" *
If the colonists had been more intent on their theoretical
rights than on immediate business concessions, the keener
minds would have perceived that rejoicing was premature.
If the colonists had been more intent on their theoretical
rights than on immediate business concessions, the keener
minds would have perceived that rejoicing was premature.
Arthur Schlesinger - Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution
Vide also ibid.
, Oct.
24.
4 Ibid. , Jan. 2, 1766. Vide also ibid. , Feb. 27; Bos. Eve. Post, Feb. 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
? FIRST CONTEST FOR REFORM 81
merchants in comparing accounts were alarmed at the ex-
tent of their debts, and, knowing the precarious state of
colonial commerce, they contracted their credits to the seri-
ous embarrassment of their American correspondents. 1 In
November, a London house declared that more bills from
America had been protested within six months than in the
preceding six years. 2 On the other hand, the Boston Post-
Boy of December 23, 1765 declared: "A Merchant of the
first Rank in the Town Re-ship'd in one of the last Vessels
for London above ? 300 Sterling worth of Goods on Ac-
count of Money's being so scarce that they would not vend. "
The adoption of non-importation agreements added no new
difficulty to the situation already existing.
The first attempt to introduce forbidden British mer-
chandise_occurred at Philadelphia. A Liverpool brig ar-
rived there with goods debarred by the merchants' agree-
ment. The Committee of Merchants took the matter in
hand and ordere3TRaOHF^ogs_be_locked up until jpews
of the repeal of the Stamp Act should arrive. * A little
later the Prince George arrived at New York with goods
from Bristol, shipped on account of the British owners.
At the demand of the " Sons of Liberty," the goods were
delivered into their care, to be returned to Bristol at first
opportunity. 4
1 " A Merchant" in Public Ledger, Apr. 1, 1765; letter from London,
N. H. Gas. , Nov. 22; Burke in Bos. Chron. , June 26, 1769; R. I. Com-
merce, vol. i, pp. 168-169, 172-173. On the basis of statements from the
merchants of London, Bristol, Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester.
Trecothick, a leading London merchant in American trade, told a com-
mittee of Parliament in February, 1766, that the American debts to
those cities amounted to more than ? 4,450,000. Brit. Mus. Addl. Mss. ,
no. 33030 (L. C. Transcripts), ff. 88, 104.
1 Pa. Gas. , Feb. 6, 1766. Vide also petition of London merchants to
House of Commons, Jan. 17, 1766. Parl. Debates, vol. xvi, pp. 133-135.
* Pa. Gas. , Apr. 24, 1766.
4 N. Y. Merc. , Apr. 28, 1766.
? ? 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
? g2 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
Two other ports, one of which was not bound by any
formal agreement of non-importation applied the prin-
ciple of the secnndaiy-boycott to portsjBtherc the stamp tax
Wflfi b>>ing F"^ The country people at Newburyport at-
tempted to prevent the sailing of a schooner for Halifax; and
when other means failed, they informed the customs officers
of irregularities in her cargo and occasioned a seizure of
the vessel. 1 At Charleston, S. C. , the fire company, com-
posed of radicals, agreed that no provision should be shipped
"to that infamous Colony Georgia in particular nor any
other that make use of Stamp Paper," on penalty of death
for the offenders, if they persisted in error, and the burning
of the vessel. A schooner, laden with rice for Georgia,
attempted to put to sea by night; but the master and the
owner were stopped by a threat that the letter of the reso-
lution would be carried out, and they discharged the cargo. 2
About the middl^ n* Tp*^ official news reached the
colonies that Parliament had given heed to the American
situation and had made sweeping alterations in the trade
and revenue laws of 1764-176? ,. This had come as the
result of a combinat1on of circumstances, fortuitous and
natural, which had spelled victory for the colonists. 8 Lead-
ing among these circumstances were the distress of the
British merchants, manufacturers and workingmen, and the
examination of Dr. Franklin before the House of Commons.
Figures at the London custom house showed that English
exportations to the commercial colonies had declined from
? 1,410,372 in 1764 to ? 1,197,010 in 1765; and from ? 515,-
1 AT. H. Gas. , Jan. 10, 1766.
1Newport Merc. , Mch. 17, 31, 1766; S. C. Gas. , Feb. 25; Pa. Journ. ,
Mch. ao.
