Of the employment of committees or special commissions to inquire into questions either commercial or colonial there is no evidence before the year 1622. A few months after the dissolution of the third Stuart parliament, James I issued a proclamation for the encouragement of trade, and directed a special commission not composed of privy councillors to inquire into the decay of the clothing trade and to report to the Privy Council such remedial measures as seemed best adapted to increase the wealth and prosperity of the realm.5 At the same time he caused a commission to be issued to the Lord Keeper, the Lord Treasurer, the Lord President of the Council and others "to collect and cause a true survey to be taken in writing of the names, qualities, professions, and places of habitation of such strangers as do reside within the realm of England and use any retailing trade or handicraft trade and do reform the abuses therein according to the statutes now in force."6 The commissioners of trade duly met, during the years 1622 and 1623, summoned persons to appear before them, and reported to the Council. Their report was afterward presented to the King sitting with the Council at Wansted, "was allowed and approved of, and commandment was given to enter it in the Register of Counsell causes and to remain as an act of Counsell by order of the Lord President."7 There is evidence also to show that the commission issued orders on its own account, for in June, 1623, the Mayor and Aldermen of the city of London wrote two letters to the commission expressing their approval of its orders and sending petitions presented to them by citizens of London.8
On April 15, 1625, less than three weeks after the death of James I, a warrant was issued by his successor for a commission of trade, the duties of which were of broader and more general character than were those of the previous body.9 The first record of its meeting is dated January 18, 1626, but it is probable that then the commission had been for some time in existence, though the exact date when its commission was issued is not known. The text of both commission and instructions are among the Domestic Papers.10 The board was to advance the exportations of home manufactures and to repress the "ungainful importation of foreign commodities." Looked upon as a subcommittee of the Privy Council, but having none of the privy councillors among its members, it was required to sit every week and to consider all questions that might be referred to it for examination and report. The fact that a complaint against the patent of Sir Ferdinando Gorges was referred to it shows that it was qualified to deal not only with questions of trade but also with plantation affairs.11 At about the same time a committee of the Council was appointed to take into consideration a special question of trade and to make report to the Council. Neither of these bodies appears to have had more than a temporary existence, although the commission sat for some time and accomplished no inconsiderable amount of work.
The first Privy Council committee of trade that had any claim to permanency was that appointed in March, 1630, consisting at first of thirteen members, the Lord Keeper, the Lord Treasurer, the Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal, Earl Marshall, the Lord Steward, Earl of Dorset, Earl of Holland, Earl of Carlisle, Lord Dorchester, the Vice-Chamberlain, Sir Henry Cottington and Mr. Secretary Coke. This committee was to meet on Friday mornings. The same committee, with the omission of one member, was appointed the next year to meet on Tuesdays in the afternoon. In 1634 the membership was reduced to nine, but in 1636, 1638 and 1639, by the addition of the Lord Treasurer, the number was raised to ten, as follows: the Lord President, the Lord Treasurer, the Lord Keeper, the Lord Privy Seal, Earl Marshall, Earl of Dorset, Lord Cottington, Mr. Comptroller, Mr. Secretary Coke and Mr. Secretary Windebank. The meetings were again held on Fridays, though on special occasions the committee was warned to meet on other days by order of the Council, and on one occasion at least assembled at Hampton Court.12 To this committee were referred all matters of trade which came to the attention of the Council during the ten years, from 1630 to 1640. Notes of its meetings between 1631 and 1637 were kept by Secretaries Coke and Windebank and show the extent and variety of its activities. Except for the garbling of tobacco it does not appear to have concerned itself with plantation affairs.13 As the King was generally present at its meetings, it possessed executive as well as advisory powers, not only making reports to the Council, but also drafting regulations and issuing orders on its own account. Occasionally it appointed special committees to examine into certain trade difficulties, and on September 21, 1638, and again on February 3, 1639, we find notice of a separate board of commissioners for trade constituted under the great seal to inquire into the decay of the clothing industry. This board sat for two years and made an elaborate report to the Privy Council on June 9, 1640.14
Though committees for trade, ordnance, foreign affairs, and Ireland had a more or less continuous existence during the period after 1630, no similar committee for plantations was created during this decade. Temporary commissions and committees of the Council had been, however, frequently appointed. In 1623 and 1624 several sets of commissioners for Virginia were named "to inquire into the true state of Virginia and the Somers Islands plantations," "to resolve upon the well settling of the colony of Virginia," "and to advise on a fit patent for the Virginia Company." In 1631 a commission of twenty-three persons, of whom four constituted a quorum, was created, partly from within and partly from without the Privy Council, "to advise upon some course for establishing the advancement of the plantations of Virginia."15 Similar commissions were appointed to meet special exigencies in the careers of other plantations, Somers Islands, Caribbee Islands, etc. In 1632, we meet with a committee forming the first committee of the Council appointed for the plantations, quite distinct in functions and membership from the committee for trade and somewhat broader in scope than the commissions mentioned above. The circumstances of its appointment were these: In the year 1632 complaints began to come in to the Privy Council regarding the conduct of the colony of Massachusetts Bay. Thomas Morton and Philip Ratcliffe had been banished from that colony and sent back to England. Sir Christopher Gardiner, also, after a period of troubled relations with the authorities there, had taken ship for England. These men, acting in conjunction with Gorges and Mason, whose claims had already been before the Council, presented petitions embodying their grievances. On December 19, 1632, the Council listened to the reading of these petitions and to the presentation of a "relation" drawn up by Gardiner. After long debate "upon the whole carriage of the plantation of that country," it appointed a committee of twelve members, called the Committee on the New England Plantations, with the Archbishop of York at its head, "to examine how the patents for the said plantations have been granted." This committee had power to call "to their assistance such other persons as they shall think fit," "to examine the truth of the aforesaid information or any other information as shall be presented to them and shall make report thereof to this board and of the true state of the said plantations." The committee deliberated on the "New England Case," summoned many of the "principal adventurers in that plantation" before it, listened to the complainants, and reported favorably to the colony. The essential features of its report were embodied in an order in council, dated January 19, 1633.16 This committee, still called the Committee for New England, was reappointed in December, 1633, with a slight change of membership, Laud, who had been made primate the August before, taking the place of the Archbishop of York as chairman. But this committee was soon overshadowed by the greater commission to come.17
The first separate commission,