Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:41:40.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

American Versus West Indian Traders in Liverpool, 1793–1815

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2011

S. G. Checkland
S. G. Checkland
Affiliation:
The University of Glasgow
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The war between Britain and France, extending over some twenty two years down to 1815, lies across the great formative period of modern Western society. Like all of its kind, the war may be regarded from two points of view: First, it altered the societies involved in it, as fighting needs conflicted with peaceable ones; second, it affected the nexus which binds countries together—trade and its financing.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 1958 , pp. 141 - 160
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1958

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Parliamentary Papers, 1799, p. 16Google Scholar.

2 Fay, C. R., Huskfsson and His Age (London: Longmans, 1951), p. 371Google Scholar.

3 After the War of Independence the planters had wished the Americans with their lower charges to be allowed access to the British West Indies. The shipowners had opposed this; their victory was represented by the Act of 1788. But after 1793 the plight of the Indies was such that American ships were admitted, first by successive acts of indemnity and after 1806 by a statute. (Bell, H. C., “British Commercial Policy in the West Indies 1785-1793,” English Historical Review, XXXI (1916), 429CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also Liverpool General Advertiser, June 12, 1783.)

4 Parliamentary Papers, 1812, III, evidence of John Bridges Aspinall.

5 Ibid., p. 484. Evidence of John Gladstone. In his opinion eleven-twelfths or fourteen-fifteenths was in American bottoms.

6 United Slates Consular Reports from Liverpool [hereafter referred to as C.R.L.] 07 27, 1791Google Scholar. Transcripts from these, together with James Maury's letters to Jefferson and the Madison Maury correspondence have been made available to me most generously by Herbert Heaton.

7 Parliamentary Papers, 1812, III, 378Google Scholar. Evidence of Joseph Brooks Yates.

8 Parliamentary Papers, 1808, X, 48. Evidence of Thomas Martin. Most exports were at the risk of British merchants, at twelve or eighteen months' creditGoogle Scholar.

9 Rose, J. Holland, “British West Indian Commerce as a Factor in the Napoleonic War,” Cambridge Historical Journal, III (1929), 37Google Scholar.

10 In the earlier phase their enthusiasm tended to vary with success at sea; privateering profits moved opinion one way, the successful French attacks on the Africa traders, the other. But their support hardened as the war went on. Rathbone Papers [deposited on loan with the University of Liverpool; henceforth referred to as R.P.], William Rathbone IV to Dugald Bannatyne, Feb. 8, 1795.

11 Picton, J. A., Memorials of Liverpool (London, 1873), I 273Google Scholar.

12 Rathbone was particularly upset by the number of artisan emigrants passing through Liverpool.

13 Parliamentary Papers, 1808, X, 143Google Scholar. Alexander Baring wrote: “Liverpool is the principal centre of the America commerce, London houses acting almost solely as bankers for the America trade, receiving the proceeds of consignments.” An Inquiry into the Causes and Consequences of the Orders in Council (London, 1808), p. 7Google Scholar.

14 C.R.L., Jan. 9, 1796; July 1, 1804.

15 Ellison, T., The Cotton Trade of Great Britain (London, 1886), p. 178Google Scholar.

16 In 1792 the American consul in Liverpool reported: “The prosperous state of our Funds has occasioned great speculation by the monied men here.” C.R.L., 09. 17, 1792Google Scholar.

17 See Henderson, W. O., “The American Chamber of Commerce for the Port of Liverpool, 1801-1908,” Trans. Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, LXXXV (1933), IGoogle Scholar. The minutes are in the Picton Library, Liverpool.

