No More Learning

This event, so important in light of the subsequent trend
toward union, received scarcely any contemporary mention
in the newspapers, even at New York. The lower houses
of the various provincial legislatures had been invited by
Massachusetts to send committees to a continental congress
to confer on "the difficulties to which they are and must
be reduced by the operation of the acts of parliament for
levying duties and taxes on the colonies" and to unite on
petition for redress. * Delegates from n;ne provinces ap-
peared.
1 Letter from Georgia in Newport Merc. , Feb. 10, 1766. Vide also
5. C. Gaz. , Feb. 25.
? Gibbes. op. cit. , vol. ii, pp. 10-11; Wallace, op. cit. , p. 120.
* Bos. Eve. Post. Aug. 26. 1765.
? ? 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
? 76 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
It was clearly the design of the Massachusetts House of
Representatives that the congress should remonstrate
chiefly against the restrictive and revenue measures passed
by the Parliament in the years 1764-1765. When the mem-
bers of congress assembled, they found it necessary to make
certain alterations in their ideas before a common ground
could be reached. In particular, there was much skirmish-
ing as to the form in which the various arguments and views
should be presented. Gadsden, the South Carolina radical,
displayed great political acumen in insisting that all sections
could harmonize in their opposition by urging their views
"on the broad, common ground" of natural rights. 1 The
official UlltTaMlfKJ Of tnfi congress Show ihe result of this
plan. A great deal was said about the theoretical rights of
the colonists, and the stamp tax and the laws enabling ad-
miralty courts to try breaches of the trade laws were roundly
denounced as heinous invasions of such rights. Neverthe-
less, all trace of the spirit of the Massachusetts summons
was not obliterated: each memorial, with varying degrees of
emphasis, set forth the alarming scarcity of hard money
and requested the repeal of the laws restricting trade and en-
larging the jurisdiction of the admiralty courts, as well as
the act imposing the stamp duty. 2
in the COmmP"-] rr. iri""^, **-. >>.
gyidences of economic distrg" hoA g*;^<<i>. *^ +kv p^p^ to
mult1ply tHe'lf eiioris 10 retrench expenses. Leading cit-
1zens of New York and Boston, as well as of Philadelphia,
signed resolutions not to purchase or eat lamb, and to boy-
cott any butcher who sought to counteract the resolutions. 8
1 Frothingham, Rise of Republic, p. 188.
1 Authentic Account of the Proceedings of the Congress held at
New York, in MDCCLXV, On the Subject of the Stamp Act (1767).
The petition to the House of Commons is especially explicit on these
points.
? Weyler's N. Y. Co*. , Feb. 10, 17, 1766; Bos. Post-Boy, Apr. 8, 1765,
Mch. 10, 1766; Pa. Gas, Feb. 13, 1766-
? ? 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
? FIRST COXTEST FOR REFORM
77
The movement for simpler mourning, so popular farther
north, now spread to Philadelphia. 1 Articles in newspapers
advocated the superiority of sage, sassafras and balm to the
enervating beverage of tea. 2 The New York Society for
the Promotion of Arts, Agriculture and Oeconomy now
reached the zenith of its activity, increasing its list of
premiums for local manufactures, establishing spinning
schools, and conducting a fortnightly market for the sale of
New York manufactures. The service of the society in en-
couraging flax culture and linen manufacture was of more
than temporary importance. In the making of linen, more
than three hundred persons were employed from the middle
of 1765 to the close of 1766. * Philadelphia took over the
idea of a market, and three times a week linens, shalloons,
flannels, ink-powder and other wares of Pennsylvania fabri-
cation were offered for sale. Nearly two hundred poor
women were employed in spinning flax in the factory. 4 In
Rhode Island the thrifty maids and matrons improved the
shining hours by gathering in groups and spinning, usually
"from Sunrise to Dark. " The maids of Providence and
Bristol displayed the extent of their resolution by bravely
agreeing to admit the addresses of no man who favored the
Stamp Act. *
It did not take the Americans long to perceive that their
measures of economic self-preservation might be capitalized
to good advantage as political arguments for the repeal of
the obnoxious laws. In face of the fact that British im-
ports were rapidly diminishing from natural causes, news-
1 Pa. Journ. , May 16, Sept . 12, 1765; Pa. Gas. , Jan. 9, 1766.
1 Pa. Journ. , May 9, 1765; N. Y. Gas. & Post-Boy, May 30.
'AT. Y. Journ. , Dec. 17, 31, 1767.
