No More Learning

? Newport Merc. , Apr. 14, May 12, 1766; N. Y. Gas. & Post-Boy,
Apr. 3, 1766; A Pror. Gas. , Aug. 24, 1765.
? ? 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
? 78 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
paper writers in New York and Connecticut urged in Sep-
tember, 1765, that the people should abstain from the use
of British manufactures until the trade restrictions and
taxes were removed. 1 About the same time, a number of
Boston merchants, in writing for spring goods, ordered
them to be sent only when the Stamp Act should be re-
pealed. 2 But to New York belongs the credit of taking the
first formal action for the boycotting of British goods.
Four days before the Stamp Act was to go into operation,
most of the gentlemen of New York signed an agree-
ment to buy no European wares until the Sugar Act should
be altered, trade conditions relieved and the Stamp Act re-
pealed. Three days later the merchants held a general meet-
ing and agreed to make all past and future orders for British,
merchandise contingent upon the repeal of the Stamp Act.
Such merchants as were shipowners were to be permitted
to bring their vessels back to port with cargoes of coal,
grindstones or other bulky articles. Two hundred merch-
ants affixed their signatures to the agreement. In order to
protect the merchants from the unrestricted importers of
other provinces, the retail dealers of the city bound them-
selves to buy no goods whatsoever which should be shipped
from Great Britain after January 1, 1766, until the repeal
of the Stamp Act. 8 The merchants of Albany agreed unani-
mously to accept the New York resolutions. 4
*N. Y. Gas. & Post-Boy, Sept. 12, 1765; Conn. Gas. , Sept. 13.
* Bos. Eve. Post, Sept, 23, 1765; alsoW. Y. Ga*. & Post-Boy, Sept. 26.
1N. Y. Merc. , Oct. 28, 31, Nov. 11, 1765; N. Y. Gas. & Post-Boy,
Nov. 7. A London newspaper of Dec. 17 noted: "We hear that the
merchants upon 'change on Wednesday last received upwards of one
hundred letters from New-York, countermanding their orders for
goods. " Newport Merc. , Feb. 24, 1766. Colden said of the non-impor-
tation agreement, that "the people in America will pay an extravagant
price for old, moth eaten Goods, and such as the Merchants could not
otherwise Sell. " Letter Books, vol. ii, p. 78.
4 Weyler's N. Y. Gas. , Jan. 27, 1766.
? ? 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
? FIRST CONTEST FOR REFORM 79
The merchants of Philadelphia got under way about a
week after New York. With a prefatory statement that
the trading difficulties were due to " the Restrictions, Pro-
hibitions, and ill advised Regulations, made in the several
Acts of the Parliament of Great-Britain, lately passed " and
that they regarded the Stamp Act as the last straw, they
united in an agreement similar to that of the New Yorkers. 1
More than four hundred merchants and traders signed the
agreement, and a committee was appointed to observe its ex-
ecution and to report violations to the body of subscribers.
Printed forms for countermanding former orders were
distributed to every local merchant. 2 The merchants also
sent a memorial to the merchants and mapnfart11rprs of
their assistance jn the reneal of_the
_
Stamp Act and the removal of commercial restrictions,
particularly the restraints on paper currency, the mo-
lasses duty, the prohibition of the exportation of bar
iron to foreign ports in Europe, the heavy duties on Ma-
deira, and the requirement that European wines and fruits
must be imported by way of Great Britain. 8 The retailers
of Philadelphia supported the merchants by refusing to buy
any goods, shipped from Great Britain after January 1,
1766, except those approved by the merchants' committee.
1 Local shipowners were permitted to include in the return cargo of
their vessels from abroad dye-stuffs and utensils for manufacturing, as
well as bulky articles. The agreement was limited to May 1, 1766,
when another meeting should consider the advisability of continuing it.
Pa. Journ. , Nov. 14, 21, 1765; also AT. Y. Merc. , Nov. 25. The original
copy of the agreement, in, the library of the Historical Society of Penn-
sylvania, contains the signatures of all the subscribers.
