



Produced by Juliet Sutherland, David Garcia and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net





[Transcriber's Note: Portions of this text are written in an archaic
manner in which macrons over single or double letters stand in place
for an abbreviation. This has been represented in the text version
by enclosing the letter in square brackets and preceeding the letter
(or letters) with a tilde character. There are also copious single
and multiple superscripted abbreviations represented in the text version
by enclosing the superscripted characters with curly braces, preceded
by a caret.]






         Series XXVI           Nos. 1-2-3

         JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES
                       IN
         Historical and Political Science

      Under the Direction of the Departments
        of History, Political Economy, and
                Political Science

       *       *       *       *       *




BRITISH COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND COUNCILS OF TRADE AND PLANTATIONS,
1622-1675


BY CHARLES M. ANDREWS
Professor of History



  BALTIMORE
  THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS

  PUBLISHED MONTHLY
  January, February, March, 1908


  Copyright 1908 by
  THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS




TABLE OF CONTENTS.


CHAPTER I.

CONTROL OF TRADE AND PLANTATIONS UNDER JAMES I AND CHARLES I.

  Before 1622, Privy Council the sole authority                         10
  Commission of Trade, 1622-1623                                        11
  Commission of Trade, 1625-1626                                        12
  Privy Council Committee of Trade, 1630-1640                           13
  Temporary Plantation Commissions, 1630-1633                           14
  Laud Commission for Plantations, 1634-1641                            14
  Subcommittees for Plantations, 1632-1639                              17
  Privy Council in control, 1640-1642                                   21
  Parliamentary Commission for Plantations, 1643-1648                   21


CHAPTER II.

CONTROL OF TRADE AND PLANTATIONS DURING THE INTERREGNUM.

  The Council of Trade, 1650-1653                                       24
  Plantation Affairs controlled by the Council of State, 1649-1651      30
  Standing Committee of the Council for Plantations,
    1651-April, 1653                                                    33
  Plantation Affairs controlled by the Council of State,
    April-Dec., 1653                                                    35
  Trade controlled by Council of State and Parliamentary Committees,
    Dec., 1653-June, 1655                                               36
  Importance of the years 1654-1655                                     36
  The great Trade Committee, 1655-1657                                  38
  Parliamentary Committees of Trade, 1656-1658                          43
  Plantation Affairs controlled by Protector's Council and Council
      of the State, 1653-1660                                           43
    Special Council Committees for Plantations, 1653-1659               44
    Council Committee for Jamaica and Foreign Plantations, 1655-1660    44
    Select Committee for Jamaica, known later as Committee
      for America, 1655-1660                                            45
  Inadequacy of Control during the Interregnum                          47


CHAPTER III.

THE PROPOSALS OF THE MERCHANTS: NOELL AND POVEY.

  Career of Martin Noell                                                49
  Career of Thomas Povey                                                51
  Enterprises of the Merchants, 1657-1659                               53
  Proposals of Noell and Povey                                          55
    "Overtures" of 1654                                                 55
    "Queries" of 1656                                                   58
    Additional Proposals, 1656, 1657                                    58


CHAPTER IV.

COMMITTEES AND COUNCILS UNDER THE RESTORATION.

  Plantation Committee of Privy Council, June 4, 1660                   61
  Work of Privy Council Committee                                       63
  Appointment of Select Councils of Trade and Plantations, 1660         64
  Membership of these Councils                                          67
  Comparison of Povey's "Overtures" with the Instructions for
    Council for Foreign Plantations                                     68
  Comparison of Povey's "First Draft" with Instructions for
    Council of Trade                                                    71
  Work of Council for Foreign Plantations, 1660-1665                    74
  Control of Plantation Affairs, 1665-1670                              79
  Work of Council of Trade, 1660-1664                                   80
  Parliamentary Committee of Trade, 1664                                85
  Commission for English-Scottish Trade, 1667-1668                      86
  Reorganization of Committees of the Privy Council, 1668               87
  Work of Privy Council Committee for Foreign Plantations, 1668-1670    90
  New Select Council of Trade, 1668-1672                                91


CHAPTER V.

