The non-
importation pact was there based upon an agreement of the
merchants, confirmed and supported by a separate agree-
ment of the tradesmen and workingmen.
importation pact was there based upon an agreement of the
merchants, confirmed and supported by a separate agree-
ment of the tradesmen and workingmen.
Arthur Schlesinger - Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution
Gas.
.
June 2, 9, 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
? 2I6 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
of anger swept up and down the coast; and by the early days
of July trading relations had been suspended by the leading
ports of eight provinces. 1 The Rhode Islanders began to
perceive, as Stephen Collins had predicted, that where they
gained a penny in the trade of British drygoods, they stood
a chance of losing a pound in their coastwise trade. 2 The
Boston trade sent a committee, headed by Molineux, to
Newport and Providence to induce the merchants to enter
new resolutions. Both towns acceded -- the Newport mer-
chants on August 20 8 -- and, on a recommendation of the
Boston merchants, the merchants of Philadelphia and
Charleston now re-established trading connections with the
city. 4
In New Hampshire, the merchants had remained un-
">>
but, it will be remembered, the inhabitants in general had
been inflamed to resolutions of protest and non-importation
by the event of the Boston Massacre. Several weeks later,
the Boston trade learned that Portsmouth merchants were
importing British merchandise on a larger scale than ever be-
fore; and on June 18, they instituted a boycott against that
province. 6 The trading towns on the Connecticut river
followed the example of Boston. * The inhabitants of the
little parish of Rye, New Hampshire, near the Massachu-
1Mass. , N. Y. , Conn, Pa. , Md. , Del. , N. C, S. C. Vide files of N. Y.
Journ. Newport coasting-sloops were actually turned back at Marble-
head, New Haven, New York, Philadelphia, Chester, Baltimore, Nor-
folk and Charleston, S. C.
'Collins, Letter-Book 1760-1773, June 8, 1770.
? Newport Merc. , Aug. 27, 1770; N. Y. Journ. , Aug. 30.
4 Mass. Spy, Aug. 14, 1770; Pa. Gas. , Sept. 20; 5. C. Gas. , Oct . 18, 25.
? Bos. Eve. Post, June 11, 25, 1770. For an instance of enforcement,
vide ibid. , July 9.
? Essex Gaz. , July 2, 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 217
setts border, voted unanimously to unite with Boston in non-
importation; 1 but Portsmouth, the chief centre of popula-
tion, remained unmoved. "One of the Boston zealots was
immediately dispatched here," wrote Governor Wentworth
to the home government; and he carried with him a ready-
prepared report, "expressed in the most abusive terms,"
for adoption by the town meeting. But his machinations
were in vain; he "decamped precipitately for Boston" in
fear of tar and feathers; and the town meeting, by a poll
of ten to one, dismissed the whole matter and dissolved
the meeting. 2
After all, the bone and sinew of the non-importation
movement were the agreements of the great trading towns
of Boston, New York and Philadelphia. On the action of
these towns depended the integrity of the commercial com-
bination. Should the merchants of any of these towns accept
the partial repeal as satisfactory and proceed to revoke their
boycott of British importations, this breach in the non-im-
portation dike would render the whole barrier useless.
There was no indecision at Boston. When the merchants
there learned, at a meeting of April 25, 1770, that some of
their nurnhpr V1aH nrrW^H grwlc tr> ha chipppH 11pnn thf>
passage of the partial repeal^ it was agreefj foflt this event
would not justifv a re-opening of trade, and it was voted that
the floods should he re-shipped immediately upon their
arrival. 8 But in both Philadelphia and New York, there
was a sharp div1s1on ot sent1ment, the al1yrfmpnt Hp1ngr be_
1 N. H. Gas. , July 27, 1770; also Bos. Eve. Post, July 30.
1 Brit. Papers (" Sparks Mss. "), vol. i, p. 18; N. H. Gas. , July 13, 1770.
1 Letter of Boston Comm. in N. Y. Journ. , May 10, 1770. Tea was
excepted from this vote upon the belief that the act of 1 1 George I,
c. 30, sec 8, would thereby be violated. Ibid. , July 5. The merchants
were later obliged to publish the names of five merchants who refused
to obey. Mass. Spy, Aug. 14.
