USA > Connecticut > Tercentenary pamphlet series, v. 3 The Beginnings of Roman Catholicism in Connecticut > Part 24
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47
18
Connecticut determined to resist the regulation, and in May, 1710, the general assembly passed the following resolution: "That whatsoever masters do enter and clear their vessels with the naval officers in any of the ports within this Colony, have free liberty to sail directly from such port where they shall so enter and clear, to any port in Great Britain, or in her Majesties Plantations, with- out being obliged to enter or clear their said vessels in any other port within the Colony."
This resolution was in direct opposition to the English ruling as presented by Colonel Quary and John Shack- maple, and the colony could defend it only on the ground that Shackmaple and Quary had abused their authority, a point which at that time had not been determined. In any case the assembly's resolution was bound to have the effect of a protest against the decision of the higher English authorities and of a temporary postponement of the enforcement of a regulation which the colony deemed injurious to its commercial welfare.
While waiting for a reply, the colony was confronted by another subject of dispute. Should Shackmaple seize a vessel for a breach of the trade acts, what court was to have jurisdiction in the case? In April, 1710, Roger Mompesson, the vice-admiralty judge for New England, New York, and New Jersey, held a sitting of the court in the colony of Connecticut. Shackmaple at once filed libels against Daniel Blinn, master of the sloop Sarah and Mary, and against Jonah Gross, master of the sloop Diamond, which vessels he had seized for infringement of the navigation laws. This was the first instance of the functioning of a civil law court in the colony-a court which had not been authorized by the governor and company. It was a challenge which could not be ignored and the assembly, in May, 1710, passed a resolution
19
stating that the case should have been brought before one of the courts of common pleas in the colony, "there being express provision made in the laws of this Colony for a speedy tryal to be had in such cases." The assembly further directed that a copy of the resolution be sent to Mompesson and Shackmaple so that, "all further pro- ceedings in the said cases may be stayed in the said court held by said Roger Mompesson, and the said libels brought in one of the said courts of common pleas, according to the law in such case provided."
In this resolution and in the former ones concerning the ports, the general assembly took a definite stand against any attempt on Shackmaple's part to carry out certain of his instructions which it considered infringements on Connecticut's charter rights. In October, 1710, in order to stress the issue, it adopted the following statement of policy: "This Assembly, considering that the liberty and priviledge of our several ports is of the greatest conse- quence to promote the trade and publick weal of this Colony, do therefore desire the Honbl the Governour and Council, to use their utmost endeavours to defend the rights, powers, and priviledges of this government, in and concerning our said several ports, against all and every person and persons that shall impose upon this Colony therein."
The governor and council were not loath to follow the desire of the assembly, which in effect was a command, although couched in moderate language. In November, I710, news was brought to the governor that a sloop belonging to Francis Whitmore had been seized by the collector of Newport, Rhode Island, the cause of seizure being that the sloop had gone from Saybrook to Newport with a clearance from the naval officer at Saybrook and not one from John Shackmaple at New London. The
20
governor upon receipt of this news called a meeting of his council and the following was resolved: "Whatsoever is requisite to be done in this particular case, for the vindi- cation of the vessel seized and justifying the clearing of the naval officer [at Saybrook], be done at the charge of this government."
Several suggestions were made as to the best procedure to follow. First, a plea to the jurisdiction of the court ought to be made on the ground that the alleged offence for which the sloop was seized was committed in the county of New London, because the only charge against the sloop and its master was that the sloop had not stopped at New London to receive Shackmaple's signa- ture. In case this plea failed and the matter went to trial and a judgment were given against the sloop, and in case the owners wished to appeal to England, then the colony of Connecticut would pay all the expenses of the appeal and any damages which might result from an adverse decision.
