1Letters of
Hutchinson
in Mass.
Arthur Schlesinger - Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution
8, 1772;
Mch. 23, Apr. 28, Aug. 3, 1773; Brown, John Hancock His Book, p. 175;.
"A Merchant" in MOM. Sfy, Jan. 9, 1772.
? ? 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
? COLONIAL PROSPERITY 243
the merchants felt they were enjoying a deserved feast after
a long and trying fast.
, The newspaper advertising indicated that colonial agricul-
I tural products and certain varieties of domestic manufac-
tures were enjoying a wider sale than ever before. The
1 Bostonian and New Yorker could expect to find in the local
? shops Pennsylvania flour and iron, "Choice Philadelphia
\Beer," potash kettles cast at Salisbury, Conn. , Rhode Island
1cheese, Virginia tobacco, and Carolina pitch, indigo and
pee. The first volume of Blackstone was reprinted at
Boston for two dollars although the price of the British
edition way three times as great. Lynn shoes for women,.
New England cod-fish hooks, Milton paper and Boston-
, made sails had an established clientele. Philadelphia news-
papers advertised locally-made watches, bar steel, pot and
pearlashes. Governor Franklin of New Jersey transmitted
to the home government the report that, during the non-
j importation struggle, a new slitting mill had been erected in
( Morris County, so contrived as to be an appendage to a
grist mill and in such a manner as to evade the parliamentary
prohibition. 1
The general satisfaction of the merchants was not dis-
turbed by the vestiges of the old restrictive and revenue
measures which still remained on the statute book. Even
complaints against the absence of a circulating medium
ceased, until the resumption of commercial relations with
Great Britain again drained off the gold supply; and in May,
1771. Parliament took sfeps r'? > ^mr|j^ta the condition of
currency stringency that had been potentially present since
^ tender in 1764. This act provided
that paper, issued by the colonies as security to their public
1 1 N. J. Arch. , vol. x, p.
? ? 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
? 244
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
creditors, might be made, by the colonial assemblies, a legal
tender for the payment of provincial duties and taxes. 1
yThe conduct of the merchants and their customers toward
the importation and use of duty-laden tea during this period
throws considerable light upon their philosophical attitude
toward those " high points about the supremacy of Parlia-
ment" vvhich, according to Cushing, should best "fall
asleep. "J Outside of the ports of New York and Philadel-
phia, the tea duty was universally acquiesced in, notwith-
standing the widespread resolutions of boycott that had been
adopted against customed articles in 1770. No efforts what-
soever were made to enforce the non-importation in these
provinces, so far as the newspapers recorded;2 and the
popular apathy failed to provoke criticism or protest. Even
the arch-radical, John Adams, could confide to his diary,
on February 14, 1771, that he had " dined at Mr. Hancock's
with the members, Warren, Church, Cooper, &c. and Mr.
Harrison, and spent the whole afternoon, and drank green
tea, from Holland, I hope, but don't know. " 8
When in the autumn months of 1773 public sentiment
underwent an abrupt and radical change for reasons that
will be discussed later, further light was thrown on the state
of public mind that had existed prior to that time. Thus,
in August, 1774, Robert Findlay was adjudged by the
Charles County, Md. , Committee to have " fully and satis-
factorily exculpated himself of any intention to counteract
the resolutions of America" because he showed that his
113 George III, c. 57. Vide also Macpherson, Annals of Com. , vol.
iii, p. 53&
1 The single recorded instance in any of the thirteen provinces was
the case of John Turner, a New York shopkeeper, who was detected in
the act of selling some dutied tea about six weeks after the New York
agreement had been adopted. N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , Aug. 20, 1770.
? Works (Adams, C. F. ), vol. ii, p. 255.
