Curtenius to Boston
Committee
of Correspondence, Aug.
Arthur Schlesinger - Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution
, 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. 19, 26, 1769; Jan. 16, 1770; MOM. Gas. & News-Letter, Dec.
28, 1769. On learning of the partial repeal of the Townshend duties,
the town meeting voted on May 10, 1770 a continuation of the agree-
ment and ordered that, whereas 719 heads of families had signed an
agreement to use no tea, the ten delinquents should be stigmatized in
the newspapers. It was also voted' that the town should pay the freight
in sending back such goods as had arrived in consequence of the
partial repeal. Essex Gas. , May 15, 1770.
* Mass. Spy, Aug. 14, 17/0; also N. Y. Journ. , Aug. 23.
? ? 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
and the ensuing period of excitement. On the very day of
that affair, nine towns entered such resolutions. 1 Before
the first of April, seventeen more towns followed their ex-
ample:2 and in May, at least four other towns joined in the
resolutions. 8
The enforcement of non-importation at New York did
not present any very unusual features. The agreement
went into operation after November 1, 1768; and in the
following March, before the spring shipments began to
arrive, a committee of inspection was appointed by the
merchants who were subscribers to the agreement, with
Isaac Low at its head. 4 Low represented the best type of
merchant-reformer, and was long to head merchants' com-
mittees in their efforts to obtain trade concessions from
Parliament. He possessed wide commercial connections
and was financially interested in a slitting mill. 5 The doc-
trinaire phrase of "no taxation without representation"
meant to him merely a cover for carrying on business with
a modicum of parliamentary restraint. In the stormy days
of 1774-1775, he retained the confidence of both radicals
and conservatives, but his own influence was thrown against
the dismemberment of the empire; when war came, his
choice lay with the home country.
1 Acton, Dedham, Holliston, 'Littleton, Malden, Medway, Waltham,
Watcrtown, Westford. Most of the resolutions of this period may be
found in the Bos. Eve. Post, Mch. 19 to July 9, 1770.
1 Abington, Attleborough, Billerica, Brookfield, Cambridge, Gloucester,
Groton, Hingham, Lancaster, Medford, Milton, Pembroke, Plymouth,
Roxbury, Salisbury, Sandwich, Sudbury.
1 Andover, Boxford, Danvers, Taunton.
4 N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , Mch. 20, 1769. For names of the committeemen,
vide Becker, N. Y. Parties, 1760-1776, p. 75, n. 106.
* P.
Curtenius to Boston Committee of Correspondence, Aug. 26, 1774.
Bos. Com. Cor. Papers (N. Y. Pub. Libr. ), vol. ii, pp. 381-385.
? ? 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
The operations of the committee of inspection differed
from those of its counterpart in Boston chiefly in requir-
ing merchandise, imported contrary to the agreement, to
be kept in a public store under the lock and key of the com-
mittee. This arrangement placed a stopper on a possible
leakage of stored goods, and created public confidence in the
good faith of the non-importing merchants. In the New
York Journal, May 11, 1769, the committee stated officially
that the several vessels which had lately arrived had brought
some packages upon consignment, which were under ban of
the agreement and which had been placed in the public
store, in all but one or two instances. 1 The New York
Gazette and Weekly Mercury of May 8 averred that the
dutied goods imported in the preceding fall amounted to
some hundreds of pounds sterling but that the amount did
"not exceed 40s. this Spring. " Later in the year, ship
masters whose cargoes contained prohibited articles found
it necessary to publish sworn statements, explaining and ex-
cusing their inadvertence. 2
The most difficult problem that the committee of in-
spection dealt with was to prevent clandestine importations
from neighboring provinces, Pennsylvania in particular.
Since the Philadelphia agreement went into effect four
months after New York, there was a constant temptation
to introduce into New York goods that had been imported
at Philadelphia later than was permitted by the local agree-
ment. Such an instance caused "uneasiness" among the
inhabitants in April, 1769, and the offending merchant
1 The public were asked to boycott these delinquents and all those
who traded with them. For the enforcement of the agreement upon
the arrival of the Britannia from London, April 29, 1769 (probably
the first case of enforcing non-importation), vide N. Y. Gas. & Merc. ,
May 1. 1769; Bos. Chron. , May 15.
