s mjggntjjiai the
associations
to the southward must soon
crumble also.
crumble also.
Arthur Schlesinger - Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution
11,, 1770; also I N.
J.
Arch. , vol. xxvii, pp. 206-207, 215-217, 218-219, 252-253, 260-262.
1 N, Y. Journ. , Aug. 9, 1770; also / N. J. Arch. , vol. xxvii, p. 220.
4 AT. Y. Gas. & Post-Boy, Sept . 24, 1770; also 1 AT. /. Arch. , vol.
xxvii, pp. 252-253.
6 Meeting of July 26; Conn. Journ. , Aug. 3, 1770.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTA TION
229
New Haven on September 13 to adopt uniform measures
in dealing with New York. 1 At this meetiny. attended by
deleeates from a frreAt majority of the towns, resolutions
were passed to sever all intercourse with New York so far
as the purchase of Britishlmports was concerned. 2 From
the plantation provinces, also, came expressions of in-
dignation. 8
The patriotic indignation of the other provinces at the
defection of New York was splendid to behold. But the
merchants throughout the continent realized in their hearts
that the prostration of the stalwart pillar of New York
would cause the whole great edifice to topple. The dry-
goods importers at Philadelphia were stirred to re-open the
agitation there. Some frankly placed their demand for
alteration on the ground that a non-importation of tea would
accomplish every desirable object, and that the defection of
New York precluded any possibility of distressing British
merchants at the same time that it made Pennsylvania
traders a prey to the merchants of that city. 4 Others re-
1 New London Gas. , Aug. 17, 1770; also Mass. Spy, Aug'. 21.
1 Conn. Cour. , Sept . 17, 1770; also AT. Y. Journ. , Sept. 20.
'Considerably less notice was attracted in the plantation provinces
than in the commercial provinces. The inhabitants of Talbot County
in Maryland resolved to cut off all trade relations with the province
of New York. Pa. Gas. , Aug. 23, 1770. A general meeting of mer-
chants and inhabitants of Wilmington and Brunswick in North Caro-
lina took occasion to renew their agreement "with great spirit and
unanimity. " Mass. Spy, Sept. [Dec. ] 3, 1770. At Charleston, South
Carolina the keenest interest was displayed. A general meeting of
August 22 unanimously voted that the "scandalous Revolt from the
common Cause of Freedom" should be punished by an absolute boy-
cott; and in the subsequent months, New York skippers were actually
forbidden trading rights in the port. S. C. Gas. , Aug. 20, 23, Sept. 6,
27, Nov. 22, 1770.
4" Philo-Veritas" in Pa. Gas. , Aug. 2, 1770; "Philadelphian" in,
ibid. , Aug. 16; Collins, Letter-Book 1761-1773, Nov. 24.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 230 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
vived the old complaint that the persons most violent in
favor of the existing agreement were in general "Men
little or not at all interested in the [drygoods] Trade" but
who were cheerfully paying duties on molasses, sugar and
wine in the course of their trade with the West Indies and
the Wine Islands. 1
To these arguments came the answer of " Juris Prudens"
in exalted strain--that if the wine and molasses merchants
were little affected, the glory of the drygoods merchants was
all the greater; and he recalled that "the Weight of the
Stamp Act fell upon the Lawyers, they generously bore it
and desired not Partners in Distress. "2 Rather more
pointed was the reminder given by "Amor Patriae" that
the merchants had deliberately chosen to make the Towns-
hend duties the sole object of repeal, even to the point of
rejecting a proposition from Boston for including the wine
and molasses duties as objects; that therefore reflections
upon these latter merchants had no bearing upon the matter
under discussion. 8 Other writers emphasized that the tea
act was, in principle, just as much a violation of American
rights as the duties that had been repealed, and that the
material condition of the poor in Pennsylvania was better
than it had been in years. 4
Matters came to a head when the seven ex-members of
the Committee of Merchants joined with seven other mer-
cantile firms, on September 12, 1770, to request the com-
mittee to canvass the sentiments of the subscribers of the
agreement in a house-to-house poll. The committee, headed
1 " Philo-Veritas" in Pa. Gas. , July 19, 1770; "Talionis" in Pa.
Chron. , Aug. 8.
1Pa. Gas. , Aug. 2, 1770.
