently without his information be liable to many mis-
takes." « North Carolina Colonial Records, vol. v, 747.

•28 \f ay 28, 1754, the Board ordered a representation prepared for the
repeal of nine acts of South Carolina. June 26, Mr. Crockatt, agent for
that colony, was called in and allowed to present reasons why one of the
acts should be allowed to stand. After he was gone, the Board agreed to
allow the act to ''lie by probationary." June 3, 1763, Governor Ellis of
Georgia, who had just returned to England, appeared before the Board and
presented facts justifying a Georgia law for the speedy collection of small
debts, a representation for the repeal of which was already drawn. After
he withdrew the Board decided not to repeal the act, and ordered changes
to that effect made in the representation. See: Board of Trade Journal, 62;
69, pp. 281-283.

268 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

support of Congregational ministers. The assessors
of the two towns refused to assess the tax and were
consequently thrown into prison. They at once pre-
pared a petition to the king, which complained of the
injustice of the act in question and asked that they be
released. The Lords Justices in Council referred the
petition to the Committee of Council, which in turn
referred it (October 24, 1723) to the Board of Trade
for consideration.*"

In the meantime, the act in question had been re-
enacted, and this fact was stated in the petition. The
Board considered the matter on November 14, and
as the act of 1723 had not as yet been received, that
of 1722 only was sent to Mr. West for his "opinion
in point of law." On November 20 the agents for the
Quakers attended the Board, and were informed that
the act was with Mr. West and that it would be con-
sidered as soon as his opinion should be received.

December 10, Mr. West reported that he had been
attended by the agents for the Quakers, as well as that
for the province, and thinking "the whole of the com-
plaint was not within the intention of your Lordship's
reference to me, as no circumstance of what they al-
ledged did in any manner appear upon the face of the
act itself, and that therefore my duty in obedience to
your Lordship's commands was only to certify that
upon consideration of the act as it stands simply upon
the record I have no objection in point of law to its
being confirmed." "®

This report was received by the Board the same
day, and two days later the agents were notified that

*2* Massachusetts Acts and ResolveSy vol. ii, 251-257, 272-273.
680 — Itid., vol. ii, 272-273.

TREATMENT OF COLONIAL LEGISLATION 269

the act would be considered at the meeting one week
hence. The meeting was held on the appointed day
and was attended by Mr. Richardson and Mr. Par-
tridge with their solicitor, Mr. Sharpe, in behalf of
the Quakers. The province was represented by its
agents, Mr. Sandford and Mr. Sanderson, assisted
by their solicitor, Mr. Bampfield. Each attorney
presented proofs and arguments in support of his side
of the case, and was given a chance to reply to the
proofs and arguments of his opponent. After the
formal hearing the agents and their attorneys with-
drew, and the secretary was ordered to prepare the
draft of a representation to the Lords Justices for the
repeal of the act of 1722, which was agreed to and
signed the following day, and transmitted to the office
of the Privy Council.

January 14, 1724, an Order in Council referred
this representation to the Committee of the Privy
Council to be considered and reported upon. As that
committee delayed action, Mr. Partridge petitioned
the Board that the act of 1723 should also be sent up
to the council, and in accordance with this petition,
a representation was at once prepared for the repeal
of that act. This representation, like the previous one,
was referred to the Committee of Council. That
body then took the two representations into consid-
eration and recommended that the acts of both 1722
and 1723 should be disallowed and that the taxes of
the two towns should be remitted, which was prompt-
ly done by an Order in Council."^

What was done in the above case is fairly typical
of the action in other instances, although the proced-

*^^ Mastachuietts Acts and RenlveSf vol. ii, 273-277.

270 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

ure varied with the amount of opposition the inter-
ested parties offered each other. The contest over, the
above act might well have been carried to the Com-
mittee of Council, where the hearing was by counsel
only.

Motions before the committee were regularly of
three kinds, to confirm a report of the Board, to op-
pose it, or to have it recommitted. If the latter mo-
tion should be successful, the whole question might
be gone over again before the Board, and the second
report of that body would go through the same forms
as did the first. If on the other hand the motion to
oppose was successful, the committee made a report
different from that of the Board, which amounted to
a reversal of the action of that body. Such occur-
rences were not frequent, although they did happen.*"

Sometimes a representation was dropped in the
Privy Council at the request of the Board itself, as
was the case of one for the repeal of the various acts
of New Hampshire for the creation of counties.*"
At other times they were pigeonholed or lost by the
committee to which they were referred,*** and in some

^*2 An illustradoo of this has been given in the case of the report of the
Board on the New York revenue act of 1720. On the whole the Board was
very slow to disallow an act that would cause any great amount of incon-
venience in a colony. It preferred to warn the governor of the irregularity
of the law, and depend upon him to secure its modification. See the action
on the New York revenue acts, in New York Colonial Documents, vols, v, vi,
passim. Also the action on the Massachusetts bankruptcy law, in Massa-
chusetts Ads and Resolves f vol. iv, 443-444.

^'> This representation was made July 9, 1752, and referred to the Com-
mittee on Plantation Affairs. No further action was taken, as the Board
informed the Council on December 22, following, that the disorders in New
Hampshire had apparently ceased; consequently the matter was dropped.
See: CO. 5, 941, pp. 277-280, 293-294; Privy Council Register, ''George 11,"
vol. xiv, 1 8a

•s4Xhis appears to have been true in the case of the New Jersey act of

TREATMENT OF COLONIAL LEGISLATION 271

cases they were referred to the committee and a day
set for a hearing, but no further action taken.*" Con-
sequently a considerable number of acts which the
Board recommended for disallowance were never re-
pealed, simply because no positive action was taken
by the Privy Council.

Such a method of repeal could not be called arbi-
trary, for it had thrown around it at every point all
the forms of legal procedure. No law could be dis-
allowed except after an opportunity had been given
all parties concerned to oppose such action. The
Board really gave to every person concerned due
process of law: each party had his day in court; and
after the Board had acted, it was always possible
to carry the case up to the committee, where a judicial
review of the action of the Board could be had. In
fact it was very similar to a system of repeals by the
action of a superior court. It is no exaggeration to
say that our own Supreme Court declares state laws
unconstitutional with even less ceremony than the
Board used in disallowing colonial acts."*

1748 for determining its boundary with New York. Such also appeara to
have been the final disposition of the Massachusetts act of 1735 to prevent
the use of paper money in that colony which had been issued by a private
corporation in New Hampshire. See: Privy Council Regijier, ''George II,"
vol. iv, 473, 484, 485, vol. xiv, 442, 456, 499.

^^*A South Carolina act of 173 1, for the remission of quit rents, was
recommended for repeal by the Board, November i, 1732. The representa-
tion was opposed by the agent for the colony, and the whole matter referred
to a committee as usual. July 25, 1733, the committee set "Wednesday
next" for a hearing on the question, but the record fails to show any action
whatever 00 "Wednesday next" or any later day, nor is any reason g^iven
for the nonconsideration of the matter. See: Privy Council Register^
"George II," vol. iii, 73, 74, 81, 21a

*<* What has been said of the method of disallowing colonial laws applies
equally to their confirmation. There was no difference whatever in tbe
procedure.

272 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

If one were to criticise the methods of repeal, it
would have to be on the ground of too much red tape.
The almost numberless references from one board
and from one officer to another, and the possibility
for delays and dilatory motions, make the procedure
seem cumbersome. Yet it may have been better that
these delays should exist, for they gave the colonies
a better opportunity to justify their legislation. In
case of urgent necessity, however, the Board could
secure prompt action; so that the red tape was not
always a hindrance to efficiency.

When a law was disallowed, notice of the fact was
sent to the governor of the province, who saw that it
was entered in the law books. It is possible this was
not always done, and no doubt the notice sometimes
failed to reach the colony,**^ for Governor Colden in
a letter to the Board in 1761 says,

I am told that several acts in Basket's edition of the acts of
New York in 17 18, are noted to be repealed, of which repeal
not the least evidence appears anywhere in this province.
This may deserve your Lordship's attention, as I make no
doubt the judges continue to proceed upon them as of force.**"

It does not appear from the record whether Colden
was correctly informed or not, but it is not improb-
able that such things as he mentions could have hap-
pened.

Considerable confusion sometimes resulted from
the repeal of laws which were in force, and often
the Board refrained from recommending a royal veto
solely because of the inconvenience it would produce

**7 Cf. the disallowance of the Maasachusetts act of 1757 creating the
town of Danvers, in Massachusetts Acts and Resolves, vol. iv, 93-94.
•ts ^^Yf York Colonial Documents, vol. vii, 454-455.

TREATMENT OF COLONIAL LEGISLATION 273

in the colony affected. But serious irregularities
could not be allowed to grow, and the Board felt com-
pelled to act at times, regardless of the results to the
persons who had disregarded ordinary restrictions.
As it said in regard to a series of extraordinary laws
of New Hampshire:

The practice of passing laws of this nature, without clauses
suspending their execution until Your Majesty's pleasure
can be known, is of such a dangerous tendency and example,
and many of the laws are themselves so unconstitutional and
unjust, that we fear it will be necessary, that Your Majesty's
disallowance of them should be made public in order to deter
the legislatures of Your Majesty's colonies from assuming
powers and taking cognizance of matters that do constitu-
tionally belong to the Courts of Justice alone.***

The control exercised by the Board over legislation
was no doubt often irritating to the colonists, just as
the invalidation of laws by the courts is irritating to
both state and nation, at times, in the United States.
Some of the restrictions imposed by the Board were
evaded by means of temporary laws, but the impor-
tance of these has probably been overrated, as they
could be successful only to a limited extent. They
could not be used for the regulation of courts and
judicial procedure, for private acts, nor for the regu-
lation of commerce. Taken all together, the royal
veto proved a pretty effective check upon even the
charter colonies, as witness the action of Massachu-
setts in regard to its bankruptcy law.

An examination of the laws of Pennsylvania shows
that the legislature of that colony tried very seriously

*>' Repretentatioo for the repeal of tixteen laws (moBtly private acts) of
New Hampshire, July 10, 1764, in CO. 5, 94a, p. 266,

274 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

and honestly to correct such laws as were repealed
because they were defective, arbitrary, or absurd in
their provisions. The members of the legislature
evidently made a serious effort also to have their laws
conform to the laws of England wheii inconsistencies
were pointed out.*" Probably no other part of the
British administrative machinery worked so effective-
ly as did that for the control of colonial legislatioa,
especially when one considers the common willing-
ness of the provincial governors to evade their in-
structions and permit forbidden practices.

Appeals to the King in Council

There is an obvious difference between repealing,
or disallowing, a law and declaring it null and void.
The latter action was not taken very frequently, the
most familiar instance being that of the action of the
Privy Council in the case of Winthrop vs. Lechmere.
The charter of Connecticut did not reserve to the
crown the right of a royal veto of the laws passed by
the colonial legislature, and the colony steadily re-
sisted any attempt by the home government to exer-
cise such authority. The charter did, however, re-
quire all colonial laws not to be contrary to the laws
of England. When the intestates' law came before
the Privy Council, in the case mentioned above, it
was declared null and void because it was opposed
to the common law of England. This action
amounted to more than a disallowance of the law, for

**o See: Pennsylvania Statutes at Large, vol. ii, 191, 438. Note how
carefully many of the laws, repealed in 1706 on the reconunendation of the
Board, are changed when reenacted so as to meet specific objections. Note
especially how the law of 1706 providing for the succession of authority in

TREATMENT OF COLONIAL LEGISLATION 275

all settlements previously made under color of the act
were invalidated.

The Board of Trade was not even consulted in the
above transaction, but the entire proceedings were
conducted before the Committee of the Privy Coun-
cil. As the decision was afterwards reversed in the
case of Clark vs. Tousey, several explanations for the
first decision have been offered. Ferdinando John
Paris, who was present at the time, offers an expla-
nation quite different from those usually given. He
lays no stress whatever upon the question of confir-
mation or lack of confirmation, as, according to the
Connecticut charter, that question should have made
no legal difference. He ascribes the whole success
of Winthrop to the fact that the attomeys for Lech-
mere were grossly incompetent.

In the course of the hearing before the committee,
the attorneys for Winthrop,

Boldly put it upon Mr. Lechmere's CoH to shew that that
distributory act had ever, once, been followed or carried into
execution in Connecticut; and they were so very poorly in-
structed that they did not in return, offer to shew that it
had.«"

The attorneys for Winthrop on this occasion were
Attorney-general Yorke and Solicitor-general Tal-
bot.

Yorke afterwards became Lord Chancellor Hard-
wicke and as such gave the decision in the case of
Phillips vs. Savage, which was in form a reversal of

the absence of a governor, which was disallowed in 1709, was reenacted in
1712 with exactly the changes required, and how it was confirmed in 1714.

«*i Letter of Paris to Jeremiah Allen, July 26, 1738, in Connecticut His-
torical Society Collections, vol. v, 78.

276 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

the case he had won for his client, Winthrop. Paris
says that in giving his opinion in this case he said,

That he had been of council for Mr. Winthrop in his case
formerly. That as his CoH, he had at such time, ofier'd all
that he cou'd for his clyent, to get the Connecticut Act re-
pealed and yc Ordn reverst. That tho he had prevailed
therein for his clyent, yet, with very great deference to those
Lords who judged in that case, he was not satisfied in his
own private opinion with that determination in Winthrop's
case.***

It thus appears that Lechmere's counsel allowed
themselves to be bluffed and so lost the case, and that
even the attorneys who won considered the decision as
not in accordance with sound legal principles. Be-
sides this irregularity, there was another innovation
in the decision. Winthrop's petition only asked for
general relief ; but on the failure of Lechmere's coun-
sel to show that the law had ever been carried into
execution, it was declared void, "At once, without
any Reference to the Board of Trade" a thing that
"was never done in any one case, before or since, to my
knowledge." •"

This case illustrates the close connection between
the Board of Trade and the Committee of Council
which passed upon appeals from the colonies. If an
appeal involved a purely judicial question, such, for
instance, as a claim that the colonial courts had erred
in giving a decision, it was settled by the committee
without a reference to the Board ; but if the appeal
turned upon a colonial law or the official action of an
officer, it was regularly referred to that body for

*^2 Connecticut Historical Society Collections^ vol. v, 8i.
•*« Paris to Allen, July 36, 1738, Ibid,^ 78.

TREATMENT OF CX)LONIAL LEGISLATION 277

consideration. Such, for instance, was the case in the
appeal of the Quakers of Dartmouth and Tiverton
cited above, which could not be decided without pass-
ing upon the law under which they had been con-
victed. The consideration of the law and the expedi-
ency of repealing it was the legitimate work of the
Board, and the final decision of the whole matter
rested upon the report of that body.

As Paris points out, the action on Winthrop^s ap-
peal should have followed the regular lines of pro-
cedure in similar cases. The attorneys for Lechmere
should have petitioned, in case the legal question was
decided against their client, that they be heard in favor
of the law. Such a motion would have separated the
purely judicial question from the question of policy
involved in the repeal or disallowance of a colonial
statute. The second question would have gone to the
Board for consideration, and the effects of the actual
operation of the law would then have been brought
out. This action was taken in the case of Phillips vs.
Savage, and the petition was granted ; but as the de-
cision of the committee was contrary to the contention
of Phillips, it was not necessary to enter into any par-
ticular defence of the law itself.

During its earlier years, especially, the Board was
frequently called upon to decide whether an appeal
from the colonies should be admitted. When a de-
mand was made for an appeal and there was some
doubt as to whether it should be admitted, the case
was referred to the Board of Trade for investigation ;
if it decided the case was properly one of appeal,
steps were taken to admit it. This was the action in

278 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

the case of John and Nicholas Hallam's appeal from
Connecticut,*** the Atwood and Bayard case from
New York,*" and numerous others.

It is thus seen that Miss Kellogg's statement that,

The judicial functions of the council in hearing appeals from
the colonial courts and taking action thereon were never
transferred to the new administrative body, thus the Privy
Council remained throughout the entire period of American
colonial history what it still is for the British imperial sys-
tem, the final and supreme court for colonial appeals,*^*

is true for purely legal questions only.

If an appeal from a colonial court inrolved, as
many did, the validity of a colonial law or some mis-
conduct on the part of a royal officer, the Board of
Trade considered that portion of it which involved
a question of administration.**^ In some cases it was
difficult to separate these two points, which accounts
for such decisions as that of Winthrop vs. Lechmere.
The distinction is one of considerable importance, for
a question which came before the Board was decided
upon its merits, while the committee in considering
an appeal did not pass upon the merits of the case,

•44 ''Upon the Petition of John and Nicholas Hallam, complaining that
the governor and company of Connecticut had refused to admit them to
appeal to your Majesty in Council here from a sentence past in a Court of
Assistants of that colony in the month of May, zyoOi relating to the last will
and testament of John Liven of the said colony, deceased'* we advised with
your attorney- and solicitor-general "and humbly offer that your Majesty be
pleased to admit the Appeal." — Representation of the Board, May 27, 170Z,
in CO. 5, 1289, pp. 99-ioa

«*5 See the Board of Trade Journal [14, pp. 453-454* «5i PP- «» '35]
for April and May, 1702, for the action in this case.

«46 "The American Colonial Charter," in American Historical Associa-
tion Report for igoSt vol. i, 209.

^^7 Cf. Hazeltine's "Appeals from Colonial Courts" in American His-
torical Association Report for i8q4, 350.

TREATMENT OF COLONIAL LEGISLATION 279

but only upon the regularity of the procedure in the
lower courts.

The above point becomes clearer if one considers
the kind of appeals which the Board instructed the
governors to permit.

It appears upon a retrospective view . . . that from the
first institution of government under commission and in-
structions from King James the Second, down to the year
1753, the liberty of appealing to the governor and council
from the judgments of the Inferior Courts of Common Law
was expressly confined, first by a clause in the commission,
and in later times by an article in the governors' instructions,
to cases of error only.***

This article was revised in 1753, and the clause con-
fining appeals to cases of error only was omitted. Al-
though the instructions on this point were the same
to all the governors, no question arose as to their
meaning until 1764. In that year Govemor Golden
of New York admitted an appeal from a judgment
of an inferior court, which was founded upon the
verdict of a jury. This was an extension of the right
of appeal which neither the judges of the Supreme
Gourt of New York nor the members of Golden's
council were willing to admit; consequently they pro-
tested to the Board of Trade."'

That body compared the clause in Golden's instruc-
tions with the earlier ones on the subject, and ren-
dered the following decision :

We do conceive that the alteration was solely intended to
avoid an ambiguity in the expression that might have ad-
mitted a doubt whether liberty of appeal did not extend to

*^* Report of the Board of Trade on appeals from the New York oourti,
September 24, 1765, in New York Colonial Documents, vol. vti, 76a.
*^* Letter of Golden to the Board, November 7, 1764. Ibid,, 676-677.

28o AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

criminal cases, though it was apparently intended to be con-
fined to civil causes; and we conceive that the confining such
appeals to cases of error only, was upon the prindples of law
a rule so absolute of itself and so well established by the
usage and constitution of this kingdom, that it was thought
unnecessary to point it out by express words in the instruc-
tions.*"®

The instructions to Governor Moore were made so
clear that they could not be misunderstood. He was
to allow appeals to himself in council from any of the
common law courts, in cases of error only, and when
the sum in dispute exceeded three hundred pounds.
An appeal could then be taken to the king in council, if
the sum in dispute exceeded five hundred pounds, and
the appeal were taken within fourteen days after sen-
tence had been pronounced. In both cases the ap-
pellant was required to give security for the payment
of all charges that might be assessed against him, in
case the decision of the lower court should be af-
firmed.

There was but one exception to the above regula-
tions. If the matter in question related

To the taking or demanding any duty pa)rable to us or to
any fee of office or annual rent or other such matter or thing
where the rights in future may be bound,

an appeal was to be allowed, even though the sum
in controversy should be less than five hundred
pounds."'

The Committee of the Privy Council, when sitting
as a court, thus confined itself wholly to the question
of legality of procedure in colonial courts. It was

•*<> New York Colonial Documents, vol. vii, 763.

^^^ iDstnictions to Sir Henry Moore, in New York Colonial Documents,
vol. vii, 764-765.

TREATMENT OF COLONIAL LEGISLATION 281

a court. The Board of Trade was an administrative
body with certain extrajudicial functions. Each re-
spected the special field of the other's activity, and
kept within its own limits.

Complaints

The question of complaints was very closely con-
nected with that of appeals, as they were begun in the
same way by a petition to the king in council. After
being read there, they were referred to the Commit-
tee of Council and thence to the Board of Trade. As
these complaints were founded upon some breach of
the constitution of the colonies, the operation of some
unjust law, or the arbitrary or illegal procedure of
some official, it was no easy task for any body of men
to give a fair opinion upon them. In some cases it
was even difficult to distinguish between an appeal
and a complaint, which accounts for the Board's be-
ing called upon for an opinion in some cases of ap-
peals.

Although the slowness of communications made it
impossible to avoid frequent and annoying delays be-
fore an opinion could be given, the Board tried to
furnish justice to all parties concerned. It proceeded
as follows. The complaints having been lodged in
its office, the party against whom they were made was
notified. If he was in America, copies of the com-
plaints were either sent to him or delivered to his
agent.*" If he was present in London, as was Fletcher
for instance, he appeared in person before the Board,
examined the charges and the proofs against him and

0^2 See the letter of Popple to Secretaiy Burchett, io North Carolioa
Colonial Records^ vol. iii, 349.

282 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

was furnished copies of the same. All charges and
complaints had to be supported by written proofs,
which were usually authenticated by the seal of the
colony from which they came.

Haring received copies of the charges against him
and the proofs in support of the same, the person
against whom they were made was given whatever
time he needed to prepare a defense,"* and was fur-
nished with full means for securing proofs from the
colonies in the preparation of his case. Governors
were not permitted to refuse access to official records,
and a governor might even be ordered to hare dam-
aging evidence against himself authenticated with the
seal of the colony."* The counter case, when it was
prepared, was filed with the Board and copies fur-
nished to the plaintiff, and the latter might then ask
time for the presentation of further proofs in support
of his case.

After the charges, counter charges, and proofs were
filed, the case was given a formal hearing at the
Board. Each party was present in person or was
represented by his agent, unless he chose to let the
case go by default, and frequently each party was also
assisted by legal counsel. The procedure, in fact,
'was almost identical with that followed when a colo-
nial law was being considered. In the course of time
the Board submitted its findings in the case to the
Privy Council with recommendations.

It was possible for either party to oppose the report
before the Privy Council or its committee; but the
hearing before that body was almost like an appeal

^^^ See the compUints against Governor Fletcher and the prosecution of
them, in New York Colonial Documents^ vol. iv, 178, 443, 479.
^^* North Carolina Colonial Records, vol. ii, 162.

TREATMENT OF COLONIAL LEGISLATION 283

to a superior court on a writ of error. No additional
proofs could be presented, but only argument by at-
torneys for or against the report of the Board. The
committee reported its findings to the king in council,
which report might or might not be in accordance
with the report of the Board, but usually the latter
was sustained. The final decision was announced by
an Order in Council, which, after the committee had
reported, was a mere legal formality.
': The methods of the Board of Trade in dealing with
complaints were too slow and complicated and al-
lowed of too many delays. The whole procedure
illustrates the Englishman's sense of judicial fairness;
no man should be condemned without a hearing, but
the very fairness to one party often meant absolute
injustice to the opposing party, especially was this
true in the prosecution of complaints against a gov-
ernor. It seldom happened

That such oppressions can be fully proved without deposi-
tions of witnesses, and as there is no law by which witnesses
can be compelled to depose in such extrajudicial cases, or any
power in the plantations, except the governors themselves to
take their depositions and return them authentically to
Britain, if they were willing to be examined, for this reason
it often happens that the greatest wrongs done there cannot
be proved in Britain.

And where the persons oppressed can prevail with wit-
nesses to come over from the plantations, they must bear the
expense of it, and likewise pay them for their trouble, hazard,
and loss of time, which with their own charges in the pros-
ecution may amount to above a thousand pounds. That is
what few of the planters can bear, and several have been
ruined by it.*'*

*** From a scheme for the improvement of colonial adminittration sub-
mitted to the Board by Secretary Stanhope in 171 5. See: North Carolina
Colonial Records^ toL ii, 161.

VI. BOUNDARIES, TRADE, DEFENSE, AND

INDIAN AFFAIRS

Besides the work discussed in the preceding chap-
ters, the Board of Trade had important duties to per-
form in dealing with questions which especially con-
cerned the external relations of the colonies. As the
representative of the English government the Board
had charge of boundary disputes, Indian relations,
and defense ; it also assisted in the administration of
the laws of trade and supervised the schemes for fos-
tering certain industries in the colonies.

Boundary disputes

When the Board of Trade was organized, the ter-
ritorial limits of the various British colonies were
vague and indefinite. Some reached far into the in-
terior of the continent, regardless of the claims of
colonies established by other nations; others over-
lapped their English neighbors on either side. To
add to the confusion, no one appeared to know just
where any described line ran, and residents of ad-
joining colonies were not agreed upon the location
of rivers and ocean inlets named in the descriptions
of their boundaries. Under such circumstances it
was a slow, tedious process to settle the various dis-
putes between the individual colonies. It was even a
harder task to determine the boundaries between Eng-

286 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

lish and foreign colonies. Both of these tasks fell
to the lot of the Board of Trade, and it dealt with
them as best it could.

The Board was the one information bureau for the
commissioners who were appointed to negotiate
boundary treaties with foreign nations, as the papers
ijfpon which the various English claims were based
were principally deposited in its office. When trea-
ties were to be drawn up, it was required to furnish
to the envoys full descriptions of the claims of the
particular colonies affected, instruct them what de-
mands to make, suggest what compromises might be
accepted, and correspond with them as the negotia-
tions proceeded. Naturally the most of this work
came at the close of the wars with France and Spain,
although some of the negotiations occurred during
periods of peace.

