a pound and upward in face of an agree-
ment of dealers to maintain it at 3s.
ment of dealers to maintain it at 3s.
Arthur Schlesinger - Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution
He freely admitted that "his com-
modities which heretofore were of ready sale now remain
upon his hands," and that possible purchasers, as soon as
they learned of his ownership of the commodities, "im-
1 Ibid. , Oct. 12, 26, 1769. William Wragg, maintaining the same
point, argued that it did not follow that a number of persons as-
sociating together had a right to do what one man might do, and he
said that Parliament had acted on this doctrine in punishing tailors
for combinations to increase wages. Ibid. , Nov. 16.
1 "A Member of the General Committee," ibid. , Oct. 18, 1769.
1 Ibid. , Dec. 14, 1769; also Bos. Chron. , Jan. 11, 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
? 206 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
mediately declined any further treaty for the purchase of
them, because of the Resolutions. " Realizing that he was
a beaten man, he sailed for England on January 3, 1770, in
a ship that, appropriately enough, carried goods outlawed
by the association. 1
A vigorous execution of the association at Charleston
was insured by the fact that two-thirds of the General Com-
mittee consisted of planters and mechanics, only one-third
being merchants and factors. So successful was the en-
forcement that a recountal of even the striking instances
would be tedious and purposeless. 8 The General Com-
mittee met regularly every Tuesday; subordinate to them
was a vigilant committee of inspection, which saw to the
storing of goods or their reshipment, as the importer pre-
ferred. 8 Almost every issue of the South Carolina Gasette
contained statements of the arrival of vessels and of the
transactions of the committee thereon. In only one in-
stance was the good faith of the committee impugned. Ann
and Benjamin Mathews having been publicly proscribed for
selling goods stored by them, Mrs. Mathews retorted, in a
printed article, that the goods had been ordered prior to the
association, that her son had given the promise to store
while she was lying very ill, and that stern necessity had
compelled her to open the goods. She charged that in-
dividual members of the committee, whom she named, had
been permitted to receive articles ordered before the associa-
tion had been adopted, and that in one or two instances their
articles had arrived after hers. The only difference between
her offense and that of Mr. Rutledge, who had recently
1S. C. Gas. , Jan. 4, 1770.
1 An interesting account may be found in McCrady, S. C. under
Royal Govt. , pp. 664-676.
*S. C. Co*. , Nov. 14, 1769.
? ? 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 207
imported two horses in consequence of an old order, was,
she averred, that he was a man who would not be trifled
with, while she was a poor widow living within two doors
of a leading man of the committee and thus in a position to
take a little cash from some of his customers. By way of
vindication, the committee was able to show that the im-
portations of the Mathews' had been purchased after copies
of the South Carolina Association had arrived in England,
a fact not obtaining in the other cases. A few months later,
the son appeared before the committee, acknowledged guilt
and heartfelt contrition, and promised to deliver all goods,
remaining unsold, into charge of the committee. 1
The provision for the immediate reshipment of slaves was
rigidly enforced. For instance, Captain Evans arrived on
May 2, 1770, from Africa with three hundred and forty-
five negroes; and after attending a public meeting held to
consider his case, he filled his casks and set sail with his
cargo for the more hospitable shores of Georgia. 2 It was
estimated by friends of non-importation that Great Britain
had lost not less than ? 300,000 sterling, at a moderate com-
putation, through the South Carolina regulations against
slave importation. 8 Some little difficulty was experienced
in preventing violations of the association at Georgetown
and Beaufort; but this was obviated when jommittees of
inspection were appointed there early in February, 1770. 4
Governor Bull wrote on December 6, 1769, to the home
government that "the people persevere under much in-
convenience to trade in the strict observance of the associa-
tion;" on March 6 following, that the royal officials who
1 5. C. & Am. Gen. Gas. , June 15, 1770; S. C. Gas. , May 31, June 28,
Oct. 4.
1 Ibid. , May 17, 1770.
"Ibid. , May 24, 1770.