1 Ibid. , July 26, 1770.
4 " True Philadelphian" and " Pennsylvanian" in ibid. , Aug. 23, 1770.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION 231
by Charles Thomson and William Fisher, replied that the
agreement itself provided the only method of its amend-
ment,--through a general meeting of subscribers after three
days' notice. 1 Without consulting the committee further,
the fourteen sent notices around to the subscribers to meet
at Davenport's Tavern on Thursday, September 20. * Only
one hundred and thirty-five persons attended, and the im-
porters had, through assiduous effort, succeeded in collect-
ing a majority favorable to their design. The committee
appeared, made a fervent appeal to the meeting to be loyal
to the liberties of America, and presented a list of three
carefully worded questions to be voted on, with the purpose
of preventing any alteration except in concert with the other
provinces and of patterning the alteration, should any be
made, on the Maryland or Virginia association. The im-
porters submitted a counter-list of questions, which put
squarely before the gathering the expediency of restricting
non-importation to tea and other dutied articles, as the New
Yorkers had done. The meeting voted to consider the last
list of questions first and passed them in the affirmative.
A trial vote on one of the committee's questions showed
an adverse vote of 89 to 45. The committee then contended
that the inhabitants in general should have a vote in the
matter and that, in any case, the subscribers not present
should be consulted. But they could make no headway
against the majority; and Charles Thomson, speaking for
the eleven members of the committee, declared that they
deemed that the agreement had been broken and announced
their resignation.
The people of Philadelphia did not accept the decision
1 Pa. Gas. , Sept. ao, 1770.
'For accounts of this meeting, vide ibid. , Sept. 27, Oct. 11, 1770; and
especially the circular letter of the "late Committee" in Pa. Chron. ,
Oct. 1.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 232 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763. 1776
without loud protest. A grand jury, of which John Gibson,
one of the resigned committeemen, was foreman, declared
that they would unite with their fellow-citizens to discoun-
tenance the use of British goods until the parliamentary
claim to colonial taxation was relinquished, the tea duty
repealed, the jurisdiction and power of the vice-admiralty
courts restricted, the Customs Board dissolved, and the
standing army removed or placed under direction of the
civil authority. 1 A mass meeting of inhabitants voted, with
only one dissenting voice, to adopt the resolutions which
the committee had submitted in vain to the merchants' meet-
ing; and a formal request was made that the merchants
should re-consider their action. 2 Meantime, the merchants
had chosen a new committee to supervise enforcement of
the altered agreement; and on Saturday, the twenty-ninth,
the London Packet sailed with the orders of the merchants
for British merchandise. 8
It was scarcely to be expected that the merchants at Bos-
ton should continue their non-importation when all about
them yielded to the stern call of necessity. "Some who
have been leaders would have been glad to hold out longer,"
wrote Dr. Andrew Eliot, " but persons in trade were weary,
and, as interest is generally their god, began to be furious. " *
After all, their purpose of bringing pressure to bear upon
British merchants and manufacturers was already defeated
by the defection of New York and Philadelphia. The first
indication of weakening came when the merchants, not-
withstanding their intense indignation, failed to pass reso-
lutions of boycott when New York departed the agreement. 5
1September 24; Pa. Gas. , Sept. 27, 1770.
1 September 27; ibid. , Oct. 4, 1770.
? Pa. Chron. , Sept. 24, 1770; N. Y. Journ. , Oct. 11.
4 4 M. H. S. Colls. , vol. iv,' p. 458.
* Vide sarcastic comment in Newport Merc. , Aug. 6, 1770; also
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTA TION
233
On September u, a few days before the final steps to dis-
solve the Philadelphia agreement had been taken, a great
meeting of the Boston trade was held, at which it was esti-
mated that not less than one thousand were present, includ-
ing " a very great Number of the principal and most wealthy
Merchants, as well as the most respectable Tradesmen of
the Town. " The assemblage voted to propose to Phila-
delphia an interprovincial congress of merchants to plan
ways and means of strengthening the union of the prov-
inces. 1 The letter reached Philadelphia after the committee
of that city had become non-existent. The news of the
desertion of Philadelphia brought the Boston merchants to
ajiecision after a fpw wepks "f irresolution: on October 12.
thjy mtt nt tV British ^oflfce House and unanimously voted
to open the importation of all British goods, except tea and
Such Other f ff>^g as WPI-P rtr might hp s11hjprt tr> rpvpnne
duties. 2 A week later, the goods which had been placed in
store were delivered up to their owners. 8
The downfall of non-importation in the commercial prov-
iflc. e.
s mjggntjjiai the associations to the southward must soon
crumble also. The merchants of Baltimore lost little time
in sending forth a call for a meeting of the General Com-
mittee of Maryland at Annapolis when they learned that the
Philadelphia merchants had forsaken their agreement.
