Naval Stores 1705-1776

8/3/2019 Naval Stores 1705-1776

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/naval-stores-1705-1776 1/18

Southern Historical Association

English Mercantilism and Carolina Naval Stores, 1705-1776Author(s): Justin WilliamsSource: The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 1, No. 2 (May, 1935), pp. 169-185Published by: Southern Historical AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2191724 .

Accessed: 08/10/2011 16:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Southern Historical Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

Journal of Southern History.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sha

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2191724?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2191724?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sha

8/3/2019 Naval Stores 1705-1776


EnglishMercantilismndCarolinaNaval Stores,705-1776By JUSTINWILLIAMS

Seventyper cent of theworld supplyof naval storesisat presentmade in the southern tates, mainly n Georgia,Florida and Alabama. The basis of thisfifty-million-dollar

industrys the mostprolificesintree n NorthAmerica, hePinus palustrisor longleafpine,native to the sandy coastalplainsof theSouth Atlantic nd GulfStates.' Althoughnavalstoreshave been produced n the longleaf pine regionsince1608, large-scaleproduction ates only from1705. In thatyear Parliamentpassed a law providingbountieson navalstoresand several othershipbuildingrticles mported romtheAmerican olonies. Soon the Carolinaswere leadingtheworld in the manufacture f

turpentine,ar and

pitchand

continued o do so untilnearthe close of thenineteenth en-tury.The naval stores ndustryhusestablishedwas the foun-dation of the economyof colonial North Carolina and animportanteature ftheeconomy fcolonialSouthCarolina.What is more, t represents ne of the most nterestingndsignificantmercantilisticxperimentsmade by England dur-ing thewhole colonialperiod.

As a strongmaritime ation n theage ofwooden sailing

vessels, Englandwas frightfullyeficientnthe"furniturefshipping,"which necessitateddependence on the countrieswashed by the Baltic forindispensablesupplies of timber,masts, cordage, sailcloth,tar and pitch. Indeed fromthestandpointof national defense such a dependence placedthe English people in an uncomfortable osition. But thiselementaryfact,traditionally sed to show why Englandwanted colonial ship materials,does not explain why the

colonistswere not encouragedbefore 1705 to manufacturethem.2The inauguration f the policy of paying bounties1United States Foreign and Domestic Commerce ureau, Trade Information

Bulletin, o. 454,passim;Rupert . Vance,HumanGeographyftheSouth (ChapelHill, 1932), 120.

2 For thetraditionaliewsee T. J.Wertenbaker,lanters fColonialVirginia(Princeton, 922), ch. I, and P. A. Bruce,EconomicHistoryof Virginia n theSeventeenthentury, vols. (New York,1895), I, ch. I.

8/3/2019 Naval Stores 1705-1776


170 THE JOURNAL OF SOUTHERN HISTORY

on these commoditiesmay be attributed o three mportantdevelopments t the close of the seventeenth entury:the

triumph f the Whig party n the Glorious Revolutionof1688, themenaceof manufacturingn thenorthernolonies,and thepernicious tateofAnglo-Baltic rade.

But for herise oftheWhig party henaval stores ct of1705 probablywouldnot have been passed, forthatmeasurewas a product fmercantilism;nd theWhigs were thetruemercantilists. he program f themercantilistsalled for aself-sufficientommercialmpire f mutually omplementaryparts,"3which, in brief,comprehended n abundance ofpreciousmetals, a large populationwithgood employment,an ample merchantmarine, nd a source of raw materialsundernationalcontrol. Colonies were founded to help theparent tateachievethese ends. A colonyfulfilledts missionif it made England the staple forits imports nd exports,assisted in the "Vent of Englishwoolen and othermanufac-tures" and employedand increased English shippingandnavigation.4Conversely, colonywas hurtfulo themetrop-

olis if it tended to defeat the aims of mercantilism. hesethingsbeing true, t is easy to understandwhy theWhigs,guided by the balance sheet,were particularly olicitousofcommerce,ndustrynd colonies.

At thebehestof a Whig Parliament heBoard of Tradewas established n 1696 and instructed, orone thing,"toexaminewhqt trades are or may prove hurtful nd whatbeneficial o thiskingdom nd by what means the advanta-geous tradesmaybe improved nd

thosethat

are prejudicialdiscouraged."5Accordingly hisnew Whig mouthpiecem-mediately elved nto hecommercialnd industrialonditionsof theEmpire. Many interestingacts were uncovered,notthe least disturbing eing that "New England, and otherNorthernColonies, have applied themselves oo much,be-sides otherthings, o the improvementf woolen manufac-turesamongstthemselves;whichoughtto be prohibited, rdiscouraged,by themostcoercive nd propermeans."6

' GeorgeLouisBeer,The Old ColonialSystem, 660-1754, vols. (New York,1912), I, vii.

4 Preamble o NavigationAct of 1663,quoted n J. LeanderBishop,A HistoryofAmericanManufacturers,608-1860, vols. (Philadelphia, 866), I, 325.

'Carnegie Institute f Washington, roceedings nd Debates of the BritishParliamentsespectingorthAmerica, . F. Stock (ed.), 3 vols. (Washington, 924-1930), II, 214.

'Bordof Trade to Commons, an.18, 1699, bid., I, 265-266.

