Vide also Governor Eden's correspondence with
reference
to this
affair in 4 M.
affair in 4 M.
Arthur Schlesinger - Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution
Letter of Apr.
12, 1770
to Hillsborough.
1 Bos. Eve. Post, Apr. 9, 1770.
4 N. H. Gas. , Apr. 1. 3, May 11, 1770.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTA TION
195
Boston, sought to introduce his wares there. The town
meeting, on April n, resolved to have no dealings with
McMasters or any other importer, and to boycott vendue
masters and coasting vessels that were in any way connected
with them. They even threatened to cancel the licenses of
tavern-keepers who permitted such goods to be exposed
for sale in their houses. 1 The movement in New Hamp-
shire partook too much of the nature of an emotional revival
to be lasting in its effects; and, as we shall see, the merchants
at Portsmouth resumed importation as soon as the excite-
ment subsided.
Of the remaining northern provinces, Rhode Island was
the only province whose conduct resembled, in any respect,
that of New Hampshire. Dragged into the non-importa-
tion league by threats of boycott by the great trading-towns,
the merchants at Newport regarded their tardy agreement
with keenest disrelish. Hutchinson voiced the common
opinion of other provinces when he said: "Rhode Island
professed to Join but privatelv imported to their great
ga1n. 2 When John Maudsley, a member of the Sons of
Liberty, returned from London with goods forbidden by
the agreement, which had been adopted during his absence,
he " cheerfully submitted" the goods to be stored, accord-
ing to the account in the Newport Mercury, April 9, 1770.
But if "Americanus," of Swanzey, is to be believed in the
Boston Gasette, May 7, the goods in question were placed
in Maudsley's store on the wharf, and, after dark, were
carted to his house, immediately opened and publicly sold
to almost every shop in Newport, unnoticed by the Mer-
chants' Committee. This tale bears the color of truth.
Certain it is that the Merchants' Committee at Newport
1 N. H. Gas. , Apr. 13, 1770; also Bos. Eve. Post, Apr. 16.
1Mass. Bay, voL iii, p. 261 n.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 196 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1778
never displayed any noticeable activity in detecting tabooed
importations.
All evidence would indicate that New Jersey, the Dela-
ware Counties and Connecticut were true to their profes-
sions of non-importation and non-consumption. In the case
of Connecticut, "A Freeman of Connecticut " wrote in July,
1770, with every assurance of truth, that the various agree-
ments of the towns had been kept "save in three or four
trivial instances, inadvertently and inconsiderately done;
and in every instance, one excepted, public satisfaction has
been given and the goods stored. " 1 The exception was a
small importation of tea from Boston.
1 Conn. Courant, July 30, 1770. A case, which gained local notoriety,
was the importation of some coarse woolens by Mr. Verstille, of Weath-
ersfield, a man who had been in England when the non-importation
agreement was adopted As the merits of the case were not at all
clear, some merchants cut the knot by buying the goods from Verstille
and placing them in store at their expense. Ibid. , Mch. 5.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? CHAPTER V
ENFORCEMENT AND BBEAKDOWN OF NON-IMPORTATION
(Continued)
plantation provinces, non-importation and the prob-
jems of its enforcement wel'tf llllllll leii. a bart ot the fabric
of everyday l1fe flp" m t^e mmrnercial provinces. The
agreements and associations had been promoted by the plant-
ing class in opposition to the small, active mercantile class;
and in the general absence of trading centres, it was difficult
for the planting element to implant the fear of discipline
in the hearts of the merchants. The geographical distribu-
tion of southern society deprived the planters of the oppor-
tunity of exerting their influence compactly, except at the
periodical meetings of the legislative assemblies. Further-
more, since the economic discontent in the South was not
directly traceable to the Townshend duties and restrictions,
a literal obedience to the agreements did not always seem
imperative to the planters themselves. 1 The result was that
1 The conduct of George Washington probably typified the attitude
of many of the planters toward the non-importation association. On
July 25, 1769, he ordered a bill of goods from a London house, with
instructions that: "If there are any articles contained in either of
the invoices (paper only excepted) which are taxed by act of Parlia-
ment . . . it is my express desire . . . that they may not be sent. "
Washington ignored the fact that a long list of household luxuries and
personal fineries were <<qually under the ban with the dutied articles.
Vide supra, p. 137 n. A little more than a year later, however, he placed
orders in London for goods, which seemed to correspond entirely
with the provisions of the Virginia association. Washington, Writings
(Ford), vol. ii, pp. 270 n. , 284 n.
197
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? Igg THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
vinces actually
increasd-somwhat in
the commercial provinces, they declined two-thirds in the
year 1769 as compared with the year 1768, and fell below
the level of 1768 even in the year 1770 when the agreements
collapsed. Virginia appears to have, been the worst-of-
fender quantitatively. To Mf^Y1""^ inri c^uth r-irnlim
falls the distinction of having made tTle Tingt knnnraKlp
record.