They resolved, furthermore, that if the provincial meeting
Mass. Spy, Aug. 14. The Mass. Spy on November 5 quoted from a
London paper that "at a late Meeting of the American Merchants,
it was agreed to give unlimited Credit to such of the Colonies as
should follow the Example of New York, by a general Importation. "
Such rumors, whether true or not, served no doubt to increase the
sentiment for renewing importation.
1 Bos. Gas. , Sept. 17, 1770; Pa. Chron. , Oct. 1.
*Mass. Spy, Oct. 13, 1770; also Mass Gas. & Post-Boy, Oct. 15.
s Mass. Spy, Oct. 20, 1770.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 234
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763. 1776
should not be held, they would consider the association dis-
solved and open the importation of all goods save tea and
other dutied articles. 1 A provincial meeting was duly held
on October 25, but it proved a rather heterogeneous gather-
ing, consisting of a majority of the Assembly, several
Annapolis merchants, some members of the Council, a num-
ber of planters, and of properly chosen deputations from
only three counties. Jonathan Hudson, representing the
Baltimore merchants, defiantly informed the meeting that his
constituents were determined to depart the association not-
withstanding any resolutions they might adopt, and that he
had been instructed to agree to no terms short of a dis-
solution of the association. The meeting answered by
voting that the association should be strictly adhered to and
that all trade should be stopped with the Baltimore mer-
chants or any other violators. 2 The Annapolis incident
proved to be only a piece of theatricalism so far as the mer-
chants of the province were concerned. "A Merchant of
Maryland" ridiculed the gathering as "a fortuitous Col-
lection, not of Merchants, but of Counsellors, Representa-
tives, Lawyers, and others, who had been convened at
Annapolis on other public Business;" and he remarked
"how absurd, not to say indecent, it is for Men whose Occu-
pations and Employments lie altogether in a different Walk,
to attempt giving Law to the mercantile Part of the Com-
munity. " * The subsequent months showed that he spoke
with entire truthfulness when he said that the merchants did
not intend to pay "the least Regard to those flaming and
ridiculous Resolutions which were lately flashed off," but
that they would confine their non-importation only to tea
and other dutied articles.
1 October 5, Md. Gas. , Oct. 11, 1770; also Pa. Gas. , Oct . 18.
1Mrf. Gas. , Nov. 1, 1770; also Pa. Gas. , Nov. 8.
* Ibid. , Dec. 13. 1770.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION 235
In the latter part of October the South Carolina Gen-
eral Committee addressed a circular letter to the northern
provinces with the purpose of learning whether the body of
the people acquiesced in the decision of the mercantile por-
tion in altering the non-importation. 1 While the liberal
terms of the South Carolina Association and its compara-
tively recent adoption had prevented the growth of the in-
tense dissatisfaction which had disrupted the northern
agreements, yet the defection of the commercial provinces,
joined with a widespread belief that the declining price of
rice was due to the non-importation,2 resulted in seriously
weakening the sentiment in South Carolina. On November
20, the General Committee announced that a meeting of the
subscribers of the association would be held on December
13 to decide as to their future course. 8 The merchant,
Henry Laurens, presided at the meeting. The non-import-
ing faction were led by Thomas Lynch, planter and radical,
who came fifty miles for the purpose and "exerted all his
eloquence & even the trope of rhetorical tears for the ex-
piring liberty of his dear country which the merchants would
sell like any other merchandize. " * It was quickly evident
that the importers controlled a majority; a motion to delay
action until the General Assembly met, and an effort to con-
tinue the association with an open importation from Holland,
met with defeat. The assemblage thereupon voted to limit
1 S. C. Gas. , Nov. 1, 1770; also Mass. Spy, Jan. 3, 1771.
1" A Planter" in S. C. Gas. , Dec. 27, 1770. Current newspapers
show that rice averaged 703. per hundredweight in 1768 (before the
non-importation); 6os. during 1769; 45s, during 1770.
