of the growth of any of the King of Spaines Dominions shall be imported into this Realme, other then such as shalbe imported by his Majesties Agents only, and only for his Majesties vse. . .

G. Bounties on Colonial Products, 17641

While regulating the trade and suppressing the manufactures of the colonies, the English government encouraged by a system of bounties the production of certain articles that were desired in England. The production of indigo, hemp, flax, timber, naval stores, and similar commodities were stimulated in this manner. As an illustration the bounty granted on hemp is here described.

In order to obtain a cheaper and surer supply of hemp and flax, and to encourage the production of it in the American colonies, the parliament granted a bounty of £8 on every tun of clean merchantable hemp, or rough flax, imported from the British American colonies from 24th June 1764 to 24th June 1771, and thence to 24th June 1778 a bounty of £6, and thereafter to 24th June 1785 of £4; the pre-emption of all such hemp and flax being offered to the commissioners of the navy, and twenty days being allowed for their determination before the importer could be at liberty to sell it to a private buyer.

1 Annals of Commerce, Manufactures, Fisheries, and Navigation. By David Macpherson (London, 1805), III, 400.

CHAPTER V

ECONOMIC CAUSES AND CONDUCT OF THE

REVOLUTION, 1764-1783

I. ECONOMIC CAUSES OF THE REVOLUTION

A. Fear of French Kept Colonies Loyal, 17481

An extraordinarily accurate prophecy of the future course of events was made by Kalm as early as 1748, in which he foretold the independence of the colonies in from "thirty or fifty years" (i.e. 1778-1798), if the fear of French attack were removed.

It is however of great advantage to the crown of England that the North American colonies are near a country under the government of the French, like Canada. There is reason to believe that the King never was earnest in his attempts to expel the French from their possessions there; though it might have been done with little difficulty: for the English colonies in this part of the world have increased so much in their number of inhabitants, and in their riches, that they almost vie with Old England. Now in order to keep up the authority and trade of their mother country, and to answer several other purposes, they are forbid to establish new manufactures, which would turn to the disadvantage of the British commerce: they are not allowed to dig for any gold or silver, unless they send them to England immediately; they have not the liberty of trading to any parts that do not belong to the British dominions, excepting some settled places; and foreign traders are not allowed to send their ships to them. These and some other restrictions, occasion the inhabitants of the English colonies to grow less tender for their mother country. This coldness is kept up by the many foreigners, such as Germans, Dutch, and French, settled here, and living among the English, who commonly have no particular attachment to Old England; add to this likewise, that many people can never be contented with their possessions, though they be ever so great, and will always be desirous of getting

1 Travels into North America. By Peter Kalm (London, 1770). In Pinkerton, Voyages and Travels, XIII, 461.

more, and of enjoying the pleasure which arises from changing; and their over great liberty, and their luxury, often lead them to licentious

ness.

I have been told by Englishmen, and not only by such as were born in America, but even by such as came from Europe, that the English colonies in North America, in the space of thirty or fifty years, would be able to form a state by themselves, entirely independent on Old England: but as the whole country which lies along the sea-shore is unguarded, and on the land side is harrassed by the French in times of war, these dangerous neighbours are sufficient to prevent the connection of the colonies with their mother country from being quite broken off. The English government has therefore sufficient reason to consider the French in North America as the best means of keeping the colonies in their due submission.

B. Prohibition of Western Expansion, 1763–17721

One of the little emphasized but important causes of discontent among the colonists was the prohibition of westward expansion and of settlements beyond the Alleghany Mountains. This was particularly irritating to the people of Virginia with their large charter claims to western lands. The Royal Proclamation of 1763, known as the Quebec Act, forbade any governor "to grant warrant of survey, or pass patents for any lands beyond the heads or sources of any of the rivers which fall into the Atlantic Ocean from the west or north-west; or upon any lands whatever, which not having been ceded to, or purchased by us . . . are reserved to the said Indians, or any of them." This restriction of the area of settlement to the seacoast gave rise to protest on the part of the colonists and the matter was considered several times by the Board of Trade, but they each time endorsed the policy laid down in 1763. The following extract from a report made in 1772 sets forth the arguments for and against such a policy.