1 Hodge, H. H. , "Repeal of Stamp Act," Pol. Sci. Quar. , vol. xix,
pp. 252-276.
? ? 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
? FIRST CONTEST FOR REFORM 83
192 to ? 383,224 to the tobacco colonies--a loss which was
far from being offset by an increase from ? 324,146 to
? 363,874 in the exportations to North Carolina and the
rice colonies. 1 Dr. Franklin had laid bare the economic
reasons for the American commotions, declaring them to
be "the restraints lately laid on their trade, by which the
bringing of foreign gold and silver into the Colonies was
prevented; the prohibition of making paper money among
themselves; and then demanding a new and heavy tax by
stamps; taking away, at the same time, trials by jury, and
refusing to receive and hear their humble petitions. " 2
Whether or not Franklin's analysis was a complete state-
ment of the case, the remedial legislation of Parliament
followed generally the lines indicated by him. The first
step taken was the total repeal of the Stamp Act, upon an
understanding, embodied in the accompanying Declaratory
Act, that Parliament, nevertheless, possessed authority to
bind the colonies "in all cases whatsoever. " * When Sec-
retary Conway communicated this news to the colonial gov-
ernors in a letter of March 31, 1766, he assured them that
Parliament would at once undertake to " give to the Trade
& Interests of America every Relief which the true State of
their Circumstances demands or admits. " * A second letter
of June 12, signed by the Duke of Richmond as secretary,
announced the accomplishment of this latter object--that
"those Grievances in Trade which seemed to be the first
and chief Object of their Uneasiness have been taken into
the most minute Consideration, & such Regulations have
1 Bos. Chron. , Jan. 30, 1769.
1 Writings (Smith), vol. iv, p. 420.
? 6 George III, c. 1 1 and c. 12.
*/ N. J. Arch. , voL be, pp. 550-552. As early as Feb. 14, Henry
Cruger had written with the assurance of one who knew the facts that
the molasses duty would be reduced to one penny. R. I. Commerce,,
voL i, p. 143.
? ? 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
? 84 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
been established as will, it is hoped, restore the Trade of
America . . . "'
The new regulations of Parliament did indeed remove
the chief economic objection to the restrictive act of 1764*
The threepenny duty on foreign molasses was taken off,
and in its place a very low duty of one penny a gallon was
substituted upon all molasses, whether imported from Brit-
ish or foreign possessions. The high duties on foreign sugar
were retained; but the cost of British West Indian sugar
was reduced by removing the long-established export duties
at the islands. It was provided, for the discouragement of
smuggling, that all sugars exported to Great Britain from
the continental colonies should be classed as "French"
and charged with higher duties accordingly.
It was further enacted that all colonial products, whether
"enumerated" or not, must thereafter be entered at an
English port, if destined for a European port north of Cape
Finisterre (other than the Spanish ports in the Bay of
Biscay). The imposts on foreign textiles that had been
collected upon importation into America were in the future
to be collected at the time of exportation from England.
The export duties on British colonial pimento and coffee
were replaced by low duties upon their importation into
other British colonies.
The new duty on molasses met the wishes of the agents
of the continental colonies; and it would appear that the
merchants of Boston, so vitally concerned, had intimated
1 / A'. /. Arch. , vol. ix, pp. 553-354-
16 George III, c. 52. The British West Indies had been suffering
hard times also, and Parliament passed special legislation at this time
with a view of relieving the distress there; 6 George III, c. 49, for the
establishment of free ports at Jamaica and Dominica. Vide Edwards,
B. , The History, Civil and Commercial, of the British Colonies in the
West Indies (London, 1793), vol. i, pp. 239-243.
? ? 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
? FIRST CONTEST FOR REFORM 85
in advance their willingness to accept such a reduction. 1
It was understood that the rum business of the commercial
provinces could easily support a small tax. Franklin be-
lieved that the new regulations afforded " reasonable relief
. . . in our Commercial grievances " 2 and the Rhode Island
agent wrote, even more exuberantly, to the governor of
Rhode Island that "every grievance of which you com-
plained is now absolutely and totally removed, -- a joyful
and happy event for the late disconsolate inhabitants of
America.