THE PLANTATION COUNCILS OF 1670 AND 1672.

  Influence of Ashley and Locke                                         96
  Revival of Council for Foreign Plantations, 1670-1672                 97
    Membership                                                          97
    Commission and Instructions                                         99
    Meetings and Work                                                  101
  Select Council of Trade and Foreign Plantations, 1672-1674           106
    Membership                                                         106
    Commission and Instructions                                        107
    Meetings and Work                                                  109
  Causes of the Revocation of the Commission of Select Council, 1674   111
  Later History of Plantation Control, 1675-1782                       112


APPENDICES.

  I.   Instructions, Board of Trade, 1650                              115
  II.  Instructions, Council for Foreign Plantations, 1670-1672        117
       Additional Instructions for the Same                            124
  III. Draft of Instructions, Council of Trade and Foreign
         Plantations, 1672-1674                                        127
  IV.  Heads of Business; Councils of 1670 and 1672                    133




BRITISH COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS, AND COUNCILS OF TRADE AND PLANTATIONS,
1622-1675.




CHAPTER I.

Control of Trade and Plantations Under James I and Charles I.


In considering the subject which forms the chief topic of this paper, we
are not primarily concerned with the question of settlement, intimately
related though it be to the larger problem of colonial control. We are
interested rather in the early history of the various commissions,
councils, committees, and boards appointed at one time or another in the
middle of the seventeenth century for the supervision and management of
trade, domestic, foreign, and colonial, and for the general oversight of
the colonies whose increase was furthered, particularly after 1650, in
largest part for commercial purposes. The coupling of the terms "trade"
and "foreign plantations" was due to the prevailing economic theory
which viewed the colonies not so much as markets for British exports
or as territories for the receipt of a surplus British population--for
Great Britain had at that time no surplus population and manufactured
but few commodities for export--but rather as sources of such raw
materials as could not be produced at home, and of such tropical
products as could not be obtained otherwise than from the East and West
Indies. The two interests were not, however, finally consolidated in
the hands of a single board until 1672, after which date they were not
separated until the final abolition of the old Board of Trade in 1782.
It is, therefore, to the period before 1675 that we shall chiefly direct
our attention, in the hope of throwing some light upon a phase of
British colonial control that has hitherto remained somewhat obscure.
Familiar as are many of the facts connected with the early history of
Great Britain's management of trade and the colonies, it is nevertheless
true that no attempt has been made to trace in detail the various
experiments undertaken by the authorities in England in the interest
of trade and the plantations during the years before 1675. Many of
the details are, and will always remain, unknown, nevertheless it is
possible to make some additions to our knowledge of a subject which
is more or less intimately related to our early colonial history.

At the beginning of colonization the control of all matters relating
to trade and the plantations lay in the hands of the king and his
council, forming the executive branch of the government. Parliament
had not yet begun to legislate for the colonies, and in matters
of trade and commerce the parliaments of James I accomplished much
less than had those of Elizabeth. "In the time of James I," says Dr.
Prothero, "it was more essential to assert constitutional principles
and to maintain parliamentary rights than to pass new laws or to create
new institutions." Thus the Privy Council became the controlling factor
in all matters that concerned the colonies and it acted in the main
without reference or delegation to others, since the practice of
appointing advisory boards or deliberative committees, though not
unknown, was at first employed only as an occasional expedient. The
councils of James I were called upon to deal with a wide variety of
colonial business--letters, petitions, complaints and reports from
private individuals, such as merchants, captains of ships voyaging
to the colonies, seamen, prisoners, and the like, from officials
in England, merchant companies, church organizations, and colonial
governments, notably the governor and council and assembly of Virginia.
To all these communications the Council replied either by issuing orders
which were always mandatory, or by sending letters which often contained
information and advice as well as instructions. It dealt with the
Virginia Company in London and sent letters, both before and after the
dissolution of the company, to the governor and council in Virginia,
and in all these letters trade played an important part. For example,
the order of October 24, 1621, which forbade the colony to export
tobacco and other commodities to foreign countries, declared that such
a privilege as an open trade on the part of the colony was desirable
"neither in policy nor for the honor of the state (that being but a
colony derived from hence)," and that it could not be suffered "for that
it may be a loss unto his Majesty in his customs, if not the hazarding
of the trade which in future times is well hoped may be of much profit,
use, and importance to the Commonalty."[1] Similarly the Council issued
a license to Lord Baltimore to export provisions for the relief of his
colony at Avalon,[2] ordered that the _Ark_ and the _Dove_, containing
Calvert and the settlers of Maryland, be held back at Tilbury until the
oaths of allegiance had been taken,[3] and instructed the governor and
company of Virginia to give friendly assistance to Baltimore's
undertaking.[4]