The object of colonisation in North America has been to improve and extend the commerce, navigation and manufactures of this kingdom, (1) by the fisheries on the northern coast; (2) by the growth of naval stores and raw produce to be exchanged for manufactures and other merchandise; (3) by securing a supply of lumber and provisions for the island colonies. For these purposes, settlements were confined as much as possible to the seacoast, so as to be accessible to merchant ships and defensible by the British Navy, which could use the ports as stations in time of war. . . .

The arguments in favour of inland settlements are, (1) Such colonies promote population and form a market for English woollens;

1 Acts of the Privy Council, Colonial Series, The Unbound Papers (London, 1911), VI, 513-8, passim.

(2) they secure the fur trade from the French and Spaniards; (3) they defend the old colonies against the Indians; (4) they lessen the expense of supplying the distant forts with provisions; (5) the people already residing there require some form of civil government.

(1) The new sea-coast colonies provide a market for manufactures; but these, being 1,500 miles inland, would supply no returns to pay for British manufactures, and would probably be led to manufacture for themselves, "which experience shows has constantly attended in a greater or lesser degree every inland settlement." (2) "It does appear to us that the extension of the fur trade depends entirely upon the Indians being undisturbed in the possession of their hunting-grounds; that all colonising does in its nature, and must in its consequences, operate to the prejudice of that branch of commerce, and that the French and Spaniards would be left in possession of a great part of what remained; as New Orleans would still continue the best and surest market."

(3) "So far from affording protection to the old colonies, they will stand most in need of it themselves."

(4) The degree of utility of the provisions raised will be proportioned to the number of the forts; the French inhabitants near the Lakes, and on the Mississippi, Illinois and Ohio could supply all the forts that will be required.

(5) Settlements formed under military establishments require no other superintendence than that of the military officers in command. The B. of T. next quote the opinion of the Commander in Chief in America in a letter to Lord Hillsborough: he conceived such settlements inconsistent with sound policy. The only commodities these parts could have to barter for manufactures would be furs and skins, which will naturally decrease as the country increases in people. Necessity would force them to manufacture for themselves, "and when all connection upheld by commerce with the mother country shall cease, it may be expected that an independency on her government will soon follow . . . there is room enough for the colonists to spread within our present limits for a century to come. If we reflect how the people of themselves have gradually retired from the coast, we shall be convinced they want no encouragement to desert the seacoasts and go into the back-countries, where the lands are better and got upon easier terms. They are already almost out of the reach of law and government. . . . The lower provinces are still thinly inhabited, and not brought to the point of perfection that has been aimed at for the mutual benefit of Great Britain and them

selves. Although America may supply the mother country with many articles, few of them are yet supplied in quantities equal to her consumption; the quantity of iron transported is not great, of hemp very small; and there are many other commodities not necessary to enumerate, which America has not yet been able to raise, notwithstanding the encouragement given her by bounties and premiums. The laying open new tracts of fertile territory in moderate climates might lessen her present produce, for it is the passion of every man to be a landholder, and the people have a natural disposition to rove in search of good lands, however distant. It may be a question likewise whether colonisations of the kind could be effected without an Indian war and fighting for every inch of the ground. . . . I conceive that to procure all the commerce that it will afford, and at as little expense to ourselves as we can, is the only object we should have in view in the interior country for a century to come.' The Indians desire our manufactures as much as we do their peltry; firearms are necessary to them for hunting, as they are disused to the bow; for their own sakes, therefore, they would protect the trade. . .

The B. of T. propose that no grant be made, and that another proclamation be issued against any settlement beyond the line prescribed by the Proclamation of 1763.

C. The Prohibition of Colonial Paper Money, 17641

The issue of paper money in the colonies had always been regarded with disapproval by the British government, and a series of measures was passed designed to put an end to such practices. In 1741 Parliament declared its authority over the matter; ten years later it forbade the issue of colonial bills of credit in New England; and finally in 1764 it extended this prohibition to all the colonies. The quarrels over this matter between colonial legislatures and royal governors was undoubtedly an important factor in creating discontent in the colonies.

In the Report of the Board of Trade, dated February 9th, 1764, the following reasons are given for restraining the emission of paper bills of credit in America, as a legal tender.

1. "That it carries the gold and silver out of the province, and so ruins the country; as experience has shown, in every colony where it has been practiced in any great degree.

2. "That the merchants trading to America have suffered and lost

by it.

3. "That the restriction has had a beneficial effect in New England.

1 Report of the Board of Trade, February 9, 1764. Quoted in Franklin's Works (Spark's edition, Boston, 1840), II, 341-2.