* 5. C. Gas. , Nov. 22, 1770. For an account of the meeting, vide ibid. ,
Dec. 13.
4 Bull to Hillsborough, quoted in McCrady, S. C. under Royal
Govt. , pp. 682-683.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 236 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
non-importation and non-consumption to tea and other
articles subject to duty. 1
In Virginia, the non-importation spirit, which had been
feeble throughout, gradually subsided. A meeting of as-
sociators was called for December 14, 1770, at Williams-
burg; but so few attended that they did nothing but adjourn
until the following summer. 2 In February Thomas Jeffer-
son sent an order for goods to an English merchant with
instructions to send immediately only such goods as were
admissible by the association; by June he felt so confident
that the approaching meeting would repeal the association,
except for dutied articles, that he took time by the forelock
and ordered the shoes and other debarred articles to be
shipped at once. 8 Early in July the Virginia meeting took
the action that Jefferson had anticipated. 4 In North Caro-
lina, no record apparently remains of the passing of the
non-importation.
Before leaving the subject of the second non-importation
movement, it would appear desirable to determine the effects
of the colonial plan of commercial coercion on Great Britain.
Statistics of trade show that the English merchants and
manufacturers dependent upon American commerce suf-
1 A committee was appointed to send a protest in behalf of South
Carolina against the conduct of the northern provinces. There ap-
peared to be a strong sentiment in favor of stopping trade with those
parts, especially since it was held that that commerce drained specie
from South Carolina "mostly for mere Trash. " But this action was
not taken, apparently because "the defection not having been among
the Landholders, Farmers and Mechanicks . . . it would be unjust to
retaliate upon them, for the Injuries received from some of the Mer-
chants in those Colonies. " S. C. Gas. , Dec 27, 1770.
1Brit. Papers (" Sparks Mss. "), vol. ii, p. 70.
5 Writings (Ford), vol. i, pp. 387-389, 394-395-
4Washington, Writings (Ford), vol. ii, pp. 334-338.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION 237
fered a great loss of trade. 1 Friends of parliamentary taxa-
tion in England were quick to claim that the colonies were
being partially supplied by means of a clandestine trade by
way of Quebec and Halifax; but there was little basis for
this charge in fact. 2 Yet, notwithstanding the decline of
American trade, very little actual distress was experienced
in England during the period of the non-importation. This
was the result of several fortuitous circumstances uncon-
nected with the American situation. Crops in England
were better . tjjaj^,. they had been in vears, and the material
condition of the wnrlcinymgn wat; much jrpprnvpH Ky rh>>
general reduction of the price of provisions. 8 Further than
this, the Russo-Turkish war, which broke out in 1768,
and the increased demand for woolens in Germany, as well
as other unusual circumstances, served to neutralize the~ef-
fects which the American non-importation agreements
would otherwise have produced. 4
Not a manufactunng"village in this kingdom complains
1 Exports to the thirteen colonies fell from ? 2,157,218 in 1768 to
? 1,336,122 in 1769; imports from the colonies, from ? 1,251,454 to
? 1,060,206. Vide Macpherson, Annals of Com. , vol. iii, under the ap-
propriate dates, for these and the other figures cited hereafter.
1 Pa. Cos. , June 21, Sept. 6, 1770; N. Y. Journ. , Aug. 30, Sept . 6.
There was probably some evasion of non-importation by way of Canada,
for the purpose, it would appear, of providing Albany traders with
merchandise for the Indian trade. English importations at Quebec
increased from ? 110,598 in 1768 to ? 174,435 in 1769; at Newfoundland,
from ? 46,761 to ? 64,080; at Nova Scotia, there was a small decrease.
A suspicious increase of imports occurred at Jamaica, from ? 473,146 in
1768 to ? 570,468 in the following year; but contemporary writers failed
to prefer any charges on this score.
lBos. Chron. , Nov. 16, 1769; also N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , Nov. 27.
* This was repeatedly averred. E. g. , vide 5 M. H. S. Colls. , vol. ix,
pp. 384-385; Pa. Gas. , Jan. 4, Sept. 6, 1770; Bos. Chron. , June 11;
N.
