No More Learning

in Historical Society of Pennsylvania. The original Boston
agreement was to last for one year beginning January 1, 1769. This
clause was changed to correspond with the New York provision on
October 17, 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
? I26 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
were again fired by the example of the trading towns to the?
north; and "Tradesman," "Agricola" and others lent their
persuasive pens to pleas for non-importation and non-con-
sumption regulations. 1 Letters from correspondents in
London urged these steps, also. 2
The great Quaker merchants dominated the situation^
and they were determined not to resort to trade suspension
until all ordinary means of obtaining redress had been ex-
hausted. In accord with their wishes, the Pennsylvania As-
sembiyrbn September 22, 1768, sent petitions to the king
and to the nouses ot Parliament, praying for a repeal of
the Townshend Acts. TneyT1ased their plea on their claim
to constitutional exemption from parliamentary taxation;
it was not deemed necessary to include arguments against
the economic expediency of the British measures.
The merchants continnrd trr hrtriy ip outward signs of
activity. Their apparent callousness provoked a bitter
article in the New York Journal, October 10, 1768, signed
by "A North American," charging a few drygoods mer-
chants of Philadelphia with preventing an agreement there.
Shall a few selfish, dastardly merchants, it was asked, be
permitted to defy the desires of the vast majority of the
people and defeat a great public purpose? Under sting of
this attack, the merchants began to grow restive. An in-
spired contributor, "Philadelphus," disclosed to the public
the true condition of affairs. * As soon as they had been
informed of the Boston agreement, the Philadelphia mer-
chants had appointed a committee to canvass a similar pro-
posal. The committee labored in vain to obtain a general
concurrence, and then concentrated its efforts on enlisting
1 Pa. Chron. , Oct. 10, Nov. 28, 1768; Pa. Journ. , Jan. 26, 1769.
1 Pa. Journ. , Jan. 26, Apr. 6, 13, 1769.
? Pa. Gaz. , Oct. 20, 1768.
? ? 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
? COMMERCIAL REFORM
the support of eight or ten mercantile firms, whose backing
would give prestige to the project. None of these firms
would go further than to recommend a non-importation of
dutied articles and certain luxuries; and this proposal was
rejected by the committee as unsatisfactory. On September
22, the committee had called a general meeting of merchants
and traders; but, as not one-fourth of the drygoods mer-
chants attended, this was deemed conclusive that the ma-
jority disapproved of a general non-importation.
The disposition of the merchants and of conservative-
thinking people generally was to await the result of the
legislative petitions. 1 But, within two weeks after " Phila-
delphus" spoke, the merchants were moved to send a
memorial of their own to the merchants and manufacturers
of Great Britain, representing the deplorable situation of
trade. The idea was to prod the British business interests
to bring pressure to bear upon Parliament. The memorial
was sent on November 1, 1768; it was'conservative in tone.
The British merchants and manufacturers were asked to
solicit a repeal of the statutes imposing the anti-commercial
and unconstitutional Townshend duties and to obtain
"further relief from the other Burthens which the Ameri-
can trade has long laboured under. " It was affirmed as
"a Solemn Truth" that, if the various discouragements
to trade continued unabated, the Americans must, "from
necessity if not from Motives of Interest," establish their
own manufactures and curtail importations. The memorial
further stated that many of the present trade restrictions
had been complained of by the Philadelphia merchants in
their petition of November, 1765. The chief grievances,
other than the Townshend duties, were declared to be: the
1 Letter of Philadelphia Merchants' Committee to London Merchants'
Committee, London Chron. , June 10, 1769; also Pa. Mag. , vol. xxvii,
pp. 84-87.
? ? 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
? I28 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
prohibition of paper money as a legal tender; the heavy
duty on Madeira wine which barred it as an article of ex-
change with England; the unnecessary trouble and expense
incurred by the roundabout shipment of Portuguese wines
and fruit to America through England; the prohibition
against exporting American bar iron to continental Europe;
