The
merchants
of
Portsmouth, N.
Portsmouth, N.
Arthur Schlesinger - Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution
(1758-1769"), pp.
227-230.
* These resolutions passed by a vote of eighty-one to one. Bos. Gas. ,
Feb. 20, 1768; also N. Y. Journ. , Mch. 10.
1 E. g. , vide "A Friend to this Colony," Prov. Gas. , Nov. 14, 1767.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? II2 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
countenancing, " in the most effectual but decent and lawful
Manner," of any person who failed to sign or conform to
these regulations. A few weeks later, the subscription rolls
were reported to be filling rapidly. 1
Two days after the action of Prnvidepc. e. a town meeting
at Newport adopted an agreement of non-consumption,
modeled very closely on that of Boston, save that it was to
become effective one month later. Mourning resolutions
were also adopted. 2 In the following two months, the
Newport agreement was concurred in by other Rhode Island
towns, including Middletown, Little Compton and Tiverton. 1
"Liber Nov-Anglus," writing in the Connecticut Jour-
nal, December 25, 1767, was one of the first to urge the
Boston agreement on the people of Connecticut . The
larger towns soon began to take action, Norwich leading
the way. In the subsequent weeks, non-consumption agree-
ments, patterned more or less after the Boston plan, were
adopted by town meetings at New London, Windham,
Mansfield and New Haven. 4 In both Rhode Island and
Connecticut, the newspapers gave abundant evidence of the
wide drinking of "Labradore or Hyperion tea," and of
increased activity in the production of homespun. 5 The
Newport Mercury inserted, free of charge, all advertisements
of Rhode Island textiles.
Owing perhaps to the fact that the movement in New
England was engineered by town meetings, it did not spread
1 Prov. Gas. , Nov. 14, 28, Dec. 5, 12, 1767; Newport Merc. , Dec. 14.
* Newport Merc. , Nov. 30, Dec. 7, 1767; Prov. Gas. , Dec. 12.
* Newport Merc. , Jan. 25, Feb. 29, 1768.
4Prov. Gas. , Dec. 26, 1767; N. Y. Journ. , Feb. 11, Mch. 17, 1768;
Bos. Gas. , Feb. 15, Mch. 28; Newport Merc. , Feb. 15.
5 Newport Merc. , Dec. 7, 1767, Jan. 11, 18, 25, 1768; New London
Gas. , Dec. 18, 1767; N. H. Gas. , Mch. 11, 1768; N. Y. Joum. , Jan. 28,
Feb. 18.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? COMMERCIAL REFORM
m its present form to any of the other commercial provinces,
where those potent agencies of local opinion did not exist.
The interest of the people at New York and Philadelphia
was aroused, however. "A Tradesman," writing in the
New York Journal, December 17, 1767, asked pertinently
why the example of Boston had not been followed by New
York. "Are our Circumstances altered? " he asked. "Is
Money grown more plenty? Have our Tradesmen full
Employment? Are we more Frugal? Is Grain cheaper?
Are our Importations less? " On December 29, 1767, a
public meeting was held, and a committee was appointed to
report on a plan for retrenching expenses and for employing
local tradesmen and the deserving poor. At a meeting on
February 2. 1768, the report of the committee was approved,
and instructions were given for carrying it into execution. 1
Contemporary records do not reveal the nature of the New
York plan; but it is probable that it did not include an
agreement of non-consumption. A public meeting, held at
Philadelphia to discuss the action of Boston, did not ven-
ture further than to vote an expression of sympathy for that
city. 2
By the beginning of spring, 1768, it was apparent to all
interested that the sumptuary regulations of the New Eng-
land towns would fail to secure relief from the hard times.
The non-mercantile elements of the population were not, as
yet, sufficiently co-ordinated or self-conscious to secure
obedience to their mandates; and the merchants hesitated
to lend their support until they had assurance that their
brethren down the coast would unite in the measure. 3
1 N. Y. Journ. , Jan. 23, 28, Feb. 4, 1768.
1 Dickinson, Writings (Ford), vol. i, pp. 400-410.
1" Few of the trading part have subscribed," wrote Andrew Eliot,
of Boston, with reference to the agreement on Dec. 10, 1767. 4 M. H. S.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
Without such an understanding, they felt that their own
self-denial would have no other result than to deliver up
their customers to their competitors at New York and
Philadelphia. Meantime, importations continued as before,
though in somewhat lessened degree.
