<SPAN name="ch7partcb4"></SPAN>
<p>Among the non-enumerated commodities are some of the most important
productions of America and the West Indies, grain of all sorts, lumber,
salt provisions, fish, sugar, and rum.</p>
<p>Grain is naturally the first and principal object of the culture of all
new colonies. By allowing them a very extensive market for it, the law
encourages them to extend this culture much beyond the consumption of a
thinly inhabited country, and thus to provide beforehand an ample
subsistence for a continually increasing population.</p>
<p>In a country quite covered with wood, where timber consequently is of
little or no value, the expense of clearing the ground is the principal
obstacle to improvement. By allowing the colonies a very extensive market
for their lumber, the law endeavours to facilitate improvement by raising
the price of a commodity which would otherwise be of little value, and
thereby enabling them to make some profit of what would otherwise be mere
expense.</p>
<p>In a country neither half peopled nor half cultivated, cattle naturally
multiply beyond the consumption of the inhabitants, and are often, upon
that account, of little or no value. But it is necessary, it has already
been shown, that the price of cattle should bear a certain proportion to
that of corn, before the greater part of the lands of any country can be
improved. By allowing to American cattle, in all shapes, dead and alive, a
very extensive market, the law endeavours to raise the value of a
commodity, of which the high price is so very essential to improvement.
The good effects of this liberty, however, must be somewhat diminished by
the 4th of Geo. III. c. 15, which puts hides and skins among the
enumerated commodities, and thereby tends to reduce the value of American
cattle.</p>
<p>To increase the shipping and naval power of Great Britain by the extension
of the fisheries of our colonies, is an object which the legislature seems
to have had almost constantly in view. Those fisheries, upon this account,
have had all the encouragement which freedom can give them, and they have
flourished accordingly. The New England fishery, in particular, was,
before the late disturbances, one of the most important, perhaps, in the
world. The whale fishery which, notwithstanding an extravagant bounty, is
in Great Britain carried on to so little purpose, that in the opinion of
many people ( which I do not, however, pretend to warrant), the whole
produce does not much exceed the value of the bounties which are annually
paid for it, is in New England carried on, without any bounty, to a very
great extent. Fish is one of the principal articles with which the North
Americans trade to Spain, Portugal, and the Mediterranean.</p>
<p>Sugar was originally an enumerated commodity, which could only be exported
to Great Britain; but in 1751, upon a representation of the
sugar-planters, its exportation was permitted to all parts of the world.
The restrictions, however, with which this liberty was granted, joined to
the high price of sugar in Great Britain, have rendered it in a great
measure ineffectual. Great Britain and her colonies still continue to be
almost the sole market for all sugar produced in the British plantations.
Their consumption increases so fast, that, though in consequence of the
increasing improvement of Jamaica, as well as of the ceded islands, the
importation of sugar has increased very greatly within these twenty years,
the exportation to foreign countries is said to be not much greater than
before.</p>
<p>Rum is a very important article in the trade which the Americans carry on
to the coast of Africa, from which they bring back negro slaves in return.</p>
<p>If the whole surplus produce of America, in grain of all sorts, in salt
provisions, and in fish, had been put into the enumeration, and thereby
forced into the market of Great Britain, it would have interfered too much
with the produce of the industry of our own people. It was probably not so
much from any regard to the interest of America, as from a jealousy of
this interference, that those important commodities have not only been
kept out of the enumeration, but that the importation into Great Britain
of all grain, except rice, and of all salt provisions, has, in the
ordinary state of the law, been prohibited.</p>
<p>The non-enumerated commodities could originally be exported to all parts
of the world. Lumber and rice having been once put into the enumeration,
when they were afterwards taken out of it, were confined, as to the
European market, to the countries that lie south of Cape Finisterre. By
the 6th of George III. c. 52, all non-enumerated commodities were
subjected to the like restriction. The parts of Europe which lie south of
Cape Finisterre are not manufacturing countries, and we are less jealous
of the colony ships carrying home from them any manufactures which could
interfere with our own.</p>
<p>The enumerated commodities are of two sorts; first, such as are either the
peculiar produce of America, or as cannot be produced, or at least are not
produced in the mother country. Of this kind are molasses, coffee,
cocoa-nuts, tobacco, pimento, ginger, whalefins, raw silk, cotton, wool,