1 Pa. Journ. , Nov. 28, 1765, Jan. 23, 1766; The Record of the Cele-
bration of the sooth Anniversary of the Birth of Franklin (Hays, I. M. ,
ed. ), vol. ii, p. 57.
? Newport Merc. , Apr. 14, May 12, 1766; N. Y. Gas. & Post-Boy,
Apr. 3, 1766; A Pror. Gas. , Aug. 24, 1765.
? ? 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
? 78 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
paper writers in New York and Connecticut urged in Sep-
tember, 1765, that the people should abstain from the use
of British manufactures until the trade restrictions and
taxes were removed. 1 About the same time, a number of
Boston merchants, in writing for spring goods, ordered
them to be sent only when the Stamp Act should be re-
pealed. 2 But to New York belongs the credit of taking the
first formal action for the boycotting of British goods.
Four days before the Stamp Act was to go into operation,
most of the gentlemen of New York signed an agree-
ment to buy no European wares until the Sugar Act should
be altered, trade conditions relieved and the Stamp Act re-
pealed. Three days later the merchants held a general meet-
ing and agreed to make all past and future orders for British,
merchandise contingent upon the repeal of the Stamp Act.
Such merchants as were shipowners were to be permitted
to bring their vessels back to port with cargoes of coal,
grindstones or other bulky articles. Two hundred merch-
ants affixed their signatures to the agreement. In order to
protect the merchants from the unrestricted importers of
other provinces, the retail dealers of the city bound them-
selves to buy no goods whatsoever which should be shipped
from Great Britain after January 1, 1766, until the repeal
of the Stamp Act. 8 The merchants of Albany agreed unani-
mously to accept the New York resolutions. 4
*N. Y. Gas. & Post-Boy, Sept. 12, 1765; Conn. Gas. , Sept. 13.
* Bos. Eve. Post, Sept, 23, 1765; alsoW. Y. Ga*. & Post-Boy, Sept. 26.
1N. Y. Merc. , Oct. 28, 31, Nov. 11, 1765; N. Y. Gas. & Post-Boy,
Nov. 7. A London newspaper of Dec. 17 noted: "We hear that the
merchants upon 'change on Wednesday last received upwards of one
hundred letters from New-York, countermanding their orders for
goods. " Newport Merc. , Feb. 24, 1766. Colden said of the non-impor-
tation agreement, that "the people in America will pay an extravagant
price for old, moth eaten Goods, and such as the Merchants could not
otherwise Sell. " Letter Books, vol. ii, p. 78.
4 Weyler's N. Y. Gas. , Jan. 27, 1766.
? ? 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
? FIRST CONTEST FOR REFORM 79
The merchants of Philadelphia got under way about a
week after New York. With a prefatory statement that
the trading difficulties were due to " the Restrictions, Pro-
hibitions, and ill advised Regulations, made in the several
Acts of the Parliament of Great-Britain, lately passed " and
that they regarded the Stamp Act as the last straw, they
united in an agreement similar to that of the New Yorkers. 1
More than four hundred merchants and traders signed the
agreement, and a committee was appointed to observe its ex-
ecution and to report violations to the body of subscribers.
Printed forms for countermanding former orders were
distributed to every local merchant. 2 The merchants also
sent a memorial to the merchants and mapnfart11rprs of
their assistance jn the reneal of_the
_
Stamp Act and the removal of commercial restrictions,
particularly the restraints on paper currency, the mo-
lasses duty, the prohibition of the exportation of bar
iron to foreign ports in Europe, the heavy duties on Ma-
deira, and the requirement that European wines and fruits
must be imported by way of Great Britain. 8 The retailers
of Philadelphia supported the merchants by refusing to buy
any goods, shipped from Great Britain after January 1,
1766, except those approved by the merchants' committee.
