At Quebec English imports
increased
from
?
?
Arthur Schlesinger - Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution
Cong.
, vol.
i, pp.
101, 103, 105-113.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? IN THE PLANTATION PROVINCES
531
action was taken because, 'according to one merchant there,
"it would only serve to throw the trade out of our own
hands into those of the French, who would never listen to
any proposals of that kind but rejoice in such an opportun-
ity to wrest the trade from us. " 1 It was true of all these
regions that, due to a preponderance of aliens in the popu-
lation, a sympathetic understanding of the constitutional
and governmental principles at stake was lacking. Further-
more, the inhabitants relished the prospect of diverting to
themselves the rich trade which had been monopolized by
the older and more populous communities. 2
After a lull of several weeks following the action of
South Carolina with reference to Georgia, the northern
provinces began to pass resolutions of boycott which
affected all the dissentient provinces. On April 17, the
Philadelphia committee served warning on the local mer-
chants that such a measure impended; and ten days later
a resolution was adopted for suspending all exportation to
Georgia, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and all parts
of the fishing coasts and fishing islands until the Continental
Congress should direct otherwise. 8 The fisheries were in-
cluded in the boycott because of the news, recently received,
of the act of Parliament restraining New England from
the fisheries. On May 1, the Maryland provincial conven-
tion passed a similar resolution, and in turn extended the
boycott to include the town of Boston, which was now
occupied by the British forces as an armed camp after the
fighting at Lexington and Concord. 4 On the same day the
1Letter of Dec. 24, 1774, Pa. Packet, Feb. 13, 1775; also Mass. Ga*.
& Post-Boy, Feb. 27.
1? . g. , vide Pub. Rec. Off. , C. O. 5, no. 138 (L. C. Transcripts),
p. 404; 4 Am. Arch. , vol. i, pp. 1164-1165.
3Ibid. , vol. ii, pp. 338, 421; also Pa. Eve. Post, Apr. 18, 29, 1775.
* Md. Gas. , May 4, 1775; also 4 Am. Arch. , vol. ii, p. 380.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 53-5
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
New York committee took like action;l and the committees
of Cumberland County, Va. , and Newark, N. J. , followed
later in the month. 2
When the Second Continental Congress assembled on the
tenth of May, one of the first questions that had to be
settled concerned the status of St. John's Parish under the
Association. Dr. Lyman Hall presented himself as the
delegate of the parish, and his admission to the membership
was voted unanimously. 8 On the seventeenth when a reso-
lution was passed suspending exportation to all the recal-
citrant provinces, St. John's Parish was expressly exempted
from its terms. The resolution applied to the rest of
Georgia, to Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, St. John's
Isle, East and West Florida, and the British fisheries on the
American coasts. 4 Thus, so far as action of Congress
could effect it, the export trade of the twelve Associated
Provinces was withheld from these parts. The provincial
congress of New Jersey took occasion on May 26 to recom-
mend to the people of that province to adhere " religiously"
to the resolution,6 and the Virginia House of Burgesses
took a similar step on June 19. 3 On June 7, the Wilming-
ton, N. C. , committee voted to withhold all exportations
destined for the British army and navy, for Newfoundland,
and for the northern provinces from whence provisions
could be had for these purposes. 7
14 Am. Arch. , vol. ii, p. 469; also N. Y. Journ. , May 4, 1775.
1 Purdie's Va. Gas. , July 7, 1775, and N. Y. Journ. , June I; also 4 Am.
Arch. , vol. ii, pp. 622, 634.
1 He was not permitted to vote in cases where the ballot was taken
by provinces. Journals, vol. ii, pp. 44-45, 49-50.
4 Ibid. , vol. ii, p. 54.
1 N. Y. Gas. , May 29, 1775; also / AT. /. Arch. , vol. x, pp. 597-598.
? 4 Am. Arch. , vol. ii, p. 1221.
1 AT. C. Col. Recs. , vol. x, p. 12.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? IN THE PLANTATION PROVINCES 533
These resolutions, it would appear, were excellently kept.
