CHAPTER IV.

Committees and Councils Under the Restoration.

Charles II landed at Dover on May 25, 1660 and on the twenty-seventh

named at Canterbury four men, General Monck, the Earl of Southampton,

William Morrice, and Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, who took oath as privy

councillors. Others who had been members of the Council on foreign soil

or were added during the month following the return of the King swelled

the number to more than twenty. The first meeting of the Privy Council

was held on May 31, and it was inevitable that during the ensuing weeks

many petitions concerning the various claims and controversies which

had been agitating merchants and planters during the previous years

and had been reported on by the Committee for America should have been

brought to the attention of the Council. Such matters as appointments to

governorships and other offices, the political disturbances in Antigua,

Barbadoes, and Jamaica, the titles to Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and

Barbadoes, became at once living issues. Many of the petitions were from

the London merchants, and we may not doubt that the personal influence

of those whose names have been already mentioned was brought to bear

upon the members of the Council. It became necessary, therefore,

for the King and his advisers to make early provision for the proper

consideration of colonial business in order that the colonies might

be placed in a position of greater security and in order that the

West Indian and American trade, from which the King and his Chancellor

expected important additions to the royal revenue, might be encouraged

and extended. Among the petitions received in June, 1660, were two from

rival groups of merchants interested in the governorship and trade of

the island of Nevis. One of these petitions desired the confirmation

of the appointment of Col. Philip Ward as governor of Nevis; the other

the reappointment of the former governor, Russell. This was the first

difficult question that had yet arisen, for Berkeley's return to

Virginia was a foregone conclusion, while the condition and settlement

of Nova Scotia, Barbadoes and Jamaica were to be of importance later.

Acting on these petitions regarding Nevis, only the second of which is

entered in the Privy Council Register, the King in Council appointed

on July 4, 1660, a committee, known as "The Right Honorable the Lords

appointed a Committee of this Board for Trade and Plantations." The

members were Edward Montague, Earl of Manchester, the Lord Chamberlain;

Thomas Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, the Lord Treasurer; Robert

Sydney, Earl of Leicester; William Fiennes, Lord Say and Seale; John

Lord Robartes; Denzil Holles, Arthur Annesley, Sir Anthony Ashley

Cooper, and the Secretaries of State, Sir Edward Nicholas and Sir

William Morrice. The committee was instructed to meet on every Monday

and Thursday at three o'clock in the afternoon, "to review, heare,

examine, and deliberate upon any petitions, propositions, memorials, or

other addresses, which shall be presented or brought in by any person or

persons concerning the plantations, as well in the Continent as Islands

of America, and from time to time make their report to this board of

their proceedings."[1]

It is evident from the wording of these instructions that the committee

was designed to be a continuous one and to carry on the work of the

former committee for foreign plantations of the Council of State. There

is no essential difference between these committees, except that one

represented a commonwealth and the other a monarchy. We pass from the

one arrangement to the other with very little jar, and with much less

sense of a break in the continuity than when we pass from the system

under the Republic to that under the Protectorate. The Privy Council

committee had all the essential features of a standing committee and,

after the experiment with separate and select councils had proved

unsatisfactory, it assumed entire control of trade and plantation

affairs in 1675, a control which it exercised until 1696. Though an

occasional change was made in its membership and some reorganization was

effected in 1668, the Lords of Trade of July 4, 1660, commissioned with

plenary powers by patent under the great seal, became the Lords of Trade

of February 9, 1675.

From 1660 to 1675 this committee of the Privy Council played no

insignificant part although, after the creation of the councils, it was

bound to be limited in the actual work that it performed. During the

four months after its appointment it was the only body that had to do

with trade and plantations except the Privy Council, which occasionally

sat as a committee of the whole for plantation affairs. During the

summer the committee considered with care and a due regard for all

aspects of the case the claims of various persons to the government of

Barbadoes. Despite the opposition of Modyford, who had been commissioned

governor by the Council of State the April before, and John Colleton,

one of the Council of Barbadoes, and despite the efforts of Alderman

Riccard and other merchants of London, Francis Lord Willoughby was

restored to the government under the claims of the Earl of Carlisle.

At the same time the claims of the Kirks, Elliott, and Sterling to Nova

Scotia were examined and eventually decided in favor of Col. Temple, the

governor there. Willoughby immediately appointed Capt. Watts governor of

the Caribbee Islands, himself, through his deputy, took the governorship

of Barbadoes, Modyford became governor of Jamaica, Berkeley of Virginia,

and Russell of Nevis. It is at least worthy of recall that Willoughby,

Watts, Temple, and Russell were all within the circle of Povey's

friends, that Povey and Noell both petitioned the King for Russell's

reappointment, and that Temple wrote Povey begging him to exert his

influence in his (Temple's) behalf, lest he lose the governorship. Povey

was certainly in high favor with the monarchy; in 1660 he was appointed

treasurer to the Duke of York and Master of Requests to his Majesty

in Extraordinary June 22, 1660,[2] and during the years that followed

he held office after office and with all the skill of a politician

continued to find offices for his kinsmen. William Blathwayt, of later

fame, was his nephew. Noell was no less honored; he became a member of

the Royal Company of Merchants, the Royal African Company, the Society

for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England, and was finally

knighted in 1663 and died in 1665.[3] As we shall see, both men became

very active in the affairs of the plantations, and it is more than

likely that the opinions of the King in Council were not infrequently

shaped by their suggestions and advice.

How early the decision was reached to create separate councils of trade

and foreign plantations it is impossible to say. Some time between May

and August, 1660, Povey must have planned to recast his "Overtures"

and to present them for the consideration of the King. At first he

endeavored to adapt those of 1657 to the new situation by substituting

"Foreign Plantations" for the "West Indies," "Ma^{tie}" for "Highness,"

and "his Ma^{ties} Privie Councill" for "the great Councill"; but

he finally decided to present a new draft, in which, however, he

retained many of the essential clauses of the former paper. Whether the

recommendations of Povey as presented in the "Overtures" influenced Lord

Clarendon to recommend such councils to the King we cannot say; it is

more likely that the practice adopted under the Protectorate had already

commended itself to the Chancellor, who was beginning to show that

interest in the plantations which characterizes the early years of his

administration. That he should have consulted Noell and Povey and other

London merchants is to be expected of the man who for at least five

years kept up a close correspondence with Maverick of New England,

Ludwell of Virginia, and D'Oyley, Littleton, and Modyford in the

West Indies,[4] and who was constantly urging upon the King the

importance of the plantations as sources of revenue and the great

financial possibilities that lay in the improvement of trade. On August

17, 1660, the King in Council drafted a letter to "Our very good Lord

the Lord Maior of the Citty of London & to the Court of Aldermen of the

said City," reading as follows:

"After our hearty commendations these are to acquaint you, That

his Majesty having this day taken into his princely consideration

how necessary it is for the good of this kingdom, that Trade and

Commerce with foreign parts, be with all due care, incouraged

and maintayned, And for the better settling thereof declared his

gracious intention to appoint a Committee of understanding able

persons, to take into their particular consideration all things

conducible thereunto; We do by his Ma^{ts} special command and

in order to the better carrying on of this truly royal, profitable,

and advantageous designe, desire you to give notice hereof

unto the Turkey Merchants, the Merchant Adventurers, the East

India, Greenland, and Eastland Companys, and likewise to the

unincorporated Traders, for Spain, France, Portugal, Italy, and

the West India Plantations; Willing them out of their respective

societies to present unto his Majesty the names of fower of their

most knowing active men (of whom, when his Majesty shall have

chosen two and unto this number of merchants added some other

able and well experienced persons, dignified also with the

presence and assistance of some of his Majesty's Privy Council)

All those to be by his Ma^{tie} appointed constituted and authoried

by commission under the Great Seal as a Standing Committee, to

enquire into and rectify all things tending to the Advancement

of Trade and Commerce; That so by their prudent and faithful

council and advice, his Ma^{tie} may (now in this conjuncture,

whilst most Foraigne Princes and Potentates doe, upon his Ma^{ties}

most happy establishment upon his throne, seek to renew their

former Allyances with this Crowne), insert into the several

Treatyes, such Articles & Clauses as may render this Nation more

prosperous and flourishing in Trade and Commerce. Thus by prudence,

care, & industry improving those great advantages to the highest

point of felicity, which by its admirable situation Nature seems

to have indulged to this his Majesty's kingdom. So we bid you

heartily farewell."[5]

This letter was signed by Chancellor Hyde, Earl of Southampton, George

Monck, Earl of Albemarle, Lord Say and Seale, Earl of Manchester, Lord

Robartes, Arthur Annesley, and Secretary Morrice, who probably formed a

special committee appointed to draft it. Some time within the month the

answer of the Aldermen must have been received, for on September 19 the

Council ordered the attorney general "to make a draught of a commission

for establishing a Councell of Trade according to the grounds layed"

in the letter of the seventeenth of August, "upon the perusal whereof

at the Board his Ma^{tie} will insert the names of the said Counsell."