In 1700, when France and England were attempt-
ing to settle their disputed boundaries in America,
especially those of the Hudson's Bay Company, the
various proposals of the French were submitted to
the Board for consideration,*" and on another occa-
sion the envoys met with the Board to hear the claims
of the company presented by its own representa-
tives.**^ When a treaty with France was under con-
sideration in 1709, the Board was called upon to sup-
ply Secretary Boyle with a full history and descrip-
tion of the claims of Hudson's Bay, Nova Scotia,
New York and the Five Nations, Island of St. Chris-
topher, New Foundland, Tobago, St. Lucia, and
Dominico. Copies of the most important documents

«*« Board of Trade Journal^ 13, p. 19.

••^ June 12, 170a Board of Trade Journal^ 13, pp. 70-73.

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 287

bearing on these claims were prepared at the same
time.*" Similar action was taken in 1714 when the
peace negotiations were on.*** And in 171 9, when the
instructions were prepared for Martin Bladen, one
of the envoys to Paris, the description of the southern
limits of the Hudson's Bay Company's claims were
defined substantially as the forty-ninth parallel, ths
present boundary of the United States.**®

Boundary disputes between the several colonies
were of even more pressing importance than were
those with foreign nations. In 1700 none of the colo-
nies had its limits so well defined that it was free
from such controversies, and as time went on these
questions had to be settled. It was difiicult for the
interested parties to arrive at a satisfactory agree-
ment without recourse to some outside party; conse-
quently the Board of Trade was the body to which,
as a last resort, all these controversies were referred.

Such disputes were nearly always complicated by
the question of private interests, as the titles to land
along the contested line rested upon grants from one
or the other of the claimants to the region. When|
the line was finally determined, property owners who ■
had deeds from one colony might find themselves oc- ;
cupying land which had legally been granted to other
parties. The crown also had interests to be consid-
ered in disputes between a royal and a proprietary
province; since in one case the quit rents belonged to
the crown, and in the other to the proprietary. Conse-

•68 CO. 324, 9, pp. 294-394.

•B9 Board of Trade Journal, 24, p. 277.

••0 — Ibid., 29, pp. 41, 135. A copy of the chief instnictioo to Martin
Bladen on this point hat already been given in footnote 109.

288 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

quently any change in the boundary line meant an
increase or a loss of royal revenue.

As all settlements of a boundary controversy were,
of necessity, ratified by laws passed by the colonial
legislature, any such settlement could be invalidated
by the action of the Board of Trade. If private in-
dividuals were injured in their property interests,
they had just grounds for a complaint to the king, and
such a complaint would involve the boundary dispute
and its settlement. If, on the other hand, the inter-
ests of the crown were at stake, it had to be made a
party to the settlement or it would refuse to recognize
its validity. Thus in either case the question would
come before the crown for ratification.

The part which the Board of Trade played in a
boundary controversy is illustrated by the settlement
of the dispute between New York and Connecticut,
which dated back to the time of Charles II. In 1664
a commission appointed by the king had heard both
parties and agreed upon a settlement, which was con-
curred in by the representatives of both New York
and Connecticut. It was afterwards discovered that
the distances stated in the report were not accurate
and that the towns of Rye and Bedford, which were
intended to be included in New York, were actually
located in Connecticut.*" Finally, in November,
1683, Governor Dongan for New York and Governor
Treat, assisted by three commissioners for the colony
of Connecticut, went over the division line and settled
it from place to place.*" By this action the towns of
Rye and Bedford were again included in New York,

••1 New York Colonial Documents^ vol. iv, 625.

••3 «Xq pnMccution of this Ust agreement an exact survey was made, and

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 289

but in 1697 ^h^y revolted from that colony to avoid
the payment of taxes, and insisted upon being an-
nexed to Connecticut/** The latter colony supported
their contentions and the question finally came before
the Board, where the whole matter was reviewed.

The agents for Connecticut attacked the validity
of the settlement of 1683 ^^ ^^ grounds: in the first
place, the commission had exceeded its powers by
changing the boundary when it was only authorized
to survey a line previously agreed upon; and in the
second place, the agreement was to have been sub-
mitted to the king for his confirmation, which was
never done. The Board decided that the commission
of 1683 ^^^ fully authorized by both colonies, espe-
cially as both had acquiesced in its decision for four-
teen years, and recommended that the crown at once
confirm the agreement which the commission had
made, which was done by an Order in Council,
March 28, lyoo.*^

In this action the Board was not deciding the ques-
tion of boundary, it was only passing upon the valid-
ity of a settlement already mutually agreed upon by
the two contending parties. It should also be no-
ticed, that the line had formerly been determined by a
royal commission created for that purpose, which
was the method which the Board always insisted
should be followed, unless the two parties could agree
upon a line without recourse to a commission. Even

the bounds or mean accordingly fixed and distinguished by certain land-
marks." — Representation of the Board of Trade, March 13, 1700, in New
York Colonial Documents^ vol. iv, 625.

««' Letter of Governor Fletcher to the Board, in New York Colonial
Documents, vol. iv, 276.

••« Report of the Board of Trade. Ibid., 626-627.

290 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

in that case, if either of the colonies was a royal prov-
ince, the agreement would hare to be confirmed by
the crown to make it binding.

The regular method of procedure in settling a dis-
pute was to secure the appointment of a royal commis-
sion. All the important boundary controversies, such
as those between North Carolina and Virginia,*"
North and South Carolina,*" New York and Massa-
chusetts,**^ and the latter province and New Hamp-
shire *•• and Rhode Island,**® were settled in this way.
These commissioners were appointed by the Board of
Trade upon the authority of an Order in Council,
were composed of men selected from the neighboring
colonies, and were usually paid by the two parties to
the controversy. This method of payment required
the consent of both parties, but it seldom happened
that a colony refused to bear its share of the charges.*^*
In some cases the Board secured authority to pay the
expenses of such commissions from the quit rents of

^^^ The commissioDS for settling this boundary were joint tribunals, ap-
pointed partly by the crown and partly by the proprietaries. See: North
Carolina Colonial Records^ vol. i, 703, 716, 735, 750^ vol. iii, 12, 17.

««« — /*u/., vol. iv, 28.

««T Proposed but not carried into execution. See: Pratt's Boundaries of
New York, vol. ii, 88-225.

••* Commission of 1737. See: New York Colonial Documents, vol. vi,
pp. 823, 953.

689 xhe conunissioners in this case were Cadwallader Golden, Abraham
Vanhom, Phillip Livingston, Archibald Kennedy, and James De Lancey of
New York; John Hamilton, John Wells, John Reading, Cornelius Vanhom,
and William Provost of New Jersey; and William Skeene, William Shir-
reft, Heniy Cope, Erasmus James Phillips, and Otho Haymilton of Nova
Scotia. See: Board of Trade to Governor Clinton. Ibid., 167-168.

*^^ In regard to a commission for settling the boundary between Massa-
chusetts and Rhode Island, the Board says the ''charges of which and the
execution thereof the agents for the Massachusetts Bay and Rhode Island
have agreed are reasonable equally to be bourne by both provinces." — Let-
ter to Clinton, August i, 1740. Ibid., 167-168.

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 291

the provinces concerned, as was done in settling the
southern boundary of Virginia in 171 1 and again in
1 729.*^^

In 1748 New Jersey attempted to settle the line be-
tween herself and New York, which had been in dis-
pute for many years, by the authority of an act of her
own legislature. In 171 9 Governor Hunter, acting
under color of a New York law which had been con-
curred in by New Jersey, issued a commission to sur-
vey the line. Disputes arose, however, and the com-
mission never completed its work, consequently the
question remained unsettled until New Jersey passed
the act mentioned above. Governor Belcher in-
structed his agent, Mr. Partridge, to secure its confir-
mation as soon as possible,*^' and that gentleman laid
the act before the Board the same day he received it."*
The New York agent opposed the confirmation of the
act, delays ensued, and it was not reported upon until
1753, when the Board asked that it be disallowed.*^*

The reasons for recommending this action are illus-
trative of the attitude of the Board, at all times, on
such questions.

«Ti North Carolina Colonial Records^ vol. iii, 13, 17, vol. iv, 28.

^72 As the act had a auspendiog clause, it had to be confirmed before it
was valid. See: Pratt, Daniel J. Boundaries of New York, vol. ii, 605,
642-645.

•^" Letter of F. J. Paris to James Alexander, November 4, 1748, in New
Jersey Archives, vol. vii, 168.

^^^ Representation of the Board, July z8, 1753, in CO. 5, 997, pp. 386-
406. The representation was referred to the Committee of the Privy Council,
which sent copies of it to the solicitors on both sides, who in turn petitioned
for it and against it These petitions were referred to the committee, but
the Register fails to show that any further action was taken. As the act,
according to Pratt, had a suspending clause, no action amounted to a re-
fusal to confirm it. See: Privy Council Register, ''George II," vol. xiv,
44a, 456, 499.

292 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

The Province of New Jersey in its distinct and separate
capacity can neither make nor establish boundaries ; it can as
little form regulations for deciding differ^ces between itself
and other parties concerned in interest. . . The legal
method of proceeding we conceive must be derived from the
immediate authority of the crown itself, and be signified by
a commission from His Majesty under the great seal.

The agents for New Jersey contended that the case
was similar to that of the New York and Connecticut
boundary line, and that all that was necessary was a
confirmation by the crown. To this the Board re-
plied :

It appears to us that Governor Hunter ought not to have is-
sued his commission for running the line above mentioned
without having previously received the royal direction and
instruction for that purpose; and that a commission issued
without such authority can be considered; with respect to
the interests of the crown, in no other light than a mere
nullity.«^»

The New Jersey agents urged that the crown had con-
firmed the New York act of 17 17, and thus had be-
come a party to the transaction; but the Board looked
upon that act as a necessary revenue measure which
had been accepted without any consideration of the
involved dispute.*^'

In December, 1754, New York passed a law by

^^^ Representation of the Board, in CO. $, 997, pp. 386-406.

•^* New Jersey Archives, vol. viii, part i, 148-149. The act in question
is a very long one, entitled, ^^An Act for Paying and Discharging Several
Debts due from this Colony to the Persons therein named and for Raising
and Putting into the hands of the Treasurer of this Colony Several quan-
tities of Plate to be appVd to the Publick and necessary uses of this Colony
and to make Bills of Credit to the value of forty-one Thousand five hundred
and Seventeen Ounces and a half of Plate for that purpose." Only two
clauses concerned the boundary, and these could easily have been over-
looked by the Board. See: New York Colonial Laws, vol. i, 938-991; Pratt,
D. J. Boundaries of New York, vol. ii, 605.

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 293

which the whole question in dispute was to be left to
the determination of the crown,*" but the following
June the Board recommended that this act also should
be disallowed for the following reasons:

It is improper as the method of determination which it pro*
poses is unusual and contrary to the constant practice in
cases of like nature : questions of disputed boundary, whereby
private property may be afiFected, having never been deter-
mined by the crown in the first instance but always by a
commission from His Majesty with liberty to all parties which
shall think themselves aggrieved by the judgment of the Com-
missioners, to appeal to His Majesty from their decision.*^*

In order to bring the controversy to a close, the
Board proposed that the governor of New York
should be instructed

To recommend it to the Assembly of that province to make
provision for defraying one half the expence of obtaining and
executing such commission, as aforesaid, whenever his Majes-
ty shall be graciously pleased to issue it,"^*

which was approved and the instructions issued in ac-
cordance therewith. The proprietaries were ready
to bear their half of the expense of the proposed com-
mission ; but on account of its heavy military expendi-
tures, the New York assembly refused to bear the
added charges of running the line. In 1764, how-
ever, it gave its consent, the commission was issued
in 1767, and the boundary finally settled.**®

The work of the Board in settling the line between
New York and Massachusetts offers a seeming ex-
ception to its policy announced in the above case. That

^^7 New York Colonial Laws, vol. iii, 1036-1038.

•^® Report of the Board, June za, 1755, in New Jersey Archives^ vol. viii,
part ii, Z09.

«T» — /W., iia

*Bo Pratt, D. J. Boundaries of Nno York^ vol. ii, 734, 750-801.

294 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

boundary had long been in dispute and the two colo-
nies had failed in all their attempts to arrive at an
agreement. Finally, in 1756- 1757, the question came
before the Board of Trade. After a careful examina-
tion of the records in its office, it gave its opinion,

That a line to be drawn northerly from a point on the south
boundary-line of the Massachusetts Bay, twenty miles distant
due east from Hudson's River, to another point twenty miles
distant due east from the said river, on that line which di-
vides the Province of New Hampshire and the Massachusetts
Bay, would be a just and equitable line of division between
Your Majesty's provinces of New York and the Massachu-
setts Bay.**^

The agents of the two colonies were given copies of
this decision and both accepted it. The Board then
reported its decision to the king and asked that the
proposed boundary should be established by an Order
in Council.*"

This looks on its face like an actual settlement of a
boundary by the Board, but that was not the case, as
all that the Board did was to determine the meaning
of certain grants. After its decision the boundary
was still unsettled; and a commission had to be ap-
pointed to survey and mark out the line according to
the determination of the Board. New York pro-
vided for the expense of such a commission in 1764;
but as the two colonies could not agree upon the way
the line should be surveyed, the question remained
unsettled until after the Revolution, and the final de-

«*i Report of the Board, May 25, 1757, ^^ New York Colonial Docu^
ments, vol. vii, 224.

^^^ They were given two months to consider the decision of the Board
before the latter embodied it in a representation to the king. See: Pratt,
D. J. Boundaries of New York, vol. ii, 147-150.

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 295

termination of it was made in 1787 under the author-
ity of Congress."'

Not only a colony but an Indian tribe could
have recourse to the Board of Trade for the settle-
ment of disputed lands. The best illustration is the
controversy between Connecticut and the Mohegan
Indians, to settle which a commission had been ap-
pointed in 1704. It heard all parties and made a de-
cision the next year; but Connecticut considered its
findings unfair, and appealed to the king in coun-
cil."* After hearing the agents for Connecticut, the
Board proposed that a commission should be ap-
pointed to review the work of the former commission.
An order was issued for its appointment, but for some
reason it was never carried into effect. At the insti-
gation of Mason, the order was revived in 1737 and
a commission appointed to review the decision of
1705. There was a slight irregularity in its report,
and on the petition of Mason, acting in behalf of the
Indians, another commission of review was issued in
I740.*"

It is thus seen that the Board of Trade acted as a '
high court of arbitration for disputes as to territory
or jurisdiction. It did not settle disputes on its own
authority, but it provided a way by which such con-
troversies could be determined by special commis-
sions. These were in reality special courts of arbi-
tration, which had power to settle the questions at
issue, but from which an appeal would lie to the

«88 Pratt, D. J. Boundaries of New York, vol. ii, 149-2x8.
•8* Connecticut Historical Society Collections, vol. v, 20-ai ; Palfrey,
John G. History of New England, vol. iv, 364-365.

•86 Connecticut Hittorical Society Collections, vol. v, ai, 263-265, 274-a8a

296 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

Board/" If either party were dissatisfied with the
decision of such a commission, it could prosecute a
complaint in the usual manner ; and if its work should
appear irregular, another commission was issued to
rehear the case. In all this there was an erident at-
tempt to do justice to all parties concerned. In some
cases it was a slow and extremely tedious method of
procedure, but it never deprived a colony of its terri-
tory without first securing its consent to the transac-
tion, until after the expulsion of the French when the
question of western limits was raised. Even then it
is doubtful whether the proclamation of 1763 and the
policy which followed it can be interpreted as deter-
mining boundaries in any final and legal sense. The
clause in the Constitution regarding changes in state
boundaries is but a recognition of the constant prac-
tice of the Board of Trade in settling disputes of this
character.

Trade Relations

The Board of Trade was only indirectly concerned
with the enforcement of the laws of trade and navi-
gation, as the real work of executing those laws be-
longed to the officers of the customs and the admiral-
ty-
Considerable information regarding illegal trade

found its way to the Board of Trade from one source
or another,'" but the Board itself was practically
powerless in such matters. It could pass the infor-

*^ In form it was an appeal to the king, but as all such complaints and
appeals were heard by the Board of Trade, it was in reality an appeal to
that body.

•87 ^ote the action of the Board on April 17, 1707, in suspending the
prosecution of Vetch and others for trading with the enemy, in Board of

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 297

mation on to the colonial governors and instruct them
to enforce the law, and could also transmit the intelli-
gence to the customs and the admiralty; but it could
not directly prevent violation of the trade laws by
means of revenue officers and patrol boats. In 1710
the Board received testimony of a considerable illegal
trade between Carolina, Curagoa, and St. Thomas.
It wrote a very sharp letter to the proprietors - it was
the fashion just then to threaten them on every plaus-
ible occasion - insisting that steps be taken to break
up the practice.'" At the same time it wrote a much
more sensible letter to the commissioners of customs,
transmitting the evidence it had received, and advised
that two revenue cutters on that station would effec-
tually check the smuggling operations."'

Trade Journal, 19, p. 125. The next year Mr. Lloyd, a New England mer-
chant, gave information of a contraband trade from Carolina to Portugal by
way of Rhode Island. In this case ships loaded with rice in Carolina, gave
bonds to discharge the cargo in an English port, cleared for Rhode Island,
unloaded and discharged their bonds, then reloaded and sailed for Portugal.
See: Board of Trade Journal, 20, 233-234.

<89 Copies of the testimony were sent to the proprietors, not only of the
trade to Curagoa, but also of an illegal trade to Martinique by means of flags
of truce. (Flags of truce were ships carrying prisoners to exchange with
the enemy. The masters of such vessels also carried considerable cargoes
for trading purposes on such trips, and in some cases the presence of the
prisoners was only a cloak to cover prohibited voyages and give the ap-
pearance of legality.) The proprietors were ordered to investigate the
facts and to prosecute offenders, if the evidence warranted it, and to give
orders not to permit any trading by flags of truce which might touch at
Carolina ports. See: CO. 5, 1292, pp. 204-205.

689 "Their Lordships being of opinion that the said illegal trade may in a
great measure be prevented by two brigantines of ten or twelve guns each,
to cruise off of these islands, upon proper stations, with power to examine
and seize such vessels as shall be found trading contrary to law ; they have
commanded me to desire you will lay the matter before the honorable the
commissioners of His Majesty's customs, and to let me know whether they
have any objection to the sending of such brigantines, or whether they
have any other remedy to propose that may more effectually prevent such

298 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

Proof of illegal trade usually reached the Board
some time after the riolations had occurred. Thus in
1750 it heard a very considerable amount of testi-
mony which proved that there had been systematic
violations of the Molasses Act and other trade laws
for years,**^ and that colonial ships h^ traded with
both French and Spanish colonies during the wars."*
The data from the customs as to the amount of duties
which the Molasses Act had yielded told the same
story.*"

I During the wars trade with the enemy was es-
'pecially profitable, hence the temptation to violate
jthe trade and navigation laws was vastly increased.
These violations were especially flagrant during the
French and Indian War, yet the Board says the first
information it had received of illegal trade by way of

Illegal Trade." ~ Popple to Burchett, February 3, 17x0, in Board of Trade
Commercial Series II, 645, p. 5a

•00 Even as early as 1722 information reached the Board of fraud in con-
nection with the trade with the sugar islands. See the letter of Captain
Brand, describing the methods of changing rum and molasses from the
French casks to those made by coopers carried by the vessels, in CO. 323, 8,
L. 35. The testimony of Admiral Knowles, Captain Tyrrell, and Mr. Tom-
lison shows that the frauds had extended over a long term of years. Much
of Admiral Knowles' testimony dealt with conditions as far back as 1737.
See: Board of Trade Journal, 58, November and December, 1750.

*^^ Admiral Knowles testified that there were forty-two vessels from the
northern colonies at Hispaniola with fictitious flags of truce at one time
during the war of 1744-1748. He testified that he had sent full accounts
of the violations to Newcastle, but received no orders in the matter; then,
on his own responsibility, he ordered the ships in his squadron to capture all
vessels which appeared to be violating the trade laws. See: Board of
Trade Journal, 58, December 6, X75a

•** CO. 5, 38, Appendix no. 4. A copy of this has already been given in
footnote 253. CO. 5, 872, no. 191, shows largely increasing sugar importa-
tions from New England and Carolina. No doubt much of this was from
the French sugar islands, although it was entered as from the English
islands.

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 299

Monte Christi had been in letters from the goremor
of Jamaica in 1759.*" As for the gross abuse of cartel
ships, or flags of truce, the Board asserted in 1760
that it had received no information of their use "dur-
ing the present war/' although it did not doubt but
they had been so employed. As soon, however, as the
existence of illegal trade was reported, the Board pro-
posed a general proclamation and particular instruc-
tions to the governors of all the provinces as the
proper means of breaking it up."*

The Board busied itself more with questions affect-
ing the growth of the commercial interests of the em-
pire than it did with the enforcement of customs
regulations. It spent much more time and energy
looking after passes for vessels than it did in prevent-
ing smuggling."' During the War of the Spanish
Succession commercial relations with the colonies
were seriously interfered with, and it was unsafe for
merchant vessels to venture on a voyage without a
convoy. The Board tried to arrange the convoys so

*^* In 1760 the treasury sent the Board pnx>f of illegal trade, both by
means of flags of truce, and by way of Monte Christi, and asked it to supply
any information it had received of similar violations. In answer to this the
Board wrote: ''We have not, during the present war, received information
of any trade carried on with the enemy by means of cartel ships. . . We
think the only remedy is not to allow any exchange of prisoners in America
by means of cartel ships. . . With respect to the trade to Monte Christi,
we first heard of it through the lieutenant-governor of Jamaica, in a letter
dated March 28, 1759." — Letter to the secretary to the commissioners of the
treasury, March 7, 1760, in CO. 324, x6, pp. 175-181.

**^ Representations on the testimony of illegal trade by way of Monte
Christi, submitted by the governor of Jamaica, August 31, 1759. See:
Board of Trade Jamaica, 67, pp. 448-457; also: Beer, Geo. L. British Colo'
nial Policy, chaps, vi and vii.

*^^ The determination of when and to whom passes should be issued was
left almost wholly to the Board. See: Board of Trade Journal^ 25, pp. 343-
347 ; CO. 324, xo, p. 91.

300 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

as to secure the best commercial relations, both for
Virginia and Maryland and for the English mer-
chants. The ministers were planning to have the con-
voy sail for Virginia in June, but that was earlier
than many of the ships could be ready for a voyage
of that kind. They were also planning for its early
return from Virginia, which was objected to by the
merchants; for if the ships were not ready to return
with the convoy, they would be compelled to remain
until the next year, which would involve heavy losses
to ships and crews. The time for the convoy to re-
turn was also placed at a bad season, for the new crop
of tobacco would not be ready to ship ; and as there
would be no other opportunity for a year, the planters
would practically lose one crop, and the nation the
revenue on it.

The Board proposed either two convoys or one; if
only one could be sent, it should sail for Virginia in
September, arrive there about December, and return
the next May. In that way each crop of tobacco
could be brought away at the proper season, and Brit-
ish goods would arrive in the colonies at the time they
were most needed.*'*

The chief work of the Board in promoting the in-
terests of British commerce was to furnish informa-
tion concerning the trade situation and to recommend
ways of improving it. Each of the governors was
expected to furnish annual reports of the population,
the manufactures, the trade, and the finances of his
province.*®^ From these returns the Board compiled

*^* Representation of the Board, April 26, 1706. CO. 5, 1362, pp. 44-
51. See also the letter to Secretary Hedges, February x, of the same year.
**^ See the circular letters sent to the governors, in New York Colonial

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 301

reports on the conditions of the provinces, somewhat
similar to those which are published in the ''blue
books" at the present time. The well known report
of 1 72 1 is a good illustration of what these reports
contained.**^ In addition to such reports, the Board
had to be ready to furnish Parliament with informa-
tion on a variety of subjects when called upon. The
information it secured was much like that supplied
by our own consular service, and the merchants of
England looked upon the Board in much the same
light that our manufacturers do the United States
consular officers. Any measures or conditions which
in any way affected their trade with the colonies were
promptly reported, or rather complained of, to the
Board.'**

The Board of Trade was thoroughly imbued with '.
the mercantilist doctrines of the time, but its constant -
correspondence with those who were familiar with ;
conditions in the colonies made it favor a generally
liberal policy. Its conception was that the colonies
should be both a source of supply for raw materials
and such products as could be made most advan-
tageously there, and that they should also furnish a
growing market for England's manufactured goods.
In this way colonies and mother country could be
mutually helpful to each other.

The value of the colonies as a market was very

Documents; New Jersey Archives; Sharpens Correspondence; Pennsylyania
Archives ; North Carolina Colonial Records.

«»« New York Colonial Documents^ vol. v, 591-630.

*^ See extracts from Board of Trade Journal in North Carolina Colonial
Records, and in Pennsylvania Statutes at Large, Appendices. See also the
extensive reports of various officers respecting trade conditions in different
places in Board of Trade Commercial Series /.

302 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

thoroughly impressed upon the Board by the English
merchants and manufacturers, as well as by the royal
governors. The two principal items of British export
in the first three decades of the Board's activity were
woolen and linen goods. These made up consider-
ably more than one half of all the exports to the colo-
nies, and in 1721 wool alone constituted one half of
the annual exports of goods of British manufacture,^^
consequently the wool trade was very dear to the fi-
nancial heart of every Britisher. During the earlier
years the Board nursed this market as carefully as it
could, and constantly demanded information regard-

700 September 8, 1721, the Board [CO. 324, xo, p. 385] reported the ex-
ports to the colonies as amounting to the following annually:
In British Manufactures k Products

Woolen Manufactures

Silk wrought and thrown

Linens and Sail Cloth .

Cordage

Gunpowder

Leather wrought and Saddles

Brass and Copper wrought

Iron wrought and Nails

Lead and Shot

Pewter

In many other Goods

In Foreign Goods
Linens
Calicoes

Prohibited East Indian Goods
Wrought Silks .
Iron and Hemp
Other Foreign Goods

£i47»438

xxs.

7d.

x8^8

1x^64

xx,a84

2,392

»5

X5,x6i

2,265

35,631

«3

2,850

3,687

43,941

£294,586

38.

id.

£ 864x3

X0,X02

4a.

10,523

9d.

1,189

6,152

2x,76o

£136,141

294,586

138.
3

6d.

£430,727 1 6s.

7d.

