Opponents of non-importation
began, after a time, to perceive the apparent contradic-
tion between the methods of the merchants and their
shibboleths.
began, after a time, to perceive the apparent contradic-
tion between the methods of the merchants and their
shibboleths.
Arthur Schlesinger - Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution
?
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
the Constitution of their Country, and must expect that
those who have any Regard for it will endeavour in every
constitutional Way to prevent their Building themselves
up on the ruin of their Fellow-Citizens. " Thereupon,
the names of the following men were ordered to be in-
serted in the newspapers as objects of boycott: Theo-
philus Lillie, McMasters & Co. , T. and E. Hutchinson
and Nathaniel Rogers, all unrepentant though named in
the original handbills, and, in addition, John Mein, John
Bernard and Richard Clarke & Son. Richard Clarke
was another nephew of Hutchinson. John Greenlaw,
being called before the meeting upon charge of having
bought goods of violators of the agreement, acknowl-
edged his fault, and he surrendered the goods to the
custody of the committee. 1 A few days later Clarke &
Son, who had been published as importers, fully acceded
to the agreement and were ordered to be reinstated in
the public estimation. '
These new developments brought John Mein to the
firing-line again. In the Chronicle of August 17, he
devoted almost three entire pages to a vindication of
his conduct and leveled a charge of dishonesty against
the signers of the agreement. In his various occupa-
tions, he declared, he daily supported seventeen people,
fourteen of whom lived under his own roof and most of
whom would have lost employment if he had signed the
agreement. In his two years as printer, he had purchased
something like ? 400 worth of paper from the mill at
Milton. He employed four or five people in his book-
bindery and paid his foreman a yearly salary of ? 69 6s. 8d
lawful money. Moreover, it was notorious, he continued,
1 Bos. Go*. , Aug. 14, 1769; also N. Y. Go*. & Merc. , Aug. 28.
1Bos. Goz. Aug. 21, 1769.
? ? 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
? NON-IMPORTATION ^5
that the non-importation was not generally observed.
In support of his statement, he announced his design to
publish, in the course of the following months, a detailed
account of the cargoes of the vessels which had arrived
at Boston since the beginning of the year. He began by
presenting the itemized manifest of the snow Pitt, which
had arrived at Boston on June 1.
This was the opening gun of a bitter campaign, which
continued at semi-weekly intervals, almost without in-
terruption, until the event of the Boston Massacre in
March, 1770. ' Mein's usual course was to place at the
head of the first column of page one of the Chronicle a
copy of the merchants' agreement, with the allowed
articles in enlarged black letters; then to follow with a
trenchant attack on the good faith of signers of the
agreement; and to conclude with a manifest, which pur-
ported to show, by name and item, that signers were
continuing to import clandestinely. Mein revealed him-
self to be a keen and relentless disputant; he utilized
every favorable point to the utmost, and was a past
master of phrase and retort. For instance, inasmuch as
the merchants' resolutions of August n had alluded to
the advocates of non-importation as the "Well Dis-
posed," Mein never lost a chance to apply the term to
the Committee of Merchants; and he did it with many a
satiric turn that must have entirely destroyed the peace
of mind of those worthies.
The statement of "the Merchants of the Town of
Boston" on August 28, with the fusillade of personal
1These articles were published during the period August 17, 1769 to
March I, 1770. After the issue of October 19, the publication of mani-
fests, though not of jibes and queries directed at the Committee of
Merchants, ceased until December n, when they were resumed. Fifty-
five cargoes were listed in all.
? ? 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
vindications that followed, was a fair example of the
answering volleys which the supporters of the agreement
delivered. 1 Taking the five manifests which had been
published up to that time, they analyzed the figures care-
fully and showed that in no case had a signer deliberately
sought to evade the spirit of the agreement, and that
when a fault had been committed unintentionally, the
goods had been stored. Their analysis of the manifest
of the Pitt will suffice for purposes of illustration. Of
the thirty-one importers interested in the cargo, only
fifteen were Bostonians; and, of these, only four were
signers: Timothy Newell, John Rowe, John Erving and
the Hubbards. Newell had imported tin and iron plates,
which, it was stated, though not inserted in the original
agreement as permissible, were so understood from the
beginning and had since been made so by express vote,
and also several other articles open to importation in
other provinces. Rowe had imported shot and lines,
allowed by the agreement, and blankets and lines, con-
signed to him for use of the army. Erving had imported
Irish linen and beer, which had been ordered prior to
the agreement and were now under care of the commit-
tee. The goods sent to the Messrs. Hubbard had been
directed to their care for Stephen Ayrault, the Newport
merchant. Of the four other manifests discussed by the
committee, three of the vessels, Lydia, Last Attempt
and Paoli, were owned by John Hancock; and each
cargo contained articles forbidden by the agreement.