" *
If the colonists had been more intent on their theoretical
rights than on immediate business concessions, the keener
minds would have perceived that rejoicing was premature.
Far more ominous to American liberties than the
tpry Act was the fact that the new molasses duty
to all molasses imported. British as well as foreign. By no
possible interpretat1on could it be construed m~any other
light than a tariff for revenue. It was an unvarnished con-
tradiction of the colonial claim to "no taxation without
representation. "
However, the remedial lefpslarion r>f 7-766 w^ JWJVMI
in_ America w1th great popular satisfaction. Measures
1Beer, British Colonial Policy, 1754-1765, p. 279; 1 M. H. S. Colls. ,
vol. vi, p. 193; Hutchinson, Mass. Bay, vol. iii, p. 261 n. ; Quincy, Mass.
Reports, p. 435; Brit. Mus. , Egerton Mss. , no. 2671 (L. C. Transcripts);
Sagittarius's Letters, no. xix, pp. 84-88. Dennys de Berdt, agent of the
Massachusetts House of Representatives, informed Lord Halifax that
a duty of one penny on molasses, "colected with the good will of the
people, will produce more neat money than 3 pence collected by the
dint of Officers. " Col. Soc. Mass. Pubs. , vol. xiii, p. 430. Dickinron
had said in his powerful arraignment of "the late regulations" that
"we should willingly pay a moderate duty upon importations from the
French and Spaniards, without attempting to run them. " Writings
(Ford), vol. i, p. 224.
1 Writings (Smyth), vol. iv, p. 411.
1R. /. Col. Recs. , vol. vi, pp. 491-493.
? ? 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
? 86
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
against the use ar1^ impm-tati^ nf British goods collapsed.
The w1despread enthusiasm for local manufacturing greatly
diminished or entirely vanished. The New York Society
for the Promotion of Arts, Agriculture and Oeconomy de-
clined temporarily into a comatose state. 1 The majority of
the people again bowed to the custom of expensive funerals
and lavish mourning. At a public entertainment in Phila-
delphia, the citizens resolved unanimously to give their
homespun to the poor and on June the fourth, the king's
birthday, to dress in new suits of English fabrication. 8
When news of the repeal of the Stamp Act reached Boston,
Hancock wrote:
Yo
issu f ha. t
to show their Lovaltv
he promised h1s " best
& attachment to Gjrmr
Tnflni nun ft i mil in in t |n Ihat purrx>se. _ Charles Thorn-
son, of Philadelphia, wrote to Franklin of " a heartfelt joy,
seen in every Eye, read in every Countenance; a Joy not
expressed in triumph but with the warmest sentiments of
Loyalty to our King and a grateful acknowledgment of
the Justice and tenderness of the mother Country. " *
The generality of the merchants in the commercial
provinces were not so unreservedly gratified by the action
of Parliament. Important concessions had beer? jnade in
response to the American propaganda; indeed, the leading
grievances had been removed. Yet trade had not feen re-
stored to the footing which it had enjoyed before the pass-
1N. Y, Journ. , Dec. 17, 24, 1767. During the Townshend Acts, as
we shall see, the society revived its activities, and traces of its proceed-
ings may be found in the Journal as late as Mch. 29, 1770.
1 Pa. Gas. , May 22, 1766; Franklin Bicentennial Celebration, vol. ii,
pp. 58-59. Weyler's N. Y. Gasette, May 26, 1766, suggested that this
action proceeded from the desire of the anti-proprietary party to curry
favor with the king.
1 Brown, John Hancock His Book, pp. 124-125.
4 N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. , vol. xi, p. 16.
? ? 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
? FIRST CONTEST FOR REFORM 87
age of the laws of 1764 and 176=;. To that extent, the
merchants had fallen short of their goal.
