No More Learning

The committee of inspection were di-
rected to examine all stored goods at least once a week;
and their diligence brought immediate result in placing
Benjamin Greene & Company under the ban on the follow-
ing day. 1 But, in spite of these measures, other merchants,
the Hutchinsons among them, were not deterred from re-
newing the sale of their merchandise after January 1.
The merchant body was evidently facing another crisis.
On Wednesday, January 17, 1770, a large number of the
merchants gathered at Faneuil Hall to consider more drastic
measures than hitherto had been employed, and they ad-
journed from day to day, increasing their numbers with each
adjournment. 2 It was claimed by the Chronicle that pains
had been taken to^nduce many workingmen to swell the
attendance--men^" who find it their interest to proscribe
foreign commerce because they can better dispose of the
articles they make at any extravagant price. " 2J William
Phillips acted as moderator. At the first day's session,
the recreant merchants were summoned to appear before the
meeting. When they refused, committees were sent to wait
on them separately, but with no result save a verbal promise
1 Bos. Eve. Post, Jan. 1, 1770; also N. Y. Journ. , Jan. 18.
1 For these proceedings, vide letter of S. Cooper, Am. Hist. Rev. , vol.
viii, pp. 314-316; Bos. Eve. Post, Jan. 22, 29, 1770; N. Y. Journ. , Feb.
1, 8, 15, Mch. 1; Hutchinson, Mass. Bay, vol. iii, pp. 266-267.
'Bos. Chron. , Feb. 5, 1770. Article by " A Bostonian. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 176 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
from the Hutchinsons to turn over their teas to the com-
mittee of inspection. Even this slight advantage was lost
when the Hutchinsons refused, on the next day, to perform
their promise. The meeting now voted unanimously that
the offending merchants, eight in number,1 had forfeited all
favor and confidence of their fellow-citizens. The whole
body of more than a thousand persons then proceeded, in
impressive and orderly array, to the houses or stores of
each of these men; and, through William Molineux as
spokesman, demanded that the goods, which had once been
placed in store, should be immediately deposited with the
committee of inspection. Only Cary made the concession
demanded. At the Hutchinson home, no one was permitted
to enter, but His Honor the Lieutenant Governor threw up
the window and chose to regard the crowd as making a
tumultuous and threatening application to him in his official
capacity. Molineux insisted that they had come in peace-
able fashion to confer with his sons about " their dishonour-
able Violation of their own contract;" whereupon Hutchin-
son replied angrily that "a contract without a consider-
ation was not valid in law. " But under the influence of
cooler thought, he sent for the moderator early next morn-
ing and effected arrangements for his sons, by which the
teas that remained unsold were delivered to the committee
and the equivalent in money paid over for the balance. The
body of merchants met later in the day and adjourned until
the Tuesday following, in order to give the other delinquents
further time to make their peace. In the interim, the
Greenes repented of their ways; but Taylor, Lillie, Rogers
and Jackson continued obdurate.
On Tuesday, January 23, the merchants voted to with-
1 John Taylor, Theophilus Lillie, Greene & Son, T. and E. Hutchinson,
Nathaniel Rogers, William Jackson and Nathaniel Cary.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION
hold from these four men " not only all commercial dealings
but every Act and Office of common Civility. " Then turn-
ing their attention to John Mein and the merchants who had
been placed on the proscribed list prior to the recent un-
pleasantness, they voted that "they deserve to be driven
to that Obscurity from which they originated and to the Hole
of the Pit from whence they were digged. " The proceed-
ings of that day were spread upon handbills, distributed
through the nearby provinces and pasted up over the
chimney-pieces of the better known public houses.
The lieutenant governor took occasion, on this day, to
make a trial of strength between the merchants and the
government. For some months, he had been trying to con-
vince his council that "the Confederacy of the Merchants
and the proceedings of the town of Boston" were "un-
warrantable," but he could not persuade a majority to his
view. 1 He now decided to act without the consent of his
council; and, while the merchants were in the midst of their
discussions at Faneuil Hall, he sent the sheriff with a mes-
sage denouncing their present meeting as unjustifiable " by
any authority or colour of law," and their house-to-house
marchings en masse as conducive to terror and dangerous
in tendency. As representative of the crown, he required
them to disperse and "to forbear all such unlawful as-
semblies for the future . . . " 2 Later, by dint of impor-
tunity, the lieutenant governor succeeded in getting the
council to approve his action by a bare majority. As for
the merchants, they merely paused long enough to vote their
unanimous opinion that their meeting was lawful, and re-
sumed their transactions.
