This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 27, 2011. |
This is very similar to the other page and should be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffpanko ( talk • contribs) 21:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Under the description in this article for the result of the first Anglo-Dutch War it reads:
"This led to the First Anglo-Dutch War, in which eventual naval victory forced the Dutch to acknowledge the Act in the Treaty of Westminster (1674)."
However, the article for the Anglo-Dutch Wars states:
"As both nations were by now exhausted, peace negotiations were started. The war ended on 1654-04-05 with the signing of the Treaty of Westminster, but the commercial rivalry was not resolved, the British having failed to replace the Dutch as the world's dominant trade nation."
Which one is it? (either the English "won" or they didn't)
BTW, this article *should* merged with the article "Navigation acts" (lower-case 'a' starting second word).
Critic9328 18:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Should somebody remove the merge tag because when I clicked on the article that the tag said it would be merged with, it gave me the exact same article that I was on. I would remove the tag, but I don't know how. Isabella123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.222.121.79 ( talk) 21:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is there so much information on the other acts in this article? It makes it look like they are all part of the navigation acts. If they are, then it needs to be more clear on that. I just don't see what the Molasses Act is on this page for, along with all of the other things on the bottom. Chkiss 00:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that these are all seperate Navigation acts. I think it is perfectly clear because it says above it "Navigation Acts" and then it list the acts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fun4evrr ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I have reorganised this article into chronological order. In doing so, I've lost the section tile "Restoration Acts" which, at least to me, doesn't really make sense. Can anyone explain what was intended? -- Red King 10:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The text currently reads: The Act of Union with Scotland of 1707 allowed Scotland and Scottish vessels the same privileges as England and Wales. Ireland, as an English possession, was similarly excluded from colonial trade, except the export of 'horses and victuals'. Before 1707, the status of Ireland was the same as Scotland: it had its own parliament and (nomiinally) its own King -- albeit that he was always the same person as the King of England -- this remained the case until 1801. So I don't really understand what is intended by "as an English posession". My inclination was to delete it but I'm guessing that it has a deeper significance that I don't appreciate. If so, it needs to be brought out. [I accept "itself an English colony" is confusing in this context when "the colonies" meant North America and the Indies, so I accept its reversion.]
Also "similarly" to what? Holland? New England? Scotland before the Union? -- Red King 19:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I really dont see how there was inconsistent wording here. ScienceUnderPressure ( talk) 13:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I have reinstated something like the structure of headings which existed a few weeks back. The legislation of the 1660s did NOT amend the 1651 Navigation Ordinance; it replaced it. The 1651 ordinance was an Act of the Interregnum ceased to have effect upon the Restoration of Charles II. This was not a judical proceeding and was thus not saved by the Act for the Confirmation of Judical Proceedings, which ratified what the courts had done since the execution of Charles I. In 1660 Parliament passed a number of Acts giving effect to some of the legislation of the preceding period; in some cases, the new was not quite the same as what the "usurping powers" had enacted. The Navigations Acts are an example of that. Peterkingiron 21:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I am sure that Tim!'s alteration from 1651 to 1381 is well-meaning, but without more explanation in this article, it spoils the article and is tantamount to vandalism. Since I believe this is not actual vandalism (though I do not appear to be able to access Britannica to check the reference), I have slottted the date in later in the article. However, it would be much better if Tim! (or some one else) added a short section saying what the 1381 Act and subsequent pre-1651 legislation said and how effective it was. Peterkingiron 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to know if any one thinks that they where fair or not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.241.138.98 ( talk) 16:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I support User: Red King's reverts in respect of the names of Acts of Parliament. Today Acts of Parliament always have a short title, e.g. Theft Act 1968. This practice became formal in the late 19th century, when the Short Titles Act assigned names to many earlier acts. Those repealed, often did not acquire a short title, but (if important) have acquired one informally by usuage e.g. Navigation Act 1660. Formally these acts should be described by theri long title (which no one ever uses) or by their regnal year and chapter number (which no one can be expected to remember. Peterkingiron 23:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Some of the content in the effects section is not consistent with the info I added about there being relatively few restrictions on colonial shipping (backed by citation "Craven, p. 35") BradMajors ( talk) 07:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
A recent edit altered the text to refer to prohibition of trade between England's colonies and the French West Indies. I have reverted from that, because that prohibition was just one aspect of the prohibiton. The Navigation Acts prevented Dutch trade with America or the British West Indies and much else. The reference to Great Britain is necessary, because before the Act of Union of 1707, Scottish trade with English colonies was also illegal. I am not clear whether what I revcerted from was vandalism or a good faith (but misguided) edit. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The English Navigation Acts were a series of laws which restricted the use of foreign shipping and trade between England (after 1707 the Great Britain) and its colonies. The Navigation Acts caused resentment in the colonies against England, a resentment that fueled the flames of the Anglo-Dutch Wars and the American Revolutionary War.