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 303

ing conditions which might in any way jeopardize
this much prized export trade. The act of 1699,
which was intended to prevent the development of a
colonial wool manufacture, should be looked upon as
an effort to preserve the American wool market/®^

The colonists were not averse to using English
woolen goods when they could get them. As Govem-
or Dudley wrote to the Board, they were proud
enough to wear clothing made of the very best goods
England could produce, and were determined to do
so if saving, chopping, and ship-building could pay
for it.^®^ But clothing they had to have, and they
could only buy when goods were to be had at reason-
able prices and in return for the products they had to
sell. When these failed, as they did during Queen
Anne's War, the colonists generally were forced to
resort to such goods as they could make. A consider-
able clandestine trade within the colonies soon de-
veloped, and Yankee inventiveness was directed to-
ward devising means of evading the act of 1699.
Perhaps the most ingenious method of keeping with-
in the law regarding transportation was the Rhode
Island scheme of driving the sheep to the place
where the wool was wanted, shearing them there, and
then driving them back to the owner's pasture.^"*

The reports which reached the Board indicated
there was every reason to fear that the colonial mar-

7^1 This act made it illegal to load any wool or wool products upon any
ship, wagon, horse, or other means of transportation for the purpose of
carrying it to any other point Instructions to the governors strictly enjoined
them to enforce this law. See: trade instructions to Governor Nicholson of
Virginia, October x6, 1702, in CO. 5, 1360, p. 308.

702 Dudley to the Board, March 1, 1709, in CO. 5, 9x3, pp. 95-96.

^^^ Letter of Larkin to the Board, December 5, 1701, CO. 5, 726, p. 1x7.

304 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

ket for wool was in permanent danger. From Massa-
chusetts came news that sheep raising had spread
from the islands to the mainland, and that soon there
would be a thousand sheep where there were not a
hundred before ; ^®* that wool cards and combs were
being imported in great quantities ; ''^^ that the wool
trade was greatly abated due to the excessive cost of
English goods ; ^^ and that unless a lumber and ship-
building trade could be developed, the use of Eng-
lish goods would decrease each year/"^ From Mary-
land came letters stating that "pinching want" had

This letter was written from Maryland and is included in the correspon-
dence from that province. He also adds that the people of Connecticut and
Rhode Island made as good "Druggets" for four shillings a yard as he ever
taw in England in his life.

^^^ Letter of Jahleel Brenton to the Board, March 30, 1703, CO. 5,
863, N. 33. He also adds that most of the lawyers interpreted the act of
1699 as not intended to check transportation of wool from one part of the
colony to another. The residents of the islands had formerly bought their
clothing from England, but since the scarcity they had commenced to work
their wool up into clothing for the market.

^^'^ Letter of Bridger to the Board, March 5, 1706, CO. 5, 9x2, p. 127.
He states that since the previous December 3, one hundred fifty-five dozen
wool cards had been imported into New England besides great quantities of
wool combs, and the importation of wool had greatly decreased. The
Board at once wrote to the attorney-general to inquire if there was any law
to prevent the trade in cards and combs, and was informed that the trade
was legal. See: Board of Trade Journal^ z8, pp. 262, 356; CO. 5, 9x2, p.
178.

708 «x iQugt ||(j(i ()j2( the woolen trade from England also is to a great
measure abated, the people here clothing themselves with their own
Wool. . . Nothing is here sold at less than one hundred and fifty pounds
per cent advance, most goods more, so that country men cannot purchase
them." — Governor Dudley to the Board, March x, X709, CO, 5, 913,
pp. 95-96.

707 "The woolen manufacture for the supply of the inhabitants here will
prevail every year, unless the people are put to building ships for the royal
navy, or that we get into a further masting and providing of spars and
boards, such as are not either for length or breadth to be had in the Bat-
tick." -/^fV.

BOUNDARIES. TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 305

forced the inhabitants to resort to spinning and weav-
ing their own clothes from such materials as they
could get, but that supplies from England would
cause most of them to abandon the new industry/^
The governor of Virginia wrote that similar condi-
tions existed in that colony, and that in one of the best
counties for the production of tobacco more than
forty thousand yards of cloth had been made in one
year/®* Purely repressive legislation would hardly
meet the situation. Convoys for the fleet which sup-
plied Virginia and Maryland were secured, and with
the fresh supply of English goods the domestic cloth
manufacture declined in those colonies/" New Eng-
land, however, could only be diverted from its wool
manufacture by directing the energies of the inhabi-

708 ''Pinching want has put some few on making of a little linnen and
woollen, but not sufficient to supply their own family's and that too would
be quickly laid aside were they supplyed from Great Britain at any reason-
able price, but few goods of late years have been sold under three hundred
per cent." — Governor Seymour to the Board, 1708, in CO. 5, 727, p. 87.

In April, 1713, the president and council of Maryland complained of the
hard times the province had been having: "So that most of us labour
under great difficulty's, and had not many people applyed themselves to
spinning the little wool their small flocks of sheep afford, and likewise some
small quantity of flax, they would have suffered very much for want of
necessary clothing, which too many, not so careful and industrious have too
fully experienced." — CO. 5, 727, pp. 334-335.

^0* Letter of Governor Spotswood to the Board, March 30, 17x1. He
adds that no doubt the quantity of cloth was greater in the poor counties,
that it was necessity and not inclination which caused them to resort to
the manufacture, but that increased skill would make it necessary to divert
them into other lines of effort See: CO. 5, 1363, pp. 318-3x9.

710 "Xhis province is highly obliged to your Lordship's just consideratioo
of their great necessity in that you have been pleased to recommend to the
merchants to supply it with English manufactures, which they have by
this fleet in some measure complied with, so that the little manufacturing of
linnen and woollen will fall of themselves." — Letter of Governor Seymour
to the Board, 1708, CO. 5, 737, p. 93.

See also the admission of the Virginia merchants that conditions in Vir-

3o6 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

tants into channels as remunerative to them and more
valuable to the empire.

Conditions favored the production of naval stores
as the most convenient way of accomplishing this re-
sult. In spite of the covert, and at times open, hos-
tility of the naval officials/" the Board secured
bounties for American-made tar, pitch, resin, and
turpentine more than sufficient to counterbalance the
excess in freight rates from the colonies over those
from Sweden."* In addition, the Board had Mr.
Bridger sent over as surveyor of the woods, and di-

ginia were largely the result of the failure of the regular convoy in 1707,
in Board of Trade Journal^ 20, pp. 329-330.

It is not improbable that there was more or less unfairness and fraud
in connection with the convoys. In explaining the causes for excessive
freight rates from America, the Board stated that the officer in charge of
the convoy would announce the precise day upon which he intended to sail ;
but that certain masters of vessels would induce him to postpone his de-
parture without public notice, then they would demand excessive freight
rates, which the planters would refuse to pay until about the time for the
fleet to leave, when they would pay the rates demanded, rather than miss a
shipment to England. After which the convoy would delay for the masters
to complete their cargoes. See: Representation on Trade, February 14, 17x0,
in Board of Trade Commercial Series 11, 645, p. 67.

7^^ During the first few years of the bounty there were many complaints
from merchants of hostile action on the part of the navy, such as severe
grading and prejudice in favor of Swedish tar. In March, 1708, Bridger
complained that the navy did not pay the premiums according to the act
of Parliament The same year merchants complained that the premiums
had been paid in noninterest-bearing bills, by which they would lose two
thirds of the premiums. January 5, 17x1, the Board wrote a letter to the
admiralty asking the opinion of the officials in that office as to the proper
premiums for spars, boards, and other naval stores. Burchett replied for
the admiralty, January x6, that no advice could be given as to the amount
of the premiums which should be paid, that the navy officials had no ob-
jections to such importations, but thought the bounties should be paid by
some other department See: Letter to the Board, CO. 5, 912, p. 431 ;
Board of Trade Journal, 20, p. 230; CO. 5, 913, pp. 308-309, 317.

^12 The premiums paid under the act of 1706, which was continued for
twenty years, were four pounds per ton on tar and pitch, three on resin, six

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 307

rected him to instruct the colonists in the art of mak-
ing tar. He evidently did as well as he could for
several years, going from point to point and distribu-
ting printed directions to those who might engage in
the new industry. He had much prejudice to con-
tend with, the New Englanders refusing to believe
his argument that tar making was so profitable that a
person could earn enough at it to buy two coats in the
same time he spent in the actual manufacture of one,
until he demonstrated the fact to their entire satis-
faction."'

The new industry was soon established, and under
the influence of the bounties paid in England, a plenti-
ful supply of the very best tar, pitch, and turpentine
was secured for the navy."* At the same time ship-
ping was stimulated by the additional carrying trade,

on hemp, and one on masts. The freight rates from Sweden in 1709 were
£3 per last of twelve barrels, while the rate from America was £7 xos. per
ton of eight barrels. This rate, however, was abnormally high because of
the war. See: CO. 324, xx, p. 73; Representation on trade, in Board of
Trade Commercial Series 11 ^ 645, p. 67.

718 *<xhe country people or planters are entered so far into making their
own woolens, that not one in forty but wears his own carding, spinning, etc. —
they are so fond of their own ways and thoughts that nothing can draw them
off but that which must tend to their present interest and advantage." The
claims of profits in the tar and pitch making ''they would not believe — un-
less they see it tried before their faces." — Bridger to the Board, March 13,
X708, in Co. 5, 9x2, pp. 431-433-

714 February 25, X7X7, the Board heard a considerable amount of testi-
mony in regard to the tar produced in America. The agents for Carolina
asserted that New England and the West Indies were supplied from that
province, and that there was plenty of the best quality to supply Great
Britain. A Mr. Allen claimed that there were not two hundred barrels of
Swedish tar to be had in London. A Mr. Hughs said it was fully as good
as Swedish, and that Finland, where the tar had formerly been produced,
was becoming depopulated. See: Board of Trade Journal^ 26, p. 203.

March 13, 1707, Bridger stated that the previous year New England
had shipped 2,x9o barrels of tar, 2,275 ^^ pitch, 68 of resin^ and 4,924 of

3o8 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

and a portion of New England's dangerous energies
diverted to ship-building, shipping, and tar making.
Thus the precious wool trade was protected.

The development of naval stores, however, was not
a mania on the part of the Board. All of America
was not to be set to making tar, but only such portions
of the inhabitants as could not be advantageously em-
ployed in other industries which were profitable to
England. The production of naval stores was not to
be encouraged in Virginia and Maryland, but was to
be discouraged there, for it was not so profitable to
England as was the tobacco trade.^" Nothing was to
be done which should in any way interfere with or re-
tard the growth of the tobacco industry. The refusal
of the Board to permit colonial laws to limit the im-
portation of negroes, or to encourage the development
of cities and towns, and its hostility to excessive grants
of land, all turn upon the effect such measures might
have in diverting people from tobacco culture. That
industry was profitable to England; and if the colo-
nists were not engaged in that, they would of necessity
engage in something else, possibly manufacturing,
which would reduce England's colonial market by
the amount of goods they supplied.

The thoroughness with which the Board was im-

turpentine. Even after the bounties were removed, the importations in 1733
amounted to 61X23 lasts of tar and pitch. See: CO. 5, 9x2, p. 43X ; CO. 323,
xo, N. 42.

716 «Xho' the encouragement of the production of naval stores in the
plantations being of the highest importance to England, yet it is not fitting
to be encouraged in those places which are proper for the production of to-
bacco, and therefore you will take care therein; but that the production of
naval stores may be in such parts of your government, as are only proper
for them." — Letter from the Board to Governor Seymour of Maryland,
March 26, X707, in CO. 5, 727, p. X29.

BOUNDARIES, TRADE. INDIAN AFFAIRS 309

pressed with the idea that the colonial market could
only be protected by inducing the colonists to engage
in noncompetitive industries is seen in its various re-
ports on trade conditions. In 1714 it advised:

That as the provinces on the continent of America are of late
years very much increased in their numbers of people, par-
ticularly the northerly ones, who have applyed themselves
to the manufacturing of coarse woolen goods, and thereby
prejudiced our woolen trade here, and therefore we humbly
propose that these people particularly in New England and
New York should be diverted from that undertaking by be-
ing encouraged in the production of naval stores, since in
return of such stores, they would take off considerable quan-
tities of woolen manufactures from hence, which would be a
double advantage in this Kingdom.^^'

In 1717 it informed the king that the people at the
north had been "under the necessity of applying
themselves" to woolen, linen, and other manufac-
tures, and the only way to prevent it was to get them
to turn their attention to some other profitable in-
dustry/" And again in 172 1, it said:

It is therefore to be presumed that necessity and not choice has
put them to erecting manufactures. Hence the proper rem-
edy would be proper encouragement of importation of naval
stores and minerals of all kinds. The trade of most impor-
tance to them and the one for which they are best fitted is
shipbuilding.^^*

^^^ Representation of the Board, November, 1714, in Board of Trade
Trade Pafers^ 23, Na 79.

7^^ Representation on Naval Stores, March 28, 1717, in Board of Trade
Trade Papers^ 23, na 85. The Board goes on to argue that such an in-
dustry would not only enable England to sell its wool, but also enable it to
purchase naval stores without paying out bullion. It would also increase
the shipping of the colonies and diminish that of the "northern countries,"
especially as it was feared that the Tsar was about to limit such exports
to Muscovite bottoms.

^^^ Representation on the state of Hb Majesty's plantations in America,

3IO AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

The Board never favored a policy which might
lead to the depopulation of any colony; ^" and as the
presence or the growth of population rests primarily
upon economic conditions, it sought to bring about
such changes in the laws of trade as would favor each
particular section, and in such a way as to extend the
British market as much as possible, and reduce it as
little as possible. Thus it favored allowing South
Carolina rice to be shipped directly to Portugal,
where it competed to some extent with English wheat,
but more with Italian products, because it would
build up a market for English manufactured goods in
two ways. South Carolina would be a better market,
because the planters would have more to buy with."^
Portugal also would be a better market for the Eng-
lish, because it could pay for its rice in its own prod-
ucts, and the improved communications would be a
direct aid to commercial relations.

The ship-building industry in New England was
directly favored by the Board of Trade. It also
sought to engage the farmers there in the production

September 8, 1721, in CO. 324, 10, pp. 320-321. A representation on naval
stores accompanied this report which advocated direct encouragement to
the production of raw iron and mineral ores of all kinds. It also proposed
that whenever bounties were paid on any commodity it should be included
among the enumerated products.

^^^ This has already been treated in connection with the disallowance of
colonial laws. The Board would not even favor a British law to prevent
wool manufactures, as it might make it very difficult for the poor people to
clothe themselves; although it was willing to prohibit the exposing for sale
of domestic-made woolens. See: Representation of the Board, December 5,
1728, in CO. 324, zi, pp. 141-142.

T20 Representation of 1721, in CO. 324, 10, pp. 371-373. The Board
pointed out that the chief reason Carolina rice was sold so little in Portugal
was because of the double freights, and that with direct shipments the
Italians would be driven from the market.

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 311

of hemp,"' but with rather ill success. It did what it
could to encourage the trade in lumber, as far as it
did not endanger the forests which were most useful
to the royal navy. It also favored the encouragement
of the colonial production of iron, but in doing so it
encountered pressure from English iron manufac-
turers, and proposed that the production of raw iron
only, or at most pig and bar iron, should be permitted
in the colonies. As much partially manufactured iron
from foreign countries found its way into the planta-
tions on account of the drawbacks permitted on iron
reexported from England, the Board recommended
that Parliament take off the drawback, in the inter-
ests of the British manufacturer."* Its recommenda-
tion that colonial crude iron should be allowed to
enter England free of duty was rejected in 172 1 and
again in 1738,"' but became a law twelve years later.

^^^ See the proposal of the Board that the government should send five
hundred bushels of hemp seed to New Hampshire, Representation of Sep-
tember 4, 1735, in CO. s, 917, pp. 135-136.

^22 These importations were chiefly from Holland. In 1705 a drawback
had been taken o£F of manufactured iron and steel, but continued on the un-
wrought, which proved to be a direct encouragement to iron manufacture in
America. See: Representation of the Board, January 26, 171 1, in Board of
Trade Commercial Series 11^ 645, p. 436. The reexportations of iron and
steel increased from eighty-nine tons in 1704-1705 to five hundred and thirty-
four tons in 1708-1709. See: Report of commissioner of customs, in CO.
323, 7, K. 7.

Sir Ambrose Crowley testified before the Board that exportations of
manufactured iron had decreased greatly during the same years, and that
if the drawback were removed the iron merchants could sell so cheaply that
they could prevent the development of a colonial manufacture. See : Board
of Trade Journal, 22, pp. 173-174.

72^ Sir Joshua Gee, in 1718, advocated bounties on colonial bar and pig
iron. The Board, in its recommendations of 1721, proposed the removal of
all duties on pig iron. It had favored both bar and pig iron, and had a
bill brought into Parliament taking the duty off of both, but the bar iron
was opposed and the bill dropped. See: CO. 324, 10, pp. 212, 433-434.

312 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

At this time, however, the iron interests in England
secured concessions in the form of prohibitions of
steel manufacture, slitting mills, plating mills,
and forges with tilt hammers/"

A portion of the iron bill was forced upon the
Board of Trade by the merchants, through their in-
fluence in the House of Commons."* Other indus-
tries, when they felt the eflfect of a diminishing trade
to the colonies and discovered that it was in part
due to the colonists supplying their own needs, ap-
pealed to the House of Commons for such legislation
as would enable them to retain their markets. Legis-
lation in such cases was due to the direct pressure
from those engaged in an industry, and not to any
policy agreed upon by the Board of Trade and pre-
sented as a desirable measure. The hat bill "' and
the attempt to prevent wool manufactures in the
colonies are good illustrations.

The Board did not advocate a selfishly narrow
trade policy, but believed that the colonies and the
home country should form one commercial unit, as
nearly independent of all others as possible. It
sought to retain the colonial market for England's
more important products, and to open markets and
encourage profitable industries within the colonies so

^^^ The law provided penalties for the erection of such prohibited fur-
naces or mills; declared those already established common nuisances; and
required the governors to enforce the law for their destruction and the
prosecution of their owners, under penalty of a fine of £500 for neglecting
to do so. See: 23 George II, cap. 20; Pickering. Statutes at Large, vol.
xr, 30.

^*5 House of Comnoons Journal, vol. xxii, 772, 776, 777, 780, 788, 791, 793,
810, 828, 85a

^^^ House of Commons Journal, vol. xix, 245, 249-250, 252, vol. xxi, 802,
824.

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 313

as to make them rich and able to buy liberally of
English goods. To this end it advocated a policy of
bounties for infant industries, and a policy of prefer-
ential tariffs in favor of the colonies. This is seen in
the reports on trade conditions, especially that of
172 1, in recommending a direct export trade for Caro-
lina rice, and free trade for lumber, iron, and min-
erals."^ It is also seen in its policy of bounties on
naval, stores, and its direct encouragement to the pot-
ash,"* sugar, indigo, and silk industries."' The
manufacturers looked upon the colonies primarily as
markets for their goods, and as they were a class con-
stantly growing in influence, they could make their
demands felt. The old mercantilist theory was that
colonies were primarily sources of supply for goods
which could not be produced at home. The Board

^27 It is evident that the Board had much more in mind in this recom-
mendation than merely using the colonies as a source of supply. The one
thing which hampered the British trade most was to find an adequate market
for colonial products. As the Board said in regard to the great mineral
resources of New York and Pennsylvania, it had good reason to believe,
"that, if proper encouragement was given in Great Britain, to take off that,
and their timber, the people would be diverted from the thoughts of setting
up any manufactures of their own, and consequently the consumption of
Great Britain considerably advanced." — New York Colonial Documints,
vol. V, 604. Beer in his discussion of the commercial policy of England
possibly makes too much of what he calls the new conception in British
colonial policy of colonies for markets instead of sources of supply. See:
British Colonial Policy ^ 139 ff.

7^' See the letter of Popple to Lowndes of the treasury, asking financial
assistance for John Keble and his potash enterprise in West Jersey, in New
Jersey Archives, vol. iii, 347-349; also the letter of Partridge to Governor
Greene of Rhode Island, July 30, 1754 [Rhode Island Colonial Records, vol.
ii, 142], in regard to Thomas Stephens' plans for a potash manufacture in
America, and the encouragement the Board had given him. He adds that
the British import duty on potash had lately been removed.

T2B The import duty on silk was removed in 175a 23 George II, cap.
29, Pickering. Statutes at Large, vol. xx, 97.

314 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

i tried to reconcile these two doctrines and make the
/colonies preeminently a market as well as a source of
supply.

The attempt of the Board to preserve the forests in
America, particularly those which could be of direct
use to the royal navy, although it belongs rather in
the field of defense than in that of trade policy, was
one of its pet measures for many years. At first it
sought to secure its ends by the enactment by the colo-
nial assemblies of laws for the protection of mast
trees, but apparently New Hampshire was the only
one which complied. The Board then appealed to
Parliament, which passed the White Pine Bill.^'®
Then followed a long and apparently futile attempt
to enforce the various provisions of the act, during
which the Board secured the appointment of a sur-
veyor of the woods, supported him as best it could,
but finally encountered serious difficulties in regard
to his salary, gradually lost its enthusiasm for the
work, and allowed the subject to be forgotten after
the ascendency of Newcastle.^*^
(. Aside from the danger of competitive industries,
the most pressing commercial question before the
Board of Trade was that of the colonial bills of credit,
which had been issued in several of the colonies after
1690, the practice having been started by Massachu-

7'<>Thi9 failed the first time it was introduced, but became a law in
1711. See: CO. 5, 9x3, pp. 238, 321.

781 Mr. Bridger was the first surveyor of the woods. He was followed by
Armstrong, after which the duty was made a part of that of the lieutenant-
governor of New Hampshire. Both Bridger and Armstrong reported much
difficulty in enforcing the law, as frauds of every description were practiced
by those engaged in the lumber industry. Each was accused of corruption
in the exercise of his office, in the form of selling licenses to cut timber, and

-t

».- • ..

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 315

setts in that year/'* Other colonies adopted the plan
cither of issuing bills of credit or of lowering the
value of the coin and in a few years the merchants
began to complain. The Board consulted the law
officers and decided that the evil could be remedied
by a royal proclamation fixing the value of foreign
coins in America, which was issued in 1704,"* but
proved entirely inadequate for the purpose. In New
York it was suspended for a time, and in almost no
colony was it carefully observed ; consequently an act
of Parliament was passed in 1708, which aimed to do
what the proclamation had failed to accomplish.^'*

The Board of Trade sought to enforce this act by
instructions to the governors and by disallowing such
colonial laws as contravened it, but the evil continued
to grow. Governor Hunter of New York consented
to the striking of bills of credit as a means of getting
a revenue settled for five years."* The assembly
l^assed another paper money act in 171 7,"* which
went into eflfect before it was considered by the Board
of Trade. The latter disapproved of the act, but as

accepting fees to permit the loading of timber marked with the great arrow,
Lieutenant-governor Dunbar encountered almost open rebellion when he
tried to break up illegal timber cutting. The letters to and from New Eng-
land in the Board of Trade papers are filled with information connected
with the preservation of the forests. See: CO. 5, vols. 861-882, 908-918.

^•2 Palfrey, John G. History of New England, vol. iv, 20.

^'* New York Colonial Documents , vol. iv, 1131.

784 This bill was drawn up by the Board of Trade at the request of a
committee of the House of Lords. It was sent to the attorney-general for
his opinion and then passed by Parliament See: Board of Trade Journal,
37i PP- I5^'i57! C'O. 324, 908, p. 155; 6 Anne cap. 30, Pickering. Statutes
at Large, vol. xi, 4x2.

785 New York Colonial Laws, vol. i, 847.

^«« — Ibid,, 938. This is the law which figured in the boundary contro-
versy with New Jersey.

3i6 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

the bills had come into the hands of third parties, a
disallowance would have produced a great deal of
confusion; consequently, in 1720, the Board recom-
mended that it be confirmed, but that no similar laws
should be passed in the future. Circular letters were
accordingly prepared and sent to all the governors, by
which they were strictly enjoined not to consent to any
act creating additional bills of credit, except it have
a suspending clause, or be a law establishing a perma-
nent revenue/" Thus the Board evidently considered
the advantages of a fixed civil list more important
than the evils of a paper currency.

The exception clauses furnished a loophole suffi-
ciently large to enable the assemblies to evade the
limitation. New Jersey, in 1723, passed an act which
established the revenue for ten years, but did it only
as a device for creating a larger amount of bills of
credit"* Other colonies adopted the same expedient,
although few of them found it necessary to establish
the revenue for a longer period than had been custom-
ary before that time. The Board, however, objected
to the new acts; and in 1726 Secretary Popple wrote
to the governor of Pennsylvania the following senti-
ments in regard to the paper money acts of that prov-
ince:

Their Lordships have found by experience, that bills of credit
have been of very ill consequence in other places where they
have been issued, particularly in Carolina, where not only the
province but the merchants have sustained great losses there-

by.

^'^ Order in Council, May 19, 1720, in New York Colonial Documents,
vol. V, p. 539.

^'® Letter of Burnet to the Board, December 16, 1723, in New York
Colonial Documents, vol. v, 70a

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 317

Were it not for the disorders and inconveniences of
such action, the acts would be repealed.

And if any further acts are pass'd for creating more bills of
credit than those already issued, their Lordships will certainly
think themselves oblig'd to lay them before His Majesty for
his disallowance.^**

The Ifoard insisted more and more that provision
should be made for sinking the bills of credit within
a reasonable time. An act of New Jersey which
made current forty thousand pounds in bills of credit
had a provision for loaning these bills on good se-
curity at five per cent interest, which was to be set
aside as a fund for sinking them ; but as the interest
continued to accumulate in the treasury, the assembly
decided that it would be better to use it for current
expenses. Governor Burnet gave his consent to the
appropriation act, although forbidden to do so by his
instructions.^*® His successor, Montgomerie, had
special directions to secure the repeal of this act, but
the assembly refused to concur with the wishes of the
Board; whereupon the latter had the act disal-
lowed."*

Massachusetts always refused to add a suspending
clause to an act; and in spite of the governor's instruc-
tions on that point, the assembly (1733-1734) passed
laws creating bills of credit in excess of the sum al-
lowed for annual expenses, which laws were consid-
ered by the Board in 1735 and allowed to expire

7** Pennsylvania Archives^ first series, vol. i, 186-187.