beaver, and other peltry of America, indigo, fustick, and other dyeing
woods; secondly, such as are not the peculiar produce of America, but
which are, and may be produced in the mother country, though not in such
quantities as to supply the greater part of her demand, which is
principally supplied from foreign countries. Of this kind are all naval
stores, masts, yards, and bowsprits, tar, pitch, and turpentine, pig and
bar iron, copper ore, hides and skins, pot and pearl ashes. The largest
importation of commodities of the first kind could not discourage the
growth, or interfere with the sale, of any part of the produce of the
mother country. By confining them to the home market, our merchants, it
was expected, would not only be enabled to buy them cheaper in the
plantations, and consequently to sell them with a better profit at home,
but to establish between the plantations and foreign countries an
advantageous carrying trade, of which Great Britain was necessarily to be
the centre or emporium, as the European country into which those
commodities were first to be imported. The importation of commodities of
the second kind might be so managed too, it was supposed, as to interfere,
not with the sale of those of the same kind which were produced at home,
but with that of those which were imported from foreign countries;
because, by means of proper duties, they might be rendered always somewhat
dearer than the former, and yet a good deal cheaper than the latter. By
confining such commodities to the home market, therefore, it was proposed
to discourage the produce, not of Great Britain, but of some foreign
countries with which the balance of trade was believed to be unfavourable
to Great Britain.</p>
<p>The prohibition of exporting from the colonies to any other country but
Great Britain, masts, yards, and bowsprits, tar, pitch, and turpentine,
naturally tended to lower the price of timber in the colonies, and
consequently to increase the expense of clearing their lands, the
principal obstacle to their improvement. But about the beginning of the
present century, in 1703, the pitch and tar company of Sweden endeavoured
to raise the price of their commodities to Great Britain, by prohibiting
their exportation, except in their own ships, at their own price, and in
such quantities as they thought proper. In order to counteract this
notable piece of mercantile policy, and to render herself as much as
possible independent, not only of Sweden, but of all the other northern
powers, Great Britain gave a bounty upon the importation of naval stores
from America; and the effect of this bounty was to raise the price of
timber in America much more than the confinement to the home market could
lower it; and as both regulations were enacted at the same time, their
joint effect was rather to encourage than to discourage the clearing of
land in America.</p>
<p>Though pig and bar iron, too, have been put among the enumerated
commodities, yet as, when imported from America, they are exempted from
considerable duties to which they are subject when imported front any
other country, the one part of the regulation contributes more to
encourage the erection of furnaces in America than the other to discourage
it. There is no manufacture which occasions so great a consumption of wood
as a furnace, or which can contribute so much to the clearing of a country
overgrown with it.</p>
<p>The tendency of some of these regulations to raise the value of timber in
America, and thereby to facilitate the clearing of the land, was neither,
perhaps, intended nor understood by the legislature. Though their
beneficial effects, however, have been in this respect accidental, they
have not upon that account been less real.</p>
<p>The most perfect freedom of trade is permitted between the British
colonies of America and the West Indies, both in the enumerated and in the
non-enumerated commodities Those colonies are now become so populous and
thriving, that each of them finds in some of the others a great and
extensive market for every part of its produce. All of them taken
together, they make a great internal market for the produce of one
another.</p>
<p>The liberality of England, however, towards the trade of her colonies, has
been confined chiefly to what concerns the market for their produce,
either in its rude state, or in what may be called the very first stage of
manufacture. The more advanced or more refined manufactures, even of the
colony produce, the merchants and manufacturers of Great Britain chuse to
reserve to themselves, and have prevailed upon the legislature to prevent
their establishment in the colonies, sometimes by high duties, and
sometimes by absolute prohibitions.</p>
<p>While, for example, Muscovado sugars from the British plantations pay,
upon importation, only 6s:4d. the hundred weight, white sugars pay �1:1:1;
and refined, either double or single, in loaves, �4:2:5 8/20ths. When
those high duties were imposed, Great Britain was the sole, and she still
continues to be, the principal market, to which the sugars of the British
colonies could be exported. They amounted, therefore, to a prohibition, at
first of claying or refining sugar for any foreign market, and at present