The case went to trial before Nathaniel Byfield, judge of the vice-admiralty court for the Massachusetts dis- trict, which included Rhode Island. He dismissed the case. The collector, Nathaniel Kay, at once moved that an appeal be granted him to Her Majesty in council in England, from the court's decree. The governor and council of Connecticut, knowing that Francis Whitmore, owing to the cost of defending such an appeal, would have to let the affair go by default if the case were ap- pealed to England, resolved that the entire expense of the ensuing defence should be borne by the colony. They stated as one of the reasons for so doing that the purpose of those who had seized Whitmore's sloop was, "utterly to subvert most of the ports in this government estab- lished by law, to the ruin of the small coasting trade of this Colony."
21
So the business rested until August, 1711, when Shack- maple again got into trouble-this time not with the authorities of the colony but with the people themselves. On July 31, he tried to seize, in New London harbor, a vessel whose home port was New Haven, for unlawful trading. Two men, evidently the owners of the vessel, objected to the seizure. To use the words of Shackmaple's protest to the governor and council, they had, "With threatning and violence opposed him in the execution of his office, by wresting a vessel out of his hands." After so doing they had sailed back to New Haven where the vessel remained. Shackmaple appealed to the governor and council for aid in getting the vessel back and at first the governor and council seemed willing to help him, ordering, "The constable of the town of Newhaven . . . to take a boat with a sufficient number of men, and go on board the said vessel with the said collector, and take effectual care for the preservation of the peace, and that no violence or wrong be done to the said collector in the performance of his office."
A few days later, August 8, at another meeting of the governor and council, they modified their former order and decreed that it would be, "best and most safe for the said sloop and her cargo to be continued and secured in the port of Newhaven, until a tryal may be had upon the said seizure, according to law." Just why there should have been such an apparent change of policy or why it should have been considered dangerous for the vessel and cargo to return to New London in Shackmaple's charge is difficult to say. The only explanation that seems logical is that New Haven was in the eyes of the Connecticut government a port of equal importance with New Lon- don, although it was not so recognized by Shackmaple. Consequently the governor and council probably felt that
22
Shackmaple should prosecute his case there rather than in New London. Otherwise, the cause of port equality for which Connecticut was so valiantly contending would be lost.
For the next three years the controversies between Shackmaple and the colonial authorities were of minor importance. Nathaniel Kay, of Rhode Island, won the right to appeal to England in the Whitmore case, and Connecticut sent instructions to her agent in London to defend it, but it was not brought to trial for several years. The records of the governor and council, November 13, 1713, show that the governor had been advised that the "controversie was referred to the consideration of the Honbl Francis Nicholson, Esqr, and that the surveyour general, and others, would improve their utmost interest to get most of the ports established by this government laid aside"-but time passed and no decision was reached.
Matters came to a crisis in March, 1715, when Daniel Apply, coming before the governor and council, com- plained that in the preceding October Shackmaple had seized a vessel belonging to him and refused to bring the matter to trial. He begged that the governor and council force Shackmaple to take prompt action. At once the governor took up the complaint with Shackmaple and again the question of an admiralty court arose when Shackmaple replied that he would gladly bring the case to trial but that in his opinion there was no court in the colony with jurisdiction to hear it, thus denying the jurisdiction of the colony's common law courts.
This denial was, of course, a direct challenge to the governor, who as we have seen had stopped the trial before Roger Mompesson on the ground that the colonial courts of common pleas had sufficient jurisdiction in the matter. The governor accepted the challenge and de-
23
manded Shackmaple's appearance before him at the next meeting of the council. Shackmaple appeared and gave the same defense as before. During the interview he made it clear that the reason for the seizure was that the vessel had made a voyage from New York to Saybrook without first having gone to New London to receive Shackmaple's signature to the entrance. The governor and council heard Shackmaple's explanation, judged it insufficient, and ordered him to bring the case to trial before a court of common pleas or to release the vessel. They also reprimanded him for what they termed "a manifest breach of his duty" in not having brought the case to trial sooner.