^^^ Letter of Burnet to the Board, December 20, 1726, in New York
Colonial Documents, vol. v, 8ia

^^^ Letter of the Board to Montgomerie, July ai, 1731, in New Jersey
ArclnveSf vol. v, 302.

3i8 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

without being disallowed/" The Board, however,
instructed the governor as follows :

We do hereby strictly enjoin and require you upon pain of
our highest displeasure and of being immediately recalled from
that our government not to give your assent for the future
to any act whatever for issuing new bills of credit except only
thirty thousand pounds for annual support of the Government
or to any act for re-issuing, old bills or that shall continue
any bills current beyond the time limited by the acts for
emitting them, without inserting in every such case a clause
for suspending the execution of every such act until our
pleasure shall be declared thereupon.^^'

The war from 1744 to 1748 still further increased
the amount of the outstanding issues. In the mean-
time, the Board had concentrated its attention on an-
other phase of the paper money question. Most of •
the colonies had endowed their paper currency with
legal tender qualities, to which the Board was es-;
pecially opposed ; and soon after Halifax became head 1
of the Board, it was decided to ask Parliament to
abolish all colonial paper money^ The attempt was
made in 1749; the House of Commons gave leave to
bring in a bill, and a committee of nine, five of whom
were members of the Board, was appointed to draw
up the measure/** The bill passed its first reading,
was considered in the committee of the whole, of
which Fane was chairman, but failed to pass. The
House, however, ordered the Board to present, at the
beginning of the next session, a full report of the ex-
tent of bills of credit in the plantations, which it did ;

7^2 Massachusetts Acts and Resolves, vol. ii, 701.

^** — Ibid., vol. ii, 745.

^** House of Commons Journal, vol. xxv, 746. The bill was strongly
opposed by the colonial agents, who presented petitions in behalf of their con-
stituents and were heard before the House by counsel.

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 319

and in 175 1 an act was passed prohibiting such bills
in the New England colonies/"

The Board sought to secure its object in the other ""
colonies by peremptory orders to the governors ; but
the French and Indian War compelled the latter to
disregard their instructions, and even forced them to
permit the new issues to be made legal tenders/** The
assemblies did, however, provide for the sinking of
their new emissions within a reasonable time. Seeing;
that it must either change the instructions or tacitly
acquiesce in their violation, the Board instructed the
governors to consent to such issues until the close of ,
die war, when the old instruction was renewed/*^ In ■
1764 the aid of Parliament was again asked; and the
act of that year, which was also prepared by the
Board of Trade, included all the colonies."* t/

It is thus seen that the Board constantly opposed 1
bills of credit in the interest of commerce, but that its
opposition was not very successful. The slowness of ,
communication and the still slower methods of the
Board made it difficult to disallow the acts creating
paper money before third parties had acquired the
bills, after which a disallowance was not expedient.
Parliament was successfully applied to ; but the legis-

^^^24 George II, cap. 53, Pickering. Statutes at Large, vol. xx, 306.

^^^ Bernard in a letter to the Board, in which he discusses the necessity
of issuing more bills of credit and the consequent change in his instruc-
tions, says: "And it will be absolutely necessary that this power should be
free from the exception to making the bills a legal tender: for I am satisfied
the Assembly will not pass a bill with that exception." -. Bernard to the
Board, August 31, 1758, in New Jersey Archives, vol. ix, 133.

^*^ New Jersey Archives, vol. ix, 147, 274.

7^* The chairman and two of the other five members of the committee to
bring in the bill were members of the Board. See: House of Commons
Journal, vol. xxix, 1027 ; 4 George III, cap. 34, Pickering. Statutes at Large,
vol. xxvi, 103.

•,

320 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

lation, acting as it did upon governors, was not satis-
factory. It irritated the assemblies, but did not re-
strain them from issuing more bills when they saw fit
to do so. It is strange that the Board did not take!
active measures to remove the primary cause of the
paper money issues by providing some adequate form
of circulating medium. Some such measure as the
establishment of a mint for America, or a bank, or
both, would have gone far toward solving the vexed

\ question.

Defense

In 1696 the most pressing colonial question was
that of defense ; and as soon as the Board was organ-
ized, it began to consider the most effectual means for
the protection of New York. Its first report on the
subject, which appeared in September, 1696, stated
the quotas which had been assigned to each of the
colonies, and their failure to observe the royal order
on that point. The report adds :

It is almost incredible that His Majesty's governor of New
York in the middle of above forty thousand English that he
has in his neighbourhood should say as he does, that he has
but the four companies His Majesty sent, and are in His
Majesty's pay ... to rely on for the defense of that
frontier, in case of any attempt from the French.^**

The Board gave as its opinion that there was force
enough in America for purposes of defense and that
the colonies should protect themselves; and as the
power of the English was of little avail so long as it
was divided, the whole military power of the north-
em provinces should be united under one military

^^* Representation on the condition of the northern provinces, in New
York Coloniai DocumenU^ vol. W, 237.

BOUNDARIES, FRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 3ai

officer. The recommendation took the form of the
Bellomont commission, which was discussed in an-
other connection. In the meantime, however, Govern-
or Fletcher, who had been asking for supplies, for
presents for the Indians, and for recruits,"® was not
left unsupported. The Board recommended that his
requisitions should be honored without delay,"^ and
in a few months notified him that the supplies had
been forwarded.

The above incident illustrates the position of the
Board in providing for the defense of the colonies.
Accounts were kept in its office of the military situa-
tion in the plantations, and the governors were con-
stantly called upon for reports which would keep the
records up to date. When a governor found that hci
must have military supplies in addition to those which \
his assembly was able to furnish, he sent a request to \
the Board or to one of the principal secretaries of
state. No matter to whom the requisition was for-
warded in the first instance, it was referred to the
Board for consideration, since that bureau alone had \
the necessary information to pass upon it."' Upon j
the report of the Board, the treasury or the ordnance t
department furnished the supplies asked for, which |
might be guns, ammunition, clothing, intrenching |
tools, or even money. These were then forwarded to ;
the governor of the province by the Board of Trade
directly, or turned over by that body to his agent,
who looked after their transportation.

^*^ See the letters of Governor Fletcher during the year 1696, New York

Colonial Documents » vol. iv, passim,

^*^ Representation of the Board, October 14, 1696, Ibid^ 23a

^^^ See the requests of Bellomont, Combury, and Hunter for supplies^ in

New York Colonial Documents^ volt, iv, v, passim.

322 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

The commissioners of ordnance opposed these de-
mands for military supplies, as they came unexpect-
edly, and there was no separate fund from which
to defray their cost. This resulted in an effort to shift
such charges upon the colonies. The supplies were
furnished as they were needed, but on condition that
the colony to which they were sent should reimburse
the home government for their first cost and the ex-
pense of sending them. In 1702 supplies to the value
of ^3,388 were sent to Virginia in answer to an urgent
request from Governor Nicholson, but they were
ordered to be paid for out of the quit rents of that
province."* Similar action was taken when other mili-
tary stores were forwarded from England. Massa-
chusetts failed to keep her promise to pay for some
guns and ammunition which she received in 1704.
When she applied for a new quota in 1742, the Com-
mittee of the Privy Council refused to furnish them
until the old account of five hundred pounds was
settled."* The agent agreed to pay this and the new
supplies were granted."' In some cases the Board
had officers appointed to care for the arms and the
public stores which had been supplied, and the one
appointed for Maryland received a salary of £200 a

''^^ This could easily be done, as there was a considerable balance in the
hands of the receiver-general in Virginia. A warrant was drawn for the
amount, and the governor ordered to remit by bills of exchange, payable
to the paymaster of the ordnance. See: CO. 5, 1360, pp. 2x8-2x9.

7^^ Cannon were also furnished in X704, but apparently they were paid
for by the home government. The stores of heavy ordnance asked for in
1742 amounted to £4,877 x6s. 4d. The first application came before the
committee, August 24, 1742, and was finally granted June 30, X743. See:
Privy Council Reguiefy "George II," vol. viii, 224, 288, 457.

756 Privy Council Register^ "George II," vol. viii, 457.

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 323

year out of the permanent revenue there/** In 17 12
the Board attempted to secure a fixed annual allow-
ance from which to defray the many calls for colo-
nial supplies; '" but as the war closed soon after, the
old method of meeting each call, when it came, con-
tinued/"

The Board secured troops for the colonies, some oi
which were regulars sent from England, and some re-*
emits enlisted in America. It also sent over compe-
tent engineers to superintend the erection of fortifica-
tions on the frontiers and about the harbors, of whom
Colonel Romer is the best known, and the one upon
whose reports the Board secured an appropriation of
five hundred pounds for the erection of a fort in the
Onondaga country."* Additional sums were after-;
ward sent over from England for the forts at Albany
and Schenectady, although the colonies usually bore
the charge of whatever fortifications they deemed es-
sential to their own safety.

The colonies, however, would not, or possibly could
not, erect and maintain permanent fortifications, nor
did the Board expect them to do so. New York was
the most important of the frontier colonies as far as

7B« Board to Governor Seymour, February 4, 1706, in CO. 5, 726, pp.
24a, 369.

^^^ Repre«emation of the Board, February 15, 1712, CO. 324, xo, p. i.
There had been heavy demands for ordnance supplies from Virginia, Massa-
chusetts Bay, Leeward Islands, and Nevis, but the Board had been informed
that there were no funds available for such supplies for the plantatiom,
hence this request.

''^^ See the letter of the Board to Newcastle, February 20, 1730^ in CO.
5, 400, pp. 273-274, recommending that seventy-two cannon and five hun-
dred muskets be sent to South Carolina.

759 New York Colonial Documents^ vol. iv, 305, 326, 334, 339, 487, 609,
676, and passim.

324 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

the French were concerned ; it was necessary to main-
tain fortified posts in that colony, not merely for its
own protection, but for that of the other northern
provinces as well. The Board determined which
posts should be made permanent and provided for
the expense of erecting the proper defenses by appro-
priations from England, by sums given by the as-
sembly of New York, and by contributions which it
attempted to secure from the neighboring colonies,^'®
but this last measure was not very successful. In 1700
the Board proposed to secure five thousand pounds
from that source, but the colonies replied that they
could not afiford the additional charge after the heavy
expenses of the last war.^" The request for troops to
man the defenses met with a similar rebuff, and the
Board was never able to get the colonies to assist each
other except in time of actual war.

The process of securing permanent defenses for a
port is illustrated in the attempt to fortify the harbor
at Cape Lookout. In 1755 Governor Dobbs wrote
the Board of Trade a most glowing description of it;
for a small sum it could be made a Gibraltar of de-
fense and would furnish ample room for all the Brit-
ish navy in American waters. The secretary of the
Board of Trade answered his letter quite promptly
and asked him to have a careful survey made of the
harbor and plans drawn for the necessary fortifica-
tions,^" which, together with an estimate of the cost of

7<*® See the representation of the Board, October 4, 1700, for a detailed
estimate of the charges of the forts at Albany and Schenectady which should
be borne by the various colonies, in New York Colonial Documents, vol. iv,
705-706.

761 — Ibid., 921-922.

^•2 North Carolina Colonial Records, vol. v, 442-443.

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 325

the projected work, were to be sent to the Board,
which would then be in a position to decide on the
merits of the proposed defenses. The Board was!
thus very careful not to ask the government to pay
for the erection of any forts until it was convinced
that they were necessary and that they could be se-
cured in no other way.

Even the forts which were erected by the colonies
were frequently supplied with ordnance and stores at
the request of the Board. In 1753 Governor Dobbs
asked that such supplies should be furnished for the
forts which the province of North Carolina had
erected on Cape Fear River. A final answer was not
given to this request for two years, when the Board
reported :

That although we are sensible that the frequent applications
of this nature which have of late been made by the colonies
in America bring a very heavy expense on this country nev-
ertheless as the ordnance and stores prayed for in the said
memorial are represented to us to be absolutely necessary for
the security and defence of the Province of North Carolina
and as His Majesty has been graciously pleased to indulge
other of his colonies in the like request, we are humbly of
opinion that His Majesty may be graciously pleased that sudi
ordnance and stores as from the plan of the said fort and
Mr. Dobbs' account of it shall appear to be absolutely neces-
sary may be sent thither.'**

A part of the Board's plans for defense turned up-
on the Indian alliances which will be discussed in
another place. It has already been indicated that the
plans for union and the attacks upon the charter and

^** Representation of the Board, April 24, 1755, in North Carolina
Colonial Records, vol. v, 399'4oa

326 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

proprietary colonies were actuated by a desire to pro-
vide better defense for the colonies and to secure
more effectual enforcement of the trade laws. From
an imperialistic point of view the first of these was
the more important, but the second afforded the more
tangible argument for influencing commercial Eng-
land.

In the period of peace which followed the close of
Queen Anne's War, the Board had little to do in car-
ing for the defense of the plantations, as the struggle
for final control of the interior of the continent had
not begun. About 17 17, however, the Board received
information that the French were settling on the Mis-
sissippi, and had opened communications between
Canada and Louisiana. Letters were written to the
governors of the chief colonies in America, directing
them to learn the extent of the French operations, and
to suggest the most effective means of preventing the
English colonies from being enclosed.^** This was
the beginning of a western policy of the British colo-
nial oflicials, which continued for nearly half a cen-
tury.
The surest method of checking French or Spanish
] occupation of the back country was to expand the
; English settlements into that region as rapidly as pos-
sible, and so occupy the lands before their rivals.
Here colonial defense fitted closely into the trade
policy of the Board - an increase in population would
further both. In 1720, South Carolina was ordered
to be taken "Provisionally into the hands of the

^"* Letter of the Board to Governor Spotswood of Virginia, January 29,
1718, in CO. 5, 1365, pp. 42-43 ; to Governor Shute of Massachusetts, March
16, 1718, in CO. 5, 915, pp. Z02-103.

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 327

Crown," ostensibly as a means of preventing the pos-
sible loss of that colony/**

The next year the Board advised Carteret that
special inducements should be offered to settlers in
the western counties of Virginia, in the shape of a ten
years^ exemption from quit rents and a remission of
the customary registration fee for taking up land. As
the settlements in question controlled the mountain
passes, it urged that:

If these passes are not soon secured, they may fall into the
hands of the Frcndi, who are already situated nearer them
than His Majesty's subjects are by their lodgments upon the
Great Lakes which continue their communication from the
River St. Lawrence to that of Mississippi, and it is very ob-
vious of what fatal consequences such a n^Iect on our part
must certainly prove to the British plantations which would
be thereby perpetually exposed to the Incursions of the
French and of the Indian nations in their interest ; we cannot,
therefore, but be of opinion that all possible encouragement
should be given for the enlarging and extending of the Brit-
ish settlements toward the said mountains, as one of the most
effectual means to prevent the growing power and further
encroachments of the French in those parts.^*'

The Board also advised that forts should be erected
to control the passes and that two companies of sol-
diers should be sent to Virginia to garrison them,
adding that they were "of opinion and have long been

^^'^ Order in Council reassuming the government of South Carolina,
August II, Z720. "Their Excellencies, the Lord Justices in Council, this
day taking into consideration the great importance of the Province of Caro-
lina, both with regard to its own product, and as it is a frontier to His
Majesty's provinces on the continent of America, and the eminent danger of
its being lost in this critical juncture, by the confused state of its present
government, are pleased to Order," etc See: Privy Council Register^
"George I," vol. ii, 463.

"^^^ Board to Carteret, July 17, 1721, in CO. 5, 1365, pp. 231-234.

328 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

SO that it will be impossible to improrc or even pre-
serve His Majesty's empire in America without send-
ing a military force thither." ^•^ These recommenda-
tions did not find the secretary of state so enthusiastic
for westward expansion as the Board, for two years
later, in a letter to Lieutenant-governor Drysdale, the
Board said nothing had been done, and that it antici-
pated that the proposed remission of the quit rents
would "meet with very great difficulties at the treas-
ury." ^-

In the meantime orders had been sent to Governor
Burnet of New York "to extend with caution the
English settlements as far as possible." ^•^ This Bur-
net did, and erected a fort at Oswego, to which the
French objected and in turn advanced their own out-
posts, which brought forth another warning from
the Board of the dangers from French aggression.^^*

Grants of land to prospective settlers in the back
country received ready encouragement from the
Board. In recommending that Mr. Purry should be
given a grant of forty-eight thousand acres in South
Carolina, it said that it had been the constant sense
that all the colonies, and especially the two frontiers,
should be peopled as rapidly as possible with white
inhabitants. The accession of new inhabitants could
not fail to increase the trade and commerce of the
kingdom and increase the revenues of quit rents. As

7^7 Representation of the Board, July 17, 1721, in CO. 5, 1365, pp.
232-233.

^•* Board to Diysdale, June 19, 1723, in CO. 5, 1365, p. 246.

709 Instructions sent to Governor Burnet by the Board in 1722. See:
Chalmers, George. Introduction to the Revolt^ vol. ii, $2.

77<> Representation of the Board, April 6, 1732, in New York Colonial
Documents^ vol. v, 932.

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 329

South Carolina was a frontier to both the French and
the Spanish settlements, and was surrounded by a
great number of Indian natives, the grant was fa-
vored, since "the well peopling of this province
seems a necessary means for the defense and security
of all our plantations on the continent of America." "*
Other grants met with the same favor, except when
the land in question was claimed by different persons,
in which cases commissions were proposed to mark the
boundaries, so as not to retard settlement.^' Backed/
by this constant support from the Board, the English/
settlements were pushed steadily westward until theyl
began to cross the mountains. In 1749 the Board re-1
ported favorably on a grant to the Ohio Company of
five hundred thousand acres on the condition that
they plant a settlement on the banks of the Ohio
River, and instructed the governor of Virginia to
pass the grant, the settlement of which brought on
war with the French."*

Up to the outbreak of formal war, the Board ac-
tively encouraged westward expansion. In 1752, in
commenting on the unfair way in which the laws of

^^^ Representarioo of the Board, May 26, 1732, in CO. 5, 401, pp. 37-38.

^^'See the representation on William Keith's proposal for settling the
back country, July ao, 1732. Keith and some associates planned to settle
some thousands of families from Switzerland in the region back of Virginia,
but Lords Baltimore and Fairfax had claims on the land. The Board pro-
posed a conunission to mark out the boundary. September 13, 1732, it
advised Lieutenant-governor Gooch of Virginia not to make any further
grants beyond the mountains until the claims could be determined. Gooch
had written that he had permitted some settlements to be made. See: CO.
5, 1366, pp. 86-88, 92.

^^' The original instruction was to pass a grant of two hundred thousand
acres, but before it could be confirmed other petitions had been presented to
the Privy Council; consequently the first instruction was referred back to
the Board, where the grant was increased to five hundred thousand acres.

330 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

Virginia favored the large landholder, and discour-
aged the poor settler, it advised that every encourage-
ment should be given to foreign protestants, that they
should be exempted from all parochial charges and
taxes for a term of years, not exceeding fifteen, and
advised that the ecclesiastical laws of Virginia be so
modified as to accomplish this result. These measures
were proposed as desirable means of encouraging the
rapid settlement of the interior."* Two years later
we find the Board urging that, as

The settlement of the country west of the great ridge of
mountains seems to us of the greatest consequence, as noth-
ing can more effectually tend to defeat the dangerous de-
signs of the French . . . therefore, all proper encour-
agement should be given for the enlarging and extending the
British settlements in this part of the country.

To this end it advised the remission of all fees and
quit rents for a period of ten years, as an inducement
to actual settlers to enter the region."* Thus up to I

See the entries in the Journal for December 9, 1748, February 14, and Feb-
ruary 21, 1749, in Board of Trade Journal^ 56, 57.

T74 «The advantages and security arising from erecting settlements in
the interior parts of America, clearly mark out the good policy of giving
them all possible encouragement; it is therefore matter of surprise to us,
that Virginia, whose situation and circumstances not only admit, but call for,
an increase of inhabitants, should have established and acquiesced in
regulations, which from the very nature of them, have a very different
tendency and effect.

The success of the settlement of Spottsylvania and Brunswick where
foreign protestants were allowed to be exempted "from parochial charges
and taxes for a certain number of years, sufficiently point out the impro-
priety of such a system . . . and we are of opinion that it would be
greatly for the interest and advantage of the colony, if foreign protestants
were exempted from all parochial charges and taxes whatever for a term of
years, not exceeding fifteen from the time of their arrival in the province." —
Board to Governor Dinwiddie of Virginia, November 29, 1752, in CO. 5,
Z366, pp. 5x8-522.

'''"^ As the Virginia assembly had spent a considerable sum in advancing

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 331

the very outbreak of the French and Indian War the)
British Board of Trade was thoroughly committed
to the policy of rapidly filling up the back country;
and pushing settlements across the mountains into the:
Ohio Valley. It even advised that the crown bear al
portion of the cost of such settlements by waiving the'
land revenue for a time.

There is one apparent exception to this policy of
extending the English settlements into the back coun-
try. The Board refused to favor grants of land be-
yond the Altamaha between South Carolina and the
Spanish settlements, and in 1736 gave strict orders to
the governor of South Carolina not to make any
grants in that region, notwithstanding the inhabitants
of his province insisted upon entering and settling
upon the forbidden lands.^^* It even went so far as to
have the settlers who entered the region in defiance
of its orders forcibly removed, although a fortified
post was held there."^

Why should the Board favor expansion toward the

the settlements in that region, the Board thought the crown could well afford
to contribute a little in the form of a remission of land charges for a period
of ten years, especially as it considered the total revenues would be enlarged
by so doing. As a further inducement to settlers, the Board proposed that
grants beyond the mountains should be limited to small quantities. Large
plantations were not wanted, as they discouraged close settling. Population
with small farms and few slaves was what was desired for purposes of de-
fense. See: Report to the Committee of the Privy Council on western settle-
ments and a request from the House of Burgesses that the quit rents be
remitted in the region and that grants be limited, June 20, 1754, in CO. 5,

1367. pp. 73-74.

^^* Additional instructions to Lieutenant-governor Broughton of South

Carolina, December 3, 1736, in CO. 5, 40Z, pp. 192-193.

^^^ See the letter of the Board to Pitt, April 28, 1758, advising him that

such action should be taken, and the letter from Governor Ellis of Georgia

to the Board, January 28, 1759, informing it that Pitt's orders in the matter

had been executed. CO. 5, 646, N. 54; 673, pp. 44-45.

. I

lC«

332 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

French and oppose it toward the Spanish frontier?
Was it trying to prevent the settlement of that region
so as to keep the colonists near the coast? Not at all!
The object of expansion westward was to defend the
settlements nearer the coast from the attacks of the
French and their Indian allies, and so to occupy the
back country that such dangers should be pushed
farther and farther away. The settlements beyond
the Altamaha were in a region occupied by Indians
in alliance with the English, and there was danger
that the encroachments of the whites might drive
them over to the enemy."* Hence it was as good pol-
icy to check expansion there for a time, as it was to
encourage it on the borders of Virginia. The whole
western policy was turning upon the question of de-
fense. The enemies to be feared were France and
Spain, in the struggle the Indian tribes had to be
reckoned with, and an expansion of the existing settle-
ments was favored or opposed as it affected the ques-
tion of defense. In the case of Virginia, western
settlements strengthened the English position ; but on
the Altamaha, if they resulted in alienating the In-
dians and driving them over to the enemy, instead of
being a source of strength, they would become an ele-
ment of weakness.

During the ascendency of Newcastle the Board of
Trade played a very minor part in colonial affairs.
The war from 1744 to 1748 came at a time when the

778 «^^ think it may be of very dangerous consequence" to allow the
people to remain in a settlement "begun without His Majesty's authority**
and in defiance of Governor Lyttelton's orders for them to remove. If
they were not removed, it might have '*veiy pernicious effects oo His
Majest/s interests with the Indians.'' — Board to Pitt, April 28, 1758, in
CO. 5, 673, pp. 44i 45.

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 333

Board was at the very lowest point to which it ever
sank, but soon after the appointment of Halifax it
was called upon to adjust the complicated accounts,
which the northern colonies had presented as a result
of the attempted invasion of Canada; ^^* which work
properly belonged to the treasury, but the necessary
information for an equitable settlement of the claims
was in the plantation office. In the French and In-
dian War the Board was frequently called upon to
distribute subsidies which had already been granted,
and to prepare estimates for future grants/"

It was during the administration of Halifax that
the Board shows its greatest activity in matters of de-
fense. The governor of each province was called
upon for accounts of the arms and munitions of war
which he had on hand, the strength and efficiency of
the militia, and the troops and the moneys which were
furnished for previous campaigns.'" In September,
1753, the Board sent urgent orders to the governors
to summon their assemblies without delay and prevail
upon them to appropriate funds to buy presents for
the Six Nations. The attempts of the Board to effect
some form of union during the year 1754 have al-
ready been mentioned. As a temporary measure,
however, Halifax secured a commission for Governor
Sharpe of Maryland, by which he was made com-
mander of all the forces to be raised in America.

^^*See the detailed report on these claimt which was made, Februtiy
28, 1750^ in New Jersey Archivis^ vol. vii, 38s-4oa

780 3c^ the correspondence between the Board and the secretaries of
state, in North Carolina Colonial Records^ vol. v, 805; Sharpe's Corres'
pondencif vol. i, 119, 220, 359; New Jersey Archives, vol. viii, part ii, 205.

7*^ North Carolina Colonial Records, vol. v, 738 ; Sharpe's Corres'
pondence, vol. i, 81, 119, 352, 359, 435; New Jersey Archives, vol. viii,
part ii, 217.

334 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

In the meantime the Board had been busily en-
gaged supplying ordnance and military stores for
such of the colonies as were in urgent need of them/**
{ The question of providing for the safety of the fron-
tiers was a pressing one, and when Braddock was
sent over with a small army, the Board proposed that
he should prepare a general scheme for defense/**
In order that he might have all the information pos-
sible, the Board called upon each governor to state
what forces he would need for his own protection and
what fortifications should be erected on the frontiers
of his province/** As the war went on, the Board se-
cured the information and prepared many of the esti-
mates for the operations of each succeeding year. It
also passed upon the claims of the various provinces
for pecuniary aid,^*^ and did all it possibly could to
urge the colonies to exert their best efforts to make
the war a success.