The basis for an appeal for a non-importation plan of a
wider geographical scope was supplied by "XhteiLflttecs
from a Farmer in Pennsylvania," which were published
serially in the newspapers of the various provinces during
December, 1767, and through the first two months of
1768. 1 The author, in language more legalistic than bucolic,
reminded the Americans of the success of the legislative
petitions and non-importation agreements in effecting the
repeal of the Stamp Act. and exhorted them to revive those
agencies of protest. These articles were read everywhere
and helped to prepare the public mind for the mercantile
opposition of the next few years.
The Boston merchants now took active steps to bring
about a non-importation league of the leading ports. The
body of the merchants were moved by the necessity of com-
al reform; but individuals were not unmindful of the
-/V 1act that a. suspension'nf rrane yTM'M ^naMf. ^p^Tt^v ,-Uo"
. ^G^/'*-' ])riAAA out their old stock at monopoly prices. 2 At the instigation
0 I <f of Captain Daniel Jviaicom, a notorious smuggler, and a few
others, the merchants and traders gathered at the British
Coffee-House on the evening of March 1, 1768 " to consult
on proper Measures relative to our Trade under its present
Embarrassments. " 1 At this and several subsequent meet-
Co/If. , vol. iv, p. 418. The leaders of the non-consumption movement
consist "chiefly of persons who have no property to lose," declared "A
Trader" in the Bos. Eve. Post, Oct. 12, 1767.
1 The text has been reprinted in Dickinson, Writings (Ford), vol. i,
pp. 305-406.
1 Bos. Post-Boy, Sept. 28, 1767.
1Bos. Gas. , Feb. 29, 1768. "This may be said to b<< the first Move-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? COMMERCIAL REFORM 115
ings, an agreement was drawn up and adopted, which
pledged all merchants who should sign it, to refrain for
one year from importing merchandise from Great Britain
(save such as was absolutely necessary for the fisheries) in
case the merchants at New York and Philadelphia should
take like action. This conditional agreement was circulated
about Boston and was almost universally signed by the
merchants. The merchants of Salem, Marblehead and
Gloucester concurred in the same measure. 1
Events now awaited the action of the merchants at New
York and Philadelphia. At the former port, several meet-
ings of the merchants and traders were held early in April
to consider the matter. About the middle of the month,
an agreement was adopted to import no goods shipped from
Great Britain after October 1, 1768 until the Townshend
duties should be repealed, provided that Boston should
continue and Philadelphia adopt similar measures by the
second Tuesday of June. 2
ment of the Merchants against the Acts of Parliament," Governor Ber-
nard told Hillsborough in a letter of Mch. 21, 1768. Bos. Eve. Post,
Aug. 21, 1769.
1 The chief facts concerning this agreement of Boston and the other
towns may be found in: 4 M. H. S. Colls. , vol. iv, pp. 350-351; M. H.
S. Mss. , 9r L, p. 37, 70-74; Bos. Gas. , Feb. 29, Mch. 7, 1768; Bernard
to Hillsborough, Bos. Eve> Post, Aug. 21, 1769.
The merchants of
Portsmouth, N. H. , refused'to accede to this agreement. Brit. Papers
{"Sparks Mss. "), vol. i, pp. 7-8.
1 N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , Apr. 18, 1768; N. Y. Journ. , June 28, 1770. The
terms of this agreement had not been formulated without considerable
difference of opinion. Some of the more radical merchants wished to
include the Quartering Act with the Townshend duties as the object
of the non-importation. But this proposal was rejected by the major-
ity. Others insisted that the Boston plan of immediate non-importation
should be followed, for the six months' interval would enable unscru-
pulous men to enlarge their orders and defeat the purpose of the
agreement. This again met with little favor. Article by " G" in ibid. ,,
Apr. 21, 1768.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 1 I6 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
The agreement was signed by every merchant and trader
in New York, save two or three unimportant ones, within
less than two days. Another outcome of the conferences
of the merchants was the formation of the New York
Chamber of Commerce, with the avowed purpose of en-
couraging commerce and industry and of procuring better
trade laws. 1 The Committee of Merchants at Boston were
informed of the New York agreement; and an answer was
returned that, although the Boston merchants considered the
New Yorkers mistaken in not stopping trade 1mmediately,
nevertheless, for the sake of unanimity, they would accept
their proposal. 8
In Philadelphia, the movement for co-operation with
Boston and New York was devoid of any real vitality, not-
withstanding that the great proponent of non-importation,
John Dickinson, was an influential citizen of that place.