? ? 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
? 218 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
t"\Vf>>^tl tnf>> Ipa f> 1"tf T >\ > * i"j " B 1 "i n f' g 'WHO iir^>-^ will i ncr tf> p
the remedial legislation of Pgrli^rppnt ^s the hest that could
be atta1ned unHer tbo ^'i-rnmgt^^^^ ^nd the non-mercantile.
propertyless population, who were fired with the current
political views and consider^ \\\* igc"f ~f +"""+1TM un-
^hanged until every one of the Townshend duties had been
removed. In both cities, there was an active dispute over
the mer1ts of the situation, and a further controversy over
the question of where the power lay to re-open importation.
It was clear that the merchants had been the prime movers
in non-importation; but they had depended upon the popu-
lace for endorsement and support. Could the merchants
give up their agreement without the consent of the populace?
ia. the importers of British goods had been
nursing a particular grievance because the importers of
wines and molasses remained undisturbed in their traffic,
notwithstanding that duties derived from these sources were
piling up in the British treasury. Moreover, the Maryland
Agreement, differing from the Philadelphia Agreement, per-
mitted the importation of coarse woolens, an article neces-
sary for the Indian trade; and the Maryland merchants were
running away with their trade. 1 As a protest, four mem-
bers, including John Reynell, the chairman, resigned from
the Committee of Merchants, and three others ceased to at-
tend meetings; the committee was reduced to twelve mem-
bers. 2 The^g ex-rnernbers. with other interesfetj merchants.
began to agitate a relaxation of the agreement, and quickly
drew the fire of the newspaper writers.
An article in the Pennsylvania Chronicle, May 7, 1770,
maintained that the merchants would be J7ftr! Y'r'fT tne
American cause, if importation were resumed, and that the
1 Pa. Mag. , vol . xiv, pp. 42-43.
1 Circular letter of the "late Committee," Pa. Chron. , Oct. 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
? NON-IMPORTATION
219
-consuming- class wpujtl buy no goods from them in such a
contingenc^i. ) Other writers denied that two or three hun-
dred signers of the agreement had " the sole right to deter-
mine a question of liberty that most nearly concerns every
freeman of this province. " z A meeting of the subscribers
of the non-importation was called for Monday afternoon,
May 14. As many of the signers were not in the import-
ing business and were thus likely to vote a continuance of
the agreement, the importing merchants held several sessions
in preparation for the occasion and agreed that each should
"be present promptly at the hour set and bring with him a
friend. This scheme was detected at the last moment and
. exposed in a broadside, addressed to the artificers, manu-
facturers and mechanics, probably written by Charles Thom-
son. * As a result, the meeting, when it assembled, was
prevailed upon to postpone definite action until June 5 and,
in the meantime, to consult with the merchants of New
York and Boston. 4
The merchants of the sister ports, however, declared
against any change in their agreements, Boston on principle,
New York because of the hope that the tea duty would be
repealed in the next few weeks. " Dn May 23f a meeting
of the wprkingmen and tradesmen of Philadelphia resolved
their unanimous determ1nat1on 'to render the non-1mporta-
tion, as it now stands, permanent, and agreed to support
this action at the meeting of June 5. " About the same time,
1For similar arguments, vide "Tradesman" in ibid. . May 21, 1770;
"Nestor" in Pa. Journ. , July 12, Aug. 9.
1" Cato" in Pa. Chron. , June 4, 1770; "Son of Liberty" in Pa.
Gaz. , May 31; letter from Philadelphia in N. Y. Journ. , May 31.
* Pa. Chron. , May 14, 1770; Pa. Mag. , vol. xiv, pp. 43-44.
4 N. Y. Journ. , Aug. 16, 1770.
* Bos. Eve. Post, May 28, 1770; N. Y. Journ. , May 24, Aug. 16.
* Pa. Gaz. , May 24, 1770; also N. Y. Journ. , May 31.
? ? 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
? 220
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
letters were received by Joseph Galloway and Charles Thom-
son from Doctor Franklin in England, urging Philadelphia
to persist in the agreement; and his advice had "wonder-
ful effects. " 1 The trend of events was distinctly turning in
favor of the opponents of change; and at the general meet-
ing of inhabitants on June 5, the signers of the agreement,
having first met by themselves, agreed, with only four dis-
senting votes, to make no alteration in it " at this time. " *
The inhabitants of New York engaged in a similar con-
troversy, although the outcome was different.