The most cherished administrative plans of the
Board were sacrificed in the interests of the war; the
plans for a fixed civil list were abandoned, and the
colonies were permitted to issue bills of credit in

^*2 North Carolina Colonial Records, vol. v, 399-4oa
788 "^e submit to you whether it may not be proper that General
Braddock should be directed forthwith to consider and report his opinion in
what manner the frontiers may be best defended; what number of forts it
will be necessary to erect; of what size and strength; where those forts
should be situated; what number of regular troops it will be necessary to
have constantly kept up in America for garrisoning them and for the other
necessary services; how these troops should be distributed and where sta-
tioned."— New York Colonial DocumentSy vol. vi, 960-961.

784 New York Colonial Documents, vol. vi, 961.

785 January 3, 1757, Pitt referred a number of memorials from Virginia
and the Carolinas to the Board, and asked that body to advise him whether
or not he should ask Parliament to appropriate money to repay them and
to encourage them for the future. Extract from the Board of Trade
Journal, North Carolina Colonial Records, vol. v, 805-806.

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 335

practically their own way. Possible disputes between
the governors and the assemblies were kept in abey-
ance, and the former were instructed to do all they
could to avoid antagonizing the lower house of the
legislature. The settlement of boundary disputes was
postponed and attempts made to secure a tem-
porary agreement which should continue till the war
was over. In a word, the Board exerted itself to the;
utmost to secure concerted action on the part of the
colonies. The quotas of men which each province
should furnish for the general defense were arranged
by common agreement in America, or by the Board
after consulting with colonial agents and the military
officers, they were then forwarded to the governors
and usually complied with by the assemblies.

Even as important a measure as an embargo was
laid by a circular letter sent out by the Board in Oc-
tober, 1756, which directed the governors to stop all
vessels laden with provisions, unless they were bound
for some port in the British colonies; in which case,
the masters had to give bond that they would not take
their cargoes into a French port and sell the provi-
sions to the enemy."* A few months later this order
was modified by directions from Secretary Holder-
ness not to apply the embargo to provision ships bound
for England."^ The above incident, however, illus-l
trates the important part which the Board of Trade!
took in the actual execution of measures for colonial
defense.

^^* Circular letter from the Board, in New York Colonial Documents ,
vol. vi, 162.

7^^ Circular letter from Holdemess, in North Carolina Colonial Records^
voL V, 756.

336 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

Indian Relations

The problems presented by the presence of strong
Indian tribes on the frontiers were closely connected
with the plans for defense. The Board inherited its \
Indian policy from the old Committee of the Privy \
Council, and for many years it shows very slight /
changes. In its general outline the policy of the
Board embraced three objects: to preserve the alA
liance with the Six Nations as a protection against the ]
French and with the southwestern Indians as a bar- ;
rier to the Spanish; to pit one group of Indians;
against another; and to preserve and develop the fur/
trade.

The method used to secure the first of these was to
give the Indians presents from time to time, and the
Board sent over large quantities of goods for this pur-
pose. The Indians expected these presents regularly,
but they were not given to the Iroquois on a large scale
except in case of war, the arrival of a new governor,
or the accession of a sovereign. On these occasions
the Indians received presents amounting to hundreds
of pounds, and the Board looked upon the outlay as
one of the legitimate charges upon the crown. The
assemblies adopted the same policy and added to the
sums sent over from England for the purchase of
goods.

The irregularity in sending these gifts sometimes
strained the relations with the Indians, and in its
report of 1721 the Board advised that regular sums
should be set aside for this charge, instead of occa-
sionally taking the necessary funds from the already
overburdened civil list. In this way the Indians

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 337

could also be kept more constantly in the English
interest/"

The friendship of the southern Indians was culti-
vated even more assiduously than was that of the
northern ones, and presents in large quantities were
regularly given to the Indians on the borders of South
Carolina and Georgia. From 1731 to 1748 these
were paid for out of the expense money allowed for
the soldiers stationed in those colonies, and according
to Crockatt, the agent for South Carolina in 1751,
amounted to £7,000 or £8,000 annually/" This
charge did not appear as a separate item, consequent-
ly the question of the advisability of making the
grants from year to year did not come before the
Board. From 1748 on, however, requests for money
for Indian presents were regularly presented, and, on
the advice of the Board, £3,000 were regularly ex-
pended for this purpose."®

The Board also had plans for uniting the Six Na-
tions more permanently to the British interest by
erecting forts among them and by supplying them
with missionaries. The latter plan was not carried
out with sufficient energy to make it successful, as the

^'* Repretentation on the trade conditions in the plantations, September
8, 1721, in CO. 334, zo, p. 413.

7** According to Crockatt these presents were at first paid for out of
the sum granted by Parliament to the trustees of Georgia, and afterwards
charged ''to Extraordinaries" in the expense accounts of the soldiers. Sec:
CO. 5, 385, no. i8a

^'^^ Colonel Vanderdusen stated to the Board, May 25, 1748, that the
government had granted that amount for Indian presents. Crockatt also
states that this sum had been paid annually since 1748. The records of
the correspondence with Georgia indicate that such sums were given each
year. See: CO. 5, 67a, pp. 52-58, 184; Board of Trade Journal^ 56, p.
74; 63, January ai, 1755; 64, November 2, 1756; 66^ February ai, 1758.

338 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

work of supplying and paying these missionaries was
left to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel,
and consequently the ministers were not sufficiently
well supported to induce able men to enter the field/*^
Another great obstacle to the success of the plan was
the language difficulty, which few ministers were able
to surmount. Supplying the Indians with black-
smiths and other artificers was a more practical means
of securing their friendship and became of growing
importance in the later measures proposed by the
Board.

The colonies were left pretty much to themselves
in directing their relations with the Indians, except
so far as they might be influenced by the letters which
were written to the governors. Robert Livingston
had been sent over as Indian commissioner, but his
duties were so poorly defined that he never exerted a
directing influence over the affairs of the Six Nations.
The Board, however, was careful not to permit any
action which might alienate the Indians. This atti-
tude is seen in its treatment of the claims of the Mohe-
gan Indians and its refusal to grant a tract of land in
the Mohawk country until it knew whether the In-
dians were seated on any part of it.^*^

The whole treatment of Indian affairs was without t
any clearly defined general plan and was dictated by 1
the exigencies of the moment until the administra- '
tion of Halifax. During the war from 1744 to 1748 '
William Johnson had been appointed colonel of the
Six Nations and supplied with large sums of money
to be expended upon them. Consequently he ac-

781 New York Colonial Documents^ vol. iv, 521, 755, 1038, 1074, 1077,
vol. V, 271, 278, 297, and passim.

^•* — Ibid., iv, 203-204, vol. vi, 42.

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 339

quired a great reputation among the Indians; and
when the war was closed and he was no longer paid
a salary and furnished with money to be spent on
them, they began to complain. The Board realized
the importance of the Indian alliance in the coming
struggle with France and in 1753 took steps to re-
dress their grievances. The conference at Albany has
been mentioned in another connection, but it should
be remembered that the purpose of the meeting was
to concert affairs with the Six Nations."*

Up to 1753, however, the main feature of the|
Board's Indian policy was to bribe them with pres-\
ents. As late as November 29, 1752, we find it using

the following statement in a letter to Dinwiddie:

The friendship and affection of the Indians is certainly of
the greatest importance to the security and advantage of the
colonies, and we are sensible that the principal, if not the
only, means of gaining and preserving that affection is by
making them annual presents, by taking care that those pres-
ents are properly and honestly applied to the service by a re-
ligious observance of our publick engagements, and a fair and
upright conduct in all the commercial dealings of those who
traffick with them.^**

When reports came of Indian attacks upon the Vir-
ginia settlers beyond the mountains, it advised Secre-

7»8 New York Colonial Documents^ vol. vi, 800 ; New Jersey Archives^
vol. viii, part i, 156.

There is an intimation in a letter of the Board to Governor Dinwiddie
that it had hopes that some general plan of union might be formed at this
meeting. "It might have afforded an opportunity of concerting measures,
and proposing some general plan for a mutual union, and concert for the
general security and defense of the whole." ~ Board to Dinwiddie, July 4,
1754, in CO. 5, 1367, pp. Z05-Z06.

^•* CO. 5, 1366, p. 577. This letter goes on to say that it was by such
measures as these that the French had won the Indians away from the
English, and it was only by similar means that they could be again secured.

340 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

tary of State Holderness that one thousand pounds
should be granted to the Twightwees* and every ef-
fort made to win them over to the English cause, as
they were the most powerful tribe in that section and
so long as they were friendly the frontier was se-
cure/**

The instructions which were sent to Governor Os-
born in September, 1753, indicate that the Board was
beginning to adopt a saner Indian policy; he was to
summon the assembly at once and urge them to appro-
priate money for presents to the Six Nations. Sim-
ilar letters were sent to the governors of the other
colonies and presents were also sent from England.
So far the policy is that which had been followed for,
years, except that it was a little more elaborate. The {
instruction regarding future purchases of lands, ho^v-
ever, was new. He was to permit no more purchases^
of lands by private individuals, "But when the In-
dians are disposed to sell any of their lands the pur- ■
chase ought to be made in his Majesty's name and at
the publick charge." This doctrine was not unknown
in America and was one of the measures proposed at
the Albany Congress for the better regulation of In-
dian affairs.^'*

General Braddock had reappointed Sir William
Johnson as sole superintendent of the Six Nations,
with unlimited credit for such expenditures as he
needed; ^'^ but in a few months Johnson and General

•The Twightwees are more commonly known as Miamis, but the
former name is the one regularly used by the English.

^•^5 Report on the Indian situation, March 16, 1753, in CO. 5, 1367, n. 25.

7»e Nc^ York Colonial Documents, vol. vi, 888 ; Pennsylvania Colonial
Records, vol. vi, 59.

^•^ New York Colonial Documents, vol. vi, 961.

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 341

Shirley clashed, and the former threatened to resign
unless he was made independent of the latter's con-
trol. In the meantime the Board had decided to give
Johnson a commission from the crown, "with such
salary and allowance to be paid by the commander-
in-chief of His Majesty's forces in America as to
His Majesty shall appear most just and reasona-
ble."^*' From this time (1756) on Johnson retained)
his position, and the Board regularly consulted himi
on all questions of Indian policy. At the same time)
that Johnson was appointed agent for the northern
colonies, Edmund Atkins was appointed for the
southern colonies,^®* and the Board thus adopted the
plan of regulating Indian affairs by commissioners
appointed by itself and paid by the crown.*®^

The many frauds practiced upon the Indians by
the traders and their lawless conduct had long been
a prolific source of trouble. Each colony had made
its own regulations, no two were alike, and frauds
forbidden by the laws of one were tolerated by those
of its neighbors. The Board had contributed to this
condition by its refusal to permit the colonies to re-
strict the Indian trade by law, and by its insistence
that such trade should be free and open to every
British subject who cared to engage in it.

One avowed object in appointing the Indian agents
in 1756 was to secure definite information upon which
a general plan for the control of the Indian trade

^** Representation of the Board, February 17, 1756. A letter of the
same date to Governor Hardy announces that the appointment had been
made. New York Colonial DocumentSf vol. vii, 35, 37.

'^0* Board of Trade Journal, 64, May 13, 1756.

^00 The salary of Johnson was six hundred pounds per year. See: CO.

3a4» 17. PP- 57-59.

342 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

could be framed. In 1757, Governor Lyttelton was
informed that, although the regulations lately formed
in that colony for the Indian trade were very proper
and desirable, any measure of a single province,

However proper in itself must be partial and local, and prob-
ably will be counteracted by the measures of another prov-
ince, the people of which may carry on a trade with the same
Indians. We are of opinion that the only effectual method
of conducting Indian affairs will be to establish one general
system under the sole direction of the crown and its offi-
cers . . . and we hope soon to be enabled ... to
enter upon the consideration of such a plan; at present we
have very imperfect information upon almost every point
necessary to form a proper judgment.®®^

Thus questions of defense were forcing the Board to
conclude that the home government should assume
full control over trade among the Indians, that the
operations of unscrupulous traders could be regulated
in no other way; and until this was done, the frontier
might be endangered at any moment by the wrongs
done the Indians by irresponsible individuals.

The war had scarcely begun before the Board be-
gan to see that the westward movement which it had
steadily favored for so many years was in danger of
alienating the Indian allies. Pennsylvania had pro-
posed bounty lands for the officers and men who vol-
unteered from that colony, such lands to be located
in the western part of the province. As some of the
lands lay within the region claimed by the Iroquois
under their treaty of 1726, the Pennsylvania authori-

s'^i Board to Governor L}ttelton, of South Carolin?, Novemher 9, 1757,
in CO. 5, 403, pp. 200-203. The letter concludes with the statement that
there was no desire to disparage the action of the assembly in passing the
law, and that the Board would be very glad to see it carried into execution
as a temporar>' measure.

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 343

ties had been careful to secure permission from the
Indians for the proposed settlements. The Board,
however, entered the most emphatic objection to any
such grants, on the ground that they were contrary
to the treaty of 1726, that the Indians insisted they
would never give up their lands, that there was seri-
ous danger of arousing suspicions as to the good faith
of the English, and that there was plenty of land
within the province for such purposes without enter-
ing the Indian country.®^* Here was a new policy. A
province was forbidden to make grants of land with-
in its own undisputed boundaries, if such lands were
included in an Indian reservation created by treaty.
In order to lessen the danger of losing the support
of the Indians in the struggle for the continent, the
Board set to work to remove all just grounds for com-
plaint on their part; consequently, early in 1756, Gov-
ernor Hardy of New York and Chief Justice De-
Lancey were instructed to secure a law breaking the
exorbitant grants of lands in the Mohawk country.'®'
The fact that DeLancey was appealed to shows that
the Board recognized the difficulty which would be
experienced in securing the desired law. The diffi-
culties were even greater than it realized; but as
Johnson insisted that the chief complaint of the In-
dians was against the encroachments of the whites,

^^2 Representation on land grants in Pennsylvania, December 11, 1755,
in CO. 5, 1295, PP* 185-1S7. The paper concludes: Therefore we are of
opinion that at any time, but more particularly at present, when we ought
cautiously to avoid giving the least cause for jealousy or distrust to the
Indians, and religiously observe engagements with them, it would not be
advisable to attempt any settlement in the lands, which by the deed of 1726
are given by them to Your Majesty to protect for their use.

^^ Letters of the Board, in New York Colonial Documents, vol. vii,
77-79.

344 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

it continued to insist that the law should be passed.
The assembly refused to comply, and in 1764 the
Board sent a positive order to Governor Golden again
to lay the demand before that body, and if the law
were not passed, it threatened to apply to Parlia-
ment*^*

Gomplaints of trouble between whites and Indians
were coming in from other sources, and as Johnson
had reported the Indians as considerably disaffected,
the Board became very conservative in approving
land grants. It had forbidden private purchases of
the Indians, but even those made by the provincial
authorities were in danger of becoming troublesome.
In 1759, in a report on the dispute between Pennsyl-
vania and the Indians over lands on the Delaware,
it informed the Gouncil that the "extensive purchases
of land, made not only by the proprietaries of Penn-
sylvania but in other governments bordering on the
Indian country, have long since occasioned disgusts
and suspicions of injury in the minds of the Indians,"
and that this had been the chief cause of their defec-
tion to the French and the hostilities committed by
them on the frontiers.'^' If these statements were
true, the Board would have to solve a new problem
of defense, and evolve an Indian policy different from
that which had been followed during the last half-
century.

*®* New York Colonial Documents, vol. vii, 377, 633, 673-674.

^0' Report on Franklin's petition relative to the dispute with the Dela-
ware Indians, June i, 1759, in CO. 5, 129$, pp. 259-260.

In spite of the objections of the Board, settlers continued to enter the
Wyoming Valley. The colonial officials made a pretense, at least, of pre-
venting such encroachments, but without much effect April 27, 1763, the
Board advised that the same steps to remove the settlers should be taken

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 345

The success of the English in the war had aroused
some apprehension on the part of the Indians that
their lands were to be taken from them. These fears
were increased by the grants in the Mohawk country
and many new ones which were being made in the
Ohio country. The Board early saw that these would
alienate the Indians and might bring on a general
uprising against the frontier settlements. Governor
Fauquier of Virginia had informed the Board that
the settlers on the Green Briar and the Kanawha were
returning to their settlements. He was told in turn,
that while the success of the war was assured,

The difficulties arising from the claims of the Indians and
their jealousy of encroachments exists in full force ; and what-
ever may in any degree tend to alarm their suspicions and
disappoint their hopes of the intention on our part to redress
past and prevent future abuses, cannot fail of being attended
with fatal consequences.

Hence if any Indians claimed the lands in that re-
gion, it would be very imprudent to encourage any
new settlements ; but if there was no difficulty of that
kind, the settlements might continue, as "they would
prove very valuable and be greatly for the benefit
and security of the colony." The governor was or-
dered not to take any further steps in the matter, until
he had informed the Board of any Indian claims in
that part of the country and received its further or-
ders.^^*

as were used in the case of settlements south of the Altamaha. Accord-
ingly it proposed that instructions should be sent to the governors of
Pennsylvania and Connecticut to appoint commissioners who should go to
the region and send the settlers away. See: Representation of the Board,
January 14, 1763, in CO. 5, 1296, pp. 13, 16-17, 20-21.

ftoe Board to Fauquier, February 17, 1761, in CO. 5, 1368, pp. 12-15.

346 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT
Early in 1 761, it advised the king that,

In this situation the granting lands hitherto unsettled and
establishing colonies upon the frontiers before the claims of
the Indians are ascertained appears to be a measure of the
most dangerous tendency, and is more particularly so in the
present case, as these settlements now proposed to be made,
especially those upon the Mohawk River are in that part of
the country of the possession of which the Indians are the most
jealous having at different times expressed in the strongest
terms their resolution to oppose all settlements thereon as a
manifest violation of their rights.'®^

As a result of this representation, the Board was
ordered to prepare additional instructions to the gov-
ernors on the question of new land grants, which were
sent out before the close of the year. These instruc-
tions forbade each governor

Upon any pretence whatever upon pain of our highest dis-
pleasure and of being forthwith removed from his office [is-
suing] any grant or grants to any persons whatever of any
lands within or adjacent to the territories possessed or occu-
pied by the said Indians or the property possession of which
has at any time been reserved to or claimed by them.

Here was a distinct announcement of a policy to rec-
ognize certain tracts as Indian reservations which
should be protected from the encroachments of set-
tlers. The governors were also instructed to issue a
proclamation at once in the king's name

Strictly enjoining and requiring all persons whatever who
may either wilfully or inadvertently have seated themselves
on any lands so reserved to or claimed by the said In-
dians . . . forthwith to remove therefrom.^®'

807 New York Colonial Documents^ vol. vii, 473.

80® Instructions to the governors of Nova Scotia, New Hampshire, New
York, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, December
2, 1761, in CO. 324, 17, pp. 164-170.

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 347

They were also to prosecute all persons who should
have secured any titles to such lands by fraud, and
future purchases of Indian lands were to be made
only by persons who had secured licenses for that pur-
pose, which were to be obtained by application to the
Board.*-

The conclusion of the treaty of Paris placed the
affairs of all the Indians of the greater portion of the
continent of America in the hands of the Board of
Trade, and that body began to realize the task which
was before it. The ministry was anxious to have the
government's policy in the western country deter-
mined at once, as the discontent of the Indians was
known to be serious. The shadow of Pontiac's con-
spiracy already hung over the northern provinces.
The root of the difficulty was the dispute as to what
was Indian land and what was not. Johnson and
other officers in America advocated the adoption of a
boundary line between the colonies and the Indians on
the west, and the prohibition of settlements beyond
that line."^ The Board was already committed to the
policy of respecting the claims of the Indians and
strictly forbidding encroachments by the whites, con-
sequently it was led to believe that such a line was the

^^* Of. the royal proclamation concerning America. Several of its
provisions are identical with the instructions of 1761. Annual Register^
1763, pp. 208-213.

*^^ See the letters of Johnson and Croghan in New York Colonial Docu-
ments ^ vol. vii, 560, 578, 602-607. These letters do not appear to have
reached the Board until after the boundary line had been decided upon,
nor is there internal evidence that they knew, when the letters were written,
that the Board had committed itself to such a policy. Croghan's undated
letter proposes a natural boundary, and that is what was adopted in the
proclamation. Did he suggest the plan while Shelbume was making up
his mind?

348 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

best way to give the Indians immediate satisfaction.
Shelburne had scarcely assumed control of the planta-
tion office when he was called upon to formulate a plan
for the government of the acquired territory, to de-
cide what governments should be ^tablished, and
the military force necessary for the protection of the
region.**' June 8, 1763, the Board made its report,
indicating the main features of the Proclamation of
1763. August 5, it reported particularly upon the
Indian situation, advising that a royal proclamation
should immediately be issued, establishing bounds for
the Indian country and forbidding all settlements or
grants within the limits of such region, but at the
same time declaring "Your Majesty's Intention to
encourage all such persons who shall be inclined to
commence new settlements from your old colo-
nies." "* Here was a reasonably plain program : es-
tablish fixed Indian reservations, prevent encroach-
ments upon them, and encourage and control the
westward movement. The proclamation was pre-
pared and finally transmitted to Halifax on October

4, 1763.""

It is evident that the rough bounds of the Indian

country included in this proclamation were intended

to be temporary. There does not appear to have

been any idea of creating a permanent Indian region

^'^ Shelburne was appointed, April lo, 1763. May 5, Egremont re-
quested his opinion on the above questions. See: Fitzmaurice, E. G. P.
Life of Shelburne^ vol. i, 247-24S.

*^2 It also proposed that fairly liberal grants of land should be given to
the officers and soldiers who had served in the late war on condition that
they lived on the lands they selected. See: CO. 324, 17, p. 270.

•18 CO. 324, 17, pp. 273-275. See: Alvord, C W. "Genesis of the
Proclamation of 1763," Michigan Pioneer and Historical Collections (X90S),
for the best account of the origin of this proclamation.

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 349

in the interior of the continent. It was only intended
to pacify the savages and remove their just grounds
of complaint by checking the great wave of encroach-
ing settlements. New settlements were to be per-
mitted within the region, but only after the bounds of
the Indian lands were clearly defined and their claims
satisfied. As applications for licenses to buy lands
from the Indians had been ordered transmitted to
England for the inspection of the Board, that body
found itself in serious difficulty. The information
at its command was wholly inadequate to enable it to
pass intelligently upon requests for land grants. De-
cember 20, 1763, it recommended that surveyors be
appointed at once to survey the dominions in Amer-
ica, and for this purpose two departments, a northern
and a southern, should be created with a surveyor-
general in charge of each, and nominated a Captain
Holland for one of these positions."*

In the meantime the Board was at work on a gen-
eral plan for regulating the Indian trade. In fact it
had announced as early as 1756 that it considered
control directly by the crown as the only proper solu-
tion.*" In the summer of 1763, Johnson, the other
Indian agent, and some of the governors, received
particular instructions to lay their ideas on the sub-
ject before the Board.'" They did this rather freely,

"1* Representation of the Board, in CO. 324, 17, pp. 317-318.

SIS The Board stated in its letter to Lyttelton in 1757 that one object in
appointing the Indian agents was to secure data upon which it could
formulate a general plan for the regulation of Indian affairs, commercial
and political. CO. 5, 403, pp. 200-203.

^* These instructions were issued, August 5, 1763. Those to Johnson
are in New York Colonial Docummts, vol. vii, 535-536. Those to John
Stuart, who had been appointed Indian Agent for the southern section of
America, are in CO. 5, 404, pp. 195-198.

350 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

and Johnson's letters, especially, are full of valuable
suggestions."^ He proposed that the whole matter
should be placed under the control of a royal conni-
mission, as the task was too large for any one man ; that
carefully trained interpreters should be provided;
and that trading should only be carried on under
careful regulations. The plan was gradually taking
shape in the fall of 1763, and was so far advanced by
October 19, that Halifax informed Amherst that
trade would be permitted only at regular posts and
by those holding licenses."" At last it was completed
and would have been presented to Parliament in the
session of 1763- 1764 to be enacted into law; but as
it would require a considerable sum of money to put
it in operation, and funds were hard to get, it was
postponed until the next session, in the hope that
money might be available by that time.'" In the in-
terval it was submitted to Johnson, Governor Colden,
and other persons in America who were supposed to
be competent to pass upon the measure."^

The proposed plan was so far in advance of any
previous arrangement that it merits careful consider-
ation. It was, as the Board said, a plan for

*iT Both his earlier and later letters contain valuable information and
suggestions on this point See: New York Colonial Documents, vol. vii.

**• Letter of Halifax to Amherst, in New York Colonial Documents,
vol. vii, 571. This letter raises the query whether the plan which waa
finally proposed was not largely the work of Halifax. As he had been
at the head of the Board for so many years, had been responsible for the
assertion in 1757 that Indian trade should be regulated by the crown, had
no doubt given the matter considerable thought, and the more important
under clerks and officers were his own appointees, it is more than prob-
able that he is the father of it

^^* Letter of the Board to Johnson, July 10, 1764, in CO. 324, 17, pp.
407-421.

820 Ne^ York Colonial Documents, vol. vii, 634, 661, 667-67a

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 351

The regulation of Indian afiFairs both commercial and po-
litical throughout all North America upon one general sys-
tem under the direction of officers appointed by the crown, so
as to set aside all local interfering of particular provinces.

The continent was to be divided into two depart-
ments, each under the control of a superintendent, or
agent. The Ohio River was selected as the bound-
ary between the two, but because some tribes under
Johnson's control lived south of that line, the Board
decided to arrange the jurisdiction by tribes and
asked the agents in America for suggestions on that
point."'

All provincial laws for the regulation of Indian
affairs were to be repealed and the control centered
in the superintendents appointed by the crown, who
were to have charge of all questions of a political
nature, such as peace and war, purchase of lands,
making of treaties, and all other matters which re-
quired general meetings with the Indians. Each su-
perintendent was to consult with the several govern-
ors in his department, and was to be appointed an
extraordinary member of the council of each prov-
ince. The Indian agents, however, were to be inde-
pendent of all local control, and no military officer
could interfere with the trade of any tribe without the
consent of the head of the department in which it was
located. The superintendents were to be assisted by
deputies, two for the southern district and three for
the northern, and in each of the tribes of the southern
district the crown was to appoint a commissary, an
interpreter, and a smith, all of whom should be sub-

*>^ Letter of the Board to Johnson, July 10, 1764. New York Coioniai
DocumentSf vol. vii, 634.