The merchants as a whole did not yet suffer from the trade
embarrassments, which the sea ports farther north were
experiencing or which they themselves had experienced
during the critical years 1764-1766. 8 "A. B. " represented
the. merchants' point of view in a set of queries in the
Pennsylvania Chronicle July 25. 1768. The aribnymous
author, probably Joseph (jalloway, questioned the wisdom
of severing commercial connections with England except in
1 Bos. News-Letter, Jan. 5, 1769; Memorial History of the City of
New York (Wilson, J. G. , ed. ), vol. iv, p. 516.
* Letter of N. Y. Merchants' Committee to Philadelphia Committee,
N. Y. Journ. , June 28, 1770. The Boston meeting to consider the New
York proposal was probably held on May 2. Bos. Gas. , May 2, 1768.
* Dickinson's "Farmer's Letters," in contrast to his pamphlet against
"The Late Regulations" of 1764-1765, made no claim to severe times;
and only a few articles in the newspapers spoke of business stagnation
and currency stringency or advocated local manufactures, thus " Philo-
Patriae" in Pa. Chron. , Dec. 2, 1767; "Lover of Pennsylvania" in
ibid. , Jan. 4, I1, 1768; "Freeborn American" and "Monitor" in Pa.
Gtu. , Feb. 9, Apr. 14, 1768.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? COMMERCIAL REFORM 117
cases of dire necessity, for he declared that all the wool in
North America would not supply the colonists with hats and
stockings alone . Among his queries were these: Had the
merchants in their letters to England done all they could to
induce the mercantile houses there to agitate for repeal?
If the merchants should take action, ought not non-impor-
tation to be restricted to dutied imports alone? Was the
provincial legislature not the proper body to take cognizance
of the situation, and would anarchy not ensue from the
adoption of other measures? Even' if it were prudent for
New England merchants to resort to non-importation, might
it not be imprudent for Pennsylvania and other provinces
where the circumstances differed widely? Was it consis-
tent with the rights of mankind for one province to insist
that another should adopt its measures, more especially for
a people who called themselves " Sons of Liberty "?
"A Chester County Farmer" claimed that the farmers
would be slow to be inveigled into local manufacturing
again after their experience during Stamp Act days, for
the " ill-timed Resolution," made at the time of the repeal,
to cast aside all homespun, had dealt a staggering blow
to the people who had invested their capital in pastures,
sheep, looms, spinners, etc. 1 The situation was further
complicated by the long-standing local controversy over
the desirability of continuing the proprietary government. 2
A meeting of the merchants and traders of Philadelphia
was held on March 26, 1768, to act upon the proposal of
the Boston merchants. The Boston letter was not favcr-
1 Pa. Ga*. , June 16, 1768. It should be noted that the pseudonym was
another one of Joseph Galloway's, according to Ford in his edition of
Dickinson's Writings, vol. i, p. 435.
1" A. L. " in Pa. Chron. , May 30, 1768. In this controversy Galloway
and Dickinson were the local leaders of the royal and proprietary par-
ties respectively.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? H8 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
ably received and, after a heated debate, the meeting ad-
journed without taking action. 1
On April 25, John Dickinson addressed a merchants'
meeting in order to induce favorable action. He first dwelt
eloquently on the effort of Great Britain to check the in-
dustrial and commercial development of the colonies. He
cited the prohibition of steel furnaces and slitting mills,
the acts against the exportation of hats and woolens, the
requirement of exporting logwood by way of England,
and the heavy restraints on the wine trade. He maintained
that the acts of trade compelled the colonists to pay twenty
to forty per cent higher for goods from England than they
could be gotten from other countries. He then reviewed
the Quartering Act and the Townshend Acts and showed
that their tendency was to diminish the control of the people
over their provincial governments, f. e. their "Liberty. "
"As Liberty is the great and only Security of Property;
as the Security of Property is the chief Spur to Industry,"
