b. Trade with
England
As has been said with
the Restoration the union of England and Scotland came to an end, a
result popular in both countries. The Scots supposed that their
position would be the same as during the reigns of James I and
Charles I, that is, that they would be regarded as natives as far as
shipping and foreign trade were concerned. The first year's
legislation of the English Parliament soon proved to them that they
were mistaken. The Navigation Act of 1660 shewed that only the
people of "England or Ireland Dominion of Wales or Towne of Berwick
upon Tweede" were to be allowed to share in English trade,
plantation, foreign or coasting. Impositions and restrictions on the
passage of goods between England and Scotland proved that Scotland
was now looked upon as a foreign country. The attitude of England
was described in the preamble of one of the Acts of 1660 : " And to
the intent that the full and best Use and benefit of the principall
native Commodities of the same Kingdomes and Dominion" (i.e. of
England, Ireland and Wales), "may come redound and be unto and
amongst the Subjects and Inhabitants of the same and not unto or
amongst the Subjects and Inhabitants of the Realme of Scotland, or
of any Forraigne Realmes or States." Scotland had been a financial
burden to England when they were under the rule of the same
Parliament, and for this and other reasons the parliamentary union
was discontinued. At this time England was developing a strongly
protective system, both industrial and commercial. Before the Civil
Wars the regulations had not been so severe, nor so strictly
enforced, and had been organised and administered by the King and
his Council. But after the Restoration Parliament regulated the
economic life of the country. They considered that the commercial
incorporation of Scotland could be of no benefit to England, and, as
they could not regulate or supervise Scottish trade in any way, it
might be harmful. The Scots import and export restrictions differed
from the English, and therefore prohibited commodities might be
imported to or exported from England through Scotland. The Scots had
had no "share in settling the Plantations, and yet they might set up
a trade with them, and deprive England of some of the advantage
which should accrue to her alone. Also the Scots had much trade and
connection with Holland, and the English feared that the Dutch
might, under cover of the Scots, obtain some share in English
Plantation trade, and that Scotland might become a centre whence the
Dutch should supply the Continent with English Plantation
commodities. Therefore Scotland was to be allowed no share in
English commerce, and was in fact treated like a foreign country. In
both countries, but especially in Scotland, the old mutual dislike
was still in existence, only increased by the late union. Mackenzie
declares that "Scotland was entirely freed from the English soldiers
and garrisons; and Lauderdale upon that accompt deserved well of his
country and magnified himself in it as a great testimony of his love
for Scotland..."
One of the first acts of the English
Parliament of 1660 was to draw up new "Rates of Merchandise," in
which duties were imposed on various Scots commodities, coals, beef,
linen, skins, yarn, etc. Later, a tax of \d. per gallon was put on
Scots salt. Also a tax of 20s. per head was imposed on cattle
brought into England from Scotland between August 20 and December
20; and of 10s. per tun on Scots beer. All goods brought from
Scotland into England had to be entered at Berwick or Carlisle. Then
too the exportation of certain goods from England into Scotland was
prohibited, especially wool and hides. Successive Acts dealt with
navigation, excluding the Scots from trade with the Plantations and
from any share in English coasting or foreign trade. These Acts
raised a great outcry in Scotland, especially from the Convention of
Royal Burghs. After petitions for relief from the various
impositions had been sent in without effect, the Scots proceeded to
retaliation. In 1661 their Parliament passed an Act of Navigation on
very much the same lines as the English Act, but only to be put into
force against English or Irish ships as long as Scottish ships were
excluded from English and Irish trade. Of greater importance was the
"Act for ane new Imposition on English Commodities." The preamble
declared that "the endeavours of such persons as are setting up
manufactories and trades have been and are much retarded by the
importation of such forraign commodities as may be made within the
King-dome." Heavy impositions were therefore laid on English cloths,
hats, gloves, etc., and a duty of 80 per cent, on all goods not
particularly specified in the Act. Before this Act was passed it had
been found that the English imports to Scotland were twenty times
greater than the Scots to England. The Act was at the time intended
rather for retaliation than for protection, for the Privy Council
was given power to remove all the impositions, as soon as "trade and
commerce shall be restored to the condition it was in dureing the
reigne of his Maiestie's father and Grandfather of blessed memory."