Soon after the adoption of the Virginia Association of
May 1 8, 1769, it became evident that the factors dominated
the situation in the province and that, unless their aid was
enlisted, the association could be hardly more than a glitter-
ing futility. 1 A new and even more liberal plan was there-
fore drafted; and on June 22, 1770, it was jointly adopted
by the members of the House of Burgesses and the merchant
body of Williamsburg. The new association was a lengthy
document which covered the essential points of the earlier
agreement. Several changes were made in the list of articles
enumerated for non-importation. A regulation was added
to boycott importers who defied the association or who
bought goods imported into Virginia because rejected in
other provinces; and a committee of inspection was au-
thorized for each county with instructions to publish the
names of all offenders. The association was signed by the
moderator, Peyton Randolph, by Andrew Sprowle, chairman
of the Williamsburg traders, and by one hundred and sixty-
six others. Copies of the association were sent to the coun-
ties for signing. 2 Only one or two attempts to enforce the
1Bland, Papers (Campbell, C. , ed. ), vol. i, pp. 28-30; Washington,
Writings (Ford), vol. ii, pp. 280-283.
? Pa. Gas. , July 12, 1770; also N. Y. Journ. , July 19. A copy, signed
by sixty-two inhabitants of Fairfax County, is in the Library of
Congress.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION Ig9
association were noted in the newspapers. In one instance,
Captain Spier of the Sharpe, whose conduct at Philadelphia
had caused his proscription, arrived at Norfolk to ply his
trade. Although the signers of the association took occa-
sion to express their belief that the landing or storing of his
goods would be an offense against the association, neverthe-
less the merchants, William and John Brown, received goods
from him and defied the local committee. In Rind's Vir-
ginia Gasette of August 2, 1770, the committee published the
facts of the affair, with the statement: "What is further
necessary to be done . . . is submitted to the Consideration
of the Virginia Associators. "
Considerably more pains were taken to enforce the as-
sociation jp Maryland and wifh greater success. The non-
importation combination in that province gained much
strength from the proximity of the Maryland ports to
Philadelphia and from the fact that non-importation had re-
ceived some local mercantile support from the beginning.
The number of native merchants was greater than in Vir-
ginia; and indeed Baltimore was showing indications of
becoming a commercial rival of Philadelphia. 1 The execu-
tion of the Maryland pact was jealously scrutinized by the
merchants at Philadelphia, and for a time the good faith
of the Baltimore merchants was suspected. This feeling
took definite shape in November, 1769, when the Baltimore
Committee of Merchants permitted two merchants to bring
in goods, valued at ? 2600, that violated the local agreement
of March 30. In the one case, the importer had satisfied a
meeting of associators that he had received a special exemp-
tion covering the fall shipments; and, in the other, it had
been shown that the goods were permitted by the general
Maryland association which postdated the local agreement.
1 Lincoln, Revolutionary Movement in Pa. , pp. 59-65.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 200 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
These occurrences brought a sharp letter from the Philadel-
phia Committee of Merchants, with an intimation that the
Marylanders were plotting to deflect trade from Phila-
delphia and a warning that their conduct would surely bring
on them a rigorous boycott. When they got further light,
however, the Philadelphia Committee freely admitted their
error and expressed pleasure at the upright conduct of Balti-
more. 1 In view of no evidence to the contrary, the mer-
chants of Baltimore seem to have merited this good opinion.
Thus, in May, 1770, a meeting of merchants refused to
permit a shipment, valued at ? 1292, to be landed. 2
In all Maryland, the best known case of enforcement was
that of the brigantine Good Intent at Annapolis in Febru-
ary, 1770. 8 Courts of law have seldom sat on cases involv-
ing nicer points of interpretation; and few better examples
could be found of the application of a rule of conduct
against the wish and interest of individuals. The Good
Intent arrived from London heavily laden with European
goods for a number of mercantile houses of Annapolis.
James Dick and Anthony Stewart, the largest importers and
respected merchants of the town, admitted that their own
shipment amounted to ? 1377, of which only ? 715 worth con-
sisted of articles permitted by the agreement. Believing
that the character of the importations was being widely
misunderstood, Dick & Stewart requested a joint meeting
1 Md. Gas. , Dec. 28, 1769; Papers of Phila. Merchants, pp. 45-47, 62-63.
1 Pa. Gas. , June 7, 1770; also N. Y. Journ. , June 7.
1 The Proceedings of the Committee Appointed to examine . . .
Brigantine Good Intent . . . (Annapolis, 1770), reprinted in Md. Hist.
Mag. , vol. iii, pp. 141-157, 240-256, 342-363; statement of minority of
this committee in Md. Gas. , Apr. 19, 1770. An abstract of the pam-
phlet was published in ibid. , Feb. 14, and copied into N. Y. Journ. , Mch.
8.
