had lain dormant during the parliamentary treatment of the matter, was nowrevived 
15 and on May 15,1696, by commission under the Great Seal, the Lords 
Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, commonly termed the Board of 
Trade, was established. 16 For our purpose the importance of this failure of 
parliamentary action lies in the nature of the resulting Board of Trade. Parliamentary 
interest was concentrated on a commission to supervise England's 
foreign and colonial trade. The body appointed by the King was rather designed 
for internal administration of the colonies. If the parliamentary scheme 
had succeeded, the whole course of English colonial administration might 
have proceeded along different paths. 
Although the commission to the Board of Trade contained broad inquisitory 
powers in relation to the trade of the kingdom, it was essentially more 
concerned with colonial administration than with the problems of commerce. 17 
The Lords Committee had held its last meeting on April 18, 1696, and it was 
necessary that the administrative functions of this group be carried on by 
some other government unit. The creation of the Board of Trade appears, 
consequently, to have been more than a move to meet the demands of the 
merchant classes and to undermine the Whig opposition; it was an attempt 
to reform the entire colonial administrative system. 
The Board of Trade was composed of sixteen members in all, equally divided 
between nominal and active members. Three of the active members con- 
stituted a quorum, but representations to the King or to the Council were to 
be signed by five or more members. The Board was largely lacking in executive 
authority in important matters; its decisions had to be given force by the 
Privy Council. To carry out its inquisitorial duties, the Board was authorized 
15 For the authorship of the Board idea see 
Pownall, The Administration of the Colonies 
(2d ed., 1765), 20, attributing it to Lord 
Somers, the Lord Keeper, and Basye, The 
Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations 
(1925), 2, note, where Dr. Davenant is 
mentioned as possible author. It is obscure why 
the King waited so long. It is also not accurate 
to say that the King was forced into the 
measure (3 Burke, Works, 326) when he had 
been earlier on the verge of acting and then 
proceeded when Parliamentary interest in the 
matter had cooled. 
18 4 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 145-48- The 
commission has been termed a compromise 
measure (1 Andrews, Guide to the Materials 
for American History, to 1783, in the Public 
Record Office of Great Britain [1912], 82), 
but it is difficult to perceive wherein the King 
made any concessions to Parliamentary interests. 

17 The Board was inter alia to inform itself 
of the administration of governments and of 
justice in the respective plantations, as well 
as of commerce. It was to examine and improve 
instructions to governors, to take a 
yearly journal account of colonial administrations, 
to nominate officials for colonial positions, 
to examine colonial legislation, to consider 
of fit legislation for the colonies, to hear 
complaints of oppressions and maladministration, 
and to require accounts of all money 
voted for public uses (4 Doe. Rel. Col. Hist. 
N.Y., 147-48). It should be noted that much 
of the Commons bill which concerned Admiralty 
matters was not included in the commission. 
Cf. 1 Andrews, Guide, 82. Yet the 
trade feature seemed most important contemporarily 
(4 Luttrell, op cit., 58).