Scotland without giving bond, or landed their goods there when they had given bond to go to England. A great deal of this trade was carried on under cover of trade with Newfoundland. Under pretext that it was a plantation, tobacco was loaded for transportation thence, without giving bond, when the ship's real destination was Scotland. The island was also a magazine for all sorts of European goods brought from different countries, and then taken on to New England without paying duty. Colonial vessels coming from Scotland seem to have adopted one of two methods of evading the authorities. One is described by Holden. The Scotch Trade by the like legerdemain jugles is driven. A ship at Newcastle, Berwick Poole etc. toucheth, taketh in coals or some other slight goods, goes for Scotland and there receives great quantities of linen and other Scotch goods and coming here by her English clearings at the Ports etc abovesaid passeth for current without further inquisition.'1 Another method, and one that was generally adopted by Scotch ships, was that of using a false certificate. Which illegal trade so Carryed on by severall Merchants in Scotland is Connived at and encouraged by divers of their Majesties Collectors of ye Customs in Virginia etc. who . . . Receive their goods by false Cocketts which they know to be made in Glascow and the seales of their Majesties Commissioners for ye Customs of London and those of several of the outports of England Counterfeited and affixed thereto-Particularly those of Newcastle, Berwick, Bristoll, Bewmorrice, Beddeford, Whitehaven, Liverpoole and Plimouth.'2 Although the Customs officials were very often interested in the illicit trade, and although it was impossible to watch so long a coast-line, yet seizures were occasionally made, generally by the special officers, Randolph and Quary. (Colonel Quary was appointed Surveyor General of the Customs in the Plantations in 1703.) But the case had still to be brought to Court and tried before a jury, and it was almost impossible to find men who would condemn the traders, for most of the inhabitants were sufficiently in sympathy with the Scottish interest to dismiss the case, whatever the evidence might be. Nicholson, Governor of Maryland, writing to the Committee of Trade and Plantations in 1695, says: 'I have found by 1 Col. Records of North Carolina, i. 245, 1690. 2 Proposals for Discovery of ye severall frauds in their Majesties Customs by persons trading directly to these places from Scotland.' .. . Treasury Papers, xxvi. 53, 1694. experience that it is a difficult thing to get Judges and Jurys to try and condemn illegal traders.'1 2 Other difficulties arose from some of the Colonies declaring that the Acts of Navigation could not bind them, and that the English Customs Commissioners had no authority in the Colonies. Randolph wrote from New England in 1690 that he was alwaies opposed in open Court by the Magistrates and my seizures and prosecutions (tho made upon very plain evidence) were ended ineffectual, for the Juries found for the Defendant against His Majesty all agreeing that the Power of the Commissioners of the Customs in matters of trade did not extend to their Colony.' On one occasion when he did succeed in obtaining several convictions he said: This highly aggravated the Traders and Masters of Ships against me. I was seized upon and hurried to the Common Goale . . whence I hardly escaped with my life.' The settlers in Carolina declared that as their Charter was granted them after the passing of the Acts they were not bound by them, and therefore the Courts refused to grant any convictions. The Government in England of course asserted that the Acts were binding in America, but although this came to be generally recognised, the amount of illicit trade did not seem to decrease. Various suggestions were made for the stricter enforcement of the Acts: that greater care should be taken in examining the certificates and cocquets and in taking bond for observing the Acts; and, perhaps most important of all, that the present collectors and officers should be removed, and 'men of integrity' substituted. It was also suggested that several small boats should be chartered, to cruise about and discover those ship which unloaded and loaded in secluded bays and creeks. In accordance with this advice one or two small boats were sent out. One of these was put in command of a certain Thomas Much, referred to in 1692 as an old offender,' but in February, 1694, found humbly acknowledging the unhappy part himself had been unwarily seduced to act in these misdemeanours,' and 'faithfully discovering divers fraudulent and illegal practices of Severall Scotch merchants.' Fortunately notices were given and the Alarm taken on ye Scotch coast,' but even so the turncoat Much 1 Board of Trade, Maryland, 2. 114, 1695. 2 S.P. Col.: Entry Book, 100, p. 1, 1687. 4 Treasury Papers, xxvi. 53, 1694. succeeded in taking two ships. A year later he managed to catch a fellow 'old offender,' whose story is typical of many others. Morris Trent had lodged false certificates for 5000 ells of Scotch cloth and Ticken and 30 dozen of Scotch Hose'; and had on board 'about 30 Tun of Sea Coales,' for which he had no certificates. The year before he had landed his tobacco in Scotland under pretence of ye Vessell being disabled which upon strict examination of ye men I find to be false and a trick put upon... ye Commissioners.' The vessel was seized and brought to New Jersey. The Governor, Hamilton, who was a Scotchman, told Much that it was not in his power to seize there and Cleared ye seizure from Mee and ordered her to be seized by one of his Creatures there, and then not being brought to Tryall according to Law was Cleared under collour of giving bond.'1 2 That Besides complaints from Government officials of Scottish. interlopers in the Plantations, there were also petitions from English merchants whose trade was interfered with. In 1692 the Custom House officials at Liverpool wrote to the Commissioners of the Customs at Bermuda, saying that they had various accounts from