For example, the Philadelphia committee in May prevented
the departure of two cargoes intended for Newfoundland;l
and in September the New York committee held up for
public neglect the owners of two vessels that had been
trading with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. 2 The effect
of the boycott was not what had been expected. Deep dis-
tress was experienced at Newfoundland and the various
fishing settlements because of their reliance on New Eng-
land for food; but after a time the British government suc-
ceeded in affording them some relief, and they were also
surreptitiously aided by the enterprise of Nantucket fisher-
men. * The people of East Florida also found themselves
temporarily in want of provisions. 4 Quebec and Nova
Scotia, as has been already noted, probably felt no serious
inconvenience and were, on the other hand, receiving en-
hanced prices in the West Indies for their grain, flour and
flax-seed. * Only Georgia found herself in distress, with-
out prospect of relief, and torn by civil discord. But Geor-
gia's adhesion to the Continental Association was to come
only through the shock caused by the outbreak of hostilities.
1 Journals, vol. ii, p. 52.
1N. Y. Gas. , Sept. 4, 1775; also 4 Am. Arch. , vol. iii, pp. 622-624.
* Letters from Newfoundland in N. Y. Journ. , June 29, Aug. 24, 1775.
English exports to Newfoundland increased from ? 77,263 in 1774 to
? 130. 280 in 1775. Macpherson, Annals of Com. , vol. iii, pp. 564, 585.
The act of 16 George III, c. 37, permitted the exportation of peas and
biscuit to Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Labrador.
1 4 Am. Arch. , vol. iii, pp. 703-707. English exports to Florida in-
creased from ? 52,149 in 1774 to ? 85,254 in 1775. Macpherson, op. cit. ,
vol. iii, pp. 564, 585.
'4 Am. Arch. , vol. i, pp. 1164-1165; Pub. Rec. Off. , C. O. 5, no. 138
(L. C. Transcripts), p. 404.
At Quebec English imports increased from
? 307. 635 in 1774 to ? 472,368 in 1775; at Nova Scotia, from ? 47,148 to
? 56. 308. Macpherson, op. cit. , vol. iii, pp. 564, 585.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 534 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
Before the Continental Association had been in effect
many weeks it had become perfectly evident not only that
provinces and towns that held aloof from the Association
must be boycotted but that a close degree of co-operation
must be maintained among the Associated Provinces in
order to prevent evasions of the compact by means of the
coastwise trade. About the middle of November, 1774, a
Salem merchant engaged in coastwise trade with Virginia
requested of the Salem Committee of Correspondence a
certificate vouching for his firmness in the cause of Amer-
ical liberty, so that he might carry it with him. This being
an innovation, the Salem committee consulted with the
Boston Committee of Correspondence; and the reply was
a whole-hearted endorsement of the plan and the suggestion
that the device be regularly employed. 1 The committees of
the other provinces fell in with the plan sooner or later,
Providence, Rhode Island,2 and the Virginia counties being
among the first. * The best form of certificate was that
prescribed by the Philadelphia committee in June, 1775.
The importer of merchandise into that metropolis was re-
quired either to produce a certificate from the committee
from whence the goods had come signifying that they had
been imported into America in accordance with the Asso-
ciation, or to produce a qualification, taken before a magis-
trate, testifying to the identity of the goods, the time of
importation into America, and the name of the vessel in
which they had been brought. 4 A few months later, when
the object was not only to safeguard the Association but
also to prevent provisions and merchandise from reaching
1 Bos. Com. Cor. Papers, vol. iii, pp. 651, 653.
1R. I. Col. Recs. , vol. vii, pp. 285-287.
'Richmond. Westmoreland, Prince William, Prince George and
Accomack. Vide the Virginia newspapers, Feb. -June, 1775, passim.
4 Pa. Eve. Post, June 8, 1775; also 4 Am. Arch. , vol. ii, pp. 909-910.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? IN THE PLANTATION PROVINCES
535
the British army, the provincial bodies of Massachusetts
and New York required that coastwise traders should give
bond that the goods they took away would be landed at the
destination named. 1 These precautions aided greatly in
simplifying the enforcement of the Association for indi-
vidual provinces.
