Regarding the history of the papers of the Council of Trade the following information may be of interest. The records probably remained in the possession of George Duke, secretary to the Council, and were called for by Dr. Worsley, secretary of the Council of 1672 in a letter dated November 28, 1672 (Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1672-1673, pp.

213-214). No answer was received from Duke and evidently the papers were not handed over, for when in 1698 the Board of Trade applied for them to Col. Duke's son-in-law, Henry Crispe, it was informed by Mr. Crispe that he had never even seen any of the papers but had heard that some of them were burnt in the Temple when in Col. Duke's possession (Journal of the Board of Trade, XI, p. 55, May 10, 1698). In June and July, 1707, the Board of Trade attempted again to get hold of the papers and wrote to Crispe on June 30. Crispe's reply is worth printing:

"If I am rightly informed there are divers original books and papers relating to the Royal Fishery and the establishing thereof from the year 1660 for divers successive years in which are contained several projections concerning the promoting the same. And there are also books and minutes of the proceedings of the Council of Trade from the year 1660 to 1668, which also contain several material things in relation to Trade and the improvement thereof, which I understand are in the power of a friend of mine.

"These books and papers will be disposed of as the Hon^{ble} Board the Council of Trade shall direct or order.

"But it is humbly desired that consideration be allowed the party that shall produce these Books and Papers. And that it may be ascertained what that consideration shall be and by whom it shall be given.

"I was desired to inform you of this to the end you may take such steps therein as you in your great prudence shall judge most proper.

"If any orders or commands shall be given about this affair that I can be useful or serviceable therein & they be transmitted for me or be left at Johns Coffee House in Bedford St. near the Church in Convent Garden such orders will be faithfully observed by

"S^{rs} Your faithfull humble Servant "H. CRISPE."

Crispe sent a list of the books with his letter, but that list is missing. The Board answered that it would not buy the books without seeing them first, but as we find no further mention of the matter in the Journal and as the books and papers are not to be found to-day the probabilities are that the negotiations fell through. Journal, XIX, p. 296; Board of Trade Papers, Trade, H Nos. 74, 76.]

[Footnote 12: This may be inferred from the following note attached to one of the reports: "The council conceiving themselves to be in noe capacitie of giving any judgment therein having heard but one side."

Egerton, 2395, f. 299.]

[Footnote 13: See Cal. State Papers, Col., 1675-1676, ---- 338, 339, where he is called "Secretary for Foreign Plantations."]

[Footnote 14: Egerton, 2395, ff. 286, 291, 299, 335, 336.]

[Footnote 15: Cal. State Papers, Col., 1661-1668, ---- 790, 833; Dom., 1664-1665, p. 4.]

[Footnote 16: In December, 1665, he wrote of "an uncomfortable journey on unfrequented roads, with none to break the ice, in a hackney coach which receives the wind in all parts." Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1665, p. 105.]

[Footnote 17: P.C.R., Charles II, Vol. VI, p. 231; Cal. State Papers, Col., 1661-1668, -- 1685.]

[Footnote 18: Egerton, 2395, ff. 449, 451, 452, 453; Cal. State Papers, Col., 1661-1668, ---- 1598-1600.]

[Footnote 19: Brit. Mus., Add. MSS., 25115, f. 156; Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1661-1662, pp. 411-412.]

[Footnote 20: Brit. Mus., Add. MSS., 25115; Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1660-1661, pp. 356, 359, 363, 372, 412; 1661-1662 pp. 28, 80.]

[Footnote 21: Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1660-1661, pp. 383, 532; 1661-1662, pp. 111, 277, 529, 446; Bodleian, Rawlinson MSS., A. 478, f.

81.]

[Footnote 22: Brit. Mus., Add. MSS., 25115, ff. 133-140; Cal. State Papers, Treasury Books, 1660-1667, pp. 245-247, containing the list of convoys, a duplicate of that in the British Museum volume; p. 250, the Treasurer's report.]

[Footnote 23: Brit. Mus., Egerton, 2543, ff. 137-139.]

[Footnote 24: Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1663-1664, pp. 515, 549.

The Fishing Commission, appointed in 1661, had proved a failure, but the council borrowed from the patent of that commission many of the suggestions which it recommended. Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1661-1662, p. 83.]

[Footnote 25: Cf. Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1661-1662, p. 83.]

[Footnote 26: Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1665-1666, p. 330. Yet Crispe's letter (_ante_, p. 75, note) certainly speaks as if the Council had a continuous existence from 1660 to 1668, and the mention of Exeter House as its place of meeting after 1667 points in the same direction.]

[Footnote 27: "Some considerations about the commission for trade,"

P.R.O. Shaftesbury MSS., Div. X, 8(1).]

[Footnote 28: Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1663-1664, pp. 528, 531, 543, 572, 573, 588.]

[Footnote 29: Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1661-1662, pp. 75, 135-136, 149.]

[Footnote 30: 19 Charles II, c. 13.]

[Footnote 31: Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1667-1668, pp. 156, 158, 165, 173, 180, 187, 191, 247, 321, 433, 444, 452, 511, 593, 594; 1668-1669, pp. 35, 40.]

