No More Learning

Gas. , May 31; Mass. Gas. & Post
Boy, Sept. 24- Governor Pownall declared in Parliament in March,
1770, that a monthly record of the rate of exchange for the last eight
years at the three leading ports of America showed an average rate
of 16754 for the *1oo sterling at Philadelphia, 171^ at New York,
and I33H at Boston; while the current rate at the same ports was
145, 162 and 125-123. The rise and fall of exchange, he asserted,
was the barometer of trade, a falling exchange signifying a doubly
great loss of trade. Parliamentary History, vol. xvi, p. 860.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION 2 1 1
_x>f bearing the brunt of a strugle? from_nzhich
f rnp
When they advanced their prices, they were accused by
the populace of being "monopolists" and "extortioners:"
and no countenance was given to their plea that high profits
were necessary in order to offset the general falling-off of
business. The storm centre of controversy was the price
of Bohea tea. At Philadelphia a memorial was pre-
sented to the Committee of Merchants, in January,
1770, which complained that the price of Bohea had
reached 5s. a pound and upward in face of an agree-
ment of dealers to maintain it at 3s. 9d. ; and "A. B. ",
writing in the Chronicle, declared he would post a
list of all offenders in his shop and distribute it among his
neighbors. 1 At New York, the Committee of Merchants
advertised in the New York Journal, September 28, 1769,
that a careful investigation had failed to disclose any en-
hancement of prices; but on February 24, 1770, they found
it necessary to call the tea dealers before them and extract
a promise to keep the retail price of Bohea down to 5s. 6d.
and the wholesale price at 4s. 6d. a A few weeks later, the
inhabitants of the city assembled, and called some of the
delinquents before them. * Nevertheless, the price of tea
continued its ascent. Bohea reached IDS. a pound at
Annapolis by the middle of the year; and when Williams
& Company, the worst offenders, refused to conform to the
1 Pa. Chron. , Jan. 29, 1770. It was announced in the same issue
that thereafter the size of the Chronicle would be smaller, because of
the rise in the price of paper. In the issue of July 23, a writer
claimed that tea had reached the "unconscionable sum of 1os. ," a
paper of pins had advanced from lod. to as. od. , and other articles
were equally high in proportion.
1 N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , Feb. 26, 1770.
* Ibid. , Mch. 12, 1770; N. Y. Journ. , July 12.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 212 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
demand of the committee of inspection, the firm was pro-
scribed in the newspapers. 1 A few complaints were also
heard at Boston against high prices, although apparently no
attempts were made to regulate prices there. 2
While tt1P importing mpt-chanf? were suffering a decline
in trade and the radical class in the populati'tn was hp{rinnin<r
to domjnflfp tr1p oitnotirwn ajfc1rtVifE flffiirHon ramp in r|iP
form of a decrease in the eypnrt trarlp to F. rjgrlanH An
excessive exportation of American products to England in
1768 produced a slump in the export market in the year
1769, and there was only a slow recovery in the next few
years. This condition bore proportionately more severely
upon Mew yp/r*k and fcnnsvlYSH,ift thflfl 11pon fr^ew Knpr-
|fnd. 8 L" Interest, all powerful Interest, will bear down
Patriotism," predicted a Quaker merchant on December 9,
1769. ". . . Romans we are not as they were formerly,
when they despised Riches and Grandeur, abode in extreme
poverty and sacrificed every pleasant enjoyment for the
love and service of their Country. " * f
Thus, the seeds of discontent were pretty generously sown
among the merchants when njjws^ re^yhpd America that
Parliament hadt on April 12. 1770, repealed the most im-
porfrmt portions of the law aga1nst wh1ch thf"'- "fr"""^"*"
wejp ^1"Ttiffl5 This news did not come as a surprise, as
the governors had been notified by a letter of May 13, 1769
that such a measure was under contemplation and that the
taxes on glass, paper and colors had been laid "Contrary
1N. Y. Journ. , Aug. 2, 1770.
1Bos. Chron. , Dec. 11, 1769; Mass. Gas. & News-Letter, Dec. 21.
* There was some decrease in the export trade of the plantation
provinces, also; but the merchants there did not dominate the non-
importation movement.
4 Letter of Henry Drinker; Pa. Mag. , vol. xiv, p. 41.
1 (O George III, c. 17. To be operative on December I, 1770.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION 213
to the true principles of Commerce. " * The reasons stated
for the proposed repeal coincided exactly with those urged
in the formal utterances of the merchant class in America. *
When Lord North carried through the repeal bill on the plea
that the duties affected were anti-commercial, the merchants
throughout the commercial provinces, with the exception of
the Bostonians, who had taken an advanced stand in their
pamphlet of December, 1769, had a right to feel self-gratu-
latory. They had obtained all the remedial legislation that
thpy frari hwp specifically demanding, save only the rescind-
ing ftii the tea_duty which had been withheld because . the
king believed that "there must Always \^f pne tav tn keep
The only question before them was whether they, as
practical men of business, would be justified in continuing
their costly boycott against Great Britain for the sake of
the one remaining tax. 4 As in 1766, they felt it was no
concern of theirs that the tea tax was retained as an assertion
of the right of Parliament to tax the colonies for revenue
1 1 N. J. Arch. , vol . x, pp. 109-110.