It is now possible to reach some conclusions with refer-
ence to the workings of the Continental Association in the
twelve Associated Provinces during the first four and a half
months. In general, the situation bore a very hopeful
aspect for those Americans who believed that the salvation
of British America depended upon an effective administra-
tion of the Association. The administrative machinery of
the Association had been established in the twelve prov-
inces; and all features of the document, which were in-
tended to have a coercive effect upon the mother country,
were being vigorously enforced. Indeed, the Association
was receiving a more faithful obedience than the provincial
laws ordinarily did, as many a royal governor mournfully
testified. While it has not been possible to obtain statistics
confined to the period of non-importation which is now
being particularly examined, yet the comparative figures of
importations during the years 1774 and 1775 are a sugges-
tive index to the true condition of affairs. English imports
fell off from ? 562,476 in 1774 to ? 71,625 in 1775 in the
New England provinces; from ? 437,937 to ? 1,228 at New
York; from ? 625,652 to ? 1,366 at Philadelphia; from
? 528,738 to ? 1,921 in Maryland and Virginia; and from
? 378,116 to ? 6,245 in the Carolinas. 2 The total decline in
the import trade from England in 1775 as compared with
1 4 A <n. Arch. , vol. iii, pp. 1468, 1625.
1 Macpherson, op. cit. , vol. iii, pp. 564, 585.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 536 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
the preceding year was almost ninety-seven per cent. Mak-
ing due allowance for such part of this disparity as came
from the abnormal importations in the latter part of 1774,
the contrast still remains an eloquent testimonial to the
activity and efficiency of the radical organization. In the
same period imports into Georgia only increased from
? 57,518 to ? 133,377.
Further evidence of the effective enforcement of the
Association was afforded by the course pursued, in the
early months of 1775, by the business men in Great Britain
who possessed American connections and investments. Al-
though they had watched indifferently while Parliament
passed the coercive acts of 1774,1 they were now galvanized
into sudden activity by the realization that the American
Association was closing their chief markets to them. 2 Be-
ginning in January and continuing for almost three months,
the merchants and manufacturers concerned in the Amer-
ican trade carried on a systematic propaganda for the pur-
pose of convincing the ministry and Parliament that the
acts of 1774 should be repealed. The movement was in-
augurated by a series of meetings of the London merchants
in the North American trade at King's Arms Tavern at
Cornhill,8 and by joint meetings of the West India mer-
chants and the absentee proprietors of West Indian planta-
tions at London Tavern. 4 Petitions were addressed to Par-
liament, and word was sent to the manufacturing towns to
1 Mass. Gas. & Post-Boy, May 16, 1774; Mass. Spy, July 15.
1E. g. , a commercial correspondent declared in a London newspaper
that from January 1 to April 27, 1775, the following ships cleared from
Bristol carrying nothing but ballast: seven for New York, three for
Maryland, three for Philadelphia, three for Virginia, one for North
Carolina, and three for South Carolina. N. Y. Gasetteer, Aug. 24,
1775; also 4 Am. Arch. , vol. ii, pp. 921-922.
1 Ibid. , vol. i, pp. 1086-1091, 1107-1110, 1513-1515, 1525-1526.
* Ibid. , vol. i, pp. 1082-1083, 1147-1152, 1540.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? IN THE PLANTATION PROVINCES 537
join in the agitation. 1 The latter responded with alacrity.
When Parliament reassembled on January 19, 1775, the
House of Commons was deluged with petitions in the en-
suing weeks. The merchants, traders and manufacturers
of Bristol, Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool,
Leeds, Belfast, and many other places joined in the chorus
of lamentation, complaining that business conditions were
already poor and foretelling the suspension of debt collec-
tions, bankruptcy and widespread unemployment. 2
But the ministry were as adamant. They believed that
England was reaping the whirlwind that had been sown
when indulgent ministries had granted concessions to the
colonists on the occasion of the two earlier non-importation
leagues. As one man friendly to the ministry wrote:
"there will be no end of it, if the Americans may rebel at
their pleasure, and then slip behind their creditors for
security. " 8 Solicitor General Wedderburn presented the
issue with unmistakable clearness to the House of Com-
mons. "He gave every allowance for, and paid all defer-
ence to, the interests of Commerce and Manufactures; but
contended that in the present case interests were concerned
of yet greater consequence; that all the world must ac-
knowledge that when the clearest rights of the Legislative
power of a country are invaded and denied, and when in
consequence the people so denying are in actual and open
1 Mass. Gas. & News-Letter, Mch. 23, 1775.
1 Petitions also came from Norwich, Dudley, Wolverhampton, New-
castle, Burslem, Tunstall, Colridge, Shelton, Hanly, Stoke Lane, Delf
Lane End, Nottingham, Bridgport, Wakefield, Halifax, Bradford,
Huddersfield, Whitehaven, and Waterford, Ireland. 4 Am. Arch. , vol.
i, pp. 1513-154o- 1567, 1627-1638, 1698-1703; Franklin, Writings (Smyth),
vol. vi, pp. 303-308, 315-317. There were a few petitions praying the
government to stand firm--from Birmingham, Leeds, Wakefield. Hali-
fax, Bradford, Nottingham and Huddersfield, usually from the alder-
men, sheriffs, gentlemen and principal manufacturers.
