Page:Englishhistorica36londuoft.djvu/534

526 TRADING WITH THE ENEMY AND October to introduce change in another direction. An early draft of the bill recites that the act, by subjecting all French imports what- soever to destruction, had taken away the chances of profit from privateers. It sought to remedy this by fixing maximum prices for French goods, at which they would give the privateer some return but would not encourage the illicit trader. Presumably because of the obvious difficulties of making sure that the real price of sale was the same as the ostensible price, and of preventing the surreptitious addition of other goods to those taken in prizes, the lords rejected the bill. The house was then moved for a bill to give a third of their prizes to privateers, but nothing came of this. 1 The hedge was still intact. In the year 1691 another hurdle was put into one of the gaps, with a change in the form of the bond by which shipmasters undertook not to trade with the enemy. 2 Soon after, a strong act made it high treason to send arms or military or naval stores to France, and imposed the penalties of praemunire for exporting other goods thither, those of high treason for going there without licence, and twelve months' imprisonment for returning without licence. 3 In 1692/3 there comes an enactment which has sometimes been thought to stand for a complete change of policy. The new impositions laid in that year in order to finance the war included some special dues on imports from France : 4 £8 a tun on French wine, 25 per cent, on French manufactured goods, and addi- tional duties on brandy. This has been interpreted as meaning that French goods were now to be partly excluded and partly admitted and made a means of revenue by the operation of this tariff. A similar intention has been traced in the increased excise on foreign vinegar and brandy of the same year. 5 On the other hand, with certain modifications, the statutes of 1689 and 1690/1 prohibiting the French trade were in 1692/3 continued for three years, if the war should last as long. 6 The changes were for the encouragement of privateers and did not impair the prohibition. Definite proof that the new duties did not arise from a change of policy on the main issue is given by a short act of 1693, which recites that these had been inoperative because the importing of all brandies whatsoever still continued forbidden by the act of 1689, and therefore permits the importation of brandies, except from France. 7 The exception, however, could probably 1 Houseof Lords Papers, 1690-1,VV- 200f - : draft of 29 November/8 December 1690. 2 Privy Council Register, 27 August/6 September 1691. 3 3 William and Mary, c. 13 (Statutes of the Realm, vi. 320), which received the royal assent 24 February/6 March 1691/2 : see House of Lords Papers, 1690-1, p. 446 f. 4 4 & 5 William and Mary, c. 5 (Statutes of the Realm, vi. 380). 5 4 & 5 William and Mary, c. 3 (ibid. vi. 372). 6 4 & 5 William and Mary, c. 25 (ibid. vi. 419). 7 5 William and Mary, c. 2 (ibid. vi. 442). For a similar misunderstanding in