of claying or refining it for the market which takes off, perhaps, more
than nine-tenths of the whole produce. The manufacture of claying or
refining sugar, accordingly, though it has flourished in all the sugar
colonies of France, has been little cultivated in any of those of England,
except for the market of the colonies themselves. While Grenada was in the
hands of the French, there was a refinery of sugar, by claying, at least
upon almost every plantation. Since it fell into those of the English,
almost all works of this kind have been given up; and there are at present
(October 1773), I am assured, not above two or three remaining in the
island. At present, however, by an indulgence of the custom-house, clayed
or refined sugar, if reduced from loaves into powder, is commonly imported
as Muscovado.</p>
<p>While Great Britain encourages in America the manufacturing of pig and bar
iron, by exempting them from duties to which the like commodities are
subject when imported from any other country, she imposes an absolute
prohibition upon the erection of steel furnaces and slit-mills in any of
her American plantations. She will not suffer her colonies to work in
those more refined manufactures, even for their own consumption; but
insists upon their purchasing of her merchants and manufacturers all goods
of this kind which they have occasion for.</p>
<p>She prohibits the exportation from one province to another by water, and
even the carriage by land upon horseback, or in a cart, of hats, of wools,
and woollen goods, of the produce of America; a regulation which
effectually prevents the establishment of any manufacture of such
commodities for distant sale, and confines the industry of her colonists
in this way to such coarse and household manufactures as a private family
commonly makes for its own use, or for that of some of its neighbours in
the same province.</p>
<p>To prohibit a great people, however, from making all that they can of
every part of their own produce, or from employing their stock and
industry in the way that they judge most advantageous to themselves, is a
manifest violation of the most sacred rights of mankind. Unjust, however,
as such prohibitions may be, they have not hitherto been very hurtful to
the colonies. Land is still so cheap, and, consequently, labour so dear
among them, that they can import from the mother country almost all the
more refined or more advanced manufactures cheaper than they could make
them for themselves. Though they had not, therefore, been prohibited from
establishing such manufactures, yet, in their present state of
improvement, a regard to their own interest would probably have prevented
them from doing so. In their present state of improvement, those
prohibitions, perhaps, without cramping their industry, or restraining it
from any employment to which it would have gone of its own accord, are
only impertinent badges of slavery imposed upon them, without any
sufficient reason, by the groundless jealousy of the merchants and
manufacturers of the mother country. In a more advanced state, they might
be really oppressive and insupportable.</p>
<p>Great Britain, too, as she confines to her own market some of the most
important productions of the colonies, so, in compensation, she gives to
some of them an advantage in that market, sometimes by imposing higher
duties upon the like productions when imported from other countries, and
sometimes by giving bounties upon their importation from the colonies. In
the first way, she gives an advantage in the home market to the sugar,
tobacco, and iron of her own colonies; and, in the second, to their raw
silk, to their hemp and flax, to their indigo, to their naval stores, and
to their building timber. This second way of encouraging the colony
produce, by bounties upon importation, is, so far as I have been able to
learn, peculiar to Great Britain: the first is not. Portugal does not
content herself with imposing higher duties upon the importation of
tobacco from any other country, but prohibits it under the severest
penalties.</p>
<p>With regard to the importation of goods from Europe, England has likewise
dealt more liberally with her colonies than any other nation.</p>
<p>Great Britain allows a part, almost always the half, generally a larger
portion, and sometimes the whole, of the duty which is paid upon the
importation of foreign goods, to be drawn back upon their exportation to
any foreign country. No independent foreign country, it was easy to
foresee, would receive them, if they came to it loaded with the heavy
duties to which almost all foreign goods are subjected on their
importation into Great Britain. Unless, therefore, some part of those
duties was drawn back upon exportation, there was an end of the carrying
trade; a trade so much favoured by the mercantile system.</p>
<p>Our colonies, however, are by no means independent foreign countries; and
Great Britain having assumed to herself the exclusive right of supplying
them with all goods from Europe, might have forced them (in the same
manner as other countries have done their colonies) to receive such goods
loaded with all the same duties which they paid in the mother country.