It is more than likely that the project for the second council, that of

plantations, went forward _pari passu_ with the Council for Trade and

that the letter to the Mayor and Aldermen served a double purpose. At

any rate that must have been the understanding among those interested at

the time, for on September 26, one Norwich, Captain of the Guards, who

had been in Clarendon's employ, sent in a memorial to the Chancellor

begging that the King employ him "in his customs and committees of trade

and forraign plantations."[6] The matter of drafting the commissions

must have taken some time, for they are not mentioned as ready for the

addition of names before the last week in October. The business of

making up the lists of members must have been a difficult and tedious

matter. Many lists exist among the Domestic Papers which contain

changes, erasures and additions, drafts and corrected drafts, which show

how much pains Clarendon and the others took to make the membership of

the Council of Trade satisfactory. A suggested list was first drawn up

containing the names of privy councillors, country gentlemen, customers,

merchants, traders, the navy officers, gentlemen versed in affairs, and

doctors of civil law. With this list was considered another containing

the names of the persons nominated by the different merchant companies.

Other lists seem also to have been presented.[7] Probably in much the

same way the list of the members of the Council for Foreign Plantations

was made up, but more slowly.

The commissions were both ready by October 25 and on November 7 had

reached the Crown Office (Chancery), ready to pass the great seal. The

commission for the Council of Trade passed the great seal on that day

and is dated November 7, 1660; but the commission for the Council for

Foreign Plantations was held back that the names of other members might

be added and it became necessary to have a new bill passed and duly

engrossed three weeks later.[8] Therefore the commission for the Council

for Foreign Plantations is dated December 1, 1660.

An analysis of the membership of these two councils and of the

membership of the Royal African Company, created soon after, shows many

points of interest. The Council of Trade consisted of sixty-two members,

that of Foreign Plantations of forty-eight,[9] and that of the African

Company of sixty-six. Twenty-eight members are common to the first two

bodies, eleven are common to the Council of Trade and the Royal African

Company, and eight are common to all three groups. These eight are John

Lord Berkeley of Stratton; Sir George Carteret, Sir Nicholas Crispe,

Sir Andrew Riccard, Sir John Shaw, Thomas Povey, Martin Noell, and

John Colleton. The other members common to the two councils are

Lord Clarendon, the Earl of Southampton, Earl of Manchester, Earl of

Marlborough, Earl of Portland, Lord Robartes, Francis Lord Willoughby,

Denzil Holles, Sir Edward Nicholas, Sir William Morrice, Arthur

Annesley, Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, William Coventry, Daniel O'Neale,

Sir James Draxe, Edward Waller, Edward Digges, William Williams, Thomas

Kendall, and John Lewis; while among the other members of the Council

for Foreign Plantations are such well-known men as Sir William Berkeley,

Capt. John Limbrey, Col. Edward Waldrond, Capt. Thomas Middleton,

Capt. William Watts, and Capt. Alexander Howe. Thus the merchants,

sea-captains, and planters, men thoroughly familiar with the questions

of trade and plantations and intimately connected with the plantations

themselves are members of the Council of Plantations and sometimes

of that of Trade also. It is significant that among the four London

merchants common to all three groups should be found the names of Noell

and Povey. Their associates, Crispe and Riccard, were persons well

known in the history of London trade, and probably the four names

represent the four most influential men among the merchants of London

who supported the King. When we turn to the work of these councils we

shall see that Povey and Noell were active members also.

However uncertain we may be regarding the influence of Povey and Noell

in shaping the policy of Clarendon and the King, that uncertainty

disappears as soon as we examine the instructions which were drafted

to accompany the commission for a Council for Foreign Plantations.

The instructions are little more than a verbal reproduction of the

"Overtures" which Povey drafted some time during the summer of 1660

for presentation to the King. They are based on the earlier overtures

and proposals and certain passages can be traced back unchanged to the

first "Overture" of 1654. Seven of the eleven clauses are taken from

the Povey papers as follows:

_Overtures._ _Instructions._

They may forthwith write letters 2. You shall forthwith write

to everie Governour ... requiring letters to evrie of our

an exact and perticular Account of Governo^{rs} ... to send unto

the State of their affairs; of the

nature and constitution of their 3. you ... perticular and exact

Lawes and Government, and in what accompt of the state of their

modell they move; what numbers of affaires; of the nature and

them, what Fortifications, and constitution of their lawes and

other Strengths, and Defences are governm^{t} and in what modell

upon the Places. and frame they move and are

disposed; what numbers of men;

what fortifications and other

strengths and defences are upon

the place.

To apply to all prudentiall meanes 5. To applie your selves to

for the rendering these Dominions all prudentiall means for the

usefull to England, and England rendering those dominions usefull

helpfull to them; and that the to England, and England helpful

Severall Pieces, and Collonies bee to them, and for the bringing the

drawn and disposed into a more severall Colonies and Plantacons,

certaine, civill, and uniform waie within themselves, into a more

of Government; and distribution of certaine civill and uniforme

publick justice. [waie] of government and for the

better ordering and distributeing

of publicque justice among them.

To settle such a continuall 4. To order and settle such a

correspondencie, that it may be able continuall correspondencie that

to give upp an account once a yeare you may be able, as often as you

to his Ma^{tie} of the Goverment of are required thereunto, to give

each Place; of their Complaints, up to us an accompt of the

their Wants, their Aboundance, of Governm'{t} of each Colonie; of

everie Shipp trading there, and its their complaints, their wants,

lading; and whither consign'd; and their abundance; of their severall

to know what the proceeds of that growths and comodities of every

Place have been that yeare; whereby Shipp Tradeing there and its

the instrinsick value, and the true ladeing and whither consigned and

condition of each part and of the what the proceeds of that place

whole may be thoroughly understood; have beene in the late years; that

and whereby a Ballance may be thereby the intrinsick value and

erected for the better ordering and the true condicon of each part of

disposing of Trade, and of the the whole may be thoroughly

growth of the Plantations, that soe, understood; whereby a more steady

each Place within itself and all of judgem^{t} and ballance may be

them being as it were made up into made for the better ordering and

one Comonwealth, may by his Ma^{tie} disposing of trade & of the

bee heere governd, and regulated proceede and improvem^{ts} of the

accordingly, upon common and equal Plantacons; that soe each place

principles. within it selfe, and all of them

being collected into one viewe and

managem^{t} here, may be regulated

and ordered upon commonand equall

ground & principles.

To enquire diligently into the 6. To enquire diligently into

Severall Governments and Councells the severall governm^{ts} and

of Plantations belonging to Councells of Colonies Plantacons

forreigne Princes, or States; and distant Dominions, belonging

and examine by what Conduct and to other Princes or States, and

Pollicies they govern, or benefitt to examine by what conduct and

their own Collonies, and upon what pollicies they govern or benefit

Grounds. And is to consult and them; and you are to consult and

provide soe, that if such Councells provide that if such councells be

be good, wholesome, and practicable, good wholesome and practicable,

they may be applyed to our use; or they may be applied to the case

if they tend, or were designed to of our Plantacons; or if they

our prejudice or Disadvantage, they tend or were designed to the

may bee ballanced, or turned-back prejudice or disadvantage thereof

upon them. or of any of our subjects or of

trade or comerce, how then they

may be ballanced or turned back

upon them.

To receive, debate, and favour 11. To advise, order, settle, and

all such Propositions as shall dispose of all matters relating to

be tendered to them, for the the good governm^{t} improvement

improvement of any of the forreigne and management of our Forraine

Plantations, or in order to any Plantacons or any of them, with

other laudable and advantageous your utmost skill direccon and

enterprize. prudence.

To call to its Advice and 7. To call to your assistance

Consultation from time to time, as from time to time as often as the

often as the matter in debate and matter in consideration shall

under consideration shall require, require any well experienced

any well experienced Persons, persons, whether merchants,

whether Mechants, or Seamen, or planters, seamen, artificers,

Artificers. etc.

In the "Overtures" there are no clauses corresponding to those in the

Instructions relating to the enforcement of the Navigation Act or to the

spread of the Christian religion; these may well be deemed Restoration

additions, inserted at Clarendon's request. But the clause concerning

the transportation of servants, poor men, and vagrants may well have

been Povey's own, for both Povey and Noell were interested in the

question and Noell had been in the business since 1654. In the "Queries"

is the following paragraph:

"Whither the weeding of this Comon Wealth of Vagabonds, condemned

Persons and such as are heere useless and hurtful in wars and

peace, and a settled course taken for the transporting them to

the Indias and thereby principally supplying Jamaica is not

necessary to be consulted."