8/3/2019 Naval Stores 1705-1776


CAROLINA NAVAL STORES 171

Parliamentpassed a law in 1699 forbiddingoloniststoexport woolens. But the woolens act did not removethe

cause ofmanufacturingn the northernolonies, which wasthe paucityof suitable raw materialssuch as tobacco andsugar to exchangefor heproducts fEnglish factories.ThePuritans,Dutch, and Quakers engaged in fishing, hipbuild-ing, commerce nd manufacturingall occupations n com-petitionwith English activities throughsheer economicnecessity.Aware of thisthe Board of Trade concludedthatthe upperplantations ould be divertedfrom hese hurtfulenterprises nly by the prospect of greaterprofit n otherfields. The "other fields," n view of the natural resourcesof theregion nd the needs of theEnglishmarket, onsistedof themanufacture f shipbuildingmaterials.In theBoard'sown words (1717),7 the northernolonies,nothaving sufficient eturns f their wn production orthe goods sentthem fromGreat Britain,have been of late years undera Necessityofapplyingthemselvesvery much to Woolen Linnen 6 otherManufac-tures, n orderto Cloath themselves, o the greatDisadvantage of the

Trade of thisKingdom; And we do not see how the same can be pre-

vented otherways han by engagingthem to Turn theirThoughts andIndustry notherway to theirown Profit;Which we humbly onceivemay be most advantageously done by giving Encouragement to theProduction& Importation f Naval Stores fromthence. [As for thebenefit o England,] This will not onely occasion an Encrease in theExportationof our Woolen & otherManufactures,but also enable usto purchaseNaval Stores by suchManufactures nstead of buyingthemwith Bullion,

But cheaply-producedBaltic materialsplaced colonial shipstores t a disadvantage ntheEnglishmarket, ence theneedofbounties o overcome hishandicap.

In addition to the Whig influence nd the menace ofcolonialmanufacturing,hedeplorable ondition fEngland'scommercial elationswith the Baltic powers,whence camenavalmaterials, reatly ontributedothebounty ctof 1705.Between 1689 and 1727 England procured Baltic storesunder the most trying ircumstances hiefly n account of

wars between Enqland and France, 1689-1713, and theI BoardofTradeRepresentationnNaval Stores,Mar. 28, 1717,PublicRecord

Office, olonial Office apers (hereinafteritedas C. 0.), 390:12,pp. 85-87. Anexcellent iscussionf theproblemf returnsn thenorthernoloniess CurtisNettels,"The MenaceofColonialManufacturing,690-1720," he New EnglandQuarterly,IV, No. 2 (1931), 230-269.

8/3/2019 Naval Stores 1705-1776


172 THE JOURNALOF SOUTHERN HISTORY

Great NorthernWar between Sweden and Russia, 1699-1721. These upheavals enlarged the demand for ship

materials n England coincidentwith renderingprecarioustheirsupply in the Baltic, thus enhancingtheircost. NowonderEngland was annuallyoverbalanced?200,000 inherBaltic trade alone duringthe reign of William IIIJ8 It wasthisevil to whichEdward Randolphreferredn 1696 whenhe wrote9

Our presentTrade and Comerce with theSwede and Dane makesgreatlyfortheiradvantage. Our merchants nd Factors Bought for-merly in those Countreys,Masts, Ship-Tymber and other NavallStores at easie Rates in Barterand Exchange, forour coarse,OrdinaryEnglish Manufactureonly, But theyhave of late years Sett the Diceupon us, and oblige us to pay above two thirds n ready money,forthose Comodities t muchhigherprices,but notnigh so good in Qualityas formerly;Which unavoidably Draines England Yearly, of VastSumes of readymoney.[And for] Preventing heseGrowingmischiefsof such dangerousconsequenceto thisKingdom tt is humblyproposedThat England may in a little ime be Plentifully upplied,withMasts,Ship Tymber,Oaken Plank, . . . Pitch,Tarr Rozin Hemp Flax and SaltPetre fromherown Colonies.

The immediateause oftheact of 1705was thedifficulty,about 1700, of obtaining ar and pitch from weden. Richin pine forests, weden and Finland (a Swedish colony)were the sources of practically all naval stores used inEuropean shipyards. Previousto 1689 thepriceof tarwasreasonable,and Englishmerchantsmade good moneybring-inghome each year from weden about40,000 barrelsof tar

and pitch. But in 1689 the StockholmTar Companywasgranteda monopoly f Sweden's resinousproducts, nd fora generation hereafterhistrade was a thorn n England'scommercial lesh.Withintenyearsthe priceof tar rose from?5 15s. a last (twelvebarrels) to?11,a last,"0 o smallfactorin bringing bout England's unfavorablebalance of trade

BoardofTrade report n general radeof England,Dec. 23, 1697,quoted nJames . Chance,George and theNorthernWar, 1709-1721 London,1909), 5-9.

Randolph oBoardofTrade,July 4, 1696,Prince ociety, dwardRandolph,includingis letters,tc.,A. T. S. Goodricked.), 7 vols. (Boston,1909), VII, 479-486.

" Calendar fStatePapers,Colonial eries,America ndWest ndies, 700, 33.See C. 0. 390:6,pp.223-237 ndC. 0. 390:12,p. 90,forEngland's arandpitchm-portsbetween 690and 1715.RobertJackson's epresentationn theNaval StoresTradewithSwedenandAmerica, ec. 29, 1709,C. 0. 5:3, pp. 157-168, ellsof theriseoftheStockholmar Company.

8/3/2019 Naval Stores 1705-1776



with heEastCountries.Worse till, nglishhipperserethreatenedith he ossofthe arryingusiness.