In one instance, that of N. Green, it was shown that the
34 casks of pork, which he had imported, had originally
been sent by him to London and had failed of sale. In
numerous cases, it was shown that the packages had been
1 Sot. Eve. Post, Aug. 28, 1769; also Bos. News-Letter, Aug. 31.
? ? 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
? NON-IMPORTATION
wrongly labeled in the manifests. In conclusion, the
committee reiterated their former position that the
agreement was being closely obeyed, except by a few
non-signers; and Mein was charged with an attempt to
misrepresent and defraud.
Replies to Mein's attacks came from other sources as
well, usually in the form of flat disclaimers from the in-
dividual merchants accused. 1 Mein again paid his re-
spects to the Committee of Merchants in a lengthy reply
in the Chronicle of October 9 and 12. He made much
of the admission that Newell's importations were ad-
mitted on June 1 although not made an allowed article
until July 26, a palpable injustice to other dealers. He
had "good reason" to believe that Rowe's blankets
were not for army use; and he demanded to know just
where or how Erving's importations had been stored.
As for N. Green's pork, even admitting the circumstances,
was pork an allowed article? "Do the Public begin to
suspect," he wrote on October 23 in his "Catechism of
the 'Well Disposed'," " that a certain scheme is princi-
pally calculated to crush all the young Merchants and
Importers, that the trade may still remain in the hands
of a few grave ' well disposed' Dons, who are believed
to be exceedingly well stocked with Goods? "
Perhaps the most interesting charge which Mein
made was against John Hancock, merchant prince and
1Thus, John Avery denied absolutely that he had imported china
and British linen from London in the Sukey and declared that he had
imported nothing from Great Britain for two years. Bos. News-Letter,
Aug. 31, 1769. Vide statements of F. Johonnot and Benj. Andrews in
the same issue. Francis Green declared wrathily that he "did not de-
viate from the Agreement in any Instance, of Course did not import
any Tea," and he dubbed Mein a " Mushroom Judge" and "conceited
empty Noddle of a most profound Blockhead. " Ibid. , Sept. 21. For
examples'of Mein's rejoinders, vide Bos. Chron. , Sept. 4, 25.
? ? 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
? ! <58 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
non-importer, for having imported five bales of "British
Linen" in the Lydia, which arrived at Boston on April
18, 1769. As that gentleman was out of the city, his
manager, William Palfrey, came to his defense in a sworn
statement that the contents of the bales had been misre-
presented by Mein, and that they were, in reality, " Rus-
sia Duck," allowed by the agreement. Mein replied by
publishing a copy of the cocket, certified by the customs
collector and comptroller, which attested the correctness
of his description. This verbal exchange continued for
some time,1 and received some attention in the Newport
Mercury, September 4, 1769, where it was observed that
Hancock as "one of the foremost of the Patriots in Boston
. . . would perhaps shine more conspicuously . . . if he
did not keep a number of vessels running to London and
back, full freighted, getting rich, by receiving freight on
goods made contraband by the Colonies. "" Hancock him-
self took no notice of Mein's attack until a letter from the
New York Committee of Merchants made allusion to it;
and in a signed statement he announced: "This is ONCE
FOR ALL to certify to whom it may concern, That I
have not in one single Instance, directly or indirectly,
deviated from said Agreement; and I now publickly defy
all Mankind to prove the CONTRARY. " 3 The truth
seems to be that the worst irregularity of which he was
guilty was an occasional carelessness on the part of his
ship-masters in receiving prohibited goods as freight;
and this did not become an offense under the Boston
1 For this dispute, vide Bos. CAron. , Aug. 21, 28, Sept. 4, 18, Oct.
9; and Bos. News-Letter, Aug. 31, 1769.
1"Civis" in the N. ff. Gas. , July 6, 13, 1770, expressed surprise
that " Mr. Hancock would suffer a consignment of 35 chests of tea to
a gentleman in this town, to come in a vessel of his from London . . . "
1 Under date of January 4. A'. Y. Journ. Jan. 18, 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
? NON-IMPORTATION 1gp
agreement until July 26, 1769. 1 The discrepancy be-
tween the description in the manifest and the actual con-
tents of Hancock's bales was, in all probability, due to
clerical carelessness or possibly to the notorious practice
of merchants to doctor their freight lists in order to
evade export duties in England.