? ? 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
? COLONIAL PROSPERITY 245
orders for dutied tea had been sent in the fall of 1773. *
Likewise T. C. Williams & Company of Annapolis issued a
statement in October, 1774, with reference to the tea con-
signed to them in the Peggy Stewart, in which they declared:
When we ordered this tea [in May, 1774], we did nothing more
than our neighbours; for it is well known that most merchants,
both here and in Baltimore, that ordered fall goods, ordered
tea as usual; and to our certain knowledge, in the months of
April, May and June last, near thirty chests were imported into
this city by different merchants, and the duties paid without
the least opposition. . . . We therefore think it hard, nay cruel
usage, that our characters should be thus blasted for only doing
what most people in this province that are concerned in trade,
have likewise done. 2
At Charleston, S. C. , the importation of dutied tea had
also been carried on during the years 1771-1773 with ab-
solutely no attempt at concealment. 8 At the public meeting,
held in December, 1773, upon the arrival of the East India
Company's ship, it was strongly argued that " Tea had ever
been spontaneously imported and the Duty paid; that every
subject had an equal right to send that article from the
Mother Country into their Province, and therefore it was
unreasonable to exclude the Hon. East India Company from
the same privilege. " * Indeed, while the people were still
in session, some dutied teas on board the tea-ship, not owned
by the East India Company, were landed and carted past the
meeting-place to the stores of private merchants! 5
1 Md. Gas. , Aug. 11, 1774; also 4 Am. Arch. , vol. i, pp. 703-704.
1 Md. Gas. , Oct. 27, 1774-
1 S. C. Gas. , Nov. 29, Dec. 6, 20, 1773.
*N. Y. Gasetteer, Dec. 23, 1773.
? Drayton, J. , Memoirs of the American Revolution (Charleston,
1821), vol. i, p. 98.
? ? 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
? 246 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
This contemporary evidence x is abundantly supported by
the official figures of the British government on the tea
importations into the colonies. 2 At Boston . a total of
,173 077 pounds of dutied tea was imported from December
j, 1770 to January fi, 1773 without art1culate protest from
the r^difaljO "Three hundred whole and fifty-five half
Chests came in Vessels belonging to Mr. John Hancock the
Patriot," stated the comptroller of customs at Boston in a
letter of September 29, 1773, to John Pownall, under-secre-
tary of state in the colonial department. 4 In the other
importing provinces, the amount of dutied tea received from
December 1, 1770 to January 5, 1773 was less in quantity
but probably about equal in proportion to their normal
volume of trade. At Rhode Island, the quantity of dutied
tea entered was 20,833 pounds; at Patuxent, Md. , 33,304
pounds; at the several Virginia ports, 79,527 pounds; at
Charleston, S. C. , 48,540 pounds; and at Savannah, 12,931
pounds, ^hr totfll f Or ,fl
Vr>r1f ami Pwinsvlvjmifr was g8o. 8? T jv^pHs on which the
duty was paid without arousing comment.
W<>w York null . Pluk1dfiiLiliii--were the only naTt,g of
BriHlh Aimrina where thg people faithfullv observed the
1 For further confirmatory evidence, vide, in the case of Massachu-
setts, Mass. Gas. & Post-Boy, Dec. 6, 1773; for Maryland, Md. Gas. ,
Aug. 18, 1774; for Georgia, Ga. Gas. , July 27, 1774. Cf. Meredith's
statement in House of Commons, 4 Am. Arch. , vol. i, pp. 1624-1625.
ViKbstract prepared in the office of the inspector of imports and ex-
ports; quoted by Channing, History of U. S. , vol. iii, p. 128 n.
1"Q" in the Bos. Eve. Post, Nov. 15, 1773, declared that 173 different
merchants were concerned in this importation; but a letter from Boston
in the Pa. Packet, Dec. 13, 1773, claimed' that the number of importers
had been confounded with the number of importations.
4Letter of Benjamin Hallowell; Stevens, Facsimiles, vol. xxiv, no.
2029, p. 5. A chest contained 340 pounds. Vide also John Adams's
Works, vol. ii, p. 381.
? ? 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
? COLONIAL PROSPERITY 247
boycott against dutied tea. 1 These places were the chief
centers for tea-smuggling in America. Unembarrassed by
the presence of the Customs Board, the enterprising mer-
chants of these ports drove a brisk trade with Holland,
Sweden and Germany and with the Dutch island of St.