Among the Povey papers is one entitled "Certain propositions for the

better accommodating the Forreigne Plantacons with Servants," which

Povey may have drawn up. Hence, there is no good reason to doubt but

that Povey wrote the entire draft of these instructions himself. Even

those portions that are not to be found in the "Overtures" are written

in Povey's peculiar and rather stilted style.

That Povey and Noell were the authors of the instructions given to the

Council of Trade it is not so easy to demonstrate. A preliminary sketch

of "Instructions for a Councill of Trade" as well as a copy of the final

instructions are to be found among the Povey papers and both Povey and

Noell were sufficiently familiar with the requirements of trade at that

period to have drafted such a document. The fact that the second paper

is but an elaboration of the first leads to the conclusion that they

bear to each other much the same relation that the "Overtures" bear

to the Instructions for the Council of Plantations:

FIRST DRAFT. FINAL INSTRUCTIONS.

1. You shall in the first place 1. You shall take into your

consider, and propound how to consideration the inconveniences

remedy inconveniencys of the the w^{ch} the English Trade hath

English trade, in all the respective suffered in any Partes beyond the

dominions of those Princes and Seas, And are to inquire into such

States with whom his Mat^{ie} may Articles of former Treaties as

renew Alliance, and to that end have been made with any Princes or

make due enquiry into such former States in relation to Trade, And

treaties as relate to Trade. to draw out such Observations or

Resolutions from thence, as may be

necessary for us to advise or

insist upon in any forreigne

Leagues or Allyances. That such

evills as have befallen these our

Kingdomes through the want of

good information in these great

and publique concernm^{ts} may be

provided against in tyme to come.

What Articles have bin provided 2. You are to consider how & by

in favour of the Trade of his whome any former Articles or

Ma^{ties} Subjects, How they have Treatyes have been neglected or

been neglected & Violated, What violated, what new Capitulations

new Capitulations may be necessary are necessary either to the

pro Ratione Rerum, et temporum. freedome of Sale of your

Commodities of all sorts, as to

And those, either in Relation: price & payment, Or to the best

expedition of Justice to the

1. To the freedome of Sale of your recovery of Debts, or to the

Commodities of all sorts, as to Security of Estates of all factors

price & payment. & their Principalls in case of the

factor's Death, Or to the

2. To the best expedition of prevention of those interruptions

Justice for recovery of your debts. w^{ch} the Trade & Navigations of

our Kingdomes have suffered by

3. To the security of the Estates Imbargoes of forreigne Princes or

of all factors, and their States, Or Imprestinge the Shipps

Principalls in case of the factor's of any of our Subjects, for their

death. Service.

4. To the Prevention of the 3. You are to consider well the

Interruption of the Trade & Interest of all such trades as

Navigation, by Embargos of forraigne are or shall be Incorporated

Princes & States, or imprestinge by our Royall Charters, & what

your Shipps to their Service. Jurisdictions are necessary to

be obteyned from such as are,

5. To the Interest of all Trades or shall be in Allyance with us,

that are or shall be incorporated for the more regular managem^{t}

by his Mat^{ies} Charters, what & governm^{t} of the Trade,

jurisdictyon is necessary to be & of the members of those our

obtained from our Allies, for Corporations & forreigne

the more regular government factories.

of the Trade & members of those

Corporations in forraigne 4. You are to consider of the

factoryes. several Manufactures of these our

Kingdomes how & by what occasions

2^{ly}. And next you shall they are corrupted, debased &

consider, how the reputation disparaged, And by what probable

of all the manufactures of his meanes they may be restored &

Mat^{ies} Kingdome may be recovered maintained in their auncyent

by a just regulation and standard goodness & reputation, And how

of weight, length, and breadth, they may be farther improved to

that soe the more profitable and there utmost advantage by a just

ample Vent of them may be procured. Regulation & Standard of weight

Length & Breadth, that soe the

private profitt of the Tradesmen

or Merchants may not destroy

the Creditt of the Commodity,

& thereby render it neglected

& unvended abroad, to the great

loss & scandall of these our

Kingdomes.

5. You are also to take into

your Consideration all the

native Commodities of the growth

& production of these our

Kingdomes, and how they may be

ordered, nourished, increased &

manifactured to the ymployment

of our People and to the best

advantage of the Publique.

4^{ly}. How the fishinge Trades 6. You are especially to

of Newfound Land, the Coasts consider of the whole business

of England, Irland, & New of fishings of these our

England may be most improoved, Kingdomes or any other of our

and regulated to the greatest distant Dominions or Plantations

advantage of the Stocke and & to consult of some effectuall

navigation of the nation, by meanes for the reinforceing

excludinge the intrusion of our encouraging & encreasinge, and

neighbors into it. for the regulating & carryinge

on of the Trade in all the

Parts thereof. To the end That

the People and Stock, and

Navigation of these our Kingdomes

may be ymployed therein and

our Neighbors may not be

enricht with that which soe

properly & advantagiously may

be undertooke & carryed on by

our own Subjects.

3^{ly}. How the Trade of the 7. You are seriously to

Kingdome to forraigne parts consider & enquire whether the

may be soe menaged and Importation of forreigne

proportioned, that we may in Commodityes doe not over-ballance

every part be more Sellers than the Exportations of such as are

buyers, that thereby the Coyne Native, And how it may be soe

and present Stocke of money may Ordered remedied, & proportioned

be preserved and increased. that we may have more

Sellers than Buyers in every

parte abroad, And that the

Coyne & present Stock of these

our Kingdomes, may be preserved

& increased, We judging,

that such a Scale & Rule of

proportion is one of the highest

and most prudentiall points

of Trade by w^{ch} the riches

& strength of these our Kingdomes,

are best to be understood

& maintained.

8. You are to consider & examine

by what wayes & means other

Nations doe preferr their owne

growths & Manifactures, &

Importations, & doe discourage

& suppress those of these

our Kingdomes, & how the best

contrivances and managem^{t}

of Trade, exercysed by other

Nations may be rendred applicable

& practicable by these our

Kingdomes.

9. You are well to consider all

matters relatinge to Navigation,

& to the increase, & the Security

thereof.

10. You are thoroughly to consider

the severall matters relatinge

to Money, how Bullonge may be

best drawne in hither, & how any

Obstructions upon our Mynt may

be best removed.

5^{ly}. How the forraigne 11. You are to consider the

Plantations may be made most useful general State & Condition of our

to the Trade & Navigation of these forreigne Plantations & of the

Kingdomes. Navigation Trade & severall

Commodityes ariseinge thereupon,

& how farr theire future

Improvem^{t} & Prosperitie may

bee advanced by any discouragement

Imposition or Restraint, upon

the Importation of all goods or

Commodityes w^{th} which those

Plantations doe abound, and may

supply these our Kingdomes, And

you are alsoe in all matters

wherein our forreigne Plantations

are concerned to take advise or

information (as occasion shall

require) from the Councell

appointed & sett apart by us to

the more perticuler Inspection

Regulation and Care of our

forreigne plantations.

12. You are to consider how

the transportation of such

things may be best restreined

and prevented, as are either

forbiddenby the Lawe,

or may be inconvenient,

or of disadvantage by being

transported out of these our

Kingdomes and dominions.[10]

The councils thus commissioned and instructed soon met for organization

and business, the Council for Plantations holding its preliminary

session December 10, 1660, in the Star Chamber, and all remaining

meetings in the Inner Court of Wards; the Council for Trade meeting,

first, in Mercer's Hall, near Old Jewry, afterwards in certain rooms in

Whitehall, still later in a rented house which was consumed in the great

fire, and, after 1667, in Exeter House, Strand. Philip Frowde became the

clerical secretary of the Plantation Council and George Duke secretary

of the Council of Trade, a position that he seems to have lost in 1663

but to have resumed again before 1667. The meetings were attended

chiefly by the non-conciliar members, for it was usually the rule that

privy councillors were to be present only when some special business

required their cooeperation. Both councils were organized in much the

same manner, with a number, at least seven, of inferior officers,

clerks, messengers, and servants, and in both cases journals of

proceedings and entry books containing copies of documents, patents,

charters, petitions, and reports were kept.[11] Whether minutes were

taken of the meetings of the subcommittees is doubtful; no such papers

have anywhere been found.

