pass a law prohibiting the exportation from Virginia of articles once imported, in case the exporter and importer were different persons,—such a law was actually passed,[1]— and yet it would have been still to the advantage of the trader bringing in a cargo of commodities to sell them to the first person who was speculating upon the wants of the community. To be required to discriminate as to the individual purchaser was to impose upon the newly arrived merchant a burden of trouble and annoyance which was certain to render the law unpopular with himself and all the members of the class to which he belonged. What he desired was a free market, and the right to break the bulk of his cargo whenever a buyer appeared. All the restrictions upon the market and the buyer alike were finally abolished, not only because the quantity of goods imported increased enormously with the progress of the century, but also in consequence of the powerful influence exercised by the English merchants at home. Such an influence these men never failed to bring to bear when it was the question of removing some obstacle that diminished their profits by increasing their expenses, or which exposed them, in exchanging their commodities for tobacco, to grave inconvenience. When it was sought to establish a number of ports in Virginia by compelling traders to adopt certain places as their exclusive markets in the Colony, upon the penalty of punishment as forestallers if they disregarded the law to that effect, the undertaking resulted in failure, because it was opposed to the interests of this class. In claiming the right to land their cargoes at any point where purchasers offered, its members were simply adapting themselves to local conditions not to be disregarded without serious damage to all. The gain derived from a venture was moderate, even when they
- ↑ Hening’s Statutes, vol. I, p. 519.