352 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

ject to the control of the agent. The religious life
of the Indians was to be under the care of mission-
aries, four for each district, who were to be appointed
by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel and
were to reside where the superintendents directed.

Indian trade was to be carefully regulated under
the inspection and supervision of the superintendents ;
but any person who wished to engage in it could do
so by securing a license from the governor of the
province from which he came, the fee for which was
only two shillings. The license was good for one
year and specified the region in which the holder was
entitled to trade ; and to insure the observance of the
laws regulating such trade, each person who engaged
in it was placed under bond. The traders were not
allowed to charge exorbitant prices for their goods,
but the value of each article was to be agreed upon
in advance by the commissary, the representative of
the Indians, and the agent. In the northern district
all trade had to be carried on at regular posts, which
were to be fortified and properly garrisoned, and in
both districts the traders were forbidden to sell rum
or rifled guns to Indians. To protect the Indians
against the evils of debts, no trader was permitted
to give credit for a larger amount than fifty shillings,
and debts greater than that could not be collected by
law. ^

The intercourse of traders with the Indians re-
quired some well regulated arrangements for the ad-
ministration of prompt justice. For this purpose the
agents and the commissaries at each post were em-
powered to act as justices of the peace in both crim-
inal and civil cases, and the testimony of the Indians

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 353

was put on the same footing as that of the whites in
the courts of all the colonies. In civil cases involv-
ing sums not exceeding ten pounds, an appeal could
be taken from the commissary to the agent for the
department, whose decision was final. Civil cases
which involved larger sums and the more important
criminal cases were left to the regularly established
colonial courts.

As the worst abuses of which the Indians com-
plained had arisen from the sale of their lands, no
private person or corporation was to be allowed to
purchase any lands from the Indians, except where
such lands were within the bounds of some colony;
and even in that case, the purchase could be made
only at a general meeting presided over by the agent
and attended by the chiefs of each tribe claiming the
land. Purchases of lands for the use of the crown
were to be made in the same way, carefully surveyed
in the presence of the Indians, and maps of the tracts
so purchased were to be kept on deposit at the office
of the agent. The agents were also directed to use
their best efiPorts to secure a determination of the
western boundary, so that thi: above regulations could
be made eflfectivc.

An attempt was made to regulate the election cus-
toms among the Indians. In the southern district the
members of each village of a tribe were to select,
under the supervision of the commissary, a chief man.
The chief men so chosen were then to meet with the
commissary and select a chief for the tribe, who was
to reside with the commissary. As far as possible,
the same plan was to be extended to the northern

354 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

department'" Some such arrangement seemed nec-
essary as a means of knowing in all cases who was the
legally chosen chief of each tribe, otherwise a tribe
alight refuse to be boond by action of the indiTidnal
who styled himself chief.

The Board estimated that the cost of the establish-
ment required by the proposed plan would amount
to about twenty dioosand pounds annually. This
sum it proposed to raise by means of a tax iqioo the
Indian trade, collected either in the form of an ex-
port duty on furs or as an excise tax payable by each
trader at the various posts. The final determina-
tion of the method of collection was to rest upon the
adrice of the Indian agents as to which plan would
prore the least burdensome to the traders^*

This plan met widi the approral of Johnsoo and
Governor Golden, aldiough they suggested a modi-
fication of the regulation forbidding the sale of rum
to the Indians. Their arguments were based upoa
the ioiown desires of the Indians for Liquor, its value
as an article of trade, and the additrocal le t timt
which would be realized from iti sale:"^ The Board
endeavored for the next four years to get thb plan
instituted bv act ef Parliament, bat never succeeded.
Vaiioos reasons could be grven tor its failure on this
pocnt. but probably the miost peccxt cos were o^
posEckwi in the colociies and the lack of fruKb Dj ^
ftance the scheme. Fiaally in April. 176$^ a cfroiLir
letter ft?- the ^jvenfr>rs aoEDtJunced that the w&^Ic rlan

T-tnt Cwmiui D^Kwrnrntts^ ^ntL ^u t^t^

BOUNDARIES, TRADE, INDIAN AFFAIRS 355

had been abandoned.*'* As the Indian policy after
that date lies outside the scope of this work, it is not
necessary to follow it further.

Notwithstanding the changing personnel of the
Board of Trade and the shifting ministries, there is
a surprising continuity of policy toward settlements
in the west. Up to 1754 the Board steadily favored
them as the best means of defense against the French
and the Spanish, except where such a policy endan-
gered the friendly relations with very strong and dan-
gerous Indian tribes. The exigencies of the French
and Indian War compelled the Board to modify its
former policy. Alliances and combinations among
the Indian tribes had developed, and there was so
much danger from their growing hostility to the ad-
vanced English settlements that westward expansion
was hazardous at many places where it had formerly
been encouraged. After the expulsion of the French!
and the acquisition of the Spanish claims east of the
Mississippi, there was no longer need for the former \
rapid occupation of the interior. On the other hand, \
Indian tribes which had formerly been pitted against \
each other, now tended to unite for common purposes,
and thus occupied the menacing position formerly
held by the French. Westward expansion might en- I
danger the peace and safety of the whole frontier,/
where formerly it was a means of defense. Hence \
the insistence of the Board that Indian claims be
acquired by recognized authority before settlements
were made.

The policy of the Board not only shows continuity,

^>B Pennsylvania Colonial Records^ vol. ix, 552.

356 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

it also shows progress. As long as it was largely
a question of pitting one Indian tribe or confederation
against another, each colony could easily regulate the
relations with its own Indians, with what assistance it
could get from England. But as the settlements
spread into the back country and flowed together, In-
dian problems became national instead of local. The
Board recognized this change by limiting purchases
of Indian lands, by the appointment by the crown of
Indian agents, by insisting that treaties should be
made under the supervision of these officers, and by
proposing a national regulation of all commercial
and trade relations with the Indians. It had grad-
ually arrived at the conclusion that the Indian was
properly the ward of the state, and that it was neces-
sary for the central government to protect him.

RfiSUMfi

During the first seventy years of its history the
Board of Trade had a somewhat checkered career:
at one time it was the source of authority for all ques-
tions of colonial policy, its president exercising all
the influence of a cabinet minister; at another it was
merely an advisory body, whose recommendations
were accepted or rejected as the secretary of state
saw fit. Because of the periods of impotency and
apparent indifference, the Board has frequently been
set down as an inefficient bureau which could be ig-
nored as an essential factor in colonial history. The
foregoing account shows that such is not the case, that
for more than one half of the period under considera-
tion it was a decidedly active and influential organ
of government, and that even during the decadent
period it did some effective work.

The Board was no better and certainly but lit-
tle worse than other parts of the British govern-
ment, and periods of inefficiency in one are con-
temporary with similar periods in the other. In
each case the cause of bad government must be
sought in the personality of the men who were
responsible for the conditions. This fact is most
clearly illustrated in the history of the Board of
Trade, for while its power and influence varied
from time to time, the commission usually re-

358 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

mained unchanged. The activities of the Board were
not measured by its commission, but were dependent
upon the will of the secretary of state for the Southern
Department, who controlled it. If he gave it a free
hand, it was a powerful body; but if he insisted upon
interfering with its work and required that all ques-
tions of colonial management should be referred to
himself personally, it at once lost its influence.

The history of the Board of Trade shows the ef-
fects of the gradual change which was taking place in
the British government. Created in 1696 as a com-
mittee under the immediate control of the crown, it
came naturally into the power of the slowly develop-
ing parliamentary executive. During the ascendency
of Walpole and Newcastle, two men ran the govern-
ment, or kept others from running it, and during that
time Newcastle absorbed the chief executive powers
of the Board of Trade and himself directed colonial
affairs. Whatever inefficiency in the management of
the colonies existed during that time must be charged
to him, and to him must be given the credit for all
important colonial policies initiated within that pe-
riod, if any can be found.

With the downfall of Walpole there came into powr-
er a new school of active and independent men in the
House of Commons who demanded a share in con-
ducting the government. The old centralized par-
liamentary executive was broken, new men entered
the administration and with them the executive func-
tions had to be shared. In spite of the wishes of New-
castle, Halifax was given the presidency of the Board
of Trade, and within a very short time that body again

RfiSUMfi 359

came into its own because of the personal influence
he was able to wield. He first demanded and se-
cured permission for the Board to act up to its com-
mission powers, insisted upon an extension of those
powers, compelled his colleagues to give his recom-
mendations the same weight as though they came
from a secretary of state, and finally secured the pub-
lic recognition he craved by being admitted to the
cabinet.

In its relations with the Privy Council the Board
was a bureau of investigation, an advisory body, and '
a court of first instance. Through its correspondence
with colonial officials and personal consultation with
merchants and others familiar with conditions in the
plantations, it gathered data, learned what was going
on, and tried to discover the particular needs of each
province; with this information before it, colonial
policies were mapped out and orders were drawn to
carry them into execution. In their final shape these
were then laid before the Privy Council for ratifica-
tion, where they were reviewed just as were other gov-
ernmental questions before final action was taken.

The Privy Council was developing its committee
system so as to give actual control of the government
to those who were responsible to Parliament. The
meeting with the sovereign ceased to be a deliberative
body, and all matters of a controversial nature or
which required investigation were referred to com-
mittees, that is council meetings to which the sover-
eign was not invited. These were not standing com-
mittees nor committees appointed for any particular
service, but all matters were referred to what was in

36o AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

reality the committee of the whole, consisting of any
three or more members of the council. Apparently,
the clerks attempted to give to these committee meet-
ings names descriptive of the work done, hence a most
confusing list of committees was created, which even
trained scholars have sometimes assumed to be divi-
sions of the Privy Council. No such separate divisions
existed, that there was but one committee - that of the
whole - during most of this period; that even the so-
called "Committee on Appeals from the Plantations*'
was not a separate and distinct committee, that it was
only a council meeting to dispose of judicial matters,
and that it by no means limited its activities to the
consideration of appeals, but like all other committee
meetings, disposed of whatever other business de-
manded attention. Furthermore it seems clearly es-
tablished that there was no fixed personnel for the
various committees suggestive of an actual division
of the work of the Privy Council, except so far as the
presence of the chief legal minds when judicial bus-
iness was transacted may be construed to constitute
such a specialization of duties.

In carrying out the limited functions permitted it,
the Board encountered serious natural difficulties,
among which were : distance and the absence of reg-
ular means of communication, even with the most
accessible colonies; the niggardliness of the British
government in supplying it with funds, so that dis-
patches had to be entrusted to masters of trading ves-
sels and chance messengers to save postage; and last
of all, lack of regular means of communication from
one colony to another, causing delays if not more

RfiSUMfi 361

serious hazard to dispatches. These natural difficul-
ties were greatly enhanced by the many years of war-
fare, which rendered communications even more pre-
carious. To all this must be added the handicap of
exacting commercial duties in no way connected with
colonial government, but which absorbed the time and
energy of the Board at critical times. Some of the
difficulties were finally overcome by the Board's se-
curing a regular packet service for the mails and free
postage for its communications, thus enabling it to
keep more closely in touch with the colonies.
^ The most serious difficulty in colonial government
was one growing out of the gradual revolution which
was taking place in the colonies due to the rising pow-
er of the assemblies. This movement had scarcely
begun in 1696 when the Board was organized, but it
developed rapidly and was almost complete by 1765.
The assemblies, through their assumed power over
what they chose to call a money bill, were able to
usurp the chief legislative powers of the council by
denying to that body the right to amend proposed fi-
nancial measures, thus rendering it powerless to as-
sist the governor in carrying out his instructions. With
the council eliminated and with full control of the
purse in their own hands, the assemblies proceeded to
force the governors to sign forbidden legislation and
to strip them of their executive functions. By desig-
nating officers by name in the appropriation bills the
assemblies forced the governors to appoint such per-
sons to office as were pleasing to itself, extraordinary
and even ordinary executive duties were delegated to
committees of the lower house, and finally the control

362 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

of the military was assumed, so that the governors were
reduced to little more than figureheads. Instead of
being dependent upon the Board, they had become
dependent upon the assemblies, whose speaker had
acquired almost the powers of a local prime minister.
As he was backed by the majority in the assembly, the
governor had to consult him upon nearly all measures,
and take his advice if he wished things to go ahead
smoothly in his government. This extended in some
cases to summoning, proroguing, and dissolving the
assembly; hence there were many elements tending to
develop in the colonies ministerial forms of govern-
ment patterned strongly after that in England.

The Board of Trade was not ignorant of the polit-
ical tendency within the colonies, nor slow to recog-
nize the practically unworkable character of the im-
perial arrangement for governing them. With un-
erring foresight it picked out the most vital defect in
the constitution and sought to remedy it by securing
in each of the royal and proprietary provinces a fixed
civil list which would render executive and judicial
officers independent of the local legislatures. To
secure this object it resorted to every means in its pow-
er; instructions to the governors, threats, reprimands
from the sovereign, and even appeals to Parliament
were all used in vain. The assemblies refused to be
intimidated, governors could not starve, wars at in-
opportune times necessitated making terms with the
assemblies and allowed them to increase their power.
Ministers were too indifferent or too timid to supply
the only other remedy and establish a civil list by act
of Parliament. The Board had repeatedly demand-

RfiSUMfi 363

ed that such action be taken, ministers sometimes per-
mitted bills to that effect to be introduced, threats of
their passage were held over the colonial assemblies,
but nothing was done until after the elimination of
the French from the continent. At last the ministers
appealed to Parliament and secured the desired legis-
lation but encountered armed resistance in the colo-
nies.

In dealing with the judges the Board was more
successful. Judges had at first been commissioned
only during the pleasure of the crown; but the in-
structions to the governors were ambiguous, and in
the course of time it became the custom for governors
to issue commissions during good behavior. Under
Halifax the Board discovered the irregular practice,
changed the instructions, and when all commissions
fell vacant on the death of George II, forced the re-
newals to be made at the pleasure of the crown. This
policy was very closely connected with the at-
tempt to render the governors more independent of
local control. As long as the judges were dependent
upon the assemblies for their salaries, and held office
during good behavior, they were absolutely inde-
pendent of all control by the mother country. From
an imperial point of view this was a serious situation,
especially so in view of the numerous acts of Parlia-
ment regulating trade and navigation which had to
be enforced in courts presided over by these judges,
and the provision that they could be removed from
office by the crown gave the empire its only measure
of protection against an ignorant or partisan bench.

The Board of Trade had other important colonial

364 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

policies; such as, the development of some form of
military union for purposes of defense, the reductioa
of all the colonial governments to one type by the re-
sumption of the charters and the proprietary grants,
and the rapid westward expansion of the population,
especially on the French and Spanish frontiers. Its
trade policy was not excessively narrow, but was in-
tended to make the colonies and the home country
mutually helpful to each other industrially. Each
was to be a market and a source of supply for the
other. To make such a condition possible the Board
sought to engage the colonists in those enterprises
which threatened the least competition with British
industries, and at the same time would yield ample
returns to the labor and capital invested. To this end
it favored bounties, drawbacks, discriminating tariff
duties, and the expenditure of money for popular in-
struction in new and promising enterprises. The
Board itself seldom favored direct limitations upon
colonial industries, except when it was forced to do so
by those engaged in some English trade which ap-
peared to be suffering from American competition.
The value of the colonial market, however, was never
underrated and every opportunity was taken to pro-
tect and expand it, especially that for English wool-
ens. The importance of this last can hardly be
overrated, and much of the naval stores policy of the
Board was instigated by a desire to extend and safe-
guard the colonial wool market.

The power to approve or disapprove colonial legis-
lation was the most important means of shaping the
legal relations of the colonies to the mother country, of

RfiSUMfi 365

securing uniformity of legal procedure, and of pre-
venting unfair local and special legislation. In the ex-
ercise of this power the Board of Trade was not arbi-
trary or tyrannical, but acted with the judicial fairness ^
of a court of first instance. Each law was submitted to
a crown lawyer for his opinion as to its legal fitness,
was permitted a day in court for a public hearing and
argument from attorneys, was tested by members of
the Board as to its general fitness from an administra-
tive point of view, and was finally recommended for
approval or disallowance. From that recommenda-
tion an appeal lay to the Privy Council, which could
reverse the action of the Board, but seldom did so.

Probably no part of our colonial experience has
had more permanent results than this constant sub-
jection of local laws to the review of the central gov-
ernment. The power of the Supreme Court of the
United States to declare state laws unconstitutional is
scarcely more than an American version of the con-
stant practice of the Board of Trade. Even the
reasons for the disallowance of colonial laws, worked
out as they were as each specific case presented itself,
show a surprising similarity to the limitations upon
state legislation today. Prior to 1765 the limitation
imposed upon their legislative powers was not espe-
cially irksome to most of the colonies, and was gen-
erally submitted to by the mass of the population
with about the same grace that people today submit
to decisions of the Supreme Court which are adverse
to popular laws. In many cases the colonial legisla-
tures hastened to remedy defective laws so as to make
them conform to the demands of the Board, thus in-

366 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

dicating their appreciation of the value of the general
system. The cases of direct opposition and evasions
of the royal veto are probably greatly overestimated
and their importance exaggerated.

No doubt principles of government worked out
under the administration of the Board of Trade have
influenced later administration in many ways. The
Indian policy of the Board by its very example per-
sisted for many years, at least so far as its main fea-
tures are concerned. And it is a significant fact that
when the new American government acquired terri-
tories, that is colonies, of its own, it did not place the
governors, judges, or territorial officers at the mercy
of a local legislature, nor were unlimited financial
powers conferred upon such legislatures, and all laws
were subjected to a review and possible veto by the
central government.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

In the following list no attempt has been made to
compile an exhaustive bibliography, only those
works being included which were directly serviceable
in preparing this volume. With a very few excep-
tions, the list includes no material not specifically
cited in the footnotes.

Alden, Gborge H. New Governments west of the Alleghanies
before 1780: in University of Wisconsin Bulletin ^ historical
series, vol. ii, no. i (Madison, 1897).

Alvord, Clarence W. Genesis of the Proclamation of 1763:
read before the Michigan Pioneer and Historical Society, De-
cember 13, 1907, and reprinted from the Proceedings of that

organization (Lansing, 1908).

Contains new material on the attitude of important British officials
toward westward expansion, 1760-1767.

Ames, Herman V. Pennsylvania and the English Government,
1 699- 1 700: reprinted from the Pennsylvania Magazine of His-
tory and Biography (Philadelphia, 1900).

Contains important extracts from the correspondence of Colonel
Robert Quary.

Andrews, Charles McL. American Colonial History, 1690-

1750: in American Historical Association Report for i8g8

(Washington, 1899).

This article suggested ^ome phases of the present investigation.

Colonial Self-government, 1 652-1 689 (New York, 1904).

Has an excellent summary of colonial administration prior to 1696,

written largely from the records in London. It also has a very good
bibliography of the earlier period of colonial government

British Conunittees, Commissions, and Councils of Trade and

Plantations, 1622- 1675: in Johns Hopkins University Studies

368 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

in Historical and Political Science (Baltimore, 1 908), vol. xxvi,

no8. 1-3.

This is by far the most accurate and definite account extant of the
growth of organs of imperial control during the seventeenth century.
It also contains an excellent account of the evolution of instructions to
royal governors during that period.

Andrews, Charles McL. List of the Journals and Acts of the
Councils and Assemblies of the Thirteen Original Colonies and
the Floridas in America, preserved in the Public Record Office,
London: American Historical Association's Public Archives
Commission in Report for igoSy vol. i, Appendix D (Wash-
ington, 1909).

An invaluable finding list for those who have occasion to use the
London manuscripts. Ultimately this list will be completed for all the
manuscripts dealing with colonial history.

BassetT) John S. Constitutional Beginnings of North Carolina,
1 663- 1 729: in Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical
and Political Science (Baltimore, 1894), sen xii, no. 3.

Bber, George L. Conunercial Poliqr of England toward the
American Colonies: in Columbia University Studies in History^
etc. (New York, 1893), vol. iii, no. 2.

British Colonial Policy, 1754-1765 (New York, 1907).

Written entirely from original material, drawn very largely from
the manuscripts in the Public Record Office in London, this volume has
rendered all other accounts of the commercial relations of the Ameri€:an
colonies to the mother country obsolete for the period it covers. It is
somewhat deficient in its account of political relations and institutions.

Board of TkADE Journal. See Great Britain, Board of Trade
Papers.

British Museum. Additional Manuscripts, 32,692-32,884 (Lon-
don).

These comprise a portion of the voluminous Newcastle correspondence
and contain the letters which passed between Newcastle and Halifax,
also some of the correspondence between Bedford and Halifax. Many
of the letters are of great historical value. Only the originals in
London were used. Transcripts are to be found in the Library of
Congress at Washington.

Burke, Sir Bernard. Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary of

the Peerage and Baronetage (London, 1899).
Burnet, Gilbert. History of his own Time (London, 1857),

2 vols.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 369

Is valuable for its account of the organization of the Board of

Trade and its estimate of men.
Carroll, B. R. Historical collections of South Carc^ina (New

York, 1836), 2 vols.
Chalm£RS, George. Introduction to the History of the Revolt

of the American Colonies (Boston, 1845), 2 vols.

A strongly biased account of the rising power of the colonial

assemblies, but very valuable for the extracts which it contains of

documents not elsewhere in print Needs to be used with caution.
Opinions of eminent Lawyers on various points of English

Jurisprudence (Burlington, Va., 1858), 2 vols.

Largely devoted to the legal opinions of the crown lawyers on the
laws enacted by the various colonies.
Channing, Edward. Century of Colonial History, 1660-1760,
vol. ii of History of the United States (New York, 1908), 8

vols.

Has several pages devoted to a description of the Board of Trade
and its activities, and probably the longest discussion of the royal veto
to be found in any history of the colonies. It is an excellent account
considering the amount of space allotted to these topics.

Chatham, Earl of. Correspondence (London, 1 838-1 840), 4
vols.

CoBBETT, William. Parliamentary History of England (Lon-
don, 1809-1813), vols. v-xv.

Coffin, Victor. Province of Quebec and the early American
Revolution: in University of Wisconsin BuUetiriy historical
series, vol. 1, no. 3 (Madison, 1896).

CO. 5. See Great Britain, Board of Trade Papers.

CoLDEN, Cadwallader. Letters: in the New York Historical
Society Collections (New York, 1875- 1876), vol. x, xi.

These letters are of especial value for the informatioo they contain
on judges' conunissions and Indian relations, during the period from
1760 to 176$.

CoxE, William. Memoirs of the Administration of the Right
Honorable Henry Pelham (London, 1829), 2 vols.

Cross, Arthur L. Anglican Episcopate and the American Col-
onies (New York, 1902).

Of little value in this study, because it neglects the relations of the
Bishop of London to the Board of Trade, not even indicating that the
bishop was a member of the Board.

370 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT
Dicey, Albert V. Privy Council (London, 1887).

Of little help in understanding the committee changes of the eight-
eenth century.

Doyle, John A. English Colonies in America (New York, 1882-

1907), 5 vols.
Du Bois, W. E. BuRGHARDT. Suppression of the African Slave

Trade to the United States of America, 1638-1870 (New York,

1896).
Edwards, Bryan. History of the British Colonies in the West

Indies (London, 1817), 3 vols.
Egerton, Hugh E. Short history of British colonial policy

(London, 1897).
FiTZMAURiCE, Edmund G. P. Life of William, Earl of Shel-

bume (London, 1875-1876), 3 vols.
Frothingham, Richard. Rise of the Republic of the United

States, sixth edition (Boston, 1895).

Institutional in its treatment. Shows a keen perceptioa of the

fundamental changes in the colonial constitution in the first half of

the eighteenth century.

Great Britain. Calendar of State Papers, colonial series, Amer-
ica and the West Indies, 1693-1697, edited by J. W. Fortcscue
(London, 1903- 1904), 2 vols.

The condensed account of the calendared document was found so
unsatisfactory that the originals were resorted to as far as possible.

Board of Trade Papers. Manuscripts in the Public Record

Office (London).

These are the original manuscript records of the Board of Trade,
including the ones it inherited from earlier committees, and the ones
accumulated under its regime. The set of papers is very extensive,
including a great variety of material which has been recently reclassi-
fied or is now in process of reclassification, consequently the papers are
no longer cited as Board of Trade papers but as CO. The Board of
Trade papers proper are regularly made up of what were kno'wn as
''entry books,'' and "originals." The "entry books" contain the official
copy of all the out-letters and frequently copies or condensations of
important in-letters. As the out-letters contain the record of the official
action of the Board in dealing with each particular colony, and as this
monograph is primarily a study of the Board's dealings with the
American territorial colonies, the "entry books" have proved of the
greatest value and have been gone over carefully. The bundles of
in-letters, known as "originals" have been consulted only so far as they

BIBLIOGRAPHY 371

readily threw light upoo the operation of the aoDounced policy of the

Board. On account of the nature of the subject under investigation, the

in-letters were far less valuable than were the out-letters, as they throw

comparatively little light upon the influences in England which were

shaping colonial policy. But for any subject dealing with conditions

in the colonies they are a veritable mine of information. The sets and

volumes which were examined and to many of which citations have

been made in the text are:

CO. s, 5, One volume. America and Wsar Indies. General cor-
respondence with the secretary of state. Contains some especially
valuable papers incident to Governor Burnet's quarrel with the
Massachusetts assembly.

CO. 5, 52, One volume. Secret correspondence concerning a treason-
able plot in America during the French and Indian War, apparently
implicating Sir William Shirley and George Croghan.

CO. s, 293-299, Seven bundles. North Carouna. In-letters to the
Board.

CO. 5, 319, 323-325, Three volumes. North Carolina. Entry books
of out-letters.

^•O. 5, 358-376, Nineteen volumes. South Carolina. In-letters to
the Board.

CO. 5, 383-384, Two bundles. South Carouna. Unbound letters
to the secretary of state.

