British Mercantile and Navigation Acts

Throughout history many countries and governments have enacted economic policies based in the principles of Mercantilism or Protectionism. Their policies would be based around the role of government in maximising a nation’s balance of trade. The English series of Navigation Acts, were the first legislation set down by the English parliament based on these pronciples and set about legislating against the use of foreign boats in the trade of England and its colonies. Through this restriction, and a subsequent increase in tariffs of foreign items, England sought to ensure that trade in English goods flourished, and that supporting industries, such as shipbuilding and the merchant navy, did likewise.

A British Man of War - Thomas Whitcombe - PD-art-70

The first of the series commenced with the 1651 Act of Parliament. Whilst this was the first parliamentary act, it should be noted that there had been previous Statutes, and was therefore a continuation of English practice dating back to the 14th Century. The timing of this first parliamentary Act can be attributed to some failed diplomacy by Cromwell’s Commonwealth diplomats. A proposed formal union between England and the Republic of Seven United Netherlands, had come to nothing. The Dutch government instead sought a Free Trade agreement, a proposal that would have cemented the Dutch as the major trading nation of the time. Already by the 1650s the Dutch had the largest merchant fleet as well as the largest trading network. The English saw this as a slight as the English merchant navy would have been unable to compete, and a large proportion of profit from trade with England and its colonies would have gone to foreign nationals. As an act of Protectionism Cromwell’s Parliament brought in the 1651 legislation.

The details of this initial Act focused on the import of goods into England and its colonies. The Act dictated that all imports from the plantations of Asia, Africa and Americas, were to be shipped in ships owned by “Englishmen”, these ships were also required to have been built by English shipbuilders and crewed by an English crew. At this point in history the term English related to any native of England or one of its colonies, and therefore an American colonist in one of the English colonies was also an Englishman. The other major terms of the Act was to stipulate that all goods shipped from Europe were only allowed to be shipped in English ships or ships from the country that had produced them.

No nation was directly named in the Act, but as the biggest trading fleet the Act would ensure that the Dutch traders would suffer. The Dutch fleet would in essence only be allowed to ship cheese and butter to England and its colonies, as these two items were the core produce of the Dutch states. The level of suffering can be argued though as the Dutch traded worldwide, and whilst growing the English colonies covered a fraction of the globe. The Act though has oft been quoted as a key contributory factor to the commencement of the First Anglo-Dutch War (1652-54). The war was won by the English after a series of naval victories by the English fleet in 1653, including the Battles of Portland, Gabbard and Scheveningen. In defeat the Dutch government was forced to acknowledge the Navigation Act.

The First Dutch War - Reinier Nooms - PD-art-70

With the restoration of Charles II, the 1651 Act was declared invalid, though rather than being repealed, it was re-enacted in 1660 as the First Navigation Act. Thus all the elements of the 1651 Act were made law once again, though the new law decided to make additional stipulations to protect English trade. Certain products produced by the English colonies were only to be transported to England or other colonies, these products included sugar, tobacco, cotton and indigo. In addition all transportation to the colonies had to be undertaken by English or English colonial ships. This 1660 Act was expanded by the subsequent Navigation Acts of 1662, 1663, 1670 and 1673. Whilst these Acts added other restricted products to the list or increased taxes on the transported goods, the 1663 Act is probably the most notable. This 1663 Act, also known as the Staple or Act for the Encouragement of Trade, stipulated that all European goods heading for an English colony had to be shipped through England or Wales first. This mean that goods were to be unloaded, inspected, have duties paid, and then reloaded onto English ships as required.

English colonies benefited from the early ramifications of the Navigation Acts. Goods such as tobacco and sugar had protected and dedicated markets, and because of duties on foreign imports sold in preference to the cheaper products of foreign nations. Shipbuilders in the American colonies also benefited greatly as English ships were required for all trade. The later Acts though saw the increase in duties on products between colonies, and therefore increasing the cost of simple products to the colonists. Resentment grew though, with the introduction of such Acts as the Molasses Act of 1733, as American colonists because of duties, were forced to buy the more expensive sugar from the British West Indies rather than the sugar from the French West Indies.