1 Letters of Hutchinson in Brit. Papers (" Sparks Mss. "), voL i, p.
114, and N. Engl. Chron. , June 22, 1775.
"Bos. Eve. Post, Jan. 29, 1770; M. H. S. Ms. , 61J, 11o; Hutchinson,
Mass. Bay, vol. iii, pp. 267-268.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
The renewed activity of the merchants drew another
volley from Mein. The Chronicle of January 22, 1770,
published an itemized list of the dutied goods imported into
the port of Boston during the year 1769, with the names
of the persons who had paid the duties. Tea, paper, green
glass and painters' colors were the most frequent entries;
and, although most of the goods had gone to notorious im-
porters, the names of some of the " Well Disposed" were
on the list also, especially for consignments of glass.
These charges were answered by signed statements of the
various merchants accused. 1 The glass was, in some in-
stances, alleged to be bottles containing drugs, etc. ; in others,
consignments for persons in Rhode Island and New Hamp-
shire addressed in care of local merchants. Mein replied
in the Chronicle of February 1, analyzing these explanations,
accepting some as satisfactory and rejecting others. The
career of the Chronicle was fast drawing to a close. Its
subscription list was depleted; its advertising columns were
neglected by the non-importers; Mein himself was being
prosecuted for debt by John Hancock in behalf of London
creditors; 2 and his physical whereabouts were unknown.
On June 25, the Chronicle closed its meteoric career with
the commonplace statement to subscribers that "the
Chronicle, in the present state of affairs, cannot be carried
on, either for their entertainment or the emolument of the
Printers . . . "8
Public opinion was thereafter entirely molded by the
Committee of Merchants. Through a strange transposition
1 Bos. Eve. Post, Jan. 29, 1770; Bos. Gas. , Jan. 29.
1 Brown, John Hancock His Book, p. 94; Murray, J. , Letters (N. M.
Tiffany, ed. ), pp. 169-171, 173-174-
1 In May, 1772, Mein petitioned Parliament for compensation for his
losses while "endeavoring to support Administration at the time of
the late American Revenue Acts. " Bos. Eve. Post, Aug. 10, 1772.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION
179
of terms, people had come to speak of merchandise, legally
imported but brought in contrary to the agreement, as
"contraband. " "Tea from Holland may lawfully be sold,"
wrote Hutchinson. "Its a high crime to sell any from
England. " 1 The Customs Board were now without an
organ in Boston. However, on August 27, they succeeded
in inserting in the New York Gasette and Weekly Mercury
a statement of British importations to Boston from Janu-
ary 1 to June 19, 1770, filling five columns of that journal.
The high tension which public affairs had reached ripened
the public mind for violence. Already in 1768, popular
demonstrations in behalf of the smugglers had "caused the
stationing ot troops 1n Boston, in September. 1769, had
occurred tne anray between james Otis and one of the
customs commissioners at the British Coffee House--an
affair which the radicals spoke of as "the intended as-
sassination of Mr. Otis. "* Sometime later, John Mein
and his partner had been assaulted while walking along
King Street; and before the mob would desist, the two
regiments had to be ordered to their arms. 8 Thereafter,
the customs officials and army officers occupied the bar-
room of the coffee house to the exclusion of the citizens of
Boston, until the fact was noted, when a group of the
radicals made it their business to frequent the place in
order to assert their equal rights. 4
The zeal of some school children over non-importation
brought on the first death of a townsman. 8 On Thursday
1 Letter to Hillsborough, Apr. 27, 1770; Mass. Arch. , vol. xxv, p. 391.
1 Palfrey to John Wilkes; M. H. S. Procs. , vol. 47, p. 211.
1 Hutchinson, Mass. Bay, vol. iii, pp. 259-261.
4 Letter of Thomas Young, Col. Soc. Mass. Pubs. , vol. xi, p. 7.
1 Bos. Eve. Post, Feb. 26, Mch. 5, 1770; Hutchinson, op. cit. , vol . iiiK
pp. 269-270.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
morning, February 22, 1770, some boys placed a crude
figure representing four importers, in front of Theophilus
Lillie's door. Richardson, an "infamous Informer," re-
monstrated with the youths, and finally endeavored to de-
stroy the effigy. Failing in this, he retreated to his house
nearby to the shrill jeers of "Informer! Informer!
