Talk:Navigation Acts

Merge
This is very similar to the other page and should be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffpanko (talk • contribs) 21:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * merge they are both relatively short and on the same topic. Maestlin 23:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

First Anglo-Dutch War an English victory or draw?
Under the description in this article for the result of the first Anglo-Dutch War it reads:

"This led to the First Anglo-Dutch War, in which eventual naval victory forced the Dutch to acknowledge the Act in the Treaty of Westminster (1674)."

However, the article for the Anglo-Dutch Wars states:

"As both nations were by now exhausted, peace negotiations were started. The war ended on 1654-04-05 with the signing of the Treaty of Westminster, but the commercial rivalry was not resolved, the British having failed to replace the Dutch as the world's dominant trade nation."

Which one is it? (either the English "won" or they didn't)

BTW, this article *should* merged with the article "Navigation acts" (lower-case 'a' starting second word).

Critic9328 18:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, it's of course the treaty of 1654 that is relevant :o). Secondly, there is no real contradiction. In the second half of the war the English were clearly on the upper hand and in that they won the last three major battles the war could certainly be described as a naval victory for them. But they couldn't prevent the Dutch from coming back each time. The British elite was less motivated to invest much of its money into a possible gain than the Dutch elite was willing to use all of its (superior) resources in preventing a certain loss. So from a political point of view the war ended in a draw. It's usual to call them the Navigation Acts. --MWAK 10:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge Question
Should somebody remove the merge tag because when I clicked on the article that the tag said it would be merged with, it gave me the exact same article that I was on. I would remove the tag, but I don't know how. Isabella123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.222.121.79 (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Important?
Why is there so much information on the other acts in this article? It makes it look like they are all part of the navigation acts. If they are, then it needs to be more clear on that. I just don't see what the Molasses Act is on this page for, along with all of the other things on the bottom. Chkiss 00:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Separate acts
I think that these are all seperate Navigation acts. I think it is perfectly clear because it says above it "Navigation Acts" and then it list the acts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fun4evrr (talk • contribs) 20:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Chronogical order and "Restoration Acts"
I have reorganised this article into chronological order. In doing so, I've lost the section tile "Restoration Acts" which, at least to me, doesn't really make sense. Can anyone explain what was intended? --Red King 10:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In English History the term 'Restoration' always refers to the Restoration of Charles II at the end of the Commonwealth. I have amended the section in various ways, which i hope make it clearer.  The system was a rational one from the English point of view, designed to ensure that England (later Britain) and its shipping benefited from trade with its colonies.  It was not intended as a dastardly plot to damage the interests of colonials.  I have tried to present a more neutral point of view (see WP:POV).  I am well aware that the subject is an immotive one in terms of the cuases of the American Revolution.  I have also separated the basic code as established in the 1660s from  later amending legislation.  In doing so, I have removed the reference to 'four acts', asd there were a number of other amending acts, but few others making significant differences.  Peterkingiron 22:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I guessed that (see Restoration comedies), but couldn't see a connection. It really is essential to avoid such coded phrases for an international encyclopedia.  (I'm not aware of using PPOV, but I'll look at your edit). --Red King 19:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. However sometimes one uses language that is familiar in ones own context, but needs explainign to others.  The solution is to rewrite to include the explanation.  Peterkingiron 10:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent wording
The text currently reads: ''The Act of Union with Scotland of 1707 allowed Scotland and Scottish vessels the same privileges as England and Wales. Ireland, as an English possession, was similarly excluded from colonial trade, except the export of 'horses and victuals'.'' Before 1707, the status of Ireland was the same as Scotland: it had its own parliament and (nomiinally) its own King -- albeit that he was always the same person as the King of England  -- this remained the case until 1801. So I don't really understand what is intended by "as an English posession". My inclination was to delete it but I'm guessing that it has a deeper significance that I don't appreciate. If so, it needs to be brought out. [I accept "itself an English colony" is confusing in this context when "the colonies" meant North America and the Indies, so I accept its reversion.]