The Council for Plantations had a continuous existence from December 10,

1660, when the preliminary meeting was held, probably until the spring

of 1665, though August 24, 1664, is the date of its last recorded

sitting. During that time it shared in the extraordinary activity which

characterized the early years of the Restoration and represents, as far

as such activity can represent any one person, the enthusiasm of the

Earl of Clarendon. There was not an important phase of colonial life and

government, not a colonial claim or dispute, that was not considered

carefully, thoroughly, and, in the main, impartially by the Council.[12]

The business was nearly always handled, in the first instance, by

experts, for with few exceptions the working committees were made up

of men who had had intimate experience with colonial affairs or were

financially interested in their prosperity. The first committee, that of

January 7, 1661, for example, was composed of Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper,

who had been on plantation committees during the Interregnum; Robert

Boyle, president of the Corporation for the Propagation of the Gospel

in New England and one of the founders of the Royal Society; Sir Peter

Leere and Sir James Draxe, old Barbadian planters; Edmund Waller,

poet and parliamentarian, who had been interested in colonial affairs

for some years; General Venables, who knew Jamaica well; Thomas Povey,

Edward Digges, John Colleton (soon to be Sir John), Martin Noell (soon

to be Sir Martin), and Thomas Kendall, all merchants and experts on

colonial trade, and Middleton, Jefferies, Watts, and Howe, sea-captains

and merchants in frequent touch with the colonies. Other committees

were made up in much the same way, although the number of members was

usually smaller. When letters were to be written or reports drafted that

required skill in composition and embodiment in literary form, we find

the task entrusted to Povey alone or to Povey assisted by the poets

Waller and Sir John Denham. Povey was, indeed, the most active member

of the Council, serving as its secretary in much the same capacity

as on the Committee for America from 1657 to 1660.[13] On both these

boards he exemplified his own recommendation that there should be on

the Council "a Person who is to be more imediately concern'd and active

than the rest ... allwaies readie to give a full and digested account

and consideracon of any particular relating to those Affaires." Among

the Povey papers are many drafts of letters and reports in process of

construction, bearing erasures and additions which point to Povey as

their author.[14]

The Council for Plantations and its committees sat and deliberated

apart, the latter in Grocer's Hall; but the subjects under examination

were considered by both bodies. The subcommittees were frequently

instructed to call in persons interested, to write to others from whom

information could be obtained, and to pursue their investigations with

due regard for both sides of the case. Sometimes questions would be

submitted to the attorney general, to Dr. Walter Walker and others

from Doctors Commons, to special members of the Council who were more

familiar than the rest with the facts in the case. On at least one

occasion all the members of the Council were requested to bring in what

information they could obtain regarding a particular matter. Question

after question was postponed from one meeting to another, because the

Council had not obtained all the details that it felt should be in

hand before the report was sent to the King in Council. On a few

occasions members of the Council accompanied the report to the Privy

Council apparently with the intention of explaining or emphasizing

their recommendations. The subjects under debate concerned the internal

or external affairs of all the colonies. They related to Jamaica,

Barbadoes, Maryland, Virginia, and New England, including Nova Scotia,

Massachusetts, Maine, and Long Island; they dealt with Quakers, Jews,

vagrants, and servants, supplies, provisions, naval stores, emigrant

registration, and abuses in colonial trade; they included that burning

question of the period, the Dutch at New Amsterdam and the complaints

that arose regarding Holland as an obstruction to English trade. The

amount of time taken and pains expended on controversial points can be

inferred from an examination of the New England case, which was taken

up at the first regular meeting in January and was under examination

from that time until April 30, when the Council sent in its report.

Even then it was taken up by the Privy Council, referred to its own

committee, called the Committee for New England, and in one or two

particulars was sent back to the Council for further consideration.

In the performance of its duties the Council for Plantations can never

be charged with indolence or neglect. In the year 1661 alone it held

forty meetings, or an average of one every nine days.

After August, 1664, the records of the Council come to an end, but there

is reason to believe that the Council continued its sessions at least

until the spring of 1665. That the last meeting was not held on August

24 is certain, not only from the wording of the minute, which reads:

"ordered, being a matter of great moment and the day far spent, that the

further consideration be deferred for a week," but also from two further

references to the existence of the Council, of later date,--one dated

September 7, when the Council sent in a report regarding the proposed

establishment of a registry office, and the other in the form of an

endorsement upon a letter from Lord Willoughby which says: "Ref^{d} to

the Council, Feb. 24," that is February 24, 1665. It seems probable,

therefore, that the Council was sitting as late as February-March

of that year.[15] Probably its meetings were broken up by the plague

which started in London about that time, in the westernmost parish,

St. Giles-in-the-Fields, and lasted until the end of October. Whether

the Council resumed its sessions after the plague had subsided it is

almost impossible to say. No definite record exists of its meetings or

work. Some of its members had died, Sir Martin Noell in October, 1665,

and Sir Nicholas Crispe the next year; others had left England, Lord

Willoughby, Capts. Watts and Kendall, and possibly Sir James Draxe;

while others had accepted posts that took them away from London, as in

the case of Capt. Middleton, who became commissioner of the navy at

Portsmouth. Certainly Povey could have had very little to do with the

affairs of a council in London in 1664-1666, when as surveyor-general of

the victualling department he was required to be frequently at Plymouth

and to spend a considerable amount of time travelling about England.[16]

Yet there is nothing to show that its commission was revoked, and

an order of the Privy Council, September 23, 1667, to which further

reference will be made below, reads as if the Council were in existence

at that time. If so, it must have been merely a nominal body.

After 1665, and until 1670, plantation affairs seem to have been

controlled entirely by the Privy Council and its committees, which

proved themselves capable and vigorous bodies. Before 1666, besides

the Committee for Foreign Plantations, which has already been noticed,

other committees were appointed as occasion arose,--committees for

Jamaica, for Jamaica and Algiers, for the Guinea trade, for the Royal

Company, for fishing in Newfoundland, for Jersey and Guernsey, and

for New England. Committees for Trade and for hearing appeals from

the Plantations also existed. On December 7, 1666, after the plague

had subsided and the great fire had spent itself, the Privy Council

reappointed its plantation committee, which now entered upon a career of

greatly increased activity.[17] At the same time the Council made use of

its other committees, particularly the "Committee for the Affaires of

New England and for the bounding of Acadia," October 2, 4, 1667, which

took into consideration the question of the restitution of Acadia to the

French;[18] and it referred important matters of business to committees

of selected experts. Under these conditions the affairs of the colonies

were managed until the appointment of a new Plantation Council in

August, 1670.

The Council for Trade met in Mercer's Hall some time before November

13, 1660, and at its preliminary session considered that part of its

instructions which related to bullion and coin. On December 13, 1660, it

passed a resolution urging and inviting people and merchants to send in

petitions, and it requested the King to issue a proclamation defining

its powers in all matters relating to trade and manufactures and calling

on "any person, concerned in the matters therein to be debated or who

have any petition or invention to offer, to apply to them for redress

of evils brought on by the late times or for the improvement of trade

regulations."[19] In response to, this appeal a large number of

petitions, sent either to the Privy Council or directly to the Select

Council itself, were received, and the discussion of these petitions

and the preparing of reports upon them occupied the attention of the

Council during the first two years. These reports show that the Council

took its duties seriously and was thoroughly in earnest to improve,

if possible, the trade of the kingdom, and to carry out to the full

the commands which the King had laid upon it. There is not a clause

of the instructions to which it did not pay some attention, and upon

many matters it debated long and ardently, making reports that are as

valuable for the student of the trade policy of the seventeenth century

as are the familiar writings of well-known mercantilists. The Council

took up and discussed the export of bullion and coin, expressing its

opinion that the penalties should be withdrawn as injurious to trade,

because they prevented the English merchants from bringing their money

into the kingdom where it would be detained, and saying that money most

abounded in countries which enjoyed freedom from restraints on exports.

The trade in the Baltic, the East Indies, and the Levant to which trade

freedom to export bullion was preeminently important; the Merchant

Adventurers, regarding whose history and position the Council made

a valuable report, viewing the subject from the beginning; the East

India Company, whose petition,--largely reproduced in the report of the

Council,--contained a bitter arraignment of the Dutch, calling to mind

the "impudent affronts to the honor of this nation and the horrid

injuries done to the stock and commerce thereof," and demanding damages

and a definite regulation of trade in the forthcoming treaty with

Holland then under debate; treaties with foreign powers, clauses in

which concerning trade were taken up at the early meetings of the

Council; prohibition of imposts on foreign cloths and stuffs, regarding

which sundry shopkeepers, tradesmen, and artificers of London had

petitioned the Privy Council in November, 1660,[20]--all these matters

the Council took under consideration. It dealt with the granting of

patents, with the encouragement of home industries, particularly the

business of the framework knitters, silk-dyeing, and the manufacture of

tapestry, and with the establishment of an insurance company.[21] As far

as the plantations were concerned, its recommendations were few, and

were made chiefly in connection with reports on the ninth and eleventh

articles of its instructions, which touched upon convoys, imports,

and composition-ports. It drafted a carefully drawn list of necessary

convoys in which, of all the American plantations, only Newfoundland

is mentioned. It considered the importation of logwood and tobacco,

and upon the latter point made the suggestion "that all tobacco

of English Plantations do pay at importation 1/2d. a pound and at

exportation nothing." This recommendation was accompanied by a valuable

essay on trade in general. It dealt with the question of making Dover

a free port for composition trade and took the ground that the Acts

of Navigation should be inviolably kept. On this question the Earl of

Southampton, the Treasurer, and Lord Ashley (Cooper), Chancellor of the

Exchequer, took the opposite ground, favoring the freedom of the port,

"Dover having formerly been a port for free trade," and adding that

"a free trade thus settled we conceive might conduce to the advantage

of your Majesty's customs," trade being injured by the "tyes and

observances which the Act of Navigation places upon it." They reported

further that the farmers of the customs wished the Act to be dispensed

with in some cases.[22]

Regarding the attitude of the Council toward the sixth article

of its instructions, the promotion of the fisheries, we have fuller

information. At the session of December 17, 1663, there were present the

Earl of Sandwich, William Coventry, Sir Nicholas Crispe, Henry Slingsby,

Christopher Boone, John Lord Berkeley, Sir Sackville Crowe, Thomas

Povey, John Jolliffe, and George Toriano. Acting on a special order

from the King, they debated how best the fishing trade might be

gained and promoted, and how encouraged and advanced when gained.

