British Committees, Commissions, and Councils of Trade and Plantations , 1622-1675 Part 5

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 pet.i.tion,--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 pet.i.tioned 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 att.i.tude 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 fis.h.i.+ng 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 Fis.h.i.+ng 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 const.i.tute 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 ill.u.s.trates 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 fis.h.i.+ng 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 pa.s.sage of the Navigation Act of 1660, the Scots pet.i.tioned 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 pet.i.tioned 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 s.h.i.+ps. As a result of these and further negotiations Parliament pa.s.sed 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 pet.i.tions 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 pet.i.tions 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 a.s.sembling 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 a.s.semble, 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 const.i.tute 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 PEt.i.tIONS 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 princ.i.p.all 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 a.s.signed 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 pet.i.tions 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' pet.i.tion to the Committee for Foreign Affairs. In 1668, it dealt with the rest.i.tution 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 s.h.i.+ps of trading to New York despite the Navigation Act.

In 1669, it considered a few pet.i.tions 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 pa.s.sed 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 pa.s.s 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 pa.s.sing 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 establis.h.i.+ng 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...o...b..rne, Sir Thomas Littleton, Sir Henry Blount, Sir George Downing, Sir Andrew Riccard, Sir William Thompson, Silas t.i.tus, 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 Devons.h.i.+re, 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 doc.u.ment called "A Scheme of Trade,"

is capable of satisfactory disproof, since but few of the signers of that doc.u.ment 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 s.h.i.+ps 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 s.h.i.+pps 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 pa.s.ses 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 a.s.sistance,

That Directions be given to the Commanders of his Ma^{ties} s.h.i.+ps and to any merchant s.h.i.+pps to arrest any s.h.i.+p 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 pet.i.tions, 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, _pa.s.sim_, 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 a.n.a.lytical 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, ent.i.tled "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, -- 15, and an entry-book of pet.i.tions and reports, November 13, 1660-March 12, 1662, is in Brit. Mus. Add. MSS., 25115.