he urged the merchants to join with Boston and New York,
to forego a present advantage, and to stop importation
from Britain until the unconstitutional acts were repealed. *
Remaining unconvinced by these appeals to an alleged
self-interest, the merchants were fiercely assailed from
another angle. Under the signature of "A Freeborn
American," Charles Thomson, himself not disinterested in
his cause as an iron manufacturer and distiller, quoted the
1 Dickinson, Writings (Ford), vol. i, p. 410; Pa. Gas. , Mch. 31, I7>? 8.
1 Pa. J. ourn. , Apr. 28, 1768; also Dickinson, Writings (Ford), vol . i,
pp. 411-417. On the same day as Dickinson's speech, the Pennsylvania
Chronicle contained an able article entitled, "Causes of the American
Discontents before 1768," written by Benjamin Franklin under the
signature "F. and S. " This was a trenchant analysis covering many
of the same points, and had been published originally for Engl1sh con-
sumption in the London Chronicle, Jan. 7, 1768. Franklin, Writings
(Smyth), vol. v, pp. 78-89.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? COMMERCIAL REFORM
words of the "Pennsylvania Farmer" to the effect that:
"A people is travelling fast to destruction, when indi-
viduals consider their interests as distinct from those of
the public. " The merchants were told that the eyes of
their customers, as well as of God, had been on them ex-
pectantly for a long time; and that eagerness for a few
pence or pounds should not deter them from joining
strength with Boston and New York. 1 A contributor in
the Pennsylvania Gasette of June 2 urged that the people
of the city take affairs into their own hands and agree
to buy only American manufactures. A few days later,
the merchants received a letter from the Committee of
Merchants at New York, reminding them that, unless they
adopted non-importation by June 14, the merchants of
New York and Boston would be absolved from their agree-
ments. 8 The Philadelphia merchants remainedujuaflyed;
the appointed day arr1ved and passefl! and the project of
a noj1-imprvrfa<1rm leofjpua -- of -- thp gjea*' trad1ng tOWnS
The delinquency of the merchants occasioned a most
virulent attack on their motives by John Dickinson in the
form of a broadside, entitled "A Copy of a Letter from
a Gentleman of Virginia to a Merchant in Philadelphia. "
The manuscript copy, which the printer used in getting
up the broadside, was in the handwriting of a third person,
making it evident, so the editor of Dickinson's Writings
thinks, that Dickinson desired to conceal his connection
with it. The writer did not mince words in charging that
the merchants were actuated by self-interest. During the
Stamp Act, when their " Patriotism and private Interests"
1 Pa. Gas. , May 12, 1768. Ford, op. cit. , vol. i, p. 435, ascribes the
pseudonym to Thomson.
1 Letter of June 6, 1768; N. Y. Journ. , June 28, 1770.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? I2Q THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
were intimately connected, the merchants had entered into a
non-importation agreement, he said. But they had been able
to shift the burden of the Townshend taxes on their cus-
tomers, and the abstract question of right did not concern
them. The principle involved they considered of slight
importance as compared with their personal comfort and
profit. 1
The failure to bring about a non-importation union placed
the Boston merchants in the dilemma of either resigning
themselves nervelessly to business depression or pursuing
a vigorous course independently of the other great ports.
After one or two meetings for discussion, the merchants
chose the latter alternative in an agreement drawn up Au-
gust 1, 1768. 2 The preamble attributed the commercial
distress to money stringency--a condition growing daily
more severe because of "the large Sums collected by the
Officers of the Customs for Duties on Goods imported,"
to restrictions on trade laid by the recent acts of Parlia-
ment, to the heavy war taxes, and to bad success in the
cod and whale fisheries. All subscribers of the agreement
pledged themselves to send no further orders for fall goods,
to discontinue all importations from Great Britain for
one year beginning January 1, 1769,* except coal, wool-
cards, duck, cardwire, shot, and four or five articles neces-
sary for carrying on the fisheries, and to cease the im-
portation of tea, glass, paper and painters' colors until the
duties on them should be removed. Several days later,
1 Writings, voL i, pp. 433-445-
1 Mass. Gas. & News-Letter, Nov. 17, 1769; Bos. Gas. , July 25, Aug.
1, 8, 15, 1768; Bos. Post-Boy, May 8, 1769; Bos. Eve. Post, May 8, 1769;
Hosmer, Hutchinson, p. 432; Brown, John Hancock His Book, p. 163.
1 At a meeting on Oct. 17, 1769, the merchants removed the one-year
limitation and made the period of operation contingent upon the repeat
of the Townshend duties. Mass. Gas. & News-Letter, Nov. 9, 17, 1769.