Russia verraninland pon he utbreakf theNorth-ernWar n1699, ausing hat rovinceofall vastlyhort"of navalstores.'1resentlyngland's arsupply ecamedangerouslyow. Englishmerchantsetched0,117 arrelsofSwedishar nd pitchn 1701but n 1702, nly 654.12In1703 he nglish ere nceremoniouslyxcludedromhistrade y he irectorsfthe tockholmonopoly,ho lunt-ly decreed-accordingo JoshuaGee-that not anotherbarrel fnaval toreswould ebroughtoLondon, other-wise hanntheirwn hipping,romheirwn ar ompanyhere, ttheirwnprice,ndonlynsuch uantitiess theythought it."'13

ThisalarmedheEnglishwho"thoughtta hardshipobe debarredringingomewhatpitch nd tartheyhadoccasion or ntheirwn hipping;orosing hat avigation,wasputtingnumberfships utofemployment,nd, on-sequently,ayingurneighboursorworkwhilsturpeople

were unemployed."'4Dr. JohnRobinson, nglishministerat Stockholm,nformedisLondon uperiorsn 1703thatSweden ouldnotmeethedemandor ar ftheNorthernWarcontinueduchonger. Whatdifficultieshere re nmakingndbringingtfrom ewEngland," ewent ntosay, I amnot cquaintedith, ut aket for ranted,ng-landhadbetterive nethird ore romhence,han ave tat suchuncertainties,nd inso precariousmanner,romother countries."'5Following Dr. Robinson's advice "themerchantsmade strongapplicationformakingthese com-modities n our plantations, nd therefore hatmatterwasbrought efore heparliament."'6In 1705 a billfor ncourag-ing colonialshipmaterialspassed boththeLords and Com-mons.17

Thus the mmediate ause of theact was the tarcrisisof1702-1703, to circumvent hich a bounty f ?4 a ton (eight

"Jackson'sRepresentation,ec. 29, 1709,C. 0. 5:3, pp. 157-168.12 C. 0. 390:6,pp.223,225." Joshua Gee, The Trade and Navigation of Great Britain Considered (1729,

Londoned., 1767), 146.4 Malachy Postlethwayt,Universal Dictionary of Trade and Commerce,2d ed.

(London,1772), article n "Naval Stores."11 Ibid.16 Ibid.1T3 and 4 Anne, c. 10.

8/3/2019 Naval Stores 1705-1776



barrels) was offered n tar and pitch importedfrom thecolonies. Since the fundamental urpose of the act was,

however, ccordingto its preamble, o providethe colonieswithstaples to exchange forEnglish manufactures,orrectEngland's unfavorable alance of tradewith theBaltic,andspurEnglishshipping nd navigation, trade n tar and pitchalone would not be sufficient. o accomplishthese largermercantilisticesignsothershipbuildingmaterialsneeded tobe encouraged. Taking thisattitude, arliament stablisheda bounty f ?3 a ton on colonial turpentinend rosin, ?6 atononhemp nd ?1 a tononmasts,yardsand bowsprits.The

bountieswere estimated o be just enough in each case toequalize production osts inAmericaand in the Baltic. Thefavoredproductswere put on the "enumerated ist" and asurveyorwas comissioned o supervise heir roductionn thenorthernolonies.

Though the bounties were to be paid on ship suppliesbroughtfrom ll Americanplantations, he London govern-ment ssumedthat thenorthernolonies would be theprime

source. This assumptionwas founded nmore han burningdesireto providereturns orNew England, New York andPennsylvania. The Board of Trade and itspredecessor, heLords of Trade, had accumulatedbetween 1692 and 1705much vidence howing henorthernolonies obe bestable tofurnish hese products. A valuable part of this evidenceconsistsofthemanyreports ubmitted o theBoard ofTradeintheyears 1698-1702bya commissionenttoNew Englandfor no other purpose than to

investigateshipbuildingre-sources.'8Probably the most complete nformation n thesubject is contained in the voluminouscorrespondenceofEarl Bellomont, overnor fNew York ( 1698-1701 , to theBoard of Trade. It is notwithin he limits f thisstudy toreviewtheworkof thezealous Bellomont, ut it is pertinentto say thatthedecisionof theEnglishgovernmentn 1708 totransport 000 Germanrefugees o New York to manufac-turetar,was based morethananything lse on Bellomont's

18Thiscommission as headedby John ridger, ortsmouthhipwright.or thecorrespondenceetween im nd theBoard ofTrade consult he ndexofCal. St. P.,A. W. I., for heyears1698-1702,nder Bridger" nd "Naval Stores."

8/3/2019 Naval Stores 1705-1776



insistence lmosta decade earlier.19he New York experi-mentwas a miserable ailure. The Palatines, underthemost

favorablecircumstances, ould not have succesfullymanu-factured arfrom hepines ofNew York; had theybeen sentto the longleafforestsof the Carolinas theycould hardlyhave failed nthisundertaking,venunder dverse conditions.The point is that the English authoritieswere induced toworkwiththenorthernolonies.

Previous to 1705 England used very few barrels ofcolonial naval stores. During the firstnine years of thebountysystem (1705-1713) the island kingdomannuallyimported n average of 7239 barrels fcolonial tarand pitch,in spiteof thedangers and excessivefreight atesoccasionedby the War of the Spanish Succession. In 1714, 11,639barrels came fromAmerica, about a fourthof England'sannual supply. The next year 25,279 barrels werebroughtfrom he colonies and 25,947 from he Baltic. After 1716New World tarand pitch iterally looded heEnglishmarketand Baltic naval stores radically declined. Concretely,

between 1716 and 1724 England procuredfrom he coloniesa yearly verageof61,488 barrelsoftarand pitch, nd fromthe Baltic duringthe same period a yearlyaverage of but12,849 barrels.20n brief, he coloniesbecame the principalsource of England's tar and pitchsupplyafteronly elevenyears of encouragement.