1Maw. Gas. & Post-Boy, May 23. 1774.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 538 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
rebellion, that then there are points of greater importance
to be settled and decided than points of Commerce and
Manufacture. An enemy in the bowels of a Kingdom is
surely to be resisted, opposed and conquered; notwith-
standing the trade that may suffer, and the fabrics that
may be ruined. That descriptions of the immense conse-
quence of our American trade were arguments against the
opposing Members than for them; for the greater the con-
sequence of the Commerce, the greater the care ought to
be, and the firmer the policy that is to preserve it; that the
question is not now the importance of the American Colo-
nies, but the possession of the Colonies at all. " *
For a decade colonial governors had been urging that
Parliament should declare non-importation agreements
illegal as combinations in restraint of trade. Lord North's
plan was more penetrating: "as the Americans had refused
to trade with this Kingdom," he was reported to have said,
"it was but just that we should not suffer them to trade
with any other Nation. "2 His first bill was directed
against the New Englanders, whom he believed to be at the
bottom of the American troubles. This bill became a law
on March 30, 1775, and provided that, until peaceful condi-
tions of business had been restored, no New England
province should, after July 1, trade with any part of the
world, save the British Isles and the British West Indies,
nor after July 20 should be permitted to use the fisheries. 8
1 Pa. Gas. , Apr. 12, 1775; also 4 Am. Arch. , vol. i, p. 1547. Vide
also ibid. , pp. 1526-1527, 1624-1625.
'Ibid. , vol. i, p. 1622; also N. Y. Journ. , Apr. 20, 1775. North had
this plan in mind as early as September 21, 1774--before the Continental
Association had been adopted. Hutchinson, Diary and Letters, vol. i,
P. 245-
'15 George III, c. 10. The inhabitants of Nantucket were exempted
from the provisions of the act so far as the whale fisheries were con-
cerned, and the inhabitants of Marshfield and Scituate so far as the
mackerel, shad and alewife fisheries were concerned.
?
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? IN THE PLANTATION PROVINCES
531
action was taken because, 'according to one merchant there,
"it would only serve to throw the trade out of our own
hands into those of the French, who would never listen to
any proposals of that kind but rejoice in such an opportun-
ity to wrest the trade from us. " 1 It was true of all these
regions that, due to a preponderance of aliens in the popu-
lation, a sympathetic understanding of the constitutional
and governmental principles at stake was lacking. Further-
more, the inhabitants relished the prospect of diverting to
themselves the rich trade which had been monopolized by
the older and more populous communities. 2
After a lull of several weeks following the action of
South Carolina with reference to Georgia, the northern
provinces began to pass resolutions of boycott which
affected all the dissentient provinces. On April 17, the
Philadelphia committee served warning on the local mer-
chants that such a measure impended; and ten days later
a resolution was adopted for suspending all exportation to
Georgia, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and all parts
of the fishing coasts and fishing islands until the Continental
Congress should direct otherwise. 8 The fisheries were in-
cluded in the boycott because of the news, recently received,
of the act of Parliament restraining New England from
the fisheries. On May 1, the Maryland provincial conven-
tion passed a similar resolution, and in turn extended the
boycott to include the town of Boston, which was now
occupied by the British forces as an armed camp after the
fighting at Lexington and Concord. 4 On the same day the
1Letter of Dec. 24, 1774, Pa. Packet, Feb. 13, 1775; also Mass. Ga*.
& Post-Boy, Feb. 27.
1? . g. , vide Pub. Rec. Off. , C. O. 5, no. 138 (L. C. Transcripts),
p. 404; 4 Am. Arch. , vol. i, pp. 1164-1165.
3Ibid. , vol. ii, pp. 338, 421; also Pa. Eve. Post, Apr. 18, 29, 1775.