The Act had some of the desired effect, in that the merchants and
others trading to Scotland felt the impositions severely, and also
petitioned the King to restore trade to the same condition as in the
earlier part of the century. Great quantities of English
manufactures and of English Plantation commodities had been imported
to Scotland, and now, they said, "thousands of families who gett a
comfortable subsistence in ye management of that Trade are now
exposed to want and beggary."
The whole question of
the regulations of trade between the two countries was brought
before the House of Commons and the Council of Trade. They came to
the conclusion that, as the imports from England to Scotland were
considerable, the restraints on Scottish imports should be removed,
to induce the Scots to take off their new duties on English goods.
With regard to shipping they advocated the admission of the Scots to
all trade, with this exception, they "shall not have intercourse or
Trade from Scotland with any English Plantations." Notwithstanding
the Council's opinion, however, the restraints were not removed. The
Scots felt the restrictions very heavily. In 1665 the Scottish Privy
Council wrote to Charles: "There hes bein so many addresses made to
us for representing the sufferings of this King-dome by the want of
trade occasioned by the late act of your Parliament of England
imposing so great customes upon our native commodities that our
whole trade with that Kingdome is totally destroyed....That wee
found it our deuty humbly to intreat your Maty to interpose your
authority for taking off these acts and restraints in behalf of this
Kingdome and for that effect to make use of the late act of your
Maties Parliament here Remitting wholly to your Maty the taking off
of any imposition or restraint imposed in order to English
commodities." Inspired by Charles, in 1667 commissioners from both
kingdoms were appointed, and authorised to treat concerning freedom
of trade. The Scottish commissioners demanded the repeal of the
Navigation Acts, as far as Scotland was concerned ; the removal of
the impositions on linen, cattle, salt, beer; of the unusual customs
imposed of late in Northumberland and Cumberland; and also of the
prohibition of the export of English wool and hides into Scotland.
The English commissioners demanded that all impositions on English
goods in Scotland should be removed, and proposed some concessions
to the Scottish demands. On the question of the Navigation Acts the
commissioners came to a deadlock. The Scots insisted that this point
should be settled first. The English offered some minor concessions,
liberty to import timber from the Baltic, and goods from Turkey and
Muscovy for six years, but refused to allow any share in the
Plantation trade. This was the liberty which the Scots particularly
desired, and so the negotiations came to an end without any treaty
being made. The English commissioners gave their reasons in answer
to the Scottish argument that they should be allowed the same
freedom as Ireland. "And whereas your Lopps doe in severall places
give hints at Ireland, and seeme to make it a ground why this and
other Priviledges should be granted to Scotland, because granted to
Ireland the answere is most cleare and obvious (vizt.) that Ireland
is not onely under one King with Us, as Scotland but belongs unto
and is an Appendix of the Crowne of England, and Lawes made in the
Parliament of England doe binde them, and no Law can be enacted by
the Parliament of Ireland but what passeth of Privy Councell of
England...by all which it is absolutely in our power when we grant
priviledges to them to compell and keep them up to the restrictions
and limitacions of them, all which is quite otherwise in relacon to
Scotland." The English traders regretted the failure of the
negotiations. They had had a flourishing trade with Scotland, but
had " for some late years beene much Interrupted in their said
Trades to the endangering their creditts and Estates, by reason of
severall penall laws made in England and Scotland for Imposing
divers high Dutyes and forfeitures on the Manufactures and
Commodities of each Nation."
The Lord Keeper, in
his speech to Parliament in October 1669, declared that the
negotiations had "produced no effect, unless it were a Conviction of
the Difficulty if not impossibility of settling it in any other way
than by a nearer and more complete Union of the two Kingdoms."
