No More Learning

18, 1773.
1 Abram Lott to W. Kelly, Nov. 5, 1773; Drake, op. cit. , p. 269.
*N. Y. Col. Docs. , vol. viii, pp. 400, 408. A similar opinion was
shared by Haldimand, at New York, Brit. Papers ("Sparks Mss"),
vol. iii, p. 175; and by the anonymous authors of letters in 4 Am. Arch. ,
vol. i, p. 302 n. , and of an address in ibid. , p. 642.
? ? 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
? 268 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
To rob the new law of the appeal it held for the pocket-
books of the tea purchasers, the writers impeached the good
faith of the company in undercutting prices. "Reclusus"
predicted confidently thatj^tho' the first Teas may be sold
at a low Rate to make a popular Entry, yet when this mode
of receiving Tea is well established, they, as all other Mono-
polists do, will meditate a greater profit on their Goods, and
set them up at what Price they please. "*3 "Hampden"
wrote:
Nor let it be said, to cajole the poor, that this importation of
tea will lower the price of it. Is any temporary abatement of
that to be weighed in the balance with the permanent loss that
will attend the sole monopoly of it in future, which will enable
them abundantly to reimburse themselves by raising the price
as high as their known avarice may dictate ? -a
In the words of " Mucius,"
Every puchaser must be at their mercy . . . The India Com-
pany would not undertake to pay the duty in England or Amer-
ica--pay enormous fees to Commissioners &c &c unless they
were well assured that the Americans would in the end reim-
burse them for every expence their unreasonable project should
bring along with it*
The writers sought to show that the present project of the
East India Company was the entering wedge for larger
and more ambitious undertakings calculated to undermine
the colonial mercantile world. Their opinion was based on
the fact that, in addition to the article of tea, the East India
Company imported into England vast quantities of silks,
1 Boston Eve. Post, Oct. 18, 1773. Vide also Bos. Com. Cor. Mss. , vol.
vi, p. 452.
1 N. Y. Journal, Oct. 28, 1773.
1 Pa. Packet, Nov. 1, 1773.
? ? 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 269
calicoes and other fabrics, spices, drugs and chinaware, all
commodities of staple demand; and on their fear that the
success of the present venture would result in an extension
of the same principle to the sale of the other articles. Per-
haps no argument had greater weight than this; nor, indeed,
was such a development beyond the range of possibility. 1
If they succeed in their present experiment with tea,
argued "A Mechanic,"
they will send their own Factors and Creatures, establish
Houses among US, Ship US all other East-India Goods; and,
in order to full freight their Ships, take in other Kind of Goods
at under Freight, or (more probably) ship them on their own
Accounts to their own Factors, and undersell our Merchants,
till they monopolize the whole Trade. Thus our Merchants are
ruined, Ship Building ceases. They will then sell Goods at
any exorbitant Price. Our Artificers will be unemployed, and
every Tradesman will groan under dire Oppression. 2
"Hampden" warned the New Yorkers:
If you receive the portion [of tea] designed for this city, you
will in future have an India warehouse here; and the trade of
all the commodities of that country will be lost to your mer-
1 In a letter of Oct. g, 1773 to Thomas Walpole, Thomas Wharton pro-
posed the extension of the East India Company's trade, under the new
regulations, to include pepper, spices and silks. Drake, op. cit. , pp. 274-
275. Dickinson, in an essay in July 1774, quoted a contemporary writer
in England as proposing " that the Government, through the means of a
few merchants acquainted with the American trade . . . , should estab-
lish factors at Boston, New-York, and a few other ports, for the sale
of such cargoes of British manufactures as should be consigned to them;
and to consist of such particularly as were most manufactured in the
Province, with directions immediately and continually to undersell all
such Colony manufactures. " 4 Am. Archives, vol. i, p. 575 n. The
probability of some such scheme was also contemplated by "An Ameri-
can Watchman" in Pinkney's Va. Gasette, Jan. 26, 1775.
1 Pa. Gasette, Dec. 8, 1773. Vide also a letter in Pa. Chron. , Nov. 15,
1773, and "A Countryman" in Pa. Packet, Oct. 18, 1773.