Vide also Governor Eden's correspondence with reference to this
affair in 4 M. H. S. Colls. , vol. x, pp. 621-626.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION 2OI
of the committees of the counties of Baltimore, Prince
George and Anne Arundel to render judgment in the matter,
and agreed that no goods should be removed from the
vessel for twelve days after its arrival. Before this joint
committee a vast mass of evidence was laid by the various
importers, consisting of correspondence, manifests, invoices,
shop-notes, bills of lading and other papers. After careful
consideration, "Abundant and satisfactory Proofs " 1 made
it clear that the importers had ordered their goods before
any association had been formed in Maryland; but the com-
mittee held that, long since, the orders had properly become
"dead," because of the protracted delay of the London
shipper in sending the goods after hearing of the Maryland
Association, and because of countermanding orders in other
cases. The shipper's belated performance of his orders was
attributed to his "ungenerous Principle . . . in trumping
up old Orders to colour a premeditated Design to subvert
the Association. " Therefore, the committee resolved that
merchandise debarred by the association should not be
landed, and that, as the allowable articles were packed in
with them, no goods at all should be landed. The im-
porters made several pointed protests, emphasizing that they
had not violated the letter of the association and that many
practical difficulties lay in the way of returning the goods.
Nevertheless, they were forced to yield; and the Good
Intent with all goods on board sailed for London on Tues-
day, February 27. The principle upon which the committee
acted was that, if the present cargo were admitted, " every
Merchant in London, trading to this Province, might send
in any quantities of Goods he pleased, under Orders that he
must in Course of Business have refused to comply with. "
Although Baltimore and Annapolis were the chief trading
1 The committee's own expression.
? ? 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
? 202 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
centres, committees of inspection were established through-
out the province; and a number of instances of enforcement
were noted in the newspapers. 1
The efforts to execute the non-importation association at
Charleston. South Carolina, developed a situation which
"Contained some unusual features. Sam Adams has been
said to have had his counterpart in Chris Gadsden of South
Carolina. Likewise, it may be said that the course of Wil-
liam Henry Drayton at this period reflected the stormy
career of John Mein. Dravton was a young man scarce
twenty-seven, a gentleman of independent wealth. Fear-
less, hotblooded, and of brilliant parts, he was by nature a
conservative. His later conversion to the radical cause has
been attributed to personal ambition, but can be more rightly
ascribed to his intense Americanism and to a change of
British policy in 1774 that outraged his sense of justice
as deeply as the situation he faced in 1769. Drayton was
the foremost adversary cf non-importation in South Caro-
lina; and unlike John Mein, his tendency was to place his
opposition on legal and constitutional grounds, although he
indulged in furious abuse upon occasion. Whether he
knew of Mein or not is uncertain; but Mein knew of him
and copied some of his most effective strictures into the
columns of the Boston Chronicle.
Drayton opened the attack in an article in the $a1dh
Carolina (fazetff. August 3, 1769, under the signature
"Free-man. " Centering his attention on the clause of the
association which proscribed all persons who failed to at-
tach their signatures within one month, he likened it to " the
Popish method of gaining converts to their religion by fire
and faggot. To stigmatize a man . . . with the infamous
1 Particularly in the counties of Prince George, St. Mary's, Talbot
and Charles. Md. Gos. , Apr. 12, May 24, July 12, 1770; Pa. Gas. , Nov.
30, 1769.
? ? 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 203
name of an enemy to his country can be legally done by no
authority but by that of the voice of the Legislature. " Of
Gadsden he declared, in a transparent allusion, "this man
who sets up for a patriot and pretends to be a friend to
Liberty, scruples not, like Cromwell, who was the patriot
of his day, to break through and overthrow her fundamental
laws, while he declared he would support and defend them
all, and to endeavour to enslave his fellow-subjects, while
he avowed that he only contended for the preservation of
their liberties. " Doubtful as to whether this patriot were
"a traitor or madman," he proposed that, to avoid any ill
consequences of his disorder, " he may be lodged in a certain
brick building, behind a certain white house near the old
barracks, and there maintained, at least during the ensuing
change and full of the moon, at the public expence. "
The next issue of the Gazette brought an answer from
"C. G. ", full of abuse and personalities; and he was an-
swered in kind by " Freeman " the following week. On the
afternoon of September 1, 1769, a general meeting of the
inhabitants of Charleston was held under Liberty Tree to
take counsel over the persistence of a few people in refusing
to sign the agreement. It was voted that the delinquents
should be given until September 7 to redeem themselves. 1
When that day arrived, handbills were distributed over the
city containing the names of all non-subscribers. It ap-
peared that, exclusive of crown officials, only thirty-one per-
sons had withheld their signatures. 8 Among the names pub-
lished were those of William Henry Drayton, William
Wragg and John Gordon. All three men hastened to issue
protests,* but the burden of the controversy clearly rested
1 5. C. Gaz. , Sept. 7, 1769; also N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , Oct. 30.