But, on the contrary, till 1763, the same drawbacks were paid upon the
exportation of the greater part of foreign goods to our colonies, as to
any independent foreign country. In 1763, indeed, by the 4th of Geo. III.
c. 15, this indulgence was a good deal abated, and it was enacted, "That
no part of the duty called the old subsidy should be drawn back for any
goods of the growth, production, or manufacture of Europe or the East
Indies, which should be exported from this kingdom to any British colony
or plantation in America; wines, white calicoes, and muslins, excepted."
Before this law, many different sorts of foreign goods might have been
bought cheaper in the plantations than in the mother country, and some may
still.</p>
<p>Of the greater part of the regulations concerning the colony trade, the
merchants who carry it on, it must be observed, have been the principal
advisers. We must not wonder, therefore, if, in a great part of them,
their interest has been more considered than either that of the colonies
or that of the mother country. In their exclusive privilege of supplying
the colonies with all the goods which they wanted from Europe, and of
purchasing all such parts of their surplus produce as could not interfere
with any of the trades which they themselves carried on at home, the
interest of the colonies was sacrificed to the interest of those
merchants. In allowing the same drawbacks upon the re-exportation of the
greater part of European and East India goods to the colonies, as upon
their re-exportation to any independent country, the interest of the
mother country was sacrificed to it, even according to the mercantile
ideas of that interest. It was for the interest of the merchants to pay as
little as possible for the foreign goods which they sent to the colonies,
and, consequently, to get back as much as possible of the duties which
they advanced upon their importation into Great Britain. They might
thereby be enabled to sell in the colonies, either the same quantity of
goods with a greater profit, or a greater quantity with the same profit,
and, consequently, to gain something either in the one way or the other.
It was likewise for the interest of the colonies to get all such goods as
cheap, and in as great abundance as possible. But this might not always be
for the interest of the mother country. She might frequently suffer, both
in her revenue, by giving back a great part of the duties which had been
paid upon the importation of such goods; and in her manufactures, by being
undersold in the colony market, in consequence of the easy terms upon
which foreign manufactures could be carried thither by means of those
drawbacks. The progress of the linen manufacture of Great Britain, it is
commonly said, has been a good deal retarded by the drawbacks upon the
re-exportation of German linen to the American colonies.</p>
<p>But though the policy of Great Britain, with regard to the trade of her
colonies, has been dictated by the same mercantile spirit as that of other
nations, it has, however, upon the whole, been less illiberal and
oppressive than that of any of them.</p>
<p>In every thing except their foreign trade, the liberty of the English
colonists to manage their own affairs their own way, is complete. It is in
every respect equal to that of their fellow-citizens at home, and is
secured in the same manner, by an assembly of the representatives of the
people, who claim the sole right of imposing taxes for the support of the
colony government. The authority of this assembly overawes the executive
power; and neither the meanest nor the most obnoxious colonist, as long as
he obeys the law, has any thing to fear from the resentment, either of the
governor, or of any other civil or military officer in the province. The
colony assemblies, though, like the house of commons in England, they are
not always a very equal representation of the people, yet they approach
more nearly to that character; and as the executive power either has not
the means to corrupt them, or, on account of the support which it receives
from the mother country, is not under the necessity of doing so, they are,
perhaps, in general more influenced by the inclinations of their
constituents. The councils, which, in the colony legislatures, correspond
to the house of lords in Great Britain, are not composed of a hereditary
nobility. In some of the colonies, as in three of the governments of New
England, those councils are not appointed by the king, but chosen by the
representatives of the people. In none of the English colonies is there
any hereditary nobility. In all of them, indeed, as in all other free
countries, the descendant of an old colony family is more respected than
an upstart of equal merit and fortune; but he is only more respected, and
he has no privileges by which he can be troublesome to his neighbours.