Of the employment of committees or special commissions to inquire
into questions either commercial or colonial there is no evidence
before the year 1622. A few months after the dissolution of the third
Stuart parliament, James I issued a proclamation for the encouragement
of trade, and directed a special commission not composed of privy
councillors to inquire into the decay of the clothing trade and to
report to the Privy Council such remedial measures as seemed best
adapted to increase the wealth and prosperity of the realm.[5] At the
same time he caused a commission to be issued to the Lord Keeper, the
Lord Treasurer, the Lord President of the Council and others "to collect
and cause a true survey to be taken in writing of the names, qualities,
professions, and places of habitation of such strangers as do reside
within the realm of England and use any retailing trade or handicraft
trade and do reform the abuses therein according to the statutes now in
force."[6] The commissioners of trade duly met, during the years 1622
and 1623, summoned persons to appear before them, and reported to the
Council. Their report was afterward presented to the King sitting with
the Council at Wansted, "was allowed and approved of, and commandment
was given to enter it in the Register of Counsell causes and to remain
as an act of Counsell by order of the Lord President."[7] There is
evidence also to show that the commission issued orders on its own
account, for in June, 1623, the Mayor and Aldermen of the city of London
wrote two letters to the commission expressing their approval of its
orders and sending petitions presented to them by citizens of London.[8]

On April 15, 1625, less than three weeks after the death of James I,
a warrant was issued by his successor for a commission of trade, the
duties of which were of broader and more general character than were
those of the previous body.[9] The first record of its meeting is dated
January 18, 1626, but it is probable that then the commission had been
for some time in existence, though the exact date when its commission
was issued is not known. The text of both commission and instructions
are among the Domestic Papers.[10] The board was to advance the
exportations of home manufactures and to repress the "ungainful
importation of foreign commodities." Looked upon as a subcommittee of
the Privy Council, but having none of the privy councillors among its
members, it was required to sit every week and to consider all questions
that might be referred to it for examination and report. The fact that a
complaint against the patent of Sir Ferdinando Gorges was referred to it
shows that it was qualified to deal not only with questions of trade but
also with plantation affairs.[11] At about the same time a committee of
the Council was appointed to take into consideration a special question
of trade and to make report to the Council. Neither of these bodies
appears to have had more than a temporary existence, although the
commission sat for some time and accomplished no inconsiderable amount
of work.