1 S'. C. Gas. , Sept . 14 1769; also N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , Oct. 30.
* Gordon announced that he had signed the early merchants' agree-
ment; but that in the profusion of agreements, attempted and signed,
? ? 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
? 204 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
with the energetic and caustic pen of Drayton. Drayton
dwelt long and emphatically on the charge that the com-
mittee--" that Harlequin Medley Committee "--had vio-
lated the first principle of liberty while pretending to strive
for it. He denounced "the laying illegal Restraints upon
the free Wills of free Men, who have an undoubted Right
to think and act for themselves;" and he declared: "The
profanum vtdgus is a species of mankind which I respect as
I ought,--it is hwmani generis. --But I see no reason why I
should allow my opinion to be controlled by theirs. " *
Gadsden replied in an article bristling with insinuation
and disparagement. He maintained that the proceedings of
the association did not violate a single law of the land; and,
turning Drayton's own phrase, he held that freemen had a
right to associate to deal with whom they pleased. 2 The
mechanic members of the General Committee, aroused by
Drayton's supercilious allusions, expressed their gratifica-
tion in print that he had "been pleased to allow us a place
amongst human beings," and added reprovingly: "Every
man is not so lucky as to have a fortune ready provided to
his hand, either by his own or his wife's parents. " *
"Freeman" returned to the controversy in two more
articles, addressing himself largely to the task of refuting
Gadsden's assertion that the association did not violate the
law. He showed, to his own satisfaction, that the associa-
he would not be "bandyed from resolutions to resolutions" and,
moreover, he would not adopt a measure of which he disapproved.
S. C. Gas. , Sept. 14, 1769. Wragg wrote that he had not signed, be-
cause he did not believe in subscribing to an' agreement to starve him-
self; and he argued that the agreement would not accomplish the
end desired. Ibid. , Sept. 21.
1 Ibid. , Sept . a1, 1769; also Bos. Chrott. , Oct. 30.
? 5. C. Gas. , Sept. 28, 1769.
1 Ibid. , Oct. 5, 1769.
? ? 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 205
tion bore the legal character of a " confederacy" in that it
was a voluntary combination by bonds or promises to do
damage to innocent third parties, and that therefore the as-
sociators were punishable by law. 1 Gadsden now advanced
to a truly revolutionary position. Passing over the charges
of the illegal character of the association, and citing the his-
tory of England as his best justification, he affirmed that,
whenever the people's rights were invaded in an outrageous
fashion by a corrupt Parliament or an abandoned ministry,
mankind exerted "those latent, though inherent rights of
SOCIETY, which no climate, no time, no constitution, no
contract, can ever destroy or diminish;" that under such
circumstances petty men who cavilled at measures were
properly disregarded. 2
Drayton was precluded from seeking redress for his
injuries in a court of law, as a majority of the common
pleas judges were signers of the association and as the jury
would probably consist entirely of signers, also. On De-
cember 5, 1769, he therefore had recourse to the legislature;
but his petition was rejected by the lower house without a
reading. The petition was afterwards published;s it con-
tained a powerful summary of the arguments he had used
in the Gasette as well as eloquent evidence of the efficacy of
the boycott measures. He freely admitted that "his com-
modities which heretofore were of ready sale now remain
upon his hands," and that possible purchasers, as soon as
they learned of his ownership of the commodities, "im-
1 Ibid. , Oct. 12, 26, 1769. William Wragg, maintaining the same
point, argued that it did not follow that a number of persons as-
sociating together had a right to do what one man might do, and he
said that Parliament had acted on this doctrine in punishing tailors
for combinations to increase wages. Ibid. , Nov. 16.
1 "A Member of the General Committee," ibid. , Oct. 18, 1769.
1 Ibid. , Dec. 14, 1769; also Bos. Chron. , Jan. 11, 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
? 206 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
mediately declined any further treaty for the purchase of
them, because of the Resolutions. " Realizing that he was
a beaten man, he sailed for England on January 3, 1770, in
a ship that, appropriately enough, carried goods outlawed
by the association. 1
A vigorous execution of the association at Charleston
was insured by the fact that two-thirds of the General Com-
mittee consisted of planters and mechanics, only one-third
being merchants and factors. So successful was the en-
forcement that a recountal of even the striking instances
would be tedious and purposeless. 8 The General Com-
mittee met regularly every Tuesday; subordinate to them
was a vigilant committee of inspection, which saw to the
storing of goods or their reshipment, as the importer pre-
ferred. 8 Almost every issue of the South Carolina Gasette
contained statements of the arrival of vessels and of the
transactions of the committee thereon. In only one in-
stance was the good faith of the committee impugned. Ann
and Benjamin Mathews having been publicly proscribed for
selling goods stored by them, Mrs. Mathews retorted, in a
printed article, that the goods had been ordered prior to the
association, that her son had given the promise to store
while she was lying very ill, and that stern necessity had
compelled her to open the goods. She charged that in-
dividual members of the committee, whom she named, had
been permitted to receive articles ordered before the associa-
tion had been adopted, and that in one or two instances their
articles had arrived after hers. The only difference between
her offense and that of Mr. Rutledge, who had recently
1S. C. Gas. , Jan. 4, 1770.