Accordingly, to meet the King's wishes, commissioners were appointed
to treat for a complete union, but their negotiations were also
unsuccessful. Neither country in fact was yet ready for a union. The
Scots, even though they were extremely anxious for freedom of trade
with the Plantations, did not wish to pay the price of an entire
union for it. According to Mackenzie, "The people upon the first
news of the Union shew a great aversion for it, and its
contrivers...nor would the proposal of an Union have been less
acceptable to the people at any time than at this, in which the
remembrance of their oppression from the Usurper was yet fresh with
them." Lauderdale was even more emphatic, "Yow cannot imagine what
aversion is generally in this kingdom to the Union. The indeavour to
have made us slaves by garrisons and the ruine of our trade by
severe lawes in England frights all ranks of men from having to doe
with England." Scots pride was against any proposal for union coming
from their side. They did not wish to "seem so very fond and hastie
before it appeared whither England wold hearken to this motion or
not." England, on the whole, was indifferent to the question. Her
statesmen, although they recognised that they had no control over
the Scots Parliament, did not seem to imagine that Scotland could
ever be in a position to menace English prosperity and power. Nor
did they realise that England would not be able to export as many
commodities to Scotland as before, and that the Scots would have to
supply themselves by importing more manufactures from abroad,
probably from Holland, or by setting up more manufactures of their
own.
Until the end of
William's reign no more negotiations for freedom of trade were
opened. James VII on his accession assured
the Scottish Parliament that he would " endeavour with all
imaginable Care to open a free intercourse of Trade with His Kingdom
of England/' but nothing came of his declaration. After the
Revolution the Scots reproached themselves for not having secured
trade privileges from England, before they voted the crown to
William and Mary. No concessions were made to them either then or
later in William's reign.
In spite of the
restrictions trade between Scotland and England did not come to a
total standstill. The chief Scottish commodities imported into
England were cattle, salt and linen, and from the early years of
James's reign until the Restoration no special impositions had been
laid upon these articles in England. Coal, fish and skins were also
imported.
For two or three
years after 1660 cattle were not included in the list of Scots
commodities on which new duties were imposed. Tolls had to be paid
as before however on cattle entering Cumberland, Westmoreland, and
Carlisle. In 1662, 318,574 cattle from Scotland passed through
Carlisle, paying eightpence per head as toll there. In the same year
Sharp wrote to Lauderdale, telling him that there was a rumour
current in Scotland that the English Parliament intended to prohibit
the importation of Scots cattle. "The money arysing by this trade,"
he says, "hes been the most sure and considerable stock for the
returns of money" from England. The report was partly true, for in
1663 the Act for the Encouragement of Trade imposed a duty of 20s.
on all Scots cattle imported between August 20 and December 20. The
Burghs complained that the " great and heavie impositionis laitlie
laid be the parliament of England upon coall salt bestiall and wther
native comodities of this Kingdome is in effect equivalent to ane
direct prohibitione of the importing of any such comodities from
Scotland to England." The trade nevertheless seems to have
continued, though doubtless somewhat diminished. In 1665 the Grand
Juries of Yorkshire, in a petition to the House of Commons,
complained of the importation of Scottish and Irish cattle. It was
the occasion of "the greate want of money and decay of trade in this
Country." The cattle "being fedd maintained and fatted with farre
lesse charge, then can possibly be done in England, they fill and
quitt the Marketts...and undersell those of English breed and
feeding soe much that the ffarmers who formerly furnished other
parts must and doe give over breeding and are forced to buy for
themselves of that sort to their utter undoing and the Grasier
cannot sell his fatt Cattle for the price they cost whereby industry
is . layed aside trade decayed and putt into the hand of Strangers,
our coyne carried out of the Kingdome, by those who buy little if
anything amongst us." The imposition was objected to by the
commissioners who treated for freedom of trade, and, though not
apparently in connection with the negotiations, an Act of the
English Council declared that " no duetie ought to be demanded or
receaved for any Scots cattle coming into England." After this the
trade continued without any interruption, about 15,000 of the best
Scottish black cattle being sent to England every year. In 1704 the
importation was forbidden by the Act for securing England from
Dangers from Scotland. Although this Act was soon repealed no cattle
were sent into England until the treaty of Union had been concluded.
The Scots cattle dealers were more fortunate than the Irish. For, by
the Act of 1663, whereas the Scots cattle paid a duty on entering
England between August and December, the Irish cattle were liable
between July 1 and December. This duty was said almost to destroy
the Irish cattle trade, but a further blow was dealt it when in 1666
Irish cattle were prohibited from being imported into England at
all. In spite of some agitation Scots cattle were not included in
this prohibition.