In November. 1766. the New York merchants summed
up their outstanding grievances in a petition to the House
of Commons, containing two hundred and forty signatures. 1
In the following January, the merchants of Boston followed
their example. 2 These two papers covered substantially
the same ground. The Bostonians seized this early op-
portunity to deny that rum could be profitably distilled from
molasses that bore a duty amounting to practically ten per
cent ad valorem, as did the one-penny duty. They also
protested against the administrative regulations of 1764,
declaring that one part of them made the proper registra-
tion of a vessel an expensive and tedious process, and that
another part granted naval officers autocratic powers of
seizure, together with protection from damage suits. 8 The
1 Weyler's N. Y. Gas. , May 4, 1767; Pitt, Wm. , Correspondence
(London, 1838), vol. iii, p. 186. Vide also the statement of "Americus,"
copied into Weyler's N. Y. Gas. , Jan. 19, 1767, from a London news-
paper.
1 M. H. S. Mss. : 91 L, pp. 27, 31; Col. Soc. Mass. Pubs. , vol. xiii, pp.
4SI-4S2.
1 The New Englanders had a special grievance, which was of first
importance while it lasted. In 1765 Governor Palliser, of Newfound-
land, had prevented American fishermen from taking cod off Labrador
and in the Strait of Belle Isle. His action was based upon a harrow
interpretation of the statutes relating to the Newfoundland fisheries,
and upon a belief that a smuggling trade was being carried on with the
French of Miquelon and St. Pierre. A petition of the Massachusetts
House of Representatives, presented about this time, asked for an act
of Parliament to prevent such restraints in the future. The ministry
would not concede this; but in March, 1767, they agreed to revise Pal-
liser's instructions so as to preclude any further interruption of the
legitimate fishing-trade. This action apparently settled the matter
satisfactorily. Ibid. , pp. 447-448, 451-452; 4 M. H. S. Colls. , vol. iv, pp.
347-348; 5 M. H. S. Colls. , vol. ix, pp. 219-220; Andrews, " Boston Mer-
chants and Non-Importation Movement," Col. Soc. Mass. Pubs. , vol.
xix, pp. 173-174-
? ? 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
? gg THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
New Yorkers, on the other hand, stood alone in their conten-
tion that the exclusion of foreign rum from the colonies
was a hardship, averring that it was a necessary article of
exchange at the Danish West Indies particularly.
On most points the two petitions were in essential agree-
ment. The high duty on foreign sugar was said to elim-
inate it as an article of trade, although it was a commodity
frequently used to fill out a return cargo. This excessive
duty, said the New York merchants, " had induced the
Fair Trader to decline that Branch of Business, while it
presents an irresistable Incentive to Smuggling to People
less scrupulous. " The requirement that all sugars exported
to Great Britain from the continental colonies should be
classed as " French " was said to prevent a valuable return
to Great Britain for her manufactures. The high duty
on Madeira wine was objected to as a discouragement to its
importation into America and, therefore, to the exportation
of American foodstuffs and lumber to the Wine Islands.
The requirement as to the importation of fruit and wine from
Spain and Portugal was again held up as a grievance. 1 The
new regulation, which required all outgoing commodities to
be entered at a British port before going on to European
ports north of Finisterre, was said to increase the cost of
voyages unduly and preclude the competition of colonial
merchants in European markets. The exportation of for-
eign logwood and of colonial lumber, provisions and flax-
seed was especially affected by this restriction.
Of the grievances here enumerated, the regulations
against smuggling had already begun to prove less irksome
1 In 1767, Townshend desired to remove this grievance, but was un-
successful. It was urged that a direct trade between Portugal and
America would be a hazardous relaxation of the acts of trade. 5 M.
H. S. , vol. ix, pp. 231, 236; Pa. Gas. , July 16, 1767.
? ? 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
? FIRST CONTEST FOR REFORM 89
in practice than they appeared on paper. 1 Thus, in 1764,
the Rhode Island legislature had forbidden the governor to
administer the oaths to British customs officials, and the
latter had been forced to suspend operations. In 1765, a
customs collector in Maryland had been violently assaulted;
and in Massachusetts and New York, the officials were
afraid to execute the laws after the Stamp Act riots. For
the future, the necessity for smuggling seemed somewhat
lessened by the radical reduction of the molasses duty.