1 An interesting account may be found in McCrady, S. C. under
Royal Govt. , pp. 664-676.
*S. C.
to Hillsborough.
1 Bos. Eve. Post, Apr. 9, 1770.
4 N. H. Gas. , Apr. 1. 3, May 11, 1770.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTA TION
195
Boston, sought to introduce his wares there. The town
meeting, on April n, resolved to have no dealings with
McMasters or any other importer, and to boycott vendue
masters and coasting vessels that were in any way connected
with them. They even threatened to cancel the licenses of
tavern-keepers who permitted such goods to be exposed
for sale in their houses. 1 The movement in New Hamp-
shire partook too much of the nature of an emotional revival
to be lasting in its effects; and, as we shall see, the merchants
at Portsmouth resumed importation as soon as the excite-
ment subsided.
Of the remaining northern provinces, Rhode Island was
the only province whose conduct resembled, in any respect,
that of New Hampshire. Dragged into the non-importa-
tion league by threats of boycott by the great trading-towns,
the merchants at Newport regarded their tardy agreement
with keenest disrelish. Hutchinson voiced the common
opinion of other provinces when he said: "Rhode Island
professed to Join but privatelv imported to their great
ga1n. 2 When John Maudsley, a member of the Sons of
Liberty, returned from London with goods forbidden by
the agreement, which had been adopted during his absence,
he " cheerfully submitted" the goods to be stored, accord-
ing to the account in the Newport Mercury, April 9, 1770.
But if "Americanus," of Swanzey, is to be believed in the
Boston Gasette, May 7, the goods in question were placed
in Maudsley's store on the wharf, and, after dark, were
carted to his house, immediately opened and publicly sold
to almost every shop in Newport, unnoticed by the Mer-
chants' Committee. This tale bears the color of truth.
Certain it is that the Merchants' Committee at Newport
1 N. H. Gas. , Apr. 13, 1770; also Bos. Eve. Post, Apr. 16.
1Mass. Bay, voL iii, p. 261 n.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 196 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1778
never displayed any noticeable activity in detecting tabooed
importations.
All evidence would indicate that New Jersey, the Dela-
ware Counties and Connecticut were true to their profes-
sions of non-importation and non-consumption. In the case
of Connecticut, "A Freeman of Connecticut " wrote in July,
1770, with every assurance of truth, that the various agree-
ments of the towns had been kept "save in three or four
trivial instances, inadvertently and inconsiderately done;
and in every instance, one excepted, public satisfaction has
been given and the goods stored. " 1 The exception was a
small importation of tea from Boston.
1 Conn. Courant, July 30, 1770. A case, which gained local notoriety,
was the importation of some coarse woolens by Mr. Verstille, of Weath-
ersfield, a man who had been in England when the non-importation
agreement was adopted As the merits of the case were not at all
clear, some merchants cut the knot by buying the goods from Verstille
and placing them in store at their expense. Ibid. , Mch. 5.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? CHAPTER V
ENFORCEMENT AND BBEAKDOWN OF NON-IMPORTATION
(Continued)
plantation provinces, non-importation and the prob-
jems of its enforcement wel'tf llllllll leii. a bart ot the fabric
of everyday l1fe flp" m t^e mmrnercial provinces. The
agreements and associations had been promoted by the plant-
ing class in opposition to the small, active mercantile class;
and in the general absence of trading centres, it was difficult
for the planting element to implant the fear of discipline
in the hearts of the merchants. The geographical distribu-
tion of southern society deprived the planters of the oppor-
tunity of exerting their influence compactly, except at the
periodical meetings of the legislative assemblies. Further-
more, since the economic discontent in the South was not
directly traceable to the Townshend duties and restrictions,
a literal obedience to the agreements did not always seem
imperative to the planters themselves. 1 The result was that
1 The conduct of George Washington probably typified the attitude
of many of the planters toward the non-importation association. On
July 25, 1769, he ordered a bill of goods from a London house, with
instructions that: "If there are any articles contained in either of
the invoices (paper only excepted) which are taxed by act of Parlia-
ment . . . it is my express desire . . . that they may not be sent. "
Washington ignored the fact that a long list of household luxuries and
personal fineries were <<qually under the ban with the dutied articles.
Vide supra, p. 137 n. A little more than a year later, however, he placed
orders in London for goods, which seemed to correspond entirely
with the provisions of the Virginia association. Washington, Writings
(Ford), vol. ii, pp. 270 n. , 284 n.
197
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? Igg THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
vinces actually
increasd-somwhat in
the commercial provinces, they declined two-thirds in the
year 1769 as compared with the year 1768, and fell below
the level of 1768 even in the year 1770 when the agreements
collapsed. Virginia appears to have, been the worst-of-
fender quantitatively. To Mf^Y1""^ inri c^uth r-irnlim
falls the distinction of having made tTle Tingt knnnraKlp
record.