Shackmaple did not obey the governor's orders and a deadlock ensued, for in the following May, the general assembly instituted steps to force Shackmaple out of office. It passed a law that any person who shall "pretend to have and exercise the power and office of a collector in any place or port within this Colony, before he has pro- duced to the Governour and Council a commission for that end, from the Lord High Treasurer, Commissioners of the Treasury and the Commissioners of the Customs, and present the same to be entered in record in the Secretaries office, shall not be allowed to execute the said office of collector," and that anyone so doing should be fined £100.
This was a direct attack on Shackmaple as it was well known that he held no such commission, having been commissioned by the surveyor general, Colonel Quary. As Shackmaple paid no attention to this law, he was again called before the governor and council. The scene must have been dramatic. We can picture the governor and council seated behind tables-the embodiment of colonial authority-Shackmaple entering and standing,
24
and upon being asked for his commission, handing to the governor his commission from the surveyor general. The governor possibly feigns surprise and asks for letters or other papers from the lord treasurer, or from the com- missioners of the treasury or of the customs, which can satisfy his council that they even knew of Shackmaple's so-called appointment. Shackmaple stands silent, having nothing to reply nor papers to show, and then withdraws. The governor rises and solemnly announces that Shack- maple does "not appear qualified with powers for the executing the office of collector in this government, ac- cording to the act of Parliament in the seventh and eighth year of King William the third" (1696). He then sits down, and the clerk of the council is ordered to in- form Captain Shackmaple of this decision.
Apparently Governor Saltonstall and all Connecticut had, in removing Shackmaple from office, won a victory over the home government in England. There was no longer any one in the colony who had the power to seize any vessel arriving in or departing from any Connecticut port other than New London.
Unfortunately there was another side to the question which the colony had not considered. Though vessels entering Connecticut were now safe, any vessel sailing to a port outside Connecticut was still liable to seizure at that port for not having its papers signed by a duly authorized royal collector of customs in Connecticut. A case of this kind soon arose. In September of the same year John Sloss of Fairfield had his sloop seized in New York for this reason. The Connecticut government took notice of this at once and passed a resolution certifying to the validity of Sloss's clearance papers. Later in the year John Mayhew and George Plumbe had their sloops seized in Barbados. In this instance, the governor sent a
25
letter, December, 1715, to Colonel Lowther, governor of Barbados, and the following April, 1716, sent a certificate stating that Plumbe was qualified to trade in spite of the fact that his papers had not been signed as required by law.
Just what the outcome of this struggle might have been had not England at last intervened is difficult to say. It appears that for the next few years Connecticut vessels were able to avoid seizure, even though they had no properly signed clearance from a royal collector of cus- toms. At least there is no further mention of seizures in the records of the general assembly or in those of the governor's council. In 1718 England settled the question finally. Shackmaple was given a new commission, granted by the treasury, and New London became the only port of entrance or clearance for intercolonial and foreign trade, remaining so until almost the end of the colonial period. In 1728 the office of surveyor and searcher was separated from that of collector, and John Shackmaple, Jr., was appointed by the surveyor general, James Stevens. After the elder Shackmaple died, about 1730, his son became collector and Richard Dinfry of Newport, surveyor.
VIII
SEVERAL attempts to open direct trade with England were unsuccessful. In 1690, John Wheeler built at New London a vessel intended for trade with England, but on its first voyage to London Wheeler died, and as no one could be found willing to take over the risks of a trans- Atlantic traffic, the ship was taken by Wheeler's creditors in England and never returned to New London.
In the Boston news letter of May and June, 1704, ap- peared the record of another failure. "New London, May II, 1704. Capt. Edward Parry, in the Adventure, is
26
beginning to load for London, and will sail in about 3 weeks." "May 18. Capt. Parry, in the brigantine Adven- ture, being dead, the owners design Samuel Chester, master, who is to go with the Virginia Fleet." "June I. Capt. Chester, from New London, and Capt. Dawson, from New York, will sail in 10 days for London, with the Virginia Convoy." Captain Chester, sailing on June 12, was too late to keep the rendezvous with the Virginia fleet and was captured by the French, who at that time were engaged in war with the English.