1 Local shipowners were permitted to include in the return cargo of
their vessels from abroad dye-stuffs and utensils for manufacturing, as
well as bulky articles. The agreement was limited to May 1, 1766,
when another meeting should consider the advisability of continuing it.
Pa. Journ. , Nov. 14, 21, 1765; also AT. Y. Merc. , Nov. 25. The original
copy of the agreement, in, the library of the Historical Society of Penn-
sylvania, contains the signatures of all the subscribers.
* For samples of conditional orders of Philadelphia merchants, vide
letters of Benjamin Marshall, Pa. Mag. , vol. xx, pp. 209-211, and of
Charles Thomson, N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. , vol. ix, pp. 6-8.
1Pub. Rec. Off. , C. O. 5, no. 114 (L. C. Transcripts), pp. 161-169; Pa.
Gas. , Nov. 28, 1765; Pa. Mag. , vol. xx, p. 211.
? ? 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
? 80 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
The principal backcountry dealers cheerfully acquiesced
in this regulation.
Qn December q, 176;. the merchants of Boston drew UP a
formal agreement to import no goods from England until
the Stamp Act should be repealed, except utensils for manu-
facturing, certain bulky articles, and articles absolutely
necessary for the fishery. Two hundred and fifty merchants
and traders quickly signed. 1 Salem and Marblehead, the
ports of next importance, came into the same measure, and,
soon after, Plymouth and Newbury. 2
Only a few instances of enforcement are recorded in the
case of the several provinces, a fact which indicates lack
of infraction and not an absence of zeal. Money was
tight; business men in Great Britain and America were
retrenching. It has already been suggested that the non-
importation agreements derived their importance less as
economic measures than as political protests. Indeed, more
than three months before the first non-importation agree-
ment had been signed, London houses had begun to notice
a sharp falling-off of American orders, due to the hard times
from which the colonies were suffering. Thus, a London
concern stated on July 5, 1765 that " so few and so small
are the orders from America . . . that the ships lately
sailed thither have not had half their lading. " * It was
estimated in England that, for the entire summer, American
commissions for English goods were ? 600,000 less than had
been known for thirty years, and that the fall orders had
not been so small "in the memory of man. " * British
1 The agreement was limited to May 1, 1766, when it might be re-
newed. Bos. Post-Boy, Dec. 9, 16, 23, 1765. For orders of Hancock in
accordance with this agreement, vide Brown, John Hancock His Book,
pp. 103, 106, 108, 112, 114, 115, 117.
1 Adams, J. , Works, vol. ii, p. 176.
'Pa. Gaz. , Sept. 12, 1765. Vide also ibid. , Oct. 24.
4 Ibid. , Jan. 2, 1766. Vide also ibid. , Feb. 27; Bos. Eve. Post, Feb. 17.
? ? 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
? FIRST CONTEST FOR REFORM 81
merchants in comparing accounts were alarmed at the ex-
tent of their debts, and, knowing the precarious state of
colonial commerce, they contracted their credits to the seri-
ous embarrassment of their American correspondents. 1 In
November, a London house declared that more bills from
America had been protested within six months than in the
preceding six years. 2 On the other hand, the Boston Post-
Boy of December 23, 1765 declared: "A Merchant of the
first Rank in the Town Re-ship'd in one of the last Vessels
for London above ? 300 Sterling worth of Goods on Ac-
count of Money's being so scarce that they would not vend. "
The adoption of non-importation agreements added no new
difficulty to the situation already existing.
The first attempt to introduce forbidden British mer-
chandise_occurred at Philadelphia. A Liverpool brig ar-
rived there with goods debarred by the merchants' agree-
ment. The Committee of Merchants took the matter in
hand and ordere3TRaOHF^ogs_be_locked up until jpews
of the repeal of the Stamp Act should arrive. * A little
later the Prince George arrived at New York with goods
from Bristol, shipped on account of the British owners.