The article needed much more economic background. It also needed far more citations, most of which I have now provided, using the article by Jonathan Israel that I added as a source. I have left the piece about the run-up to the First Anglo-Dutch War in place, though I doubt if it deserves this much prominence, at least in comparison to the economic causes of the war. I think this section should be better referenced, but I leave that to the author (as the sections on the 1651 and 1660-1663 Acts, which I didn't touch). I have rephrased a number of other sentences where I felt that they missed points or introduced factual errors (for instance the assertion that the enforced dominance of American colonial trade made London the premier financial center of the world, instead of just an artificial entrepot for colonial wares; what really made London an important financial center may be better addressed elsewhere. In any case in the 18th century entrepots were on their way out, due to disintermediation in world trade, so even there I have my doubts).-- Ereunetes ( talk) 21:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
There is an error in the first paragraph but I do not know how it should be corrected: "At their outset, they we]]." Storslem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storslem ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I deleted a bit under repeal which seemed a bit dubious and remained unsourced. I put it here in case anyone wants to improve upon it:
'..but also led to the end of the formal empire clarification needed in favour of an informal empire, in which private enterprises under the British banner extended trading relations and opened new markets. The East India trading company is an excellent example of this, gaining full provincial control over Bengal and its sub-regions with the 1765 Treaty of Allahabad, while being governed privately rather than directly by the British government.' LastDodo ( talk) 20:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 27, 2011. |
This is very similar to the other page and should be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffpanko ( talk • contribs) 21:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Under the description in this article for the result of the first Anglo-Dutch War it reads:
"This led to the First Anglo-Dutch War, in which eventual naval victory forced the Dutch to acknowledge the Act in the Treaty of Westminster (1674)."
However, the article for the Anglo-Dutch Wars states:
"As both nations were by now exhausted, peace negotiations were started. The war ended on 1654-04-05 with the signing of the Treaty of Westminster, but the commercial rivalry was not resolved, the British having failed to replace the Dutch as the world's dominant trade nation."
Which one is it? (either the English "won" or they didn't)
BTW, this article *should* merged with the article "Navigation acts" (lower-case 'a' starting second word).
Critic9328 18:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Should somebody remove the merge tag because when I clicked on the article that the tag said it would be merged with, it gave me the exact same article that I was on. I would remove the tag, but I don't know how. Isabella123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.222.121.79 ( talk) 21:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is there so much information on the other acts in this article? It makes it look like they are all part of the navigation acts. If they are, then it needs to be more clear on that. I just don't see what the Molasses Act is on this page for, along with all of the other things on the bottom. Chkiss 00:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that these are all seperate Navigation acts. I think it is perfectly clear because it says above it "Navigation Acts" and then it list the acts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fun4evrr ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I have reorganised this article into chronological order. In doing so, I've lost the section tile "Restoration Acts" which, at least to me, doesn't really make sense. Can anyone explain what was intended? -- Red King 10:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The text currently reads: The Act of Union with Scotland of 1707 allowed Scotland and Scottish vessels the same privileges as England and Wales. Ireland, as an English possession, was similarly excluded from colonial trade, except the export of 'horses and victuals'. Before 1707, the status of Ireland was the same as Scotland: it had its own parliament and (nomiinally) its own King -- albeit that he was always the same person as the King of England -- this remained the case until 1801. So I don't really understand what is intended by "as an English posession". My inclination was to delete it but I'm guessing that it has a deeper significance that I don't appreciate. If so, it needs to be brought out. [I accept "itself an English colony" is confusing in this context when "the colonies" meant North America and the Indies, so I accept its reversion.]