The non-
importation pact was there based upon an agreement of the
merchants, confirmed and supported by a separate agree-
ment of the tradesmen and workingmen. The issue be-
tween the two groups was made clear in the opening sen-
tences of a broadside issued about the middle of May:
Li' Nothing can be more flagrantly wrong than the Assertion
of some of our Mercantile Dons that the Mechanics have
no Right to give their Sentiments about the Importation of
British Commodities. . . . What particular Class among
us has an exclusive Right to decide a Question of General
Concern? " <<J
At a meeting on May 18, prompted by the letter from
Philadelphia, the merchants decided, as we have seen, "to
wait a few Weeks longer in Hopes of hearing the Duty on
Tea would also be repealed" before taking any action. 4
This brought about a meeting of the inhabitants of all ranks,
who voted by a large majority to preserve the non-importa-
tion inviolate and to boycott all persons who should trans-
gress it. They also issued a pronunciamento against the
1 Pa. Mag. , vol. xiv, p. 45; Colden, Letter Books, vol. ii, p. 223.
* Pa. Gas. , June 7, 1770.
1 Broadside in N. Y. Pub. Libr. , signed "Brutus. "
4 N. Y. Journ. , May 24, Aug. 16, 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 22I
cargo of a Glasgow vessel then in the harbor, a matter al-
ready dealt with in regular manner by the Committee of
Merchants. 1 The Committee of Merchants accepted the
issue, resigned their seats because of the irregular proceed-
ings of the mass meeting, and had the satisfaction of being
re-elected at a public meeting of citizens. 2 On the strength
of this vindication, the Committee of Merchants, now con-
vinced that hope of a total repeal of the Townshend duties
was illusory, determined to abandon the agreement and con-
fine non-importation only to dutied articles; and for this
purpose they invited the merchants of the non-importing
commercial provinces to send delegates to a congress at
Norwalk on June 18, "to adopt one general solid System
for the Benefit of the Whole, that no one Colony may be
liable to the Censure or Reproaches of another . . . " *
The invitation found the other trading towns in anything
but a receptive mood. The Boston trade voted unanimously
to have nothing to do with it, chiefly for the reason that any
deviation from the present agreement would create an im-
pression in England prejudicial to a further redress of
grievances. 4 The merchants of Essex County, New Jersey,
asked pointedly: " Shall we meet to consult whether we have
Honour or Faith or public Virtue . . . If you had proposed
a Meeting for strengthening . . . the Resolutions of the
Colonies, we should have joined you. " B Hardly less de-
cisive were the answers of meetings at Newark and New
1 This meeting occurred on May 30. Ibid. , June 7, 1770.
1 The re-election occurred on June 1. N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , June 4,
1770; N. Y. Journ. , June 7.
'Circular letter of June 2; New London Gas. , June 15, 1770; also
N. Y. Journ. , June 28, Aug. 16.
4 The Boston meeting occurred on June 8. Bos. Eve. Post, June 11,
1770; also N. Y. Journ. , June 21.
6 Ibid. , July 5, 1770; also / N. J. Arch. , vol. xxvii, pp. 193-194.
? ? 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
? 222
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
Brunswick a few days later, although the people of the latter
place agreed to accept the conclusions of the Norwalk con-
gress. 1 Even the Philadelphia merchants, stiffened by the
action of the public meeting of June 5, advised against pr&-
cipitate measures, and refused to take part in the proposed
congress. 2 Only at Hartford and Providence did the mer-
chants actually appoint delegates; and the latter rescinded
their action when they learned of Boston's declination. *
The New Yorkers were thus forced to solve their problem
according to their own lights.
It was probably the unfavorable action of the Boston
merchants that determined the New York promoters of
importation to abandon the project of a congress and to
concentrate their efforts at once on the local situation.
