George Bancroft, History of the Colonization of the United States, Vol. 1, 17th edition.

[222] which the instructions of Berkeley commanded

Chap. VI.}

him to introduce, was ultimately successful; for it sacrificed no rights but those of the colonists, while it identified the interests of the English merchant and the English government, and leagued them together for the oppression of those, who, for more than a century, were too feeble to offer effectual resistance.

The Long Parliament was more just; it attempted

1647. Jan. 23.

to secure to English shipping the whole carrying trade of the colonies, but with the free consent of the colonies themselves; offering an equivalent, which the legislatures in America were at liberty to reject.¹

The memorable ordinance of 1650 was a war meas-

1650.

ure, and extended only to the colonies which had adhered to the Stuarts. All intercourse with them was forbidden, except to those who had a license from parliament or the council of state. Foreigners were rigorously excluded;² and this prohibition was designed to continue in force even after the suppression of all resistance. While, therefore, the navigation act

1651

secured to English ships the entire carrying trade with England, in connection with the ordinance of the preceding year, it conferred a monopoly of colonial commerce.

But this state of commercial law was essentially modified by the manner in which the authority of the English commonwealth was established in the Chesapeake. The republican leaders of Great Britain, conducting with true magnanimity, suffered the fever of party to subside, before decisive measures were adopted; and then two of the three commissioners, whom they appointed, were taken from among the planters themselves. The instructions given them were such

Sept 26.