doubt the people were right, the injustice was not seen at first, but the complaints being unheeded, the wrong dropped out of sight."[1] No sudden revulsion, however, of a long established policy ever takes place without deep complaints from the parties whose monopoly, real or virtual, has been destroyed. But in this instance these alleged complaints had doubtless their origin in the mortification felt by foreign agents in London, whose principals abroad had for centuries enjoyed an undue share of the shipping trade of this country.
Navigation Act of Charles II. During the ten years which followed the passing of the Act of 1651, the Legislature became more and more convinced of the efficacy of these prohibitive laws, and was prepared to render them practically even more stringent. If Charles II. could have reversed any of Cromwell's legislative measures with advantage or popularity, he and his court would gladly have taken such a step. But Charles and his ministers perceived the advantages which had already accrued from the legislation of the preceding government, and in the first year of his actual reign[2] passed an Act (12 Charles II.) which obtained even from Sir Josiah Child, a liberal and enlightened merchant, the title of 'The Maritime Charter of England.'[3] This Act may be deemed the complement
- ↑ Ricardo's 'Anatomy of Navigation Laws.'
- ↑ As all Cromwell's Acts were ignored, the new laws were dated from the death of Charles I.; hence the Navigation Act of Charles II. is dated as passed in the twelfth of his regnal years, although really in the first of his actual reign.
- ↑ The principal enacting clauses of this Act are given in Macpherson, ii. pp. 484-486. Roger Coke, in his 'Discourse on Trade,' states that owing to the Acts of 1651 and 1660, the building of ships in England had become one-third dearer.