Arch. , vol. xxvii, pp. 206-207, 215-217, 218-219, 252-253, 260-262.
1 N, Y. Journ. , Aug. 9, 1770; also / N. J. Arch. , vol. xxvii, p. 220.
4 AT. Y. Gas. & Post-Boy, Sept . 24, 1770; also 1 AT. /. Arch. , vol.
xxvii, pp. 252-253.
6 Meeting of July 26; Conn. Journ. , Aug. 3, 1770.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTA TION
229
New Haven on September 13 to adopt uniform measures
in dealing with New York. 1 At this meetiny. attended by
deleeates from a frreAt majority of the towns, resolutions
were passed to sever all intercourse with New York so far
as the purchase of Britishlmports was concerned. 2 From
the plantation provinces, also, came expressions of in-
dignation. 8
The patriotic indignation of the other provinces at the
defection of New York was splendid to behold. But the
merchants throughout the continent realized in their hearts
that the prostration of the stalwart pillar of New York
would cause the whole great edifice to topple. The dry-
goods importers at Philadelphia were stirred to re-open the
agitation there. Some frankly placed their demand for
alteration on the ground that a non-importation of tea would
accomplish every desirable object, and that the defection of
New York precluded any possibility of distressing British
merchants at the same time that it made Pennsylvania
traders a prey to the merchants of that city. 4 Others re-
1 New London Gas. , Aug. 17, 1770; also Mass. Spy, Aug'. 21.
1 Conn. Cour. , Sept . 17, 1770; also AT. Y. Journ. , Sept. 20.
'Considerably less notice was attracted in the plantation provinces
than in the commercial provinces. The inhabitants of Talbot County
in Maryland resolved to cut off all trade relations with the province
of New York. Pa. Gas. , Aug. 23, 1770. A general meeting of mer-
chants and inhabitants of Wilmington and Brunswick in North Caro-
lina took occasion to renew their agreement "with great spirit and
unanimity. " Mass. Spy, Sept. [Dec. ] 3, 1770. At Charleston, South
Carolina the keenest interest was displayed. A general meeting of
August 22 unanimously voted that the "scandalous Revolt from the
common Cause of Freedom" should be punished by an absolute boy-
cott; and in the subsequent months, New York skippers were actually
forbidden trading rights in the port. S. C. Gas. , Aug. 20, 23, Sept. 6,
27, Nov. 22, 1770.
4" Philo-Veritas" in Pa. Gas. , Aug. 2, 1770; "Philadelphian" in,
ibid. , Aug. 16; Collins, Letter-Book 1761-1773, Nov. 24.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 230 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
vived the old complaint that the persons most violent in
favor of the existing agreement were in general "Men
little or not at all interested in the [drygoods] Trade" but
who were cheerfully paying duties on molasses, sugar and
wine in the course of their trade with the West Indies and
the Wine Islands. 1
To these arguments came the answer of " Juris Prudens"
in exalted strain--that if the wine and molasses merchants
were little affected, the glory of the drygoods merchants was
all the greater; and he recalled that "the Weight of the
Stamp Act fell upon the Lawyers, they generously bore it
and desired not Partners in Distress. "2 Rather more
pointed was the reminder given by "Amor Patriae" that
the merchants had deliberately chosen to make the Towns-
hend duties the sole object of repeal, even to the point of
rejecting a proposition from Boston for including the wine
and molasses duties as objects; that therefore reflections
upon these latter merchants had no bearing upon the matter
under discussion. 8 Other writers emphasized that the tea
act was, in principle, just as much a violation of American
rights as the duties that had been repealed, and that the
material condition of the poor in Pennsylvania was better
than it had been in years. 4
Matters came to a head when the seven ex-members of
the Committee of Merchants joined with seven other mer-
cantile firms, on September 12, 1770, to request the com-
mittee to canvass the sentiments of the subscribers of the
agreement in a house-to-house poll. The committee, headed
1 " Philo-Veritas" in Pa. Gas. , July 19, 1770; "Talionis" in Pa.
Chron. , Aug. 8.
1Pa. Gas. , Aug. 2, 1770.