and the regulation which classified all sugars imported from
the American continent into England as foreign and thus
deprived the colonists of an advantageous remittance. 1
The transmission of the memorial was followed by a
lull in public interest in the non-importation question, for
the signers of the memorial pledged themselves to adopt
non-importation in the spring, provided their appeal met
with no success. 2 Early in February, 1769, various fire
companies in the city adopted resolutions to abstain from
buying mutton, as a measure to aid the woolen manufac-
tures; and a number of citizens asserted their independence
of English fashions by agreeing to wear leather jackets
thereafter. 8
Events now forced the commercial class to take more
decisive action. Several merchants were planning to send
orders for fall goods by a vessel which departed for England
in the middle of February. As no information had yet
been received of remedial measures by Parliament, the body
of merchants apprehended that these orders might seriously
complicate the non-importation agreement, to which they
were conditionally pledged for the spring. Meeting to-
gether on February 6, they resolved that all orders, already
sent for fall goods, should be cancelled unless the goods be
1 Pub. Rec. Office: C. O. 5, no. 114 (L. C. Transcripts), pp. 161-169.
1 Papers of the Merchants of Philadelphia ("Sparks Mss. ," vol. Ixii,
sub-vol. vii), pp. 1-2.
1 Pa. Journ. , Feb. 9, 16, Mch. 16, 1769; Pa. Chron. , Feb. 20.
? ? 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
? COMMERCIAL REFORM
shipped before April 1, and that no further orders be sent
before March 10, by which time they expected to learn
definitely of the outcome of their memorial. 1 News soon
arrived that the hopes of the petitioners had been misplaced.
The London merchants professed to be willing to use their
influence for repeal; but, on the advice of Burke and other
of their friends in Parliament, they had been convinced that
it was an unpropitious time to press the matter. They re-
gretfully informed the Philadelphia merchants of their
determination. 2
Afercfo the tenth arrived and the merchants took the final
step. Justifying their action as a consequence of heavy
debts and the ruinous effects of the revenue acts, and as
the only means of stimulating their British creditors to
activity for repeal, thy^ adopted ap agreement tr> irnpnrt no
goods shipped after April T fmm Cr^r Ttn'rgfa j^fi1 r*>>>
Townshend duties should be repealed, except twenty-two
articles useful for local manufacturing, ship-ballast and
medicinal and educational purposes. With the apparent
purpose of denying special advantages to smugglers, these
conditions were extended to include imports from the rest
of Europe, except linens and provisions directly from Ire-
land. The subscribers of the agreement were pledged to
buy no goods imported contrary to the agreement, and to
discountenance " by all lawful and prudent measures" any
person who defied the agreement. The agreement was to
continue until the repeal of the Townshend duties or until
1 Papers of Phila. Merchants, pp. 1-2. For a countermanding order
of Stephen Collins under this agreement, vide his Letter-Book 1760-1773
(L. C. Mss. ) t1nder date of February 6.
1 Col. Soc. Mass. Pubs. , vol. xiii, pp. 355-356; Papers of Phila. Mer-
chants, p. 7. For an explanation of their failure to urge the petition
in the subsequent months, vide Franklin Papers, Misc. (L. C. Mss. ),
vol. i, no. 71; and Pa. Journ. , May 4, 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
? 130
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
a general meeting of the subscribers should determine other-
wise. 1 The paper was circulated among the merchants
and traders of the city and " a very great majority" signed
in the course of the next few weeks. At a later meeting,
it was determined that goods arriving at Philadelphia con-
trary to the agreement should not be stored but be sent back.
The principle of the boycott was further extended: any
person violating the word or spirit of the agreement should
be stigmatized "an Enemy of the Liberties of America,"
and it was held proper that his name should be published
in the newspapers. 2
No conspicuous activity in local manufacturing was dis-
played until the high price of imported goods, produced by
the non-importation regulation, caused people to turn their
energies in that direction. * Even then their activity was
not comparable with that of the provinces farther north. A
report to the American Philosophical Society showed that,
in the little town of Lancaster, fifty looms and seven hundred
spinning-wheels were in constant use. In the twelvemonth
beginning May 1, 1769, the net output was close to thirty-
five thousand yards. 4 An effort was made to foster the
production of domestic silks. In 1769 sixty-four families
raised silkworms, many of them raising from ten to twenty
thousand; but little benefit came of the venture because of
the inexpertness of the people in reeling the silk. To over-
come this obstacle, a number of citizens subscribed ? 250. in
March, 1770, for the erection of a filature. Some of the
1 Papers of Phila. Merchants, pp. 2-5, 19-21. For orders for all kinds
of goods, to be shipped when the revenue acts were repealed, vide
Stephen Collins's Letter-Book 1760-1773, under the dates Mch. 12, 15,
Sept. 23, Oct. 14, Nov. 6, 25, Dec. 11, 12, 1769; Apr. 7, 1770.