Soon after the adoption of the Virginia Association of
May 1 8, 1769, it became evident that the factors dominated
the situation in the province and that, unless their aid was
enlisted, the association could be hardly more than a glitter-
ing futility. 1 A new and even more liberal plan was there-
fore drafted; and on June 22, 1770, it was jointly adopted
by the members of the House of Burgesses and the merchant
body of Williamsburg. The new association was a lengthy
document which covered the essential points of the earlier
agreement. Several changes were made in the list of articles
enumerated for non-importation. A regulation was added
to boycott importers who defied the association or who
bought goods imported into Virginia because rejected in
other provinces; and a committee of inspection was au-
thorized for each county with instructions to publish the
names of all offenders. The association was signed by the
moderator, Peyton Randolph, by Andrew Sprowle, chairman
of the Williamsburg traders, and by one hundred and sixty-
six others. Copies of the association were sent to the coun-
ties for signing. 2 Only one or two attempts to enforce the
1Bland, Papers (Campbell, C. , ed. ), vol. i, pp. 28-30; Washington,
Writings (Ford), vol. ii, pp. 280-283.
? Pa. Gas. , July 12, 1770; also N. Y. Journ. , July 19. A copy, signed
by sixty-two inhabitants of Fairfax County, is in the Library of
Congress.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION Ig9
association were noted in the newspapers. In one instance,
Captain Spier of the Sharpe, whose conduct at Philadelphia
had caused his proscription, arrived at Norfolk to ply his
trade. Although the signers of the association took occa-
sion to express their belief that the landing or storing of his
goods would be an offense against the association, neverthe-
less the merchants, William and John Brown, received goods
from him and defied the local committee. In Rind's Vir-
ginia Gasette of August 2, 1770, the committee published the
facts of the affair, with the statement: "What is further
necessary to be done . . . is submitted to the Consideration
of the Virginia Associators. "
Considerably more pains were taken to enforce the as-
sociation jp Maryland and wifh greater success. The non-
importation combination in that province gained much
strength from the proximity of the Maryland ports to
Philadelphia and from the fact that non-importation had re-
ceived some local mercantile support from the beginning.
The number of native merchants was greater than in Vir-
ginia; and indeed Baltimore was showing indications of
becoming a commercial rival of Philadelphia. 1 The execu-
tion of the Maryland pact was jealously scrutinized by the
merchants at Philadelphia, and for a time the good faith
of the Baltimore merchants was suspected. This feeling
took definite shape in November, 1769, when the Baltimore
Committee of Merchants permitted two merchants to bring
in goods, valued at ? 2600, that violated the local agreement
of March 30. In the one case, the importer had satisfied a
meeting of associators that he had received a special exemp-
tion covering the fall shipments; and, in the other, it had
been shown that the goods were permitted by the general
Maryland association which postdated the local agreement.
1 Lincoln, Revolutionary Movement in Pa. , pp. 59-65.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 200 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
These occurrences brought a sharp letter from the Philadel-
phia Committee of Merchants, with an intimation that the
Marylanders were plotting to deflect trade from Phila-
delphia and a warning that their conduct would surely bring
on them a rigorous boycott. When they got further light,
however, the Philadelphia Committee freely admitted their
error and expressed pleasure at the upright conduct of Balti-
more. 1 In view of no evidence to the contrary, the mer-
chants of Baltimore seem to have merited this good opinion.
Thus, in May, 1770, a meeting of merchants refused to
permit a shipment, valued at ? 1292, to be landed. 2
In all Maryland, the best known case of enforcement was
that of the brigantine Good Intent at Annapolis in Febru-
ary, 1770. 8 Courts of law have seldom sat on cases involv-
ing nicer points of interpretation; and few better examples
could be found of the application of a rule of conduct
against the wish and interest of individuals. The Good
Intent arrived from London heavily laden with European
goods for a number of mercantile houses of Annapolis.
James Dick and Anthony Stewart, the largest importers and
respected merchants of the town, admitted that their own
shipment amounted to ? 1377, of which only ? 715 worth con-
sisted of articles permitted by the agreement. Believing
that the character of the importations was being widely
misunderstood, Dick & Stewart requested a joint meeting
1 Md. Gas. , Dec. 28, 1769; Papers of Phila. Merchants, pp. 45-47, 62-63.
1 Pa. Gas. , June 7, 1770; also N. Y. Journ. , June 7.
1 The Proceedings of the Committee Appointed to examine . . .
Brigantine Good Intent . . . (Annapolis, 1770), reprinted in Md. Hist.
Mag. , vol. iii, pp. 141-157, 240-256, 342-363; statement of minority of
this committee in Md. Gas. , Apr. 19, 1770. An abstract of the pam-
phlet was published in ibid. , Feb. 14, and copied into N. Y. Journ. , Mch.
8.