* Md. Gas. , May 4, 1775; also 4 Am. Arch. , vol. ii, p. 380.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 53-5
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
New York committee took like action;l and the committees
of Cumberland County, Va. , and Newark, N. J. , followed
later in the month. 2
When the Second Continental Congress assembled on the
tenth of May, one of the first questions that had to be
settled concerned the status of St. John's Parish under the
Association. Dr. Lyman Hall presented himself as the
delegate of the parish, and his admission to the membership
was voted unanimously. 8 On the seventeenth when a reso-
lution was passed suspending exportation to all the recal-
citrant provinces, St. John's Parish was expressly exempted
from its terms. The resolution applied to the rest of
Georgia, to Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, St. John's
Isle, East and West Florida, and the British fisheries on the
American coasts. 4 Thus, so far as action of Congress
could effect it, the export trade of the twelve Associated
Provinces was withheld from these parts. The provincial
congress of New Jersey took occasion on May 26 to recom-
mend to the people of that province to adhere " religiously"
to the resolution,6 and the Virginia House of Burgesses
took a similar step on June 19. 3 On June 7, the Wilming-
ton, N. C. , committee voted to withhold all exportations
destined for the British army and navy, for Newfoundland,
and for the northern provinces from whence provisions
could be had for these purposes. 7
14 Am. Arch. , vol. ii, p. 469; also N. Y. Journ. , May 4, 1775.
1 Purdie's Va. Gas. , July 7, 1775, and N. Y. Journ. , June I; also 4 Am.
Arch. , vol. ii, pp. 622, 634.
1 He was not permitted to vote in cases where the ballot was taken
by provinces. Journals, vol. ii, pp. 44-45, 49-50.
4 Ibid. , vol. ii, p. 54.
1 N. Y. Gas. , May 29, 1775; also / AT. /. Arch. , vol. x, pp. 597-598.
? 4 Am. Arch. , vol. ii, p. 1221.
1 AT. C. Col. Recs. , vol. x, p. 12.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? IN THE PLANTATION PROVINCES 533
These resolutions, it would appear, were excellently kept.
For example, the Philadelphia committee in May prevented
the departure of two cargoes intended for Newfoundland;l
and in September the New York committee held up for
public neglect the owners of two vessels that had been
trading with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. 2 The effect
of the boycott was not what had been expected. Deep dis-
tress was experienced at Newfoundland and the various
fishing settlements because of their reliance on New Eng-
land for food; but after a time the British government suc-
ceeded in affording them some relief, and they were also
surreptitiously aided by the enterprise of Nantucket fisher-
men. * The people of East Florida also found themselves
temporarily in want of provisions. 4 Quebec and Nova
Scotia, as has been already noted, probably felt no serious
inconvenience and were, on the other hand, receiving en-
hanced prices in the West Indies for their grain, flour and
flax-seed. * Only Georgia found herself in distress, with-
out prospect of relief, and torn by civil discord. But Geor-
gia's adhesion to the Continental Association was to come
only through the shock caused by the outbreak of hostilities.
1 Journals, vol. ii, p. 52.
1N. Y. Gas. , Sept. 4, 1775; also 4 Am. Arch. , vol. iii, pp. 622-624.
* Letters from Newfoundland in N. Y. Journ. , June 29, Aug. 24, 1775.
English exports to Newfoundland increased from ? 77,263 in 1774 to
? 130. 280 in 1775. Macpherson, Annals of Com. , vol. iii, pp. 564, 585.
The act of 16 George III, c. 37, permitted the exportation of peas and
biscuit to Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Labrador.
1 4 Am. Arch. , vol. iii, pp. 703-707. English exports to Florida in-
creased from ? 52,149 in 1774 to ? 85,254 in 1775. Macpherson, op. cit. ,
vol. iii, pp. 564, 585.
'4 Am. Arch. , vol. i, pp. 1164-1165; Pub. Rec. Off. , C. O. 5, no. 138
(L. C. Transcripts), p. 404.
At Quebec English imports increased from
? 307. 635 in 1774 to ? 472,368 in 1775; at Nova Scotia, from ? 47,148 to
? 56. 308. Macpherson, op. cit. , vol. iii, pp. 564, 585.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 534 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
Before the Continental Association had been in effect
many weeks it had become perfectly evident not only that
provinces and towns that held aloof from the Association
must be boycotted but that a close degree of co-operation
must be maintained among the Associated Provinces in
order to prevent evasions of the compact by means of the
coastwise trade. About the middle of November, 1774, a
Salem merchant engaged in coastwise trade with Virginia
requested of the Salem Committee of Correspondence a
certificate vouching for his firmness in the cause of Amer-
ical liberty, so that he might carry it with him. This being
an innovation, the Salem committee consulted with the
Boston Committee of Correspondence; and the reply was
a whole-hearted endorsement of the plan and the suggestion
that the device be regularly employed. 1 The committees of
the other provinces fell in with the plan sooner or later,
Providence, Rhode Island,2 and the Virginia counties being
among the first. * The best form of certificate was that
prescribed by the Philadelphia committee in June, 1775.