1 August 2, 1769. Pa. Gas. , Aug. 3, 1769.
? Pa. Chron. , July 24, 1769. Article by "A Merchant. "
4 Pa. Gas. , June 14, 1770; also Gentleman's Magazine (1770), p. 348.
? ? 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
? COMMERCIAL REFORM I-jI
leading merchants of the city were chosen on the board of
managers; and by November, 1771, one hundred and fifty-
five pounds of raw silk had been exported to England. The
Society for the Promotion of Silk Culture offered annual
premiums for silk production until the outbreak of the war. 1
Rv foe sprang nf 1760, the three frreat ports had finally
united in non-importation measi"-*^ pp^intt tr*t nn"th"
country, Philadelphia acting tardily about six months later
"than the merchants of Boston and New York. This con-
summation soon prompted the progressive merchants of
Boston to urge on their brethren more radical measures for
trade redemption. The Townshend revenue acts, against
which all the existing agreements were directed, represented
only one source of mercantile distress.
The wine duties
and the revised duty on molasses drew from them con-
siderably more cash than the imposts of 1767,2 and violated
as seriously the new American notion of the unconstitu-
tional character of revenue tariffs. The New Englanders
realized that the mere repeal of the Townshend duties would
not restore their prosperity; and, despite the fact that they
had failed to denominate the earlier taxes as unconstitutional
in their petition of January, 1767, they now decided to take
an advanced stand in conformity with the recent develop-
ments in colonial theory. In a letter of September 2, 1769,
they pressed the merchants of Philadelphia to extend their
agreement to comprehend the repeal of all revenue acts,
1 Pa. Gas. , Mch. 15, 22, 1770, and passim to 1775; Franklin Bicenten-
nial Celebration, vol. ii, p. 126; Pa. Mag. , vol. xxvi, pp. 304-305.
2 For all the colonies, the Townshend duties on tea, etc. , amounted to
? 17,912 in the period from September 8, 1767 to January 3, 1770. In
the same length of time, the wine duties (6 George II and 4 George
III) amounted to ? 20,130, and the molasses duty (6 George III) to
? 22,652. Channing, History of U. S. , vol. iii, p. 90 n.
? ? 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
? I32 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
including the molasses and wine duties; and they revised
their own agreement on October 17 to incorporate the new
demands. 1 A letter of October 25 carried the news of the
new agreement to Philadelphia, with an urgent plea for
similar action there. It was probably not a coincidence that
John Hancock was in Philadelphia at this time for the ex-
press purpose of visiting the author of the " Farmer's Let-
ters," who was also the great advocate of non-importation
in that city. 2 If his visit had a political motive, his mission
was a failure.
In reply to the Boston letters, the Committee of Merchants
at Philadelphia admitted "that the acts of the 4th and 6th
George 3rd, being expressly for the purpose of raising a
revenue and containing many grievous and unreasonable
burdens upon trade, are . . . as exceptionable as" the
Townshend duties; and they agreed " that the design of the
Merchants through the continent was not only to procure a
repeal of any Single Act but to give weight to the petitions
. . . of their representatives in Assembly met against the
Parliament's claim to tax the Colonies and to prevent any
future attempts of like Nature, that a precedent admitted
will operate against us, and that an acquiescence under the
acts of the 4th and 6th, even though that of the 7th of
George 3d should be repealed, will be establishing a pre-
cedent. " Nevertheless, they declared that, as this con-
sideration "has unfortunately been so long neglected, our
Merchants are extremely averse to making it now an object
of their non-importation agreement. " They refused,
furthermore, to prohibit all incoming trade from Great
Britain, for the reason that this restriction would simply
1 Mass. Gas. &? News-Letter, Nov. 9, 17, 1769. This revised agree-
ment was widely signed, only ten or twelve importers declining.
