Page:Cambridge Modern History Volume 7.djvu/99

-1754] Trade-restrictions and smuggling. 67 extended this restriction. Security must be given at the time of loading that the goods should be imported either to an English or Scottish port, or to one in a British colony ; and in the last case a duty had to be paid on loading. Moreover, under the Navigation Act of 1660, Euro- pean goods might not be imported into the colonies except in ships either of Britain or the British colonies, sailing from British ports. This restriction however was relaxed in the case of salt, which was necessary for the New England fish-curers; moreover it did not apply to trade with foreign colonies. But in 1733 an Act was passed which, if strictly enforced, would no doubt have borne very hardly on the New England colonies. Large quantities of molasses were habitually imported from the French West Indian islands into the American colonies and used for making rum. The British government, for the benefit of its own sugar plantations, imposed a duty on all molasses imported from foreign colonies. The view that these restrictions exercised a crippling influence on the trade and industry of the American colonies is often met by the answer that they were systematically and almost universally evaded. It is true that the pamphlets and official documents of the time are full of complaints of smuggling; but they seldom are specific enough to enable us to gauge the real extent of the practice. It must be remembered too that smuggling meant not only evasion of the British Navigation Acts, but also evasion of the import duties imposed by the various colonial governments ; and those who complained were not always careful to discriminate between the two. Undoubtedly the two restraints which bore most hardly on the colonies were the Molasses Acts and the prohibition to export tobacco to the continent of Europe. It is certain that both were largely evaded. A shipowner was bound to report all tobacco loaded on board his vessel, and to give security for its delivery in a British port. As a matter of fact a supplementary cargo could be carried out at night in boats and shipped. The absence of any one chief port in Virginia, and the number of navigable rivers and therefore of private landing-stages, made effective supervision well- nigh impossible. The contraband import of European commodities seems to have largely depended on the above-mentioned contraband export trade. Indeed the two almost of necessity went together. If an American vessel landed a cargo in a foreign port, it was clearly better to load with French silk and foreign wine and sail straight back to an American port, than to excite suspicion by touching at a British port. Whatever may have been the extent of this contraband trade, there can be little doubt that the commercial restrictions begat a sense of oppression and a habit of evasion. Yet, in estimating their justice, we must not forget that the mother-country granted compensatory advan- tages. The tobacco trade of Virginia was rendered possible by the prohibition against growing tobacco in Great Britain, while bounties en. ii. 5 __2