The importer of merchandise into that metropolis was re-
quired either to produce a certificate from the committee
from whence the goods had come signifying that they had
been imported into America in accordance with the Asso-
ciation, or to produce a qualification, taken before a magis-
trate, testifying to the identity of the goods, the time of
importation into America, and the name of the vessel in
which they had been brought. 4 A few months later, when
the object was not only to safeguard the Association but
also to prevent provisions and merchandise from reaching
1 Bos. Com. Cor. Papers, vol. iii, pp. 651, 653.
1R. I. Col. Recs. , vol. vii, pp. 285-287.
'Richmond. Westmoreland, Prince William, Prince George and
Accomack. Vide the Virginia newspapers, Feb. -June, 1775, passim.
4 Pa. Eve. Post, June 8, 1775; also 4 Am. Arch. , vol. ii, pp. 909-910.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? IN THE PLANTATION PROVINCES
535
the British army, the provincial bodies of Massachusetts
and New York required that coastwise traders should give
bond that the goods they took away would be landed at the
destination named. 1 These precautions aided greatly in
simplifying the enforcement of the Association for indi-
vidual provinces.
It is now possible to reach some conclusions with refer-
ence to the workings of the Continental Association in the
twelve Associated Provinces during the first four and a half
months. In general, the situation bore a very hopeful
aspect for those Americans who believed that the salvation
of British America depended upon an effective administra-
tion of the Association. The administrative machinery of
the Association had been established in the twelve prov-
inces; and all features of the document, which were in-
tended to have a coercive effect upon the mother country,
were being vigorously enforced. Indeed, the Association
was receiving a more faithful obedience than the provincial
laws ordinarily did, as many a royal governor mournfully
testified. While it has not been possible to obtain statistics
confined to the period of non-importation which is now
being particularly examined, yet the comparative figures of
importations during the years 1774 and 1775 are a sugges-
tive index to the true condition of affairs. English imports
fell off from ? 562,476 in 1774 to ? 71,625 in 1775 in the
New England provinces; from ? 437,937 to ? 1,228 at New
York; from ? 625,652 to ? 1,366 at Philadelphia; from
? 528,738 to ? 1,921 in Maryland and Virginia; and from
? 378,116 to ? 6,245 in the Carolinas. 2 The total decline in
the import trade from England in 1775 as compared with
1 4 A <n. Arch. , vol. iii, pp. 1468, 1625.
1 Macpherson, op. cit. , vol. iii, pp. 564, 585.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 536 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
the preceding year was almost ninety-seven per cent. Mak-
ing due allowance for such part of this disparity as came
from the abnormal importations in the latter part of 1774,
the contrast still remains an eloquent testimonial to the
activity and efficiency of the radical organization. In the
same period imports into Georgia only increased from
? 57,518 to ? 133,377.
Further evidence of the effective enforcement of the
Association was afforded by the course pursued, in the
early months of 1775, by the business men in Great Britain
who possessed American connections and investments. Al-
though they had watched indifferently while Parliament
passed the coercive acts of 1774,1 they were now galvanized
into sudden activity by the realization that the American
Association was closing their chief markets to them. 2 Be-
ginning in January and continuing for almost three months,
the merchants and manufacturers concerned in the Amer-
ican trade carried on a systematic propaganda for the pur-
pose of convincing the ministry and Parliament that the
acts of 1774 should be repealed. The movement was in-
augurated by a series of meetings of the London merchants
in the North American trade at King's Arms Tavern at
Cornhill,8 and by joint meetings of the West India mer-
chants and the absentee proprietors of West Indian planta-
tions at London Tavern. 4 Petitions were addressed to Par-
liament, and word was sent to the manufacturing towns to
1 Mass. Gas. & Post-Boy, May 16, 1774; Mass. Spy, July 15.
1E. g. , a commercial correspondent declared in a London newspaper
that from January 1 to April 27, 1775, the following ships cleared from
Bristol carrying nothing but ballast: seven for New York, three for
Maryland, three for Philadelphia, three for Virginia, one for North
Carolina, and three for South Carolina. N. Y. Gasetteer, Aug. 24,
1775; also 4 Am. Arch. , vol. ii, pp. 921-922.