Eustatius for contraband tea, powder and other supplies but
particularly for the forbidden tea. 2 Lieutenant Governor
Colden ancj Lord Dartmouth exchanged views on the sub-
ject, agreeing in the sentiment that the illicit trade between
New York and Holland prevailed "to an enormous de-
gree. "' "It is well known," wrote Samuel Seabury in
1774, " that little or no tea has been entered at the Customs
House for several years. All that is imported is smuggled
from Holland, and the Dutch Islands in the West Indies. " *
Gilbert Barkly, a Philadelphia merchant of sixteen years'
standing, wrote in May, 1773, of the extensive smuggling
of tea "from Holland, France, Sweden, Lisbon &c, St.
Eustatia, in the West Indies &c. " 5 Smuggling " has amaz-
ingly encreased within these twenty years past," asserted
"A Tradesman of Philadelphia. " * Hutchinson informed
the home government that "in New York they import
scarce any other than Dutch teas. In Rhode Island and
Pennsylvania, it is little better. " T Since smuggled tea was
1 Contemporaries realized this. E. g. , vide "A Tradesman of Phila-
delphia" in Pa. Journ. , Aug. 17, 1774.
1Letters of Hutchinson in Mass. Arch. , vol. xxvii, p. 317; Bos. Gas. ,
Nov. 27, Dec. 4, 1775; N. Engl. Chron. , July 29.
? N. Y. Col. Docs. , vol. viii, pp. 487, 510-512.
4 Free Thoughts on the Proceedings of the Continental Congress . . .
By a Farmer (1774). Also vide Becker, N. Y. Parties, 1760-1776, p. 84,
n. 158.
1 Drake, F. S. , Tea Leaves (Boston, 1884), p. 201.
? Pa. Journ. , Aug. 17, 1774.
'Letter of Sept. 10, 1771; Bos. Gas. , Nov. 27, 1775. Newport prob-
ably ranked next in importance to New York and Philadelphia as a
centre for tea-smuggling. Vide Drake, op. cit. , pp. 194-197.
? ? 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
? 248 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
cheaper for the consumer to drink than dutied tea and the
profits of the tea dealer greater, the systematic neglect of
the dutied article in New York and Philadelphia corres-
ponded as much to self-interest as devotion to principle,
and gave fair occasion for the coining of the epigram that
"a smuggler and a whig are cousin Germans . . . " *
The smuggling merchants experienced little difficulty in
getting their teas into America. Notwithstanding all the
regulations of recent years, there were still many secluded
landing places on the extensive coast line and all the tricks
which the mind of a resourceful skipper could invent to
deceive the customs off1cials. 2 There were, furthermore,
customs officials who, from lack of reward from the govern-
ment, did not care to risk "the rage of the people," * or
who, because of the freehandedness of the smugglers, found
rich reward in conniving at the traffic. Colden cited
the case of his grandson, recently appointed surveyor and
searcher of the port of New York, who was given to under-
stand by interested parties that " if he would not be officious
in his Duty, he might depend upon receiving ? 1500 a year. " *
The views of contemporary observers throw some light
on the proportion of imported tea which failed to pay the
parliamentary duty. (JDYf;rP"r Tilltf,llirsOn who seems to
have furnished the brains for the tea business carried on
1 " Massachusettensis" in Mass. Gas. & Post-Boy, Jan. 2, 1775.
*? . g. , filling the interstices of a lumber cargo with tea, carrying
false bills of lading, and the like; private letters in Pub. Rec. Off. :
C. O. 5, no. 138 (L. C. Transcripts), pp. 151-152, 175. Vide the sailing
orders of Captain Hammond for obtaining a tea cargo at Goteborg or
Hamburg and for running it past the customs officials at Newport.
R. /. Commerce, vol. i, pp. 332-333.
* Letters of Hutchinson to Hillsborough, Aug. 25, Sept. 10, 1771, in
Bos. Gas. , Nov. 27, 1775.