? ? 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
? 270 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763. 1776
chants and be carried on by the company, which will be an im-
mense loss to the colony. 1
A customs commissioner writing to the home govern-
ment from Boston noted that it was pretended that " when
once the East India Company has established Warehouses
for the Sale of Tea, all other articles commonly imported
from the East Indies and Saleable in America, will be sent
there by the Company. " *
That the fear of monopoly was the mainspring of Ameri-
can opposition is further evidenced by the trend of discus-
sion in the early weeks before it was known definitely that
the new law provided for the retention of the threepenny
import duty. The report gained currency that the tea
shipped by the East India Company was to be introduced
free of the American import duty. This understanding
was based upon a misreading of that portion of the statute
which empowered the company " to export such tea to any
of the British colonies or plantations in America, or to for-
eign parts, discharged from the payment of any customs or
duties whatsoever, anything in the said recited act, or any
other act, to the contrary notwithstanding. " * Had this
been a correct interpretation of the law, there is every reason
to believe that the course of American opposition would have
developed unchanged and the tea would then have been
dumped into the Atlantic as an undisguised and unmixed
protest against a grasping trading monopoly.
1 N. Y. Journal, Oct . 28, 1773.
1 Stevens, Facsimiles, vol. xxiv, no. 2029, p. 4. Vide also Hancock's
view, expressed in the annual oration of Mar. 5, 1774. I M. H. S.
Procs. , vol. xiii, p. 187.
'Unsigned article in Ar. Y. Gasetteer, Oct . 28, 1773. Vide also
"Poplicola," ibid. , Nov. 18, 1773. "A construction strongly implied by
the liberty granted to export the same Commodity to foreign Countries
free of Duties," wrote Tryon to Dartmouth, Nov. 3, 1773. N. Y. CoL
Docs. , vol. viii, pp. 400-401.
? ? 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
271
Governor Tryon, of New York, in a letter to the home
government made reference to the animated discussion over
the question; and added:
If the Tea comes free of every duty, I understand it is then to
be considered as a Monopoly of the East India Company in
America; a monopoly of dangerous tendency, it is said, to
American liberties . . . So that let the Tea appear free or not
free of Duty those who carry on the illicit Trade will raise
objections, if possible, to its being brought on shore and sold. 1
Tryon's analysis of the situation is confirmed by the tone
of newspaper discussion during the weeks of uncertainty.
Even if the tea bears no duty, wrote a New Yorker to his
friend in Philadelphia, " would not the opening of an East-
India House in America encourage all the great Companies
in Great Britain to do the same? If so, have we a single
chance of being any Thing but Hewers of Wood and Draw-
ers of Waters to them? The East Indians are a proof of
this. " * In like spirit, "A Mechanic" declared scornfully
that it made no difference whether the tea was dutied or
not. "Is it not a gross and daring insult, to pilfer the
trade from the Americans, and lodge it in the hands of the
East India Company? " he queried. "It will first most
sensibly affect the Merchants; but it will also very materially
affect . . . every Member of the Community. " *
In the vigorous words of "A Citizen," " Whether the duty
on tea is taken off or not, the East India Company's scheme
has too dangerous an aspect for us to permit an experiment
to be made of it. " In the same letter he said:
The scheme appears too big with mischievous consequences
1 N. Y. Col. Docs. , vol. viii, p. 400.
'Pa. Chron. , Nov. 15, 1773.
*Pa. Gasette, Dec. 8, 1773.
? ? 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
? 272 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
and dangers to America, [even if we consider it only] . . . as it
may create a monopoly; or, as it may introduce a monster, too
powerful for us to control, or contend with, and too rapacious
and destructive, to be trusted, or even seen without horror, that
may be able to devour every branch of our commerce, drain
us of all our property and substance, and wantonly leave us to
perish by thousands . . -1
All ambiguity as to the true meaning of the statute was
removed by the lucid pen of John Dickinson and others and
finally by a reported opinion of His Majesty's attorney and
solicitor general. It was shown, by careful analysis of the
act, that the East India Company were merely exempted
from the payment of all duties and customs chargeable in
England and that the American import duty remained as
before. 2 \? ven after this time, the New Yorkers were afraid
that Parliament might heed the American protest against
taxation and proceed to repeal the threepenny duty without
rescinding the monopoly rights granted to the East India
Company?