The various controversies between England and France in the years between 1689 and 1763 introduced new factors in colonial trade at large. Of those seventy-four years about thirty-two were spent at war. Even if these wars had not originated in Europe, they would inevi- tably have broken out in America, owing to the struggle between the French and English colonists for possession of the northeastern part of the continent of North America. The presence of these two rivals in North America could end only in the elimination of one, as both were aggressive and their theories and methods of colo- nial development could not be reconciled.
The effect of this contest upon Connecticut's com- mercial activities was slight. As late as 1711, her coast- wise trade was still chiefly confined to Boston. In that year between September 8 and November 30, fourteen sloops arrived from that port. The vessels entered, de- posited their cargo, and departed, all within the period of a few days, as can be seen in the record that The Ray arrived from Boston on October 26 and sailed on the return voyage two days later.
The trade with Barbados improved after the peace of Utrecht, 1713, when horses were added to Connecticut's exports. Voyages thither required from eighteen to thirty
27
days and as many as six vessels would sail simultane- ously, each carrying forty to fifty horses. These vessels were known as horse-jockeys. It is uncertain how many horses were shipped at any one period, but it seems likely that New London became the center for the trade of western Massachusetts as well as for that of all Connecticut.
In 1725 Captain John Jeffry of Portsmouth, England, came to New London. After remaining there a year, he moved to the Groton side of the river and opened a ship- yard where he built the largest vessels constructed in Connecticut in the colonial period. The first ship was of 700 tons-probably the largest ship that had been built up to this time on the colonial side of the Atlantic. A few years later Jeffry built another large ship of 570 tons for the European trade. It was named the Don Carlos and, under the command of Captain Hope, sailed for Lisbon on November 29, 1733.
In 1732 Nathaniel Shaw of New London sailed as master on a voyage to Ireland. The report does not say of what his cargo consisted, but it was probably timber, nor does it state what he hoped to bring back on the re- turn voyage. Once in Ireland, however, he undoubtedly went to London or one of the British outports and brought back the usual manufactured commodities, because direct trade from Ireland to the plantations was forbid- den by law.
IX
THE year 1730 was important in the history of Connecticut commerce in two ways: first, another report was sent by the colony to the board of trade in England; and second, the New London Society of Trade and Commerce was founded. The report enumerated forty-two vessels in the
28
colony actively engaged in trade. These vessels varied in size from twelve to sixty tons and were distributed among seventeen of the Connecticut towns. New Lon- don and New Haven led with five vessels each. Hartford, Guilford, and Norwich owned four each, Saybrook and Stratford three each. The remaining fourteen were scat- tered among ten other settlements. The report went on to state that foreign exportation was limited to a few voyages to Ireland with timber as cargo; that a few ships with their cargoes were sold at Bristol-an example being a sloop of ninety tons then making ready at Hart- ford for a voyage to Bristol where it would be sold; that there was a small trade with the West Indies in exporting horses and lumber in return for sugar, salt, molasses, and rum; and that the surplus of provisions, tar, and turpen- tine was shipped to Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York.
The formation of the New London Society of Trade and Commerce in 1730 was a brave attempt to improve the trade of the colony. About eighty of the leading merchants of Connecticut became members. They ob- tained loans from the public treasury for the purpose of building some ships and of buying others not in use. As security, they gave a mortgage on all property owned by the society. At first the latter prospered and it was hoped that the good results of the enterprise would be perma- nent. But in 1733 a series of misfortunes brought disaster. One schooner sent out for whales met with no success and had to be transferred to the southern coasting trade. Returning from a voyage to North Carolina laden with pitch and tar, it disposed of its cargo in Rhode Island, but on the short homeward journey was wrecked in a snowstorm, on Mason's Island, about six miles from New London harbor, January 19. Three out of the five
29
members of the crew perished. The loss of the vessel, while a great material disaster, was small compared to its effect on the morale of the people of New London and Connecticut. In their discouragement they withdrew their support from the society, which found itself unable to meet its immediate obligations and so emitted bills of credit or society notes to run for twelve years-dated from October 25, 1732 to October 25, 1744.