[Footnote 32: Brit. Mus., Egerton MSS., 2543, ff. 205-205^{b}. Endorsed "Regulation of Committees of the Councill. Read & Ordered in Councill the 31^{st} January, 1667^{b}." For reasons that cannot be explained this regulation is not entered in the Privy Council Register. It is referred to in a similar order of February 12, 1668, P.C.R., Charles II, Vol. VII, pp. 176-177, but otherwise omitted. For this reason the doc.u.ment is here printed in full. Cf. Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1667-1668, p. 261.]

[Footnote 33: For instance, there are among the Colonial Papers memoranda of proceedings at various sittings of this committee held between April 7, 1668, and February 18, 1669, relative to domestic, colonial, and foreign trade, that are not recorded elsewhere.]

[Footnote 34: Cal. State Papers, Col., 1661-1668, ---- 1685, 1712, 1759, 1769, 1791, 1870, 1883; 1660-1674, ---- 30, 66, 150, 184-186, 751, 837, 1226, I, II, III; 1320, 1353, 1390. Dom., 1668-1669, pp. 62, 201.]

[Footnote 35: Roger North, Examen, p. 461, quoted by Prof. Ashley in Surveys, Historic and Economic, pp. 274-275.]

[Footnote 36: New York Colonial Docts., III, p. 175.]

[Footnote 37: P.R.O. Chancery, Crown Office, Docket Books, 7, pp. 335, 344; Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1668-1669, pp. 6, 18, 224-225.]

[Footnote 38: Bodleian, Rawlinson MSS. A, 478, f. 77; Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1668-1669, pp. 224-225, 651.]

[Footnote 39: Ashley, Surveys, pp. 275-276.]

[Footnote 40: New York Colonial Docts., III, pp. 175-178; Cal. State Papers, Col., 1661-1668, ---- 1874, 1875.]

[Footnote 41: P.C.R., Charles II, Vol. VIII, p. 169; Cal. State Papers, Col., 1661-1668, -- 1884, 1669-1674, ---- 6, 9.]

[Footnote 42: Cal. State Papers, Col., 1669-1674, ---- 104, 696.]

[Footnote 43: Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1671, p. 210; 1671-1672, pp. 450-451.]

CHAPTER V.

The Plantation Councils of 1670 and 1672.

During the years 1668 and 1669 no member of the government was more active in promoting the development of the plantations than Anthony Ashley Cooper, Lord Ashley. As one of the proprietaries of Carolina, he had taken the lead in advancing that settlement, had called upon John Locke to frame a new const.i.tution, and had himself organized the expedition of 1669 which gave to the new colony its most important impetus. He became a proprietary of the Bahamas in 1670 and later attempted to found a plantation on the Edisto River. He planned to organize these colonies at Charles Town, Albemarle, Edisto, and New Providence into a kind of cooperative trading group of settlements, under the same laws and instructions, and from them he hoped to obtain in time for himself and the other proprietaries ample returns on their investments. It is of no concern to us here that his scheme failed, the important fact remains that Ashley and Locke were at this juncture in the very heyday of their interest in colonial affairs and were eager to take advantage of every opportunity for encouraging colonial trade. The revival of the Select Council for Foreign Plantations was due in largest part to the influence and initiative of these two men, particularly of Ashley, who in 1670 was at the height of his political power and on terms of closest intimacy with the King.[1] That he was sincere in this movement seems to me beyond question, and the charge that has been made against him of recommending the creation of this Council as a means of obtaining sinecures for his friends, does not appear capable of the slightest proof.[2] If membership on the Council was deemed at the first a position of ease, it must soon have lost that character, for few committee men ever worked harder than those who looked after plantation affairs in the years from 1670 to 1674. This fact will appear as we examine the nature and extent of their activities.

Experience with previous councils had shown that too numerous and fluctuating a membership was not conducive either to harmony or to despatch of business. Therefore, in reviving the Council for Plantations it was decided, as the most important change to be effected, that the number should be reduced to such terms as to enable the committee to apply itself as a whole to the business in hand. The commission was issued on July 30, 1670, to ten persons, of whom but three were members of the n.o.bility. The commissioners were Edward, Earl of Sandwich; Richard, Lord Gorges, Baron of Dundalk in Ireland; William, Lord Allington, Baron of Killar in Ireland; Thomas Grey, son of Lord Grey, of Warke; Henry Brouncker, Sir Humphrey Winch, Sir John Finch, Edmund Waller, Henry Slingsby, master and worker of the mint and one of the gentlemen of the privy chamber, and Silas t.i.tus, one of the grooms of the bed chamber. To this number was added in 1671 James, Duke of York; Prince Rupert, George, Duke of Buckingham, Master of the Horse; James, Duke of Ormond, Lord Steward of the Royal Household; John, Earl of Lauderdale, Secretary of State for Scotland; Thomas, Lord Culpeper; Sir George Carteret, Vice-Chamberlain; and John Evelyn, but of these only the last named stood on the same footing with those first appointed as a regular and salaried member, the others being appointed to give weight and dignity to the board and receiving no compensation. In August, 1671, Sir Richard Temple was added to the board, also to serve without pay.

The only basis for the charge of self-seeking which has been brought against the members of this Council is the fact that for the first time, as far as we know, the working members received pay for their services.

The allowances and salaries were as follows: the Earl of Sandwich, as president, received 700; Lord Gorges, Lord Allington, Thomas Grey, Henry Brouncker, Sir Humphrey Winch, Sir John Finch, Edmund Waller, Henry Slingsby, Silas t.i.tus, and John Evelyn, each 500, paid quarterly.