1 Ibid. , July 26, 1770.
4 " True Philadelphian" and " Pennsylvanian" in ibid. , Aug. 23, 1770.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION 231
by Charles Thomson and William Fisher, replied that the
agreement itself provided the only method of its amend-
ment,--through a general meeting of subscribers after three
days' notice. 1 Without consulting the committee further,
the fourteen sent notices around to the subscribers to meet
at Davenport's Tavern on Thursday, September 20. * Only
one hundred and thirty-five persons attended, and the im-
porters had, through assiduous effort, succeeded in collect-
ing a majority favorable to their design. The committee
appeared, made a fervent appeal to the meeting to be loyal
to the liberties of America, and presented a list of three
carefully worded questions to be voted on, with the purpose
of preventing any alteration except in concert with the other
provinces and of patterning the alteration, should any be
made, on the Maryland or Virginia association. The im-
porters submitted a counter-list of questions, which put
squarely before the gathering the expediency of restricting
non-importation to tea and other dutied articles, as the New
Yorkers had done. The meeting voted to consider the last
list of questions first and passed them in the affirmative.
A trial vote on one of the committee's questions showed
an adverse vote of 89 to 45. The committee then contended
that the inhabitants in general should have a vote in the
matter and that, in any case, the subscribers not present
should be consulted. But they could make no headway
against the majority; and Charles Thomson, speaking for
the eleven members of the committee, declared that they
deemed that the agreement had been broken and announced
their resignation.
The people of Philadelphia did not accept the decision
1 Pa. Gas. , Sept. ao, 1770.
'For accounts of this meeting, vide ibid. , Sept. 27, Oct. 11, 1770; and
especially the circular letter of the "late Committee" in Pa. Chron. ,
Oct. 1.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 232 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763. 1776
without loud protest. A grand jury, of which John Gibson,
one of the resigned committeemen, was foreman, declared
that they would unite with their fellow-citizens to discoun-
tenance the use of British goods until the parliamentary
claim to colonial taxation was relinquished, the tea duty
repealed, the jurisdiction and power of the vice-admiralty
courts restricted, the Customs Board dissolved, and the
standing army removed or placed under direction of the
civil authority. 1 A mass meeting of inhabitants voted, with
only one dissenting voice, to adopt the resolutions which
the committee had submitted in vain to the merchants' meet-
ing; and a formal request was made that the merchants
should re-consider their action. 2 Meantime, the merchants
had chosen a new committee to supervise enforcement of
the altered agreement; and on Saturday, the twenty-ninth,
the London Packet sailed with the orders of the merchants
for British merchandise. 8
It was scarcely to be expected that the merchants at Bos-
ton should continue their non-importation when all about
them yielded to the stern call of necessity. "Some who
have been leaders would have been glad to hold out longer,"
wrote Dr. Andrew Eliot, " but persons in trade were weary,
and, as interest is generally their god, began to be furious. " *
After all, their purpose of bringing pressure to bear upon
British merchants and manufacturers was already defeated
by the defection of New York and Philadelphia. The first
indication of weakening came when the merchants, not-
withstanding their intense indignation, failed to pass reso-
lutions of boycott when New York departed the agreement. 5
1September 24; Pa. Gas. , Sept. 27, 1770.
1 September 27; ibid. , Oct. 4, 1770.
? Pa. Chron. , Sept. 24, 1770; N. Y. Journ. , Oct. 11.
4 4 M. H. S. Colls. , vol. iv,' p. 458.
* Vide sarcastic comment in Newport Merc. , Aug. 6, 1770; also
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTA TION
233
On September u, a few days before the final steps to dis-
solve the Philadelphia agreement had been taken, a great
meeting of the Boston trade was held, at which it was esti-
mated that not less than one thousand were present, includ-
ing " a very great Number of the principal and most wealthy
Merchants, as well as the most respectable Tradesmen of
the Town. " The assemblage voted to propose to Phila-
delphia an interprovincial congress of merchants to plan
ways and means of strengthening the union of the prov-
inces. 1 The letter reached Philadelphia after the committee
of that city had become non-existent. The news of the
desertion of Philadelphia brought the Boston merchants to
ajiecision after a fpw wepks "f irresolution: on October 12.
thjy mtt nt tV British ^oflfce House and unanimously voted
to open the importation of all British goods, except tea and
Such Other f ff>^g as WPI-P rtr might hp s11hjprt tr> rpvpnne
duties. 2 A week later, the goods which had been placed in
store were delivered up to their owners. 8
The downfall of non-importation in the commercial prov-
iflc. e.
s mjggntjjiai the associations to the southward must soon
crumble also. The merchants of Baltimore lost little time
in sending forth a call for a meeting of the General Com-
mittee of Maryland at Annapolis when they learned that the
Philadelphia merchants had forsaken their agreement.