Scots linen was
another important import into England. This also had been free of
duty until the Kestoration, when a duty of £3 was imposed on every
hundred ells of Scottish "Twill or Ticking." Although complaints
were made of this, as of all the impositions on Scottish imports,
the trade in linen does not seem to have been very much affected by
the duty. It remained the same until 1690, but some years before
that there was some interruption in the trade. The "Noblemen and
Gentlemen of Scotland and their tenents who make Lining cloath" sent
in a petition to the Council in 1684. In this they declared that the
manufacture of linen was one of the principal industries of
Scotland, and that it was chiefly exported to England. "Bot of late
this trade hes bein stopt and the petitioners countrymen whipt like
malefactors through severall towns for following of their trade and
very many of them have been forced to give bond never to return by
which besides the affront and ignominy these prejudices aryse to the
nation." The ten or twelve thousand men employed formerly in the
trade "are now rendered miserable and ane burden both to themselves
and the Government," while the loss to his Majesty's customs is
great. This interruption can only have been temporary, for new works
for making linen cloth were set up between 1690 and 1695. One of
these was largely financed and worked by Englishmen4. The duty on
Scots linen in England was raised in 1690 from £6. 17s. 9d. per
hundred pounds value to £10. 8s. 0½d., and again in 1698 to £15. 35.
0½d. The increases in the duty decreased the sale somewhat, and the
linen unsold in England became a drug on the market. The Scots
already sent enough to continental markets to supply the demand
there, and as much as possible to the Plantations. English anxiety
to keep the Scots out of the colonial market was evident in an Act
passed in 1704, "to permit the exportation of Irish cloth to the
Plantations and to prohibit the Importation of Scotch linen into
Ireland." This was passed just after the Act for securing England
from the dangers from Acts passed in Scotland, and was doubtless
inspired by the same feeling. The authorities found that the close
connection of Scotland with the north of Ireland would lead to Scots
linen being sent, under cover of Irish linen, to the Plantations. In
spite of the high duties on linen it was one of the most important
Scottish imports into England, generally amounting to about £40,000
value, or more, in the year. This was generally more than half the
whole total value of Scottish imports into England.
The trade in salt had
been, ever since the Union of 1603, a fruitful source of discord
between the two countries. To this the latter half of the century
was no exception. One of the first cares of the Convention of Burghs
was to petition that no duty should be laid upon coal and salt,
"that tread which is of greatest concernment of any commoditie cumes
fra this kingdome." The Privy Council also sent in a petition to the
same effect, but in 1662 a duty of eightpence per wey (a halfpenny
per gallon) was imposed on Scots salt coming into England. This was
" in effect a restraint upon that commodity they not being able to
sell at such a rate." As it was "a mater that concerns the whole
Kingdome and of great importance," the Privy Council were desired to
lay the matter before Charles, but the duty was not removed. During
the negotiations for a commercial treaty in 1668-9 many papers and
petitions dealing with this subject were laid before the
commissioners. The Scots wanted the duty to be reduced to a farthing
per gallon, or to be abolished altogether, and they were supported
by the traders in salt in the south of England. The manufacturers in
and near North and South Shields and the north demanded that it
should be continued at a halfpenny, and gave copious reasons in
support of their petitions. The salt-works at Shields had, they
said, become considerable about seventy years before, and had been
much encouraged by the limitation of the yearly import of Scots salt
in 1637. But the Scots "at there inrode upon England in 1644
violently destroyed of these salt workes at Sheilds and Sunderland
to the number of 50 or 60 and thereby they made an open way for the
Scotts trade of Salt with England and much impeded and prevented the
Salt Trade for Sheilds undersellinge the Marketts in England.
Whereupon the Parliament imposed in the year 1649 one penny
halfepenny per Gallon on Scotch salt imported." But "the said duty
being taken of upon the pretended union between England and Scotland
An0 1654 many of their salt works were thereby ruined and pulled in
peices by the owners and most of the owners of the remaining haste
contracted great debts hitherto not discharged. For the prevencon of
the growth of that Evill and the encouragement and preservacon of
the said Manufacture his Matie was gratiously pleased An° 1662 by
and with the desire of his Parliament, to lay the duty of 1d. per
Gallon upon all Scotts Salt imported into the Kingdom of England as
a Ballance of ye Manufacture in both King-domes." The English
manufacturers asserted that the cost of making salt in Scotland was
less than in England. It could be made for £1. 4s. per wey in
Scotland, but the expenses in England were £1. 15s. 1½d. Therefore
the duty was necessary in order to equalise matters. Cheaper
production in Scotland was accounted for by the low price of coal,
the low rate of wages, cheapness of food, and cheapness of freight.