CO. 5, 400-404, Five volumes. South Carouna. Entry books of
out-letters.

CO. 5, 644-648, Five bundles. Georgia. In-letters to the Board.

CO. 5, 672-674, Three volumes. Georgia. Entiy books of out-letters.

CO. 5, 714-721, Eight bundles. Maryland. In-letters to the Board.

CO. 5, 724-727, Four volumes. Maryland. Entry books of out-letters.

^•O. 5, 751-753, Three bundles. Massachusetts Bay. Letters to
the secretary of state.

CO. 5, 970-977, Eight bundles. New Jersey. In-letters to the Board.

C*0. 5, 994-1000, Seven volumes. New Jersey. Entry books of out-
letters.

CO. 5, 859-890, Thirty-two bundles. New England. In-letters to
the Board, very largely from the governors of Massachusetts Bay.

CO. 5, 907-923, Seventeen volumes. New England. Entry books
of out-letters, principally to the governors of Massachusetts Bay.

CO. 5, 925-928, Four bundles. New Hampshire. In-letters to the
Board.

CO. 5, 941-942, Two volumes. New Hampshire. Entry books of out-
letters.

CO. 5, 1114-1134, Twenty-one volumes. New York. Entry books of
oat-letters.

372 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

CO. 5, 1257-1276, TwENTir BUNDLES. PROPRIETIES. In-lcttetB from or
concerning the proprietaiy and charter colonies.

CO. 5, 1287-1298, Twelve volumes. Proprieties. Entry books of out^
letters.

CO. 5, 1 307- 1 3 30, Twenty-four bundles. Virginia. In-letters to the
Board.

CO. 5, 1 3 58-1368, Eleven volumes. Virginia. Entry books of out-
letters. This set and the one above were very helpful. They ooor
tain material dealing with westward expansion, trade policy, and
treatment of colonial laws not found elsewhere.

CO. 323, 2-25, Twenty-four bundles. Plantations General. In-
letters to the Board.

CO. 324, 6-17, Twelve volumes. Plantations General. Entry books
of out-letters. Transcripts of these two sets are deposited in the
library of the Pennsylvania Historical Society at Philadelphia.

Great Britain. Board of Trade. Journal, 8-74, 67 volumes.
This is the record of the proceedings at the Board meetings, and is
of varying value. For most of the period covered by this monograph it
furnishes an excellent index to the other Board of Trade papers, al-
though a part of it was so badly kept that its usefulness is seriously
impaired. In general it is not very valuable by itself, as many of the
citations in it are unintelligible without the aid of the other records.
Transcripts of the Journal have been made by the Pennsylvania His-
torical Society.

Board of Trade. Jamaica, vols. 66, 67. Entry books of

out-lcttcrs.

The Jamaica correspondence shows that the island colonies sustained
about the same relations to the Board as did those on the continent.

Board of Trade. Commercial Series I, vols. 10-47, 38 vols.

In-letters from various sources dealing with trade conditions and

commercial relations, largely European, but including many colonial
papers.

Board of Trade. Commercial Series II, vols. 640654, 15

vols. Entry books of out-letters, many of which concern the
colonies.

These two sets are an invaluable supplement to the general colonial
correspondence. They are especially rich in material for a history
of trade conditions during the colonial period.

Board of Trade. Miscellanies.

Ten bundles of in-letters and papers concerning the organization,
business, and financial history of the Board, also four volumes of entry
books of out-letters and matters affecting clerks, salaries, material, etc
Together these throw considerable light upon matters of organization
otherwise difficult to determine.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 373

Great Britain. Historical Manuscripts CcMiunission (London,
i895)> fourteenth report, appendix, part x.

Containa extracts from the Dartmouth papers which aflFord a val-
uable check for the records printed in other collections.

Journal of the House of Commons ( London, 1803 ) , vols. xi-1.

The journal is especially valuable in showing the prominent part

the members of the Board of Trade took in all aflPairs relating to the
colonies, and the constant dependence upon these men for information
of various kinds.

Privy Council Register, 1696-1765 (Privy Council Office,

Whitehall, London).

William III, vols, iv-vi.

Anne, vols. i-vi.

George I, vols. i-v.

George II, vols, i-xviii.

George III, v<^s. i-iv.

These are the original manuscript records of the Privy Council and
have not been transcribed or printed, although the portions dealing with
the colonies are now available in printed form, under the title Acts of
the Prwf Council of England, colonial series, of which the first volume,
covering the years 1613-1680, appeared in 1908. These have not been
used in preparing the present volume for two reasons; in the first
place, they were not available when chapters in and iv were being pre-
pared, and in the second place, an examination of the original manu-
scripts was considered sufficient.

The Register is one of the most valuable records for the student of
histoiy, as it was kept with scrupulous care and contains information
not recorded elsewhere. It is the only source which explains the rela-
tions of the Board of Trade to the Privy Council and its conunittees.
It also contains the only accurate record of the crown's disallowance or
confirmation of colonial laws.
— Statutes at Large, Pickering edition (Cambridge, 1764), vols.

ix-xxv.

Greene, Evarts B. Provincial America (New York, 1905).

Provincial Governor in the English Colonies of North Amer-
ica (New York, 1898).

These two volumes contain the best accounts extant of the rise of the
colonial assembly and the relations of the colonies to the mother country.
The copious footnotes and the carefully edited bibliographies also
furnish a convenient guide to the sources and secondary materials which
were most useful in preparing this volume.

Grenville Papers. Edited by William J. Smith (London,
i853)»4 vols.

374 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

These volumes are valuable for the persooal estimate they affofd of
Hillsborough and his administration. They also give reasons for certain
political changes which affected the Board of Trade.

Hazeltine, Harold D. Appeals from the Colonial Courts to
the King in Council^ with especial reference to Rhode Island:
in American Historical Association Report for 1894 (Washing-
ton, 1895).

Hening, William W. Statutes at Large, being a Collection of
all the Laws of Virginia, 1619-1792 (Richmond, 1821), 13 vols.

HiLDRETH, Richard. History of the United States to 1821
(New York, 1849- 1852), 6 vols.

Hill, William. Colonial TarifiEs: in American Economic As-
sociation Reports^ vol. ii, 78-100.

Hutchinson, Thomas. Hbtory of the Province of Massachu-
setts Bay, 1691-1750 (Boston, 1764-1828), 3 vols.

Jenkyns, Sir Henry. British Rule beyond the Sea (Oxford,
1902).

Kellogg, Louise P. The American Colonial Charter : in Amer-
ican Historical Association Report for igoj (Washington,
1904), vol. i.

This monograph contains the best discussion in print of the Board
of Trade and its policy. There is a failure, however, to realize the
great change after 1752, and the ministerial character and the Parlia-
mentary influence of the Board is minimized to a greater extent than
the facts justify. One of its best features is the account of the policy
of the Board toward the charter and proprietary colonies.

Larned, J. N. Literature of American History (Boston, 1902).
Lecky, William Edward H. History of England in the Eight-
eenth Century (London, 1 878-1 890), 8 vols.

Its chief value for this study lies in its estimate of men and measures.

Lewis, Sir George. Essay on the Government of Dependencies

(Oxford, 1 891).

Originally published in 1841.
Lord, Eleanor. Industrial Experiments in the British Colonies
of North America : in Johns Hopkins University Studies in His-
torical and Political Science ^ extra vol. xvii (Baltimore, 1898).

This is a very thorough study of the attempts of the Board of Trade
to foster the production of naval stores in America, but does not shoiw
the continuous relation between that and the larger trade policy of the
empire.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 375

Mahon, Lord (Stanhope). History of England from the
Peace of Utrecht to the Peace of Versailles, 17 13-1783 (Lon-
don, 1858), 7 vols.

Macaulay, Thomas B. History of England from the Acces-
sion of James the Second (London, 1866), 8 vols.

McCrady, Edward. History of South Carolina under the Pro-
prietary Government, 1 6701 7 19 (New York, 1897).

History of South Carolina under the Royal Government,

1719-1776 (New York, 1899).

Massachusetts. Acts and Resolves, Public and Private, of the

Province of Massachusetts Bay (Boston, 1869- 1896), vols. i-vi.

The notes in these volumes furnish much information 00 the relations

of the colony to the Board, which proved most valuable in preparing the

chapter on the treatment of colonial legislation.

Massachusetts Historical Society. Collections (Boston,

1894), sixth series, vols, vi-vii.

These two volumes contain the papers of Jonathan Belcher, Govern-
or of Massachusetts and later of New Jersey. His letters give much
information of the influences which a governor had to propitiate in
order to hold his position. They also throw many sidelights upon the
actual work of the Board of Trade.
New Jersey. Acts of the General Assembly of the Province of
New Jersey, from the surrender of the government to Queen
Anne, on the 1 7th Day of April, in the year of our Lord 1 702, to
the 14th day of January, 1776, compiled by Samuel AUinson
(Burlington, 1776).

Documents relating to the Colonial History of New Jersey

1631-1776, edited by William A. Whitehead (Newark, 1880-
1902), 24 vols.

Aside from the regular correspondence between the governors and
the Board, the personal letters from such men as Paris and Alexander
give much information of the inner workings of colonial administration.

New York. Documents relating to the Colonial Hbtory of the
State of New York, procured by J. R. Brodhead, vols, i-xi, edit-
ed by E. B. O'Callaghan, vols, xii-xv, edited by B. Fernow
(Albany, 1853-1883), 15 vols.

This set of documents contains the most complete and voluminous
extracts from the Board of Trade papers of any of the sets of colonial
documents, and has been the chief source for New York and its rela-
tions with the Board. The documents are deficient, however, in ma-

376 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

terial illuttrating methods of procedure before the Board. Haa •■
excellent index.

New York. Colonial Laws of New York, from the year 1664 to the
Revolution, vols, i-iv (Albany, 1894).

North Carolina. Colonial Records, published under the super-
vision of the trustees of the public libraries, by order of the
General Assembly, collected and edited by William L. Saun-
ders, vols, i-vi (Raleigh, 1 885-1888).

The complete extracts from the Board of Trade Journal of all
entries which relate to North Carolina make an excellent supplement
to the information contained in the other collections of printed docu-
ments.

O'Callaghan, E. B. Documentary History of the State of New
York, arranged under the direction of Hon. Christopher Mor-
gan (Albany, 1 849-1 851), 4 vols.

Osgood, Herbert L. American Colonies in the Seventeenth
Century (New York, 1904- 1907), 3 vols.

One of the most painstaking and detailed histories of the oolooies
which have appeared. As it deals almost entirely with the period pre-
ceding 1696, it was of little direct assistance in the present study.

Palfrey, John G. History of New England (Boston, 1895),
3 vols.

The footnotes contain many valuable extracts from the Board of
Trade papers, which are not printed elsewhere.

Penn, William and James Logan. Correspondence : in Pennsyl-
vania Historical Society, Memoir^ vols, ix, x (Philadelphia,
1872).

Pennsylvania. Archives, first scries, edited by Samuel Hazard
(Philadelphia, 1852-1856), 12 vols.

Archives, second series, edited by John B. Linn and Wm. H.

Egle (Harrisburg, 1 874-1 893), 19 vols.

Colonial Records, 1683- 1790 (Philadelphia, 1852), 16 vols.

Statutes at Large, from 1682-1801 (Philadelphia, 1896),

vols, ii-vi.

These sets of documents are valuable for the informatioo which
they give of the Board of Trade's treatment of colonial laws. Xhe
appendices to the statutes are also especially good in illustrating pro-
cedure.

Pepys, Samuel. Diary and Correspondence (Philadelphia, 1855),
4 vols.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 377

PowNALL, Thomas. Administration of the British Colonics, fifth
edition, wherein their rights and constitution are discussed and
stated (London, 1774), 2 vols.

Pratt, Daniel J. Boundaries of the State of New York (Al-
bany, 1884), 2 vols.

Contains some documents not found in print elsewhere.

Raper, Charles L. North Carolina, a Study in English Colo-
nial Government (New York, 1904).

This was published in a less complete form under the name of
North Carolina; a Royal Province, 1720-177$ (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1901).

Rhode Island. Correspondence of the Colonial Governors 'of
Rhode Island, 1 723-1 775, edited by Gertrude S. Kimball (Bos-
ton, 1903), 2 vols.

Supplements the private correspondence in the Belcher and Taloott
papers, and is of similar value.

Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence

Plantations in New England, edited by J. R. Bartlett (Provi-
dence, 1 856- 1 865), 10 vols.

Ripley, Wiluam Z. Financial History of Virginia, 1609-1776:
in Columbia University Studies in History^ etc, vol. iv, 1-170
(New York).

Seeley, Sir John R. Expansion of England (London, 1883).

Sharpe, Horatio. Correspondence: in Maryland Historical So-
ciety Archives of Maryland^ vols, vi, ix, xiv (Baltimore, 1888-

1895).

These volumes are of especial value for the period of the Board
under the presidency of Halifax. The letters of Calvert and Sharpe
furnish many illustrations of the aggressive attitude of the Board to-
ward the proprietary colonies.

Shepherd, William R. History of Proprietary Government in

Pennsylvania: in Columbia University Studies in History, etc.,

vol. vi (New York, 1896).
Smith, William. History of New York, from its discovery till

1732, with a continuation from 1732-1814 (Albany, 1814).
Smith, W. R. South Carolina as a Royal Province, 17 19-1776

(New York, 1903).
South Carolina. Statutes at Large, edited by Thomas Ccwper

and J. B. McCord (Columbia, 1836-1841), 10 vols.

378 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

Spencer, Charles W. Phases of Royal Government in New
York, 1691-1719 (Columbus, O., 1906).

A thoroughly conscientious piece of work, but on account of the
limited scope of the investigation, it is lacking in perspective.

Stanhope, Earl. Reign of Queen Anne until the Peace of
Utrecht, 1701-1713 (London, 1872).

Stephen, Leslie, and Sidney Lee. Dictionary of National Bio-
graphy (New York, 1885-1900), 63 vols.

This was the chief source of information for biographical material
used in chapter 1. The articles not only give valuable information but
afford, by means of references, a convenient g^ide to other sources.

Talcott Papers, correspondence and documents during Joseph

Talcott's governorship of the Colony of Connecticut, 1 724-1 741 »

edited by Mary K. Talcott: in Connecticut Historical Society

Collections^ vols, iv, v (Hartford, 1892-1896).

The letters in these two volumes illustrate the attitude of the Board
toward a charter colony, and also throw many sidelights upon methods
of procedure.

Todd, Alpheus. Parliamentary Government in England (Lon-
don, 1892).

Trumbull, Benjamin. Complete history of Connecticut, civil
and ecclesiastical, to 1764 (New Haven, 1818), 2 vols.

Walpole, Horace. Letters (Oxford, 1905), 16 vols.

Memoirs of last ten years of the Reign of King George II

(London, 1847), 3 vols.

Memoirs of the Reign of George HI (London, 1845) , 4 vols.

Of these three works the letters have been of most service. They

furnish a great deal of information on the reasons for cabinet changes
and for changes in the personnel of the Board. They also throw light
on the personal relations of the various officials to each other.

Weeden, William B. Economic and Social History of New
England (Boston, 1890), 2 vols.

WiNSOR, Justin. Narrative and Critical History of America
(Boston, 1 886- 1 889), 8 vols.

Its chief service for a study of this kind lies in the fact that it
affords a convenient guide to the literature of the field.

INDEX

Addison, Joseph: 38

Admiralty: instnictions regarding
jurisdiction, 121-122; relations
with Board of Trade, 121-123;
protection of colonial waters, 122 ;
protection of witnesses, 122

Admiralty Courts: 121-122

Agents, Colonial: Board of Trade
clerks forbidden to serve, 70-71;
governors must maintain, 156;
value to colony, 266-267

Albany: forts, 323; congress, 340

Albemarle, Earl of: 151, footnote

Aldemey (island) : 95

Altamaha (river) : 331

Amherst, Gen. JeflFery: 350

Andros, Edmund: 19

Anne, Queen: 86-88

Appeals: how considered, 88; ac-
tion of committees, 95-96; effect
on laws, 274-275; procedure, 275-
276; Board of Trade considers,
276-279 ; committee considers legal
questions, 280-281

Appointments: not controlled by
Board of Trade, izi; influence of
Bishop of London, 124; by secre-
tary of state, 142-143; of pro-
vincial councillors, 124, 146; of
colonial secretaries, 147-148; of
colonial chief justices and at-
torneys-general, Z48; of proprie-
tary governors, 149; Board of
Trade controls, 150; of judges,
152-Z53, 195-209; promotions, 152

Aahe, Edward: 60

Assembly, Colonial: rise and in-
crease of power, XX, 158-179; en-

croachments, 13, 160; excludes
councils from legislation, 165-174;
Board of Trade tries to check,
172-173; transfers power to
America, 173-174; seizes military
power, 174; effect of increased
power, 174; nullifies Indian pol-
icy* '75 1 judiciary dependent
upon, 198-199; modifies laws,
262-263 ; causes revolution in gov-
ernment, 361-362. Of Maryland —
controls money bills, 169; refuses
appropriation for French and In-
dian War, i69-Z7a Of Massa-
chusetts Bay — powers described,
X67-168; Board of Trade warns,
178. Of New y^r/#y — disburses
military grants, 166; controls
money bills, 166; audits accounts,
166-167. Of Nevj yori( — appoints
treasurer, 160; controls expendi-
tures, 160-162; amendments to
mone>' bills, 160-161 ; controls ap-
pointments, 163; in time of war,
165; refuses permanent revenue,
183 ; judges commissions, 202. Of
North Carolina — controls money
affairs, 171-172; permits no
amendments to money bills, 172.
Of Pennsylvania — power of coun-
cil, 170; controls money affairs,
170; borrows money, 170-171;
issues bills of credit, 171; cor-
rupts governor, 171. Of South
Carolina — controls appointments,
172; develops committee s>'steni,
172
Atkins, Edmund: 341

38o AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

Attomey-general (of England) :

74-75, X48, 196, 200
Atwood, William: chief justice of

New York, 196 ; salary, 198

Bacon, Edward: 54

Bankruptcy laws: 253

Barbadoes: appeals, 87-88, footnote^
91; representation on laws, 88,
footnote \ ecclesiastical court, 126

Bedford, Duke of: letter to Hali-
fax, 23, footnote \ offers Halifax
presidency of Board of Trade,
39; attendance at Board of Trade,
ixo, footnote \ influence over ap-
pointments, 147

Bedford (N.Y.): 288-289

Belcher, Jonathan : correspondeiKe
with Board of Trade, 67, foot-
note; Bladen's hostility to, 144-
145; appointments, 146, 147; diffi-
cult position, 157; instructions,
X86-187; salary, 187-188; ham-
pered by riots, 190

Bellomont, Earl of: on qualifications
for lieutenant governors, ixx,
footnote; factions in N.Y., 156;
desires chief justice and attorney-
general, 196; conunission, 321

Bernard, Francis: transferred to
Mass. Bay, 152; warned, 177

Bills of attainder: 261

Bills of credit: in N.Y., 82-83; af-
fect prices, 120; provisions for
sinking, 217; acts disallowed, 237-
238 ; of N. H., excluded by Mass.,
250; beginning, 314; colonial is-
sues, 315-319; attempts to check,
315-320; acts to have suspending
clause, 316; order evaded, 316-
317; Parliament prohibits, 3x8-
319; wars increase issues, 318-319

Bishop of London: ecclesiastical
jurisdiction, 123 ; relations to
Board of Trade, 123-126; adds
clause to governors' instructions,
Z24; approves provincial coun-

cillors, 124; considers colonial
laws, 265

Bladen, Martin: 35, footnote;
service on Board of Trade, 37,
60; influence over appointments,
144; proposes stamp tax, x88;
opposes temporary grants, x88;
envoy to France, 287

Board of Trade: Organization^
created, 20-22; commission, 22-
28; organizes, 30; salaries, 22;
relations with cabinet, 23; lacks
independence, 26-28 ; personnel,
27-57; efficiency, 31, 357*358; in-
efficiency, 34 ; cause of ineffidency,
64-65; attendance of members, 35,
footnote; changes in power, 50,
55> 5^> ^7! reflects political
changes, 57-59; length of service
of members, 59-61; periods of
varying activity, 6x, 67, 1x2;
schedules for business, 62; metfacKl
of handling correspondence, 65,
66; postage, X37-14X; question-
able use of money, 70; fees, 72-
73; secretaries of state attend
meetings, 1x0; suffers from New-
castle's policy, 67, 1x2; reflects
energy of Halifax, 67; acquires
ministerial character, X29-130.

Clerks and secretaries — office
force, 68-79; how appointed, 78;
promoted for merit, 79; tenure,
78-79 ; compensation, 68-69 1
bribes, tips, and fees, 69, 71, 72;
tenacious of privileges, 70; as
colonial agents, 70-71; ordered to
attend to business, 71, footnote;
clerk of reports, 73-74; special
attorney, 74-76; secretary and his
work, 76-78.

Activities — examines witnesses
on oath, 26, footnote; commercial
work, 61-62; instructs envoys, 63-
64; relations to Privy Council,
X01-X07, 359; relations to Soath-
em Department, 107-XX5; drafts

INDEX

381

goveraon* instructioiis, xi$-xi6;
relations with customs oflicials,
1x5-1x9; uses them as agents, 1x7;
relations to treasuiy, XX9-X21; ap-
portions grants, x2o; relations
with admiralty, X2X-X23; relations
with Bishop of London, 123-127;
fair in religious matters, X26-X27;
relations with Parliament, 127-
131; appropriation bills, 130;
lack of colonial patronage, 142-
X44; obtains patronage, X46-X47;
colonial agents, X56, footnote;
conflict with New York assembly,
163-164; resists encroachments,
172-X77; suspends struggle, X77;
permanent dvil list, X8X-X93; re-
ports on New York and New Jer-
sey, 190-X9X; a fighting ministry,
191-195; attacks charter and pro-
prietary colonies, 2x2-2x3; makes
judges' commissions uniform, 204-
ao8; control of colonial militia,
2XO-2XX; plans of union, 209-223;
prevents trade discriminations,
250; size of assemblies, 254-256;
rules on private bills, 258-259;
shapes colonial constitutions, 262;
slowness, 283-284; settles bound-
ary controversies, 285-296; en-
forcement of trade laws, 296;
oommerdal policy, 299-320; colo-
nial defense, 320-336; advo-
cates westward expansion, 326-
332; Indian policy, 336-356; sum-
mary of career, 357-364

Boone, Thomas: X52

Boston: X33, X34

Boundaries: instructions to envqsrs,
63; vagueness, 285; treaties af-
fecting, 286-287 ; between colonies,
287-288; procedure in settling,
288-291; consent of both colonies
necessary, 292, 295-296; cost of
marking, 295-296

Bounties: on naval stores^ xx6; on
infant colonial industries, 3x3-3x4

Braddock, Gen. Edward: 334, 340

Bridger, John: surveyor of woods,
XX9; gives instruction in tar-mak-
ing, 307

Broughton, Sampson S: attorney-
general for New York, X96; sal-
aiy, 198

Burnet, William: quoted, 33; dis-
pute with assembly of Massa-
chusetts, 96; governor of New
York, X43, footnote; salary, X85;
to extend settlements westward,
328

Burrington, George: on Newcastle's
appointments^ X44; trouble with
factions, X57; to check encroach-
ments of assembly, X72-X73

Burrish, Onslow: 74

Canada: expedition against, x2o,
footnote ; conununications with
Louisiana, 326

Canaiy Islands: 87, footnote

Cape Fear River: 325

Cape Lookout: 324-325

Carey, Thomas: X49

Carteret, John (Earl of Granville) :
109, 327

Channel Islands: 83

Charles, Robert: 263, footnote

Charleston: X33

Charter colonies: bill to resume, X27;
charges against, 2x2-213 ; sub-
mission of laws, 225

Chelsea (England) : 9X

Civil list (for colonies) : question
becomes prominent, x8x-x82; N.
Y. -assembly refuses, X83; Parlia-
ment to establish, 183-184, X93;
Massachusetts assembly to furnish,
X85; controversy over, X85-X89;
supplied by stamp tax, x88; N.J.
legislature refuses, X89; contro-
versy over, X90-X93; demands
postponed, X93; crown furnishes,
X94; in various colonies, X94

Clark vf, Tousey: 275

382 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

Clarke, George (gov. of N.Y.) :
162-163

Clinton, George: conflict with N^ Y.
assembly, 165; commissions judges
during behavior, 199; appoints
De Lancey chief justice, 200

Coins: 233

Colden, Cadwallader: letters, 78;
judges' commissions^ 202; admits
appeal from jury decision, 279;
opinion of Indian plan, 350

Colonial laws: see Laws, Colonial

Colonies^ Proprietary: charges
against, xi8, 2x2-213; bill to re-
sume, Z27; approval of governors,
X49; surrender to crown, 214

Commerce: unsatisfactory conditions,
20; treaties, 61-62; paper money
affects, x2o^ 3x4-318; in winter,
X34; intercolonial, 238-240, 249-
25X; with England, 240-245, 300-
309; customs regulations, 239; in
time of war, 296-299 ; British pol-
icy, 296-320; see Trade, Smug-
gling, Bills of Credit, etc.