One grievance had not been included by the petitioners--
the failure of Parliament to provide relief for the currency
situation.
4 Ibid. , Jan. 2, 1766. Vide also ibid. , Feb. 27; Bos. Eve. Post, Feb. 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
? FIRST CONTEST FOR REFORM 81
merchants in comparing accounts were alarmed at the ex-
tent of their debts, and, knowing the precarious state of
colonial commerce, they contracted their credits to the seri-
ous embarrassment of their American correspondents. 1 In
November, a London house declared that more bills from
America had been protested within six months than in the
preceding six years. 2 On the other hand, the Boston Post-
Boy of December 23, 1765 declared: "A Merchant of the
first Rank in the Town Re-ship'd in one of the last Vessels
for London above ? 300 Sterling worth of Goods on Ac-
count of Money's being so scarce that they would not vend. "
The adoption of non-importation agreements added no new
difficulty to the situation already existing.
The first attempt to introduce forbidden British mer-
chandise_occurred at Philadelphia. A Liverpool brig ar-
rived there with goods debarred by the merchants' agree-
ment. The Committee of Merchants took the matter in
hand and ordere3TRaOHF^ogs_be_locked up until jpews
of the repeal of the Stamp Act should arrive. * A little
later the Prince George arrived at New York with goods
from Bristol, shipped on account of the British owners.
At the demand of the " Sons of Liberty," the goods were
delivered into their care, to be returned to Bristol at first
opportunity. 4
1 " A Merchant" in Public Ledger, Apr. 1, 1765; letter from London,
N. H. Gas. , Nov. 22; Burke in Bos. Chron. , June 26, 1769; R. I. Com-
merce, vol. i, pp. 168-169, 172-173. On the basis of statements from the
merchants of London, Bristol, Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester.
Trecothick, a leading London merchant in American trade, told a com-
mittee of Parliament in February, 1766, that the American debts to
those cities amounted to more than ? 4,450,000. Brit. Mus. Addl. Mss. ,
no. 33030 (L. C. Transcripts), ff. 88, 104.
1 Pa. Gas. , Feb. 6, 1766. Vide also petition of London merchants to
House of Commons, Jan. 17, 1766. Parl. Debates, vol. xvi, pp. 133-135.
* Pa. Gas. , Apr. 24, 1766.
4 N. Y. Merc. , Apr. 28, 1766.
? ? 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
? g2 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
Two other ports, one of which was not bound by any
formal agreement of non-importation applied the prin-
ciple of the secnndaiy-boycott to portsjBtherc the stamp tax
Wflfi b>>ing F"^ The country people at Newburyport at-
tempted to prevent the sailing of a schooner for Halifax; and
when other means failed, they informed the customs officers
of irregularities in her cargo and occasioned a seizure of
the vessel. 1 At Charleston, S. C. , the fire company, com-
posed of radicals, agreed that no provision should be shipped
"to that infamous Colony Georgia in particular nor any
other that make use of Stamp Paper," on penalty of death
for the offenders, if they persisted in error, and the burning
of the vessel. A schooner, laden with rice for Georgia,
attempted to put to sea by night; but the master and the
owner were stopped by a threat that the letter of the reso-
lution would be carried out, and they discharged the cargo. 2
About the middl^ n* Tp*^ official news reached the
colonies that Parliament had given heed to the American
situation and had made sweeping alterations in the trade
and revenue laws of 1764-176? ,. This had come as the
result of a combinat1on of circumstances, fortuitous and
natural, which had spelled victory for the colonists. 8 Lead-
ing among these circumstances were the distress of the
British merchants, manufacturers and workingmen, and the
examination of Dr. Franklin before the House of Commons.
Figures at the London custom house showed that English
exportations to the commercial colonies had declined from
? 1,410,372 in 1764 to ? 1,197,010 in 1765; and from ? 515,-
1 AT. H. Gas. , Jan. 10, 1766.
1Newport Merc. , Mch. 17, 31, 1766; S. C. Gas. , Feb. 25; Pa. Journ. ,
Mch. ao.