The Scots declared that if the duty were maintained they would not
be able to sell their salt at all. Their supporters, English traders
in Scots salt, accused the Shields manufacturers of trying "to rayse
the Price of that Commodity upon your Majesties English Subjects to
what rate they think fitt." The Scots salt was said to be of better
quality and more fit for supplying the Navy and the fishing trade.
Since the duty was levied they had not been able to buy or bring in
Scots salt, "notwithstanding any allegacons of the English Salt
makers for the cheaper making the said Commodity in Scotland then in
England." They were therefore forced to use the Shields salt which
was "so new and ill made that a great part thereof wastes into Brine
in the Ships." Nor were they able to get sufficient quantities of
that, and the price had already been raised from thirty-two to forty
shillings. Charles himself was anxious to have the duty reduced, and
ordered that only a farthing should be taken while the negotiations
were going on. The commissioners protested against his making any
move in the matter. They were "sure that Your Majesty and the board
will not doe anything, wherby a just discouragement shalbe put upon
the English traders to the ruine of many thousand familyes." The
ruin of Scottish families and traders was evidently considered a
matter of no importance. The end of these lengthy deliberations was
that the duty of a halfpenny was continued. As a result the import
of Scots salt into England declined very much, and by the end of the
century only a very inconsiderable amount was sent there.
The development of
the Scottish protective system brought with it heavy duties and
prohibitions on the import of many manufactured commodities. From
these the English traders suffered considerably. It has already been
pointed out that the protective regulations were not strictly
enforced, but nevertheless English imports to Scotland decreased.
For some years previous to 1668 it was said that the English imports
to Scotland did "overbalance what went out of Scotland to England
fyftie or threescore thousand pounds Stirling per annum." But during
the ten or twelve years previous to the Union, the average value of
imports into Scotland was not much more than £65,000 yearly, while
the value of Scottish imports into England was about £10,000 more.
The English import was made up of small quantities of a number of
commodities, of which hops, tanned leather, silk, both "thrown" and
"wrought," tobacco, sugar, and dyeing materials were the most
important. The "woollens" imported were not a large quantity after
the "Act discharging the importing and wearing of Forreign Woollen
Manufacture" of 1701 was passed. After that between £2000 and £3000
worth only was imported, or was entered in the customs books yearly.
There was doubtless a great deal of smuggling between the two
countries, especially in wool, of which the export from England now,
as during the earlier period, was strictly prohibited. Charles's
first Parliament hastened to pass "An Act for prohibiting the
Exportation of Wooll, Woollfells Fullers Earth or any kind of
Scouring Earth" from England into the "Kingdome of Scotland or any
forreigne parts." Irish wool was only allowed to be sent to England.
Two years later because "great numbers of Sheep and great quantities
of Wooll... are secretly exported... in to the Kingdome of Scotland
and other Forraigne parts" the export was again prohibited4. Further
complaints as to the export of wool to Scotland do not occur until
the later years of the century. The gradually increasing Scottish
cloth-works found English wool necessary for their manufactures.
Several references are made in the minutes of the New Mills cloth
company to their practice of getting wool from England. "The Master
and George Home having made report of their journey into the south
of Scotland and north of Ingland that they have settled with James
Robson for buying of wooll." On 19 July 1682, a certain George
Archer, also engaged in buying wool, was to be told "to take notice
especially of the risk on the Inglish side which the company will
not bear the hazard of." Later the company decided to buy their
English wool at the market in Edinburgh "as cheapest in
probability." If the Edinburgh market had a regular supply of
English wool there must have been a considerable trade in that
commodity. But the Scots merchants found that it was still more
profitable to export English wool to the Continent.
