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.
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.
Arthur Schlesinger - Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution
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. Chron. , May 14, 1770; Pa. Mag. , vol. xiv, pp. 43-44.
4 N. Y. Journ. , Aug. 16, 1770.
* Bos. Eve. Post, May 28, 1770; N. Y. Journ. , May 24, Aug. 16.
* Pa. Gaz. , May 24, 1770; also N. Y. Journ. , May 31.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 220
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
letters were received by Joseph Galloway and Charles Thom-
son from Doctor Franklin in England, urging Philadelphia
to persist in the agreement; and his advice had "wonder-
ful effects. " 1 The trend of events was distinctly turning in
favor of the opponents of change; and at the general meet-
ing of inhabitants on June 5, the signers of the agreement,
having first met by themselves, agreed, with only four dis-
senting votes, to make no alteration in it " at this time. " *
The inhabitants of New York engaged in a similar con-
troversy, although the outcome was different. The non-
importation pact was there based upon an agreement of the
merchants, confirmed and supported by a separate agree-
ment of the tradesmen and workingmen. The issue be-
tween the two groups was made clear in the opening sen-
tences of a broadside issued about the middle of May:
Li' Nothing can be more flagrantly wrong than the Assertion
of some of our Mercantile Dons that the Mechanics have
no Right to give their Sentiments about the Importation of
British Commodities. . . . What particular Class among
us has an exclusive Right to decide a Question of General
Concern? " <<J
At a meeting on May 18, prompted by the letter from
Philadelphia, the merchants decided, as we have seen, "to
wait a few Weeks longer in Hopes of hearing the Duty on
Tea would also be repealed" before taking any action. 4
This brought about a meeting of the inhabitants of all ranks,
who voted by a large majority to preserve the non-importa-
tion inviolate and to boycott all persons who should trans-
gress it. They also issued a pronunciamento against the
1 Pa. Mag. , vol. xiv, p. 45; Colden, Letter Books, vol. ii, p. 223.
* Pa. Gas. , June 7, 1770.
1 Broadside in N. Y. Pub. Libr. , signed "Brutus. "
4 N. Y. Journ. , May 24, Aug. 16, 1770.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION 22I
cargo of a Glasgow vessel then in the harbor, a matter al-
ready dealt with in regular manner by the Committee of
Merchants. 1 The Committee of Merchants accepted the
issue, resigned their seats because of the irregular proceed-
ings of the mass meeting, and had the satisfaction of being
re-elected at a public meeting of citizens. 2 On the strength
of this vindication, the Committee of Merchants, now con-
vinced that hope of a total repeal of the Townshend duties
was illusory, determined to abandon the agreement and con-
fine non-importation only to dutied articles; and for this
purpose they invited the merchants of the non-importing
commercial provinces to send delegates to a congress at
Norwalk on June 18, "to adopt one general solid System
for the Benefit of the Whole, that no one Colony may be
liable to the Censure or Reproaches of another . . . " *
The invitation found the other trading towns in anything
but a receptive mood. The Boston trade voted unanimously
to have nothing to do with it, chiefly for the reason that any
deviation from the present agreement would create an im-
pression in England prejudicial to a further redress of
grievances. 4 The merchants of Essex County, New Jersey,
asked pointedly: " Shall we meet to consult whether we have
Honour or Faith or public Virtue . . . If you had proposed
a Meeting for strengthening . . . the Resolutions of the
Colonies, we should have joined you. " B Hardly less de-
cisive were the answers of meetings at Newark and New
1 This meeting occurred on May 30. Ibid. , June 7, 1770.
1 The re-election occurred on June 1. N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , June 4,
1770; N. Y. Journ. , June 7.
'Circular letter of June 2; New London Gas. , June 15, 1770; also
N. Y. Journ. , June 28, Aug. 16.
4 The Boston meeting occurred on June 8. Bos. Eve. Post, June 11,
1770; also N.