4 Letter Books, vol. ii, pp. 370-372.
? ? 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
? COLONIAL PROSPERITY
249
by his SOnS at Boston,
consumption of teas in America was 10. 200 flip^f" nr f"-
528. 000 pounds^1 For approximately the same period, the
amount" of tea that paid the duty was about 320. 000 pounds. 2
Hutchinson's estimate was evidently wide of the mark, for
even Samuel Wharton, who gravely averred that the fron-
tiersmen and many Indians shared the popular habit of im-
bibing tea twice a day, placed the total consumption at a
million and a half pounds less. * The London tea merchant,
William Palmer, judged more dispassionately when he
hazarded a figure about half of that named by Hutchinson,
remarking that Hutchinson's estimate of "19,200 chests
is more than has been hitherto annually imported from
China by all foreign companies. " * Assuming Palmer's
conservative figure to be approximately correct, the con-
clusion would seem valid that in a year, like 1771, marked
by unusually large importations of customed tea, more
than nine-tenths of the tea consumed was illicitly imported. *
The incentive to smuggling existed in spite of the well-
intentioned efforts of the British government. The Towns-
hend act of 1767, although imposing a small import duty of
threepence a pound in America, had removed all British im-
1 Bos. Go*. , Nov. 27, 1775.
1 The amount of dutied tea imported from Dec. 1, 1770 to Jan. 5, 1772
was 344,771 pounds, according to an abstract prepared in the office of the
inspector of imports and exports; quoted by Channing, op. cit. , vol. iii,
p. 128 n.
*" Observations," Pa. Mag. , vol. xxv, p. 140.
4 Drake, op. cit. , p. 197.
6 Hutchinson in 1771 set the figure at nine-tenths for New York and
Philadelphia and five-sixths for Massachusetts. Bos. Gaz. , Nov. 27,
1775. He said elsewhere that the contraband tea consumed' at Boston
came there by way of New York and Philadelphia. Mass. Arch. , vol.
xxvii, p. 317.
? ? 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
? THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
port duties from tea exported to America,1 and had thus,
for a time at least, reduced the cost of English tea to the
American consumer below that of the contraband article.
This advantageous situation of English tea could, in the
nature of things, continue only so long as the wholesale
price of the tea in the English market did not go up, or the
price of smuggled fell. The former occurred. The
East India Company, although not permitted to sell at
retail, were permitted to name an upset price at their public
auction sales. Treading the edge of a quicksand of bank-
ruptcy and obliged by the act of 1767 to make good any
deficiency in the revenues resulting from the discontinuance
of certain tea duties, the company sought to recoup its
losses by advancing the upset price of tea. Governor Hutch-
inson wrote to Lord Hillsborough on August 25, 1771: " If
the India company had continued the sale of their teas at 2s.
2d. to 2s. 4d. as they sold two years ago, the Dutch trade
would have been over by this time; but now that the teas
are at 3s. the illicit traders can afford to lose one chest in
three . . . " * Meantime, Dutch teas were selling in Hol-
land from 18d. to 2s. per pound and paid no import duty
into America. * Hutchinson urged constantly in his busi-
ness and political correspondence that "by some means or
other the price of Teas in England to the Exporter ought
to be kept nearer to the price in Holland. " *
The next act of Parliament dealing with the East India
1 7 George III, c. 56. Vide Farrand's article already referred to, in
Am. Hist. Rev. vol. iii, pp. 266-269.
1 Bos. Gaz. , Nov. 27, 1775.
* Drake, op. cit. , pp. 191, 102, 194-197. Hutchinson calculated the cost
of landing smuggled tea at five per cent.
* Letters to William Palmer and Lord Hillsborough, in Mass. Arch. ,
vol. xxvii, pp. 206-207; Bos. Gas. , Nov. 27, Dec. 4, 1775. Vide also me-
morial of Barkly, the Philadelphia merchant, to the same purpose.