" Here
he was joined by his wife and a man; and the two sides
pelted each other with rubbish until the better marksman-
ship of the children was clearly established. Then from
inside the house, Richardson fired several times into the
crowd, killing Christopher Snider, an eleven-year-old boy,
and wounding the little son of Captain John Gore. Snider's
funeral was made the occasion for a great demonstration;
and the lad became the " little hero and first martyr to the
noble cause. "
Less than two weeks later occurred the unfortunate street-
affray, which was glorified by the radicals as the " Boston
Massacre. " It was the inevitable result of the festering
ill-feeling, which had been caused by the altercations over
"smuggling and non-importation and by the unaccustomed
presence of troops in the midst of a civil population. The
familiar story of the night of March the fifth need not be
recounted here. Like earlier clashes, the trouble was begun
by irresponsible youths on the street; but it closed with
the fatal shooting of five men and the wounding of several
others by the soldiers. It is possible that some of the shots
into the crowd were fired from the windows of the custom
house nearby. 1 While the bloodshed was wholly accidental,
the radicals immediately made it a pretext for procuring
the removal of the soldiers to Castle William in the harbor,
1 On this point, vide Channing, History of United States, vol. iii, pp.
119-120 n. For a different view, vide Hutchinson, Mass. Bay, vol. iii,
pp. 279-280. Vide also Murray, Letters, p. 165.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION iS1
where the Customs Board found it prudent to join them
for a time. 1
Resorts to mob violence now became more frequent.
When Hutchinson sought to get a wealthy importer to pro-
mote an association in opposition to non-importation, he
was told that such a project would only serve to expose the
signers to "popular rage. " 2 Nathaniel Rogers, the un-
redeemed, was forced to flee the Boston mob only to find
conditions equally bad in New York, his place of refuge:
and he returned to Boston to sue humbly but fruitlessly for
a restoration to public favor at the hands of the Committee
of Merchants. * One of the proscribed McMasters was
carted about Boston by a mob on June 19 and saved from
a " suit of the modern mode" only by his promise that he
would at once depart the town. 4 "Boston people are run
mad," wrote Hutchinson on August 26. "The frenzy was
not higher when they banished my pious great-grandmother,
when they hanged the Quakers, when they afterwards
hanged the poor innocent witches . . . " 8
irnlisefl hY foe Massarre^nndouht-
^
new life into the non-importation cause in New
England at a tim,f whpn sentiment in jts favnr wat waning
thrpughoutj% rrmtinpn1i On March 13, the town of
Boston appointed a committee to circulate an agreement
among the shopkeepers against the sale of any more tea
until the duties should be removed; and more than two hun-
dred and twelve dealers responded. On the nineteenth, the
town, by unanimous vote, entered in the town records the
1 Letters of S. Cooper, Am. Hist. Rev. , vol. viii, pp. 317, 319.
1 Mass. Arch. , vol . xxv, pp. 393-394-
'Ibid. , vol. xxvi, pp. 488, 491; Bos. Eve. Post, May 21, June 11, 1770.
4 Ibid. , June 25, 1770.
4 Mass. Arch. , vol. xxvi, p. 540.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 1g2 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
names of all those proscribed by the merchants on January
23. A week later it was decided by the town that three
ships should be constructed in order to give employment to
the poor. 1 In the following two months, the merchants
rejected several offers of importers and Scotch merchants
to construct ships because of the invariable condition that
the latter should have the privilege of a free sale of goods. 2
What degree of success did the non-importers attain in
enforcing the agreement at Boston? As already stated,
trade statistics are not satisfactory on this point, as no dis-
tinction was made between allowed and prohibited articles,
or between importation into Massachusetts and into New
England in general. And it should be recalled that two
provinces of New England were admittedly dilatory or
derelict in their professions of non-importation. Neverthe-
less, even such figures show a decrease of British imports
in_the follow1ng ve^r. ' It is certain that Lieutenant (jov-
ernor Hutchinson believed that the non-importation agree-
ment was well enforced, and that in contrast to the forces
supporting it the powers of the government were insignifi-
cant. 4 The retired Governor Bernard informed a commit-
tee of the Privy Council in June, 1770, that "a sort of
State Inquisition " had been erected in Boston and that the
agreements "were intirely done by force and to this Hour
1 Bos. Town Recs. (1770-1777), pp. 12-13, 16-17, >>'
* Bos. Gaz. , Apr. 9, May 7, 17/0.
1 Macpherson, Annals of Com. , vol. iii, p. 486, 494-495. The figures
for the year 1770 are even less informing, as trade was re-opened in
October of that year. Nevertheless, only ? 394451 was imported as
compared with ? 1,420,119 in 1771. Ibid. , pp. 508, 518-519.