1 Hodge, H. H. , "Repeal of Stamp Act," Pol. Sci. Quar. , vol. xix,
pp. 252-276.
? ? 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
? FIRST CONTEST FOR REFORM 83
192 to ? 383,224 to the tobacco colonies--a loss which was
far from being offset by an increase from ? 324,146 to
? 363,874 in the exportations to North Carolina and the
rice colonies. 1 Dr. Franklin had laid bare the economic
reasons for the American commotions, declaring them to
be "the restraints lately laid on their trade, by which the
bringing of foreign gold and silver into the Colonies was
prevented; the prohibition of making paper money among
themselves; and then demanding a new and heavy tax by
stamps; taking away, at the same time, trials by jury, and
refusing to receive and hear their humble petitions. " 2
Whether or not Franklin's analysis was a complete state-
ment of the case, the remedial legislation of Parliament
followed generally the lines indicated by him. The first
step taken was the total repeal of the Stamp Act, upon an
understanding, embodied in the accompanying Declaratory
Act, that Parliament, nevertheless, possessed authority to
bind the colonies "in all cases whatsoever. " * When Sec-
retary Conway communicated this news to the colonial gov-
ernors in a letter of March 31, 1766, he assured them that
Parliament would at once undertake to " give to the Trade
& Interests of America every Relief which the true State of
their Circumstances demands or admits. " * A second letter
of June 12, signed by the Duke of Richmond as secretary,
announced the accomplishment of this latter object--that
"those Grievances in Trade which seemed to be the first
and chief Object of their Uneasiness have been taken into
the most minute Consideration, & such Regulations have
1 Bos. Chron. , Jan. 30, 1769.
1 Writings (Smith), vol. iv, p. 420.
? 6 George III, c. 1 1 and c. 12.
*/ N. J. Arch. , voL be, pp. 550-552. As early as Feb. 14, Henry
Cruger had written with the assurance of one who knew the facts that
the molasses duty would be reduced to one penny. R. I. Commerce,,
voL i, p. 143.
? ? 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
? 84 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
been established as will, it is hoped, restore the Trade of
America . . . "'
The new regulations of Parliament did indeed remove
the chief economic objection to the restrictive act of 1764*
The threepenny duty on foreign molasses was taken off,
and in its place a very low duty of one penny a gallon was
substituted upon all molasses, whether imported from Brit-
ish or foreign possessions. The high duties on foreign sugar
were retained; but the cost of British West Indian sugar
was reduced by removing the long-established export duties
at the islands. It was provided, for the discouragement of
smuggling, that all sugars exported to Great Britain from
the continental colonies should be classed as "French"
and charged with higher duties accordingly.
It was further enacted that all colonial products, whether
"enumerated" or not, must thereafter be entered at an
English port, if destined for a European port north of Cape
Finisterre (other than the Spanish ports in the Bay of
Biscay). The imposts on foreign textiles that had been
collected upon importation into America were in the future
to be collected at the time of exportation from England.
The export duties on British colonial pimento and coffee
were replaced by low duties upon their importation into
other British colonies.
The new duty on molasses met the wishes of the agents
of the continental colonies; and it would appear that the
merchants of Boston, so vitally concerned, had intimated
1 / A'. /. Arch. , vol. ix, pp. 553-354-
16 George III, c. 52. The British West Indies had been suffering
hard times also, and Parliament passed special legislation at this time
with a view of relieving the distress there; 6 George III, c. 49, for the
establishment of free ports at Jamaica and Dominica. Vide Edwards,
B. , The History, Civil and Commercial, of the British Colonies in the
West Indies (London, 1793), vol. i, pp. 239-243.
? ? 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
? FIRST CONTEST FOR REFORM 85
in advance their willingness to accept such a reduction. 1
It was understood that the rum business of the commercial
provinces could easily support a small tax. Franklin be-
lieved that the new regulations afforded " reasonable relief
. . . in our Commercial grievances " 2 and the Rhode Island
agent wrote, even more exuberantly, to the governor of
Rhode Island that "every grievance of which you com-
plained is now absolutely and totally removed, -- a joyful
and happy event for the late disconsolate inhabitants of
America.