These notes, at first, were hailed with delight by the people and were accepted as currency, because one of the great obstacles to colonial trade had always been the lack of an adequate medium of exchange. These notes might have solved the problem but for the unfortunate fact that the society had neither the legal right to issue a paper currency nor the financial strength to make such paper of stable value. The governor and the council soon saw the evils underlying this scheme and issued an order de- nouncing it. A special session of the assembly was called by the governor, February 15, 1733, which dissolved the society on the grounds that it had exceeded its powers and endangered the economic welfare of the colony. The assembly required the members of the society to redeem the bills, and to assist them issued its own bills against mortgages given by the members. The extinction of these bills and mortgages and the settlement of the problems involved required many years and much litigation. The society attempted to fight this action of the legislature and threatened an appeal to England. It held out for two years but at last, unable to gain adherents, it unani- mously voted to dissolve in June, 1735, leaving the colony in a state of great commercial distress. Although the decision of the legislature made the failure of the society inevitable, it prevented the ultimate weakening of the economic stability of the colony.
30
X
THE diary of Joshua Hempstead of New London gives some information about the number of vessels entering and leaving New London harbor each year. Unfortu- nately Hempstead did not attempt to keep a complete record of the shipping. His interest was largely limited to the voyages that he hoped might prove personally profit- able or to voyages that might bring him news of members of his family. Thus he mentioned fourteen sailings to the West Indies for the year 1715, and two return trips. For 1716, when he was himself keenly interested in this West Indian trade, he mentioned fifteen sailings and sixteen returns. His ventures evidently did not prove as profit- able as he had hoped, for after 1716 he apparently limited his activities to farming and other purely local pursuits. For 1717 he reported only nine vessels on the outward voyage and six on the return; for 1724 eight out and three in; for 1735 five out and three in. He recorded that four arrived in 1750, and that on December 5 of that year about twenty were in the harbor ready to sail.
As it took about four months for a round trip from New London to the West Indies, not more than three such trips could be made in a year. Consequently, it may be assumed that from five to ten vessels were engaged in this trade for the greater part of the period covered by Hempstead, from 1711 to 1758.
Several references can be found to the number of ves- sels that entered and left the port of New London for the year March 25, 1748, to March 25, 1749. A writer of the period, William Douglass, noted that during that year, "Scarce any Registered more than 80 Tuns, and gener- ally are West India Traders. Entered Inwards . . . 37, Cleared Outwards ... 63." He added: "Connecticut uses
31
scarce any foreign Trade; lately they send some small Craft to the West-India Islands; they vent their Produce in the neighbouring Continent Colonies, viz. Wheat, In- dian Corn, Beaver, Pork, Butter, Horses, and Flax." Miss Caulkins took issue with Douglass on this point and observed: "This author certainly underrated the exports of the colony. In the article of horses, especially, more were brought from other colonies here to be shipped for a southern market, than were sent from hence to our neighbors."
In 1747 an interesting experiment was made by the general assembly to increase the direct trade between Great Britain and Connecticut. For several years the dependence of Connecticut merchants for British manu- factured goods upon the Boston and New York im- porters had been considered injurious. It was believed that if the middlemen in Boston and New York could be eliminated, the merchants would then be able to receive British goods at lower prices, and sell them in turn more cheaply. In this way, thought the assembly, the entire colony, as well as the merchants, would benefit and Con- necticut's position in Great Britain, as a direct consumer of British goods, would be more favorable. To put this plan into effect the assembly passed, in 1747, "An Act for the Regulating and Encouragement of Trade in this Colony." This act, which was to remain in effect for five years, placed a duty of £5 on every £100 of goods im- ported from the neighboring colonies and granted a bounty of £5 on every {100 of goods directly imported from Great Britain. In theory this bounty would cost the colony little as it would be paid from the duty collected on goods imported from neighboring colonies.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.