France, under
Colbert's administration, had entered upon a policy of developing
her trade and industry. England was extremely jealous of French
power and influence, and the cloth manufacturers in particular
feared French rivalry. The French makers of cloth were very anxious
to obtain English wool to mix with their own, and offered very good
prices for it. In Scotland the prospect of getting high prices
abroad greatly encouraged the trade of bringing English wool across
the Border. It was then exported to France or Holland, instead of
being made up at home. This trade gradually increased, and a few
years after the Revolution it had become a constant source of
grievance to English authorities. In 1696 "An Act for the more
effectual preventing the Exportation of Wooll" declared that "the
several Inhabitants of the several Counties and Shires of this Realm
next adjoining to the Kingdom of Scotland and to the Sea-Coasts do
reap great Profit and Advantage by the Carrying out of Wooll, Wooll-fells...into
the said Kingdom of Scotland, and exporting of them into France and
other parts beyond the Seas....That from the first day of May 1696
no Wooll...shall be laid or loaden on any Horse or other carriage
whatsoever or shall be carried or conveyed by Land to or from any
Place or Places within the said Counties next adjoining to the said
Kingdom of Scotland or within five miles of the Sea-coast.. .but
between Sun-rising and Sun-setting." In 1698 "the said Exportation
is still notoriously continued," and fresh regulations were
therefore made. Owners of wool within ten miles of the coast in Kent
or Sussex, or fifteen miles of the Scottish borders, were ordered to
give account to the nearest officer of the amount of wool they had,
and where it was housed. They were also to give notice before they
removed any wool, and to say where it was to be carried. Next year
another statute dealt with the export of wool from Ireland. It was
to be brought to England only, and twelve ships and sloops were
"constantly to cruize on the coasts of England and Ireland
particularly betwixt the North of Ireland and Scotland," to seize
all vessels suspected of carrying wool to Scotland or to foreign
ports.
The complaints made
by the Board of Trade, the manufacturers and others fully bear out
the evidence of these statutes. In November 1697, the Commissioners
for Trade and Plantations in a "Representation relating to ye Genl
State of ye Trade of this Kingdom," declared that the woollen
manufactures were "much prejudiced by the growth of the like
Manufactures made in other Countrys, much promoted by Wooll carryed
from England, Scotland and Ireland. Wee are Informed that great
Quantitys are frequently Landed in Holland from Scotland which wee
Suppose is most carried thither out of England or Ireland,
particularly there was landed at Rotterdam from Scotland in the
beginning of October last 982 Bags." The Scots also sent English
wool to Sweden. "The King of Sweden did about the Year 1680 levy a
duty of above 50 per cent, upon our Woollen Goods imported thence,
and encouraged Woollen Manufactures in his own Dominions, Carried on
by the help of Wooll from England (as wee are informed) but Exported
thither by way of Scotland." In 1699 the Commissioners of the
Customs made special efforts to seize some of the vessels concerned
in this trade. "Being informed that notwithstanding all Endeavours
to ye Contrary greate Quantitys of Wooll were Carryed over ye
Borders out of England into Scotland and from thence shipt to
Holland, France, and other Partes of Europe. And being particularly
Advertised thereof from Leith in Scotland about ye latter end of
October last and that such Ships did often touch in Yarmouth Road,
They directed ye Collector of that Port to cause all such Ships to
be strictly visited and Searched." On December 12 the collector
stopped the Ann of Leith, which had on board, besides her load of
coals, "18 great packs and 14 small Packs of wooll and 4 hogsheads
of Combed Wooll For which there was no Cocquett." Later another
vessel with 28 packs of wool from Leith was seized. The
Commissioners recognised samples of the wool sent them to be
English, and ordered both wool and ships to be taken. But the
Attorney General and Solicitor General decided that though the wool
was forfeit, because it had been exported from England, the ships
were not, as they did not carry it out of England.
A certain Frenchman,
Toryn by name, seems to have been a great offender in this matter.
In 1697 he was living at Wandsworth, but had "for Seven Years last
Exported very great Quantities of Wool yearly from Edinburgh in
Scotland to Ports beyond the Seas; which Wooll was brought into
Scotland out of Northumberland." This Toryn may have been some
connection of "Abraham Torin," Protestant refugee from France, who
in 1692 was master of the hat manufactory in the Canongate,
Edinburgh. The clothiers also complained of this smuggling trade. In
January 1697, a petition was presented to the House of Commons from
the inhabitants of Ripon, to the effect that the market for wool,
which had always been held there twice a week, was "extremely
lessened and is in Danger to be lost, for that many People presume
to carry their wool into Scotland to the Prejudice of the Northern
Woollen Manufactory."
