The Board of Trade

Every statement above that rests on a checked claim carries a small number; the numbers lead here. Each entry gives what is claimed, how far the record supports it, and where it comes from.

1. The Board of Trade, formally the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations, was created by William III by commission under the great seal on 15 May 1696 to superintend the trade of England and the government, commerce and defence of the colonies, replacing the Lords of Trade and Plantations, a Privy Council committee that had carried colonial business from 1675; the Board rested on royal prerogative and not on any founding Act of Parliament, and it is probable that the King acted to forestall Parliamentary pressure for a board of Parliamentary nomination. Likely More likely than not on the evidence we have. Office-holder list resting on the primary commissions, with secondary survey: J. C. Sainty (ed.), Commissioners of Trade and Plantations 1696 to 1782, in Office-Holders in Modern Britain volume 3, Institute of Historical Research, British History Online; The Board of Trade and Plantations, 1688 to 1761, Journal of the American Revolution, 2020
2. The commission of 15 May 1696 named eight salaried working commissioners, the Earl of Bridgwater, the Earl of Tankerville, Sir Philip Meadows, William Blathwayt, John Pollexfen, John Locke, Abraham Hill and John Methuen, alongside great officers of state sitting ex officio, whom the commission as calendared gives as six, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President, the First Lords of the Treasury and of the Admiralty, the Principal Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and whom Sainty's list gives as seven, adding the Lord Privy Seal. Five were a quorum and the ex officio members were to be called in only when their particular attendance was requisite, so that the business fell to the salaried commissioners, whose number was fixed in principle at eight and whose salaries were fixed at a thousand pounds each at the Exchequer. Locke sat through the reconstitutions of 6 July 1697 and 9 June 1699 and is absent from the commission of 11 July 1700, in which Matthew Prior appears; the reason for his going is not given in the documents read here. Beneath the commissioners there was a permanent establishment of secretary, clerks and office keepers from 1696. Very likely Strong evidence, short of proof. Calendared commission and a scholarly list of office-holders: Commission of 15 May 1696, calendared as no. 1 in Calendar of State Papers Colonial, America and West Indies, vol 15, 1696-1697, ed. J. W. Fortescue (London, 1904), pp. 1-8, British History Online, from Board of Trade, Journal, 9, pp. 1-6: "Commission appointing John, Earl of Bridgewater, Ford, Earl of Tankerville, Sir Philip Meadows, knight, William Blathwayt, John Pollexfen, John Locke, Abraham Hill, and John Methven, together with the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President, the First Lords of the Treasury and Admiralty, the Principal Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being, to be Commissioners for promoting the trade of the Kingdom and for inspecting and improving the Plantations. Any three or more of them are to consider methods of employing the poor; any five of them are to be a quorum. The ex officio members are to be called in only when their particular attendance is requisite." J. C. Sainty, ed., Office-Holders in Modern Britain: Volume 3, Officials of the Boards of Trade 1660-1870 (London, 1974), 'Council of trade and plantations 1696-1782', British History Online: it "was composed of various unsalaried ex officio Commissioners who were not expected to attend the Board regularly and a certain number of paid Commissioners to whom the conduct of business was entrusted"; "Originally the ex officio Commissioners consisted of the holders of the offices of Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper, Lord President of the Council, Lord Privy Seal, Lord Treasurer or First Lord of the Treasury, Lord Admiral or First Lord of the Admiralty, Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Exchequer"; "The number of paid Commissioners was fixed in principle at eight"; the salaries "were fixed at" a thousand pounds each "payable at the Exchequer"; and the lists of appointments dated 15 May 1696 (C 66/3386), 6 July 1697 (C 66/3397), 9 June 1699 (C 66/3413) and 11 July 1700 (C 66/3416), the last omitting Locke and adding "Prior, M." The same article carries sections for Secretary 1696-1782, Clerks 1696-1782 and Office Keepers 1696-1782.
