Talk:Navigation Acts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Hanseatic League, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the Hanseatic League on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

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)

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.

Contents 1 Chronogical order and "Restoration Acts" 2 Inconsistent wording 3 Structure of headings 4 1381 Act 5 Acts of Parliament 6 Effects

[edit] Chronogical order and "Restoration Acts"

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)

In English History the term 'Restoration' always refers to the Restoration of Charles II at the end of the Commonwealth. I have amended the section in various ways, which i hope make it clearer. The system was a rational one from the English point of view, designed to ensure that England (later Britain) and its shipping benefited from trade with its colonies. It was not intended as a dastardly plot to damage the interests of colonials. I have tried to present a more neutral point of view (see WP:POV). I am well aware that the subject is an immotive one in terms of the cuases of the American Revolution. I have also separated the basic code as established in the 1660s from later amending legislation. In doing so, I have removed the reference to 'four acts', asd there were a number of other amending acts, but few others making significant differences. Peterkingiron 22:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I guessed that (see Restoration comedies), but couldn't see a connection. It really is essential to avoid such coded phrases for an international encyclopedia. (I'm not aware of using PPOV, but I'll look at your edit). --Red King 19:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However sometimes one uses language that is familiar in ones own context, but needs explainign to others. The solution is to rewrite to include the explanation. Peterkingiron 10:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistent wording

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 removed the description of Ireland as a 'colony', because that description is rarely used for it. Ireland belonged to the English Crown from medieval times; Scotland had the same king from 1603. Perhaps, "English possession" is not quite the right word, and I hope some one can suggest something better. Ireland (so far as it had a central government at all) was ruled by a person appointed by the English king, and as a result of Poynings Act, its Parliament was subordinate to England. 'Colony' has tended to be used (for the period with which this is concerned) only of transactlantic possessions, settled by English emigrants. There were English (and Scottish) settlements in Ireland, which were known as plantations, but some of these disappeared in the Irish rebellion of c.1640, the English being massacred or fleeing for their lives. After the Cromwellian reconquest, an alien Protestant aristocracy was imposed on Ireland. Sicne this article is about trade, the Customs law relating to each country is relevant. I understnad that James I, on becoming king, decided that Customs Duty should not be charged on trade between Scotland and England. This placed Scotland in a different position form Ireland, even though both were before 1707 excluded from colonial trade.

The article (as it was) was written from the point of view of the American grievances that led to the American Revolution. My objective has been to try to tone this donw to a more neutral point of view. Peterkingiron 10:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structure of headings

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)

[edit] 1381 Act

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 like the way you call the only cited fact in the article "vandalism". Tim! 17:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

By all means add to the article something about the 1381 Act, but you need to write a paragraph about it and other early legislation on the subject. In just altering a date you were damaging the paragraph that you altered, completely changing its implications. That is vandalism. I would see no objection to a well-written section on pre-1651 shipping legislation, or something of that kind. Peterkingiron 22:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What complete rot. Tim! 21:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is damaging Wikipedia, it is people like you who cannot bother to properly cite sources. This article is too worthless to damage. Tim! 21:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a substantial (if short) article on the subject. I stand by my statement that changing 1651 to 1381 was essentially vandalism, in that it was disruptive to the overall argument of the article, focused (as it was) on legislation from 1651. If you have substantial information on the postion previously please take the trouble to set out in a few sentences what you know. The main content of this article is not my writing and I do not have suitable text books by me to cite as sources. By placing 1381 in a new section, I hope I have given you the space to expand that without interfering with reasonably accurate material on the Commonwealth and subsequent periods. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

As I have already told you, read Wikipedia:Vandalism before accusing other editors of vandalism. I am frankly sick of you and do not really care to edit this article whilst you make such inane statements. Tim! (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acts of Parliament

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)

[edit] Effects

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)