18 C.R.L., Sept. 9, 1790.

19 Autobiographical Memoirs of Thomas Fletcher of Liverpool (written 1843; Liverpool, 1893)

20 Minute Bool, Liverpool Chamber of Commerce. Article II of Rules. These were drafted by Rathbone.

21 Minutes, Liverpool Chamber of Commerce. Jan. 25, Feb. 15, 1803.

22 Bassett, J. S., ed., Correspondence of Andrew Jackson (Washington: Carnegie Institute, 1926), I, 95Google Scholar.

23 R.P., letter to Ralph Eddowes, Feb. 8, 1805.

24 Though the sources differ in amounts recorded, the trend is clear. See Buck, N. S., The Development of the Organisation of Anglo-American Trade, 1800-1850 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1925), p. 31Google Scholar, quoting from Liverpool Mercury, Feb. 5, 1813; Daniels, G. W., “American Cotton Trade under the Embargo and Non-Intercourse Acts,” American Historical Review, XXII (1916), 278Google Scholar.

25 House of Lords Papers, Apr. 8, 1808. A Return of the Number of Yards of Printed and Dyed cotton exported from Britain to the U.S.A. on which Bounty was claimed. The Liverpool exports (in '000s) were: 1805—5.5; 1806—9.5; 1807—8.6.

26 Even the inland areas felt the stimulus; ships built in the Ohio valley reached Liverpool in 1803. The Louisiana, launched at Pittsburgh, made a typical journey in 1805: to Liverpool with cotton, staves, and skins; to Trieste with English manufactures; back to Liverpool with oil, wood, boxwood, and apples; to Philadelphia widi white salt. (Hulbert, Archer B., “Western Ship-Building,” Amer. Hist. Rev., XXI (1915-1916), 726–27Google Scholar.

27 See Jackson Barnes to William Pitt, Jan. 12, 1792. In Harlow, V. and Madden, F., British Colonial Developments, 1774-1834, Select Documents (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1953), P. 336Google Scholar.

28 Baillie, George, Narrative of the Mercantile Transactions of the Concerns of George Baillie and Co's' Houses from the Year 1793 to 1805 Inclusive (London, 1805), p. 69Google Scholar. Copy in the Athenaeum, Liverpool. See Checkland, S. G., “Two Scottish West-Indian Liquidations after 1793” Scottish Journal of Political Economy, IV (1957), 127Google Scholar.

29 Hughes, John, Liverpool Banks and Bankers, 1760-1837 (Liverpool, 1906), p. 116Google Scholar.

30 , Baillie, Narrative, p. 95Google Scholar.

31 See Pressnell, L. S., Country Banking in the Industrial Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956), pp. 5, 7Google Scholar. Dawson pulled through.

32 See Hyde, F. E., et al., “The Port of Liverpool and the Crisis of 1793,” Economica, New Series XVIII (11. 1951)Google Scholar.

33 , Baillie, Narrative, p. 9Google Scholar.

34 Ragatz, L. J., The Fall of the Planter Class in the British Caribbean (New York: Century, 1928), p. 286Google Scholar.

35 Ibid., p. 289.

36 39 and 40 Geo. III, c. 5. The duties on sugar imported into Britain were raised in 1799.

37 These figures are from , Picton, Memorials, I, 316Google Scholar. On the resumption of war John Bolton was most anxious that Demerara should be taken once more and wrote to Baillie inquiring whether Liverpool pressure would be useful in promoting this. (Letter of May 28, 1803. , Baillie, Narrative, p. 174.)Google Scholar

38 , Baillie, Narrative, p. 17Google Scholar.

39 , Picton, Memorials, I, 316Google Scholar.

40 Heckscher, Eli F., The Continental System (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1922)Google Scholar.

41 This was illustrated from Rathbone and Co. experience: “Our remittances from the continent for account of our American Correspondences have…greatly exceeded our expectations, and we are quite at a loss thro' what channels some of them reach us.” R.P., W. Rathbone IV to Joseph Reynolds, 01. 11, 1807Google Scholar.

42 William Roscoc to Duke of Gloucester, Sept. 20, 1807. (Roscoe Papers, Picton Library, Liverpool.) Roscoe felt that the problem of the right of search might have been surmounted, but the raising of the question of the West Indian possessions of the enemy was likely to prove fatal to peace with America.