Drake, op. cit. , pp. 199-202.
?
Mch. 23, Apr. 28, Aug. 3, 1773; Brown, John Hancock His Book, p. 175;.
"A Merchant" in MOM. Sfy, Jan. 9, 1772.
? ? 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
? COLONIAL PROSPERITY 243
the merchants felt they were enjoying a deserved feast after
a long and trying fast.
, The newspaper advertising indicated that colonial agricul-
I tural products and certain varieties of domestic manufac-
tures were enjoying a wider sale than ever before. The
1 Bostonian and New Yorker could expect to find in the local
? shops Pennsylvania flour and iron, "Choice Philadelphia
\Beer," potash kettles cast at Salisbury, Conn. , Rhode Island
1cheese, Virginia tobacco, and Carolina pitch, indigo and
pee. The first volume of Blackstone was reprinted at
Boston for two dollars although the price of the British
edition way three times as great. Lynn shoes for women,.
New England cod-fish hooks, Milton paper and Boston-
, made sails had an established clientele. Philadelphia news-
papers advertised locally-made watches, bar steel, pot and
pearlashes. Governor Franklin of New Jersey transmitted
to the home government the report that, during the non-
j importation struggle, a new slitting mill had been erected in
( Morris County, so contrived as to be an appendage to a
grist mill and in such a manner as to evade the parliamentary
prohibition. 1
The general satisfaction of the merchants was not dis-
turbed by the vestiges of the old restrictive and revenue
measures which still remained on the statute book. Even
complaints against the absence of a circulating medium
ceased, until the resumption of commercial relations with
Great Britain again drained off the gold supply; and in May,
1771. Parliament took sfeps r'? > ^mr|j^ta the condition of
currency stringency that had been potentially present since
^ tender in 1764. This act provided
that paper, issued by the colonies as security to their public
1 1 N. J. Arch. , vol. x, p.
? ? 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
? 244
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
creditors, might be made, by the colonial assemblies, a legal
tender for the payment of provincial duties and taxes. 1
yThe conduct of the merchants and their customers toward
the importation and use of duty-laden tea during this period
throws considerable light upon their philosophical attitude
toward those " high points about the supremacy of Parlia-
ment" vvhich, according to Cushing, should best "fall
asleep. "J Outside of the ports of New York and Philadel-
phia, the tea duty was universally acquiesced in, notwith-
standing the widespread resolutions of boycott that had been
adopted against customed articles in 1770. No efforts what-
soever were made to enforce the non-importation in these
provinces, so far as the newspapers recorded;2 and the
popular apathy failed to provoke criticism or protest. Even
the arch-radical, John Adams, could confide to his diary,
on February 14, 1771, that he had " dined at Mr. Hancock's
with the members, Warren, Church, Cooper, &c. and Mr.
Harrison, and spent the whole afternoon, and drank green
tea, from Holland, I hope, but don't know. " 8
When in the autumn months of 1773 public sentiment
underwent an abrupt and radical change for reasons that
will be discussed later, further light was thrown on the state
of public mind that had existed prior to that time. Thus,
in August, 1774, Robert Findlay was adjudged by the
Charles County, Md. , Committee to have " fully and satis-
factorily exculpated himself of any intention to counteract
the resolutions of America" because he showed that his
113 George III, c. 57. Vide also Macpherson, Annals of Com. , vol.
iii, p. 53&
1 The single recorded instance in any of the thirteen provinces was
the case of John Turner, a New York shopkeeper, who was detected in
the act of selling some dutied tea about six weeks after the New York
agreement had been adopted. N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , Aug. 20, 1770.
? Works (Adams, C. F. ), vol. ii, p. 255.