merchants and masters of ships in that port, who 'lawfully trade to the said Plantacons,' that they are much discouraged and almost ruined by reason their Majesties officers in the Plantations do . . . Corruptly or Unfairly comply with Persons tradeing to Scotland not capable by Law to Trade there.' The merchants of London also complained: their Trade is in a great measure destroyed and ruined by many ships trading directly from Scotland and Ireland to Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania without paying their Majesties' duties to the undervaluing of Trade.' The Commissioners of the Customs concurr with the said merchants herein and do humbly move . . . that some effectual remedy be taken by writing to the Government of Scotland or otherwise as to His Majesty shall seem fitt for preventing this great evill.' In 1694 the merchants and traders of Bristol also sent in a petition against unfair traders from Scotland and Ireland, who did not pay custom in England. The Privy Council in Scotland did not attempt to put a stop to this illegal trade. trade. On the contrary they granted licenses to 1 Treasury Papers, xxvi. 53, 1694. 2 Board of Trade, Bermuda, 28, pp. 41-45. 3 Board of Trade, Virginia, 5, 46, i. 1694. .. Scottish merchants sailing to the Plantations to transport servants thither. After the Revolution, when the Scottish Parliament and Government became more independent, and the ill-feeling between Scotland and England increased, English ships of war and privateers began to cruise about in Scottish waters, in order to arrest ships coming from the Plantations or from France. The first complaint sent in to the Council was in 1690. Anent a petition given in . . . be George Lockhart merchant in Glasgow shewing That q' the petitioners. . . did Import ane ship Loadned with Tobacco from Virginia to the port of Glenwark in the river of Clyde and reported the said Loadning of Tobacco to the Custome Office . . . and payed the ordnar dutie, yet notwithstanding on Potingar Captaine of the Dartmouth ffrigot hes . . . most unwarrantably against all Law and reasone Seased the said Vessell . . . threatening to cary her away for Ingland. . . to dispose upon her as ane prize purchased by him.'1 Several complaints followed, and in 1694 the Council wrote to the King anent seizing Scotts shippes in our owne ports.' They complained that both in our East and West seas and in the ports and harbours therof our merchant ships have been seized. . . . And furder we are informed that severall other merchant English shipps have taken out Commissions of Mart from the Admiralty against unlawful traders which we see they mostly make use of against our ships coming from the plantations. . . Albeit be certaine that before this late warr none of our ships could be attacqued or mollested on that account at sea But only in the ports and harbours of America. Our merchants are so much discouraged and prejudget by these attempts that many of them already hes given over trade.' The frequency of the complaints against the trade of Scotland with the Plantations show that it must have been considerable. There are also some lists of ships trading between the countries, and of Scottish merchants whose interests were involved in the trade. In October, 1689, there were three ships from Boston in Scotland and two more on their way from Glasgow back to Boston. In 1692 Randolph wrote that 'within eight months over 20 Scotch, Irish and New England vessels have sailed out of the Capes with tobacco for Scotland and Holland.'3 In 1693 and 1694 thirteen ships trading 1 Privy Council Register, 14 August, 1690. 2 2 Privy Council Register, 29 June, 1694. 3 S.P. Col.: America and West Indies, 637, 110. illegally, all belonging to Scottish merchants, loaded tobacco in Virginia and Maryland, of which nine went direct to Scotland.1 Much, in 1695, drew up a list of Glasgow merchants trading to the Plantations contrary to Acts of Parliament. He gives the names of fourteen, and says there are others whose names he does not remember.2 Between April 13, 1695, and December 29, 1696, twenty-seven vessels left Scotland for the Plantations, of which twenty seem to have been Scottish, nearly all from the Clyde ports.3 During William's wars with France illegal trade with America seems to have increased. Chalmers, in his History of the Revolt of the American Colonies, says that English commerce and shipping decayed during this period; and quotes from Davenant a complaint that during this war, the colonists have presumed . . . to set up for themselves, and to load their effects on ships belonging to foreigners, and to trade directly with other nations, sending them their commodities and receiving from thence manufactures not of our growth to the great damage of this kingdom.' There are several letters from various Colonial authorities complaining of the want of ships to carry on the Colonial trade. Nicholson, Governor of Virginia, wrote in 1695 I most humbly propose that a good number of ships be permitted to come to these ports for when few come then goods are very dear and tobacco very cheap. If too few ships come they will stop growing large quantities of tobacco and will begin manufacturing clothing for themselves.' Scottish ships doubtless took advantage of the opportunity given by English difficulties and Colonial necessities, and their trade seems to have increased after the Revolution. The goods which the Scots merchants took out, chiefly coarse cloth and linen, were not such good quality as English manufactures, but were cheaper, and therefore very acceptable. Scottish merchants and ships were also employed in the active trade carried on between the English Plantations and the Dutch possessions of Surinam and Curaçao. Several Scotch merchants in Pennsilvania . . . carry the Tobacco of Maryland to Surenham and Carressoe in bread Casks covered with flower 1 Board of Trade, Virginia, 5, 56. 2 Board of Trade, Maryland, 3, 2. 3 Hist. MSS. Commission Report: House of Lords MSS., p. 464. 4 Chalmers's History of the Revolt of the American Colonies, vol. i. p. 269. |