Before the commencement of the present disturbances, the colony assemblies
had not only the legislative, but a part of the executive power. In
Connecticut and Rhode Island, they elected the governor. In the other
colonies, they appointed the revenue officers, who collected the taxes
imposed by those respective assemblies, to whom those officers were
immediately responsible. There is more equality, therefore, among the
English colonists than among the inhabitants of the mother country. Their
manners are more re publican; and their governments, those of three of the
provinces of New England in particular, have hitherto been more republican
too.</p>
<p>The absolute governments of Spain, Portugal, and France, on the contrary,
take place in their colonies; and the discretionary powers which such
governments commonly delegate to all their inferior officers are, on
account of the great distance, naturally exercised there with more than
ordinary violence. Under all absolute governments, there is more liberty
in the capital than in any other part of the country. The sovereign
himself can never have either interest or inclination to pervert the order
of justice, or to oppress the great body of the people. In the capital,
his presence overawes, more or less, all his inferior officers, who, in
the remoter provinces, from whence the complaints of the people are less
likely to reach him, can exercise their tyranny with much more safety. But
the European colonies in America are more remote than the most distant
provinces of the greatest empires which had ever been known before. The
government of the English colonies is, perhaps, the only one which, since
the world began, could give perfect security to the inhabitants of so very
distant a province. The administration of the French colonies, however,
has always been conducted with much more gentleness and moderation than
that of the Spanish and Portuguese. This superiority of conduct is
suitable both to the character of the French nation, and to what forms the
character of every nation, the nature of their government, which, though
arbitrary and violent in comparison with that of Great Britain, is legal
and free in comparison with those of Spain and Portugal.</p>
<p>It is in the progress of the North American colonies, however, that the
superiority of the English policy chiefly appears. The progress of the
sugar colonies of France has been at least equal, perhaps superior, to
that of the greater part of those of England; and yet the sugar colonies
of England enjoy a free government, nearly of the same kind with that
which takes place in her colonies of North America. But the sugar colonies
of France are not discouraged, like those of England, from refining their
own sugar; and what is still of greater importance, the genius of their
government naturally introduces a better management of their negro slaves.</p>
<p>In all European colonies, the culture of the sugar-cane is carried on by
negro slaves. The constitution of those who have been born in the
temperate climate of Europe could not, it is supposed, support the labour
of digging the ground under the burning sun of the West Indies; and the
culture of the sugar-cane, as it is managed at present, is all hand
labour; though, in the opinion of many, the drill plough might be
introduced into it with great advantage. But, as the profit and success of
the cultivation which is carried on by means of cattle, depend very much
upon the good management of those cattle; so the profit and success of
that which is carried on by slaves must depend equally upon the good
management of those slaves; and in the good management of their slaves the
French planters, I think it is generally allowed, are superior to the
English. The law, so far as it gives some weak protection to the slave
against the violence of his master, is likely to be better executed in a
colony where the government is in a great measure arbitrary, than in one
where it is altogether free. In ever country where the unfortunate law of
slavery is established, the magistrate, when he protects the slave,
intermeddles in some measure in the management of the private property of
the master; and, in a free country, where the master is, perhaps, either a
member of the colony assembly, or an elector of such a member, he dares
not do this but with the greatest caution and circumspection. The respect
which he is obliged to pay to the master, renders it more difficult for
him to protect the slave. But in a country where the government is in a
great measure arbitrary, where it is usual for the magistrate to
intermeddle even in the management of the private property of individuals,
and to send them, perhaps, a lettre de cachet, if they do not manage it
according to his liking, it is much easier for him to give some protection
to the slave; and common humanity naturally disposes him to do so. The
protection of the magistrate renders the slave less contemptible in the
eyes of his master, who is thereby induced to consider him with more
regard, and to treat him with more gentleness. Gentle usage renders the
slave not only more faithful, but more intelligent, and, therefore, upon a
double account, more useful. He approaches more to the condition of a free
servant, and may possess some degree of integrity and attachment to his
master's interest; virtues which frequently belong to free servants, but
which never can belong to a slave, who is treated as slaves commonly are
in countries where the master is perfectly free and secure.</p>
<p>That the condition of a slave is better under an arbitrary than under a
free government, is, I believe, supported by the history of all ages and
nations. In the Roman history, the first time we read of the magistrate
interposing to protect the slave from the violence of his master, is under