? ? 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
? COLONIAL PROSPERITY 245
orders for dutied tea had been sent in the fall of 1773. *
Likewise T. C. Williams & Company of Annapolis issued a
statement in October, 1774, with reference to the tea con-
signed to them in the Peggy Stewart, in which they declared:
When we ordered this tea [in May, 1774], we did nothing more
than our neighbours; for it is well known that most merchants,
both here and in Baltimore, that ordered fall goods, ordered
tea as usual; and to our certain knowledge, in the months of
April, May and June last, near thirty chests were imported into
this city by different merchants, and the duties paid without
the least opposition. . . . We therefore think it hard, nay cruel
usage, that our characters should be thus blasted for only doing
what most people in this province that are concerned in trade,
have likewise done. 2
At Charleston, S. C. , the importation of dutied tea had
also been carried on during the years 1771-1773 with ab-
solutely no attempt at concealment. 8 At the public meeting,
held in December, 1773, upon the arrival of the East India
Company's ship, it was strongly argued that " Tea had ever
been spontaneously imported and the Duty paid; that every
subject had an equal right to send that article from the
Mother Country into their Province, and therefore it was
unreasonable to exclude the Hon. East India Company from
the same privilege. " * Indeed, while the people were still
in session, some dutied teas on board the tea-ship, not owned
by the East India Company, were landed and carted past the
meeting-place to the stores of private merchants! 5
1 Md. Gas. , Aug. 11, 1774; also 4 Am. Arch. , vol. i, pp. 703-704.
1 Md. Gas. , Oct. 27, 1774-
1 S. C. Gas. , Nov. 29, Dec. 6, 20, 1773.
*N. Y. Gasetteer, Dec. 23, 1773.
? Drayton, J. , Memoirs of the American Revolution (Charleston,
1821), vol. i, p. 98.
? ? 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
? 246 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
This contemporary evidence x is abundantly supported by
the official figures of the British government on the tea
importations into the colonies. 2 At Boston . a total of
,173 077 pounds of dutied tea was imported from December
j, 1770 to January fi, 1773 without art1culate protest from
the r^difaljO "Three hundred whole and fifty-five half
Chests came in Vessels belonging to Mr. John Hancock the
Patriot," stated the comptroller of customs at Boston in a
letter of September 29, 1773, to John Pownall, under-secre-
tary of state in the colonial department. 4 In the other
importing provinces, the amount of dutied tea received from
December 1, 1770 to January 5, 1773 was less in quantity
but probably about equal in proportion to their normal
volume of trade. At Rhode Island, the quantity of dutied
tea entered was 20,833 pounds; at Patuxent, Md. , 33,304
pounds; at the several Virginia ports, 79,527 pounds; at
Charleston, S. C. , 48,540 pounds; and at Savannah, 12,931
pounds, ^hr totfll f Or ,fl
Vr>r1f ami Pwinsvlvjmifr was g8o. 8? T jv^pHs on which the
duty was paid without arousing comment.
W<>w York null . Pluk1dfiiLiliii--were the only naTt,g of
BriHlh Aimrina where thg people faithfullv observed the
1 For further confirmatory evidence, vide, in the case of Massachu-
setts, Mass. Gas. & Post-Boy, Dec. 6, 1773; for Maryland, Md. Gas. ,
Aug. 18, 1774; for Georgia, Ga. Gas. , July 27, 1774. Cf. Meredith's
statement in House of Commons, 4 Am. Arch. , vol. i, pp. 1624-1625.
ViKbstract prepared in the office of the inspector of imports and ex-
ports; quoted by Channing, History of U. S. , vol. iii, p. 128 n.
1"Q" in the Bos. Eve. Post, Nov. 15, 1773, declared that 173 different
merchants were concerned in this importation; but a letter from Boston
in the Pa. Packet, Dec. 13, 1773, claimed' that the number of importers
had been confounded with the number of importations.
4Letter of Benjamin Hallowell; Stevens, Facsimiles, vol. xxiv, no.
2029, p. 5. A chest contained 340 pounds. Vide also John Adams's
Works, vol. ii, p. 381.
? ? 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
? COLONIAL PROSPERITY 247
boycott against dutied tea. 1 These places were the chief
centers for tea-smuggling in America. Unembarrassed by
the presence of the Customs Board, the enterprising mer-
chants of these ports drove a brisk trade with Holland,
Sweden and Germany and with the Dutch island of St.