227-230.
* These resolutions passed by a vote of eighty-one to one. Bos. Gas. ,
Feb. 20, 1768; also N. Y. Journ. , Mch. 10.
1 E. g. , vide "A Friend to this Colony," Prov. Gas. , Nov. 14, 1767.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? II2 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
countenancing, " in the most effectual but decent and lawful
Manner," of any person who failed to sign or conform to
these regulations. A few weeks later, the subscription rolls
were reported to be filling rapidly. 1
Two days after the action of Prnvidepc. e. a town meeting
at Newport adopted an agreement of non-consumption,
modeled very closely on that of Boston, save that it was to
become effective one month later. Mourning resolutions
were also adopted. 2 In the following two months, the
Newport agreement was concurred in by other Rhode Island
towns, including Middletown, Little Compton and Tiverton. 1
"Liber Nov-Anglus," writing in the Connecticut Jour-
nal, December 25, 1767, was one of the first to urge the
Boston agreement on the people of Connecticut . The
larger towns soon began to take action, Norwich leading
the way. In the subsequent weeks, non-consumption agree-
ments, patterned more or less after the Boston plan, were
adopted by town meetings at New London, Windham,
Mansfield and New Haven. 4 In both Rhode Island and
Connecticut, the newspapers gave abundant evidence of the
wide drinking of "Labradore or Hyperion tea," and of
increased activity in the production of homespun. 5 The
Newport Mercury inserted, free of charge, all advertisements
of Rhode Island textiles.
Owing perhaps to the fact that the movement in New
England was engineered by town meetings, it did not spread
1 Prov. Gas. , Nov. 14, 28, Dec. 5, 12, 1767; Newport Merc. , Dec. 14.
* Newport Merc. , Nov. 30, Dec. 7, 1767; Prov. Gas. , Dec. 12.
* Newport Merc. , Jan. 25, Feb. 29, 1768.
4Prov. Gas. , Dec. 26, 1767; N. Y. Journ. , Feb. 11, Mch. 17, 1768;
Bos. Gas. , Feb. 15, Mch. 28; Newport Merc. , Feb. 15.
5 Newport Merc. , Dec. 7, 1767, Jan. 11, 18, 25, 1768; New London
Gas. , Dec. 18, 1767; N. H. Gas. , Mch. 11, 1768; N. Y. Joum. , Jan. 28,
Feb. 18.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? COMMERCIAL REFORM
m its present form to any of the other commercial provinces,
where those potent agencies of local opinion did not exist.
The interest of the people at New York and Philadelphia
was aroused, however. "A Tradesman," writing in the
New York Journal, December 17, 1767, asked pertinently
why the example of Boston had not been followed by New
York. "Are our Circumstances altered? " he asked. "Is
Money grown more plenty? Have our Tradesmen full
Employment? Are we more Frugal? Is Grain cheaper?
Are our Importations less? " On December 29, 1767, a
public meeting was held, and a committee was appointed to
report on a plan for retrenching expenses and for employing
local tradesmen and the deserving poor. At a meeting on
February 2. 1768, the report of the committee was approved,
and instructions were given for carrying it into execution. 1
Contemporary records do not reveal the nature of the New
York plan; but it is probable that it did not include an
agreement of non-consumption. A public meeting, held at
Philadelphia to discuss the action of Boston, did not ven-
ture further than to vote an expression of sympathy for that
city. 2
By the beginning of spring, 1768, it was apparent to all
interested that the sumptuary regulations of the New Eng-
land towns would fail to secure relief from the hard times.
The non-mercantile elements of the population were not, as
yet, sufficiently co-ordinated or self-conscious to secure
obedience to their mandates; and the merchants hesitated
to lend their support until they had assurance that their
brethren down the coast would unite in the measure. 3
1 N. Y. Journ. , Jan. 23, 28, Feb. 4, 1768.
1 Dickinson, Writings (Ford), vol. i, pp. 400-410.
1" Few of the trading part have subscribed," wrote Andrew Eliot,
of Boston, with reference to the agreement on Dec. 10, 1767. 4 M. H. S.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
Without such an understanding, they felt that their own
self-denial would have no other result than to deliver up
their customers to their competitors at New York and
Philadelphia. Meantime, importations continued as before,
though in somewhat lessened degree.