They considered the respective merits of a commission and a corporation,

and whether, if a corporation should be agreed upon, it ought to be

universal or exclusive, perpetual or limited, a joint stock or a divided

stock, and what immunities and powers should be granted, the character

of the persons to be admitted and the number. Taking up each point in

turn, the members of the Council first considered "How to gain the Trade

of Fishery" and laid down seven methods: 1, 2, by raising money either

through voluntary contributions or through lotteries; 3, 4, by restraint

of foreign importation or by impositions upon all foreign importation;

5, by letters to all countries urging them to contribute such especial

commodities as cordage, lumber, boards, and the like, in exchange for

fish; 6, by declaring a war against the Dutch, and at the same time,

7, by naturalizing or indenizing all Hollanders who would come into

the English fishery. For the support of the trade when gained the

Council proposed: 1, to impose a proportion of fish upon every vintner,

innkeeper, alehouse-keeper, victualler, and coffee house in England;

2, to refuse all licenses for fish, which were to be paid for to the

corporation; 3, to take the stock of the poor of every parish and

provide for the impotent and aged only out of the product, and employ

such as were able to work in the fishery--the impotent in the making

of nets, etc.; 4, to require the gentlemen of all maritime counties

to raise a stock of money in their counties to be employed toward the

advance of the fishery; 5, to raise busses, _i. e._, Dutch herring

boats, and to set them forth to their own use and to receive the profits

in fish or in the product of it; 6, to employ the imposition laid upon

fish by the last Parliament for the purpose of advancing the trade; to

accept the offer of fishmongers to raise busses and money; 8, to require

the master and wardens of the company, and, 9, to encourage private

persons to do the same; 10, to bring over Dutchmen to teach the English

the art of curing, salting, and marking fish, and of making casks.

It was then decided, "after a long and solemne debate of the whole

matter," _nemine contradicente_, "that there being no disadvantage in a

corporation But many great Advantages, powers and Immunities that cannot

be had by Commission That the best way of advancing & encouraging the

Fishing Trade is by way of [a] Corporation." To this corporation were to

be granted "the sole power of Lycensing the Eating and killing of flesh

in Lent," the power to make by-laws, to dispose of "guifts that are or

shalbee given for carrying on of this Trade," to administer oaths, to

constitute officers, to exercise coercion in case of contempt against

orders, to fine and in some cases to imprison, to send for papers,

persons, books, etc. The corporation was to be universal, perpetual, and

a joint stock company.[23] As a result of the report of the Council a

charter of incorporation was issued to the Duke of York and thirty-six

others, forming the Governor and Company of the Royal Fishery of Great

Britain and Ireland, and George Duke, "late Secretary to the Committee

of Trade," was recommended by the King as its secretary.[24]

This account of the debate in the Council upon the fishery question

is important not only because it gives an interesting glimpse of the

Council at work, and the only glimpse that we have at any length of

its procedure, but because it illustrates a phase of mercantilism in

the making. It shows, also, the intensity of the rivalry that existed

between England and Holland, and furnishes an admirable example of one

of the causes of that rivalry, the Dutch predominance in the fishing

business.[25] The Council frequently appealed to the methods employed

by the Dutch as a sufficient argument to support its contention, and

when objections were raised against the universal corporation it

answered, "You destroy the essence of a Corporation by lymitting it,

And if you lymitt it, no man will venture their Stocke, and the mayne

reason why the Dutch employ not only their Stocke but their whole

families in the fisheries, is because their corporation is perpetual."

How much longer the Council of Trade continued its sessions it is

impossible to say. Its last recorded action is a report, dated July,

1664, which contained its opinion upon the question of trade with

Scotland, a matter soon to be taken up by the higher authorities.

It is probable that, as in the case of the Council of Plantations, its

sessions were suspended because of the plague and the fire and were not

resumed. Its commission was not revoked and it certainly had a nominal

existence until 1667. That it had no actual existence in April, 1665,

seems likely from a letter sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury at that

time, begging that the King appoint a council of trade to find out the

cause of the decay in the coal trade.[26] By the summer of 1665 trade

was reported dead and money scarce and to the plague was ascribed "an

infinite interruption to the whole trade of the Nation." The fire and

the Dutch war completed the demoralization of commerce and in 1666 the

plantations were deemed in great want of necessaries on account of the

obstructions of trade by the war. Though in that year many questions

arose that might naturally have been referred to such a council had

it been in session, no such references appear among the records. The

advancement of trade was looked after by the Privy Council and its trade

committee, and particularly by the Committee of Trade appointed by

Parliament. The latter body had been named as early as March, 1664,

to investigate the export of wool, wool-fells, and fullers' earth.

A few weeks later it was entrusted with the duty of inquiring into the

reasons for the general decay of trade. As this function was conferred

on the Parliamentary Committee at a time when the Select Council was

still holding its sessions, it is reasonable to suppose that the work

of the latter body had not proved satisfactory. There is some slight

evidence to show that the meetings of the Council were at this time but

little attended and that its members were not working in harmony.[27]

The Parliamentary Committee, acting as a Council of Trade, ordered

representatives from all the merchant companies to prepare an account

of the causes of obstruction in their different branches, and when the

latter, among other obstacles, named the Dutch as the chief enemies of

English trade, resolved that the wrongs inflicted by the Dutch were the

greatest obstructions to foreign trade, and recommended that the King

should seek redress. Other causes were considered and debated.[28]

An excellent idea of procedure can be obtained from studying the history

of trade relations with Scotland during this decade. Immediately after

the passage of the Navigation Act of 1660, the Scots petitioned that the

Act might be dispensed with for Scotland, and special deputies were sent

from the Scottish to the English Parliament to prevent, if possible, the

extension of the Act to their country. The matter was referred to the

Customs Commissioners and to the Privy Council, and the latter appointed

a special committee to investigate it. Both of these bodies reported

that the grant of such liberties to the Scots would frustrate the object

of the Act, and gave elaborate reasons for this opinion.[29] As an act

of retaliation the Scottish Parliament laid heavy impositions upon

English goods, and English merchants in 1664 petitioned Parliament for

relief. Parliament recommended the appointment of referees on both sides

and in July, 1664, the Privy Council placed the matter in the hands

of Southampton, Ashley, and Secretary Bennet. This committee laid the

question before the Council of Trade, which suggested a compromise,

whereby duties on both sides should be reduced to 5 per cent., the Scots

should have the benefits of the Act of Navigation but no intercourse

with foreign plantations, and should not buy any more foreign built

ships. As a result of these and further negotiations Parliament passed

an act in 1667,[30] "for settling freedom and intercourse of trade

between England and Scotland," and under the terms of that act

commissioners were appointed to meet with commissioners for Scotland

in the Inner Star Chamber to negotiate a freedom of trade between the

two countries. The commissioners duly met on January 13, 1668, and the

papers recording their negotiations are full and explicit. The whole

question of the relations between England and Scotland since the union,

both political and economic, was investigated with great care; papers

were searched for, records examined, memorials and petitions received,

and various conditions of trade inquired into. The commissioners

frequently disagreed and harmony was by no means always attained,

resulting in delays in drafting the treaty and the eventual failure

of the negotiations. In October the Scottish commissioners returned

to Edinburgh, and the conditions remained as before.[31]