Vide also Governor Eden's correspondence with reference to this
affair in 4 M. H. S. Colls. , vol. x, pp. 621-626.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION 2OI
of the committees of the counties of Baltimore, Prince
George and Anne Arundel to render judgment in the matter,
and agreed that no goods should be removed from the
vessel for twelve days after its arrival. Before this joint
committee a vast mass of evidence was laid by the various
importers, consisting of correspondence, manifests, invoices,
shop-notes, bills of lading and other papers. After careful
consideration, "Abundant and satisfactory Proofs " 1 made
it clear that the importers had ordered their goods before
any association had been formed in Maryland; but the com-
mittee held that, long since, the orders had properly become
"dead," because of the protracted delay of the London
shipper in sending the goods after hearing of the Maryland
Association, and because of countermanding orders in other
cases. The shipper's belated performance of his orders was
attributed to his "ungenerous Principle . . . in trumping
up old Orders to colour a premeditated Design to subvert
the Association. " Therefore, the committee resolved that
merchandise debarred by the association should not be
landed, and that, as the allowable articles were packed in
with them, no goods at all should be landed. The im-
porters made several pointed protests, emphasizing that they
had not violated the letter of the association and that many
practical difficulties lay in the way of returning the goods.
Nevertheless, they were forced to yield; and the Good
Intent with all goods on board sailed for London on Tues-
day, February 27. The principle upon which the committee
acted was that, if the present cargo were admitted, " every
Merchant in London, trading to this Province, might send
in any quantities of Goods he pleased, under Orders that he
must in Course of Business have refused to comply with. "
Although Baltimore and Annapolis were the chief trading
1 The committee's own expression.
? ? 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
? 202 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
centres, committees of inspection were established through-
out the province; and a number of instances of enforcement
were noted in the newspapers. 1
The efforts to execute the non-importation association at
Charleston. South Carolina, developed a situation which
"Contained some unusual features. Sam Adams has been
said to have had his counterpart in Chris Gadsden of South
Carolina. Likewise, it may be said that the course of Wil-
liam Henry Drayton at this period reflected the stormy
career of John Mein. Dravton was a young man scarce
twenty-seven, a gentleman of independent wealth. Fear-
less, hotblooded, and of brilliant parts, he was by nature a
conservative. His later conversion to the radical cause has
been attributed to personal ambition, but can be more rightly
ascribed to his intense Americanism and to a change of
British policy in 1774 that outraged his sense of justice
as deeply as the situation he faced in 1769. Drayton was
the foremost adversary cf non-importation in South Caro-
lina; and unlike John Mein, his tendency was to place his
opposition on legal and constitutional grounds, although he
indulged in furious abuse upon occasion. Whether he
knew of Mein or not is uncertain; but Mein knew of him
and copied some of his most effective strictures into the
columns of the Boston Chronicle.
Drayton opened the attack in an article in the $a1dh
Carolina (fazetff. August 3, 1769, under the signature
"Free-man. " Centering his attention on the clause of the
association which proscribed all persons who failed to at-
tach their signatures within one month, he likened it to " the
Popish method of gaining converts to their religion by fire
and faggot. To stigmatize a man . . . with the infamous
1 Particularly in the counties of Prince George, St. Mary's, Talbot
and Charles. Md. Gos. , Apr. 12, May 24, July 12, 1770; Pa. Gas. , Nov.
30, 1769.
? ? 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 203
name of an enemy to his country can be legally done by no
authority but by that of the voice of the Legislature. " Of
Gadsden he declared, in a transparent allusion, "this man
who sets up for a patriot and pretends to be a friend to
Liberty, scruples not, like Cromwell, who was the patriot
of his day, to break through and overthrow her fundamental
laws, while he declared he would support and defend them
all, and to endeavour to enslave his fellow-subjects, while
he avowed that he only contended for the preservation of
their liberties. " Doubtful as to whether this patriot were
"a traitor or madman," he proposed that, to avoid any ill
consequences of his disorder, " he may be lodged in a certain
brick building, behind a certain white house near the old
barracks, and there maintained, at least during the ensuing
change and full of the moon, at the public expence. "
The next issue of the Gazette brought an answer from
"C. G. ", full of abuse and personalities; and he was an-
swered in kind by " Freeman " the following week. On the
afternoon of September 1, 1769, a general meeting of the
inhabitants of Charleston was held under Liberty Tree to
take counsel over the persistence of a few people in refusing
to sign the agreement. It was voted that the delinquents
should be given until September 7 to redeem themselves. 1
When that day arrived, handbills were distributed over the
city containing the names of all non-subscribers. It ap-
peared that, exclusive of crown officials, only thirty-one per-
sons had withheld their signatures. 8 Among the names pub-
lished were those of William Henry Drayton, William
Wragg and John Gordon. All three men hastened to issue
protests,* but the burden of the controversy clearly rested
1 5. C. Gaz. , Sept. 7, 1769; also N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , Oct. 30.