Their plan was to ascertain the sentirnpnts of the inhabitants
by ajj|Quse-to-house poll. When " a number of selfish, mer-
cenary importers and a few mechanicks" proposed this
course to the Committee of Merchants, that body, while
withholding official assent, made it clear that they would not
discountenance the proceedings. 4 How deeply individual
members of the committee were interested in this scheme
was revealed on June 14 when the ultra-radical Isaac Sears
and the shopkeeper Peter Vander Voort resigned member-
ship on the ground that many of the committee were work-
ing to break through the agreement. 5 Beginning on June
1 N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , Aug. 6, 1770; N. Y. Journ. , June 28.
1 Letter of June 18; ibid. , Aug. 9, 1770.
1 New London Gas. , June 15, 1770; Prov. Gas. , June 16.
4 N. Y. Journ. , June 21, 1770. The words quoted are taken from
an account by "A Son of Liberty" in the same issue. Vide also N.
Y. Gas. & Post-Boy, July 2.
? AT. Y. Journ. , June 21, 1770. Jacob Watson and Edward Laight
were among those who worked openly for an alteration of the agree-
ment. Ibid. , 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-IMPORTA TION
223
12, the poll was taken by persons appointed in each ward,
each inhabitant being asked if he approved of confining non-
importation to tea and other dutied articles, provided Boston
and Philadelphia concurred; or if he preferred the continu-
ance of the present agreement. Now, as the promoters of
the poll knew of the unfaltering resolution of Boston, it is
clear, as the non-importers charged, that their motive was
to feel the pulse of the people with a view of determining
whether it would be safe to ask their support later when
it was learned that the other two towns had refused to co-
operate. The canvass showed that 1180 persons favored
re-opening trade in concert with Boston and Philadelphia,
about 300 were indifferent or unwilling to talk, and a minor-
ity, whose number was not stated, preferred the existing
system. Colden noted that "the principal Inhabitants"
voted for importation and that " few of any distinction de-
clared in opposition to it. " * The opposition protested that
the voters for importation were hardly one-fourth of the
city people entitled to vote, and that the country folks should
have been consulted.
On June 16, letters were despatched to Boston and Phila-
delphia with news of the New York vote. The merchants
in those places, however, saw no reason for revising their
former decisions. 2 On July 4 a broadside, scattered about
1 Letter Books, vol. ii, p. 223.
* N. Y. Journ. , July 5, 1770; Bos. Eve. Post, July 2. The Boston
Committee of Merchants reminded the New York Committee that,
as the preamble of the Townshend Act remained unrepealed, it was
clear that the tea duty was retained expressly for raising a revenue.
Furthermore, they asserted that the sentiment of Boston had been
ascertained in the surest way, "that is, not by appointing Gentlemen
to go thro' the several Wards, asking Persons singly, but by calling
a Meeting and there coming to a Conclusion after fair Debate and
reasoning upon the Point. " N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , July 30. From
the merchants at Hartford, where Silas Deane was a member of the
committee, came likewise a letter protesting against any alteration.
Conn. Journ. , July 27.
? ? 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
? 224 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-177$
New York, inquired of the public whether, in face of this
uniform response, it would be just or politic or honorable for
New York to undertake a measure " independent of the Ap-
probation of those whose hearty Concurrence we have hither-
to solicited? " New York was reminded of having origin-
ated non-importation at the time of the Stamp Act; "and
shall New York be the first to disgrace an Expedient origin-
ally devised by itself . . . ? " *
But this appeal and others like it fell on deaf ears. The
latter days of June brought to New York authentic news that
an act of Parliament had been passed with the sole view of
relieving business stringency in that province. This was the
statute exempting New York temporarily from the opera-
tjon. ; nf tha fyonpnl prohibition of legal-tender currency.
to
legal-tender paper money. 2 This event removed any re-
maining misgivings that the merchants may have felt; the
body of the trade worked with precision and speed. The
group solidarity of the merchants was clearly revealed by
an article from New York in a Boston newspaper, contain-
ing the names of some of those who were working hardest
for a re-opening of trade. Of the one hundred and twenty-
eight persons named in the article, eighty-five were classed
as merchants or importers; eighteen as dealers or shop-
keepers ; three as vendue-masters ; two as brewers. Of work-
ingmen (such as carpenters, blacksmiths, rope-makers, etc. ),
there were but twelve. * Fifteen of the one hundred and
twenty-eight were members of the Committee of Mer-
1 Signed "Fabius;" N. Y. Journ. , July 12, 1770.
1 10 George III, c. 35; Becker, N. Y. Parties, 1760-1776, pp. 69-71,
77-79, 88.