4 Ibid. , Feb. 1, 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
? 208 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
had declined the association " daily experience great losses
thereby, as Subscribers are forbidden to purchase Rice,
Indigo &c from non Subscribers;" and again on October
20, that the subscribers to the non-importation were " tak-
ing large strides to enforce the rigid observing of their
Resolutions" through "the vigilance and industry of the
leaders, whose impetuosity of behaviour and reproachful
language deter the moderate, the timid and the dependent. " *
Trade statistics substantiate this view of the situation:
English imports into the Carolinas dropped from ? 306,600
in 1769 to ? 146,273 in 1770. 2
Facts throwing light on the observance of non-importa-
tion in North Carolina are meager; but it would appear that
the_pjrovince-wide association, inaugurated by the assembly
in November, 1769, was generally ignored by the_mer-
chants. On June 2, 1770, a general meeting was called at
Wilm1ngton by the " Sons of Liberty" and was attended
by "many of the principal inhabitants of six large and
populous counties," mostly planters. The meeting agreed
to boycott and publish all who imported or purchased goods
contrary to the agreement. A letter, issued later by the
General Committee of the Sons of Liberty upon the Cape
Fear, expressed the hope that the merchants' " own interest
will convince them of the necessity of importing such
articles, and such only, as the planters will purchase. " Com-
mittees of inspection were established in the six counties,
and those for the towns of Wilmington and Brunswick
were instructed to use particular vigilance. 8 Thereafter,
the conditions of enforcement improved. The Cape Fear
Mercury of July n, 1770, presented some instances of the
1 Brit. Papers ("Sparks Mss. "), vol. ii, pp. 202, 206, 217.
1 Macpherson, Annals of Com. , vol. iii, pp. 494-495, 508.
tCape Fear Merc. , July 11, 1770; Connor, Harnett, pp. 55-56.
? ? 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 2Og
activity of the Wilmington Committee of Inspection, al-
though it admitted that some merchants were "daily pur-
chasing wines and many other articles" prohibited by the
agreement, a course of conduct which would surely lead to
the publication of their names. At the town of Newbern
no formal steps were taken to adopt an agreement; but it
was claimed in September, 1 770, that "the whole town
cannot now furnish a single pound of Bohea Tea," and that
"all the merchants here cannot produce for sale a single
yard of osnabrigs, negro cloth, coarse linens or scarcely
any European goods at all. " 1
In Georgia, {he non-importatiofl
been so reluctantly adopted, was speedily disregarded. 2
Attempts were made to introduce slaves overland into South
Carolina; but this clandestine trade was closely watched. *
On June 27, 1770, a general meeting of Charleston inhabi-
tants voted solemnly, without a dissenting voice, that
Georgia ought "to be amputated from the rest of their
brethren, as a rotten part that might spread a dangerous
infection," and
severed, pftfir frr""*1""! r1? ygVi> The desertion of Georgia
had no important results, since Georgia had no trading re-
lations of importance.
At first thought it may provoke surprise that thf TMnvf-
ment fQLJLJLeneral relaxation. jaf _ pQn_-jmpgrtatioQ_ should
he prgmnted by the merchants of two of the chief commercial
provinces. The merchants of the northern provinces were
certain to receive important material benefits from a repeal
1 S. C. Gas. & Coun. Journ. , Oct . 2, 1770.
'Brit. Papers (" Sparks Mss. "), vol. ii, p. 286.
? S. C. Gas. , May 17. 1770.
4 Ibid. , June 28, 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
? 2. IQ THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
of the various trade and revenue statutes; and it was this
purpose that had caused them to undertake the great non-
importation union of the provinces at the outset. But as
the months passed, they began to discover that the character
of their utilitarian revolt was changing under their eyes;
that self-styled "Sons of Liberty" conceived of them as
bearing the standard in a great struggle for constitutional
rights; and they were chagrined to realize that they had, in
some instances, given grounds for such an interpretation.
Furthermore, the chief burden of the non-importation
had fallen upon the commercial provinces, imports from
England decreasing two-thirds in the year 1769 whereas
they actually increased somewhat in the plantation provinces.
Jn the early months the- r^j^jn^ nf **" "*--'-- ? *
manufactures had increase^ ftr
had long fluttered t^jr -*--1"~ ? ~i(\ fhr rnerrhantfi _r1i<s-
posed of much old stock to advantage. 1 Debts, long out-
standing from their customers, were called in; and remit-
tances were made to England at fifteen to twenty per cent
advantage on the ? 100 sterling. 2 But when, after a time,
thrir
1 The merchants obliged us at this time "to take old moth-eaten
cloths that had lain rotting in the shops for years and to pay a mon-
strous price for them;" this was the statement made later by a bitter
opponent of the non-importation movement of 1774. Seabury, S. ,
Free Thoughts on the Proceedings of the Continental Congress. . . .
By a Farmer (New York, 1774), p. 12.
* Conn. Cour. , July 30, 1770; Pa. Gas. , May 31; Mass. Gas. & Post
Boy, Sept. 24- Governor Pownall declared in Parliament in March,
1770, that a monthly record of the rate of exchange for the last eight
years at the three leading ports of America showed an average rate
of 16754 for the *1oo sterling at Philadelphia, 171^ at New York,
and I33H at Boston; while the current rate at the same ports was
145, 162 and 125-123. The rise and fall of exchange, he asserted,
was the barometer of trade, a falling exchange signifying a doubly
great loss of trade. Parliamentary History, vol. xvi, p. 860.