3. The commission of 15 May 1696 constituted the commissioners "for promoting the trade of the Kingdom and for inspecting and improving the Plantations", with five a quorum and the ex officio members to be called in only when their particular attendance was requisite. The trial of pirates lay elsewhere: the Act of 11 and 12 William III for the more effectual suppression of piracy provided that piracies be tried in the plantations before commissioners named by the King's commission under the great seal of England or the seal of the Admiralty, in a court of at least seven persons. The fuller account of what the Board could and could not do, that it reviewed colonial legislation and drafted governors' commissions but could not appoint an officer, disallow a colonial law, issue an order or command a ship, rests on modern accounts and is not established by the documents read here. Likely More likely than not on the evidence we have. Calendared commission and statute: Commission of 15 May 1696, calendared as no. 1 in Calendar of State Papers Colonial, America and West Indies, vol 15, 1696-1697, British History Online, from Board of Trade, Journal, 9, pp. 1-6, appointing commissioners "for promoting the trade of the Kingdom and for inspecting and improving the Plantations", with "any five of them are to be a quorum" and "The ex officio members are to be called in only when their particular attendance is requisite." An Act for the more effectuall Suppressions of Piracy, 11 William III c. 7, in Statutes of the Realm: Volume 7, 1695-1701, ed. John Raithby (1820), pp. 590-594, British History Online: all piracies, felonies and robberies at sea "may be examined inquired of tryed heard and determined and adjudged according to the Directions of this Act in any Place at Sea or upon the Land in any of His Majesties Islands Plantations Colonies Dominions Forts of Factories to be appointed for that Purpose by the Kings Commission or Commissions under the Great Seale of England or the Seale of the Admiralty of England directed to all or any of the Admiralls Vice-Admiralls Reer-Admiralls Judges of Vice-Admiralties or Commanders of any of His Majesties Ships of Warr", the court to "consist of Seaven Persons at the least".
4. The Board was the standing recipient and archivist of colonial piracy intelligence, taking in from the governors of Jamaica, the Bahamas, New York, the Carolinas, Massachusetts, Barbados and the Leeward Islands their reports of pirate cruises, captures, depredations, trials and pardons together with the complaints of merchants and masters, and that correspondence survives in the Colonial Office series at The National Archives, calendared as the Calendar of State Papers Colonial, America and West Indies, as one of the richest single records of the campaign against Henry Every, William Kidd, Edward Thache and their contemporaries. Unverified Reported, not yet checked against the record. Archival guides and the printed calendar of primary documents: America and the West Indies in the Calendar of State Papers Colonial 1573-1739, The National Archives research guide; Calendar of State Papers Colonial, America and West Indies, British History Online; Colonial State Papers, Slavery, Law and Power project
5. The Council of Trade and Plantations' worry over colonial complicity with the Red Sea pirates is documented in its own papers. Robert Snead's long letter charging Governor Markham of Pennsylvania with refusing to hear the proclamation against Every, with warning the pirates before publishing it so that they escaped, and with taking their money, was received and read by the Council on 20 September 1697; the Council heard information the same month from two naval lieutenants on the entertainment of pirates in Pennsylvania and on several of Every's crew being known to be there. That the Board itself wrote the standing anti-piracy clauses in governors' commissions and instructions, and the terms of the Earl of Bellomont's instructions, are not established by the documents read here. Unverified Reported, not yet checked against the record. State papers: Robert Snead to Sir John Houblon, endorsed "Recd. Read, 20 Sept., 1697", Calendar of State Papers Colonial, America and West Indies, vol 15, 1696-1697, no. 1,331, British History Online: "He refused to hear the proclamation when I offered to read it to him, but seemed very angry, so I left him. No sooner was I gone than he sent and acquainted the pirates with what had passed between us"; "But he did not do so until he had warned the pirates, who made their escape, those in gaol as well as those without, which shows pretty clearly that it was by consent." Minutes of the Council of Trade and Plantations, September 1697, same volume: "Lieutenants Ockman and Young attending gave information as to the entertainment of pirates in Pennsylvania... They also reported that several of Every's crew were known to be at Pennsylvania."
6. The Board's representations on the weakness of piracy prosecutions, which under the older law required suspects to be shipped to England for trial, form part of the background to the Act for the more effectual Suppression of Piracy, 11 Will. 3 c. 7, passed in the session of 1698 to 1699 and given royal assent on 11 April 1700, which allowed pirates to be tried in the colonies by commissioned courts of vice-admiralty sitting under the governor and composed of officials, naval officers and merchants; Parliament and not the Board made that statute and the Board's share in drafting it should not be overstated, though the Act answered problems the Board had documented and the Board thereafter worked its effects through the governors it instructed. Likely More likely than not on the evidence we have. Statute, with secondary legal literature: An Act for the more effectuall Suppression of Piracy, 11 Gul. III c. 7, Statutes of the Realm volume 7, pp. 590 to 594, British History Online; Toby Gane, Aspects of English Law Concerning Piracy and Privateering, 1603 to 1760, University of St Andrews