Eustatius for contraband tea, powder and other supplies but
particularly for the forbidden tea. 2 Lieutenant Governor
Colden ancj Lord Dartmouth exchanged views on the sub-
ject, agreeing in the sentiment that the illicit trade between
New York and Holland prevailed "to an enormous de-
gree. "' "It is well known," wrote Samuel Seabury in
1774, " that little or no tea has been entered at the Customs
House for several years. All that is imported is smuggled
from Holland, and the Dutch Islands in the West Indies. " *
Gilbert Barkly, a Philadelphia merchant of sixteen years'
standing, wrote in May, 1773, of the extensive smuggling
of tea "from Holland, France, Sweden, Lisbon &c, St.
Eustatia, in the West Indies &c. " 5 Smuggling " has amaz-
ingly encreased within these twenty years past," asserted
"A Tradesman of Philadelphia. " * Hutchinson informed
the home government that "in New York they import
scarce any other than Dutch teas. In Rhode Island and
Pennsylvania, it is little better. " T Since smuggled tea was
1 Contemporaries realized this. E. g. , vide "A Tradesman of Phila-
delphia" in Pa. Journ. , Aug. 17, 1774.
1Letters of Hutchinson in Mass. Arch. , vol. xxvii, p. 317; Bos. Gas. ,
Nov. 27, Dec. 4, 1775; N. Engl. Chron. , July 29.
? N. Y. Col. Docs. , vol. viii, pp. 487, 510-512.
4 Free Thoughts on the Proceedings of the Continental Congress . . .
By a Farmer (1774). Also vide Becker, N. Y. Parties, 1760-1776, p. 84,
n. 158.
1 Drake, F. S. , Tea Leaves (Boston, 1884), p. 201.
? Pa. Journ. , Aug. 17, 1774.
'Letter of Sept. 10, 1771; Bos. Gas. , Nov. 27, 1775. Newport prob-
ably ranked next in importance to New York and Philadelphia as a
centre for tea-smuggling. Vide Drake, op. cit. , pp. 194-197.
? ? 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
? 248 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
cheaper for the consumer to drink than dutied tea and the
profits of the tea dealer greater, the systematic neglect of
the dutied article in New York and Philadelphia corres-
ponded as much to self-interest as devotion to principle,
and gave fair occasion for the coining of the epigram that
"a smuggler and a whig are cousin Germans . . . " *
The smuggling merchants experienced little difficulty in
getting their teas into America. Notwithstanding all the
regulations of recent years, there were still many secluded
landing places on the extensive coast line and all the tricks
which the mind of a resourceful skipper could invent to
deceive the customs off1cials. 2 There were, furthermore,
customs officials who, from lack of reward from the govern-
ment, did not care to risk "the rage of the people," * or
who, because of the freehandedness of the smugglers, found
rich reward in conniving at the traffic. Colden cited
the case of his grandson, recently appointed surveyor and
searcher of the port of New York, who was given to under-
stand by interested parties that " if he would not be officious
in his Duty, he might depend upon receiving ? 1500 a year. " *
The views of contemporary observers throw some light
on the proportion of imported tea which failed to pay the
parliamentary duty. (JDYf;rP"r Tilltf,llirsOn who seems to
have furnished the brains for the tea business carried on
1 " Massachusettensis" in Mass. Gas. & Post-Boy, Jan. 2, 1775.
*? . g. , filling the interstices of a lumber cargo with tea, carrying
false bills of lading, and the like; private letters in Pub. Rec. Off. :
C. O. 5, no. 138 (L. C. Transcripts), pp. 151-152, 175. Vide the sailing
orders of Captain Hammond for obtaining a tea cargo at Goteborg or
Hamburg and for running it past the customs officials at Newport.
R. /. Commerce, vol. i, pp. 332-333.
* Letters of Hutchinson to Hillsborough, Aug. 25, Sept. 10, 1771, in
Bos. Gas. , Nov. 27, 1775.