In isolation the Navigation Acts provided a balance to the colonists, of benefits and hardships. The Navigation Acts though did not operate in isolation as the English government also introduced further Protectionist acts. Acts such as the Corn Law of 1666 blocked the English home market to all foreign grown corn; further acts prevented the import of linen, woollen items (Woollen Act 1699) or hats (Hat Act 1732). Harsher acts, such as that of 1750, the Iron Act, prevented colonies from rolling iron. All were designed to ensure that manufacturers in the homeland prospered to the detriment of the colonists. At the same time bounties and rebates were placed on the raw materials produced by the colonies to the benefit of the colonists.

The effort to enforce the Navigation Acts, and prevent the associated smuggling, in later years was a great cause of resentment for the North American colonists in particular. The English government was in need of money to fund wars and upkeep the colonies but the colonists had no desire to pay the higher prices for goods. After 1765 there was arbitrary seizure of goods and ships owned by the American colonists and these actions have been seen as a contributory factor to the American War of Independence.

It should be noted that English government actions may appear to be harsh, but their view was that the colonies existed for the benefit of the homeland. The colonists benefited in some areas, in the production of raw materials and shipbuilding, but were penalised with high duties and the prevention of manufacturing. These actions allowed England to retain the balance of trade in its favour.

The Navigation Acts were finally repealed in 1849, by this time Britain dominated the world’s ocean both in terms of the Merchant Navy and Royal Navy. The British Empire no longer needed to restrict or protect trade, and were more focused on bringing in cheaper goods, especially food articles. The Acts prevented competition from other nations, such as the Dutch, making the English Merchant fleet the biggest on the world’s oceans. The Acts also contributed to the growth of the Empire, despite the loss of the North American colonies, and ensuring that London became the major world city for two hundred years

For further reading I would recommend:
L. A. Harper, The English Navigation Laws (1939, repr. 1964);
O. M. Dickerson, The Navigation Acts and the American Revolution (1951, repr. 1974).

Copyright - First Published 29th November 2007

Pocket Boroughs and Rotten Boroughs

In the years and centuries that followed the Norman conquest of 1066, various monarchs were forced to give concessions to the people to ensure that they stayed on the throne. One such concession was the establishment of parliament, a place where representatives of the people could make their voices heard.

Settlements were given the right to send two representatives, Members of Parliament, by Royal Charter, which made the settlement a borough. These charters were given to the major settlements of the medieval period, thriving market towns and the like. Changing demographics and settlement locations though were not taking into account, and by the start of the nineteenth century England had many rotten and pocket boroughs.

The Russel Purge - CJG 1831 - PD-art-70

The terms rotten borough and pocket borough are often interchangeable, but they do have fairly specific meanings, and whilst a rotten borough would probably be a pocket borough, a pocket borough didn’t necessarily have to be a rotten one.

A rotten borough was a place which sent two MPs yet had a tiny electorate. The most famous example, and the most extreme example of a rotten borough, was that of Old Sarum in Wiltshire. When the borough had been created Old Sarum had been a thriving town established around the old cathedral. Subsequently, though a new Cathedral had been built at Salisbury and a whole new settlement was established. All that remained at Old Sarum was three houses, comprising seven eligible voters, who returned two MPs. At the same time, the new industrial cities of Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester were unrepresented.

A pocket borough differed slightly, in so much that this type of borough was “in the pocket” of an individual or family, meaning that they could guarantee the two members who would be elected. This was done by controlling the majority of the electorate. Of course, if the pocket borough was also a rotten borough, it made easier to control.

Both types of borough tended to be in the hands of large landowners, the likes of the Dukes of Devonshire and Lord William Fitzwilliam. These landowners, who might well own several pocket boroughs, could nominate friends and family to office, and once elected the MPs would ensure that their patron’s interests were looked after.