'Vide two instances in AT. Y. Gas. & Merc. , Nov. 20, 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
? THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
"voluntarily" returned the goods to Philadelphia. 1 Two
months later, the committee commended to the public the
action of Peter Clopper, for returning to Philadelphia, of
his own accord, some fineries which he had purchased there
for his family. 2 Alexander Robertson, another merchant,
was not so tractable. Some New Jersey people examined
his casks of goods in transit from Philadelphia and re-
ported the nature of his shipment to the committee of in-
spection. With an air of injured surprise, he avowed to
the committee his innocence of evil intent, implored the
pardon of the public in a published statement, and agreed
to send back the goods. It quickly developed that he did
conscientiously return the casks, but their contents remained
in the cellar of the ferry-house for a later introduction into
New York. This duplicity brought upon him all the rigors
of a boycott. 8
The shopkeepers and other inhabitants had adopted an
agreement which confirmed and buttressed the merchants'
combination. This element of the population soon began
to grow impatient with the deliberate measures of the mer-
chants, and they recalled with relish the swift effective meth-
ods of Stamp Act days. When, therefore, the silversmith,
Simeon Cooley, was proscribed by the committee on July
20, 1769, for insolent defiance of non-importation, it did not
seem sufficient to the inhabitants in general that his behavior
should be dismissed with a declaration of boycott. A mass
meeting was held the following day in the Fields to treat
with him; and when he refused to appear for fear of per-
sonal violence, the crowd moved en masse upon his house.
1 N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , Apr. 17, 1769.
1 N. Y. Journ. , June 29, 1769.
? Af. Y. Gas. &? Merc. , June 19, 1769; N. Y. Journ. , June 29, July 6;
Bos. News-Letter, June 29. For Willett's offense of a similar char-
acter, vide N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , July 17.
? ? 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 Igg
Fleeing to the fort, he prevailed upon Major Pitcairn to send
a file of soldiers to guard the house; but these were suddenly
withdrawn, apparently upon sober second thought of the
military. Cooley agreed to meet the crowd the next after-
noon; and there he "publickly acknowledged his Crimes;
. . . engaged to store an Equivalent to the Goods he had
sold, together with all those he had in Possession," and to
conduct himself faultlessly in the future. The boycott re-
mained; and two months later he disposed of his business
and departed in disgust for Jamaica with a pocket-book
much the lighter for his pertinacity. 1 On September 19,
an assemblage of inhabitants again met to deal with a
jeweller who had been proscribed by the merchants. A
scaffold was erected near Liberty Pole; the culprit, Thomas
Richardson by name, was then called before them; and,
mounted on the rostrum, he discovered a readiness to ask
the forgiveness of the public and to agree to store his goods. 8
With each ajp1rnt:"i pf nT? K IrT^the merchants as a_class
_beramp rrmrp fgajfnl. The employment of violence was
not a part of their program for obtaining trade reforms;
they had every reason to desire to hold the populace in leash.
As events progressed, the rift between the merchants and
the " Sons of Liberty" widened. As Colden remarked, at
this time, of attempts to instigate violence, " People in gen-
eral, especially they of property, are aware of the dangerous
Consequences of such riotous and mobish proceedings. " *
On Tuesday, June 26, 1770, a transient named Hills was de-
tected in the act of peddling wares debarred by the agree-
1N. Y. Jo1trn. , July 20, 1/69; AT. Y. Gas. & Merc. , July 24, Sept. 18.
Cooley's version, first published in the London Public Ledger, may
fee found in Mass. Gas. & News-Letter, Nov. 23.
1N. Y. Journ. , Sept. 21, 1769.
* Colden, Letter Books, vol. ii, p. 200.
? ? 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
? I90 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
ment, and on the demand of the committee of inspection he
surrendered his goods, worth almost ? 200, to be stored.
About one o'clock that night a number of persons in dis-
guise took forcible possession of the goods and committed
the whole to the flames. Without further warning, Hills
fled the town. The committee of inspection made this the
occasion for a solemn preachment and warning. In a
signed statement, the midnight visitation was stigmatized
as " a high Insult" offered to the committee and to the city
by "some lawless Ruffians," and every good citizen was
urged to do all in his power " to bring the Authors, Aiders
and Abettors of so unwarrantable an Act to speedy Justice. "1
Naturally the offenders continued undiscovered; but these
new instances of mob assertion had a controlling influence
on the course of the merchants in the subsequent years.
There is every reason to believe that non-importation was
exceedingly well enforced in New York. The committee
had no difficulty to contend with, except the greed of those
merchants who sought to import goods at the prevailing high
prices. It was claimed in December, 1769, that every bit of
goods brought in contrary to the agreement had been placed
in the public store. 2 Although this high standard of per-
fection was not reached, the figures show that the importa-
tions from Great Britain in 1769 had fallen to ? 75,930, as
compared with ? 490,673 in the preceding year, a record
which was not equalled or even approached in any other
province. 8
1 N. - Y. Journ. , June 28, July 5, 1770.
1Letter from New York; Mass. Gas. & News-L<<tter, Dec. 21, 1769.