1 Ibid. , vol. i, pp. 1086-1091, 1107-1110, 1513-1515, 1525-1526.
* Ibid. , vol. i, pp. 1082-1083, 1147-1152, 1540.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? IN THE PLANTATION PROVINCES 537
join in the agitation. 1 The latter responded with alacrity.
When Parliament reassembled on January 19, 1775, the
House of Commons was deluged with petitions in the en-
suing weeks. The merchants, traders and manufacturers
of Bristol, Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool,
Leeds, Belfast, and many other places joined in the chorus
of lamentation, complaining that business conditions were
already poor and foretelling the suspension of debt collec-
tions, bankruptcy and widespread unemployment. 2
But the ministry were as adamant. They believed that
England was reaping the whirlwind that had been sown
when indulgent ministries had granted concessions to the
colonists on the occasion of the two earlier non-importation
leagues. As one man friendly to the ministry wrote:
"there will be no end of it, if the Americans may rebel at
their pleasure, and then slip behind their creditors for
security. " 8 Solicitor General Wedderburn presented the
issue with unmistakable clearness to the House of Com-
mons. "He gave every allowance for, and paid all defer-
ence to, the interests of Commerce and Manufactures; but
contended that in the present case interests were concerned
of yet greater consequence; that all the world must ac-
knowledge that when the clearest rights of the Legislative
power of a country are invaded and denied, and when in
consequence the people so denying are in actual and open
1 Mass. Gas. & News-Letter, Mch. 23, 1775.
1 Petitions also came from Norwich, Dudley, Wolverhampton, New-
castle, Burslem, Tunstall, Colridge, Shelton, Hanly, Stoke Lane, Delf
Lane End, Nottingham, Bridgport, Wakefield, Halifax, Bradford,
Huddersfield, Whitehaven, and Waterford, Ireland. 4 Am. Arch. , vol.
i, pp. 1513-154o- 1567, 1627-1638, 1698-1703; Franklin, Writings (Smyth),
vol. vi, pp. 303-308, 315-317. There were a few petitions praying the
government to stand firm--from Birmingham, Leeds, Wakefield. Hali-
fax, Bradford, Nottingham and Huddersfield, usually from the alder-
men, sheriffs, gentlemen and principal manufacturers.
1Maw. Gas. & Post-Boy, May 23. 1774.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:37 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 538 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
rebellion, that then there are points of greater importance
to be settled and decided than points of Commerce and
Manufacture. An enemy in the bowels of a Kingdom is
surely to be resisted, opposed and conquered; notwith-
standing the trade that may suffer, and the fabrics that
may be ruined. That descriptions of the immense conse-
quence of our American trade were arguments against the
opposing Members than for them; for the greater the con-
sequence of the Commerce, the greater the care ought to
be, and the firmer the policy that is to preserve it; that the
question is not now the importance of the American Colo-
nies, but the possession of the Colonies at all. " *
For a decade colonial governors had been urging that
Parliament should declare non-importation agreements
illegal as combinations in restraint of trade. Lord North's
plan was more penetrating: "as the Americans had refused
to trade with this Kingdom," he was reported to have said,
"it was but just that we should not suffer them to trade
with any other Nation. "2 His first bill was directed
against the New Englanders, whom he believed to be at the
bottom of the American troubles. This bill became a law
on March 30, 1775, and provided that, until peaceful condi-
tions of business had been restored, no New England
province should, after July 1, trade with any part of the
world, save the British Isles and the British West Indies,
nor after July 20 should be permitted to use the fisheries. 8
1 Pa. Gas. , Apr. 12, 1775; also 4 Am. Arch. , vol. i, p. 1547. Vide
also ibid. , pp. 1526-1527, 1624-1625.
'Ibid. , vol. i, p. 1622; also N. Y. Journ. , Apr. 20, 1775. North had
this plan in mind as early as September 21, 1774--before the Continental
Association had been adopted. Hutchinson, Diary and Letters, vol. i,
P. 245-
'15 George III, c. 10. The inhabitants of Nantucket were exempted
from the provisions of the act so far as the whale fisheries were con-
cerned, and the inhabitants of Marshfield and Scituate so far as the
mackerel, shad and alewife fisheries were concerned.
?