Also "similarly" to what? Holland? New England? Scotland before the Union? --Red King 19:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the description of Ireland as a 'colony', because that description is rarely used for it. Ireland belonged to the English Crown from medieval times; Scotland had the same king from 1603.  Perhaps, "English possession" is not quite the right word, and I hope some one can suggest something better.  Ireland (so far as it had a central government at all) was ruled by a person appointed by the English king, and as a result of Poynings Act, its Parliament was subordinate to England.  'Colony' has tended to be used (for the period with which this is concerned) only of transactlantic possessions, settled by English emigrants.  There were English (and Scottish) settlements in Ireland, which were known as plantations, but some of these disappeared in the Irish rebellion of c.1640, the English being massacred or fleeing for their lives.  After the Cromwellian reconquest, an alien Protestant aristocracy was imposed on Ireland.  Sicne this article is about trade, the Customs law relating to each country is relevant.  I understnad that James I, on becoming king, decided that Customs Duty should not be charged on trade between Scotland and England.  This placed Scotland in a different position form Ireland, even though both were before 1707 excluded from colonial trade.
 * The article (as it was) was written from the point of view of the American grievances that led to the American Revolution. My objective has been to try to tone this donw to a more neutral point of view.  Peterkingiron 10:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I really dont see how there was inconsistent wording here. ScienceUnderPressure (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Structure of headings
I have reinstated something like the structure of headings which existed a few weeks back. The legislation of the 1660s did NOT amend the 1651 Navigation Ordinance; it replaced it. The 1651 ordinance was an Act of the Interregnum ceased to have effect upon the Restoration of Charles II. This was not a judical proceeding and was thus not saved by the Act for the Confirmation of Judical Proceedings, which ratified what the courts had done since the execution of Charles I. In 1660 Parliament passed a number of Acts giving effect to some of the legislation of the preceding period; in some cases, the new was not quite the same as what the "usurping powers" had enacted. The Navigations Acts are an example of that. Peterkingiron 21:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

1381 Act
I am sure that Tim!'s alteration from 1651 to 1381 is well-meaning, but without more explanation in this article, it spoils the article and is tantamount to vandalism. Since I believe this is not actual vandalism (though I do not appear to be able to access Britannica to check the reference), I have slottted the date in later in the article. However, it would be much better if Tim! (or some one else) added a short section saying what the 1381 Act and subsequent pre-1651 legislation said and how effective it was. Peterkingiron 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the way you call the only cited fact in the article "vandalism". Tim! 17:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * By all means add to the article something about the 1381 Act, but you need to write a paragraph about it and other early legislation on the subject. In just altering a date you were damaging the paragraph that you altered, completely changing its implications.  That is vandalism.  I would see no objection to a well-written section on pre-1651 shipping legislation, or something of that kind.  Peterkingiron 22:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What complete rot. Tim! 21:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If anyone is damaging Wikipedia, it is people like you who cannot bother to properly cite sources. This article is too worthless to damage. Tim! 21:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a substantial (if short) article on the subject. I stand by my statement that changing 1651 to 1381 was essentially vandalism, in that it was disruptive to the overall argument of the article, focused (as it was) on legislation from 1651.  If you have substantial information on the postion previously please take the trouble to set out in a few sentences what you know.  The main content of this article is not my writing and I do not have suitable text books by me to cite as sources.  By placing 1381 in a new section, I hope I have given you the space to expand that without interfering with reasonably accurate material on the Commonwealth and subsequent periods.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As I have already told you, read Vandalism before accusing other editors of vandalism. I am frankly sick of you and do not really care to edit this article whilst you make such inane statements. Tim! (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair or not?
I would like to know if any one thinks that they where fair or not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.241.138.98 (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Acts of Parliament
I support User: Red King's reverts in respect of the names of Acts of Parliament. Today Acts of Parliament always have a short title, e.g. Theft Act 1968. This practice became formal in the late 19th century, when the Short Titles Act assigned names to many earlier acts. Those repealed, often did not acquire a short title, but (if important) have acquired one informally by usuage e.g. Navigation Act 1660. Formally these acts should be described by theri long title (which no one ever uses) or by their regnal year and chapter number (which no one can be expected to remember. Peterkingiron 23:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Effects
Some of the content in the effects section is not consistent with the info I added about there being relatively few restrictions on colonial shipping (backed by citation "Craven, p. 35") BradMajors (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