1 Macpherson, Annals of Com. , vol. iii, pp. 486, 494-495. The British
importations into New York in 1770 amounted to ? 475,991. Ibid. , p.
508. It is, of course, impossible to know what proportion of the
goods imported during these years was permissible under the agree-
ment. It will be remembered that the agreement was also directed
? ? 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 Io,1
In Philadelphia the opposition to non-importation, once
that measure had been adopted, was even milder in char-
acter. The body of merchants were its hearty supporters,
although there was a pronounced feeling on the part of the
importers of British drygoods that the provisions of the local
agreement discriminated unjustly against them. Their com-
plaint was that their commerce was cut off, while the mer-
chants who traded with the West Indies and the Wine
Islands continued their business as before the agreement;
and they pointed out that these prospering traders were
paying duties upon importations of molasses and wines and
thus counteracting the principle of home rule in taxation,
for which the Americans professed to be fighting. More-
over, the merchants of Maryland and Albany, acting under
more liberal agreements, were importing goods for the In-
dian trade, a privilege that was denied to the Philadelphia
merchants. 1 Their dissatisfaction with the agreement took
the form of efforts to modify it or repeal it rather than
clandestine attempts to violate it.
The Society of Friends, in which some of the great mer-
chants were very influential, found an early occasion to take
an official stand against it. At the time of the Stamp Act,
more than fifty of them, including such prominent Quakers
as Israel and James Pemberton, had signed the agreement;
and indeed the measure appeared to be a Quaker method of
resistance. But the present agreement was more rigorous
in its terms; and when the Charming Polly episode disclosed
that the populace, most of whom " were incapable of judg-
ing prudently on a matter of so great importance," might
against smuggled importations from Hamburg and Holland. There
were no published accounts of efforts to enforce these latter restric-
tions. "A. B. " in the N. Y. Journ. , Nov. 23, 1760, made an incidental
reference to the storing of large consignments from foreign merchants.
1 Pa. Gas. , Jan. 25, 1770; Pa. Mag. , vol. xiv, p. 42.
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. 19, 26, 1769; Jan. 16, 1770; MOM. Gas. & News-Letter, Dec.
28, 1769. On learning of the partial repeal of the Townshend duties,
the town meeting voted on May 10, 1770 a continuation of the agree-
ment and ordered that, whereas 719 heads of families had signed an
agreement to use no tea, the ten delinquents should be stigmatized in
the newspapers. It was also voted' that the town should pay the freight
in sending back such goods as had arrived in consequence of the
partial repeal. Essex Gas. , May 15, 1770.
* Mass. Spy, Aug. 14, 17/0; also N. Y. Journ. , Aug. 23.
? ? 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
and the ensuing period of excitement. On the very day of
that affair, nine towns entered such resolutions. 1 Before
the first of April, seventeen more towns followed their ex-
ample:2 and in May, at least four other towns joined in the
resolutions. 8
The enforcement of non-importation at New York did
not present any very unusual features. The agreement
went into operation after November 1, 1768; and in the
following March, before the spring shipments began to
arrive, a committee of inspection was appointed by the
merchants who were subscribers to the agreement, with
Isaac Low at its head. 4 Low represented the best type of
merchant-reformer, and was long to head merchants' com-
mittees in their efforts to obtain trade concessions from
Parliament. He possessed wide commercial connections
and was financially interested in a slitting mill. 5 The doc-
trinaire phrase of "no taxation without representation"
meant to him merely a cover for carrying on business with
a modicum of parliamentary restraint. In the stormy days
of 1774-1775, he retained the confidence of both radicals
and conservatives, but his own influence was thrown against
the dismemberment of the empire; when war came, his
choice lay with the home country.
1 Acton, Dedham, Holliston, 'Littleton, Malden, Medway, Waltham,
Watcrtown, Westford. Most of the resolutions of this period may be
found in the Bos. Eve. Post, Mch. 19 to July 9, 1770.
1 Abington, Attleborough, Billerica, Brookfield, Cambridge, Gloucester,
Groton, Hingham, Lancaster, Medford, Milton, Pembroke, Plymouth,
Roxbury, Salisbury, Sandwich, Sudbury.
