the United States, points out that the colonists pa 

 so many laws to encourage their own manufactures 

 "that such British intervention as occurred must bi 

 regarded rather as indicating the passive disposition of 

 the home government than as defining an administra- 

 tive policy vigorously carried out." 4 Nevertheless, from 

 1 700 until the Revolution, reports on American manu- 

 factures made by royal governors to the Board of 

 Trade demonstrate not only that the Americans were 

 vigorously promoting manufactures but also that the) 

 were being evasive and secretive in doing so in the face 

 of official disapproval. The Board of Trade reported 

 in 1733: "It is not improbable that some former gov- 

 ernors of our colonies . . . may, in breach of their 

 instructions, have given their concurrence to laws, or 

 have connived for many years at the practice of trades 

 prejudicial to the interest of Great Britain . . . 

 Governor Belcher of Massachusetts in his report to the 

 Board of Trade complained that "we cannot conceal 

 from your lordships that it is w ith the greatest difficulty 

 we are able to procure true informations of the trade 

 and manufactures of New England; which will not 

 appear extraordinary when we acquaint your lordship, 

 that the assembl) of the Massachusetts Bay had the 

 boldness to summon . . . Mr. Jeremiah Dunbar 

 [Surveyor General of his Majesty's woods in North 

 America] before them and pass a severe censure upon 

 him, for having given evidence at the bar of the House 

 of ( ominous of Great Britain with respect to the trade 

 and manufactures of this province . . . ." ' 



After the Port Act of 170-1 was disallowed, the Vir- 

 ginians were harder pressed than the northern 

 colonists, who managed to maintain their frowned- 

 upon industries. Ignoring the Virginians' resentment 

 at being limited almost exclusively to the growing of 

 tobacco, additional economic pressures were put 

 upon them. For example, whereas stripped tobacco — 

 the leaves separated from the stalks — had consti- 

 tuted the principal form of exported tobacco, an 

 Act of Parliament was introduced on January 1 7, 1 72'), 

 containing clauses prohibiting the importation into 

 England of "Stript Tobacco." John Randolph, 

 Clerk of the Council of Virginia, wrote a letter to 

 Parliament, petitioning the repeal of the clause. By 



4 Victor S. Clark, The History of Manufactures in the United 

 Slates, 1607 I860 (Washington, D.C.: rhe Carnegie Institution, 



1916), pp. 26-27. 



5 Ibid., p. 203. 



6 Ibid., p. 204. 



ing to export the stalks, he complained, the 



planters 



ided with the duty and Freight of that which is 

 no Value, but depreciates the pure tob icco at 

 ■ •■ - : >und. The Tobacconists are under a 



tcn v ifacture the Stalk and mingle it 



with ih ( lommodity is adulterated, and 



of course ol ii is lessend. And the 



Merchants arc o reat quantities in th :ii 



Warehouses, and at last to sell upon long Credit. In 

 consequence of which the price ol the PI 

 fallen below what they are able to bear. And unless 

 they can be relieved, they must be driven to a necessity 

 of Employing themselves more usefully in Manufactures 

 of Woollen and Linen, as they are not able under the 

 present circumstances to buy what is Necessary for their 

 Cloathing, in this Kingdom . . . . ' 



Although the usual covering phrase, "other manu- 

 factures," was omitted here, it could well have been 

 included. Under such adverse restraints, enterprising 

 Virginians were almost forced to turn to surreptitious 

 manufacturing; perhaps the restraints became excel- 

 lent excuses for pursuing such manufactures, which, 

 perhaps, were in any case inevitable. 



Relief came by 1 730 with the passage of a new- 

 tobacco act, liberalizing the restrictions on the 

 planters. Meanwhile, in 1727, William Goocfi was 

 appointed Lieutenant Governor and, owing in part to 

 his political astuteness and sympathetic awareness of 

 the colonists' difficulties, the lot of the planter was 

 greatly improved. Nevertheless, manufacturing per- 

 sisted as the colonists increased in strength and num- 

 bers. Although official restrictions may have been a 

 perverse encouragement to manufactures, the dynam- 

 ics of a growing population in a new country pre- 

 determined even more an expansion of enterprise. 

 Not only did economic depression force the industi ious 

 to turn to manufactures as an alternative to poverty, 

 but economic prosperity, when it occurred in the 

 1 730s, provided a financial stimulus to further that 

 prosperity by means of local manufacturing. 



Governor Gooch doubtlessly understood this. He 

 was remarkable among Virginia's colonial governors 

 for his ability to achieve what the colonists wanted 

 while pleasing the home government. His admin- 

 istration created an era of good feeling during which 

 the Virginians frequently expressed their gratitude and 

 praise. In 1728 after serving as Governor for seven 



7 Library of ! [Yanscripts: Great Britain, Public 

 Records Oilier. Col il O >1 1322, p. I 



PAPER 54! THE "POOR POTTER 1 ' OF YORKTOWN 



77 