On itsexpirationn 1713 theoriginalnaval stores ctwasextended to January1, 1725.21 For reasons which will bediscussedsubsequently hebountieswerediscontinued uringthe fouryears following1725, and colonial naval storesimportsmmediatelyelloff.From81,033barrels n 1725 the

"9Board of Trade to Lord Lovelace, Mar. 28, 1709, Documents relative to theColonial History f the StateofNew York,15 vols. (Albany,1856-1887),V, 72;Board of Trade report n naval stores, eb. 14, 1710,C. 0. 5:3, pp. 141-156.Bello-mont's orrespondenceor1698-1701s contained n Cal. St. P., A. W. I. coveringthose years, or in theN. Y. Col. Documents.

2C. 0. 390:12, 107; C. 0. 390:6, pp. 240-242; Board of Trade Papers, Planta-tionsGeneral,X, K.150,K.153.Followings the tableof tar and pitchmports romAmerica nd theBaltic n theyears1719-1725C. 0. 390:6, pp. 240-242):

From From From FromYear America, bbls. Baltic, bbls. Year America, bbls. Baltic,bbls.1719 69,420 7,146 1723 66,579 9,2941720 47,226 10,941 1724 84,501 5,0881721 35,367 10,977 1725 81,033 31,4731722 50,376 9,282

21 12 Anne, c. 9.

8/3/2019 Naval Stores 1705-1776



number lumpedto 66,667 barrels n 1726 and to 34,277 in1727. The bountyon tar and pitch,thoughconsiderably

reduced,was restoredn 1729 and continuedwithout hangeuntilthe Revolution. This revivedthe trade. Startingwith33,062 barrels n 1730 theplantation upply eaped to 47,541barrels n 1731,to 70,428 in 1732,and to 73,487 in 1733. In1768England imported 35,000barrels fcolonialturpentine,tar and pitch; n 1770, 107,550 barrels;and in 1775 NorthCarolina alone exported130,000barrelsofnaval stores.22

AlthoughEngland countedheavilyon thecoloniesabovethe

Delaware forresinousproducts,Nature, in the form fthe ongleafpine,decreedthattheCarolinaswould dominatethisfield. But notwithstandinghenatural upremacy f theCarolinas,statisticsndicatethatNew England was a heavyexporter f naval stores. The recordsof the British ustomhouse show, forexample,that n theyears 1705-1718 Eng-land imported 34,212barrels ftarand pitchfromheCaro-linas and 86,411 fromNew England; and in theyears 1730-1733, 103,158 barrelsfrom he two southernprovinces nd

76,836 from hepuritan ommonwealths.23he British iguresare misleading. They fail to explain thatmost of the tarexportedby New England was produced in the Carolinas.Such was the case, however. The Carolina agents inEngland informed heBoard of Trade in 1720 thatYankeemerchants oughtbywayofexchangea "verygreatQuantityof thebest Pitchand Tar" from heCarolinians,whichtheycarried"first o New England and thento Great Britain."24

JeremiahDummer,agent for Massachusetts, corroboratedthisstatementn 1717 whenhe thusapologized to theBoardfor New England's poor showing:25 "Whereas Y[ou]r

2tBd. Tr. Papers,Plan. Gen., XII, N.5; An Account fShipping,mports, ndExports, 1768-69 (Chalmers Library) BritishMuseum,AdditionalManuscripts,15,485,quoted in V. S. Clark, History of Manufacturers in the United States, 1607-1860(Washington, 1929), 96; David MacphersonvAnnals of Commerce, 4 vols. (London,1805). III, 569, 573.

2 C. 0. 390:6, pp. 225-241; Bd. Tr. Papers, Plan. Gen., IX, K.150, K.151, K.152.Joseph Boone and JohnBarnwell, Carolina agents, to Board of Trade, Nov.,

1720, The Colonial Records ofNorth Carolina, 10 vols. (Raleigh, 1886-1890), II, 396.Generally known is thefactthat"on account of its shallow harborsand difficultoast,the ocean commerce of North Carolina was conducted entirely n colonial vessels,mostly fromNew England." V. S. Clark, History of Manufactures in the UnitedStates, 6.

25 Dummer to Board of Trade, Feb. 25, 1717, Cal. St. P., A. W. 1., 1716-1717,pp. 259-261.

8/3/2019 Naval Stores 1705-1776



Lord[shi]pps were pleased to observe that New Englandmade but ittle ar themselves otwithstandingheencourage-

mentgiven, can only say thatseeingtheir ccount n fetch-ing it from arolina to bringhere, here'sno doubt but as thedemandrises, nd Carolina has not tarr noughto answer t,thepeople nNew England will ncourse fallthemoreheart-ily intoit themselves.' Neither Dummernor the Board ofTrade realizedthat he aw ofcomparative ostsoperatedtoostronglyn favorof theCarolinas for thisprediction ver tomaterialize.