1 Andover, Boxford, Danvers, Taunton.
4 N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , Mch. 20, 1769. For names of the committeemen,
vide Becker, N. Y. Parties, 1760-1776, p. 75, n. 106.
* P.
Curtenius to Boston Committee of Correspondence, Aug. 26, 1774.
Bos. Com. Cor. Papers (N. Y. Pub. Libr. ), vol. ii, pp. 381-385.
? ? 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
The operations of the committee of inspection differed
from those of its counterpart in Boston chiefly in requir-
ing merchandise, imported contrary to the agreement, to
be kept in a public store under the lock and key of the com-
mittee. This arrangement placed a stopper on a possible
leakage of stored goods, and created public confidence in the
good faith of the non-importing merchants. In the New
York Journal, May 11, 1769, the committee stated officially
that the several vessels which had lately arrived had brought
some packages upon consignment, which were under ban of
the agreement and which had been placed in the public
store, in all but one or two instances. 1 The New York
Gazette and Weekly Mercury of May 8 averred that the
dutied goods imported in the preceding fall amounted to
some hundreds of pounds sterling but that the amount did
"not exceed 40s. this Spring. " Later in the year, ship
masters whose cargoes contained prohibited articles found
it necessary to publish sworn statements, explaining and ex-
cusing their inadvertence. 2
The most difficult problem that the committee of in-
spection dealt with was to prevent clandestine importations
from neighboring provinces, Pennsylvania in particular.
Since the Philadelphia agreement went into effect four
months after New York, there was a constant temptation
to introduce into New York goods that had been imported
at Philadelphia later than was permitted by the local agree-
ment. Such an instance caused "uneasiness" among the
inhabitants in April, 1769, and the offending merchant
1 The public were asked to boycott these delinquents and all those
who traded with them. For the enforcement of the agreement upon
the arrival of the Britannia from London, April 29, 1769 (probably
the first case of enforcing non-importation), vide N. Y. Gas. & Merc. ,
May 1. 1769; Bos. Chron. , May 15.
'Vide two instances in AT. Y. Gas. & Merc. , Nov. 20, 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
? THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
"voluntarily" returned the goods to Philadelphia. 1 Two
months later, the committee commended to the public the
action of Peter Clopper, for returning to Philadelphia, of
his own accord, some fineries which he had purchased there
for his family. 2 Alexander Robertson, another merchant,
was not so tractable. Some New Jersey people examined
his casks of goods in transit from Philadelphia and re-
ported the nature of his shipment to the committee of in-
spection. With an air of injured surprise, he avowed to
the committee his innocence of evil intent, implored the
pardon of the public in a published statement, and agreed
to send back the goods. It quickly developed that he did
conscientiously return the casks, but their contents remained
in the cellar of the ferry-house for a later introduction into
New York. This duplicity brought upon him all the rigors
of a boycott. 8
The shopkeepers and other inhabitants had adopted an
agreement which confirmed and buttressed the merchants'
combination. This element of the population soon began
to grow impatient with the deliberate measures of the mer-
chants, and they recalled with relish the swift effective meth-
ods of Stamp Act days. When, therefore, the silversmith,
Simeon Cooley, was proscribed by the committee on July
20, 1769, for insolent defiance of non-importation, it did not
seem sufficient to the inhabitants in general that his behavior
should be dismissed with a declaration of boycott. A mass
meeting was held the following day in the Fields to treat
with him; and when he refused to appear for fear of per-
sonal violence, the crowd moved en masse upon his house.
1 N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , Apr. 17, 1769.
1 N. Y. Journ. , June 29, 1769.
? Af. Y. Gas. &? Merc. , June 19, 1769; N. Y. Journ. , June 29, July 6;
Bos. News-Letter, June 29. For Willett's offense of a similar char-
acter, vide N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , July 17.
? ? 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 Igg
Fleeing to the fort, he prevailed upon Major Pitcairn to send
a file of soldiers to guard the house; but these were suddenly
withdrawn, apparently upon sober second thought of the
military. Cooley agreed to meet the crowd the next after-
noon; and there he "publickly acknowledged his Crimes;
. . . engaged to store an Equivalent to the Goods he had
sold, together with all those he had in Possession," and to
conduct himself faultlessly in the future. The boycott re-
mained; and two months later he disposed of his business
and departed in disgust for Jamaica with a pocket-book
much the lighter for his pertinacity. 1 On September 19,
an assemblage of inhabitants again met to deal with a
jeweller who had been proscribed by the merchants. A
scaffold was erected near Liberty Pole; the culprit, Thomas
Richardson by name, was then called before them; and,
mounted on the rostrum, he discovered a readiness to ask
the forgiveness of the public and to agree to store his goods. 8
With each ajp1rnt:"i pf nT? K IrT^the merchants as a_class
_beramp rrmrp fgajfnl. The employment of violence was
not a part of their program for obtaining trade reforms;
they had every reason to desire to hold the populace in leash.
