Salutary neglect
In American history, salutary neglect was the 18th-century policy of the British Crown of avoiding the strict enforcement of parliamentary laws, especially trade laws, as long as British colonies remained loyal to the government and contributed to the economic growth of their parent country, England and then, after the Acts of Union 1707, Great Britain. The term was first used in 1775 by Edmund Burke.
Not to be confused with benign neglect, an urban planning policy.Until the late 17th century, mercantilist ideas were gaining force in England and giving general shape to trade policy through a series of Navigation Acts. From the collapse of the centralized Dominion of New England in 1689 to 1763, salutary neglect was in effect. Afterwards, Britain began to try to enforce stricter rules and more direct management, which included the disallowment of laws to go into effect that were passed in colonial legislatures.[1] This eventually led to the American Revolutionary War.[2][3]
End of policy[edit]
From 1763, Britain began to try to enforce stricter rules and more direct management, which were driven in part by the outcome of the Seven Years' War in which Britain had gained large swathes of new territory in North America at the Treaty of Paris. The war meant that Britain had accrued large debts, and it was decided to deploy troops in the colonies to defend them from the continued threats from France.[2]
British Prime Minister George Grenville thus proposed additional taxes to supplement the Navigation Acts that known as the Grenville Acts: the Sugar Act 1764, the Currency Act 1764, and the Stamp Act 1765 all aimed at increasing authority in and revenue from the colonies. These were unpopular in the colonies and led to the Stamp Act riots in August 1765 and the Boston Massacre in March 1770. The Grenville Acts, as well as the Intolerable Acts, were defining factors that led to the American Revolutionary War.[2]
Deliberateness of policy[edit]
To what extent "salutary neglect" constituted an actual neglect of colonial affairs, as the name suggests, or a conscious policy of the British government is controversial among historians, and it also varies with national perspective. Americans may side with Burke on the "salutary" effect of the policy by emphasizing the economic and social development of the colonies, but from a British imperial perspective it was a momentous failure, and debate remains as to its true social, economic, and political effects.
The Board of Trade, which enforced mercantilist legislation in the United Kingdom, was too weak to enforce its own laws until 1748. Thomas Pelham-Holles, 1st Duke of Newcastle, became the relevant Secretary of State in 1724 but took time to learn the duties of his office, and even then, he was not firm in his action, which caused the historian James Henretta to blame salutary neglect on "administrative inefficiency, financial stringency, and political incompetence."[2]