'"Bona Fide" in Bos. Gas. , July 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
? 2I6 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
of anger swept up and down the coast; and by the early days
of July trading relations had been suspended by the leading
ports of eight provinces. 1 The Rhode Islanders began to
perceive, as Stephen Collins had predicted, that where they
gained a penny in the trade of British drygoods, they stood
a chance of losing a pound in their coastwise trade. 2 The
Boston trade sent a committee, headed by Molineux, to
Newport and Providence to induce the merchants to enter
new resolutions. Both towns acceded -- the Newport mer-
chants on August 20 8 -- and, on a recommendation of the
Boston merchants, the merchants of Philadelphia and
Charleston now re-established trading connections with the
city. 4
In New Hampshire, the merchants had remained un-
">>
but, it will be remembered, the inhabitants in general had
been inflamed to resolutions of protest and non-importation
by the event of the Boston Massacre. Several weeks later,
the Boston trade learned that Portsmouth merchants were
importing British merchandise on a larger scale than ever be-
fore; and on June 18, they instituted a boycott against that
province. 6 The trading towns on the Connecticut river
followed the example of Boston. * The inhabitants of the
little parish of Rye, New Hampshire, near the Massachu-
1Mass. , N. Y. , Conn, Pa. , Md. , Del. , N. C, S. C. Vide files of N. Y.
Journ. Newport coasting-sloops were actually turned back at Marble-
head, New Haven, New York, Philadelphia, Chester, Baltimore, Nor-
folk and Charleston, S. C.
'Collins, Letter-Book 1760-1773, June 8, 1770.
? Newport Merc. , Aug. 27, 1770; N. Y. Journ. , Aug. 30.
4 Mass. Spy, Aug. 14, 1770; Pa. Gas. , Sept. 20; 5. C. Gas. , Oct . 18, 25.
? Bos. Eve. Post, June 11, 25, 1770. For an instance of enforcement,
vide ibid. , July 9.
? Essex Gaz. , July 2, 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 217
setts border, voted unanimously to unite with Boston in non-
importation; 1 but Portsmouth, the chief centre of popula-
tion, remained unmoved. "One of the Boston zealots was
immediately dispatched here," wrote Governor Wentworth
to the home government; and he carried with him a ready-
prepared report, "expressed in the most abusive terms,"
for adoption by the town meeting. But his machinations
were in vain; he "decamped precipitately for Boston" in
fear of tar and feathers; and the town meeting, by a poll
of ten to one, dismissed the whole matter and dissolved
the meeting. 2
After all, the bone and sinew of the non-importation
movement were the agreements of the great trading towns
of Boston, New York and Philadelphia. On the action of
these towns depended the integrity of the commercial com-
bination. Should the merchants of any of these towns accept
the partial repeal as satisfactory and proceed to revoke their
boycott of British importations, this breach in the non-im-
portation dike would render the whole barrier useless.
There was no indecision at Boston. When the merchants
there learned, at a meeting of April 25, 1770, that some of
their nurnhpr V1aH nrrW^H grwlc tr> ha chipppH 11pnn thf>
passage of the partial repeal^ it was agreefj foflt this event
would not justifv a re-opening of trade, and it was voted that
the floods should he re-shipped immediately upon their
arrival. 8 But in both Philadelphia and New York, there
was a sharp div1s1on ot sent1ment, the al1yrfmpnt Hp1ngr be_
1 N. H. Gas. , July 27, 1770; also Bos. Eve. Post, July 30.
1 Brit. Papers (" Sparks Mss. "), vol. i, p. 18; N. H. Gas. , July 13, 1770.
1 Letter of Boston Comm. in N. Y. Journ. , May 10, 1770. Tea was
excepted from this vote upon the belief that the act of 1 1 George I,
c. 30, sec 8, would thereby be violated. Ibid. , July 5. The merchants
were later obliged to publish the names of five merchants who refused
to obey. Mass. Spy, Aug. 14.