* For samples of conditional orders of Philadelphia merchants, vide
letters of Benjamin Marshall, Pa. Mag. , vol. xx, pp. 209-211, and of
Charles Thomson, N. Y. Hist. Soc. Colls. , vol. ix, pp. 6-8.
1Pub. Rec. Off. , C. O. 5, no. 114 (L. C. Transcripts), pp. 161-169; Pa.
Gas. , Nov. 28, 1765; Pa. Mag. , vol. xx, p. 211.
? ? 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
? 80 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
The principal backcountry dealers cheerfully acquiesced
in this regulation.
Qn December q, 176;. the merchants of Boston drew UP a
formal agreement to import no goods from England until
the Stamp Act should be repealed, except utensils for manu-
facturing, certain bulky articles, and articles absolutely
necessary for the fishery. Two hundred and fifty merchants
and traders quickly signed. 1 Salem and Marblehead, the
ports of next importance, came into the same measure, and,
soon after, Plymouth and Newbury. 2
Only a few instances of enforcement are recorded in the
case of the several provinces, a fact which indicates lack
of infraction and not an absence of zeal. Money was
tight; business men in Great Britain and America were
retrenching. It has already been suggested that the non-
importation agreements derived their importance less as
economic measures than as political protests. Indeed, more
than three months before the first non-importation agree-
ment had been signed, London houses had begun to notice
a sharp falling-off of American orders, due to the hard times
from which the colonies were suffering. Thus, a London
concern stated on July 5, 1765 that " so few and so small
are the orders from America . . . that the ships lately
sailed thither have not had half their lading. " * It was
estimated in England that, for the entire summer, American
commissions for English goods were ? 600,000 less than had
been known for thirty years, and that the fall orders had
not been so small "in the memory of man. " * British
1 The agreement was limited to May 1, 1766, when it might be re-
newed. Bos. Post-Boy, Dec. 9, 16, 23, 1765. For orders of Hancock in
accordance with this agreement, vide Brown, John Hancock His Book,
pp. 103, 106, 108, 112, 114, 115, 117.
1 Adams, J. , Works, vol. ii, p. 176.
'Pa. Gaz. , Sept. 12, 1765. Vide also ibid. , Oct. 24.
4 Ibid. , Jan. 2, 1766. Vide also ibid. , Feb. 27; Bos. Eve. Post, Feb. 17.
? ? 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
? FIRST CONTEST FOR REFORM 81
merchants in comparing accounts were alarmed at the ex-
tent of their debts, and, knowing the precarious state of
colonial commerce, they contracted their credits to the seri-
ous embarrassment of their American correspondents. 1 In
November, a London house declared that more bills from
America had been protested within six months than in the
preceding six years. 2 On the other hand, the Boston Post-
Boy of December 23, 1765 declared: "A Merchant of the
first Rank in the Town Re-ship'd in one of the last Vessels
for London above ? 300 Sterling worth of Goods on Ac-
count of Money's being so scarce that they would not vend. "
The adoption of non-importation agreements added no new
difficulty to the situation already existing.
The first attempt to introduce forbidden British mer-
chandise_occurred at Philadelphia. A Liverpool brig ar-
rived there with goods debarred by the merchants' agree-
ment. The Committee of Merchants took the matter in
hand and ordere3TRaOHF^ogs_be_locked up until jpews
of the repeal of the Stamp Act should arrive. * A little
later the Prince George arrived at New York with goods
from Bristol, shipped on account of the British owners.
At the demand of the " Sons of Liberty," the goods were
delivered into their care, to be returned to Bristol at first
opportunity. 4
1 " A Merchant" in Public Ledger, Apr. 1, 1765; letter from London,
N. H. Gas. , Nov. 22; Burke in Bos. Chron. , June 26, 1769; R. I. Com-
merce, vol. i, pp. 168-169, 172-173.
On the basis of statements from the
merchants of London, Bristol, Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester.