They resolved, furthermore, that if the provincial meeting
Mass. Spy, Aug. 14. The Mass. Spy on November 5 quoted from a
London paper that "at a late Meeting of the American Merchants,
it was agreed to give unlimited Credit to such of the Colonies as
should follow the Example of New York, by a general Importation. "
Such rumors, whether true or not, served no doubt to increase the
sentiment for renewing importation.
1 Bos. Gas. , Sept. 17, 1770; Pa. Chron. , Oct. 1.
*Mass. Spy, Oct. 13, 1770; also Mass Gas. & Post-Boy, Oct. 15.
s Mass. Spy, Oct. 20, 1770.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 234
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763. 1776
should not be held, they would consider the association dis-
solved and open the importation of all goods save tea and
other dutied articles. 1 A provincial meeting was duly held
on October 25, but it proved a rather heterogeneous gather-
ing, consisting of a majority of the Assembly, several
Annapolis merchants, some members of the Council, a num-
ber of planters, and of properly chosen deputations from
only three counties. Jonathan Hudson, representing the
Baltimore merchants, defiantly informed the meeting that his
constituents were determined to depart the association not-
withstanding any resolutions they might adopt, and that he
had been instructed to agree to no terms short of a dis-
solution of the association. The meeting answered by
voting that the association should be strictly adhered to and
that all trade should be stopped with the Baltimore mer-
chants or any other violators. 2 The Annapolis incident
proved to be only a piece of theatricalism so far as the mer-
chants of the province were concerned. "A Merchant of
Maryland" ridiculed the gathering as "a fortuitous Col-
lection, not of Merchants, but of Counsellors, Representa-
tives, Lawyers, and others, who had been convened at
Annapolis on other public Business;" and he remarked
"how absurd, not to say indecent, it is for Men whose Occu-
pations and Employments lie altogether in a different Walk,
to attempt giving Law to the mercantile Part of the Com-
munity. " * The subsequent months showed that he spoke
with entire truthfulness when he said that the merchants did
not intend to pay "the least Regard to those flaming and
ridiculous Resolutions which were lately flashed off," but
that they would confine their non-importation only to tea
and other dutied articles.
1 October 5, Md. Gas. , Oct. 11, 1770; also Pa. Gas. , Oct . 18.
1Mrf. Gas. , Nov. 1, 1770; also Pa. Gas. , Nov. 8.
* Ibid. , Dec. 13. 1770.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION 235
In the latter part of October the South Carolina Gen-
eral Committee addressed a circular letter to the northern
provinces with the purpose of learning whether the body of
the people acquiesced in the decision of the mercantile por-
tion in altering the non-importation. 1 While the liberal
terms of the South Carolina Association and its compara-
tively recent adoption had prevented the growth of the in-
tense dissatisfaction which had disrupted the northern
agreements, yet the defection of the commercial provinces,
joined with a widespread belief that the declining price of
rice was due to the non-importation,2 resulted in seriously
weakening the sentiment in South Carolina. On November
20, the General Committee announced that a meeting of the
subscribers of the association would be held on December
13 to decide as to their future course. 8 The merchant,
Henry Laurens, presided at the meeting. The non-import-
ing faction were led by Thomas Lynch, planter and radical,
who came fifty miles for the purpose and "exerted all his
eloquence & even the trope of rhetorical tears for the ex-
piring liberty of his dear country which the merchants would
sell like any other merchandize. " * It was quickly evident
that the importers controlled a majority; a motion to delay
action until the General Assembly met, and an effort to con-
tinue the association with an open importation from Holland,
met with defeat. The assemblage thereupon voted to limit
1 S. C. Gas. , Nov. 1, 1770; also Mass. Spy, Jan. 3, 1771.
1" A Planter" in S. C. Gas. , Dec. 27, 1770. Current newspapers
show that rice averaged 703. per hundredweight in 1768 (before the
non-importation); 6os. during 1769; 45s, during 1770.