? ? 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 2 1 1
_x>f bearing the brunt of a strugle? from_nzhich
f rnp
When they advanced their prices, they were accused by
the populace of being "monopolists" and "extortioners:"
and no countenance was given to their plea that high profits
were necessary in order to offset the general falling-off of
business. The storm centre of controversy was the price
of Bohea tea. At Philadelphia a memorial was pre-
sented to the Committee of Merchants, in January,
1770, which complained that the price of Bohea had
reached 5s.
a pound and upward in face of an agree-
ment of dealers to maintain it at 3s. 9d. ; and "A. B. ",
writing in the Chronicle, declared he would post a
list of all offenders in his shop and distribute it among his
neighbors. 1 At New York, the Committee of Merchants
advertised in the New York Journal, September 28, 1769,
that a careful investigation had failed to disclose any en-
hancement of prices; but on February 24, 1770, they found
it necessary to call the tea dealers before them and extract
a promise to keep the retail price of Bohea down to 5s. 6d.
and the wholesale price at 4s. 6d. a A few weeks later, the
inhabitants of the city assembled, and called some of the
delinquents before them. * Nevertheless, the price of tea
continued its ascent. Bohea reached IDS. a pound at
Annapolis by the middle of the year; and when Williams
& Company, the worst offenders, refused to conform to the
1 Pa. Chron. , Jan. 29, 1770. It was announced in the same issue
that thereafter the size of the Chronicle would be smaller, because of
the rise in the price of paper. In the issue of July 23, a writer
claimed that tea had reached the "unconscionable sum of 1os. ," a
paper of pins had advanced from lod. to as. od. , and other articles
were equally high in proportion.
1 N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , Feb. 26, 1770.
* Ibid. , Mch. 12, 1770; N. Y. Journ. , July 12.
? ? 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
? 212 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
demand of the committee of inspection, the firm was pro-
scribed in the newspapers. 1 A few complaints were also
heard at Boston against high prices, although apparently no
attempts were made to regulate prices there. 2
While tt1P importing mpt-chanf? were suffering a decline
in trade and the radical class in the populati'tn was hp{rinnin<r
to domjnflfp tr1p oitnotirwn ajfc1rtVifE flffiirHon ramp in r|iP
form of a decrease in the eypnrt trarlp to F. rjgrlanH An
excessive exportation of American products to England in
1768 produced a slump in the export market in the year
1769, and there was only a slow recovery in the next few
years. This condition bore proportionately more severely
upon Mew yp/r*k and fcnnsvlYSH,ift thflfl 11pon fr^ew Knpr-
|fnd. 8 L" Interest, all powerful Interest, will bear down
Patriotism," predicted a Quaker merchant on December 9,
1769. ". . . Romans we are not as they were formerly,
when they despised Riches and Grandeur, abode in extreme
poverty and sacrificed every pleasant enjoyment for the
love and service of their Country. " * f
Thus, the seeds of discontent were pretty generously sown
among the merchants when njjws^ re^yhpd America that
Parliament hadt on April 12. 1770, repealed the most im-
porfrmt portions of the law aga1nst wh1ch thf"'- "fr"""^"*"
wejp ^1"Ttiffl5 This news did not come as a surprise, as
the governors had been notified by a letter of May 13, 1769
that such a measure was under contemplation and that the
taxes on glass, paper and colors had been laid "Contrary
1N. Y. Journ. , Aug. 2, 1770.
1Bos. Chron. , Dec. 11, 1769; Mass. Gas. & News-Letter, Dec. 21.
* There was some decrease in the export trade of the plantation
provinces, also; but the merchants there did not dominate the non-
importation movement.
4 Letter of Henry Drinker; Pa. Mag. , vol. xiv, p. 41.
1 (O George III, c. 17. To be operative on December I, 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 213
to the true principles of Commerce. " * The reasons stated
for the proposed repeal coincided exactly with those urged
in the formal utterances of the merchant class in America. *
When Lord North carried through the repeal bill on the plea
that the duties affected were anti-commercial, the merchants
throughout the commercial provinces, with the exception of
the Bostonians, who had taken an advanced stand in their
pamphlet of December, 1769, had a right to feel self-gratu-
latory. They had obtained all the remedial legislation that
thpy frari hwp specifically demanding, save only the rescind-
ing ftii the tea_duty which had been withheld because . the
king believed that "there must Always \^f pne tav tn keep
The only question before them was whether they, as
practical men of business, would be justified in continuing
their costly boycott against Great Britain for the sake of
the one remaining tax. 4 As in 1766, they felt it was no
concern of theirs that the tea tax was retained as an assertion
of the right of Parliament to tax the colonies for revenue
1 1 N. J. Arch. , vol . x, pp. 109-110.
'North was primarily interested in the fact that the duties were
anti-commercial from the standpoint of the home merchants, declaring
"so many articles, the manufactures of Great Britain, are, by the Act
in question, subject to taxation, that it must astonish every reason-
able man to think how so preposterous a law could originally obtain
existence from a British legislature. " Parliamentary History, vol.
xvi, pp. 853-855.
'Donne, W. B. Correspondence of George III with Lord North
(London, 1867), vol. i, p. 202.
4 E. g. vide letter of Phila. Comm. to N. Y. Comm. , May 15, 1770,
in N. Y. Journ. , Aug. 16, 1770. As "Cethegus" put it, "It is vain to
think that we can hold Breath always . . . We have only to chuse
whether to unite in maintaining an Agreement of a more restricted
Nature, or to go on disputing about a Shadow which cannot longer b<<
realized. " N. Y. Gas. & Post-Boy, Oct. 8, 1770; also I N. J. Arch. ,
vol. xxvii, pp. 282-283.
? ? 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
? 214
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
only; or that earlier revenue duties remained on the statute
books; or that the Declaratory Act continued in its pristine
vigor as a part of the imperial constitution. To these gen-
eralizations, the merchants of Massachusetts constituted an
exception, probably because the warp of their prosperity was
woven so closely with the woof of an unrestricted foreign
commerce.
Upon hearing that the bill for partial repeal of the Towns-
hend duties was pending passage in Parliament, the South
Carolina General Committee addressed a n'rmlaj |<>HW tn
the committees of the other prov1nces on April 2^. I77Q.
The letter recounted that the provinces had adopted agree-
ments differing "in Extent of Matter and Limitations of
Time," and that South Carolina, being among the last to
act, had been the most comprehensive in her plan, specifying
among her sine qua non demands the disestablishment of the
Customs Board and of the oppressive vice-admiralty juris-
diction. The committee a^f
take a^vantagp f>f j^hjL. r^t">>ftl o^ "*hfifig trJfliniT d^tlas-^L to
re-open trade with Great ptn'tain it would have been in-
finitely better to have submitted to thp vnke from the begin-
ning. 1 In this letter and in a later one, the northern prov-
1nces were exhorted to extend their agreements to cover all
the demands named in the South Carolina Association. 2
Authentic news of the passage of the repeal bill reached
America early in May, 1770. Outside of Boston and a
few other places of minor importance, there ensued, through-
out the commercial provinces, several perplexing months of
indecision, it^tpnnnted nnlv bvi the premature break of
1 N. C. Col. Recs. , vol. viii, pp. 197-199; published at the time in S.
C. Gas. , May 17, 1770; Pa. Gas. , May 24; N. Y. Journ. , May 17; Bos.
Gas. , May 28.
? The second letter was dated June 27; S. C. Gas. , June 28, 1770;
also N. Y. Journ. , July 12.
? ? 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 215
Albany, the Rhode Island ports and Pnrtgtnnn^ fmm rV1>>
nnn-itpportatinn rnmhinatjrm The merchants of Albany
rescinded their agreement on May 10 in favor of the non-
importation of tea alone; but when, after a few weeks, they
learned that Boston and New York remained steadfast, they
hastened to resume their agreement and to countermand the
orders which had been sent to England in the meantime. 1
Only a few days behind Albany, the merchants of New-
port and Providence cast aside their agreements and dis-
charged their committees of inspection. 2 "They were
dragged in the first place like an ox to the slaughter, into
the non-importation agreement . . . ," wrote a contempor-
ary. "Adherence to the non-importation agreement in them
would have been acting out of character and in contradiction
to the opinion of the country. " 8 Within a week the answer
gprts: mass meetings at Philadelphia
and N-yy VnrU- anH a meet1ng ot merchants at
dared an absolute bovcott against the pnerd^ntg n(
The town of Providence now took things in hand,
pimple set hv Albanv by scurrv-
1ng back under cover of the agreement, announcing a boy-
cott aga1nst any who should have dealings with the aban-
doned Newport importers. 0 The merchants of Newport
re-enacted their agreement also; but their resolution to
store rather than re-ship the goods recently arrived inclined
the other provinces to believe that the action of Newport
was merely a screen for clandestine importations. A wave
1Ms. in Hist. Soc. of Pa. ; N. Y. Journ. , Aug. 23, 30, 1770; N. Y.
Gas. & Merc. , Sept.
modities which heretofore were of ready sale now remain
upon his hands," and that possible purchasers, as soon as
they learned of his ownership of the commodities, "im-
1 Ibid. , Oct. 12, 26, 1769. William Wragg, maintaining the same
point, argued that it did not follow that a number of persons as-
sociating together had a right to do what one man might do, and he
said that Parliament had acted on this doctrine in punishing tailors
for combinations to increase wages. Ibid. , Nov. 16.
1 "A Member of the General Committee," ibid. , Oct. 18, 1769.
1 Ibid. , Dec. 14, 1769; also Bos. Chron. , Jan. 11, 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
? 206 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
mediately declined any further treaty for the purchase of
them, because of the Resolutions. " Realizing that he was
a beaten man, he sailed for England on January 3, 1770, in
a ship that, appropriately enough, carried goods outlawed
by the association. 1
A vigorous execution of the association at Charleston
was insured by the fact that two-thirds of the General Com-
mittee consisted of planters and mechanics, only one-third
being merchants and factors. So successful was the en-
forcement that a recountal of even the striking instances
would be tedious and purposeless. 8 The General Com-
mittee met regularly every Tuesday; subordinate to them
was a vigilant committee of inspection, which saw to the
storing of goods or their reshipment, as the importer pre-
ferred. 8 Almost every issue of the South Carolina Gasette
contained statements of the arrival of vessels and of the
transactions of the committee thereon. In only one in-
stance was the good faith of the committee impugned. Ann
and Benjamin Mathews having been publicly proscribed for
selling goods stored by them, Mrs. Mathews retorted, in a
printed article, that the goods had been ordered prior to the
association, that her son had given the promise to store
while she was lying very ill, and that stern necessity had
compelled her to open the goods. She charged that in-
dividual members of the committee, whom she named, had
been permitted to receive articles ordered before the associa-
tion had been adopted, and that in one or two instances their
articles had arrived after hers. The only difference between
her offense and that of Mr. Rutledge, who had recently
1S. C. Gas. , Jan. 4, 1770.
1 An interesting account may be found in McCrady, S. C. under
Royal Govt. , pp. 664-676.
*S. C. Co*. , Nov. 14, 1769.
? ? 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 207
imported two horses in consequence of an old order, was,
she averred, that he was a man who would not be trifled
with, while she was a poor widow living within two doors
of a leading man of the committee and thus in a position to
take a little cash from some of his customers. By way of
vindication, the committee was able to show that the im-
portations of the Mathews' had been purchased after copies
of the South Carolina Association had arrived in England,
a fact not obtaining in the other cases. A few months later,
the son appeared before the committee, acknowledged guilt
and heartfelt contrition, and promised to deliver all goods,
remaining unsold, into charge of the committee. 1
The provision for the immediate reshipment of slaves was
rigidly enforced. For instance, Captain Evans arrived on
May 2, 1770, from Africa with three hundred and forty-
five negroes; and after attending a public meeting held to
consider his case, he filled his casks and set sail with his
cargo for the more hospitable shores of Georgia. 2 It was
estimated by friends of non-importation that Great Britain
had lost not less than ? 300,000 sterling, at a moderate com-
putation, through the South Carolina regulations against
slave importation. 8 Some little difficulty was experienced
in preventing violations of the association at Georgetown
and Beaufort; but this was obviated when jommittees of
inspection were appointed there early in February, 1770. 4
Governor Bull wrote on December 6, 1769, to the home
government that "the people persevere under much in-
convenience to trade in the strict observance of the associa-
tion;" on March 6 following, that the royal officials who
1 5. C. & Am. Gen. Gas. , June 15, 1770; S. C. Gas. , May 31, June 28,
Oct. 4.
1 Ibid. , May 17, 1770.
"Ibid. , May 24, 1770.
4 Ibid. , Feb. 1, 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
? 208 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
had declined the association " daily experience great losses
thereby, as Subscribers are forbidden to purchase Rice,
Indigo &c from non Subscribers;" and again on October
20, that the subscribers to the non-importation were " tak-
ing large strides to enforce the rigid observing of their
Resolutions" through "the vigilance and industry of the
leaders, whose impetuosity of behaviour and reproachful
language deter the moderate, the timid and the dependent. " *
Trade statistics substantiate this view of the situation:
English imports into the Carolinas dropped from ? 306,600
in 1769 to ? 146,273 in 1770. 2
Facts throwing light on the observance of non-importa-
tion in North Carolina are meager; but it would appear that
the_pjrovince-wide association, inaugurated by the assembly
in November, 1769, was generally ignored by the_mer-
chants. On June 2, 1770, a general meeting was called at
Wilm1ngton by the " Sons of Liberty" and was attended
by "many of the principal inhabitants of six large and
populous counties," mostly planters. The meeting agreed
to boycott and publish all who imported or purchased goods
contrary to the agreement. A letter, issued later by the
General Committee of the Sons of Liberty upon the Cape
Fear, expressed the hope that the merchants' " own interest
will convince them of the necessity of importing such
articles, and such only, as the planters will purchase. " Com-
mittees of inspection were established in the six counties,
and those for the towns of Wilmington and Brunswick
were instructed to use particular vigilance. 8 Thereafter,
the conditions of enforcement improved. The Cape Fear
Mercury of July n, 1770, presented some instances of the
1 Brit. Papers ("Sparks Mss. "), vol. ii, pp. 202, 206, 217.
1 Macpherson, Annals of Com. , vol. iii, pp. 494-495, 508.
tCape Fear Merc. , July 11, 1770; Connor, Harnett, pp. 55-56.
? ? 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 2Og
activity of the Wilmington Committee of Inspection, al-
though it admitted that some merchants were "daily pur-
chasing wines and many other articles" prohibited by the
agreement, a course of conduct which would surely lead to
the publication of their names. At the town of Newbern
no formal steps were taken to adopt an agreement; but it
was claimed in September, 1 770, that "the whole town
cannot now furnish a single pound of Bohea Tea," and that
"all the merchants here cannot produce for sale a single
yard of osnabrigs, negro cloth, coarse linens or scarcely
any European goods at all. " 1
In Georgia, {he non-importatiofl
been so reluctantly adopted, was speedily disregarded. 2
Attempts were made to introduce slaves overland into South
Carolina; but this clandestine trade was closely watched. *
On June 27, 1770, a general meeting of Charleston inhabi-
tants voted solemnly, without a dissenting voice, that
Georgia ought "to be amputated from the rest of their
brethren, as a rotten part that might spread a dangerous
infection," and
severed, pftfir frr""*1""! r1? ygVi> The desertion of Georgia
had no important results, since Georgia had no trading re-
lations of importance.
At first thought it may provoke surprise that thf TMnvf-
ment fQLJLJLeneral relaxation. jaf _ pQn_-jmpgrtatioQ_ should
he prgmnted by the merchants of two of the chief commercial
provinces. The merchants of the northern provinces were
certain to receive important material benefits from a repeal
1 S. C. Gas. & Coun. Journ. , Oct . 2, 1770.
'Brit. Papers (" Sparks Mss. "), vol. ii, p. 286.
? S. C. Gas. , May 17. 1770.
4 Ibid. , June 28, 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
? 2. IQ THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
of the various trade and revenue statutes; and it was this
purpose that had caused them to undertake the great non-
importation union of the provinces at the outset. But as
the months passed, they began to discover that the character
of their utilitarian revolt was changing under their eyes;
that self-styled "Sons of Liberty" conceived of them as
bearing the standard in a great struggle for constitutional
rights; and they were chagrined to realize that they had, in
some instances, given grounds for such an interpretation.
Furthermore, the chief burden of the non-importation
had fallen upon the commercial provinces, imports from
England decreasing two-thirds in the year 1769 whereas
they actually increased somewhat in the plantation provinces.
Jn the early months the- r^j^jn^ nf **" "*--'-- ? *
manufactures had increase^ ftr
had long fluttered t^jr -*--1"~ ? ~i(\ fhr rnerrhantfi _r1i<s-
posed of much old stock to advantage. 1 Debts, long out-
standing from their customers, were called in; and remit-
tances were made to England at fifteen to twenty per cent
advantage on the ? 100 sterling. 2 But when, after a time,
thrir
1 The merchants obliged us at this time "to take old moth-eaten
cloths that had lain rotting in the shops for years and to pay a mon-
strous price for them;" this was the statement made later by a bitter
opponent of the non-importation movement of 1774. Seabury, S. ,
Free Thoughts on the Proceedings of the Continental Congress. . . .
By a Farmer (New York, 1774), p. 12.
* Conn. Cour. , July 30, 1770; Pa. Gas. , May 31; Mass. Gas. & Post
Boy, Sept. 24- Governor Pownall declared in Parliament in March,
1770, that a monthly record of the rate of exchange for the last eight
years at the three leading ports of America showed an average rate
of 16754 for the *1oo sterling at Philadelphia, 171^ at New York,
and I33H at Boston; while the current rate at the same ports was
145, 162 and 125-123. The rise and fall of exchange, he asserted,
was the barometer of trade, a falling exchange signifying a doubly
great loss of trade. Parliamentary History, vol. xvi, p. 860.