Trecothick, a leading London merchant in American trade, told a com-
mittee of Parliament in February, 1766, that the American debts to
those cities amounted to more than ? 4,450,000. Brit. Mus. Addl. Mss. ,
no. 33030 (L. C. Transcripts), ff. 88, 104.
1 Pa. Gas. , Feb. 6, 1766. Vide also petition of London merchants to
House of Commons, Jan. 17, 1766. Parl. Debates, vol. xvi, pp. 133-135.
* Pa. Gas. , Apr. 24, 1766.
4 N. Y. Merc. , Apr. 28, 1766.
? ? 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
? g2 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
Two other ports, one of which was not bound by any
formal agreement of non-importation applied the prin-
ciple of the secnndaiy-boycott to portsjBtherc the stamp tax
Wflfi b>>ing F"^ The country people at Newburyport at-
tempted to prevent the sailing of a schooner for Halifax; and
when other means failed, they informed the customs officers
of irregularities in her cargo and occasioned a seizure of
the vessel. 1 At Charleston, S. C. , the fire company, com-
posed of radicals, agreed that no provision should be shipped
"to that infamous Colony Georgia in particular nor any
other that make use of Stamp Paper," on penalty of death
for the offenders, if they persisted in error, and the burning
of the vessel. A schooner, laden with rice for Georgia,
attempted to put to sea by night; but the master and the
owner were stopped by a threat that the letter of the reso-
lution would be carried out, and they discharged the cargo. 2
About the middl^ n* Tp*^ official news reached the
colonies that Parliament had given heed to the American
situation and had made sweeping alterations in the trade
and revenue laws of 1764-176? ,. This had come as the
result of a combinat1on of circumstances, fortuitous and
natural, which had spelled victory for the colonists. 8 Lead-
ing among these circumstances were the distress of the
British merchants, manufacturers and workingmen, and the
examination of Dr. Franklin before the House of Commons.
Figures at the London custom house showed that English
exportations to the commercial colonies had declined from
? 1,410,372 in 1764 to ? 1,197,010 in 1765; and from ? 515,-
1 AT. H. Gas. , Jan. 10, 1766.
1Newport Merc. , Mch. 17, 31, 1766; S. C. Gas. , Feb. 25; Pa. Journ. ,
Mch. ao.
1 Hodge, H. H. , "Repeal of Stamp Act," Pol. Sci. Quar. , vol. xix,
pp. 252-276.
? ? 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
? FIRST CONTEST FOR REFORM 83
192 to ? 383,224 to the tobacco colonies--a loss which was
far from being offset by an increase from ? 324,146 to
? 363,874 in the exportations to North Carolina and the
rice colonies. 1 Dr. Franklin had laid bare the economic
reasons for the American commotions, declaring them to
be "the restraints lately laid on their trade, by which the
bringing of foreign gold and silver into the Colonies was
prevented; the prohibition of making paper money among
themselves; and then demanding a new and heavy tax by
stamps; taking away, at the same time, trials by jury, and
refusing to receive and hear their humble petitions. " 2
Whether or not Franklin's analysis was a complete state-
ment of the case, the remedial legislation of Parliament
followed generally the lines indicated by him. The first
step taken was the total repeal of the Stamp Act, upon an
understanding, embodied in the accompanying Declaratory
Act, that Parliament, nevertheless, possessed authority to
bind the colonies "in all cases whatsoever. " * When Sec-
retary Conway communicated this news to the colonial gov-
ernors in a letter of March 31, 1766, he assured them that
Parliament would at once undertake to " give to the Trade
& Interests of America every Relief which the true State of
their Circumstances demands or admits. " * A second letter
of June 12, signed by the Duke of Richmond as secretary,
announced the accomplishment of this latter object--that
"those Grievances in Trade which seemed to be the first
and chief Object of their Uneasiness have been taken into
the most minute Consideration, & such Regulations have
1 Bos. Chron. , Jan. 30, 1769.
1 Writings (Smith), vol. iv, p. 420.
? 6 George III, c. 1 1 and c. 12.