4 Letter Books, vol. ii, pp. 370-372.
? ? 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
? COLONIAL PROSPERITY
249
by his SOnS at Boston,
consumption of teas in America was 10. 200 flip^f" nr f"-
528. 000 pounds^1 For approximately the same period, the
amount" of tea that paid the duty was about 320. 000 pounds. 2
Hutchinson's estimate was evidently wide of the mark, for
even Samuel Wharton, who gravely averred that the fron-
tiersmen and many Indians shared the popular habit of im-
bibing tea twice a day, placed the total consumption at a
million and a half pounds less. * The London tea merchant,
William Palmer, judged more dispassionately when he
hazarded a figure about half of that named by Hutchinson,
remarking that Hutchinson's estimate of "19,200 chests
is more than has been hitherto annually imported from
China by all foreign companies. " * Assuming Palmer's
conservative figure to be approximately correct, the con-
clusion would seem valid that in a year, like 1771, marked
by unusually large importations of customed tea, more
than nine-tenths of the tea consumed was illicitly imported. *
The incentive to smuggling existed in spite of the well-
intentioned efforts of the British government. The Towns-
hend act of 1767, although imposing a small import duty of
threepence a pound in America, had removed all British im-
1 Bos. Go*. , Nov. 27, 1775.
1 The amount of dutied tea imported from Dec. 1, 1770 to Jan. 5, 1772
was 344,771 pounds, according to an abstract prepared in the office of the
inspector of imports and exports; quoted by Channing, op. cit. , vol. iii,
p. 128 n.
*" Observations," Pa. Mag. , vol. xxv, p. 140.
4 Drake, op. cit. , p. 197.
6 Hutchinson in 1771 set the figure at nine-tenths for New York and
Philadelphia and five-sixths for Massachusetts. Bos. Gaz. , Nov. 27,
1775. He said elsewhere that the contraband tea consumed' at Boston
came there by way of New York and Philadelphia. Mass. Arch. , vol.
xxvii, p. 317.
? ? 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
? THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
port duties from tea exported to America,1 and had thus,
for a time at least, reduced the cost of English tea to the
American consumer below that of the contraband article.
This advantageous situation of English tea could, in the
nature of things, continue only so long as the wholesale
price of the tea in the English market did not go up, or the
price of smuggled fell. The former occurred. The
East India Company, although not permitted to sell at
retail, were permitted to name an upset price at their public
auction sales. Treading the edge of a quicksand of bank-
ruptcy and obliged by the act of 1767 to make good any
deficiency in the revenues resulting from the discontinuance
of certain tea duties, the company sought to recoup its
losses by advancing the upset price of tea. Governor Hutch-
inson wrote to Lord Hillsborough on August 25, 1771: " If
the India company had continued the sale of their teas at 2s.
2d. to 2s. 4d. as they sold two years ago, the Dutch trade
would have been over by this time; but now that the teas
are at 3s. the illicit traders can afford to lose one chest in
three . . . " * Meantime, Dutch teas were selling in Hol-
land from 18d. to 2s. per pound and paid no import duty
into America. * Hutchinson urged constantly in his busi-
ness and political correspondence that "by some means or
other the price of Teas in England to the Exporter ought
to be kept nearer to the price in Holland. " *
The next act of Parliament dealing with the East India
1 7 George III, c. 56. Vide Farrand's article already referred to, in
Am. Hist. Rev. vol. iii, pp. 266-269.
1 Bos. Gaz. , Nov. 27, 1775.
* Drake, op. cit. , pp. 191, 102, 194-197. Hutchinson calculated the cost
of landing smuggled tea at five per cent.
* Letters to William Palmer and Lord Hillsborough, in Mass. Arch. ,
vol. xxvii, pp. 206-207; Bos. Gas. , Nov. 27, Dec. 4, 1775. Vide also me-
morial of Barkly, the Philadelphia merchant, to the same purpose.
Drake, op. cit. , pp. 199-202.
?