1 Letter of William Palfrey; M. H. S. Procs. , vol. 47, pp. 2-1-212.
? ? 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
? COMMERCIAL REFORM
133
divert the trade to laxer ports. They did promise, how-
ever, that if Parliament failed to remove all the revenue
acts, they would then be ready to unite with the other
colonies " in any measure that may be thought prudent and
practicable for obtaining a full redress of all grievances. " *
The Boston proposal met with the same sort of treatment
at the hands of the New York merchants;2 and, at a meet-
ing on December 4, the Boston merchants reluctantly yielded
up their project upon a plea of the necessity for uniformity
among the chief trading towns. 8
The tangible outcome of this episode was the publication,
in the same month, by the merchants of Boston, of a pamph-
let, entitled Observations on several Acts of Parliament
passed in the 4th, 6th and Jth years of his present Majesty's
Reign; and also on the Conduct of the Officers of the Cus-
toms since those Acts were passed, and the Board of Com-
missioners appointed to reside in America,* This pamphlet
was the clearest and strongest statement-angr_ formulatgd of
the position of the American merchant class, particularly
that of New England. In the compass ot some tn1rtv pages
1 These quotations are from letters of Sept. 21 and Nov. 11, 1769.
Papers of Phila. Merchants, pp. 27-28, 37-42. In their next letter to
the London Committee of Merchants, the Philadelphia Committee
wrote: Though the merchants have confined their agreements to the
repeal of the Townshend duties, "yet nothing less than a Repeal of all
the Revenue Acts and putting Things on the same Footing they were
before the late Innovations, can or will satisfy the Minds of the
People. " London Chron. , Mch. 3, 1770; also Pa. Gas. , May 10.
* Colden, Letter Books, vol. ii, p. 193.
* Mass. Arch. , vol. xxvi, pp. 411, 413; Am. Hist. Rev. , vol. viii, pp.
313-314.
* Mss. 1745-1770 (in M. H. S. ), p. 15, contain the letter of the Com-
mittee of Merchants to Dcnnys d<< Berdt, explaining the inception of
the pamphlet. The committee, which was appointed to draft the
pamphlet, was composed of Arnold Welles, Henderson Inches, William
Dennie, William Molineux and Isaac Smith. Mass. Gas. , July 31, 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
a well-reasoned argument, buttressed with evidence, was pre-
sented for a restoration of American trade to the footing it
had enjoyed before the passage of the old Molasses Act of
1733. This step, it was asserted, would unite Great Britain
and the colonies on a lasting foundation and eliminate all
clandestine trade. The repeal of the recent Townshend
duties would not suffice; for the colonies must again enjoy
the free importation of molasses, sugars and Madeira wine,
and must obtain the right of a free and direct importation
of fruit, wine and oil from Spain and Portugal. The acts
of Parliament prior to 1764 had been intended merely as
regulations of trade and, in one instance, a duty had been
placed on foreign molasses in order to encourage the British
West Indies; but the present statute could not be so con-
strued, for it imposed duties on all molasses and expressly
for the purpose of raising a revenue. According to the
figures cited in the pamphlet, the various restraints on
trade with the foreign West Indies, Africa, Madeira and
Southern Europe had rendered unprofitable the employment
of four hundred vessels in the fisheries, and of one hun-
dred and eighty vessels in the lumber and provisions trade
to the West Indies, not to mention the decrease in the
coasting-trade and other channels of commerce. The ship-
building industry had also been seriously affected, only one
hundred vessels being built annually instead of three hun-
dred as before the late restrictions on trade. In closing,
a representation was made of the embarrassments to com-
merce, due to the unlimited amount of red tape required
for trading voyages, and to the excessive power, officious-
ness and unlawful conduct of the customs officers and the
Customs Board.
The non-importation movement ran a different course in
the plantation provinces from that in the commercial prov-
? ? 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
? COMMERCIAL REFORM
135
inces, due to the characteristic methods of doing business
in each section. The marketing of the staples of the South
was largely in the hands of English and Scotch merchants
and factors, whose business had been very little affected by
the parliamentary duties of 1766 and 1767. The planters
constituted the chief discontented class, because of their
losing struggle to pay the debts they owed to their mercan-
tile creditors. Animated by a desire to curtail living ex-
penses and to strike at their creditors, the planters assumed
the initiative in promoting non-importation associations,
while the southern trading class shMl aluuf ui were ac-
tively hostile. These circumstances caused the non-1mpor-
tation movement to assume many of the characteristics of
the non-consumption movement that had been promoted by-
New England town meetings in late 1767 and early 1768.