The fall of Clarendon, at the end of the year 1667, led to important

changes in the organization of the government, and the widespread

demoralization in trade demanded an improvement of the system of trade

and plantation control. The year 1668 is significant as the starting

point for a number of attempted remedies in matters of finance and

trade supervision. We have no opportunity here to examine the political

aspects of these changes or to determine how far they were effected

in the interest of mere political control. Suffice it to say that too

many conditions of the reign of Charles II have been attributed to

extravagance and political intrigue, and too few to an honest desire

on the part of those concerned to restore the realm to a condition of

solvency and prosperity. Heavily burdened with debt at the outset of the

reign, distracted by plague, fire, and foreign war during the years from

1665 to 1668, the kingdom needed the services of all its statesmen,

and even the most selfish politician must have realized the need of

reorganization. Acting upon a suggestion which Clarendon himself had

made to the King, the Privy Council in 1667 began by strengthening

its own committee system, and on January 31, 1668, established four

standing committees--for foreign affairs, military affairs, trade and

plantations, and petitions and grievances. These committees had almost

the character of state departments, though they had no final authority

of their own, all orders emanating from the Privy Council only. They

became, however, more independent than had been previous committees by

virtue of the fact that no order was to be issued by the Council until

it had been "first perused by the Reporter of each Committee

respectively," The following is a copy of the regulations:

His Ma^{tie} among other the important parts of his Affairs

having taken into his princely consideration the way & method

of managing matters at the Council Board, And reflecting that

his Councills would have more reputation if they were put into

a more settled & established course, Hath thought it fit to

appoint certaine Standing Comitties of the Council for several

Businesses together with regular days & places for their

assembling in such sort as followeth:

1. The Committee of FORRAINE AFFAIRES is already settled to

consist of these Persons following (besides his Royall Highness,

who is understood to be of all comittees, where he pleases to be)

vizt. Prince Rupert, L^{d} Keeper [Sir Orlando Bridgeman], Lord

Privy Scale [Lord Robartes], Duke of Buckingham, Lord General

[Duke of Albemarle], L^{d} Arlington, & M^{r} Sec^{ry} Morice,

To which Committee His Ma^{tie} doth also hereby referr the

corresponding w^{th} Justices of peace & other officers & ministers

in the Severall Countys of the Kingdome, concerning the Temper of

the Kingdome &c. The constant day for this Committee to meete to be

every Monday besides such other dayes wherein any extraordinary

Action shall oblige them to assemble, And the place for their

meeting to be at the Lord Arlington's Lodgings in Whitehall.

2. Such matters as concerne the Admiralty & Navy as also all

Military matters, Fortifications &c, so far as they are fit to

be brought to the Councill Board, without intermedling in what

concernes the proper officers (unlesse it shall by them be

desired). If his Ma^{tie} is pleased to appoint that they be

und^{r} the consideracon of this following Committee, vizt,

Prince Rupert, L^{d} General [Duke of Albemarle], E. of Anglesy,

Ea. of Carlisle, Ea. of Craven, Lord Arlington, Lord Berkeley,

M^{r} Comptroller [Sir Thomas Clifford], M^{r} Sec^{ry} Morice,

S^{r} W^{m} Coventry & S^{r} John Duncombe. The usuall day of

meeting to be Wensdays, & oftner, as he that presides shall

direct, & the place to be the Councill Chamber, and hereof

Three or more of them to be a Quorum.

3. Another Committee his Ma^{tie} is pleased to constitute for

the Business of Trade under whose consideration is to come

whatsoever concernes his Ma^{ts}: FORRAINE PLANTATIONS, as also

what relates to his Kingdomes of Ireland or Scotland, the Isles

of Jersey & Guernsey, which is to consist of the Lord Privy

Scale [Lord Robartes], Duke of Buckingham, Earle of Ossory,

Ea. of Bridgewater, Ea: of Lauderdail, L^{d}: Arlington,

L^{d}: Holles, L^{d}: Ashley, M^{r}. Comptroller [Sir Thomas

Clifford], M^{r} Vice Chamberlain [Sir George Carteret],

M^{r} Sec^{ry}. Morice, & S^{r} W^{m} Coventry. The usuall day

of meeting to be every Thursday in the Councill Chamber, or

oftner as he that presides shall direct, and hereof 3 or more

of them to be a Quorum.

4. His Ma^{tie} is pleased to appoint one other Committee to

whom all PETITIONS of COMPLAINT & GREIVANCE are to be referred in

which His Ma^{tie} hath thought fit hereby particularly to

prescribe not to meddle w^{th} Property or what relates to

Meum & Tuum. And to this Committee his Ma^{tie} is pleased

that all matters which concerne Acts of State or of the

Councill be referred. The persons to be the Arch. B^{p}: of

Canterbury, Lord Keeper [Sir Orlando Bridgeman], L^{d}: Privy

Seale [Lord Robartes], L^{d}: Great Chamberlain [?], L^{d}

Chamberlain [Edward, Earl of Manchester], Ea: of Bridgewater,

Ea: of Anglesey, Ea: of Bathe, Ea: of Carbery, Viscount

Fitzharding, L^{d}: Arlington, L^{d}: Holles, L^{d}: Ashley,

M^{r} Sec^{ry}: Morice, M^{r}: Chancellor of the Dutchy

[of Lancaster, Sir Thomas Ingram], and S^{r}: John Duncombe.

The constant day of meeting to be Friday in the Councill

Chamber. And his Ma^{ts} further meaning is, that to these

two last committees, any of the Councill may have Liberty to

come & vote and that his two principall Sec^{ries}: of State

[at this time Lord Arlington and Sir William Morrice] be ever

understood to be of all Com^{tees}:, And hereof 3 or more of

them to be a Quorum.

And for the better carrying on of Business at those severall

Comittees, his Ma^{tie}: thinks fit, and accordingly is pleased

to appoint, That each of these Committees be assigned to the

particular care of some one person, who is constantly to attend

it. In that of the Navy & Military matters his Royal Highness

may p^{r}side, if he so please, or else the Lord Generall [Duke

of Albemarle]. In Forraine matters the L^{d} Arlington. In Trade

& Plantations the L^{d}: Privy Seale [Lord Robartes]. In matters

of State & Greivances, the Lord Keeper [Sir Orlando Bridgeman].

Besides which fixt & established Committees, if there shall

happen anything extraordinary that requires Advice, whether in

matters relating to the Treasury, or of any other mixt nature

other than what is afore determined His Ma^{ties} meaning and

intention is, that particular Committees be in such Cases

appointed for them, as hath been accustomed. And that such

Committees do make their Report in Writing, to be offered to

his Ma^{tie}: the next Councill day following, in which, if any

Debate arise, the old Rule is ever strictly to be observed, that

the youngest Councell^{r}: do begin, and not to speake a second

time without Leave first obteyned. And that as on the one side

nothing is hereafter to be resolved in Councill, till the matter

hath been first examined, And have received the Opinion of

some Committee or other, So on the other hand, that nothing be

referred to any Committee, untill it have been first read at

the Board, except in Forraine Affaires. And his Ma^{ts} express

pleasure is, That no Order of Councill be henceforth any time

issued out by the Clerks of the Councill till the same have been

first perused by the Reporter of each Committee respectively.[32]

There is very little evidence to show that the Committee of the Council

for Trade and Plantations played any very conspicuous part in regulating

either trade or plantations during the years from 1668 to 1675, though

a number of petitions were referred to it. Its most important report

was that recommending the restoration of the province of Maine to the

grandson of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, but even that matter was taken out

of its hands by the further reference of the Gorges' petition to the

Committee for Foreign Affairs. In 1668, it dealt with the restitution

of Surinam to the Dutch and the settlement of Lord Willoughby's claims;

with relief for Barbadoes after the disastrous fire which destroyed

St. Michaels in April of that year; with the equipment of Sir Tobias

Bridges' regiment in the same island; and with the liberty granted to

certain Dutch ships of trading to New York despite the Navigation Act.

In 1669, it considered a few petitions and reported on Gorges' memorial.

After 1670 it did little, as far as actual evidence of its activity is

concerned, but it is entirely clear that it had to transact a great deal

more business than is recorded either in the Register or in the Colonial

Papers.[33] Many of the questions that were referred to the Select

Council of Trade and the Select Council of Trade and Plantations were

first passed upon by this committee or were referred to it after the

report from the separate body had come in. Furthermore, we know that

in the case of this committee, as of similar committees of the Privy

Council after 1696, many questions were never allowed to pass out of its

hands, except as they were reported to the Council itself. Though not

conspicuous, it was potentially active and quite ready in 1675 to take

up the burden of colonial control that the King placed upon it.[34]

Even before it had begun the reorganization of its committee system, the

Privy Council made known its decision to revive the system of separate

and select councils which had probably been in abeyance since 1665.