The first Privy Council committee of trade that had any claim to
permanency was that appointed in March, 1630, consisting at first of
thirteen members, the Lord Keeper, the Lord Treasurer, the Lord
President, the Lord Privy Seal, Earl Marshall, the Lord Steward, Earl
of Dorset, Earl of Holland, Earl of Carlisle, Lord Dorchester, the
Vice-Chamberlain, Sir Henry Cottington and Mr. Secretary Coke. This
committee was to meet on Friday mornings. The same committee, with the
omission of one member, was appointed the next year to meet on Tuesdays
in the afternoon. In 1634 the membership was reduced to nine, but in
1636, 1638 and 1639, by the addition of the Lord Treasurer, the number
was raised to ten, as follows: the Lord President, the Lord Treasurer,
the Lord Keeper, the Lord Privy Seal, Earl Marshall, Earl of Dorset,
Lord Cottington, Mr. Comptroller, Mr. Secretary Coke and Mr. Secretary
Windebank. The meetings were again held on Fridays, though on special
occasions the committee was warned to meet on other days by order of the
Council, and on one occasion at least assembled at Hampton Court.[12]
To this committee were referred all matters of trade which came to the
attention of the Council during the ten years, from 1630 to 1640. Notes
of its meetings between 1631 and 1637 were kept by Secretaries Coke and
Windebank and show the extent and variety of its activities. Except for
the garbling of tobacco it does not appear to have concerned itself
with plantation affairs.[13] As the King was generally present at its
meetings, it possessed executive as well as advisory powers, not only
making reports to the Council, but also drafting regulations and issuing
orders on its own account. Occasionally it appointed special committees
to examine into certain trade difficulties, and on September 21, 1638,
and again on February 3, 1639, we find notice of a separate board of
commissioners for trade constituted under the great seal to inquire into
the decay of the clothing industry. This board sat for two years and
made an elaborate report to the Privy Council on June 9, 1640.[14]

Though committees for trade, ordnance, foreign affairs, and Ireland
had a more or less continuous existence during the period after 1630,
no similar committee for plantations was created during this decade.
Temporary commissions and committees of the Council had been, however,
frequently appointed. In 1623 and 1624 several sets of commissioners for
Virginia were named "to inquire into the true state of Virginia and the
Somers Islands plantations," "to resolve upon the well settling of the
colony of Virginia," "and to advise on a fit patent for the Virginia
Company." In 1631 a commission of twenty-three persons, of whom four
constituted a quorum, was created, partly from within and partly from
without the Privy Council, "to advise upon some course for establishing
the advancement of the plantations of Virginia."[15] Similar commissions
were appointed to meet special exigencies in the careers of other
plantations, Somers Islands, Caribbee Islands, etc. In 1632, we meet
with a committee forming the first committee of the Council appointed
for the plantations, quite distinct in functions and membership
from the committee for trade and somewhat broader in scope than the
commissions mentioned above. The circumstances of its appointment were
these: In the year 1632 complaints began to come in to the Privy Council
regarding the conduct of the colony of Massachusetts Bay. Thomas Morton
and Philip Ratcliffe had been banished from that colony and sent back
to England. Sir Christopher Gardiner, also, after a period of troubled
relations with the authorities there, had taken ship for England. These
men, acting in conjunction with Gorges and Mason, whose claims had
already been before the Council, presented petitions embodying their
grievances. On December 19, 1632, the Council listened to the reading
of these petitions and to the presentation of a "relation" drawn up by
Gardiner. After long debate "upon the whole carriage of the plantation
of that country," it appointed a committee of twelve members, called the
Committee on the New England Plantations, with the Archbishop of York at
its head, "to examine how the patents for the said plantations have been
granted." This committee had power to call "to their assistance such
other persons as they shall think fit," "to examine the truth of the
aforesaid information or any other information as shall be presented to
them and shall make report thereof to this board and of the true state
of the said plantations." The committee deliberated on the "New England
Case," summoned many of the "principal adventurers in that plantation"
before it, listened to the complainants, and reported favorably to the
colony. The essential features of its report were embodied in an order
in council, dated January 19, 1633.[16] This committee, still called the
Committee for New England, was reappointed in December, 1633, with a
slight change of membership, Laud, who had been made primate the August
before, taking the place of the Archbishop of York as chairman. But this
committee was soon overshadowed by the greater commission to come.[17]