Commons, House of: attempts to cre-
ate Council for Trade, 2o-2x;
relations with Board of Trade,
127-X30; see Parliament

Communication: letters from colo-
nies, XX3, footnote; no regular
colonial mail service, X33 ; trad-
ing vessels carry letters, X34, X36;
not delivered promptly, X36-X37;
bad postal conditions in England,
X37; wars interrupt, X38-X40;
letters opened in transit, X38;
regular mail service, X40-X4X

Complaints: filed with Board of
Trade, 28X-282; how conducted,
28X-283; expense of prosecuting,

384

Connecticut: trouble with Andros,
19; boundary dispute, 82, 288-
289; intestates' law, X02-X03, 238;
isolation, X33-X34; opposes mili-

tary conmiissionfl, 2x1; Mohegan

Indians, 295
Constitution, Colonial: x 58-159
Convoys: for fleets from America,

zz6; Virginia traders, 300;

frauds in, 306, footnote
Combury, Lord £: N.Y. assembly

distrusts, z6o-z6x; asks salary for

Dr. Bridges, 198
Cotton, Sir John Hiade: cited, 33 ;

legislative activity, 127, footnote
Craggs, James (sec. of state) : 143,

footnote
Criminals: 245-246
Cromwell, Oliver: X9
Customs, Commissioners of: 1x5-1x9
Customs, Surveyors of: agents for

Board of Trade, 1x7; members of

councils, XX9

Danvbrs (Mass.) : 254

Dartmouth, Lord: X84

Dartmouth (Mass.) : 267-269

Debtors: 253

Declaration of Independence: ao8

Defense: strength of colonists, 320;
Board of Trade plans, 320-321 ;
prepares estimates, 333*334; xnili-
tary stores, 32X-322, 334; colonial
fortifications, 323-324; against
French, 326 ff.; of back country,
326 £F.; importance of mountain
passes, 327-328; expansion endan-
gers, 332; policy of Halifax, 333;
entrusted to Braddock, 334

De Lancey, James (gov. of N.Y.) :
X92; chief justice, 200; commis-
sions judges during good be-
havior, X99; cited, 343

Delaware River: 95

Denny, William (gov. of Pcnn.) :

De Peyster, Abraham: x6o
Disallowance: see Laws
Divorces: in Mass., 257; private
acts, 259-260

INDEX

383

Dobbs, Arthur (gov. of N. Car.) :
signs judidaiy act, 302-203;
complains of S. Car. law, 250;
to create counties, 255; on forti-
fications at Cape Lookout, 324;
requests military supplies, 325

Docminique, Paul (member of Board
of Trade) : 37, 60

Dominica: 286

Drysdale, Hugh (lieut-gor. of Va.) :
328

Dudley, Robert (gov. of Mass.
Bay) : 143, footnote ; commands
R. I. militia, 212

Dunbar, David: surveyor of woods,
and lieut.-gov. of N.H., 143 ; owes
appointment to Bladen, 145

Dunic, George: see Halifax, Earl of

East India Company: 29

Eden, Charles (gov. of N. Car.) : 150

Edgecombe, Richard (member of
Board of Trade) : 58

Egerton, John (Earl of Bridge-
water) : 28

Ellis, Henry (gov. of Ga.) : 139

Embargo: 335

Everard, Richard (gov. of N. Car.) :
96

Excise: 245

Fane, Francis: member of Board of
Trade, 50; attorney for Board of
Trade, 75; opinion on N. Y. tri-
ennial act, 228, footnote; report
on Penn. laws, 246

Fane, Thomas (Earl of Westmore-
land) : 34

Fauquier, Francis (gov. of Va.) :

345-346
Fish: 245-246
Fletcher, Benjamin (gov. of N. Y.) :

cited, 239; asks for supplies, 321
Florida: 130
Forests: 314
France: 286-287

Franklin, Benjamin: attempts to
cure papers, 76; gives bond, 263,
footnote

Franklii^ William: 153

French: 326

French and Indian War: colonial
expenses^ 121; opportunity for as-
semblies, 176-177; outbreak, 193

Gansevobrt, Harms (town clerk of
Albany) : 199

George I: Board of Trade changes
at accession^ 34; leaves affairs to
ministers, 88

Georgia: crown pays expenses, 130;
civil list, 194; Indians, 337

Gibraltar: 91, footnote

Gooch, William (gov. of Va.) : 67,
footnote

Governor, Colonial: weakness, 154-
158; dependent upon assembly,
155; complaints against, 156;
maintains agent, 156; forced to
sign bills, 23a Instructions -^
how drawn, 115, 124; powers of
assemblies, 173; fixed salaries,
183-195; genera] revision, 191-
192; commissions of judges, 195-
196, 199, 200-201, 204.; limit legis-
lation, 243-245, 249, 254-256;
regulate private bills, 257; ap-
peals, 279-280; require suspending
clause, 316; land grants in Indian
country, 346-347; see Assembly

Green Briar River: 345

Grenville, George: 175

Grenville, James: 50^ 58

Grenville, Richard: 50

Grey, Ford (Earl of Tankerville) :
29

Grey, Thomas (Earl of Stamford) :

3a
Guernsey (island) : 84

Haldane,. (gov. of Jamaica): 152
Halifax, Earl of: president of Board

384 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

of Trade, 39; demands more
power, 40; Halifax (Nova Sco-
tia) named in hit honor, 40;
«n«rgy, 47; rtngfo, 47-4S, 50;
asks admission to cabinet, 48;
king objects, 49 ; remains in office,
49; admitted to cabinet, 50; re-
tires from Board of Trade, 54;
goes to Ireland, 59; length of
service, 60; Pownall an adviser,
77; attendance at committees,
100; makes Board of Trade effi-
cient, 114; protects Nova Scotia,
123; controls patronage, 151;
connection with Indian plan, 350

Hamilton, W. G : 53, 59, 149

Hardy, Josiah: removed from office,
152-153, 205; demands for reve-
nue, 177 ; commissions judges, 203 ;
cited, 343

Hedges, Sir Charles: 128, footnote

Hemp: 3x0-311

Hill, Abraham: 30

Hillsborough, Earl of: secretary of
state for colonies, 56 ; colonial pol-
icy, 56-57; resigns, 57

Holdemess, Earl of: modifies em-
bargo, 335; cited, 340

Howard, Henry (Earl of SuflFolk) :

34
Hudson's Bay Company: boundary,

63; claims, 286

Hunter, Robert (gov. of N. Y.) :
trouble with factions, 156-157;
struggle with assembly, 163-164,
183-185; asks aid of Parliament,
164; secures antendments to reve-
nue act, 243; appoints boundary
commission, 291

Hutcheson, Archibald: 149

Hyde, Edward (gov. of N. Car.):
149

Immigration: colonies regulate, 245-
247; laws vetoed, 246-247, 248-
249; from colonies, 251-252

Indians: agenti, 341; alliaiioei» s>5*
3*6, 339, 34^-343; cl«inM, 2«6,
^95, 338, 343» 34^, 347-S4« ; tnule,
241, 24a, 249, 341-34^ 349-356;
treaties, 333, 339, 34a-343; Chero-
keea, 242; Creeks, 242; Five Na-
tions, 286; Mohegana, 295, 338;
Six Nations, 333, 337-338, 540-
341; Twightwees [Miamb], 540;
general poliqr, 336, 339; given
presents, 336-337, 340; miatioa-
aries and artificers, 337-33S, 351-
352; attack settlers, 339-340; land
cessions, 340, 343-348f 353 ; d»-
like westward expansion, 342-343 ;
fear English success, 345; Tremty
of Paris increases problem^ 347-
348; Board of Trade protects
rights, 347-348; general plan
proposed, 349-35^; cost, 354; sale
of rum, 354; plan abandoned, 354-

355
Industrial and Social Conditioos:
unsatisfactory to English mer-
chants, 20; inheritance, Z012-X03,
238; forest conservation, izz, 127;
production of naval stores^ zz6-
117, 127-128, 306-308; production
of potash, Z19; paper money af-
fects, I20, 314-3Z9; mining, zaS,
311; means of communication,
133-141; shipping, 238-240, 307-
31Z; ports and towns, 239-34Z,
254-256; tobacco, 240; manufac-
turing, 24Z, 302-3Z2; immigration,
245-252; slaves, 247-250, 262;
land holding, 25Z-252, 270; pro-
tection of debtors, 253; growth of
population, 253-254; westward
movement, 326-342; Indians, 336-

356

Instructions: see Governor

Ireland: 87

Iron: colonial production, Z28, foot-
note, 311; import 'duty, 3ZZ-3Z2;
bill regulates manufacture, 3Z2

INDEX

385

Itle of Man: 91, footnote

Jamaica: appealsi 95; judiciary act,
aoi; trieimial bill, 230-231

JemringB, Edmund (ace of Va.) :
Z4S, footnote

Jcnynt, Soame: 60

Jersey (island): appeals, 84, 91;
stores for, 95

Jersesrs: 2x3; see New Jersey

Johnson, Sir Matthew (gov. of N.

Car.): i35-«3^»' «49

Johnson, Sir William: colonel of
Six Nations, 338-339; superin-
tendent of Six Nations, 340-341;
clashes with Shirley, 341; Board
of Trade consults, 342, 349-350

Judiciary: sent from England, 196-
X97; tenure of office, 153, 195-209;
poliqr of Board of Trade, 197,
200-204; independence, X98-200;
termination of commissions, 202;
made uniform, 204-206; causes ill
feeling in America, 208-209 ; sum-
mary, 363

Kanawha Rivbr: 345
Knowles, Admiral: 298, footnote

Lamb, Matthew: 75

Land: holding, 251-252; seating,
251-252; titles, 287

Laud, Archbishop: 17

Laws, Colonial: submitted to crown,
225; suspending clauses, 226;
number disallowed, 227; how
considered, 264-267.

Disallowance > reasons : en-
croach upon prerogative, 228;
regulate duty of | patent officer,
229; hamper military operations,
229; change charters granted by
king, 230; ecclesiastical, 231-232,
261-262; permit affirmations, 233;
aflfect materia] interest of crown,
233; inoooststent with laws of

England, 234; fail to recognize
right of appeal, 236; interfere
with admiralty courts, 236; create
novel rules ol procedure, 237; in-
flict unusual penalties, 237;
change value of money, 237-238;
change laws of inheritance, 238;
interfere with customs regula-
tions, 239; discriminate in favor
of provincial shipping, 239-240;
burden English shipping, 240; in-
terfere with tobacco culture, 240;
burden trade, 24X ; regulate Indian
trade, 241-242 ; discriminate
against English commerce, 242;
regulate foreign commerce, 242-
245; burden English merchants,
245; regulate immigration, 1246;
regulate slave trade, 247-249;
regulate inter-colonial trade, 249-
25 z ; injure neighbors, 251 ; create
large land holdings, 245-252; af-
fect private property, 252-253 ; in-
crease size of lower house, 254-
256 ; violate instructions, 257-261 ;
lack suspending clause, 257-261;
repeal laws already confirmed,
262. General: in royal pro-
vinces, 225; in diarter colonies,
225-226, 264; not a veto, 226;
king not responsible, 227; impor-
tance, 227-228; Board of Trade
controls, 227-228; involves consti-
tutional test, 234-235; procedure,
263-274; causes confusion, 272-
273; irritating, 273

Leeward Islands: 216

Legge, William: see Dartmouth

Legislation, Colonial : treatment, 364-
365; see Assembly, Laws

Livingston, Robert: 338

Locke, John: 28, 33

London: coal supply, 87, footnote;
musicians and dancing masters,
91, footnote

Lords, House of: 127

386 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

Louisiana: 326
Lumber: 311

Lyttelton, W. H. (gov. of S. Car.) :
152; iDstructionB, 342

Markmam, William: 149

Marlborou^, Duke of: 32

Maryland: laws against popery,
125, footnote; civil list, 194; ports,
240; manufacture of woolens, 304-
305; production of naval stores,
308

Massachusetts: Andros regime, 19;
boundary disputes^ 95, 105, 293-
295; encroachments of assembly,
177-178; ports, 239; excise, 245;
suspending clause, 257-258, 317-
318; private bills, 258; divorce
acts, 260, footnote; bills of credit,
314; military stores, 322

Meadows, Sir Philip: 32

Methuen, John: 30

Mildmay, Benjamin: 35

Militia: 2x0

Mississippi River: 326

Mohawk country: Indian claims,
338 ; land grants, 343

Molasses Act: z 17-118

Mompesson^ Roger: 196

Money: foreign coins, 128; assembly
supplies, 159; how expended, 159;
annual grants, 176-177; see Bills
of Credit

Monson, Lord John: president of
Board of Trade, 35; service, 61;
explains objections to laws^ 102,
footnote

Montgomery, John: 143, footnote

Moore, Arthur: 33

Morris, Lewis (gov. of N. J.) :
quoted, 166; vetoes paper money
bill, 171; describes conditions in
N. J., 166 ; salary, 189-190

Morris^ Robert Hunter: 35, footnote

Morris, William: 147

Mosley, Edward: 171, footnote

Naval Stores: bounties, zz6-ix7»
306-307; colonial production^ 127-
Z28, 307-308; South Carolina
taxes, 250; object of encourage-
ment, 306-307; discouraged in Va.
and Md., 308

Nevis (island) : councillors, 95 ;
relief of settlers, 121

Newcastle, Duke of: referred to^ 35,
footnote^ 122, 135, 332, 358; sub-
ordinates Board of Trade, 36,
112; influence with Halifax, 54;
attendance at committees, 100^
footnote; attendance at Board of
Trade, 110, footnote; corretpond-
ence with governors, 1x2; in-
fluence pernicious, 113-1x4; or-
ders, X13-1X4; controls patronage,
144, 148; executive ability, 145;
interferes with appointments, 151 ;
attempts to frighten Mass., x86

New England: Andros r^gime^ 19;
manufacture of woolens, 305-306;
see various colonies

New Foundland: 280

New Hampshire: extraordinary
laws, 273 ; boundary dispute, 290

New Jersey: report of conditions, 74;
disorders, no; unusual claims,
121 ; civil list, 189-191 ; separation
from N. Y., 189; weakness of
government, 190-191 ; judiciary,
204-205; triennial act, 228; im-
portation of criminals, 245-246;
boundary dispute, 291-292; see
Assembly

New York: report of conditions, 74,
19Z ; boundaries, 82, 288-289, 291-
292, 293-295; bills of credit, 82,
316; civil list, 127; mail service,
133; revenue acts, 182, 243;
judges* salaries, 198-199; judges'
commissions, 199-204; triennial
act, 228; duties on slaves, 248;
claims, 286; defense, 320; im-
portance, 323-324; see Assembly

INDEX

387

Noell, Martin: 18

North Carolina: ordnance stores, 95 ;
admiralty jurisdiction, 96; isola-
tion, 13 3- 1 34; bad mail service,
135; dispatches, 137; judiciary,
202, 207; biennial act, 228; quit
rents, 233 ; Indian trade, 249; new
counties, 254-255; boundary dis-
pute, 290; defense, 325; see As-
sembly

Nova Scotia: protection, 122; crown
supports government, 130; civil
list, 194; claims, 286

Ohio Company: 329

Ohio country: disputes over posses-
sion, 109; settlers, 345

Ohio River: 351

Orders in Council : boundary between
Conn, and N. Y., 82; bills of
credit, 82-83 ; see Laws, Governor,
Privy Council

Osbom, Sir Danvers: resists irregu-
lar money bills, 176; instructions,
192, 340

Oswego: 328

Paris, F^ J: cited, 71; employed in
colonial matters, Z07; comments
on Pennsylvania assembly, 170;
quoted, 275-276

Paris, Treaty of: 347

Parliament: relations with Board of
Trade, 73, 127-131; appropriates
money for colonies, 121; reports
delayed, 134-135; revenue for N.
Y., 183-184

Parsons' Cause: 231

Partridge, Richard: 71, footnote

Patronage: 142-148, 151; see Ap-
pointments

Paupers: 246

Pelham, Henry: 54

Pelham, Thomas: 59-60

Penn, William: influence, 108; ap-
points governors, 149; bill for

surrender of proprietary rights,
213, footnote

Pennsylvania: laws, 95; civil list,
194; judiciary, 201; immigration,
246-247; importation of slaves,
247-248; amends laws, 273-274;
bounty laods in Indian country,
342-343 ; see Assembly, Laws

Petty, William Fitzmaurice: see
Shelbume, Earl of

Phillips vs. Savage: 275

Phips, Sir William (gov. of Mass.) :
210

Pitt, John: 58

Pitt, William : 50, 56

Pollexfen, John: 29

Pontiac: conspiraqr, 347

Popple, Alured : clerk of reporta^ 74 ;
career, 79

Portugal: illegal trade, 109, foot-
note; market for rice, 310

Postage: 137-141

Povey, Thomas: 18

Pownall, John: clerk of reports, 74;
career, 77-78; key to Halifax in-
fluence, 78

Pownall, Thomas: transferred to S.
Car., 152; warned, 177-178

Pratt, Benjamin: 206

Prior, Mat^ew: 33

Private Bills: instructions, 256-261;
suspending clause, 257; regula-
tions, 258-259; in southern colo-
nies, 259; disallowance, 260-261;
of unusual character, 260261

Privy Council : work, 14 ; registering
body, 89; dissolved, 93; regulates
appeals from Board of Trade, Z05-
106; relations to the Board of
Trade, 128, 359. Committees of^
"Foreign Plantations," 18 ; "Trade
and Plantations," 19; Board of
Trade a committee, 8z ; for hear-
ing appeals, 83, 88; names de-
scribe business, 84; standing or
special, 84-85; variety of names

388 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

in reign of William, 84-85; one
committee, 85 ; cabinet council, 85 ;
penoonel, 85-86; common names,
86, footnote \ during reign of
Anne, 86-88; general plantation
business, 88; of the whole, 89;
variety of names, 90; descriptions
misleading, 91; personnel during
reign of George I, 9a; any three
a committee, 93; has various
names, 94; names no guide, 94-98 ;
usage settles upon names, 99;
work formal, 100; names descrip-
tive, 100; coordinates various de-
partments, loi; summary of
growth, 359-360

Procedure: before Privy Council,
92; appeals, 96-99; reports of
Board of Trade, 101-102; Board
of Trade and Privy Council com-
pared, 103-104; appeals from
Board of Trade, 105-106 ; dilatory
motions, 104-108; laws affecting
religion, 124; private bills, 257;
disallowance of laws, 263-274; be-
fore committee of council, 270;
boundary disputes, 288-291; per-
manent defenses, 324-325

Proclamation of 1763: 348-349

Pulteney, Daniel: 37

Quakers: 232-233

Quary, Robert: 117

Quit rents: in Va., 198; laws regu-
lating, 233-234; danger of loss,
288; in back country, 327; west-
ward expansion increases, 328

Randolph, Edward: agent for Board
of Trade, 117; bill against charter
colonies, 213, footnote

Rhode Island: trouble with Andros,
19; boundary dispute, 95, 105, 290;
illegal trade, 109, footnote; mili-
tary commissions, 211; admiralty
courts, 235

Rice: 310
Rice, George: 59
Rigby, Richard: 54
Roberts, John: 54
Romer, Colonel : 323
Rye (N. Y.): 2S8-a89

St. Chmstopher (island) : relief of
settlers, Z2z; claims, 2S6

St Luda: 286

Salaries: Board ol Trade, 22, 46,
footnote^ 48, footnote^ 68-69; gov-
ernors, 183-195; judidaiy, 19S-
199, 202-203, 306

Saltar, Richard: 146

Sandys, Samuel: 55

Schenectady: 323

Secretary of State for Southern
Department: responsible for colo-
nial business^ 107; reladons to
Board of Trade, zo8, iio^ zjo;
oontrob colonial patronage, 142

Seville, Treaty of: 74

Sharpen Horatio: struggle with Md.
assembly, 157; commander of mili-
tary forces, 333

Shelbume, Earl of: 55-56, 60

Shipbuilding: 3 10-3 11

Shipping: 307-308

Shirley, Wm: correspondence with
Board of Trade, 136, footnote \
clashes with Johnson, 341

Shute, Samuel (gov. of Mass.) :
quarrel with legislature, 91, foot-
note] describes constitution, 167-
169

Slaves: importation, 248-249; as
real estate, 262

Slave trade: 247-249

Smuggling: between Carolina and
Portugal, 109, footnote \ during
Molasses Act, 117- 118, footnote \
Board of Trade reports, 296-297;
between Carolina, Cura^a, and St.
Thomas, 297; suggestions for
checking, 297; testimony of Ad-

INDEX

389

roiral Knowles, 298, footnote; in
time of war, 298-299; flags of
truce, 298-299
Society for Propagation of Gospel:

338
Somnas, Peter: 91, footnote
South Carolina: boundary dispute,

290; rice, 310; crown resumes,

326-327; immigration, 328-329;

Indians, 337; see Assembly, Laws
Spotswood, Alexander: 65-66
Stair, Earl of : 2x5
Stamp Act: 193
Stamp Tax: Bladen suggests, z88;

object, 216
Stanhope, Earl of: iii
Stay Laws: 253
Stepney, George: 33
Stone, Andrew: 54
Sunderland, Charles, Earl of: zo8,

footnote
Sunderland, Robert, Earl of: 22
Supplies (military) : 321-323
Surveyors: 349
Sweden: 62, footnote

Talcott, Joseph (gov. of Conn.):
letters to Board of Trade, Z34;
letters opened, 138

Tariff: 249-250

Taxes (colonial) : on paupers and
criminals, 246-247; on slaves, 247-
248; on Quakers, 267-269

Temporary acts: 273

Thomas, Edward: 59

Tiverton (Mass.) : 267-269

Tobacco: size of hogsheads, 240;
production, 308

Tobago (island) : 286

Tonnage duties: 239

Towns: 240

Townshend, Charles: 53, 55, 60

Trade: Board of Trade controls, 24,
62; action of laws, 1x6-1x7; Eng-
lish laws, 149; discriminating
laws, 249-251; colonial market,

30Z ; liberal policy favored, 301 ;
conditions, 300-301; in wool, 302-
306; danger of losing, 303-304;
increased, 3*8-332; embargo, 335;
see Commerce, Smuggling.

Treasury, Great Britain : support for
American industries, 1x9; claims
from colonies, XZ9; relations with
Board of Trade, 119-X2X

Treaties: commercial, 62-65; of Se-
ville, 74; with France, 286-287;
with Indians, 320-343; of Paris,

347-34«
Troops: 323

Turner, Sir Charles: 128, footnote

Union: difficulties, 209; military
2x0-2x1, 2x6-2x7; powers of char-
ter and proprietary colonies, 212-
2x3; Bellomont commission, 2zx-
2x2; plan of X72X, 2x4-2x6; Al-
bany plan, 2x7; Board of Trade
has plan, 2x8-222; fails, 222

United States: 63

Vaughn, George: xxx

Veto, Royal: mentioned, 14; in Eng-
land, 225; of colonial laws, 225-
283; has two meanings, 226-227;
see Laws

Virginia: ports, xx6, X40; tobacco
shipping, XX 6, footnote; ministers'
salaries, 125, footnote; mail ser-
vice, X33; appointment of gov-
ernor, .X51; civil list, X94; quit
rents, 234; importation of crimi-
nals, 245 ; duties on slaves, 248 ;
boundary dispute, 290; manufac-
ture of clothing, 305 ; naval stores,
308; military supplies, 322; de-
fense, 327; western settlements,
327; Ohio Company grant, 329;
large land holding, 330; see As-
sembly, Laws

Wager, Sir Charles: 166

390 AMERICAN COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

Walpole, Robert: 40, 58, 358

Wentworth, Benning (gcnr^ of N.
H.): oorrespondence, 67, footnote;
appointment, 142-143

West, Richard: attorney for Board
of Trade, 75; opinions cited, 249-
250, 268

West, William : 92, footnote

West Indies: plantations, 18; mail
service, 141

Westward Expansion: Board of
Trade favors, 326-332; mountain
passes, 327-328; in New York,
328 ; Ohio Company, 329 ; west of
mountains, 330-331; in Ga., 331-
332; limitation to policy, 331-332;
summary, 355-35^

Westward Movement: Spotswood
favors, 65, footnote; multiplies
civil divisions, 254; endangers In-
dian alliances, 342-343

White Pine Bill: 314

Wilks, Francis: Z05

William III : 20

Winthrop vs, Ledunere: Z02, 274-
276

Woods: protection, iiz, 314; maat
trees, 127; warvtyon^ 143

Wool: 303-305

Woolens: danger of colonial manu-
facture, 241; supply fails in
America, 302; export to colonies,
302-303; trade fostered, 302-306;
colonists numuf acture, 304-305 ;
trade endangered, 309; divertiog
Americans from manufacture, 309-
3x0

Wraxall, Peter: 199

YoRKE, Charles: report on judges*
commissions, 205; attorney for
Winthrop, 275

Yorke, John: 59

VITA

Oliver Morton Dickerson was born in Jasper County, Illinois,
September 8, 1875. He received his early education in the public
schools of that county and in the Illinois State Normal University
at Normal, Illinois, graduating from the latter in 1899. The fol-
lowing two years he was principal of schools at Macon, Illinois.
In the autumn of 1901 he entered the University of Illinob, where
he received junior standing in the College of Literature and Arts,
elected history as his major subject, and graduated with the degree
of Bachelor of Arts, in June, 1903. He was appointed to a Fel-
lowship in History in the Graduate School of the University of
Illinois for the ensuing year, taught one class in European history,
but spent most of his time in graduate study, receiving the degree
of Master of Arts in 1904. In May, 1904, he was tendered a
Thayer Scholarship in Harvard University and spent the year of
1904-1905 in the Graduate School of that institution, working
under the special direction of Professor Edward Channing. The
following year he returned to the University of Illinois as Fellow
in History, continued his graduate study under the direction of
Professor Evarts B. Greene, and was granted the degree of Doctor
of Philosophy in history in June, 1906.

The summers of 1903, 1905, and 1906 he taught history and
government in the Illinois State Normal University, and a part of
the summer of 1906 taught history in the University of Illinois.
In June, 1906, he was appointed head of the Department of His-
tory in the Western Illinois State Normal School at Macomb, the
position which he now holds. In 1908 he was granted a leave of
absence for half a year to pursue hus investigations in American
history abroad. The greater portion of this time was spent in
London, England, at the Public Record Office, British Museum,
and Privy Council Office.

He is a member of Gamma Chapter, Phi Beta Kappa, the Har-
vard History Club, North Central History Teachers* Association,
Illinois Historical Society, Mississippi Valley Historical Society,
American Political Sdence Association, and the American Histori-
cal Association.

Aside from several short addresses he has published in the Uni-
versity of Illinois Studies, "A History of the Illinois Constitu-
tional Convention of 1862."

.1 '

iMpiliiiin ^, X

3 tias DID 322 71,1 '^'^

STANFORD UNIVERSITY IIBRARIES

STANFORD AUXILIARY LIBRARY

STANFORD, CALIFORNIA 94305-6004

(415) 723-9201

All books may be recalled afler 7 days

DATE DUE

2CD i:AP^i':3

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "American Colonial Government 1696-1765: A Study of the British Board of Trade in Its Relation to ..."

See other formats