At the demand of the " Sons of Liberty," the goods were
delivered into their care, to be returned to Bristol at first
opportunity. 4
1 " A Merchant" in Public Ledger, Apr. 1, 1765; letter from London,
N. H. Gas. , Nov. 22; Burke in Bos. Chron. , June 26, 1769; R. I. Com-
merce, vol. i, pp. 168-169, 172-173. On the basis of statements from the
merchants of London, Bristol, Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester.
Trecothick, a leading London merchant in American trade, told a com-
mittee of Parliament in February, 1766, that the American debts to
those cities amounted to more than ? 4,450,000. Brit. Mus. Addl. Mss. ,
no. 33030 (L. C. Transcripts), ff. 88, 104.
1 Pa. Gas. , Feb. 6, 1766. Vide also petition of London merchants to
House of Commons, Jan. 17, 1766. Parl. Debates, vol. xvi, pp. 133-135.
* Pa. Gas. , Apr. 24, 1766.
4 N. Y. Merc. , Apr. 28, 1766.
? ? 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
? g2 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
Two other ports, one of which was not bound by any
formal agreement of non-importation applied the prin-
ciple of the secnndaiy-boycott to portsjBtherc the stamp tax
Wflfi b>>ing F"^ The country people at Newburyport at-
tempted to prevent the sailing of a schooner for Halifax; and
when other means failed, they informed the customs officers
of irregularities in her cargo and occasioned a seizure of
the vessel. 1 At Charleston, S. C. , the fire company, com-
posed of radicals, agreed that no provision should be shipped
"to that infamous Colony Georgia in particular nor any
other that make use of Stamp Paper," on penalty of death
for the offenders, if they persisted in error, and the burning
of the vessel. A schooner, laden with rice for Georgia,
attempted to put to sea by night; but the master and the
owner were stopped by a threat that the letter of the reso-
lution would be carried out, and they discharged the cargo. 2
About the middl^ n* Tp*^ official news reached the
colonies that Parliament had given heed to the American
situation and had made sweeping alterations in the trade
and revenue laws of 1764-176? ,. This had come as the
result of a combinat1on of circumstances, fortuitous and
natural, which had spelled victory for the colonists. 8 Lead-
ing among these circumstances were the distress of the
British merchants, manufacturers and workingmen, and the
examination of Dr. Franklin before the House of Commons.
Figures at the London custom house showed that English
exportations to the commercial colonies had declined from
? 1,410,372 in 1764 to ? 1,197,010 in 1765; and from ? 515,-
1 AT. H. Gas. , Jan. 10, 1766.
1Newport Merc. , Mch. 17, 31, 1766; S. C. Gas. , Feb. 25; Pa. Journ. ,
Mch. ao.
1 Hodge, H. H. , "Repeal of Stamp Act," Pol. Sci. Quar. , vol. xix,
pp. 252-276.
? ? 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
? FIRST CONTEST FOR REFORM 83
192 to ? 383,224 to the tobacco colonies--a loss which was
far from being offset by an increase from ? 324,146 to
? 363,874 in the exportations to North Carolina and the
rice colonies. 1 Dr. Franklin had laid bare the economic
reasons for the American commotions, declaring them to
be "the restraints lately laid on their trade, by which the
bringing of foreign gold and silver into the Colonies was
prevented; the prohibition of making paper money among
themselves; and then demanding a new and heavy tax by
stamps; taking away, at the same time, trials by jury, and
refusing to receive and hear their humble petitions. " 2
Whether or not Franklin's analysis was a complete state-
ment of the case, the remedial legislation of Parliament
followed generally the lines indicated by him. The first
step taken was the total repeal of the Stamp Act, upon an
understanding, embodied in the accompanying Declaratory
Act, that Parliament, nevertheless, possessed authority to
bind the colonies "in all cases whatsoever. " * When Sec-
retary Conway communicated this news to the colonial gov-
ernors in a letter of March 31, 1766, he assured them that
Parliament would at once undertake to " give to the Trade
& Interests of America every Relief which the true State of
their Circumstances demands or admits. " * A second letter
of June 12, signed by the Duke of Richmond as secretary,
announced the accomplishment of this latter object--that
"those Grievances in Trade which seemed to be the first
and chief Object of their Uneasiness have been taken into
the most minute Consideration, & such Regulations have
1 Bos.