? ? 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
? 218 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
t"\Vf>>^tl tnf>> Ipa f> 1"tf T >\ > * i"j " B 1 "i n f' g 'WHO iir^>-^ will i ncr tf> p
the remedial legislation of Pgrli^rppnt ^s the hest that could
be atta1ned unHer tbo ^'i-rnmgt^^^^ ^nd the non-mercantile.
propertyless population, who were fired with the current
political views and consider^ \\\* igc"f ~f +"""+1TM un-
^hanged until every one of the Townshend duties had been
removed. In both cities, there was an active dispute over
the mer1ts of the situation, and a further controversy over
the question of where the power lay to re-open importation.
It was clear that the merchants had been the prime movers
in non-importation; but they had depended upon the popu-
lace for endorsement and support. Could the merchants
give up their agreement without the consent of the populace?
ia. the importers of British goods had been
nursing a particular grievance because the importers of
wines and molasses remained undisturbed in their traffic,
notwithstanding that duties derived from these sources were
piling up in the British treasury. Moreover, the Maryland
Agreement, differing from the Philadelphia Agreement, per-
mitted the importation of coarse woolens, an article neces-
sary for the Indian trade; and the Maryland merchants were
running away with their trade. 1 As a protest, four mem-
bers, including John Reynell, the chairman, resigned from
the Committee of Merchants, and three others ceased to at-
tend meetings; the committee was reduced to twelve mem-
bers. 2 The^g ex-rnernbers. with other interesfetj merchants.
began to agitate a relaxation of the agreement, and quickly
drew the fire of the newspaper writers.
An article in the Pennsylvania Chronicle, May 7, 1770,
maintained that the merchants would be J7ftr! Y'r'fT tne
American cause, if importation were resumed, and that the
1 Pa. Mag. , vol . xiv, pp. 42-43.
1 Circular letter of the "late Committee," Pa. Chron. , Oct. 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
? NON-IMPORTATION
219
-consuming- class wpujtl buy no goods from them in such a
contingenc^i. ) Other writers denied that two or three hun-
dred signers of the agreement had " the sole right to deter-
mine a question of liberty that most nearly concerns every
freeman of this province. " z A meeting of the subscribers
of the non-importation was called for Monday afternoon,
May 14. As many of the signers were not in the import-
ing business and were thus likely to vote a continuance of
the agreement, the importing merchants held several sessions
in preparation for the occasion and agreed that each should
"be present promptly at the hour set and bring with him a
friend. This scheme was detected at the last moment and
. exposed in a broadside, addressed to the artificers, manu-
facturers and mechanics, probably written by Charles Thom-
son. * As a result, the meeting, when it assembled, was
prevailed upon to postpone definite action until June 5 and,
in the meantime, to consult with the merchants of New
York and Boston. 4
The merchants of the sister ports, however, declared
against any change in their agreements, Boston on principle,
New York because of the hope that the tea duty would be
repealed in the next few weeks. " Dn May 23f a meeting
of the wprkingmen and tradesmen of Philadelphia resolved
their unanimous determ1nat1on 'to render the non-1mporta-
tion, as it now stands, permanent, and agreed to support
this action at the meeting of June 5. " About the same time,
1For similar arguments, vide "Tradesman" in ibid. . May 21, 1770;
"Nestor" in Pa. Journ. , July 12, Aug. 9.
1" Cato" in Pa. Chron. , June 4, 1770; "Son of Liberty" in Pa.
Gaz. , May 31; letter from Philadelphia in N. Y. Journ. , May 31.
* Pa. Chron. , May 14, 1770; Pa. Mag. , vol. xiv, pp. 43-44.
4 N. Y. Journ. , Aug. 16, 1770.
* Bos. Eve. Post, May 28, 1770; N. Y. Journ. , May 24, Aug. 16.
* Pa. Gaz. , May 24, 1770; also N. Y. Journ. , May 31.
? ? 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
? 220
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
letters were received by Joseph Galloway and Charles Thom-
son from Doctor Franklin in England, urging Philadelphia
to persist in the agreement; and his advice had "wonder-
ful effects. " 1 The trend of events was distinctly turning in
favor of the opponents of change; and at the general meet-
ing of inhabitants on June 5, the signers of the agreement,
having first met by themselves, agreed, with only four dis-
senting votes, to make no alteration in it " at this time. " *
The inhabitants of New York engaged in a similar con-
troversy, although the outcome was different.