43 The Liverpool Chronicle, Jan. 21, 1807, gives the following figures for cotton imports: London, 44,733; Liverpool, 169,216; Glasgow, 36,627.

44 Sept. 9, 1812. For a summary of Liverpool reaction to the orders in council see Baines, Thomas, History of the Commerce and Town of Liverpool (London, 1852), pp. 528–35Google Scholar.

45 See Aspinall, H. O., The Aspinwall and Aspinall Families of Lancashire, A.D. 1189-1923 (Exeter, 1923), pp. 89, 101Google Scholar.

46 , Picton, Memorials, II, 326Google Scholar. Also Liverpool Courier, Oct. 28, 1812.

47 See Checkland, S. G., “John Gladstone as Trader and Planter,” Economic History Review, VII (1954), 216CrossRefGoogle Scholar. There was a certain amount of jealousy over the intruder from Leith. As Huskisson put it to Vansittart: “…several of the leading Friends of Government at Liverpool are certainly rather jealous of Mr. Gladstone.” British Museum Additional Manuscripts, 38191, ff. 97-98. Jan. 12, 1815.

48 Liverpool Courier, Oct. 7, 1812.

49 Nov. 25, 1807.

50 Parliamentary Papers, 1808, X, p. 76Google Scholar.

51 Liverpool Mercury, Nov. 8, 1811.

52 R.P., letter to Dugald Bannatyne, Aug. 27, 1808.

53 R.P., Richard Reynolds to T. Houlbrooke, July 7, 1807.

54 R.P., W. Rathbone IV to Joseph Reynolds, Nov. 20, 1807. The new orders came at a very bad time, just as the season for the America trade was approaching.

55 C.R.L., Aug. 9, 1808.

56 Though diere were some signs of illicit trade continuing. See The Times, Sept. 27, 1811, for the taking of the Falcon of Liverpool with 318 slaves.

57 Robertson, M. A. and Ellis, G., eds., The English Reports, CIII, King's Bench Division, XXXII. (Edinburgh: William Green and Sons; London: Stephens and Sons, 1910), 10. Sharp against Gladstone Nov. 15, 1805Google Scholar.

58 Liverpool Chronicle, Dec. 23, 1807.

59 Parliamentary Papers, 1812, III, evidence, p. 481Google Scholar.

60 Gallagher, J., “Fowell Buxton and the New African Policy, 1838-1842,” Cambridge Historical Journal, X (1950), 38Google Scholar. The direct trade with West Africa was warmly welcomed by leading slavery abolitionists “as one of the surest ways of promoting the civilisation of the country.” See Roscoe, Henry, The Life of William Roscoe (London, 1833), I, 469Google Scholar.

61 Parliamentary Papers, 1812, III, evidence, p. 481Google Scholar.

62 Dec. 20, 1807. Ready sales and quick returns in dollars had been gained, before the general opening of trade, at Vera Cruz, Havana, and Lima. It was these gains, according to Simon Cock, Liverpool's London Agent, that had whetted appetites for the subsequent rush to South America. Parliamentary Papers, 1810, III, p. 72Google Scholar.

63 Parliamentary Papers, 1812, III, evidence of Gladstone, John, p. 484Google Scholar.

64 Ibid., p. 499.

65 , Rose, “British West Indian Commerce…,” Cambridge Historical Journal, III (1929), 44Google Scholar.

66 R.P., W. Rathbone IV to Thomas Foster, July 11, 1808.

67 1812 Committee, evidence of Thornely, Thomas, p. 344; John Richardson, p. 426Google Scholar.

68 R.P., Balance Sheet of Dec. 31, 1809.

69 1812 Committee, evidence of Thornely, Thomas, p. 348Google Scholar.