More controversialhantheir rigin s thedegree to whichcolonialnaval storesmet therequirementsf the mercantilesystem.Yet a fairly ccurateaccounting an be made ifwejudge theresults nthe ight f the conditionswhich mpelledEngland to encourage shipmaterials.Unquestionably olo-nialnaval stores mports id not remove he menacecifmanu-facturingn the commercial rovinces. On the other handtheydid relieveEngland of dependenceon Sweden and theStockholm ar Companyforresinousproducts; r as Joshua

Gee would have it, 'we are discharged from he Yoke wewere underto the Swedes and the ussians forthatCom-odity.26

Moreover, the importation f these commoditiesfromAmerica somewhat amelioratedEngland's unfavorablebal-ance oftradewith heBaltic: Swedishproducts ost ess aftercolonial competitionet in; fewerbarrels of Swedish navalstoreswereimported;nd England paid forcolonialsupplies

withmanufacturesnstead of preciousmetals. The Board ofTrade reported n 1721 thatcolonial naval stores had 're-duced the commonpriceof those commodities ne thirdoftheir former rice withinthe space of a very few years,whereby he mportationf pitch nd tar from heBaltick sgreatly ecreased,& muchmoney aved in the balance of ourtrade.

t27

Tar pricesfollowing heGloriousRevolution onfirmhe

Board's conclusion.A

barrelof Swedish tarcost 10s. 4d. in1689,20s. in 1693 and 50-60s. in 1703. In 1718 the pricewasdownto30s. a barrel,n 1725to 16s. 4d.,28 ecause ofcolonial

' Gee to Board ofTrade,Oct. 27, 1721,Bd. Tr.Papers,Plan. Gen.,X, L.24.27N. Y. Col. Documents, , 628.28 Bd. Tr.Papers,Plan.Gen., I, entry 7; ibid.,X, L.89.

8/3/2019 Naval Stores 1705-1776


178 THE JOURNALOF SOUTHERN HISTORY

imports.How much his aved England ingoldand silver s amatterof simplearithmetic.Parenthetically,et it be said

that, ncludingthe bounties,colonial naval storeswere farmore xpensive hanBaltic. But this dded costdidnotexcitethemercantilistsomposing heBoard ofTrade, who naivelydeduced that money spent in the colonies "will circulateamongst hesubjectsofthecrownofEngland, and, in effect,cost thekingdomnothing."'29

Impeding heflow fmoney o theBalticwas nottheonlyfinancialbenefit f colonial naval stores; arge quantitiesofAmerican tar and pitch were re-exportedby England,thereby ringing recious metals nto thecountry.Holland,Flanders,Germany, pain, Portugaland Ireland n the threeyears 1716-1718 purchaseda total of 53,139 barrelsof tarand pitchfromEnglish merchants,30hichinspiredGee toremark hatthe"people employed n thisTrafficknd Navi-gation add moreriches to the Kingdom,than our commonhusbandmen r Labourerscan doe."3'

English ndustry eapeda bountiful arvestfrom hepro-

duction fcolonialturpentine,arand pitch. The market orEnglish "Woollen and otherManufacturesand Commodi-ties was enlarged nproportions American esinous rticlesenhanced the purchasingpower of the plantersand of theYankee and Englishtarshippers. It meant s muchto Eng-lishindustry ortheCarolinians"to makedue and sufficientReturns n theCourse of theirTrade" as fortheNew Eng-landersto do so. But fornaval stores,manyCarolinians ndtheir laves musthave turnedto manufacturingextiles ndothergoods forthemselves,muchas did thenorthern olo-nists, to the detrimentf English factory wners. By ex-changing greater uantities f naval storesforEnglishmer-chandise thanwould have been possibleon the part of anyothersection of America,the Carolinas morethancompen-sated themother ountry or he northernolonists'failure oproduce hesematerials.This explains npartwhyparliamentcontinued he bountieson colonialnaval stores ong after t

becameapparentthatNew England, New York and Penn-sylvaniawould notbe the sourceof supply.'Board ofTrade to Commons, ov. 25, 1696,Proceedings nd Debatesofthe

British arliaments especting orthAmerica, I, 179-180.9 Bd. Tr.Papers,Plan. Gen., X, K.150,K.152,K.153.1Gee toBoard ofTrade,Oct. 27, 1721, bid.,X, L.24.

8/3/2019 Naval Stores 1705-1776



Notwithstanding he important inancial nd industrialbenefits, ngland profitedmost from olonial naval storesby

the "furthermploymentnd Increase of English Shippingand Seamen." In 1725, just twentyyears after the bountysystemwas inaugurated, t was estimated hat 120 vesselsrepresenting2,000 tonsof shippingwere annuallyengagedintransportingmerican urpentine,ar and pitch, trade asvaluable in all respectsas the trafficn Maryland tobaccomuch ater.32Had thenaval stores ndustry eenpermitted olanguish,numbers f shipswouldhave rotted n theharbors,and many ailors, arpenters,opemakers,handlers, aulkersand smiths,withtheirfamilies,mustcomeupon theSundryparishesof theKingdomfor maintenance." This argumentstoodout nboldrelief n 1725,when thebounties n resinousproducts were temporarily iscontinued, nd was chieflyresponsiblefortheirrestoration ouryears later.33Englandwas concernedmorewithcommerce hanwiththeproblem freturnsnthenorthernolonies.