the emperors. When Vidius Pollio, in the presence of Augustus, ordered one
of his slaves, who had committed a slight fault, to be cut into pieces and
thrown into his fish-pond, in order to feed his fishes, the emperor
commanded him, with indignation, to emancipate immediately, not only that
slave, but all the others that belonged to him. Under the republic no
magistrate could have had authority enough to protect the slave, much less
to punish the master.</p>
<p>The stock, it is to be observed, which has improved the sugar colonies of
France, particularly the great colony of St Domingo, has been raised
almost entirely from the gradual improvement and cultivation of those
colonies. It has been almost altogether the produce of the soil and of the
industry of the colonists, or, what comes to the same thing, the price of
that produce, gradually accumulated by good management, and employed in
raising a still greater produce. But the stock which has improved and
cultivated the sugar colonies of England, has, a great part of it, been
sent out from England, and has by no means been altogether the produce of
the soil and industry of the colonists. The prosperity of the English
sugar colonies has been in a great measure owing to the great riches of
England, of which a part has overflowed, if one may say so, upon these
colonies. But the prosperity of the sugar colonies of France has been
entirely owing to the good conduct of the colonists, which must therefore
have had some superiority over that of the English; and this superiority
has been remarked in nothing so much as in the good management of their
slaves.</p>
<p>Such have been the general outlines of the policy of the different
European nations with regard to their colonies.</p>
<p>The policy of Europe, therefore, has very little to boast of, either in
the original establishment, or, so far as concerns their internal
government, in the subsequent prosperity of the colonies of America.</p>
<p>Folly and injustice seem to have been the principles which presided over
and directed the first project of establishing those colonies; the folly
of hunting after gold and silver mines, and the injustice of coveting the
possession of a country whose harmless natives, far from having ever
injured the people of Europe, had received the first adventurers with
every mark of kindness and hospitality.</p>
<p>The adventurers, indeed, who formed some of the latter establishments,
joined to the chimerical project of finding gold and silver mines, other
motives more reasonable and more laudable; but even these motives do very
little honour to the policy of Europe.</p>
<p>The English puritans, restrained at home, fled for freedom to America, and
established there the four governments of New England. The English
catholics, treated with much greater injustice, established that of
Maryland; the quakers, that of Pennsylvania. The Portuguese Jews,
persecuted by the inquisition, stript of their fortunes, and banished to
Brazil, introduced, by their example, some sort of order and industry
among the transported felons and strumpets by whom that colony was
originally peopled, and taught them the culture of the sugar-cane. Upon
all these different occasions, it was not the wisdom and policy, but the
disorder and injustice of the European governments, which peopled and
cultivated America.</p>
<p>In effectuation some of the most important of these establishments, the
different governments of Europe had as little merit as in projecting them.
The conquest of Mexico was the project, not of the council of Spain, but
of a governor of Cuba; and it was effectuated by the spirit of the bold
adventurer to whom it was entrusted, in spite of every thing which that
governor, who soon repented of having trusted such a person, could do to
thwart it. The conquerors of Chili and Peru, and of almost all the other
Spanish settlements upon the continent of America, carried out with them
no other public encouragement, but a general permission to make
settlements and conquests in the name of the king of Spain. Those
adventures were all at the private risk and expense of the adventurers.
The government of Spain contributed scarce any thing to any of them. That
of England contributed as little towards effectuating the establishment of
some of its most important colonies in North America.</p>
<p>When those establishments were effectuated, and had become so considerable
as to attract the attention of the mother country, the first regulations
which she made with regard to them, had always in view to secure to
herself the monopoly of their commerce; to confine their market, and to
enlarge her own at their expense, and, consequently, rather to damp and
discourage, than to quicken and forward the course of their prosperity. In
the different ways in which this monopoly has been exercised, consists one
of the most essential differences in the policy of the different European
nations with regard to their colonies. The best of them all, that of
England, is only somewhat less illiberal and oppressive than that of any
of the rest.</p>
<p>In what way, therefore, has the policy of Europe contributed either to the
first establishment, or to the present grandeur of the colonies of
America? In one way, and in one way only, it has contributed a good deal.
Magna virum mater! It bred and formed the men who were capable of
achieving such great actions, and of laying the foundation of so great an
empire; and there is no other quarter of the world; of which the policy is
capable of forming, or has ever actually, and in fact, formed such men.
The colonies owe to the policy of Europe the education and great views of
their active and enterprizing founders; and some of the greatest and most
important of them, so far as concerns their internal government, owe to it
scarce anything else.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />