They even
threatened
to cancel the licenses of
tavern-keepers who permitted such goods to be exposed
for sale in their houses.
tavern-keepers who permitted such goods to be exposed
for sale in their houses.
Arthur Schlesinger - Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution
39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www.
hathitrust.
org/access_use#pd-google
? I90 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
ment, and on the demand of the committee of inspection he
surrendered his goods, worth almost ? 200, to be stored.
About one o'clock that night a number of persons in dis-
guise took forcible possession of the goods and committed
the whole to the flames. Without further warning, Hills
fled the town. The committee of inspection made this the
occasion for a solemn preachment and warning. In a
signed statement, the midnight visitation was stigmatized
as " a high Insult" offered to the committee and to the city
by "some lawless Ruffians," and every good citizen was
urged to do all in his power " to bring the Authors, Aiders
and Abettors of so unwarrantable an Act to speedy Justice. "1
Naturally the offenders continued undiscovered; but these
new instances of mob assertion had a controlling influence
on the course of the merchants in the subsequent years.
There is every reason to believe that non-importation was
exceedingly well enforced in New York. The committee
had no difficulty to contend with, except the greed of those
merchants who sought to import goods at the prevailing high
prices. It was claimed in December, 1769, that every bit of
goods brought in contrary to the agreement had been placed
in the public store. 2 Although this high standard of per-
fection was not reached, the figures show that the importa-
tions from Great Britain in 1769 had fallen to ? 75,930, as
compared with ? 490,673 in the preceding year, a record
which was not equalled or even approached in any other
province. 8
1 N. - Y. Journ. , June 28, July 5, 1770.
1Letter from New York; Mass. Gas. & News-L<<tter, Dec. 21, 1769.
1 Macpherson, Annals of Com. , vol. iii, pp. 486, 494-495. The British
importations into New York in 1770 amounted to ? 475,991. Ibid. , p.
508. It is, of course, impossible to know what proportion of the
goods imported during these years was permissible under the agree-
ment. It will be remembered that the agreement was also directed
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION Io,1
In Philadelphia the opposition to non-importation, once
that measure had been adopted, was even milder in char-
acter. The body of merchants were its hearty supporters,
although there was a pronounced feeling on the part of the
importers of British drygoods that the provisions of the local
agreement discriminated unjustly against them. Their com-
plaint was that their commerce was cut off, while the mer-
chants who traded with the West Indies and the Wine
Islands continued their business as before the agreement;
and they pointed out that these prospering traders were
paying duties upon importations of molasses and wines and
thus counteracting the principle of home rule in taxation,
for which the Americans professed to be fighting. More-
over, the merchants of Maryland and Albany, acting under
more liberal agreements, were importing goods for the In-
dian trade, a privilege that was denied to the Philadelphia
merchants. 1 Their dissatisfaction with the agreement took
the form of efforts to modify it or repeal it rather than
clandestine attempts to violate it.
The Society of Friends, in which some of the great mer-
chants were very influential, found an early occasion to take
an official stand against it. At the time of the Stamp Act,
more than fifty of them, including such prominent Quakers
as Israel and James Pemberton, had signed the agreement;
and indeed the measure appeared to be a Quaker method of
resistance. But the present agreement was more rigorous
in its terms; and when the Charming Polly episode disclosed
that the populace, most of whom " were incapable of judg-
ing prudently on a matter of so great importance," might
against smuggled importations from Hamburg and Holland. There
were no published accounts of efforts to enforce these latter restric-
tions. "A. B. " in the N. Y. Journ. , Nov. 23, 1760, made an incidental
reference to the storing of large consignments from foreign merchants.
1 Pa. Gas. , Jan. 25, 1770; Pa. Mag. , vol. xiv, p. 42.
? ? 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
? I92 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
be called in to exert force in executing the agreement, the
monthly meeting of Philadelphia advised Friends to have
nothing to do with non-importation measures. 1 Neverthe-
less, many prominent Quakers were concerned in the agree-
ment, including John Reynell who headed the committee
of inspection.
The Philadelphia merchants established an excellent rec-
ord of enforcement. On Monday, July 17, 1769, occurred
the first effort to violate the agreement, when the Charming
Polly with a cargo of malt arrived in port. Amos Strettell,
the consignee, was able to show that he had not ordered
the malt; and at a public meeting the following day the
brewers of the city presented an agreement that they would
have none of it. The meeting voted unanimously that any
person who bought any of the malt or helped to unload it
should be deemed an "Enemy to his Country. " A week
later, the captain of the brig, not perhaps lacking a sense of
humor, sailed with his malt to Cork. 2 On July 29, the brig
Speedwell arrived with some debarred goods, which had been
ordered prior to the agreement; these were placed in a
public store. 8
The expeditious return of imports commended itself as
a better device than the storing of them on either the New
York or the Boston plan. The Philadelphia Committee
believed it would defeat the scheme of " some monied peo-
ple" in England " to buy up quantities of manufactures on
easy terms and lodge them in the principal towns in America
to be ready for the first opening of the markets after the
repeal. " * Therefore, at a meeting of August 2, the mer-
1 Sharpless, I. , The Quakers in the Revolution (Philadelphia, 1899),
pp. 77-80; Lincoln, Revolutionary Movement in Pa. , p. 151.
1 Pa. Journ. , July 20, 1769; also N. Y. Ga*. & Merc. , July 24.
1Pa. Journ. , Aug. 3, 1769.
4 Papers of Phila. Merchants, pp. 29-31.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION
chants decided that all goods, which arrived from England
on consignment or which had been ordered after February
6, should not be stored as other goods but should be sent
back. 1 This plan was followed thereafter. A notable case
of enforcement occurred when the Friend's Good Will ar-
rived on September 30 with a great quantity of merchandise
shipped by British merchants on speculation. These goods
were said to have been offered to eighty-four merchants in
vain; and the brig returned with her cargo intact. 2 In
December, the signers of the agreement authorized the com-
mittee to auction off such stored goods as were likely to
perish from prolonged storing, the profits of such sale to
be devoted to some public use. 8
The committee of inspection continued its activities far
into the year 1770 and did not find it necessary to proscribe
offenders by name until June of that year. 4 Statistics show
that British imports had been reduced in value from ? 441,-
829 in 1768 to ? 204,978 in the year 1769, and to ? 134,881
in 1770. 8 Next to New York, this was the best record of
any province for the year 1769, and the best record on the
continent for the year 1770. The enforcement of non-
importation was free from all exhibitions of mob violence,
1 Pa. Gas. , Aug. 3, 1769; also Pa. Journ. , Aug. 3.
* Pa. lourn. , Oct. 5, 1769; 5. C. Gas. , Nov. 16. The committee of
inspection also had to be watchful to detect fraudulent practices on
the part of British merchants. In one instance, Stephen Collins
solemnly informed the London merchant, Samuel Elam, "thy Brother
Emanuel was found' to have antedated his Invoices and Letters in
sutch a manner as to Lead people here [to] talke very freely of them. "
A few months later, he returned a bale of cloth sent by Samuel Elam
himself contrary to orders, with the admonition: "I am realy sorry
for thy sake it has happened, as many people seem mutch Disaffected. "
Collins, Letter Book 1760-1773, Sept. 18, Dec, 11, 1769.
1 Papers of Phila. Merchants, pp. 64-67.
? E. g. , vide Pa. Journ. , July 5, 12, 28, 1770.
1 Macpherson, Annals of Com. , vol. iii, pp. 485, 494-495, 508.
? ? 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
largely because goods violative of the agreement were im-
mediately re-shipped to Great Britain.
Of the minor provinces in the commercial group, New
Hampshire took a belated stand on the side of non-importa-
tion when the emotions of the people were deeply stirred
by the news of the Boston Massacre. As late as February,
1770, Governor Wentworth had written that some Scotch
merchants were plying a trade in imported wares undis-
turbed. 1 After the fateful fifth of March, all indifference
vanished among the people. "The cry of Blood, reechoed
from one to the other, seems to infuriate them," wrote the
governor. "Upon this event the Assembly were prevailed
upon to forward their petition, which would otherwise have
slept forever; the people will not be persuaded but that the
Commissioners of the Customs and the Revenue Acts are
exerted to destroy the lives and absorb the property of the
people. " 2 The first action was taken by town meetings at
New Ipswich and Exeter, two towns located not far from
the Massachusetts line. New Ipswich was a sparsely settled
township with trading relations solely with Boston; and on
March 19, they resolved to purchase no articles forbidden
by the Boston agreement and to boycott all importers. 8
The inhabitants of Exeter, notwithstanding the reputation
they enjoyed of living up to " the tip top of the Fashion,""
agreed a week later to discourage the use of foreign luxuries
and to stop totally the consumption of tea until the duty
should be removed. 4 No action was taken by Portsmouth,
the chief port, until McMasters, a proscribed importer of
1 Vide supra, p. 155.
1Brit. Papers ("Sparks Mss. "), voL i, p. 17. Letter of Apr. 12, 1770
to Hillsborough.
1 Bos. Eve. Post, Apr. 9, 1770.
4 N. H. Gas. , Apr. 1. 3, May 11, 1770.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTA TION
195
Boston, sought to introduce his wares there. The town
meeting, on April n, resolved to have no dealings with
McMasters or any other importer, and to boycott vendue
masters and coasting vessels that were in any way connected
with them.
They even threatened to cancel the licenses of
tavern-keepers who permitted such goods to be exposed
for sale in their houses. 1 The movement in New Hamp-
shire partook too much of the nature of an emotional revival
to be lasting in its effects; and, as we shall see, the merchants
at Portsmouth resumed importation as soon as the excite-
ment subsided.
Of the remaining northern provinces, Rhode Island was
the only province whose conduct resembled, in any respect,
that of New Hampshire. Dragged into the non-importa-
tion league by threats of boycott by the great trading-towns,
the merchants at Newport regarded their tardy agreement
with keenest disrelish. Hutchinson voiced the common
opinion of other provinces when he said: "Rhode Island
professed to Join but privatelv imported to their great
ga1n. 2 When John Maudsley, a member of the Sons of
Liberty, returned from London with goods forbidden by
the agreement, which had been adopted during his absence,
he " cheerfully submitted" the goods to be stored, accord-
ing to the account in the Newport Mercury, April 9, 1770.
But if "Americanus," of Swanzey, is to be believed in the
Boston Gasette, May 7, the goods in question were placed
in Maudsley's store on the wharf, and, after dark, were
carted to his house, immediately opened and publicly sold
to almost every shop in Newport, unnoticed by the Mer-
chants' Committee. This tale bears the color of truth.
Certain it is that the Merchants' Committee at Newport
1 N. H. Gas. , Apr. 13, 1770; also Bos. Eve. Post, Apr. 16.
1Mass. Bay, voL iii, p. 261 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
? 196 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1778
never displayed any noticeable activity in detecting tabooed
importations.
All evidence would indicate that New Jersey, the Dela-
ware Counties and Connecticut were true to their profes-
sions of non-importation and non-consumption. In the case
of Connecticut, "A Freeman of Connecticut " wrote in July,
1770, with every assurance of truth, that the various agree-
ments of the towns had been kept "save in three or four
trivial instances, inadvertently and inconsiderately done;
and in every instance, one excepted, public satisfaction has
been given and the goods stored. " 1 The exception was a
small importation of tea from Boston.
1 Conn. Courant, July 30, 1770. A case, which gained local notoriety,
was the importation of some coarse woolens by Mr. Verstille, of Weath-
ersfield, a man who had been in England when the non-importation
agreement was adopted As the merits of the case were not at all
clear, some merchants cut the knot by buying the goods from Verstille
and placing them in store at their expense. Ibid. , Mch. 5.
? ? 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
? CHAPTER V
ENFORCEMENT AND BBEAKDOWN OF NON-IMPORTATION
(Continued)
plantation provinces, non-importation and the prob-
jems of its enforcement wel'tf llllllll leii. a bart ot the fabric
of everyday l1fe flp" m t^e mmrnercial provinces. The
agreements and associations had been promoted by the plant-
ing class in opposition to the small, active mercantile class;
and in the general absence of trading centres, it was difficult
for the planting element to implant the fear of discipline
in the hearts of the merchants. The geographical distribu-
tion of southern society deprived the planters of the oppor-
tunity of exerting their influence compactly, except at the
periodical meetings of the legislative assemblies. Further-
more, since the economic discontent in the South was not
directly traceable to the Townshend duties and restrictions,
a literal obedience to the agreements did not always seem
imperative to the planters themselves. 1 The result was that
1 The conduct of George Washington probably typified the attitude
of many of the planters toward the non-importation association. On
July 25, 1769, he ordered a bill of goods from a London house, with
instructions that: "If there are any articles contained in either of
the invoices (paper only excepted) which are taxed by act of Parlia-
ment . . . it is my express desire . . . that they may not be sent. "
Washington ignored the fact that a long list of household luxuries and
personal fineries were <<qually under the ban with the dutied articles.
Vide supra, p. 137 n. A little more than a year later, however, he placed
orders in London for goods, which seemed to correspond entirely
with the provisions of the Virginia association. Washington, Writings
(Ford), vol. ii, pp. 270 n. , 284 n.
197
? ? 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
? Igg THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
vinces actually
increasd-somwhat in
the commercial provinces, they declined two-thirds in the
year 1769 as compared with the year 1768, and fell below
the level of 1768 even in the year 1770 when the agreements
collapsed. Virginia appears to have, been the worst-of-
fender quantitatively. To Mf^Y1""^ inri c^uth r-irnlim
falls the distinction of having made tTle Tingt knnnraKlp
record.
Soon after the adoption of the Virginia Association of
May 1 8, 1769, it became evident that the factors dominated
the situation in the province and that, unless their aid was
enlisted, the association could be hardly more than a glitter-
ing futility. 1 A new and even more liberal plan was there-
fore drafted; and on June 22, 1770, it was jointly adopted
by the members of the House of Burgesses and the merchant
body of Williamsburg. The new association was a lengthy
document which covered the essential points of the earlier
agreement. Several changes were made in the list of articles
enumerated for non-importation. A regulation was added
to boycott importers who defied the association or who
bought goods imported into Virginia because rejected in
other provinces; and a committee of inspection was au-
thorized for each county with instructions to publish the
names of all offenders. The association was signed by the
moderator, Peyton Randolph, by Andrew Sprowle, chairman
of the Williamsburg traders, and by one hundred and sixty-
six others. Copies of the association were sent to the coun-
ties for signing. 2 Only one or two attempts to enforce the
1Bland, Papers (Campbell, C. , ed. ), vol. i, pp. 28-30; Washington,
Writings (Ford), vol. ii, pp. 280-283.
? Pa. Gas. , July 12, 1770; also N. Y. Journ. , July 19. A copy, signed
by sixty-two inhabitants of Fairfax County, is in the Library of
Congress.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION Ig9
association were noted in the newspapers. In one instance,
Captain Spier of the Sharpe, whose conduct at Philadelphia
had caused his proscription, arrived at Norfolk to ply his
trade. Although the signers of the association took occa-
sion to express their belief that the landing or storing of his
goods would be an offense against the association, neverthe-
less the merchants, William and John Brown, received goods
from him and defied the local committee. In Rind's Vir-
ginia Gasette of August 2, 1770, the committee published the
facts of the affair, with the statement: "What is further
necessary to be done . . . is submitted to the Consideration
of the Virginia Associators. "
Considerably more pains were taken to enforce the as-
sociation jp Maryland and wifh greater success. The non-
importation combination in that province gained much
strength from the proximity of the Maryland ports to
Philadelphia and from the fact that non-importation had re-
ceived some local mercantile support from the beginning.
The number of native merchants was greater than in Vir-
ginia; and indeed Baltimore was showing indications of
becoming a commercial rival of Philadelphia. 1 The execu-
tion of the Maryland pact was jealously scrutinized by the
merchants at Philadelphia, and for a time the good faith
of the Baltimore merchants was suspected. This feeling
took definite shape in November, 1769, when the Baltimore
Committee of Merchants permitted two merchants to bring
in goods, valued at ? 2600, that violated the local agreement
of March 30. In the one case, the importer had satisfied a
meeting of associators that he had received a special exemp-
tion covering the fall shipments; and, in the other, it had
been shown that the goods were permitted by the general
Maryland association which postdated the local agreement.
1 Lincoln, Revolutionary Movement in Pa. , pp. 59-65.
? ? 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
? 200 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
These occurrences brought a sharp letter from the Philadel-
phia Committee of Merchants, with an intimation that the
Marylanders were plotting to deflect trade from Phila-
delphia and a warning that their conduct would surely bring
on them a rigorous boycott. When they got further light,
however, the Philadelphia Committee freely admitted their
error and expressed pleasure at the upright conduct of Balti-
more. 1 In view of no evidence to the contrary, the mer-
chants of Baltimore seem to have merited this good opinion.
Thus, in May, 1770, a meeting of merchants refused to
permit a shipment, valued at ? 1292, to be landed. 2
In all Maryland, the best known case of enforcement was
that of the brigantine Good Intent at Annapolis in Febru-
ary, 1770. 8 Courts of law have seldom sat on cases involv-
ing nicer points of interpretation; and few better examples
could be found of the application of a rule of conduct
against the wish and interest of individuals. The Good
Intent arrived from London heavily laden with European
goods for a number of mercantile houses of Annapolis.
James Dick and Anthony Stewart, the largest importers and
respected merchants of the town, admitted that their own
shipment amounted to ? 1377, of which only ? 715 worth con-
sisted of articles permitted by the agreement. Believing
that the character of the importations was being widely
misunderstood, Dick & Stewart requested a joint meeting
1 Md. Gas. , Dec. 28, 1769; Papers of Phila. Merchants, pp. 45-47, 62-63.
1 Pa. Gas. , June 7, 1770; also N. Y. Journ. , June 7.
1 The Proceedings of the Committee Appointed to examine . . .
Brigantine Good Intent . . . (Annapolis, 1770), reprinted in Md. Hist.
Mag. , vol. iii, pp. 141-157, 240-256, 342-363; statement of minority of
this committee in Md. Gas. , Apr. 19, 1770. An abstract of the pam-
phlet was published in ibid. , Feb. 14, and copied into N. Y. Journ. , Mch.
8. Vide also Governor Eden's correspondence with reference to this
affair in 4 M. H. S. Colls. , vol. x, pp. 621-626.
? ? 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 2OI
of the committees of the counties of Baltimore, Prince
George and Anne Arundel to render judgment in the matter,
and agreed that no goods should be removed from the
vessel for twelve days after its arrival. Before this joint
committee a vast mass of evidence was laid by the various
importers, consisting of correspondence, manifests, invoices,
shop-notes, bills of lading and other papers. After careful
consideration, "Abundant and satisfactory Proofs " 1 made
it clear that the importers had ordered their goods before
any association had been formed in Maryland; but the com-
mittee held that, long since, the orders had properly become
"dead," because of the protracted delay of the London
shipper in sending the goods after hearing of the Maryland
Association, and because of countermanding orders in other
cases. The shipper's belated performance of his orders was
attributed to his "ungenerous Principle . . . in trumping
up old Orders to colour a premeditated Design to subvert
the Association. " Therefore, the committee resolved that
merchandise debarred by the association should not be
landed, and that, as the allowable articles were packed in
with them, no goods at all should be landed.
? I90 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
ment, and on the demand of the committee of inspection he
surrendered his goods, worth almost ? 200, to be stored.
About one o'clock that night a number of persons in dis-
guise took forcible possession of the goods and committed
the whole to the flames. Without further warning, Hills
fled the town. The committee of inspection made this the
occasion for a solemn preachment and warning. In a
signed statement, the midnight visitation was stigmatized
as " a high Insult" offered to the committee and to the city
by "some lawless Ruffians," and every good citizen was
urged to do all in his power " to bring the Authors, Aiders
and Abettors of so unwarrantable an Act to speedy Justice. "1
Naturally the offenders continued undiscovered; but these
new instances of mob assertion had a controlling influence
on the course of the merchants in the subsequent years.
There is every reason to believe that non-importation was
exceedingly well enforced in New York. The committee
had no difficulty to contend with, except the greed of those
merchants who sought to import goods at the prevailing high
prices. It was claimed in December, 1769, that every bit of
goods brought in contrary to the agreement had been placed
in the public store. 2 Although this high standard of per-
fection was not reached, the figures show that the importa-
tions from Great Britain in 1769 had fallen to ? 75,930, as
compared with ? 490,673 in the preceding year, a record
which was not equalled or even approached in any other
province. 8
1 N. - Y. Journ. , June 28, July 5, 1770.
1Letter from New York; Mass. Gas. & News-L<<tter, Dec. 21, 1769.
1 Macpherson, Annals of Com. , vol. iii, pp. 486, 494-495. The British
importations into New York in 1770 amounted to ? 475,991. Ibid. , p.
508. It is, of course, impossible to know what proportion of the
goods imported during these years was permissible under the agree-
ment. It will be remembered that the agreement was also directed
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION Io,1
In Philadelphia the opposition to non-importation, once
that measure had been adopted, was even milder in char-
acter. The body of merchants were its hearty supporters,
although there was a pronounced feeling on the part of the
importers of British drygoods that the provisions of the local
agreement discriminated unjustly against them. Their com-
plaint was that their commerce was cut off, while the mer-
chants who traded with the West Indies and the Wine
Islands continued their business as before the agreement;
and they pointed out that these prospering traders were
paying duties upon importations of molasses and wines and
thus counteracting the principle of home rule in taxation,
for which the Americans professed to be fighting. More-
over, the merchants of Maryland and Albany, acting under
more liberal agreements, were importing goods for the In-
dian trade, a privilege that was denied to the Philadelphia
merchants. 1 Their dissatisfaction with the agreement took
the form of efforts to modify it or repeal it rather than
clandestine attempts to violate it.
The Society of Friends, in which some of the great mer-
chants were very influential, found an early occasion to take
an official stand against it. At the time of the Stamp Act,
more than fifty of them, including such prominent Quakers
as Israel and James Pemberton, had signed the agreement;
and indeed the measure appeared to be a Quaker method of
resistance. But the present agreement was more rigorous
in its terms; and when the Charming Polly episode disclosed
that the populace, most of whom " were incapable of judg-
ing prudently on a matter of so great importance," might
against smuggled importations from Hamburg and Holland. There
were no published accounts of efforts to enforce these latter restric-
tions. "A. B. " in the N. Y. Journ. , Nov. 23, 1760, made an incidental
reference to the storing of large consignments from foreign merchants.
1 Pa. Gas. , Jan. 25, 1770; Pa. Mag. , vol. xiv, p. 42.
? ? 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
? I92 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
be called in to exert force in executing the agreement, the
monthly meeting of Philadelphia advised Friends to have
nothing to do with non-importation measures. 1 Neverthe-
less, many prominent Quakers were concerned in the agree-
ment, including John Reynell who headed the committee
of inspection.
The Philadelphia merchants established an excellent rec-
ord of enforcement. On Monday, July 17, 1769, occurred
the first effort to violate the agreement, when the Charming
Polly with a cargo of malt arrived in port. Amos Strettell,
the consignee, was able to show that he had not ordered
the malt; and at a public meeting the following day the
brewers of the city presented an agreement that they would
have none of it. The meeting voted unanimously that any
person who bought any of the malt or helped to unload it
should be deemed an "Enemy to his Country. " A week
later, the captain of the brig, not perhaps lacking a sense of
humor, sailed with his malt to Cork. 2 On July 29, the brig
Speedwell arrived with some debarred goods, which had been
ordered prior to the agreement; these were placed in a
public store. 8
The expeditious return of imports commended itself as
a better device than the storing of them on either the New
York or the Boston plan. The Philadelphia Committee
believed it would defeat the scheme of " some monied peo-
ple" in England " to buy up quantities of manufactures on
easy terms and lodge them in the principal towns in America
to be ready for the first opening of the markets after the
repeal. " * Therefore, at a meeting of August 2, the mer-
1 Sharpless, I. , The Quakers in the Revolution (Philadelphia, 1899),
pp. 77-80; Lincoln, Revolutionary Movement in Pa. , p. 151.
1 Pa. Journ. , July 20, 1769; also N. Y. Ga*. & Merc. , July 24.
1Pa. Journ. , Aug. 3, 1769.
4 Papers of Phila. Merchants, pp. 29-31.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION
chants decided that all goods, which arrived from England
on consignment or which had been ordered after February
6, should not be stored as other goods but should be sent
back. 1 This plan was followed thereafter. A notable case
of enforcement occurred when the Friend's Good Will ar-
rived on September 30 with a great quantity of merchandise
shipped by British merchants on speculation. These goods
were said to have been offered to eighty-four merchants in
vain; and the brig returned with her cargo intact. 2 In
December, the signers of the agreement authorized the com-
mittee to auction off such stored goods as were likely to
perish from prolonged storing, the profits of such sale to
be devoted to some public use. 8
The committee of inspection continued its activities far
into the year 1770 and did not find it necessary to proscribe
offenders by name until June of that year. 4 Statistics show
that British imports had been reduced in value from ? 441,-
829 in 1768 to ? 204,978 in the year 1769, and to ? 134,881
in 1770. 8 Next to New York, this was the best record of
any province for the year 1769, and the best record on the
continent for the year 1770. The enforcement of non-
importation was free from all exhibitions of mob violence,
1 Pa. Gas. , Aug. 3, 1769; also Pa. Journ. , Aug. 3.
* Pa. lourn. , Oct. 5, 1769; 5. C. Gas. , Nov. 16. The committee of
inspection also had to be watchful to detect fraudulent practices on
the part of British merchants. In one instance, Stephen Collins
solemnly informed the London merchant, Samuel Elam, "thy Brother
Emanuel was found' to have antedated his Invoices and Letters in
sutch a manner as to Lead people here [to] talke very freely of them. "
A few months later, he returned a bale of cloth sent by Samuel Elam
himself contrary to orders, with the admonition: "I am realy sorry
for thy sake it has happened, as many people seem mutch Disaffected. "
Collins, Letter Book 1760-1773, Sept. 18, Dec, 11, 1769.
1 Papers of Phila. Merchants, pp. 64-67.
? E. g. , vide Pa. Journ. , July 5, 12, 28, 1770.
1 Macpherson, Annals of Com. , vol. iii, pp. 485, 494-495, 508.
? ? 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
largely because goods violative of the agreement were im-
mediately re-shipped to Great Britain.
Of the minor provinces in the commercial group, New
Hampshire took a belated stand on the side of non-importa-
tion when the emotions of the people were deeply stirred
by the news of the Boston Massacre. As late as February,
1770, Governor Wentworth had written that some Scotch
merchants were plying a trade in imported wares undis-
turbed. 1 After the fateful fifth of March, all indifference
vanished among the people. "The cry of Blood, reechoed
from one to the other, seems to infuriate them," wrote the
governor. "Upon this event the Assembly were prevailed
upon to forward their petition, which would otherwise have
slept forever; the people will not be persuaded but that the
Commissioners of the Customs and the Revenue Acts are
exerted to destroy the lives and absorb the property of the
people. " 2 The first action was taken by town meetings at
New Ipswich and Exeter, two towns located not far from
the Massachusetts line. New Ipswich was a sparsely settled
township with trading relations solely with Boston; and on
March 19, they resolved to purchase no articles forbidden
by the Boston agreement and to boycott all importers. 8
The inhabitants of Exeter, notwithstanding the reputation
they enjoyed of living up to " the tip top of the Fashion,""
agreed a week later to discourage the use of foreign luxuries
and to stop totally the consumption of tea until the duty
should be removed. 4 No action was taken by Portsmouth,
the chief port, until McMasters, a proscribed importer of
1 Vide supra, p. 155.
1Brit. Papers ("Sparks Mss. "), voL i, p. 17. Letter of Apr. 12, 1770
to Hillsborough.
1 Bos. Eve. Post, Apr. 9, 1770.
4 N. H. Gas. , Apr. 1. 3, May 11, 1770.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTA TION
195
Boston, sought to introduce his wares there. The town
meeting, on April n, resolved to have no dealings with
McMasters or any other importer, and to boycott vendue
masters and coasting vessels that were in any way connected
with them.
They even threatened to cancel the licenses of
tavern-keepers who permitted such goods to be exposed
for sale in their houses. 1 The movement in New Hamp-
shire partook too much of the nature of an emotional revival
to be lasting in its effects; and, as we shall see, the merchants
at Portsmouth resumed importation as soon as the excite-
ment subsided.
Of the remaining northern provinces, Rhode Island was
the only province whose conduct resembled, in any respect,
that of New Hampshire. Dragged into the non-importa-
tion league by threats of boycott by the great trading-towns,
the merchants at Newport regarded their tardy agreement
with keenest disrelish. Hutchinson voiced the common
opinion of other provinces when he said: "Rhode Island
professed to Join but privatelv imported to their great
ga1n. 2 When John Maudsley, a member of the Sons of
Liberty, returned from London with goods forbidden by
the agreement, which had been adopted during his absence,
he " cheerfully submitted" the goods to be stored, accord-
ing to the account in the Newport Mercury, April 9, 1770.
But if "Americanus," of Swanzey, is to be believed in the
Boston Gasette, May 7, the goods in question were placed
in Maudsley's store on the wharf, and, after dark, were
carted to his house, immediately opened and publicly sold
to almost every shop in Newport, unnoticed by the Mer-
chants' Committee. This tale bears the color of truth.
Certain it is that the Merchants' Committee at Newport
1 N. H. Gas. , Apr. 13, 1770; also Bos. Eve. Post, Apr. 16.
1Mass. Bay, voL iii, p. 261 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
? 196 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1778
never displayed any noticeable activity in detecting tabooed
importations.
All evidence would indicate that New Jersey, the Dela-
ware Counties and Connecticut were true to their profes-
sions of non-importation and non-consumption. In the case
of Connecticut, "A Freeman of Connecticut " wrote in July,
1770, with every assurance of truth, that the various agree-
ments of the towns had been kept "save in three or four
trivial instances, inadvertently and inconsiderately done;
and in every instance, one excepted, public satisfaction has
been given and the goods stored. " 1 The exception was a
small importation of tea from Boston.
1 Conn. Courant, July 30, 1770. A case, which gained local notoriety,
was the importation of some coarse woolens by Mr. Verstille, of Weath-
ersfield, a man who had been in England when the non-importation
agreement was adopted As the merits of the case were not at all
clear, some merchants cut the knot by buying the goods from Verstille
and placing them in store at their expense. Ibid. , Mch. 5.
? ? 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
? CHAPTER V
ENFORCEMENT AND BBEAKDOWN OF NON-IMPORTATION
(Continued)
plantation provinces, non-importation and the prob-
jems of its enforcement wel'tf llllllll leii. a bart ot the fabric
of everyday l1fe flp" m t^e mmrnercial provinces. The
agreements and associations had been promoted by the plant-
ing class in opposition to the small, active mercantile class;
and in the general absence of trading centres, it was difficult
for the planting element to implant the fear of discipline
in the hearts of the merchants. The geographical distribu-
tion of southern society deprived the planters of the oppor-
tunity of exerting their influence compactly, except at the
periodical meetings of the legislative assemblies. Further-
more, since the economic discontent in the South was not
directly traceable to the Townshend duties and restrictions,
a literal obedience to the agreements did not always seem
imperative to the planters themselves. 1 The result was that
1 The conduct of George Washington probably typified the attitude
of many of the planters toward the non-importation association. On
July 25, 1769, he ordered a bill of goods from a London house, with
instructions that: "If there are any articles contained in either of
the invoices (paper only excepted) which are taxed by act of Parlia-
ment . . . it is my express desire . . . that they may not be sent. "
Washington ignored the fact that a long list of household luxuries and
personal fineries were <<qually under the ban with the dutied articles.
Vide supra, p. 137 n. A little more than a year later, however, he placed
orders in London for goods, which seemed to correspond entirely
with the provisions of the Virginia association. Washington, Writings
(Ford), vol. ii, pp. 270 n. , 284 n.
197
? ? 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
? Igg THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
vinces actually
increasd-somwhat in
the commercial provinces, they declined two-thirds in the
year 1769 as compared with the year 1768, and fell below
the level of 1768 even in the year 1770 when the agreements
collapsed. Virginia appears to have, been the worst-of-
fender quantitatively. To Mf^Y1""^ inri c^uth r-irnlim
falls the distinction of having made tTle Tingt knnnraKlp
record.
Soon after the adoption of the Virginia Association of
May 1 8, 1769, it became evident that the factors dominated
the situation in the province and that, unless their aid was
enlisted, the association could be hardly more than a glitter-
ing futility. 1 A new and even more liberal plan was there-
fore drafted; and on June 22, 1770, it was jointly adopted
by the members of the House of Burgesses and the merchant
body of Williamsburg. The new association was a lengthy
document which covered the essential points of the earlier
agreement. Several changes were made in the list of articles
enumerated for non-importation. A regulation was added
to boycott importers who defied the association or who
bought goods imported into Virginia because rejected in
other provinces; and a committee of inspection was au-
thorized for each county with instructions to publish the
names of all offenders. The association was signed by the
moderator, Peyton Randolph, by Andrew Sprowle, chairman
of the Williamsburg traders, and by one hundred and sixty-
six others. Copies of the association were sent to the coun-
ties for signing. 2 Only one or two attempts to enforce the
1Bland, Papers (Campbell, C. , ed. ), vol. i, pp. 28-30; Washington,
Writings (Ford), vol. ii, pp. 280-283.