/ In a remarkable letter written more than two
months after the Boston Tea Party, the New York Commit-
tee of Correspondence asserted frankly:
Should the Revenue Act be repealed this Session of Parliament,
as the East India Company by the Act passed the last Session
have liberty to export their own Tea, which is an advantage
they never had before and which their distress will certainly
induce them to embrace, we consider such an event as dan-
gerous to our Commerce, as the execution of the Revenue Act
would be to our Liberties. For as no Merchant who is ac-
quainted with the certain opperation of a Monopoly on that
1 N. Y. Journal, Nov. 4, 1773.
1 "Y. Z. " (Dickinson) in Pa. Journal, Nov. 3, 1773, also in Dickinson's
Writings (Ford, P. L. , ed. ), vol. i, pp. 457-458; '"Cato" and "A Trades-
man" in N. Y. Gasetteer, Nov. 4, 18, 1773; "A Citizen" in N. Y. Journal,
Nov. 4, 1773; letter in Pa. Journal, Nov. to, 1773.
? ? 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
273
or this side the Water will send out or order Tea to America
when those who have it at first hand send to the same market,
the Company will have the whole supply in their hands. Hence
it will necessarily follow that we shall ultimately be at their
Mercy to extort from us what price they please for their Tea.
And when they find their success in this Article, they will
obtain liberty to export their Spices, Silk etc. . . . And there-
fore we have had it long in contemplation to endeavor to get
an Agreement signed not to purchase any English tea till so
much of the Act passed the last session of Parliament enabling
the Company to ship their Tea to America be repealed. Noth-
ing short of this will prevent its being sent on their account. 1
In view of the subordinate place which the argument of
violated rights held in the minds of the propagandists. _pro-
"'"gt " |a/ation without representation" were made
for rhetorical effect. 2 This may be shown by a
few examples. In a letter written by a committee of the
Massachusetts Assembly after the Boston Tea Party, the
new act was characterized as "introductive of monopolies
which, besides the train of evils that attend them in a com-
mercial view, are forever dangerous to public liberty," also
as "pregnant with new grievances, paving the way to
further impositions, and in its consequences threatening
the final destruction of liberties. " * "A Consistent Patriot"
1 Letter to Boston Committee of Correspondence, Feb. 28, 1774; Bos.
Com. Cor. Mss. , vol. ix, pp. 742-746. The letter added that the committee
would "feel the pulse" of the Philadelphia Committee and the other
committees to the southward and requested the Boston Committee to
urge the matter on the committees at Rhode Island, Philadelphia and
Charleston, S. C. I have found no replies to the New York proposal.
* The smugglers and dissatisfied merchants "made a notable stalking
horse of the word LIBERTY," declared. "A Tradesman of Philadel-
phia," "and many well meaning persons were duped by the specious
colouring of their sinister zeal. " Pa. Journal, Aug. 17, 1774.
? Letter of Dec. 21, 1773, to Arthur Lee, signed by Thomas Cushing,
Samuel Adams, John Hancock and William Phillips; 4 M. H. S. Colls. ,
vol. iv, p. 377.
? ? 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
? 274
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
stigmatized the act as " a plan not only destructive to trade,
in which we are all so deeply interested but . . . designed
to promote and encrease a revenue extorted from us against
our consent. " * The new statute, declared "Causidicus,"
was a case of
taxation without consent and monopoly of trade establishing
itself together. . . . Let the trade be monopolized in particular
hands or companies, and the privileges of these companies lye
totally at the mercy of a British ministry and how soon will
that ministry command all the power and property of the
empire? 2
Even the members of the First Continental Congress treated
the matter from an unchanged viewpoint when they declared,
on October 21, 1774, in their Memorial to the Inhabitants of
the British Colonies that "Administration . . . entered into
a monopolizing combination with the East India Company,
to send to this Continent vast quantities of Tea, an article
on which a Duty was laid. . . . " *
Protests against the tea act as a violation of a theoretical
right caused a tea commissioner at Boston to remark skep-
tically:
But while there is such a vast quantity [of tea] imported every
Year, by so considerable a number of persons who all pay the
duty thereof on its arrival, I do not see why every importer,
nay every consumer thereof, do not as much contribute to en-
force the Tea act as the India Company themselves, or the
persons to whom they may think proper to consign their Tea
for sale. 4
1 Mass. Spy, Oct. 14, 1773.
1 Ibid. , Nov. 4 773. Vide also "Joshua, the son of Nun," ibid. , Oct.
14, 1773, and "i^aevola" in Pa. Chron. , Oct. 11, 1773.