? ? 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 2 1 1
_x>f bearing the brunt of a strugle? from_nzhich
f rnp
When they advanced their prices, they were accused by
the populace of being "monopolists" and "extortioners:"
and no countenance was given to their plea that high profits
were necessary in order to offset the general falling-off of
business. The storm centre of controversy was the price
of Bohea tea. At Philadelphia a memorial was pre-
sented to the Committee of Merchants, in January,
1770, which complained that the price of Bohea had
reached 5s.
a pound and upward in face of an agree-
ment of dealers to maintain it at 3s. 9d. ; and "A. B. ",
writing in the Chronicle, declared he would post a
list of all offenders in his shop and distribute it among his
neighbors. 1 At New York, the Committee of Merchants
advertised in the New York Journal, September 28, 1769,
that a careful investigation had failed to disclose any en-
hancement of prices; but on February 24, 1770, they found
it necessary to call the tea dealers before them and extract
a promise to keep the retail price of Bohea down to 5s. 6d.
and the wholesale price at 4s. 6d. a A few weeks later, the
inhabitants of the city assembled, and called some of the
delinquents before them. * Nevertheless, the price of tea
continued its ascent. Bohea reached IDS. a pound at
Annapolis by the middle of the year; and when Williams
& Company, the worst offenders, refused to conform to the
1 Pa. Chron. , Jan. 29, 1770. It was announced in the same issue
that thereafter the size of the Chronicle would be smaller, because of
the rise in the price of paper. In the issue of July 23, a writer
claimed that tea had reached the "unconscionable sum of 1os. ," a
paper of pins had advanced from lod. to as. od. , and other articles
were equally high in proportion.
1 N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , Feb. 26, 1770.
* Ibid. , Mch. 12, 1770; N. Y. Journ. , July 12.
? ? 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
? 212 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
demand of the committee of inspection, the firm was pro-
scribed in the newspapers. 1 A few complaints were also
heard at Boston against high prices, although apparently no
attempts were made to regulate prices there. 2
While tt1P importing mpt-chanf? were suffering a decline
in trade and the radical class in the populati'tn was hp{rinnin<r
to domjnflfp tr1p oitnotirwn ajfc1rtVifE flffiirHon ramp in r|iP
form of a decrease in the eypnrt trarlp to F. rjgrlanH An
excessive exportation of American products to England in
1768 produced a slump in the export market in the year
1769, and there was only a slow recovery in the next few
years. This condition bore proportionately more severely
upon Mew yp/r*k and fcnnsvlYSH,ift thflfl 11pon fr^ew Knpr-
|fnd. 8 L" Interest, all powerful Interest, will bear down
Patriotism," predicted a Quaker merchant on December 9,
1769. ". . . Romans we are not as they were formerly,
when they despised Riches and Grandeur, abode in extreme
poverty and sacrificed every pleasant enjoyment for the
love and service of their Country. " * f
Thus, the seeds of discontent were pretty generously sown
among the merchants when njjws^ re^yhpd America that
Parliament hadt on April 12. 1770, repealed the most im-
porfrmt portions of the law aga1nst wh1ch thf"'- "fr"""^"*"
wejp ^1"Ttiffl5 This news did not come as a surprise, as
the governors had been notified by a letter of May 13, 1769
that such a measure was under contemplation and that the
taxes on glass, paper and colors had been laid "Contrary
1N. Y. Journ. , Aug. 2, 1770.
1Bos. Chron. , Dec. 11, 1769; Mass. Gas. & News-Letter, Dec. 21.
* There was some decrease in the export trade of the plantation
provinces, also; but the merchants there did not dominate the non-
importation movement.
4 Letter of Henry Drinker; Pa. Mag. , vol. xiv, p. 41.
1 (O George III, c. 17. To be operative on December I, 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 213
to the true principles of Commerce. " * The reasons stated
for the proposed repeal coincided exactly with those urged
in the formal utterances of the merchant class in America. *
When Lord North carried through the repeal bill on the plea
that the duties affected were anti-commercial, the merchants
throughout the commercial provinces, with the exception of
the Bostonians, who had taken an advanced stand in their
pamphlet of December, 1769, had a right to feel self-gratu-
latory. They had obtained all the remedial legislation that
thpy frari hwp specifically demanding, save only the rescind-
ing ftii the tea_duty which had been withheld because . the
king believed that "there must Always \^f pne tav tn keep
The only question before them was whether they, as
practical men of business, would be justified in continuing
their costly boycott against Great Britain for the sake of
the one remaining tax. 4 As in 1766, they felt it was no
concern of theirs that the tea tax was retained as an assertion
of the right of Parliament to tax the colonies for revenue
1 1 N. J. Arch. , vol . x, pp. 109-110.