" *
If the colonists had been more intent on their theoretical
rights than on immediate business concessions, the keener
minds would have perceived that rejoicing was premature.
Far more ominous to American liberties than the
tpry Act was the fact that the new molasses duty
to all molasses imported. British as well as foreign. By no
possible interpretat1on could it be construed m~any other
light than a tariff for revenue. It was an unvarnished con-
tradiction of the colonial claim to "no taxation without
representation. "
However, the remedial lefpslarion r>f 7-766 w^ JWJVMI
in_ America w1th great popular satisfaction. Measures
1Beer, British Colonial Policy, 1754-1765, p. 279; 1 M. H. S. Colls. ,
vol. vi, p. 193; Hutchinson, Mass. Bay, vol. iii, p. 261 n. ; Quincy, Mass.
Reports, p. 435; Brit. Mus. , Egerton Mss. , no. 2671 (L. C. Transcripts);
Sagittarius's Letters, no. xix, pp. 84-88. Dennys de Berdt, agent of the
Massachusetts House of Representatives, informed Lord Halifax that
a duty of one penny on molasses, "colected with the good will of the
people, will produce more neat money than 3 pence collected by the
dint of Officers. " Col. Soc. Mass. Pubs. , vol. xiii, p. 430. Dickinron
had said in his powerful arraignment of "the late regulations" that
"we should willingly pay a moderate duty upon importations from the
French and Spaniards, without attempting to run them. " Writings
(Ford), vol. i, p. 224.
1 Writings (Smyth), vol. iv, p. 411.
1R. /. Col. Recs. , vol. vi, pp. 491-493.
? ? 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
? 86
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
against the use ar1^ impm-tati^ nf British goods collapsed.
The w1despread enthusiasm for local manufacturing greatly
diminished or entirely vanished. The New York Society
for the Promotion of Arts, Agriculture and Oeconomy de-
clined temporarily into a comatose state. 1 The majority of
the people again bowed to the custom of expensive funerals
and lavish mourning. At a public entertainment in Phila-
delphia, the citizens resolved unanimously to give their
homespun to the poor and on June the fourth, the king's
birthday, to dress in new suits of English fabrication. 8
When news of the repeal of the Stamp Act reached Boston,
Hancock wrote:
Yo
issu f ha. t
to show their Lovaltv
he promised h1s " best
& attachment to Gjrmr
Tnflni nun ft i mil in in t |n Ihat purrx>se. _ Charles Thorn-
son, of Philadelphia, wrote to Franklin of " a heartfelt joy,
seen in every Eye, read in every Countenance; a Joy not
expressed in triumph but with the warmest sentiments of
Loyalty to our King and a grateful acknowledgment of
the Justice and tenderness of the mother Country. " *
The generality of the merchants in the commercial
provinces were not so unreservedly gratified by the action
of Parliament. Important concessions had beer? jnade in
response to the American propaganda; indeed, the leading
grievances had been removed. Yet trade had not feen re-
stored to the footing which it had enjoyed before the pass-
1N. Y, Journ. , Dec. 17, 24, 1767. During the Townshend Acts, as
we shall see, the society revived its activities, and traces of its proceed-
ings may be found in the Journal as late as Mch. 29, 1770.
1 Pa. Gas. , May 22, 1766; Franklin Bicentennial Celebration, vol. ii,
pp. 58-59. Weyler's N. Y. Gasette, May 26, 1766, suggested that this
action proceeded from the desire of the anti-proprietary party to curry
favor with the king.
1 Brown, John Hancock His Book, pp. 124-125.
4 N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. , vol. xi, p. 16.
? ? 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
? FIRST CONTEST FOR REFORM 87
age of the laws of 1764 and 176=;. To that extent, the
merchants had fallen short of their goal.