The wealth of the landowners was normally used to control the electorate. In many boroughs the voters were tenants of the landowners, and if they did not vote as their landlord wanted could find themselves evicted. It was a time where votes were done by a show of hands rather than in a secret vote format. Some landlords would bribe voters with money or promises of jobs, or others might be forced to vote one way, otherwise their businesses might be boycotted.

To a large degree, British politics before 1832 was based on a principle of not what you knew, but who you knew. Regardless though, some pocket and rotten boroughs did produce some of England’s great statesmen. Indeed William Pitt the Elder was first made a member of parliament in 1735 when he took up a seat at Old Sarum, Pitt’s brother having been successfully elected at both Okehampton and Old Sarum.

Rotten boroughs were particularly associated with the Tories, but pocket boroughs were in the hands of both Tory and Whig landowners, and so there was little political will to make changes to a system which benefited them. At the start of the nineteenth century though, the Charterist movement started to make itself heard, with demands for political reform, and it had enough popular support to make parliament’s position uncomfortable.

Earl Grey - After Thomas Lawrence (1769–1830) - PD-art-70

As a result in 1832, Earl Grey managed to push through the 1832 Reform Act, which effectively removed the right of almost sixty rotten boroughs to elect MPs. This though did little to get rid of the larger pocket boroughs, and even the Reform Act of 1867, which increased the number of males eligible to vote, did not completely eliminate them. Eventually, the 1872 Secret Ballot Act ensured that landowners could no longer see which way the voters voted, effectively meaning that pocket boroughs no longer existed. Even today though there are safe seats, ones where it is virtually certain that a party will be returned to parliament because it traditionally always has.

A quirk of English politics, pocket boroughs were a feature of the Westminster Parliament for many years, and with a relatively small electorate and no secret ballots, it was something that was just allowed to happen as it always had. Their demise came about as more people were entitled to vote, and pocket boroughs simply passed into the history books.

Copyright - First Published 7th June 2011

The States of the Old USSR

The socialist state that was the USSR has now been consigned to history. Formed in 1922, it would become one of the world’s two superpowers throughout the Cold War, until political upheaval saw its demise in 1991.

The USSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was, as the name suggests, a grouping of fifteen socialist states in Europe and Asia, although it originally grew from just four. It is common to see the USSR also referred to as the CCCP due to the Cyrillic script used in the Russian Alphabet.

The Russian Empire had disintegrated in 1917 in the face of political upheaval. In Russia the October Revolution would see the rise of the Bolsheviks and communism, resulting in the formation of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. This period though was also marked with a Civil War within Russia as the communists fought against the anti-communists. Elsewhere in the old Empire, three other republics had formed; the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic; the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic; and the Transcaucasian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. In 1922 these four republics would join in union, creating the USSR.

Soviet Union Administrative Divisions 1989 - Public Domain

From 1922 through to 1956 changes occurred in boundaries, partially through armed conflict, but also through political manoeuvring, and other Soviet Socialist Republics were formed, whilst others disappeared. From 1956 through to the end of the 1980s and early 1990s there were 15 member republics, although politics were dominated by the Politburo in Moscow.

The 15 member countries of the USSR were the Russian SFSR, Estonian SSR, Latvian SSR, Lithuanian SSR, Byelorussian SSR, Ukrainian SSR, Moldavian SSR, Georgian SSR, Armenian SSR, Azerbaijan SSR, Kazakh SSR, Turkmen SSR, Uzbek SSR, Tajik SSR, and Kirghiz SSR.
Other countries, including Poland and East Germany, were also heavily influenced by the USSR without being part of the Soviet Union.

Political and economic might had a lot to do in keeping the USSR together but eventually the individual Soviet Socialist Republics sought for more independence from Moscow, and starting with the Baltic states, the USSR started to crumble.

After the dissolution of the USSR in December 1991, fifteen independent countries became recognised. These were Russia, Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikstan. Despite the passing though of more than twenty years, many of the regions that were once part of the USSR still face political upheaval, and armed conflicts still occur as other regions attempt to become their own independent countries.

Copyright - First Published 22nd May 2012