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. Chron. , May 14, 1770; Pa. Mag. , vol. xiv, pp. 43-44.
4 N. Y. Journ. , Aug. 16, 1770.
* Bos. Eve. Post, May 28, 1770; N. Y. Journ. , May 24, Aug. 16.
* Pa. Gaz. , May 24, 1770; also N. Y. Journ. , May 31.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 220
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
letters were received by Joseph Galloway and Charles Thom-
son from Doctor Franklin in England, urging Philadelphia
to persist in the agreement; and his advice had "wonder-
ful effects. " 1 The trend of events was distinctly turning in
favor of the opponents of change; and at the general meet-
ing of inhabitants on June 5, the signers of the agreement,
having first met by themselves, agreed, with only four dis-
senting votes, to make no alteration in it " at this time. " *
The inhabitants of New York engaged in a similar con-
troversy, although the outcome was different. The non-
importation pact was there based upon an agreement of the
merchants, confirmed and supported by a separate agree-
ment of the tradesmen and workingmen. The issue be-
tween the two groups was made clear in the opening sen-
tences of a broadside issued about the middle of May:
Li' Nothing can be more flagrantly wrong than the Assertion
of some of our Mercantile Dons that the Mechanics have
no Right to give their Sentiments about the Importation of
British Commodities. . . . What particular Class among
us has an exclusive Right to decide a Question of General
Concern? " <<J
At a meeting on May 18, prompted by the letter from
Philadelphia, the merchants decided, as we have seen, "to
wait a few Weeks longer in Hopes of hearing the Duty on
Tea would also be repealed" before taking any action. 4
This brought about a meeting of the inhabitants of all ranks,
who voted by a large majority to preserve the non-importa-
tion inviolate and to boycott all persons who should trans-
gress it. They also issued a pronunciamento against the
1 Pa. Mag. , vol. xiv, p. 45; Colden, Letter Books, vol. ii, p. 223.
* Pa. Gas. , June 7, 1770.
1 Broadside in N. Y. Pub. Libr. , signed "Brutus. "
4 N. Y. Journ. , May 24, Aug. 16, 1770.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? NON-IMPORTATION 22I
cargo of a Glasgow vessel then in the harbor, a matter al-
ready dealt with in regular manner by the Committee of
Merchants. 1 The Committee of Merchants accepted the
issue, resigned their seats because of the irregular proceed-
ings of the mass meeting, and had the satisfaction of being
re-elected at a public meeting of citizens. 2 On the strength
of this vindication, the Committee of Merchants, now con-
vinced that hope of a total repeal of the Townshend duties
was illusory, determined to abandon the agreement and con-
fine non-importation only to dutied articles; and for this
purpose they invited the merchants of the non-importing
commercial provinces to send delegates to a congress at
Norwalk on June 18, "to adopt one general solid System
for the Benefit of the Whole, that no one Colony may be
liable to the Censure or Reproaches of another . . . " *
The invitation found the other trading towns in anything
but a receptive mood. The Boston trade voted unanimously
to have nothing to do with it, chiefly for the reason that any
deviation from the present agreement would create an im-
pression in England prejudicial to a further redress of
grievances. 4 The merchants of Essex County, New Jersey,
asked pointedly: " Shall we meet to consult whether we have
Honour or Faith or public Virtue . . . If you had proposed
a Meeting for strengthening . . . the Resolutions of the
Colonies, we should have joined you. " B Hardly less de-
cisive were the answers of meetings at Newark and New
1 This meeting occurred on May 30. Ibid. , June 7, 1770.
1 The re-election occurred on June 1. N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , June 4,
1770; N. Y. Journ. , June 7.
'Circular letter of June 2; New London Gas. , June 15, 1770; also
N. Y. Journ. , June 28, Aug. 16.
4 The Boston meeting occurred on June 8. Bos. Eve. Post, June 11,
1770; also N.