In November. 1766. the New York merchants summed
up their outstanding grievances in a petition to the House
of Commons, containing two hundred and forty signatures. 1
In the following January, the merchants of Boston followed
their example. 2 These two papers covered substantially
the same ground. The Bostonians seized this early op-
portunity to deny that rum could be profitably distilled from
molasses that bore a duty amounting to practically ten per
cent ad valorem, as did the one-penny duty. They also
protested against the administrative regulations of 1764,
declaring that one part of them made the proper registra-
tion of a vessel an expensive and tedious process, and that
another part granted naval officers autocratic powers of
seizure, together with protection from damage suits. 8 The
1 Weyler's N. Y. Gas. , May 4, 1767; Pitt, Wm. , Correspondence
(London, 1838), vol. iii, p. 186. Vide also the statement of "Americus,"
copied into Weyler's N. Y. Gas. , Jan. 19, 1767, from a London news-
paper.
1 M. H. S. Mss. : 91 L, pp. 27, 31; Col. Soc. Mass. Pubs. , vol. xiii, pp.
4SI-4S2.
1 The New Englanders had a special grievance, which was of first
importance while it lasted. In 1765 Governor Palliser, of Newfound-
land, had prevented American fishermen from taking cod off Labrador
and in the Strait of Belle Isle. His action was based upon a harrow
interpretation of the statutes relating to the Newfoundland fisheries,
and upon a belief that a smuggling trade was being carried on with the
French of Miquelon and St. Pierre. A petition of the Massachusetts
House of Representatives, presented about this time, asked for an act
of Parliament to prevent such restraints in the future. The ministry
would not concede this; but in March, 1767, they agreed to revise Pal-
liser's instructions so as to preclude any further interruption of the
legitimate fishing-trade. This action apparently settled the matter
satisfactorily. Ibid. , pp. 447-448, 451-452; 4 M. H. S. Colls. , vol. iv, pp.
347-348; 5 M. H. S. Colls. , vol. ix, pp. 219-220; Andrews, " Boston Mer-
chants and Non-Importation Movement," Col. Soc. Mass. Pubs. , vol.
xix, pp. 173-174-
? ? 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
? gg THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
New Yorkers, on the other hand, stood alone in their conten-
tion that the exclusion of foreign rum from the colonies
was a hardship, averring that it was a necessary article of
exchange at the Danish West Indies particularly.
On most points the two petitions were in essential agree-
ment. The high duty on foreign sugar was said to elim-
inate it as an article of trade, although it was a commodity
frequently used to fill out a return cargo. This excessive
duty, said the New York merchants, " had induced the
Fair Trader to decline that Branch of Business, while it
presents an irresistable Incentive to Smuggling to People
less scrupulous. " The requirement that all sugars exported
to Great Britain from the continental colonies should be
classed as " French " was said to prevent a valuable return
to Great Britain for her manufactures. The high duty
on Madeira wine was objected to as a discouragement to its
importation into America and, therefore, to the exportation
of American foodstuffs and lumber to the Wine Islands.
The requirement as to the importation of fruit and wine from
Spain and Portugal was again held up as a grievance. 1 The
new regulation, which required all outgoing commodities to
be entered at a British port before going on to European
ports north of Finisterre, was said to increase the cost of
voyages unduly and preclude the competition of colonial
merchants in European markets. The exportation of for-
eign logwood and of colonial lumber, provisions and flax-
seed was especially affected by this restriction.
Of the grievances here enumerated, the regulations
against smuggling had already begun to prove less irksome
1 In 1767, Townshend desired to remove this grievance, but was un-
successful. It was urged that a direct trade between Portugal and
America would be a hazardous relaxation of the acts of trade. 5 M.
H. S. , vol. ix, pp. 231, 236; Pa. Gas. , July 16, 1767.
? ? 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
? FIRST CONTEST FOR REFORM 89
in practice than they appeared on paper. 1 Thus, in 1764,
the Rhode Island legislature had forbidden the governor to
administer the oaths to British customs officials, and the
latter had been forced to suspend operations. In 1765, a
customs collector in Maryland had been violently assaulted;
and in Massachusetts and New York, the officials were
afraid to execute the laws after the Stamp Act riots. For
the future, the necessity for smuggling seemed somewhat
lessened by the radical reduction of the molasses duty.
One grievance had not been included by the petitioners--
the failure of Parliament to provide relief for the currency
situation.
