Final answer:
Freebooting lacked the legal backing inherent to privateering and buccaneering, prompting the British government to suppress piracy to protect their commercial interests and international relations. The strong British Navy effectively curbed piracy through increased patrols, convoy systems, and harsh punishments.
Step-by-step explanation:
Freebooting, unlike its predecessors privateering and buccaneering, did not operate under the same sanction of the state. Privateers were essentially private individuals who were given a letter of marque by their government, legally permitting them to attack foreign ships during wartime. Buccaneers, on a similar vein, received tacit or explicit permission from European authorities to carry out raids against Spanish interests during the 17th century, specifically in the Caribbean.
Freebooting, in contrast, did not carry any form of legal backing and was essentially unregulated piracy. By the early 1700s, privateering had become less favored by the British government due to the increasingly formalized international relations and the development of professional navies. As tensions eased between European powers, privateering was seen as a hindrance to peace and trade. Therefore, the British government decided to stamp out freebooting to protect its own commercial interests and to maintain international relations.
The British Navy's success in suppressing piracy was largely due to its strength and the implementation of convoy systems for merchants, the presence of naval patrols in piracy hotspots, and harsh punishments that deterred would-be pirates. Factors like salutary neglect, which previously allowed colonists to engage in smuggling, were reduced in favor of more stringently enforced navigation acts, and the advancement of mercantilism also played a role in supporting the Navy's efforts to focus on protecting commerce rather than supporting privatized endeavors like privateering.