70 R.P., W. Rathbone IV to Joseph Reynolds, Jan. 14, 1808.

71 R.P., W. Rathbone to Dugald Bannatyne, Aug. 27, 1808.

72 Marwade, C. G., Commercial and Political Observations on the States of the Cotton Market (Liverpool, 1811)Google Scholar.

73 1812 Committee, evidence of , Yates, p. 384Google Scholar.

74 R. F. Breed, an American in Liverpool, with his brothers trading at home, proposed to buy some $200,000 worth of American wheat in August 1809, with a credit from Rathbone and Co. He grew very annoyed at delay for fear of the repeal of the Non-Intercourse Act and a consequent adverse movement of the exchange. A Letter to Messrs. Hughes and Duncan, (Liverpool, 1812), p. I.Google Scholar

75 Historical Manuscripts Commission—anuscripts of J. B. Fortesque, Esq., of Dropmore (London, 1915), IX, Lord Auckland to Lord Grenville, Jan. 6, 1809.

76 R.P., W. Rathbone IV to Lord Lauderdale, Oct. 17, 1808.

77 C.R.L., Nov. 29, 1808.

78 C.R.L., Feb. 27, 1809.

79 It was Maury's opinion that the cargoes of the embargo breakers were not owned by Americans. C.R.L., Feb. 11, 1809.

80 C.R.L., Aug. 19, 1809.

81 , Mercator, An Address to the Inhabitants of Liverpool on…a New Dock Bill (Liverpool, 1810), p. 16Google Scholar. There were also nearly one hundred neutral ships loading salt. By 1810 there was general concern about overcrowding in the Liverpool docks when trade should revive. One critic argued that whereas safety demanded a maximum of some ten ships per acre of dock space, there was often seventeen. Anon., A Statement of the Grounds upon Which the Trustees of the Liverpool Docks Propose Applying to Parliament… (Liverpool, 1810), p. 10Google Scholar.

82 Madison-Maury Correspondence [see n. 6. above], Nov. 14, 1810, Apr. 11, 1811.

83 Marwade, Commercial and Political Observations.

84 Liverpool Mercury, Oct. 4, 1811.

85 1812 Committee, evidence of Thornely, Thomas, p. 345Google Scholar.

86 Ibid., evidence of John Richardson, p. 426.

87 Ibid., p. 7.

88 Liverpool Courier, July 8, 1812.

89 Though American traders, in anticipation of the operation of the act, rushed cargoes and vessels out of American ports to Liverpool and elsewhere. Liverpool Courier, May 27, 1812.

90 1812 Committee, evidence of , Attwood, p. 10Google Scholar.

91 Ibid., evidence of Yates, p. 394.

92 Liverpool obtained a similar right in the summer of 1805. Here again America and West Indian trades were in conflict, the former fearing that the new arrangements would damage them by raising dock charges. Vigorous Parliamentary action was sponsored with Thomas Creevey as spokesman. Liverpool Chamber of Commerce Minutes, 1804.

93 House of Commons Sessional Paper, 1810-11, p. 4.

94 Indigo, silks, and saltpeter from the East were much more vulnerable to damage by leakage than were cargoes from the West. Parliamentary Papers, 1813–1814, VII, p. 397Google Scholar.

95 , Heckscher, Continental System, p. 213Google Scholar.

96 Liverpool Courier, Mar. 11, 1812. The Courier, June 24, 1812, accused the ministry of pusillanimity after Spencer Perceval's death.

97 Liverpool Mercury, Dec. 13, 1811.

98 Slack, John, Remarks on Cotton (Liverpool, 1816), PrefaceGoogle Scholar.

99 Paullin, C. O. and Paxton, F. L., Guide to the Materials in London Archives for the History of the U.S. since 1783 (Washington: Carnegie Institute, 1914), p. 459Google Scholar. Letters of Feb. 24, 1813, Mar. 17, 1813.

100 Liverpool Mercury, Jan. 11, 1812.

101 Ibid., May 13, 1814.