That the commercial ngle of colonial naval storeswas

paramount ecamestillmore pparent n 1769-1770when theBoard of Trade had underconsideration proposal furtherto reduce the bountiesfrom he 1729 level. Loud protestsagainstsucha reduction ame frommanypartsof theEmpire.The agentsofVirginia,South Carolina and NorthCarolinaexpostulatedfor thecolonies. Petitions igned by scores ofmerchants, itchmakersnd ropemakers oured in from hemainports of Great Britain.Bristol,Hull, Glasgow, Liver-

pool, Lancaster."' All insisted hata lowering f thebountyon tarwoulddestroy henaval stores ndustrynd impoverish2 RobertJohnsonoBoard ofTrade, Jan.12,1725, bid.,X, L.58; memorialrom

LondonMerchants oBoard ofTrade, Jan.12, 1725, bid.,X, L.57; Paul H. Giddens,"Trade and Industryn ColonialMaryland,1753-1769," ournal f EconomicandBusinessHistory, V, No. 3 (1932), 516.

" Gee to BoardofTrade,Oct. 27, 1721,Bd. Tr. Papers,Plan. Gen., X, L.24;Gee, The Trade andNavigation f GreatBritain onsidered,43.

"Memorialof agents fVa., S. Car. andN. Car. to Board ofTrade,Mar. 2,1770,C. 0. 388:57, P.p. 47; Henry . McCulloh, gentforN. Car.,toBoard fTrade,Apr. 18, 1769,C. 0. 388:56,O.o. 37; forty-six erchantsf Glasgow to Board ofTrade, Mar. 20, 1770,C. 0. 388:57, P.p. 54; fortymerchantsfBristol o Board ofTrade, Feb. 26, 1770,C. 0. 388:57,P.p. 45; thirty-sixigners,ncludinghemayor, ftheHull memorial o Board ofTrade,Feb. 21, 1770,C. 0. 388:57,P.p. 45; thirteencordagemanufacturersf Bristol oBoardofTrade,Feb. 27, 1770,C. 0. 388:57, P.p.48; seventy-seven erchantsf Liverpool o Board of Trade,Mar. 2, 1770,C. 0.388:57,P.p. 49; twenty-eighterchantsf Lancaster oBoardofTrade,Mar. 1, 1770,C. 0. 388:57,P.p. 50.

8/3/2019 Naval Stores 1705-1776



thosedependent n it. The Hull petitioners otonlybelievedthat, o some of thecolonies,thenaval storestrade"affords

almosttheonlymeans ofmakingReturns o thisKingdom,"tbutalso

That the Importation f Tar from he AmericanColonies gave Rise to,and is the Sole Support of,theManufacture of Pitch in thisKingdom,large Quantitieswhereof are made by some of yourMemorialistsandin manyotherSea-Ports ofGreat Britain,morethansufficiento supplythe whole Kingdom: That in carryingon the Manufacture of Pitch,which was formerlymported only fromSweden and other ForeignCountries n theEast Sea, numerous nd expensiveBuildings and other

Works have been erected,many poor Persons are constantly mployed,valuable Utensils of BritishManufacturemade Use of, and upwardsofthreefourths f all theTar, imported ntothis Port fromAmerica, con-sumed: All which Advantages . . . must be lost, in case the saidBountyshould be reduced or discontinued.

The fortyigners ftheBristolmemorial ad eightobjec-tions to theproposedbountyreduction, he fourth f whichstatedthatthecolonialtartrade

Employs greatnumbers f our Ships and Seamen, .. . is an ArticleofFreight,whichmay be at all timesdependedupon, . . . Employs greatnumbersof our People here,in manufacturingt into Pitch, Cordage,etc; . . . is a Commoditywe cannotcommandwithin urselvesand whichis at thesame time bsolutelyessential to theWell Being & Securityofthese Kingdomsas a Commercial nd MaritimePower.

The bountieswerenotreduced.Worthy of mentionn thisconnection s therelationbe-

tweencolonialnaval stores nd theEnglishslave trade. Theslave tradewas an importanttemof Englishcommerce ndfulfilledhetenetsof mercantilismo less th n thetrafficntobacco and pine resources. Edward Randolph as early as1699, and Frederick L. Olmsted as late as the eighteen-fifties,bservedslaves preparing ightwoodfor the kilnsinthe southernpine forests.35 olonel Alexander Spotswoodboasted thathe bought400 Blacks from he Royal AfricanCompany n theseventeen-twentiesto be used in the naval

storesundertaking"n Virginia."6Knowingthe significanceaRandolph oBoardofTrade,Mar. 16,1699,Cal. St. P., A. W. 1., 1699,p. 106;

Frederick . Olmsted,A Journeyn theSeaboardSlave States (New York,1856),337-348.

" Spotswood o BoardofTrade,Mar. 4, 1728,Bd. Tr. Papers,Plan. Gen.,X,L.87,L.88.

8/3/2019 Naval Stores 1705-1776



attachedtothetrafficn humanflesh, olonel RobertJohnsonof South Carolina warned the Board of Trade in 1725,when

the bounty systemwas a bone of contention, hat slavesengaged in the manufacture f tarmight e diverted o occu-pations injurious to England if the bounties were discon-tinued.37

Thus, viewedin the ight fprevailing conomic onceptsEngland's colonialnaval storespolicywas eminentlyuccess-ful. It freed hemetropolis rom ependenceon Sweden fortar and pitch,effected diminutionn the flowof preciousmetalsfromEngland to the Baltic,enlargedthemarketfor

English manufactures,nd gave an impulse to commerce.What the ndustrial nd commercialnterests fEngland lostbythefailure f the northernolonies tomanufacturearandpitch,theyrecovered,with interest, y the success of theCarolinas.