England/Great Britain
A recent edit altered the text to refer to prohibition of trade between England's colonies and the French West Indies. I have reverted from that, because that prohibition was just one aspect of the prohibiton. The Navigation Acts prevented Dutch trade with America or the British West Indies and much else. The reference to Great Britain is necessary, because before the Act of Union of 1707, Scottish trade with English colonies was also illegal. I am not clear whether what I revcerted from was vandalism or a good faith (but misguided) edit. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * as it stands, there's some ambiguity and a bit of unnecesary wording:
 * "The English Navigation Acts were a series of laws which restricted the use of foreign shipping and trade between England (after 1707 the Great Britain) and its colonies. The Navigation Acts caused resentment in the colonies against England, a resentment that fueled the flames of the Anglo-Dutch Wars and the American Revolutionary War."
 * would "restricted the use of foreign shipping for trade to England (after 1707 the Great Britain) and its colonies." make the meaning incorrect?
 * also: "The Navigation Acts caused resentment in the colonies against England, which fueled the flames of the Anglo-Dutch Wars and the American Revolutionary War."
 * ACookr (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not an expert on the Navigation Acts, but from what I understand there was little restriction of foreign shipping to England. What was restricted was foreign shipping to England's colonies. Foreign ships would dock at English ports, transfer their cargoes to English ships. The English ships would then complete the journey to the colonies.
 * Therefore a sentence stating restrictions of foreign shipping for trade to England would not be overly accurate. Road Wizard (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think some one may have been trying to be too clever in bring together the Dutch wars of the 1650s to 1670s into the same sentence as the American Revolution. Foreign trade to England was unrestricted.  Trade from England to colonies had to be in English bottoms (including colonial), as did trade in "enumerated" colonial commodities, which had to be landed in England and pay duty.  Before the Act of Union of 1707, Scots were in the same position as foreigners.  The Act of Union opened colonial trade to Scottish vessels as well, but there were provisions in the Act of Union to prevent the Dutch using Scottish ships as a sort of flag of convenience.  I will try to remember to take a look at this article earlier in the day when I am rather fresher than now.  The criticisms as to the text are valid: it may be that I should have reverted furhter back than I did.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am altering the wording in the introduction to make it clearer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 18:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Extended edits
The article needed much more economic background. It also needed far more citations, most of which I have now provided, using the article by Jonathan Israel that I added as a source. I have left the piece about the run-up to the First Anglo-Dutch War in place, though I doubt if it deserves this much prominence, at least in comparison to the economic causes of the war. I think this section should be better referenced, but I leave that to the author (as the sections on the 1651 and 1660-1663 Acts, which I didn't touch). I have rephrased a number of other sentences where I felt that they missed points or introduced factual errors (for instance the assertion that the enforced dominance of American colonial trade made London the premier financial center of the world, instead of just an artificial entrepot for colonial wares; what really made London an important financial center may be better addressed elsewhere. In any case in the 18th century entrepots were on their way out, due to disintermediation in world trade, so even there I have my doubts).--Ereunetes (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What you have added looks good. I have split out the section on 1381 into a separate section.  Personally, I think that should be deleted, but I had an edit war when I tried.  I do not have access to the source cited in order to pin down what the contributor was trying to get at.  I have thus been unable to sort this out.  Personally, I am not wholly convinced on the entrepot issue.  Material I have seen on the British Baltic trade indicates that payments continued to be cleared through Holland long after Dutch bottoms were excluded from the trade.  One of the difficulties is that Americans tend to see the subject only from the context of American trade, whereas (as you have rightly pointed out) its context was the entry of Dutch shipping into European trade.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The payments concern a different problem. Both the Dutch and the English had a basic trade deficit with the Baltic, so they both had to pay "hard money" (the same applied to the trade with the Far East, by the way). The Dutch had a trade surplus with Spain, so they received a net amount of Spanish silver. English merchants paid their Baltic acounts with exchange bills drawn on Dutch banks. It was a matter of convenience. The fact that England practiced a kind of economic warfare did not mean that all economic relations were severed. As a matter of fact, the Dutch were relatively happy to trade with the American colonies using English carriers; it was the colonists who paid through the nose, after all.
 * I didn't want to put this in the article, because it is pure speculation, but I think the fact that the Amsterdam Entrepot may be said to have introduced a "market imperfection" (other than the greater Dutch efficiency in shipping, which is a different thing) a case could be made for market regulation or countervailing measures. The English could have introduced tariffs (like other countries did) or subsidized their own merchants and carriers. The Navigation Acts amounted to an embargo, however.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Basically I agree. The East India trade was in practice balanced by exporting bullion.  Baltic trade (or at least British-Swedish trade) was settled on a multi-lateral basis by means of bills of exchange.  This was possible because Sweden imported grain from the south Baltic and they imported manufactured goods from the west.  The Swedish import of salt from Setubal in Portugal was sinmilarly unbalanced but some ships delivered iron to Britain then went on to Portugal.  These are complicated issues.  I would love to see articles describing them.  The point is however that none of this belongs in the present article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Error
There is an error in the first paragraph but I do not know how it should be corrected: "At their outset, they we]]." Storslem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storslem (talk • contribs) 19:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Dubious claim in Repeal section
I deleted a bit under repeal which seemed a bit dubious and remained unsourced. I put it here in case anyone wants to improve upon it:

'..but also led to the end of the formal empire in favour of an informal empire, in which private enterprises under the British banner extended trading relations and opened new markets. The East India trading company is an excellent example of this, gaining full provincial control over Bengal and its sub-regions with the 1765 Treaty of Allahabad, while being governed privately rather than directly by the British government.' LastDodo (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)