'North was primarily interested in the fact that the duties were
anti-commercial from the standpoint of the home merchants, declaring
"so many articles, the manufactures of Great Britain, are, by the Act
in question, subject to taxation, that it must astonish every reason-
able man to think how so preposterous a law could originally obtain
existence from a British legislature. " Parliamentary History, vol.
xvi, pp. 853-855.
'Donne, W. B. Correspondence of George III with Lord North
(London, 1867), vol. i, p. 202.
4 E. g. vide letter of Phila. Comm. to N. Y. Comm. , May 15, 1770,
in N. Y. Journ. , Aug. 16, 1770. As "Cethegus" put it, "It is vain to
think that we can hold Breath always . . . We have only to chuse
whether to unite in maintaining an Agreement of a more restricted
Nature, or to go on disputing about a Shadow which cannot longer b<<
realized. " N. Y. Gas. & Post-Boy, Oct. 8, 1770; also I N. J. Arch. ,
vol. xxvii, pp. 282-283.
? ? 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
? 214
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
only; or that earlier revenue duties remained on the statute
books; or that the Declaratory Act continued in its pristine
vigor as a part of the imperial constitution. To these gen-
eralizations, the merchants of Massachusetts constituted an
exception, probably because the warp of their prosperity was
woven so closely with the woof of an unrestricted foreign
commerce.
Upon hearing that the bill for partial repeal of the Towns-
hend duties was pending passage in Parliament, the South
Carolina General Committee addressed a n'rmlaj |<>HW tn
the committees of the other prov1nces on April 2^. I77Q.
The letter recounted that the provinces had adopted agree-
ments differing "in Extent of Matter and Limitations of
Time," and that South Carolina, being among the last to
act, had been the most comprehensive in her plan, specifying
among her sine qua non demands the disestablishment of the
Customs Board and of the oppressive vice-admiralty juris-
diction. The committee a^f
take a^vantagp f>f j^hjL. r^t">>ftl o^ "*hfifig trJfliniT d^tlas-^L to
re-open trade with Great ptn'tain it would have been in-
finitely better to have submitted to thp vnke from the begin-
ning. 1 In this letter and in a later one, the northern prov-
1nces were exhorted to extend their agreements to cover all
the demands named in the South Carolina Association. 2
Authentic news of the passage of the repeal bill reached
America early in May, 1770. Outside of Boston and a
few other places of minor importance, there ensued, through-
out the commercial provinces, several perplexing months of
indecision, it^tpnnnted nnlv bvi the premature break of
1 N. C. Col. Recs. , vol. viii, pp. 197-199; published at the time in S.
C. Gas. , May 17, 1770; Pa. Gas. , May 24; N. Y. Journ. , May 17; Bos.
Gas. , May 28.
? The second letter was dated June 27; S. C. Gas. , June 28, 1770;
also N. Y. Journ. , July 12.
? ? 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 215
Albany, the Rhode Island ports and Pnrtgtnnn^ fmm rV1>>
nnn-itpportatinn rnmhinatjrm The merchants of Albany
rescinded their agreement on May 10 in favor of the non-
importation of tea alone; but when, after a few weeks, they
learned that Boston and New York remained steadfast, they
hastened to resume their agreement and to countermand the
orders which had been sent to England in the meantime. 1
Only a few days behind Albany, the merchants of New-
port and Providence cast aside their agreements and dis-
charged their committees of inspection. 2 "They were
dragged in the first place like an ox to the slaughter, into
the non-importation agreement . . . ," wrote a contempor-
ary. "Adherence to the non-importation agreement in them
would have been acting out of character and in contradiction
to the opinion of the country. " 8 Within a week the answer
gprts: mass meetings at Philadelphia
and N-yy VnrU- anH a meet1ng ot merchants at
dared an absolute bovcott against the pnerd^ntg n(
The town of Providence now took things in hand,
pimple set hv Albanv by scurrv-
1ng back under cover of the agreement, announcing a boy-
cott aga1nst any who should have dealings with the aban-
doned Newport importers. 0 The merchants of Newport
re-enacted their agreement also; but their resolution to
store rather than re-ship the goods recently arrived inclined
the other provinces to believe that the action of Newport
was merely a screen for clandestine importations. A wave
1Ms. in Hist. Soc. of Pa. ; N. Y. Journ. , Aug. 23, 30, 1770; N. Y.
Gas. & Merc. , Sept.