*/ N. J. Arch. , voL be, pp. 550-552. As early as Feb. 14, Henry
Cruger had written with the assurance of one who knew the facts that
the molasses duty would be reduced to one penny. R. I. Commerce,,
voL i, p. 143.
? ? 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
? 84 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
been established as will, it is hoped, restore the Trade of
America . . . "'
The new regulations of Parliament did indeed remove
the chief economic objection to the restrictive act of 1764*
The threepenny duty on foreign molasses was taken off,
and in its place a very low duty of one penny a gallon was
substituted upon all molasses, whether imported from Brit-
ish or foreign possessions. The high duties on foreign sugar
were retained; but the cost of British West Indian sugar
was reduced by removing the long-established export duties
at the islands. It was provided, for the discouragement of
smuggling, that all sugars exported to Great Britain from
the continental colonies should be classed as "French"
and charged with higher duties accordingly.
It was further enacted that all colonial products, whether
"enumerated" or not, must thereafter be entered at an
English port, if destined for a European port north of Cape
Finisterre (other than the Spanish ports in the Bay of
Biscay). The imposts on foreign textiles that had been
collected upon importation into America were in the future
to be collected at the time of exportation from England.
The export duties on British colonial pimento and coffee
were replaced by low duties upon their importation into
other British colonies.
The new duty on molasses met the wishes of the agents
of the continental colonies; and it would appear that the
merchants of Boston, so vitally concerned, had intimated
1 / A'. /. Arch. , vol. ix, pp. 553-354-
16 George III, c. 52. The British West Indies had been suffering
hard times also, and Parliament passed special legislation at this time
with a view of relieving the distress there; 6 George III, c. 49, for the
establishment of free ports at Jamaica and Dominica. Vide Edwards,
B. , The History, Civil and Commercial, of the British Colonies in the
West Indies (London, 1793), vol. i, pp. 239-243.
? ? 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
? FIRST CONTEST FOR REFORM 85
in advance their willingness to accept such a reduction. 1
It was understood that the rum business of the commercial
provinces could easily support a small tax. Franklin be-
lieved that the new regulations afforded " reasonable relief
. . . in our Commercial grievances " 2 and the Rhode Island
agent wrote, even more exuberantly, to the governor of
Rhode Island that "every grievance of which you com-
plained is now absolutely and totally removed, -- a joyful
and happy event for the late disconsolate inhabitants of
America. " *
If the colonists had been more intent on their theoretical
rights than on immediate business concessions, the keener
minds would have perceived that rejoicing was premature.
Far more ominous to American liberties than the
tpry Act was the fact that the new molasses duty
to all molasses imported. British as well as foreign. By no
possible interpretat1on could it be construed m~any other
light than a tariff for revenue. It was an unvarnished con-
tradiction of the colonial claim to "no taxation without
representation. "
However, the remedial lefpslarion r>f 7-766 w^ JWJVMI
in_ America w1th great popular satisfaction. Measures
1Beer, British Colonial Policy, 1754-1765, p. 279; 1 M. H. S. Colls. ,
vol. vi, p. 193; Hutchinson, Mass. Bay, vol. iii, p. 261 n. ; Quincy, Mass.
Reports, p. 435; Brit. Mus. , Egerton Mss. , no. 2671 (L. C. Transcripts);
Sagittarius's Letters, no. xix, pp. 84-88. Dennys de Berdt, agent of the
Massachusetts House of Representatives, informed Lord Halifax that
a duty of one penny on molasses, "colected with the good will of the
people, will produce more neat money than 3 pence collected by the
dint of Officers. " Col. Soc. Mass. Pubs. , vol. xiii, p. 430. Dickinron
had said in his powerful arraignment of "the late regulations" that
"we should willingly pay a moderate duty upon importations from the
French and Spaniards, without attempting to run them. " Writings
(Ford), vol. i, p. 224.
1 Writings (Smyth), vol. iv, p. 411.