La competencia

‘The Peace of Ryswick began the ruin of the flourishing trade established by Colbert, and the War of Succession completed it.’60

Scotland once again became involved in war against France through British participation in the War of the Spanish Succession. Even before war had been officially declared both Scotland and France had begun to lay impositions on each other’s commerce. Following discussions throughout December, in January 1701 the Scottish Parliament issued an ‘Act Dischargeing Wine Brandie and all other Liquors of the growth of France’, declaring a prohibition on

the importation of all French wines, Brandie and other strong waters and vinegar made in France from any place whatsomever; the brandie strong waters and

                                                                                                                57 _{4 May 1691, RPCS, XVI, 276-8}

58 _{Some English merchants were given passports after this date – some passes were granted in 1690,}

1692, 1696 and 1697, but were far fewer in number than those granted to the Scots.

59 _{NAS E72/15/51, 1}

vinegar from and after the first day of May next and all other wine from and after the first day of October next to come.61

This proclamation was largely retaliatory, being as it was expressly to remain in force ‘while the same liberties and immunities be granted to herrings and all other goods exported from this Kingdom into France and the same freedom and immunities granted to Scots ships sailing thither that any other Nation enjoy in that Kingdom’.62 In September of the same year, the French issued an arrêt preventing the importation of alcohol, textiles, and metal from Great Britain63 and placed greater impositions on goods ‘du crû et fabrique d’angleterre, Écosse, Irlande et pays en dépendent’.64 _{News of} this imposition and its perceived impact on trade travelled quickly throughout Scotland, and Charles Lord Yester wrote to his father John, second Marquess of Tweeddale, on the 23September stating ‘as of the project you write off, about our trade with France, I believe it wil come to nothing; for, by the accounts we have in the last publick news, the King of France seems to have discharged all trade with Brittain’.65 On 11 April 1702, a month before war was officially declared, the French issued an arrêt preventing the entry of any manufactures from England, Scotland or Ireland.66 War was declared in May, Scotland’s declaration being made by the Privy Council just over one week after that of England.67 The following month Britain imposed an additional duty on French goods, which was reported in London in June 1702, and shortly afterwards all trade with France was prohibited.68 On 28 August 1703 the French Council of Commerce issued an arrêt prohibiting trade with all enemy powers – England, its dependencies, Holland and Germany.69 Moreover, even after the Treaty of Utrecht had been agreed in March/April 1713, British ships still encountered some problems in renewing their trade with France, as

61 _{24 and 27 December 1700, 31 January 1701, APS, X, 232, 233, 278; 31 January 1701, NAS}

PA7/17/1/90/i-vi

62 _Ibid.

63 _{E. Levasseur, Histoire du Commerce de la France, 2 volumes (Paris, 1911) I, 363; T. Schaeper, The}

French Council of Commerce, 1700-1715: A Study of Mercantilism after Colbert (Ohio, 1983) 111-114; Murdoch Terror, 296; G. Trevelyan, England Under Queen Anne, I (London, 1930) 153

64 _{Keith, Commercial Relations, 150. Keith recognised that this prohibition did not entirely put an end to}

trade with France.

65 _{Charles Lord Yester to his father [John second Marquess of Tweedale], Dagaty, 23 September 1701,}

W. Fraser (ed.), The Earls of Cromertie, their Kindred, Country and Correspondence, 2 volumes (Edinburgh, 1876) I, 148

66 _{Schaeper, Council of Commerce, 112}

67 _{12 May 1702, CSPD 1700-2, 457; Murdoch, ‘French Connection’, 36}

68_{Flying Post or the Post Master, 2 June 1702, issue 1102; Schaeper, Council of Commerce, 112} 69 _{Schaeper, Council of Commerce, 112}

a great many of our Merchant Ships are arrived at Rochel, Bourdeaux, Natz, and other Harbours of France; but being ordered to keep at a certain Distance from the Harbour for 30 or 40 Days, the Chamber of Commerce have writ to the Intendants, representing the Prejudice which will thereby accrue to Trade.70 In some respects, the impact of Anne’s French war was similar to that of William’s – particularly in the problems it created for merchants through unseasonal sailings, delays and insufficiency of protection for shipping.71 Yet Scotland again remained a distinctly separate player in this conflict, and neither Scottish nor French authorities fully implemented trade embargoes. French privateers have been seen as particularly injurious and there were instances in which Scottish ships were taken.72 However, the impact of such activity on Scottish overseas commerce has recently been re-investigated, and Steve Murdoch has demonstrated that the ‘suffering’ of the Scots at the hands of the French was nothing like as catastrophic as has been previously suggested.73 Some staggering figures for British captures were reported in London. In 1704 Daniel Defoe’s the Review of the Affairs of France reported that ‘in general, our Trade has thriven upon the War, notwithstanding I compute above 30 Millions Sterling lost at Sea, by French Privateers’.74 It was the English, however, who appeared to suffer the greatest losses at the hands of the French, again suggesting that Scottish merchants received special consideration in comparison. A London pamphlet from 1701 declared:

they know very little of Trade, who are ignorant that the greatest advantage the French gain of us in a War, is in their Privateers surprising so many of our Merchant Ships, which can never be avoided in a War, because of the great quantity of Shipping we employ in every corner of the Seas, and the Impossibility of assigning Convoys to every Part of the World. Some have affirm’d, how true I know not, that during the last War they took Three                                                                                                                

70_{Flying Post or the Post Master, London, 18 June 1713, issue 3390. A copy of the treaty suspending}

arms between France and England in 1713 can be found at ADLA C 690

71 _{Jones, War and Economy, 161}

72 _{Petition to the Convention of Royal Burghs from James Cuming, Edinburgh, whose ship was left by its}

convoy and taken by French privateers. 12 July 1709, Edinburgh, IV, CRB, 489. That there was a convoy in place at all testifies that institutions in Scotland permitted this trade to continue. See also the case of the Eagle Galley of Aberdeen, taken on a return voyage from Liborne by a French privateer from St Malos: 4 September 1706, ACA, Propinquity Book II (unfoliated); or the case of the Anna of Pittenweem, taken off the coast of Aberdeen by a French privateer, l’Amazon of Calais in August 1705 and ransomed for 5094 livres (£310/£354 8s 4d sterling): ACA, Propinquity Book I, f 169, 170, 172 – for the latter case see also Murdoch, Terror, 301. Murdoch notes that the transaction that took place to pay the ransom was facilitated by Scottish factors in France. Trade with the Northern Isles was disrupted; Smith, Shetland Life and Trade, 37-8. See 29 July 1690, Edinburgh, RPCS iii XV 338-9.

73 _{Murdoch, Terror, 320-1. For the older view see Graham, ‘Scottish Maritime Interest’ 88-109;Graham,}

A Maritime History of Scotland, 1650-1790 (East Linton, 2002) 151-155

Thousand Sail of our Ships, and the loss to the English has been Computed at Twenty Million.75