Also "similarly" to what? Holland? New England? Scotland before the Union? -- Red King 19:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I really dont see how there was inconsistent wording here. ScienceUnderPressure ( talk) 13:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I have reinstated something like the structure of headings which existed a few weeks back. The legislation of the 1660s did NOT amend the 1651 Navigation Ordinance; it replaced it. The 1651 ordinance was an Act of the Interregnum ceased to have effect upon the Restoration of Charles II. This was not a judical proceeding and was thus not saved by the Act for the Confirmation of Judical Proceedings, which ratified what the courts had done since the execution of Charles I. In 1660 Parliament passed a number of Acts giving effect to some of the legislation of the preceding period; in some cases, the new was not quite the same as what the "usurping powers" had enacted. The Navigations Acts are an example of that. Peterkingiron 21:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I am sure that Tim!'s alteration from 1651 to 1381 is well-meaning, but without more explanation in this article, it spoils the article and is tantamount to vandalism. Since I believe this is not actual vandalism (though I do not appear to be able to access Britannica to check the reference), I have slottted the date in later in the article. However, it would be much better if Tim! (or some one else) added a short section saying what the 1381 Act and subsequent pre-1651 legislation said and how effective it was. Peterkingiron 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to know if any one thinks that they where fair or not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.241.138.98 ( talk) 16:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I support User: Red King's reverts in respect of the names of Acts of Parliament. Today Acts of Parliament always have a short title, e.g. Theft Act 1968. This practice became formal in the late 19th century, when the Short Titles Act assigned names to many earlier acts. Those repealed, often did not acquire a short title, but (if important) have acquired one informally by usuage e.g. Navigation Act 1660. Formally these acts should be described by theri long title (which no one ever uses) or by their regnal year and chapter number (which no one can be expected to remember. Peterkingiron 23:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Some of the content in the effects section is not consistent with the info I added about there being relatively few restrictions on colonial shipping (backed by citation "Craven, p. 35") BradMajors ( talk) 07:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
A recent edit altered the text to refer to prohibition of trade between England's colonies and the French West Indies. I have reverted from that, because that prohibition was just one aspect of the prohibiton. The Navigation Acts prevented Dutch trade with America or the British West Indies and much else. The reference to Great Britain is necessary, because before the Act of Union of 1707, Scottish trade with English colonies was also illegal. I am not clear whether what I revcerted from was vandalism or a good faith (but misguided) edit. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The English Navigation Acts were a series of laws which restricted the use of foreign shipping and trade between England (after 1707 the Great Britain) and its colonies. The Navigation Acts caused resentment in the colonies against England, a resentment that fueled the flames of the Anglo-Dutch Wars and the American Revolutionary War.
The article needed much more economic background. It also needed far more citations, most of which I have now provided, using the article by Jonathan Israel that I added as a source. I have left the piece about the run-up to the First Anglo-Dutch War in place, though I doubt if it deserves this much prominence, at least in comparison to the economic causes of the war. I think this section should be better referenced, but I leave that to the author (as the sections on the 1651 and 1660-1663 Acts, which I didn't touch). I have rephrased a number of other sentences where I felt that they missed points or introduced factual errors (for instance the assertion that the enforced dominance of American colonial trade made London the premier financial center of the world, instead of just an artificial entrepot for colonial wares; what really made London an important financial center may be better addressed elsewhere. In any case in the 18th century entrepots were on their way out, due to disintermediation in world trade, so even there I have my doubts).-- Ereunetes ( talk) 21:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
There is an error in the first paragraph but I do not know how it should be corrected: "At their outset, they we]]." Storslem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storslem ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I deleted a bit under repeal which seemed a bit dubious and remained unsourced. I put it here in case anyone wants to improve upon it:
'..but also led to the end of the formal empire clarification needed in favour of an informal empire, in which private enterprises under the British banner extended trading relations and opened new markets. The East India trading company is an excellent example of this, gaining full provincial control over Bengal and its sub-regions with the 1765 Treaty of Allahabad, while being governed privately rather than directly by the British government.' LastDodo ( talk) 20:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)