The first separate commission, though, in reality, a committee of the
Privy Council, appointed to concern itself with all the plantations,
was created by Charles I, April 28, 1634. It was officially styled
the Commission for Foreign Plantations; one petitioner called it
"the Lords Commissioners for Plantations in General," and another
"the learned Commissioners appointed by the King to examine and rectify
all complaints from the plantations." It is probable that the term
"Committee of Foreign Plantations" was occasionally applied to it,
as there is nothing to show that the committee of 1633 remained in
existence after April, 1634.[18] Recommissioned, April 10, 1636, it
continued to sit as an active body certainly as late as August, 1641,
and possibly longer,[19] though there is no formal record of its
discontinuance. Its original membership was as follows: William Laud,
Archbishop of Canterbury; Richard Neile, Archbishop of York; Sir Thomas
Coventry, the Lord Keeper; Earl of Portland, the Lord Treasurer, Earl
of Manchester, the Lord Privy Seal, Earl of Arundel, the Earl Marshall,
Earl of Dorset, Lord Cottington, Sir Thomas Edmondes, the Master
Treasurer, Sir Henry Vane, the Master Comptroller, and the secretaries,
Coke and Windebank. Later the Earl of Sterling was added.[20] Five
constituted a quorum. The powers granted to the commission were
extensive and almost royal in character: to make laws and orders for the
government of the English colonies in foreign parts; to impose penalties
and imprisonment for offenses in ecclesiastical matters; to remove
governors and require an account of their government; to appoint judges
and magistrates, and to establish courts, both civil and ecclesiastical;
to hear and determine all manner of complaints from the colonies;
to have power over all charters and patents, and to revoke those
surreptitiously or unduly obtained. Such powers clearly show that the
commission was designed as an instrument for enforcing the royal will
in the colonies, and furnishes no precedent for the later councils and
boards of trade and foreign plantations. Called into being probably
because of the continued emigration of Puritans to New England, the
complaints against the Massachusetts charter, and the growth of
Independency in that colony, it was in origin a coercive, not an
inquisitory, body, in the same class with the courts of Star Chamber and
High Commission, and the Councils of Wales and the North. Unlike these
bodies, it proved practically impotent, and there is nothing to show
that it took any active part in the attempt to repeal the Massachusetts
charter or in any important particular exercised the powers granted
to it. It did not remove or appoint a governor, establish a court, or
grant or revoke a charter. It received petitions either directly or
from the Privy Council and made recommendations, but it never attempted
to establish uniformity in New England or to bring the New England
colonies more directly under the authority of the Crown. Whether it was
the failure of the attempt to vacate the Massachusetts charter, or the
poverty of the King, or the approach of civil war that prevented the
enforcement of the royal policy, we cannot say, but the fact remains
that the Laud commission played a comparatively inconspicuous part
during the seven years of its existence and has gained a prominence in
the history of our subject out of all proportion to its importance.