As one contemporary said, the associations of the planta-
tion provinces, besides being less restrictive than the north-
ern agreements, " excluded a great number of articles which
are mere luxuries, confin'd their importations from Britain
to the necessaries of life, and thereby answered the purpose
of a sumptuary law. " l
George Washington, of Virginia, spoke of the peculiari-
ties of the local trading situation when he transmitted a copy
of the Philadelphia non-importation agreement, in a letter
of April 5, 1769, to his neighbor, George Mason. He ex-
pressed approval of a non-importation plan for Virginia;
but he pointed out that it could be made successful only by
going over the heads of the factors and inducing the people
throughout the province to buy no imported articles, except
certain enumerated ones. He proposed the meeting of the
Assembly in May as the best time for launching the project
with any prospect of uniform action by the several counties. 2
1 Bos. Gas. , Jan. 29, 1770; also Pa. Journ. , Feb. 15.
1 Writings (Ford), vol. ii, pp. 263-267.
? ? 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
? 136 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
Mason agreed cordially with Washington's views, and yet
made it clear that no plan could be enforced in the tobacco
provinces unless it should be considerably more liberal in the
number of importations permitted. Mason seemed to be
aware of the lack of support for the measure in a well-
fertilized public opinion, as in the North; and, like a good
propagandist, he urged the necessity of publishing " some-
thing preparatory to it in our gazettes, to warn the people
of the impending danger and to induce them the more
readily and cheerfully to concur in the proper measures to
avert it. " He proposed also that the association should
provide for the non-exportation of tobacco. 1
The House of Burgesses convened at Williamsburg in
May. Washington found ready backing for a non-importa-
tion measure among such men as Peyton Randolph, Richard
Bland, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee and Thomas
Jefferson. But the house proceeded first to declare, in a set
of resolutions, its official opinion that the sole right of
taxing Virginians lay with that body and to state its ob-
jections to certain recent acts of the British administration;
whereupon Governor Botetourt peremptorily dissolved the
body. The members, though now divested of their legal
character, met at a private house in town and, electing
Peyton Randolph their chairman, promulgated a plan of
non-importation. 2
The, association hprf tho Ho>>o Miy T? , -J^ In the pre-
1 Washington, Writings (Ford), pp. 267-268 n.
'Pa. Journ. , June 1, 1769; also 5. C. Gas. , July 20. This plan of
association was presented by Washington; and in its essentials fol-
lowed a draft, made several weeks before, by George Mason. One pro-
posal of Mason's was rejected, however, vis. , if the other measures
proved ineffectual, a non-exportation of tobacco and naval supplies
should go into effect. Washington, Writings (Ford), vol. ii, pp. 268-
269 n. ; Rowland, K. M. , Life of George Mason (New York, 1892), voL
>, PP- 392-393.
? ? 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
? COMMERCIAL REFORM
137
amble, it was declared that the debt for British merchandise
was very great and that the means of paying were becoming
more and more precarious because of the restrictive legis-
lation of Parliament, particularly the Townshend Acts.
The subscribers pledged themselves never thereafter to im-
port any goods, which were then or should thereafter be
subject to a revenue duty, save paper not exceeding eight
shillings per ream. They agreed, further, not to import
thereafter a long list of luxuries and fineries from Great
Britain or any part of Europe, this abstention to continue
while the duties continued or until a general meeting of
subscribers decided otherwise. 1 In all cases, orders already
sent for goods might be received; and the subscribers were
not restricted from buying such goods in local trade until
September 1. They further agreed to buy no slaves im-
ported after November 1. There were also resolutions to
encourage frugality and to prevent the killing of lambs.
Copies of the association were carried back to the coun-
ties by the gentlemen who attended the Williamsburg meet-
ing. One month later Washington was able to report from
1 Certain Irish wares imported from Ireland were excluded. This
blacklist was typical of similar lists in other of the plantation provinces
and is here given in full: "Spirits, Wines, Cyder, Perry, Beer, Ale,
Malt, Barley, Pease, Beef, Pork, Fish, Butter, Cheese, Tallow, Candles,
Oil, Fruit, Sugar, Pickles, Confectionary, Pewter, Hoes, Axes, Watches,
Clocks, Tables, Chairs, Looking Glasses, Carriages, Joiners and Cab-
inet Work of all Sorts, Upholstery of all Sorts, Trinkets and Jewellery,
Plate and Gold, and Silversmith's Work of all Sorts, Ribbons and
Millinery of all Sorts, Lace of all Sorts; India Goods of all Sorts, ex-
cept Spices; Silks of all Sorts except Sewing Silk; Cambrick, Lawn,
Muslin; Gauze except Boulting Goths; Callico or Cotton Stuffs of
more then 2s. per Yard; Linens of more than 2s. per Yard; Woollens,
Worsted Stuffs of all Sorts of more than 1s. 6d. per Yard; Broad
Cloths of all Kinds at more than 8s. per Yard; Narrow Cloths of all
Kinds at more than 3s.