As events progressed, the rift between the merchants and
the " Sons of Liberty" widened. As Colden remarked, at
this time, of attempts to instigate violence, " People in gen-
eral, especially they of property, are aware of the dangerous
Consequences of such riotous and mobish proceedings. " *
On Tuesday, June 26, 1770, a transient named Hills was de-
tected in the act of peddling wares debarred by the agree-
1N. Y. Jo1trn. , July 20, 1/69; AT. Y. Gas. & Merc. , July 24, Sept. 18.
Cooley's version, first published in the London Public Ledger, may
fee found in Mass. Gas. & News-Letter, Nov. 23.
1N. Y. Journ. , Sept. 21, 1769.
* Colden, Letter Books, vol. ii, p. 200.
? ? 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
? I90 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
ment, and on the demand of the committee of inspection he
surrendered his goods, worth almost ? 200, to be stored.
About one o'clock that night a number of persons in dis-
guise took forcible possession of the goods and committed
the whole to the flames. Without further warning, Hills
fled the town. The committee of inspection made this the
occasion for a solemn preachment and warning. In a
signed statement, the midnight visitation was stigmatized
as " a high Insult" offered to the committee and to the city
by "some lawless Ruffians," and every good citizen was
urged to do all in his power " to bring the Authors, Aiders
and Abettors of so unwarrantable an Act to speedy Justice. "1
Naturally the offenders continued undiscovered; but these
new instances of mob assertion had a controlling influence
on the course of the merchants in the subsequent years.
There is every reason to believe that non-importation was
exceedingly well enforced in New York. The committee
had no difficulty to contend with, except the greed of those
merchants who sought to import goods at the prevailing high
prices. It was claimed in December, 1769, that every bit of
goods brought in contrary to the agreement had been placed
in the public store. 2 Although this high standard of per-
fection was not reached, the figures show that the importa-
tions from Great Britain in 1769 had fallen to ? 75,930, as
compared with ? 490,673 in the preceding year, a record
which was not equalled or even approached in any other
province. 8
1 N. - Y. Journ. , June 28, July 5, 1770.
1Letter from New York; Mass. Gas. & News-L<<tter, Dec. 21, 1769.
1 Macpherson, Annals of Com. , vol. iii, pp. 486, 494-495. The British
importations into New York in 1770 amounted to ? 475,991. Ibid. , p.
508. It is, of course, impossible to know what proportion of the
goods imported during these years was permissible under the agree-
ment. It will be remembered that the agreement was also directed
? ? 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 Io,1
In Philadelphia the opposition to non-importation, once
that measure had been adopted, was even milder in char-
acter. The body of merchants were its hearty supporters,
although there was a pronounced feeling on the part of the
importers of British drygoods that the provisions of the local
agreement discriminated unjustly against them. Their com-
plaint was that their commerce was cut off, while the mer-
chants who traded with the West Indies and the Wine
Islands continued their business as before the agreement;
and they pointed out that these prospering traders were
paying duties upon importations of molasses and wines and
thus counteracting the principle of home rule in taxation,
for which the Americans professed to be fighting. More-
over, the merchants of Maryland and Albany, acting under
more liberal agreements, were importing goods for the In-
dian trade, a privilege that was denied to the Philadelphia
merchants. 1 Their dissatisfaction with the agreement took
the form of efforts to modify it or repeal it rather than
clandestine attempts to violate it.
The Society of Friends, in which some of the great mer-
chants were very influential, found an early occasion to take
an official stand against it. At the time of the Stamp Act,
more than fifty of them, including such prominent Quakers
as Israel and James Pemberton, had signed the agreement;
and indeed the measure appeared to be a Quaker method of
resistance. But the present agreement was more rigorous
in its terms; and when the Charming Polly episode disclosed
that the populace, most of whom " were incapable of judg-
ing prudently on a matter of so great importance," might
against smuggled importations from Hamburg and Holland. There
were no published accounts of efforts to enforce these latter restric-
tions. "A. B. " in the N. Y. Journ. , Nov. 23, 1760, made an incidental
reference to the storing of large consignments from foreign merchants.
1 Pa. Gas. , Jan. 25, 1770; Pa. Mag. , vol. xiv, p. 42.