More directly connected with the commercial and colonial interests of
the realm were the subcommittees which the Privy Council used during
these years and earlier as advisory and inquisitory bodies. In addition
to committees of its own, the Privy Council called on various outside
persons known to be familiar with the circumstances of a particular
case or experts in the general subject involved, and entrusted to
them the consideration of important matters that had been called to its
attention. As we have already seen, such a subcommittee on trade had
been appointed in 1625, and after 1630 we meet with many references to
individuals or groups of experts. The attorney general was called upon
to examine complaints regarding New England and Maryland in 1632 and
1635; the Chancellor of London was requested to examine the parties in
a controversy over a living in St. Christopher in 1637; many commercial
questions were referred to special bodies of merchants or others holding
official positions. In 1631 a complaint regarding interlopers in Canada
was referred to a committee of three, Sir William Becher, clerk of the
Council; Serj. (Wm.) Berkeley, afterward governor of Virginia, and
Edward Nicholas, afterward clerk of the Council, and a new committee
in which Sir William Alexander and Robert Charlton took the place of
Becher and Nicholas was appointed in 1632.[21] Berkeley, Alexander,
and Charlton were known as the Commissioners for the Gulf and River of
Canada and parts adjacent, and were all directly interested in Canadian
trade.[22] These committees received references from the Council,
summoned witnesses and examined them, and made reports to the Council.
Similarly, the dispute between Vassall and Kingswell was referred on
March 10, 1635, to Edward Nicholas and Sir Abraham Dawes for examination
and report, and because it was an intricate matter, consumed
considerable time and required a second report.[23] Again a case
regarding the Virginia tobacco trade was referred to the body known
as the "Commissioners of Tobacco to the Lords of the Privy Council,"
appointed as early as 1634 and itself a subcommittee having to do with
tobacco licenses, customs, and trade. The members were Lord Goring,
Sir Abraham Dawes, John Jacob, and Edmund Peisley. The first specific
references to "subcommittees," _eo nomine_, are of date May 23, May 25,
and June 27, 1638. The last named reference mentions the receipt by the
Privy Council of a "certificate" or report from Sir John Wolstenholme
and Sir Abraham Dawes "unto whom their lordships had formerly referred
the hearing and examining of complaints by John Michael in the Laconia
case."[24] As the earlier reference of May 23 had to do with the estate
of Sir Thomas Gates and that of May 25 to a Virginia matter, it is
evident that this particular subcommittee had been appointed some time
before May 23, 1638, and that the only thing new about it was the
term "subcommittee" as applied to such a body. This conjecture seems
reasonable when we note that Wolstenholme and Dawes had already served
on the commission for Virginia and were thoroughly conversant with
plantation affairs, while Dawes was also a member of the tobacco
commission and had served on the committee in the Kingswell-Vassall
case. An examination of later "subcommittees" shows that many of the
same men continued to be utilized by the Council in their capacity as
experts. Lord Goring, John Jacob, Sir Abraham Dawes, with Sir William
Becher and Edward Nicholas, clerks of the Council, and Edward Sandys,
brother of Sir Edwin Sandys, and a councillor of Virginia under Governor
Wyatt, formed the subcommittee to whom, on July 15, was referred the
complaint of Samuel Mathews against Governor Harvey. When the same
matter was referred again to a subcommittee on October 24, Sir Dudley
Carleton, formerly one of the commissioners for Virginia, and Thomas
Meautys, clerk of the Council, were substituted for Dawes and
Nicholas.[25] These committees were instructed "to call the parties
before them, to examine the matter, and find out the truth, and then
to make certificate to their lordships of the true state of things and
their opinion thereof."[26] Similar references continued to be made
during the year 1639, on January 4, February 22, March 8,[27] June 12,
16, July 17, 26, 28, August 28, and the evidence seems to show that the
committee, though frequently changing its membership, was considered
a body sitting regularly and continuously. The certificate of July 9,
1638, in answer to the reference of June 16, was signed by Sir William
Becher, Thomas Meautys, Sir Francis Wyatt, and Abraham Williams; that
of July 23 by Becher, Dawes, Jacob, and Williams. After August 28 we
hear no more of the subcommittee. Whether this is due to a failure of
the Register to enter further references and certificates or to the
actual cessation of its labors, we cannot say. The committee was always
appointed by the Council, and always reported to that body. Frequently
its certificates are entered at length in the Register.[28] The petition
upon which it acted was sometimes sent directly to itself, frequently
to the Privy Council, which referred it to the subcommittee, and but
rarely to the Commissioners for Foreign Plantations.[29] The committee
was limited in its scope to no one colony. It reported on matters in
England, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Somers Islands, and Virginia.
It dealt with secular business and ecclesiastical questions, and on one
occasion at least was required to examine and approve the instructions
issued to a colonial governor.[30] It does not appear ever to have acted
except by order of the Privy Council, and was never in any sense of
the word a subcommittee of the Commissioners of Foreign Plantations,
although in reporting to the Council it was reporting to those who
composed that commission.[31]

From 1640 to 1642 plantation business was managed by the Privy Council
with the aid of occasional committees of its own appointed to consider
special questions. The term "subcommittee," as we have seen, does not
appear to have been used after 1639,[32] but commissions authorizing
experts to make inquiry and report are referred to, and committees
of the Council took into consideration questions of trade and the
plantations. During the year from July 5, 1642, to June, 1643, no
measures relating to the colonies appear to have been taken, for
civil war was in full swing. In 1643, Parliament assumed to itself
the functions of King and Council and became the executive head of the
kingdom. Among the earliest acts was the appointment of a parliamentary
commission of eighteen members, November 24, 1643, authorized to control
plantation affairs. At its head was Robert Rich