On September 23, 1667, it ordered its Committee for Trade and Foreign

Plantations to take into consideration the advisability of revoking

the commissions of the two councils of 1660,--which councils must,

therefore, have been deemed still legally in existence--and of uniting

these bodies so as to form a single select council for trade and

plantations. To this end it instructed the secretaries of those

councils, Philip Frowde and George Duke, to appear before it. For

reasons that are nowhere found among the official papers this plan was

given up and the decision reached to revoke only the commission of the

Council of Trade and to issue a patent for a new body. Roger North, in

his _Examen_, published in 1740, a work little to be depended on as far

as historical accuracy is concerned, declares that this move was merely

a piece of political manoeuvering and never was designed to accomplish

anything of importance for the trade or revenue of the kingdom. He says:

"The courtiers, for his Majesty's Ease, moved that there might

be a commission to several of the greatest Traders in _London_

to examine all matters of that kind, and to report their Opinion

to the Council; upon which his Majesty might determine. This

plausible project was put in Execution and the Leaders of the

Fanatic party in the city [especially Alderman Love and Josiah

Child] were the Commissioners; for so it was plotted. The great

House in Queen Street was taken for the use of this Commission.

Mr. Henry Slingsby, sometime Master of the Mint was the Secretary;

and they had a formal Board with Green Cloth and Standishes,

Clerks good store, a tall Porter and Staff, and fitting Attendance

below, and a huge Luminary at the Door. And in Winter Time, when

the Board met, as was two or three Times a Week, or oftener, all

the Rooms were lighted, Coaches at the Door, and great passing in

and out, as if a Council of State in good Earnest had been sitting.

All Cases, Complaints, and Deliberations of Trade were referred

to this Commission, and they reported their opinion."[35]

North's implication that the Council was a contrivance of the enemies

of the King to effect a prohibition of trade with France which the

government wished to keep open seems deserving of little credence.

In the past, facts regarding this Council and its work have not been

complete, and even a full list of its members has been wanting. Even now

the commission and instructions, which, after considerable delay, were

issued on October 20, 1668, have eluded discovery, and we can present

little more than the terms of the docket as entered in the books of

the Crown Office. The docket reads: "A Commission with instructions

annexed establishing a Counsell of Trade, for Keeping a control and

super-inspection of his Majesty's Trade and Commerce." From another

source we learn that the Council was to take into consideration "the

Conditions of your Maj^{tyes} Plantations abroad, in order to the

improvement of Trade and increase of Navigation, and for the further

encouragement of yo^{r} Maj^{tyes} Subjects in their Trade and Commerce

both at home and abroad."[36] A second commission was issued on April

13, 1669, "directed to the same persons in the same form & with the

same powers and instructions ... with a confirmation of all Acts done

in pursuance of the said late commission in election of officers and

otherwise."[37] The clerical secretary was Peter du Moulin, though Dr.

Benjamin Worsley seems to have had some official position on the board.

The members of the Council were as follows: Duke of York, Prince Rupert,

Lord Keeper, Lord Privy Seal, Duke of Buckingham, Duke of Albemarle,

Duke of Ormond, Earl of Bridgewater, Earl of Ossory, Earl of Anglesey,

Earl of Carlisle, Earl of Craven, Earl of Lauderdale, Lord Arlington,

Lord Berkeley of Stratton, Lord Holles, Lord Ashley, Sir Thomas

Clifford, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Trevor, Sir William Morrice, Sir

William Coventry, Sir Thomas Osborne, Sir Thomas Littleton, Sir Henry

Blount, Sir George Downing, Sir Andrew Riccard, Sir William Thompson,

Silas Titus, William Garroway, Henry Slingsby, Thomas Grey, John Birch,

William Love, Esq., Benjamin Worsley, Doctor of Physic; John Buckworth,

Thomas Papillion, John Page, Josiah Child, Thomas Tyte, Benjamin Albyn,

and John Shorter. In 1669 were added the Earl of Devonshire, Earl of

Sandwich, Viscount Halifax, and George, Lord Berkeley, making forty-six

members in all.[38] This is an extraordinary body of men to be engaged

in pulling the wool over the eyes of the King, and though Professor

Ashley is inclined to view North's account with approval, we doubt if

it will stand the test of examination. Professor Ashley's further belief

that from this Council emanated the document called "A Scheme of Trade,"

is capable of satisfactory disproof, since but few of the signers of

that document were members of the Council and the date when it was

issued, November 29, 1674, was after the Council as a separate body had

been abolished.[39]

The Council lasted from 1668 to 1672 and during that time it did

nothing, so far as we can discover, either for or against the trade

with France. It considered the granting of patents, foreign trade with

Piedmont and elsewhere, the export of wool, disputes among the merchant

companies, dispensations from the operation of the Navigation Act, and

a few matters relating to home industry, particularly as regards abuses

in the baize trade. It took into consideration the order in Council

of October 23, 1667, permitting the Dutch to send three or more ships

yearly for seven years to trade from Holland to New York, and reported

so strongly against it that the Privy Council revoked the order.[40]

More important still, it took up the whole question of the operation of

the navigation acts in the colonies, called upon the merchants and the

farmers of the customs for information, and made a careful report to the

Privy Council, which the latter, on January 20,1669, embodied in the

following order:

"His Ma^{tie} this day taking into consideration the great

importance the Trade of his severall plantations is to his

Ma^{tie} & his Kingdome, and being informed that severall

Governments of the s^{d} Plantations have been wanting to

their duty in the following particulars, viz:

1. That Governors have not taken the oath enjoined by law,

2. That shipps have been permitted to trade to and from the

Plantations not qualified according to law,

3. That there has been omission in taking Bond and Security

and returning those Bonds according as directed by the severall

Acts of Parliament.

For redresse it is ordered, that the Farmers of the Customs do

and are hereby required (at their owne charge) to send over and

make choice of upon the place & from time to time commissionate

& maynteyne one or more persons in each Plantation (whom his

Ma^{tie} shall approve & authorize) to administer the usual oaths

to the severall Governors, that no vessels be admitted to trade

there till said officer has the perusal of the passes and

certificates and certifies that they may trade there, and that

no Bond or security be admitted without the allowance of said

officer,

That letters be written to all said Governors to take said

oaths before said officer and also to give them countenance and

assistance,

That Directions be given to the Commanders of his Ma^{ties} ships

and to any merchant shipps to arrest any ship trading to His

Ma^{ties} Plantations contrary to the law."[41]

Under this order Edward Digges, former governor of Virginia and a London

merchant well known to us, was appointed by the farmers of the customs

as a fit person to execute for the colony of Virginia the articles and

instructions contained in this order. No other appointments, however,

appear to have been made at this time.[42]

After 1670 activities of the Council of Trade, as far as they are

recorded, are very few. It considered the trade of the Eastland Company,

provided for a supply of coal for London at reasonable rates, and

discussed a few minor petitions, but as compared with its contemporary,

the Council for Foreign Plantations, it accomplished little.[43]

* * * * *

[Footnote 1: Cal. State Papers, Col., 1514-1660, pp. 482, 483; P.C.R.,

Charles II, Vol. II, p. 63; New York Colonial Docts., III, p. 30.]

[Footnote 2: P.C.R., Charles II, Vol. II, p. 37; Bodleian, Rawlinson A.,

117, No. 20.]

[Footnote 3: Professor Osgood thinks that a part of Noell's fortune was

made in the slave trade. Beyond the fact that he was a member of the

Royal African Company, I cannot find any evidence whatever to prove this

statement. Noell certainly was not a slave trader before 1660.]

[Footnote 4: Bodleian, Clarendon Papers, _passim_, New York Hist.

Soc. Collections, 1869; Brit. Museum, Add. MSS., 11410, ff. 18 et seq.

Clarendon had an agent in Jamaica, Major Ivy, who was considering the

setting up of plantations and planting cocoa walks in the interest of

the King's revenue. Clarendon's policy toward the continental colonies

overshadows somewhat his policy toward the West Indies and in

consequence this phase of the subject has been neglected by those who

have dealt with Clarendon's colonial relations.]

[Footnote 5: P.C.R., Charles II, Vol. II, pp. 131-132; printed in part

in Analytical Index to the Series of Records known as the Remembrancia,

preserved among the Archives of the City of London, 1579-1664.

(Privately printed, 1878); and in very much abbreviated form in

Bannister, Writings of William Patterson, III, 251-252, from whom it has

been copied by both Egerton and Cunningham. It seems somewhat strange

that there should be no entry of the receipt of this letter in the

journal of the court of Aldermen nor any draft of an answer among the

Remembrancia or elsewhere. A careful search has failed to disclose any

reference to action taken upon this letter among the papers in the Town

Clerk's office at the Guildhall.]

[Footnote 6: Bodleian, Clarendon Papers, 73, f. 232.]

[Footnote 7: Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1660-1661, p. 319.]

[Footnote 8: Public Record Office, Chancery, Crown Dockets, 6, p. 50.