The basis for an appeal for a non-importation plan of a
wider geographical scope was supplied by "XhteiLflttecs
from a Farmer in Pennsylvania," which were published
serially in the newspapers of the various provinces during
December, 1767, and through the first two months of
1768. 1 The author, in language more legalistic than bucolic,
reminded the Americans of the success of the legislative
petitions and non-importation agreements in effecting the
repeal of the Stamp Act. and exhorted them to revive those
agencies of protest. These articles were read everywhere
and helped to prepare the public mind for the mercantile
opposition of the next few years.
The Boston merchants now took active steps to bring
about a non-importation league of the leading ports. The
body of the merchants were moved by the necessity of com-
al reform; but individuals were not unmindful of the
-/V 1act that a. suspension'nf rrane yTM'M ^naMf. ^p^Tt^v ,-Uo"
. ^G^/'*-' ])riAAA out their old stock at monopoly prices. 2 At the instigation
0 I <f of Captain Daniel Jviaicom, a notorious smuggler, and a few
others, the merchants and traders gathered at the British
Coffee-House on the evening of March 1, 1768 " to consult
on proper Measures relative to our Trade under its present
Embarrassments. " 1 At this and several subsequent meet-
Co/If. , vol. iv, p. 418. The leaders of the non-consumption movement
consist "chiefly of persons who have no property to lose," declared "A
Trader" in the Bos. Eve. Post, Oct. 12, 1767.
1 The text has been reprinted in Dickinson, Writings (Ford), vol. i,
pp. 305-406.
1 Bos. Post-Boy, Sept. 28, 1767.
1Bos. Gas. , Feb. 29, 1768. "This may be said to b<< the first Move-
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? COMMERCIAL REFORM 115
ings, an agreement was drawn up and adopted, which
pledged all merchants who should sign it, to refrain for
one year from importing merchandise from Great Britain
(save such as was absolutely necessary for the fisheries) in
case the merchants at New York and Philadelphia should
take like action. This conditional agreement was circulated
about Boston and was almost universally signed by the
merchants. The merchants of Salem, Marblehead and
Gloucester concurred in the same measure. 1
Events now awaited the action of the merchants at New
York and Philadelphia. At the former port, several meet-
ings of the merchants and traders were held early in April
to consider the matter. About the middle of the month,
an agreement was adopted to import no goods shipped from
Great Britain after October 1, 1768 until the Townshend
duties should be repealed, provided that Boston should
continue and Philadelphia adopt similar measures by the
second Tuesday of June. 2
ment of the Merchants against the Acts of Parliament," Governor Ber-
nard told Hillsborough in a letter of Mch. 21, 1768. Bos. Eve. Post,
Aug. 21, 1769.
1 The chief facts concerning this agreement of Boston and the other
towns may be found in: 4 M. H. S. Colls. , vol. iv, pp. 350-351; M. H.
S. Mss. , 9r L, p. 37, 70-74; Bos. Gas. , Feb. 29, Mch. 7, 1768; Bernard
to Hillsborough, Bos. Eve> Post, Aug. 21, 1769.
The merchants of
Portsmouth, N. H. , refused'to accede to this agreement. Brit. Papers
{"Sparks Mss. "), vol. i, pp. 7-8.
1 N. Y. Gas. & Merc. , Apr. 18, 1768; N. Y. Journ. , June 28, 1770. The
terms of this agreement had not been formulated without considerable
difference of opinion. Some of the more radical merchants wished to
include the Quartering Act with the Townshend duties as the object
of the non-importation. But this proposal was rejected by the major-
ity. Others insisted that the Boston plan of immediate non-importation
should be followed, for the six months' interval would enable unscru-
pulous men to enlarge their orders and defeat the purpose of the
agreement. This again met with little favor. Article by " G" in ibid. ,,
Apr. 21, 1768.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? 1 I6 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
The agreement was signed by every merchant and trader
in New York, save two or three unimportant ones, within
less than two days. Another outcome of the conferences
of the merchants was the formation of the New York
Chamber of Commerce, with the avowed purpose of en-
couraging commerce and industry and of procuring better
trade laws. 1 The Committee of Merchants at Boston were
informed of the New York agreement; and an answer was
returned that, although the Boston merchants considered the
New Yorkers mistaken in not stopping trade 1mmediately,
nevertheless, for the sake of unanimity, they would accept
their proposal. 8
In Philadelphia, the movement for co-operation with
Boston and New York was devoid of any real vitality, not-
withstanding that the great proponent of non-importation,
John Dickinson, was an influential citizen of that place.