The non-
importation pact was there based upon an agreement of the
merchants, confirmed and supported by a separate agree-
ment of the tradesmen and workingmen. The issue be-
tween the two groups was made clear in the opening sen-
tences of a broadside issued about the middle of May:
Li' Nothing can be more flagrantly wrong than the Assertion
of some of our Mercantile Dons that the Mechanics have
no Right to give their Sentiments about the Importation of
British Commodities. . . . What particular Class among
us has an exclusive Right to decide a Question of General
Concern? " <<J
At a meeting on May 18, prompted by the letter from
Philadelphia, the merchants decided, as we have seen, "to
wait a few Weeks longer in Hopes of hearing the Duty on
Tea would also be repealed" before taking any action. 4
This brought about a meeting of the inhabitants of all ranks,
who voted by a large majority to preserve the non-importa-
tion inviolate and to boycott all persons who should trans-
gress it. They also issued a pronunciamento against the
1 Pa. Mag. , vol. xiv, p. 45; Colden, Letter Books, vol. ii, p. 223.
* Pa. Gas. , June 7, 1770.
1 Broadside in N. Y. Pub. Libr. , signed "Brutus. "
4 N. Y. Journ. , May 24, Aug. 16, 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 22I
cargo of a Glasgow vessel then in the harbor, a matter al-
ready dealt with in regular manner by the Committee of
Merchants. 1 The Committee of Merchants accepted the
issue, resigned their seats because of the irregular proceed-
ings of the mass meeting, and had the satisfaction of being
re-elected at a public meeting of citizens. 2 On the strength
of this vindication, the Committee of Merchants, now con-
vinced that hope of a total repeal of the Townshend duties
was illusory, determined to abandon the agreement and con-
fine non-importation only to dutied articles; and for this
purpose they invited the merchants of the non-importing
commercial provinces to send delegates to a congress at
Norwalk on June 18, "to adopt one general solid System
for the Benefit of the Whole, that no one Colony may be
liable to the Censure or Reproaches of another . . . " *
The invitation found the other trading towns in anything
but a receptive mood. The Boston trade voted unanimously
to have nothing to do with it, chiefly for the reason that any
deviation from the present agreement would create an im-
pression in England prejudicial to a further redress of
grievances. 4 The merchants of Essex County, New Jersey,
asked pointedly: " Shall we meet to consult whether we have
Honour or Faith or public Virtue . . . If you had proposed
a Meeting for strengthening . . . the Resolutions of the
Colonies, we should have joined you. " B Hardly less de-
cisive were the answers of meetings at Newark and New
1 This meeting occurred on May 30. Ibid. , June 7, 1770.
1 The re-election occurred on June 1. N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , June 4,
1770; N. Y. Journ. , June 7.
'Circular letter of June 2; New London Gas. , June 15, 1770; also
N. Y. Journ. , June 28, Aug. 16.
4 The Boston meeting occurred on June 8. Bos. Eve. Post, June 11,
1770; also N. Y. Journ. , June 21.
6 Ibid. , July 5, 1770; also / N. J. Arch. , vol. xxvii, pp. 193-194.
? ? 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
? 222
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
Brunswick a few days later, although the people of the latter
place agreed to accept the conclusions of the Norwalk con-
gress. 1 Even the Philadelphia merchants, stiffened by the
action of the public meeting of June 5, advised against pr&-
cipitate measures, and refused to take part in the proposed
congress. 2 Only at Hartford and Providence did the mer-
chants actually appoint delegates; and the latter rescinded
their action when they learned of Boston's declination. *
The New Yorkers were thus forced to solve their problem
according to their own lights.
It was probably the unfavorable action of the Boston
merchants that determined the New York promoters of
importation to abandon the project of a congress and to
concentrate their efforts at once on the local situation.
Their plan was to ascertain the sentirnpnts of the inhabitants
by ajj|Quse-to-house poll. When " a number of selfish, mer-
cenary importers and a few mechanicks" proposed this
course to the Committee of Merchants, that body, while
withholding official assent, made it clear that they would not
discountenance the proceedings. 4 How deeply individual
members of the committee were interested in this scheme
was revealed on June 14 when the ultra-radical Isaac Sears
and the shopkeeper Peter Vander Voort resigned member-
ship on the ground that many of the committee were work-
ing to break through the agreement. 5 Beginning on June
1 N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , Aug. 6, 1770; N. Y. Journ. , June 28.
1 Letter of June 18; ibid. , Aug. 9, 1770.
1 New London Gas. , June 15, 1770; Prov. Gas. , June 16.
4 N. Y. Journ. , June 21, 1770. The words quoted are taken from
an account by "A Son of Liberty" in the same issue. Vide also N.