1 Journals of the Continental Congress (L. C. edn. ), vol. i, p. 98.
4 Drake, op. cit. , pp. 261-262.
? ? 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 275
The people of New York and Philadelphia might, with
clearer conscience, discuss the tea tax as an invasion of
American liberties; but, as " Z " pointed out, all Americans
were guilty of a glaring inconsistency in denouncing that
trifling duty whilst silently passing over "the Articles of
Sugar, Molasses, and Wine, from which more than three
quarter parts of the American Revenue has and always will
arise, and when the Acts of Parliament imposing Duties on
these Articles stand on the same Footing as that respecting
Tea and the Moneys collected from them are applied to the
same Purposes. " *
Of the other arguments used to stir up opposition, the
most interesting was the attempt to discredit the present
undertaking of the East India Company by reason of the
company's notoriously bad record in India. John Dickin-
son was the most forceful exponent of this view in a broad-
side which had wide popularity in both Philadelphia and
New York. Writing under the signature of "Rusticus,"
he declared:
Their conduct in Asia, for some Years past, has given ample
Proof, how little they regard the Laws of Nations, the Rights,
Liberties, or Lives of Men. They have lev1ed War, excited
Rebellions, dethroned Princes, and sacrificed Millions for the
Sake of Gain. The Revenues of mighty Kingdoms have cen-
tered in their Coffers. And these not being sufficient to glut
their Avarice, they have, by the most unparalleled Barbarities,
Extortions and Monopolies, stripped the miserable Inhabitants
of their Property, and reduced whole Provinces to Indigence
and Ruin. Fifteen hundred Thousand, it is said, perished by
Famine in one Year, not because the Earth denied its Fruits,
but this Company and its Servants engrossed all the Necessar-
ies of Life, and set them at so high a Rate, that the Poor could
not purchase them. Thus having drained the Sources of that
1 Bos. Eve. Post, Oct. 25, 1773.
? ? 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
? 276 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
immense Wealth . . . . they now, it seems, cast their Eyes on
America, as a new Theatre, whereon to exercise their Talents
of Rapine, Oppression and Cruelty. The Monopoly of Tea,
is, I dare say, but a small Part of the Plan they have formed to
strip us of our Property. But thank God, we are not Sea
Poys, nor Marrattas, but British Subjects, who are born to
Liberty, who know its Worth, and who prize it high. 1
The hvgienic objections to tea drinking, much agitated at
the time of the colonial opposition to the Townshend duties,
were again called up. It was not altogether without signi-
ficance that one of the leading men to urge this view was
Dr. Thomas Young, a physician who spent more time in
the Boston Committee of Correspondence meditating a rigor-
ous physic for the body politic than in prescribing for private
patients. 2 Dr. Young cited Dr. Tissot, professor of physic
at Berne, and other eminent authorities, to prove that the
introduction of tea into Europe had caused the whole face
of disease to change, the prevailing disorders now being
"spasms, vapors, hypochondrias, apoplexies of the serous
kind, palsies, dropsies, rheumatisms, consumptions, low
nervous, miliary and petechial fevers. " 8 "Philo-Alethias"
1 Writings, vol. i, pp. 4S9-463. According to "A Mechanic," "The
Blast-India Company, if once they get Footing . . . , will leave no Stone
unturned to become your Masters. . . . They themselves are well versed
in Tyranny, Plunder, Oppression and Bloodshed" and so on. Pa.
Gasette, Dec. 8, 1773. A town meeting at Windham, Conn. , on June 23,
1774, denounced the East India Company, declaring: "Let the Spanish
barbarities in Mexico and the name of a Cortez be sunk in everlasting
oblivion, while such more recent, superior cruelties bear away the palm,
in the history of their rapine and cruelty. " Mass. Spy, July 7, 1774.
Vide also "A. Z. " in Pa. Journal, Oct. 20, 1773, and "Hampden" in
N. Y. Journal, Oct. 28, 1773.
2 Edes, H. H. , "Dr. Thomas Young," Col. Sac. Mass. Pubs. , vol. xi,
pp. 2-54-
*Bos. Eve. Post, Oct. 25, 1773. Vide also his article in the Mass.
Spy, Dec. 30, 1773.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:36 GMT / http://hdl.