Valuable as it was in the eyes of the mercantilists,hetrade in Carolina naval stores had its seamy side. Twoaspects of thebusiness were open to criticism.Carolina tar

from heoutsetwas allegedto be "illprepared,generally oul,& not fitlyQualifiedforCordage," and premium aymentswhichmounted from?10,135 in 1715 to ?52,011 in 1718,mostly or arand pitch,werethought obe excessive.88Thenavy,fromwhose funds hepremiums erepaid,would haveeliminated oth evils by abolishingthe bountieson colonialnaval stores. Butbefore his tepcouldbe takenthe nterestsofthe tar mporters,opemakers, lanters nd colonialagentshad tobe consulted.Theirmeans oflivelihood eingat stake,of coursetheywould not listento such a proposal. A bitterdisputebetween henavyand thebountyproponents nsued,lastingfrom 716 to 1729. Theirbattlegroundwas the officeof the Board of Trade at Whitehall.

Three fundamental uestionsconcerning olonial navalstoreswere raised: Was plantation ar inferioro Swedish?Was the bountyof ?4 a ton too much? Were thebenefitsderivedfrom e-exportingolonialnaval stores ommensurate

with theircost? Following two years of hearingson thesequestions, heBoard of Trade concluded n 1719 that greatS Johnsono Board ofTrade, Jan.12, 1725, bid.,X, L.58.9 Navy toTreasury, an.15,1725, bid.,X, L.61. R. G. Albion, orests nd Sea-

power (Cambridge,Mass., 1926). AppendixB liststhe annualsumsexpendedforbounties n colonial hip materials rom 706 to 1776.

8/3/2019 Naval Stores 1705-1776



quantities f tar of "very ll quality"had been imported romAmerica, hatthepremium as too high, nd that t was not

intendedfornaval storesre-exported o foreignparts. Tocorrect hesemischiefs,heBoard offeredhe singleexpedi-entofslicing ff alfthebounty n tar and pitch. Ifthisweredone,contended hetradecommittee,hequality fAmericantarwould improve lse it could not be profitablyold. Onceimproved t would commanda highermarketprice,whichwould compensateforthepremiumoss. And the increaseddemand forbetter olonial tarwould leave no surplusto besold on the Continent.39

This subtle proposal was promptlyrejected and de-nouncedby theproponents fthebounty,eavingeverybodyin an angrymood. Jeremiah ummer ost his temper nd''very muchabused and insultedupon theRoyal Exchange"tan importerf Baltic tarwho had been too carelessin airinghis opinions.40A member f the Navy Board accused theropemakers,who sold cordage by weight,of upholdingthequalityofcolonialtarbecause itwas thickernd heavierthan

Baltic tar.4' Other chargeswere recklesslyhurledby bothsides, and thecontroversymight eally have becomeheatedhad not theBoard of Trade finally uggested a compromisemeasure satisfactory o all: a stricter xamination n thefuture f colonialnaval storesbefore ssuinga bounty ertifi-cate to the mporter,o as to exclude nferiorar. Parliamentpassed a law to thiseffectn 171 .42

The inspectionaw failing o accomplish ts purpose,the

Navy Board demanded that the successfulmethodof tarmanufacturenSweden be prescribed or hecolonies.Parlia-mentcompliedby enactingthe naval stores act of 1722,43whichstipulated nter lia thatafterSeptember 9, 1724, nobountywould be paid on colonial tarexceptthatmade aftertheSwedishmethod, hat s,frpmive,standingpines,barkedexcept for a four-inchtripto a heightof about eightfeetfrom herootand leftstanding t least a yearbeforebeing

"Journals ortheCommissionersf Trade and Plantations,714-1715 o 1718,pp. 109,206, 207, 209, 213-238; bid., 718-1722, p. 16-18,20-25, 7, 45, 46, 94, 102,164,328.

4 Ibid.,1718-1722, . 21.41 Ibid.,1718-1722, . 22.42 5 George , c. 11.'Navy to Treasury,Jan. 15, 1725,Bd. Tr. Papers, Plan. Gen.,X, L.61; 8

George , c. 12, Nos. 1, 4.

8/3/2019 Naval Stores 1705-1776



felled nd cut ntobilletsforburningn thekilns. This was aradical departurefrom hemode in Americawhere tarwas

extracted lmostentirely rom allen reesand pineknots, r"lightwood."Seeing their uin n theenforcementf thismeasure,per-

sons interestedn colonial naval storesearnestly ndeavoredbetween1722 and 1725 to have it repealed. The Board oftrade received petitionsfrommerchantsstating that theSwedishmethodwould notwork nAmerica. London rope-makers nd shipwrightsertified hat colonial tar was good.RobertJohnson nd AlexanderSpotswood,ex-governors fSouth Carolina and Virginia, and other residents of thesouthern olonies appeared personallybeforethe Board totestifyhatmanytrialsofmaking Swedish" tar from tand-ingtrees n the ongleafregionhad been abortive.They alsostressedthe factthatnot a singlebarrelof "green" tarhadarrived fromAmericain threeyears, even thoughVirginiahad offered n additionalpremiumf 2s. a barrelon tarmadeintheapprovedmanner.Speaking nbehalfofthemerchant-

importersnd planters,Colonel Johnson emandedrepealofthe act of 1722, repeatingthat the process of barkingthePinus sylvestris f Finland could not be successfully m-ployedin theCarolinas. And he declaredthat"itwould beimpossible o carryon thattradeany longer"'unless parlia-mentoffered minimumremiumf ?3 a tonon "common"tar. Lastly he warned his listeners hatEngland would beunwise to abandon an industry hat sustainedplantations,

employed laves, supportednavigation, nd furnished nur-sery for eamen.44The Board ofTrade presentedJohnson's ase to thenavy

officials,who ignoredeveryaspect of this business exceptfabulouspremiumsnd "hot" tar. They resolutely lung totheir emandfor heSwedishtarmethod, sserting hattherehad been no "SollicitousTryall of it." On tar made from