'North was primarily interested in the fact that the duties were
anti-commercial from the standpoint of the home merchants, declaring
"so many articles, the manufactures of Great Britain, are, by the Act
in question, subject to taxation, that it must astonish every reason-
able man to think how so preposterous a law could originally obtain
existence from a British legislature. " Parliamentary History, vol.
xvi, pp. 853-855.
'Donne, W. B. Correspondence of George III with Lord North
(London, 1867), vol. i, p. 202.
4 E. g. vide letter of Phila. Comm. to N. Y. Comm. , May 15, 1770,
in N. Y. Journ. , Aug. 16, 1770. As "Cethegus" put it, "It is vain to
think that we can hold Breath always . . . We have only to chuse
whether to unite in maintaining an Agreement of a more restricted
Nature, or to go on disputing about a Shadow which cannot longer b<<
realized. " N. Y. Gas. & Post-Boy, Oct. 8, 1770; also I N. J. Arch. ,
vol. xxvii, pp. 282-283.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 214
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
only; or that earlier revenue duties remained on the statute
books; or that the Declaratory Act continued in its pristine
vigor as a part of the imperial constitution. To these gen-
eralizations, the merchants of Massachusetts constituted an
exception, probably because the warp of their prosperity was
woven so closely with the woof of an unrestricted foreign
commerce.
Upon hearing that the bill for partial repeal of the Towns-
hend duties was pending passage in Parliament, the South
Carolina General Committee addressed a n'rmlaj |<>HW tn
the committees of the other prov1nces on April 2^. I77Q.
The letter recounted that the provinces had adopted agree-
ments differing "in Extent of Matter and Limitations of
Time," and that South Carolina, being among the last to
act, had been the most comprehensive in her plan, specifying
among her sine qua non demands the disestablishment of the
Customs Board and of the oppressive vice-admiralty juris-
diction. The committee a^f
take a^vantagp f>f j^hjL. r^t">>ftl o^ "*hfifig trJfliniT d^tlas-^L to
re-open trade with Great ptn'tain it would have been in-
finitely better to have submitted to thp vnke from the begin-
ning. 1 In this letter and in a later one, the northern prov-
1nces were exhorted to extend their agreements to cover all
the demands named in the South Carolina Association. 2
Authentic news of the passage of the repeal bill reached
America early in May, 1770. Outside of Boston and a
few other places of minor importance, there ensued, through-
out the commercial provinces, several perplexing months of
indecision, it^tpnnnted nnlv bvi the premature break of
1 N. C. Col. Recs. , vol. viii, pp. 197-199; published at the time in S.
C. Gas. , May 17, 1770; Pa. Gas. , May 24; N. Y. Journ. , May 17; Bos.
Gas. , May 28.
? The second letter was dated June 27; S. C. Gas. , June 28, 1770;
also N. Y. Journ. , July 12.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
?
NON-IMPORTATION 215
Albany, the Rhode Island ports and Pnrtgtnnn^ fmm rV1>>
nnn-itpportatinn rnmhinatjrm The merchants of Albany
rescinded their agreement on May 10 in favor of the non-
importation of tea alone; but when, after a few weeks, they
learned that Boston and New York remained steadfast, they
hastened to resume their agreement and to countermand the
orders which had been sent to England in the meantime. 1
Only a few days behind Albany, the merchants of New-
port and Providence cast aside their agreements and dis-
charged their committees of inspection. 2 "They were
dragged in the first place like an ox to the slaughter, into
the non-importation agreement . . . ," wrote a contempor-
ary. "Adherence to the non-importation agreement in them
would have been acting out of character and in contradiction
to the opinion of the country. " 8 Within a week the answer
gprts: mass meetings at Philadelphia
and N-yy VnrU- anH a meet1ng ot merchants at
dared an absolute bovcott against the pnerd^ntg n(
The town of Providence now took things in hand,
pimple set hv Albanv by scurrv-
1ng back under cover of the agreement, announcing a boy-
cott aga1nst any who should have dealings with the aban-
doned Newport importers. 0 The merchants of Newport
re-enacted their agreement also; but their resolution to
store rather than re-ship the goods recently arrived inclined
the other provinces to believe that the action of Newport
was merely a screen for clandestine importations. A wave
1Ms. in Hist. Soc. of Pa. ; N. Y. Journ. , Aug. 23, 30, 1770; N. Y.
Gas. & Merc. , Sept. 24.
1 Bos. Gas. , May 28, 1770.
1 "'Rachel" in New London Gasette, June 22, 1770.
4 Pa. Gas. , May 24, 1770; N. Y. Journ. , June 7; Bos. Eve. Post,
May 28.
6 P rov. 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.