The merchants as a whole did not yet suffer from the trade
embarrassments, which the sea ports farther north were
experiencing or which they themselves had experienced
during the critical years 1764-1766. 8 "A. B. " represented
the. merchants' point of view in a set of queries in the
Pennsylvania Chronicle July 25. 1768. The aribnymous
author, probably Joseph (jalloway, questioned the wisdom
of severing commercial connections with England except in
1 Bos. News-Letter, Jan. 5, 1769; Memorial History of the City of
New York (Wilson, J. G. , ed. ), vol. iv, p. 516.
* Letter of N. Y. Merchants' Committee to Philadelphia Committee,
N. Y. Journ. , June 28, 1770. The Boston meeting to consider the New
York proposal was probably held on May 2. Bos. Gas. , May 2, 1768.
* Dickinson's "Farmer's Letters," in contrast to his pamphlet against
"The Late Regulations" of 1764-1765, made no claim to severe times;
and only a few articles in the newspapers spoke of business stagnation
and currency stringency or advocated local manufactures, thus " Philo-
Patriae" in Pa. Chron. , Dec. 2, 1767; "Lover of Pennsylvania" in
ibid. , Jan. 4, I1, 1768; "Freeborn American" and "Monitor" in Pa.
Gtu. , Feb. 9, Apr. 14, 1768.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? COMMERCIAL REFORM 117
cases of dire necessity, for he declared that all the wool in
North America would not supply the colonists with hats and
stockings alone . Among his queries were these: Had the
merchants in their letters to England done all they could to
induce the mercantile houses there to agitate for repeal?
If the merchants should take action, ought not non-impor-
tation to be restricted to dutied imports alone? Was the
provincial legislature not the proper body to take cognizance
of the situation, and would anarchy not ensue from the
adoption of other measures? Even' if it were prudent for
New England merchants to resort to non-importation, might
it not be imprudent for Pennsylvania and other provinces
where the circumstances differed widely? Was it consis-
tent with the rights of mankind for one province to insist
that another should adopt its measures, more especially for
a people who called themselves " Sons of Liberty "?
"A Chester County Farmer" claimed that the farmers
would be slow to be inveigled into local manufacturing
again after their experience during Stamp Act days, for
the " ill-timed Resolution," made at the time of the repeal,
to cast aside all homespun, had dealt a staggering blow
to the people who had invested their capital in pastures,
sheep, looms, spinners, etc. 1 The situation was further
complicated by the long-standing local controversy over
the desirability of continuing the proprietary government. 2
A meeting of the merchants and traders of Philadelphia
was held on March 26, 1768, to act upon the proposal of
the Boston merchants. The Boston letter was not favcr-
1 Pa. Ga*. , June 16, 1768. It should be noted that the pseudonym was
another one of Joseph Galloway's, according to Ford in his edition of
Dickinson's Writings, vol. i, p. 435.
1" A. L. " in Pa. Chron. , May 30, 1768. In this controversy Galloway
and Dickinson were the local leaders of the royal and proprietary par-
ties respectively.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? H8 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
ably received and, after a heated debate, the meeting ad-
journed without taking action. 1
On April 25, John Dickinson addressed a merchants'
meeting in order to induce favorable action. He first dwelt
eloquently on the effort of Great Britain to check the in-
dustrial and commercial development of the colonies. He
cited the prohibition of steel furnaces and slitting mills,
the acts against the exportation of hats and woolens, the
requirement of exporting logwood by way of England,
and the heavy restraints on the wine trade. He maintained
that the acts of trade compelled the colonists to pay twenty
to forty per cent higher for goods from England than they
could be gotten from other countries. He then reviewed
the Quartering Act and the Townshend Acts and showed
that their tendency was to diminish the control of the people
over their provincial governments, f. e. their "Liberty. "
"As Liberty is the great and only Security of Property;
as the Security of Property is the chief Spur to Industry,"