1 S'. C. Gas. , Sept . 14 1769; also N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , Oct. 30.
* Gordon announced that he had signed the early merchants' agree-
ment; but that in the profusion of agreements, attempted and signed,
? ? 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
? 204 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
with the energetic and caustic pen of Drayton. Drayton
dwelt long and emphatically on the charge that the com-
mittee--" that Harlequin Medley Committee "--had vio-
lated the first principle of liberty while pretending to strive
for it. He denounced "the laying illegal Restraints upon
the free Wills of free Men, who have an undoubted Right
to think and act for themselves;" and he declared: "The
profanum vtdgus is a species of mankind which I respect as
I ought,--it is hwmani generis. --But I see no reason why I
should allow my opinion to be controlled by theirs. " *
Gadsden replied in an article bristling with insinuation
and disparagement. He maintained that the proceedings of
the association did not violate a single law of the land; and,
turning Drayton's own phrase, he held that freemen had a
right to associate to deal with whom they pleased. 2 The
mechanic members of the General Committee, aroused by
Drayton's supercilious allusions, expressed their gratifica-
tion in print that he had "been pleased to allow us a place
amongst human beings," and added reprovingly: "Every
man is not so lucky as to have a fortune ready provided to
his hand, either by his own or his wife's parents. " *
"Freeman" returned to the controversy in two more
articles, addressing himself largely to the task of refuting
Gadsden's assertion that the association did not violate the
law. He showed, to his own satisfaction, that the associa-
he would not be "bandyed from resolutions to resolutions" and,
moreover, he would not adopt a measure of which he disapproved.
S. C. Gas. , Sept. 14, 1769. Wragg wrote that he had not signed, be-
cause he did not believe in subscribing to an' agreement to starve him-
self; and he argued that the agreement would not accomplish the
end desired. Ibid. , Sept. 21.
1 Ibid. , Sept . a1, 1769; also Bos. Chrott. , Oct. 30.
? 5. C. Gas. , Sept. 28, 1769.
1 Ibid. , Oct. 5, 1769.
? ? 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 205
tion bore the legal character of a " confederacy" in that it
was a voluntary combination by bonds or promises to do
damage to innocent third parties, and that therefore the as-
sociators were punishable by law. 1 Gadsden now advanced
to a truly revolutionary position. Passing over the charges
of the illegal character of the association, and citing the his-
tory of England as his best justification, he affirmed that,
whenever the people's rights were invaded in an outrageous
fashion by a corrupt Parliament or an abandoned ministry,
mankind exerted "those latent, though inherent rights of
SOCIETY, which no climate, no time, no constitution, no
contract, can ever destroy or diminish;" that under such
circumstances petty men who cavilled at measures were
properly disregarded. 2
Drayton was precluded from seeking redress for his
injuries in a court of law, as a majority of the common
pleas judges were signers of the association and as the jury
would probably consist entirely of signers, also. On De-
cember 5, 1769, he therefore had recourse to the legislature;
but his petition was rejected by the lower house without a
reading. The petition was afterwards published;s it con-
tained a powerful summary of the arguments he had used
in the Gasette as well as eloquent evidence of the efficacy of
the boycott measures. He freely admitted that "his com-
modities which heretofore were of ready sale now remain
upon his hands," and that possible purchasers, as soon as
they learned of his ownership of the commodities, "im-
1 Ibid. , Oct. 12, 26, 1769. William Wragg, maintaining the same
point, argued that it did not follow that a number of persons as-
sociating together had a right to do what one man might do, and he
said that Parliament had acted on this doctrine in punishing tailors
for combinations to increase wages. Ibid. , Nov. 16.
1 "A Member of the General Committee," ibid. , Oct. 18, 1769.
1 Ibid. , Dec. 14, 1769; also Bos. Chron. , Jan. 11, 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
? 206 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
mediately declined any further treaty for the purchase of
them, because of the Resolutions. " Realizing that he was
a beaten man, he sailed for England on January 3, 1770, in
a ship that, appropriately enough, carried goods outlawed
by the association. 1
A vigorous execution of the association at Charleston
was insured by the fact that two-thirds of the General Com-
mittee consisted of planters and mechanics, only one-third
being merchants and factors. So successful was the en-
forcement that a recountal of even the striking instances
would be tedious and purposeless. 8 The General Com-
mittee met regularly every Tuesday; subordinate to them
was a vigilant committee of inspection, which saw to the
storing of goods or their reshipment, as the importer pre-
ferred. 8 Almost every issue of the South Carolina Gasette
contained statements of the arrival of vessels and of the
transactions of the committee thereon. In only one in-
stance was the good faith of the committee impugned. Ann
and Benjamin Mathews having been publicly proscribed for
selling goods stored by them, Mrs. Mathews retorted, in a
printed article, that the goods had been ordered prior to the
association, that her son had given the promise to store
while she was lying very ill, and that stern necessity had
compelled her to open the goods. She charged that in-
dividual members of the committee, whom she named, had
been permitted to receive articles ordered before the associa-
tion had been adopted, and that in one or two instances their
articles had arrived after hers. The only difference between
her offense and that of Mr. Rutledge, who had recently
1S. C. Gas. , Jan. 4, 1770.
1 An interesting account may be found in McCrady, S. C. under
Royal Govt. , pp. 664-676.
*S. C.