On the docket for the commission of the council of trade the names of

the members are inserted; but on that of the commission for the council

for foreign plantations the place is left blank. A marginal note on the

latter docket gives the explanation noted above.]

[Footnote 9: There is a list of the members in 1661, containing but

forty-seven names with some omissions and additions.]

[Footnote 10: Egerton, 2395, ff. 268, 269; Cal. State Papers, Dom.,

1660-1661, pp. 353-354; P.R.O. State Papers, Domestic, XXI, No. 27;

Cunningham, Growth of English Industry and Commerce, 4 ed., Appendix.]

[Footnote 11: The journal of the Council of Plantations is among the

Colonial Papers in the Public Record Office, XIV, No. 59, ff. 1-57,

December 1, 1660-August 4, 1664, entitled "Orders and Proceedings at his

Ma^{ts} Counsell for Forraigne Plantacons." There is no journal of the

Council of Trade known to exist, but minutes of one or two meetings,

which have been preserved, show that a journal must have been kept. An

entry-book for patents is mentioned, Cal. State Papers, Col., 1661-1668,

Sec. 15, and an entry-book of petitions and reports, November 13,

1660-March 12, 1662, is in Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 25115.

Regarding the history of the papers of the Council of Trade the

following information may be of interest. The records probably remained

in the possession of George Duke, secretary to the Council, and were

called for by Dr. Worsley, secretary of the Council of 1672 in a letter

dated November 28, 1672 (Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1672-1673, pp.

213-214). No answer was received from Duke and evidently the papers were

not handed over, for when in 1698 the Board of Trade applied for them to

Col. Duke's son-in-law, Henry Crispe, it was informed by Mr. Crispe that

he had never even seen any of the papers but had heard that some of them

were burnt in the Temple when in Col. Duke's possession (Journal of the

Board of Trade, XI, p. 55, May 10, 1698). In June and July, 1707, the

Board of Trade attempted again to get hold of the papers and wrote to

Crispe on June 30. Crispe's reply is worth printing:

"If I am rightly informed there are divers original books and papers

relating to the Royal Fishery and the establishing thereof from the

year 1660 for divers successive years in which are contained several

projections concerning the promoting the same. And there are also books

and minutes of the proceedings of the Council of Trade from the year

1660 to 1668, which also contain several material things in relation to

Trade and the improvement thereof, which I understand are in the power

of a friend of mine.

"These books and papers will be disposed of as the Hon^{ble} Board the

Council of Trade shall direct or order.

"But it is humbly desired that consideration be allowed the party that

shall produce these Books and Papers. And that it may be ascertained

what that consideration shall be and by whom it shall be given.

"I was desired to inform you of this to the end you may take such steps

therein as you in your great prudence shall judge most proper.

"If any orders or commands shall be given about this affair that I can

be useful or serviceable therein & they be transmitted for me or be left

at Johns Coffee House in Bedford St. near the Church in Convent Garden

such orders will be faithfully observed by

"S^{rs} Your faithfull humble Servant

"H. CRISPE."

Crispe sent a list of the books with his letter, but that list is

missing. The Board answered that it would not buy the books without

seeing them first, but as we find no further mention of the matter in

the Journal and as the books and papers are not to be found to-day the

probabilities are that the negotiations fell through. Journal, XIX,

p. 296; Board of Trade Papers, Trade, H Nos. 74, 76.]

[Footnote 12: This may be inferred from the following note attached to

one of the reports: "The council conceiving themselves to be in noe

capacitie of giving any judgment therein having heard but one side."

Egerton, 2395, f. 299.]

[Footnote 13: See Cal. State Papers, Col., 1675-1676, Sec.Sec. 338, 339, where

he is called "Secretary for Foreign Plantations."]

[Footnote 14: Egerton, 2395, ff. 286, 291, 299, 335, 336.]

[Footnote 15: Cal. State Papers, Col., 1661-1668, Sec.Sec. 790, 833; Dom.,

1664-1665, p. 4.]

[Footnote 16: In December, 1665, he wrote of "an uncomfortable journey

on unfrequented roads, with none to break the ice, in a hackney coach

which receives the wind in all parts." Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1665,

p. 105.]

[Footnote 17: P.C.R., Charles II, Vol. VI, p. 231; Cal. State Papers,

Col., 1661-1668, Sec. 1685.]

[Footnote 18: Egerton, 2395, ff. 449, 451, 452, 453; Cal. State Papers,

Col., 1661-1668, Sec.Sec. 1598-1600.]

[Footnote 19: Brit. Mus., Add. MSS., 25115, f. 156; Cal. State Papers,

Dom., 1661-1662, pp. 411-412.]

[Footnote 20: Brit. Mus., Add. MSS., 25115; Cal. State Papers, Dom.,

1660-1661, pp. 356, 359, 363, 372, 412; 1661-1662 pp. 28, 80.]

[Footnote 21: Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1660-1661, pp. 383, 532;

1661-1662, pp. 111, 277, 529, 446; Bodleian, Rawlinson MSS., A. 478, f.

81.]

[Footnote 22: Brit. Mus., Add. MSS., 25115, ff. 133-140; Cal. State

Papers, Treasury Books, 1660-1667, pp. 245-247, containing the list of

convoys, a duplicate of that in the British Museum volume; p. 250, the

Treasurer's report.]

[Footnote 23: Brit. Mus., Egerton, 2543, ff. 137-139.]

[Footnote 24: Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1663-1664, pp. 515, 549.

The Fishing Commission, appointed in 1661, had proved a failure, but

the council borrowed from the patent of that commission many of the

suggestions which it recommended. Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1661-1662,

p. 83.]

[Footnote 25: Cf. Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1661-1662, p. 83.]

[Footnote 26: Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1665-1666, p. 330. Yet Crispe's

letter (_ante_, p. 75, note) certainly speaks as if the Council had a

continuous existence from 1660 to 1668, and the mention of Exeter House

as its place of meeting after 1667 points in the same direction.]

[Footnote 27: "Some considerations about the commission for trade,"

P.R.O. Shaftesbury MSS., Div. X, 8(1).]

[Footnote 28: Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1663-1664, pp. 528, 531, 543,

572, 573, 588.]

[Footnote 29: Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1661-1662, pp. 75, 135-136, 149.]

[Footnote 30: 19 Charles II, c. 13.]

[Footnote 31: Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1667-1668, pp. 156, 158, 165,

173, 180, 187, 191, 247, 321, 433, 444, 452, 511, 593, 594; 1668-1669,

pp. 35, 40.]

[Footnote 32: Brit. Mus., Egerton MSS., 2543, ff. 205-205^{b}. Endorsed

"Regulation of Committees of the Councill. Read & Ordered in Councill

the 31^{st} January, 1667^{b}." For reasons that cannot be explained

this regulation is not entered in the Privy Council Register. It is

referred to in a similar order of February 12, 1668, P.C.R., Charles II,

Vol. VII, pp. 176-177, but otherwise omitted. For this reason the

document is here printed in full. Cf. Cal. State Papers, Dom.,

1667-1668, p. 261.]

[Footnote 33: For instance, there are among the Colonial Papers memoranda

of proceedings at various sittings of this committee held between

April 7, 1668, and February 18, 1669, relative to domestic, colonial,

and foreign trade, that are not recorded elsewhere.]

[Footnote 34: Cal. State Papers, Col., 1661-1668, Sec.Sec. 1685, 1712, 1759,

1769, 1791, 1870, 1883; 1660-1674, Sec.Sec. 30, 66, 150, 184-186, 751, 837,

1226, I, II, III; 1320, 1353, 1390. Dom., 1668-1669, pp. 62, 201.]

[Footnote 35: Roger North, Examen, p. 461, quoted by Prof. Ashley in

Surveys, Historic and Economic, pp. 274-275.]

[Footnote 36: New York Colonial Docts., III, p. 175.]

[Footnote 37: P.R.O. Chancery, Crown Office, Docket Books, 7, pp. 335,

344; Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1668-1669, pp. 6, 18, 224-225.]

[Footnote 38: Bodleian, Rawlinson MSS. A, 478, f. 77; Cal. State Papers,

Dom., 1668-1669, pp. 224-225, 651.]

[Footnote 39: Ashley, Surveys, pp. 275-276.]

[Footnote 40: New York Colonial Docts., III, pp. 175-178; Cal. State

Papers, Col., 1661-1668, Sec.Sec. 1874, 1875.]

[Footnote 41: P.C.R., Charles II, Vol. VIII, p. 169; Cal. State Papers,

Col., 1661-1668, Sec. 1884, 1669-1674, Sec.Sec. 6, 9.]

[Footnote 42: Cal. State Papers, Col., 1669-1674, Sec.Sec. 104, 696.]

[Footnote 43: Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1671, p. 210; 1671-1672,

pp. 450-451.]