Y. Gas. & Post-Boy, July 2.
? AT. Y. Journ. , June 21, 1770. Jacob Watson and Edward Laight
were among those who worked openly for an alteration of the agree-
ment. Ibid. , 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-IMPORTA TION
223
12, the poll was taken by persons appointed in each ward,
each inhabitant being asked if he approved of confining non-
importation to tea and other dutied articles, provided Boston
and Philadelphia concurred; or if he preferred the continu-
ance of the present agreement. Now, as the promoters of
the poll knew of the unfaltering resolution of Boston, it is
clear, as the non-importers charged, that their motive was
to feel the pulse of the people with a view of determining
whether it would be safe to ask their support later when
it was learned that the other two towns had refused to co-
operate. The canvass showed that 1180 persons favored
re-opening trade in concert with Boston and Philadelphia,
about 300 were indifferent or unwilling to talk, and a minor-
ity, whose number was not stated, preferred the existing
system. Colden noted that "the principal Inhabitants"
voted for importation and that " few of any distinction de-
clared in opposition to it. " * The opposition protested that
the voters for importation were hardly one-fourth of the
city people entitled to vote, and that the country folks should
have been consulted.
On June 16, letters were despatched to Boston and Phila-
delphia with news of the New York vote. The merchants
in those places, however, saw no reason for revising their
former decisions. 2 On July 4 a broadside, scattered about
1 Letter Books, vol. ii, p. 223.
* N. Y. Journ. , July 5, 1770; Bos. Eve. Post, July 2. The Boston
Committee of Merchants reminded the New York Committee that,
as the preamble of the Townshend Act remained unrepealed, it was
clear that the tea duty was retained expressly for raising a revenue.
Furthermore, they asserted that the sentiment of Boston had been
ascertained in the surest way, "that is, not by appointing Gentlemen
to go thro' the several Wards, asking Persons singly, but by calling
a Meeting and there coming to a Conclusion after fair Debate and
reasoning upon the Point. " N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , July 30. From
the merchants at Hartford, where Silas Deane was a member of the
committee, came likewise a letter protesting against any alteration.
Conn. Journ. , July 27.
? ? 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
? 224 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-177$
New York, inquired of the public whether, in face of this
uniform response, it would be just or politic or honorable for
New York to undertake a measure " independent of the Ap-
probation of those whose hearty Concurrence we have hither-
to solicited? " New York was reminded of having origin-
ated non-importation at the time of the Stamp Act; "and
shall New York be the first to disgrace an Expedient origin-
ally devised by itself . . . ? " *
But this appeal and others like it fell on deaf ears. The
latter days of June brought to New York authentic news that
an act of Parliament had been passed with the sole view of
relieving business stringency in that province. This was the
statute exempting New York temporarily from the opera-
tjon. ; nf tha fyonpnl prohibition of legal-tender currency.
to
legal-tender paper money. 2 This event removed any re-
maining misgivings that the merchants may have felt; the
body of the trade worked with precision and speed. The
group solidarity of the merchants was clearly revealed by
an article from New York in a Boston newspaper, contain-
ing the names of some of those who were working hardest
for a re-opening of trade. Of the one hundred and twenty-
eight persons named in the article, eighty-five were classed
as merchants or importers; eighteen as dealers or shop-
keepers ; three as vendue-masters ; two as brewers. Of work-
ingmen (such as carpenters, blacksmiths, rope-makers, etc. ),
there were but twelve. * Fifteen of the one hundred and
twenty-eight were members of the Committee of Mer-
1 Signed "Fabius;" N. Y. Journ. , July 12, 1770.
1 10 George III, c. 35; Becker, N. Y. Parties, 1760-1776, pp. 69-71,
77-79, 88.
'"Bona Fide" in Bos. Gas. , July 23, 1770.