A good deal of
information as to the trade and the attempts at prevention is given
in a petition, entitled, "The Deplorable Case of the Chief and other
Agents or Officers that have been deputed and concerned in the
Preventing the Carrying away and the Exportation of the Wool of this
Kingdom." Upon the "pressing Solicitations of the Clothiers and
Traders in the North parts of this Kingdom, and upon Information,
that several Thousand Packs of Wool had been Yearly carryed from
thence into Scotland and there shipt off with the Wool of their own
Growth to France," some officers were, in 1698, sent to the north to
prevent this trade. There they, "with the Hazard of their Lives,
made many Seizures of Wool, to the great Comfort and Rejoicing of
Many well meaning Traders." Finding their institution to be attended
with so much success in the north, officers were then sent to all
the maritime counties, where also they prevented the transportation
of much wool. But the officers had spent "the most Part...of their
own Substance" in the work, and therefore begged for a "present
Supply of Money." They added to their petition some figures to shew
the great value of their services. By the export of 30,000 packs of
wool, which were in one year landed at three ports in France, His
Majesty lost £75,000 customs, and 188,994 people lost a year's
employment. Towards the end of the century the Scots cloth
manufacturers began to complain of loss to their industry through
the export of wool. After some agitation this was forbidden by the
Privy Council in 1699, and in 1701 by Parliament. These Acts did not
put a stop to the trade, but the amount exported decreased very
much. In 1698 it was said that 360,000 stones of wool were sent
abroad, chiefly to France. Of this, 170,000 stones were English. In
1700 only 7196 stones were exported, 4503 from England, and in 1704,
4362 stones, including 3091 of English wool. Much controversy
between the growers of wool, the merchants and the manufacturers
followed. The latter argued that their works could not subsist
without a plentiful supply of wool. The growers and exporters
declared that there was not a sufficient market for their wool in
Scotland, and also that the export of English wool was profitable to
the country. "Scotland, by allowing this export may have a
considerable Trade in English wool, its an advantage no other nation
would have neglected so long." In 1704 the matter was settled by a
compromise. "Sheeps wool and Woollen Yearn whither of the grouth of
this or any other Kingdom," and also skins with wool on them, might
be exported, while the importation of woollen cloth was prohibited,
and woollen cloth exported was freed from any impost. After this Act
was passed, the smuggling over the border increased. In September
1705, the Commissioners wrote to Godolphin, in reference to a
petition to Her Majesty from "ye Merchants Clothiers and other
Traders in ye Woolen Manufacture in and about ye Towns of Leeds and
Hallifax." In this they complained of "ye Great Decay of their Trade
Occasioned by Vast Quantityes of Wooll which are dayly carried into
Scotland from ye Counties of Durham, Northumberland and Cumberland
and from thence Transported into France and other Forreigne
Parts....Ye offenders have Grown so Bold that They come above 50
Miles and Carry Wooll off in Dispite of all Laws." The Commissioners
suggest that the three "Kyding Officers" should receive an addition
of £20 each to their salaries, with which to pay an assistant, "wch
will be a further Encouragement and Security to them in the
Discharge of their Duty." They also suggest that all the officers
should be provided with fire-arms, "for their Defence against ye
Inseults of ye Smuglers...which they conceive is all that can be
done to Prevent this Clandestine Trade without the assistance of a
Military Force." Defoe says that "Scotland freely and openly
Exported their Wool to France, Germany and Sweden, to the
irreparable Loss of the English Manufactures having great Quantities
of English Wool brought into Scotland over the Borders, which it was
impossible for England to prevent, so that the Famous Trade for Wool
to France by Rumney Marsh, commonly called Owling, was intirely
Dropt, and France not Supplyed only, but glutted with Wool."
In the wool trade the
unsatisfactory state of the relationship between England and
Scotland was particularly evident. England could not control the
Scottish Parliament, and could not secure either the prohibition of
the export of wool from Scotland, nor the co-operation of the Scots
government in preventing the smuggling trade between the two
countries. The prospect of securing her own and the Scots supply of
wool was one reason which led England to consent to open her
Plantation trade to the Scots. They, on their side, had found the
English impositions on linen and salt a great hindrance to trade.