he urged the merchants to join with Boston and New York,
to forego a present advantage, and to stop importation
from Britain until the unconstitutional acts were repealed. *
Remaining unconvinced by these appeals to an alleged
self-interest, the merchants were fiercely assailed from
another angle. Under the signature of "A Freeborn
American," Charles Thomson, himself not disinterested in
his cause as an iron manufacturer and distiller, quoted the
1 Dickinson, Writings (Ford), vol. i, p. 410; Pa. Gas. , Mch. 31, I7>? 8.
1 Pa. J. ourn. , Apr. 28, 1768; also Dickinson, Writings (Ford), vol . i,
pp. 411-417. On the same day as Dickinson's speech, the Pennsylvania
Chronicle contained an able article entitled, "Causes of the American
Discontents before 1768," written by Benjamin Franklin under the
signature "F. and S. " This was a trenchant analysis covering many
of the same points, and had been published originally for Engl1sh con-
sumption in the London Chronicle, Jan. 7, 1768. Franklin, Writings
(Smyth), vol. v, pp. 78-89.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? COMMERCIAL REFORM
words of the "Pennsylvania Farmer" to the effect that:
"A people is travelling fast to destruction, when indi-
viduals consider their interests as distinct from those of
the public. " The merchants were told that the eyes of
their customers, as well as of God, had been on them ex-
pectantly for a long time; and that eagerness for a few
pence or pounds should not deter them from joining
strength with Boston and New York. 1 A contributor in
the Pennsylvania Gasette of June 2 urged that the people
of the city take affairs into their own hands and agree
to buy only American manufactures. A few days later,
the merchants received a letter from the Committee of
Merchants at New York, reminding them that, unless they
adopted non-importation by June 14, the merchants of
New York and Boston would be absolved from their agree-
ments. 8 The Philadelphia merchants remainedujuaflyed;
the appointed day arr1ved and passefl! and the project of
a noj1-imprvrfa<1rm leofjpua -- of -- thp gjea*' trad1ng tOWnS
The delinquency of the merchants occasioned a most
virulent attack on their motives by John Dickinson in the
form of a broadside, entitled "A Copy of a Letter from
a Gentleman of Virginia to a Merchant in Philadelphia. "
The manuscript copy, which the printer used in getting
up the broadside, was in the handwriting of a third person,
making it evident, so the editor of Dickinson's Writings
thinks, that Dickinson desired to conceal his connection
with it. The writer did not mince words in charging that
the merchants were actuated by self-interest. During the
Stamp Act, when their " Patriotism and private Interests"
1 Pa. Gas. , May 12, 1768. Ford, op. cit. , vol. i, p. 435, ascribes the
pseudonym to Thomson.
1 Letter of June 6, 1768; N. Y. Journ. , June 28, 1770.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-08-19 01:35 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015011480665 Public Domain, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-google
? I2Q THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
were intimately connected, the merchants had entered into a
non-importation agreement, he said. But they had been able
to shift the burden of the Townshend taxes on their cus-
tomers, and the abstract question of right did not concern
them. The principle involved they considered of slight
importance as compared with their personal comfort and
profit. 1
The failure to bring about a non-importation union placed
the Boston merchants in the dilemma of either resigning
themselves nervelessly to business depression or pursuing
a vigorous course independently of the other great ports.
After one or two meetings for discussion, the merchants
chose the latter alternative in an agreement drawn up Au-
gust 1, 1768. 2 The preamble attributed the commercial
distress to money stringency--a condition growing daily
more severe because of "the large Sums collected by the
Officers of the Customs for Duties on Goods imported,"
to restrictions on trade laid by the recent acts of Parlia-
ment, to the heavy war taxes, and to bad success in the
cod and whale fisheries. All subscribers of the agreement
pledged themselves to send no further orders for fall goods,
to discontinue all importations from Great Britain for
one year beginning January 1, 1769,* except coal, wool-
cards, duck, cardwire, shot, and four or five articles neces-
sary for carrying on the fisheries, and to cease the im-
portation of tea, glass, paper and painters' colors until the
duties on them should be removed. Several days later,
1 Writings, voL i, pp. 433-445-
1 Mass. Gas. & News-Letter, Nov. 17, 1769; Bos. Gas. , July 25, Aug.
1, 8, 15, 1768; Bos. Post-Boy, May 8, 1769; Bos. Eve. Post, May 8, 1769;
Hosmer, Hutchinson, p. 432; Brown, John Hancock His Book, p. 163.
1 At a meeting on Oct. 17, 1769, the merchants removed the one-year
limitation and made the period of operation contingent upon the repeat
of the Townshend duties. Mass. Gas. & News-Letter, Nov. 9, 17, 1769.