* 5. C. Gas. , Nov. 22, 1770. For an account of the meeting, vide ibid. ,
Dec. 13.
4 Bull to Hillsborough, quoted in McCrady, S. C. under Royal
Govt. , pp. 682-683.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 236 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
non-importation and non-consumption to tea and other
articles subject to duty. 1
In Virginia, the non-importation spirit, which had been
feeble throughout, gradually subsided. A meeting of as-
sociators was called for December 14, 1770, at Williams-
burg; but so few attended that they did nothing but adjourn
until the following summer. 2 In February Thomas Jeffer-
son sent an order for goods to an English merchant with
instructions to send immediately only such goods as were
admissible by the association; by June he felt so confident
that the approaching meeting would repeal the association,
except for dutied articles, that he took time by the forelock
and ordered the shoes and other debarred articles to be
shipped at once. 8 Early in July the Virginia meeting took
the action that Jefferson had anticipated. 4 In North Caro-
lina, no record apparently remains of the passing of the
non-importation.
Before leaving the subject of the second non-importation
movement, it would appear desirable to determine the effects
of the colonial plan of commercial coercion on Great Britain.
Statistics of trade show that the English merchants and
manufacturers dependent upon American commerce suf-
1 A committee was appointed to send a protest in behalf of South
Carolina against the conduct of the northern provinces. There ap-
peared to be a strong sentiment in favor of stopping trade with those
parts, especially since it was held that that commerce drained specie
from South Carolina "mostly for mere Trash. " But this action was
not taken, apparently because "the defection not having been among
the Landholders, Farmers and Mechanicks . . . it would be unjust to
retaliate upon them, for the Injuries received from some of the Mer-
chants in those Colonies. " S. C. Gas. , Dec 27, 1770.
1Brit. Papers (" Sparks Mss. "), vol. ii, p. 70.
5 Writings (Ford), vol. i, pp. 387-389, 394-395-
4Washington, Writings (Ford), vol. ii, pp. 334-338.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION 237
fered a great loss of trade. 1 Friends of parliamentary taxa-
tion in England were quick to claim that the colonies were
being partially supplied by means of a clandestine trade by
way of Quebec and Halifax; but there was little basis for
this charge in fact. 2 Yet, notwithstanding the decline of
American trade, very little actual distress was experienced
in England during the period of the non-importation. This
was the result of several fortuitous circumstances uncon-
nected with the American situation. Crops in England
were better . tjjaj^,. they had been in vears, and the material
condition of the wnrlcinymgn wat; much jrpprnvpH Ky rh>>
general reduction of the price of provisions. 8 Further than
this, the Russo-Turkish war, which broke out in 1768,
and the increased demand for woolens in Germany, as well
as other unusual circumstances, served to neutralize the~ef-
fects which the American non-importation agreements
would otherwise have produced. 4
Not a manufactunng"village in this kingdom complains
1 Exports to the thirteen colonies fell from ? 2,157,218 in 1768 to
? 1,336,122 in 1769; imports from the colonies, from ? 1,251,454 to
? 1,060,206. Vide Macpherson, Annals of Com. , vol. iii, under the ap-
propriate dates, for these and the other figures cited hereafter.
1 Pa. Cos. , June 21, Sept. 6, 1770; N. Y. Journ. , Aug. 30, Sept . 6.
There was probably some evasion of non-importation by way of Canada,
for the purpose, it would appear, of providing Albany traders with
merchandise for the Indian trade. English importations at Quebec
increased from ? 110,598 in 1768 to ? 174,435 in 1769; at Newfoundland,
from ? 46,761 to ? 64,080; at Nova Scotia, there was a small decrease.
A suspicious increase of imports occurred at Jamaica, from ? 473,146 in
1768 to ? 570,468 in the following year; but contemporary writers failed
to prefer any charges on this score.
lBos. Chron. , Nov. 16, 1769; also N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , Nov. 27.
* This was repeatedly averred. E. g. , vide 5 M. H. S. Colls. , vol. ix,
pp. 384-385; Pa. Gas. , Jan. 4, Sept. 6, 1770; Bos. Chron. , June 11;
N.