? Pa. Gas. , July 12, 1770; also N. Y. Journ. , July 19. A copy, signed
by sixty-two inhabitants of Fairfax County, is in the Library of
Congress.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION Ig9
association were noted in the newspapers. In one instance,
Captain Spier of the Sharpe, whose conduct at Philadelphia
had caused his proscription, arrived at Norfolk to ply his
trade. Although the signers of the association took occa-
sion to express their belief that the landing or storing of his
goods would be an offense against the association, neverthe-
less the merchants, William and John Brown, received goods
from him and defied the local committee. In Rind's Vir-
ginia Gasette of August 2, 1770, the committee published the
facts of the affair, with the statement: "What is further
necessary to be done . . . is submitted to the Consideration
of the Virginia Associators. "
Considerably more pains were taken to enforce the as-
sociation jp Maryland and wifh greater success. The non-
importation combination in that province gained much
strength from the proximity of the Maryland ports to
Philadelphia and from the fact that non-importation had re-
ceived some local mercantile support from the beginning.
The number of native merchants was greater than in Vir-
ginia; and indeed Baltimore was showing indications of
becoming a commercial rival of Philadelphia. 1 The execu-
tion of the Maryland pact was jealously scrutinized by the
merchants at Philadelphia, and for a time the good faith
of the Baltimore merchants was suspected. This feeling
took definite shape in November, 1769, when the Baltimore
Committee of Merchants permitted two merchants to bring
in goods, valued at ? 2600, that violated the local agreement
of March 30. In the one case, the importer had satisfied a
meeting of associators that he had received a special exemp-
tion covering the fall shipments; and, in the other, it had
been shown that the goods were permitted by the general
Maryland association which postdated the local agreement.
1 Lincoln, Revolutionary Movement in Pa. , pp. 59-65.
? ? 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
? 200 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
These occurrences brought a sharp letter from the Philadel-
phia Committee of Merchants, with an intimation that the
Marylanders were plotting to deflect trade from Phila-
delphia and a warning that their conduct would surely bring
on them a rigorous boycott. When they got further light,
however, the Philadelphia Committee freely admitted their
error and expressed pleasure at the upright conduct of Balti-
more. 1 In view of no evidence to the contrary, the mer-
chants of Baltimore seem to have merited this good opinion.
Thus, in May, 1770, a meeting of merchants refused to
permit a shipment, valued at ? 1292, to be landed. 2
In all Maryland, the best known case of enforcement was
that of the brigantine Good Intent at Annapolis in Febru-
ary, 1770. 8 Courts of law have seldom sat on cases involv-
ing nicer points of interpretation; and few better examples
could be found of the application of a rule of conduct
against the wish and interest of individuals. The Good
Intent arrived from London heavily laden with European
goods for a number of mercantile houses of Annapolis.
James Dick and Anthony Stewart, the largest importers and
respected merchants of the town, admitted that their own
shipment amounted to ? 1377, of which only ? 715 worth con-
sisted of articles permitted by the agreement. Believing
that the character of the importations was being widely
misunderstood, Dick & Stewart requested a joint meeting
1 Md. Gas. , Dec. 28, 1769; Papers of Phila. Merchants, pp. 45-47, 62-63.
1 Pa. Gas. , June 7, 1770; also N. Y. Journ. , June 7.
1 The Proceedings of the Committee Appointed to examine . . .
Brigantine Good Intent . . . (Annapolis, 1770), reprinted in Md. Hist.
Mag. , vol. iii, pp. 141-157, 240-256, 342-363; statement of minority of
this committee in Md. Gas. , Apr. 19, 1770. An abstract of the pam-
phlet was published in ibid. , Feb. 14, and copied into N. Y. Journ. , Mch.
8. Vide also Governor Eden's correspondence with reference to this
affair in 4 M. H. S. Colls. , vol. x, pp. 621-626.
? ? 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 2OI
of the committees of the counties of Baltimore, Prince
George and Anne Arundel to render judgment in the matter,
and agreed that no goods should be removed from the
vessel for twelve days after its arrival. Before this joint
committee a vast mass of evidence was laid by the various
importers, consisting of correspondence, manifests, invoices,
shop-notes, bills of lading and other papers. After careful
consideration, "Abundant and satisfactory Proofs " 1 made
it clear that the importers had ordered their goods before
any association had been formed in Maryland; but the com-
mittee held that, long since, the orders had properly become
"dead," because of the protracted delay of the London
shipper in sending the goods after hearing of the Maryland
Association, and because of countermanding orders in other
cases. The shipper's belated performance of his orders was
attributed to his "ungenerous Principle . . . in trumping
up old Orders to colour a premeditated Design to subvert
the Association. " Therefore, the committee resolved that
merchandise debarred by the association should not be
landed, and that, as the allowable articles were packed in
with them, no goods at all should be landed.