'Jour. Com. Tr.andPlan.,1722-1723to 1728, pp. 139-142, 145; Archibald Cum-ings to Board of Trade, Nov. 17, 1722,Bd. Tr.Papers,Plan. Gen., X, L.49; memorialto Board of Trade signed by twentymerchants,May 24, 1723, ibid.,X, L.44; petitionsigned by forty-sevenmerchants ent to Board of Trade by Treasury, Dec. 14, 1724,ibid.,X, L.54; certificates romten shipwrights nd ropemakers and four East Indiamerchants o Board of Trade, Dec. 9, 1724, ibid.,X, L.55; deposition of Edward Hext,Dec. 18, 1724, ibid.,X, L.56; Johnson's "reasons humbly offeredfor continuingtheBounty given by Parliament on Pitch,tar,etc.,and the impracticabilityf Geo. 8,"Jan. 12, 1725, ibid.,X, L.58.

8/3/2019 Naval Stores 1705-1776



green trees the navy proposed a bountyof ?3 a ton andremoval fthedutyof 7s. 6d. a last; and on common ar,30s.

a ton forthreeyears or "till the expiration f a Competenttime for the Tryall of making it from prepared Trees.'The merchantswould not listento thisoffer,nd the navywouldnot consent o a premiumf ?3 a tonon common ar.45Consequently he Board of Trade had nothing t all to sug-gestto Parliament n theexpiration f thebounty ct,January1, 1725.

Tar and pitch mportsfrom he colonies dropped morethansixtypercentthreeyearsafter hesuspension fbountypayments,ndicating hat theplanterswere turning o otherpursuits. JoshuaGee states nhis finework,The Trade andNavigation of Great Britain Considered ( 1729 , that nosoonerdid thebounty ystem apse than the importationfnaval storesfromRussia, Sweden and Norway was resumed,owingto their peciallybuiltshipsand cheap freight ates.46England had no hankering or nother uch tar crisis s thatof 1702-1703,nor did she care to lose a tradeso manifestly

advantageous. The bounty ystemwas restored n 1729.47The act of 1729 was designedto eliminate heabuses ofwhich the navy had previouslygrumbled. To insure "thebettermaking ool and good Tar fitforcordage . . . the lasthalfpartof everyKilnofTar when drawn shall be made intoPitch." To cut down theoutlayforpremiums he bounty ncommon ar was reducedto ?2 4s. and on pitch to ?1. Tarmade accordingto the specificationsf the act of 1722 was

entitledotheoriginal ountyf?4

aton.

Itwas notunlawfultore-export aval stores, utany "suchnaval stores mported

shallrepaythosepremiums henre-exported."In spiteof the revised aw theold grievanceswerenever

greatlymitigated.Until the end of theage ofwooden shipsCarolina tarwas reputed o have a burning ualitythatcon-sumed the ropes and a generous admixtureof sand andchips.48 groupof London merchants etitioned he Board

4 Navy toBoard of Trade,enclosingopyof a letter romNavy to Admiralty,Jan.15, 1725, bid.,X, L.61.4 Gee, The Trade andNavigation f GreatBritain onsidered,43.47 Macpherson, nnalsofCommerce,II, 145." Hugh Williamson,The Historyof NorthCarolina,2 vols. (Philadelphia,

1812), II, 213-215.Williamson tates hat hetar burnernCarolina "performsveryoperationn themosthasty nd slovenlymanner. e worksnow as he formerlyid,

8/3/2019 Naval Stores 1705-1776



of Trade in 1769 todrop green ar from hebounty ist, therebeinglittle r no tar of such quality mported r used in the

Manufacturesof this Kingdom."49 Bounty disbursements,though not again reachingthe staggering um paid out in1718, continued o make a sizeable dent n the funds llottedto the navy. In the scoreof years following1730 premiumson all colonial ship materials averaged each year about?17,000; during the fifties, lmost ?24,000; and fromtheTreaty of Paris ( 1763) to the Declarationof Independence,slightly ess than?34,000.50 hese sums, argely xpendedforresinousproducts,ndicatewhat Englishtaxpayers acrificed

for hemercantilisticenefitsf thisundertaking.ncidentallytheyfurnish fairly eliable ndex to the continuous xpan-sion of the naval stores industryn the Carolinas between1730 and 1776.

whentherewas a bounty n tar;a bounty hatrespectedhenumber fbarrels, otthequality fthetar.His kiln s usuallybuilt pon ight andy and. The builderwillnot inethetrench ithmortar,hat onveys he tar to the external istern.And thecisterntself,nstead fbeing tightwoodenvessel, s nothingmore han largeholedug inthe andyground . . Carolinatar,byobstinate erseverancen bad habits,s

more hanhalfof t lost.""9London merchantso Boardof Trade, Apr.7, 1769,Boardof TradeJournal

(Pennsylvania istorical ociety),LXXVII, 74.' Albion, Forests and Seapower, Appendix B.