4 Hosmer, Hutchinson, pp. 166-168, 437-438.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION
intirely effected by having a trained Mob. " * It would
seem that two friendly eye-witnesses of these events were
singularly restrained in their judgments on the execution
of the non-importation regulation. Wrote William Palfrey:
"the agreement has been as generally and strictly adhered
to as was possible from the nature of so extensive an under-
taking, notwithstanding all the opposition it has met with
from a few individuals. " 2 And said Dr. Andrew Eliot
in a private letter: "That there hath been deceit among
some individuals cannot be doubted. But the Town in gen-
eral has been honest, and has suffered incredibly; more, I
am persuaded, than any Town on the continent. " * Even
that exacting radical, Sam Adams, wrote to a congenial
spirit: " Thro the Influence of the Comers & Tories, Boston
has been made to appear in an odious Light. The Mer-
chants in general[have punctually abode by their Agreement,
to their very great private loss. "jj In view of all the evi-
dence, these seem conclusions which the student of history
may fairly accept.
Outside of the environs of Boston, the problem of secur-
ing enforcement of the non-importation in other ports and
towns of Massachusetts also presented some difficulties.
It proved difficult to scrutinize the conduct of Falmouth
on remote Casco Bay; and this port probably provided en-
trance for some debarred goods into the province. The
traders and inhabitants there did not formally adopt an
agreement until June 26, 1770. ? Salem and Marblehead,
1 Acts of Privy Council, Colonial, vol. v, no. 155.
* Bos. News-Letter, Aug. 31, 1769.
1 Letter of Jan. 26, 1771; 4 M. H. S. Colls. , vol. iv, p. 457.
'Letter of Nov. 21, 1770 to Peter Timothy; Adams, Writings (Cash-
ing) , vol. ii, p. 65.
? Bos. Gas. , Oct. 30, 1769, July 9, 1770.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
the chief trading towns next to Boston, proved more faith-
ful. The merchants of Salem adopted an agreement in Sep-
tember, 1768, similar to that of Boston of the preceding
month. 1 On May 1, 1/69, the Essex Gasette published an
itemized account of the spring importations, and concluded:
"There has not been any Goods imported here or expected
that has been wrote for since the Agreement," save, of
course, certain permitted articles. During the following
year, public notices from time to time showed that the
Salem Committee of Inspection was alert in detecting for-
bidden importations and in procuring the storing of goods. 2
In September, 1770, four dealers whose importations had
been placed in store obtained possession of them through
the assistance of a " process of law " and a doughty under-
sheriff. These persons were proscribed, as were also the
inhabitants who dealt at their stores. The town meeting
solemnly resolved that an account of the dealers' defiant
conduct should be publicly read at every annual meeting for
the next seven years. 8
The Marblehead merchants exhibited the first symptoms
of joining with Boston and Salem on October 19, 1769,
when a chest of tea, purchased of a Boston importer, was
carted ceremoniously about the streets and then returned
to its starting-point in Boston. 4 A week later the mer-
chants of Marblehead signed an agreement to dispense with
1 Essex Gas. , Sept. 6, 1768; also Bos. Gas. , Sept. 12.
1Bos. Post-Boy, July 4, 1769; Essex Gas. , Aug. 15, 1769; Bos. Gas. ,
Aug. 27, 1770. Upon news of the partial repeal of the Townshend
duties, the town meeting on May 1, 1770 voted an agreement against
the drinking of tea; and within a week three hundred sixty persons,
almost all heads of families, attached their signatures. Essex Gas. ,
May 8, 1770.
1 Ibid. , Oct. 2, 9, 16, 23. 1770.
4 Bos. Ga;. , Oct. 23, 1769.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION
British importations, save certain articles, until the repeal
of the Townshend duties. 1 Under this agreement, im-
portations were duly stored with the committee by all the
merchants, except four whose names were published. 2 A
signed statement of the committee of inspection, in the
Essex Gazette, May 22, 1770, affirmed that a strict scrutiny
of all importations since the adoption of the agreement had
revealed only a few forbidden articles and these had been
sent to Boston for re-shipment to London. As was to be
expected, whispers began to reach Boston that Salem,
Marblehead, Newbury and Haverhill had deviated from non-
importation; and finally, on July 31, 1770, the merchants
and inhabitants of Boston appointed a committee to visit
the towns and make report of their observations. A week
later the committee was able to report that the towns in
question had honorably carried out their agreements and
the assembled body passed resolutions congratulating them
on their steadfastness. *
In addition to the places already mentioned, a host of
inland towns joined, in 1770, in resolutions to boycott the
Boston importers and to consume no more tea. Although
Charlestown took tms step 1n . February, the vast majority
adopted their measures coincident with the Boston Massacre
1 Mass. Gas. & News Letter, Nov. 2, 1769.
1 The proscribed merchants entered a vigorous defense and promised
future adherence to the agreement; but they won no lenience. Essex
Gas. , Dec.