In the Chronicle of October 19, Mein announced that,
if the '"well disposed' Committee" did not discontinue
"their abusive hints and publications either here or at
New York, the Public shall be entertained with Anec-
dotes of the lives and practices of many of these Worthies
as individuals; for all due pains shall be taken to unkennel
them; and already . . . a great store of materials has
been collected. " This promised expose, however, never
progressed further than a preliminary description, a week
later, of "The Characters of some who are thought to
be 'W. D. '," wherein much was said of "Deacon Clod-
pate, alias Tribulation Turnery, Esq. ," "William the
Knave,"' and other personages scarcely recognizable by
readers of the twentieth century. A few weeks later,
Mein collected the various controversial articles and
published them in a pamphlet of one hundred and thirty
'Hancock's vessel, Boston Packet, arrived on August 10 with 54
chests of tea in her cargo. Hancock wrote on Sept. 6, 1769 to his
London representatives, Haley & Hopkins: "The merchants of this
town having come into a new agreement not to suffer any freight to be
taken on board their vessels, I beg you would note the same, & prevent
any of it, except Coals, Hemp, Duck & Grindstones being put on board
any of my vessels. You will please to inform my ship masters that
they may conform themselves accordingly. " Brown, John Hancovk
His Book, p. 166.
'Probably John Barrett and William Palfrey. Barrett had imported
woolcards but had been credited on the manifest with " turnery. " This
labored performance gave " great offense" to the non-importing party,
according to Hutchinson, Mass. Bay, vol. iii, p. 259.
? ? 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
pages, under the title, Slate of the Importations from
Great Britain into Boston, from Jan. 1769 to Aug. 17,
1769. 1 Editions were gotten out the following year
which tabulated the later importations. These pam-
phlets were widely read in the other commercial prov-
inces and were frequently dispersed by employees of the
Customs Board. 2
The merits of the dispute between Mein and the mer-
chants may now be sufficiently clear. The strength of
Mein's position lay in being a literalist in his interpreta-
tion of the agreement; in failing to differentiate between
permissible and prohibited importations; and in testing
the efficacy of the agreement by examining the importa-
tions of non-signers as well as signers, of outsiders as
well as Bostonians, of non-merchants as well as mer-
chants. The success of the non-importation regulation,
on the other hand, lay in the sagacious exercise of a rule
of reason by the Committee of Merchants with regard
to the interpretation of the agreement, meantime placing
stress upon the performance of signers, and bringing all
possible pressure to bear upon recalcitrant merchants.
This was the course of action that was adroitly carried
out by the merchants.
While Mein was the one unrelenting opponent of non-
importation, it should not be thought that he was with-
out earnest support.
Opponents of non-importation
began, after a time, to perceive the apparent contradic-
tion between the methods of the merchants and their
shibboleths. Shall we "still pretend to talk of LIBERTY,
PROPERTY and RIGHTS without a blush? " demanded
"Martyr. " "Have we not . . . established courts of
inquisition in the colonies unparalleled in any age or na-
1 Boston Chron. , Nov. 20, 1769. 'Pa. 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
? NON-IMPORTATION
171
tion? where . . . was there ever an instance of men, free
men, being summoned by illegal and mock authority to
answer for actions as offences, which are warranted by
the laws of the land, the law of nations and the law of
God ? --' for he that will not provide for his family is worse
than an infidel'. " 1 Theophilus Lillie, one of the pro-
scribed merchants, declared: "I had rather be a slave
under one master, for if I know who he is, I may per-
haps be able to please him, than a slave to an hundred
or more who I don't know where to find nor what they
will expect from me. "" Another merchant, Colburn
Barrell, placed his failure to re-ship certain goods, as he
had agreed, partly on the ground that "it was an un-
lawful agreement made with what I must call an unlaw-
ful assembly; such an agreement as both the laws of my
Maker and my Country forbid me to stand to. "8 He
maintained, further, that the laboringmen in town and
country could better afford to pay the Townshend duties
the remainder of their lives than to pay the prices ex-
acted by the merchants that winter for the necessary
articles of baize and other woolens. 4 Another newspaper
writer argued pleasantly that he thought all marrying
should discontinue until the revenue acts should be re-
pealed. "Those who marry," he observed, "may possi-
bly have children; and if we have one spark of genuine
Liberty animating our breasts, can we bear the thought
of transmitting the most abject slavery to another gen-
eration? Besides, the Ministry at home, when they see
lBos. Chron. , Jan. 15, 1770. Vide also "A Bostonian" in ibid. ,
Feb. 5.
*Mass. Gas. , Jan. 11, 1770; also Bos. Chron. , Jan. 15.
1Mass. Gaz. & News-Letter, Nov. 17, 1769.
s. Chron. , Dec. 11, 1769.
? ? 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
our fixed determination to depopulate the country, will
be more shockingly mortified than . . . by any of our
resolutions to impoverish by Non-Importation. " In
short, he confided that his plan was to have all the
women stored and a committee appointed for keeping the
keys, of which he himself should be chairman. "If any
man should refuse to deliver up his wife or daughter
upon such an interesting occasion, he must be deemed
AN ENEMY To H1s COUNTRY. "'
Thomas Hutchinson got close to the root of the situ-
ation in frequent letters to the home government. He
denounced " the confederacy of the merchants " as unlaw-
ful, and showed that statutes of Parliament would al-
ways be nullified in America " if combinations to prevent
the operation of them and to sacrifice all who conform
to them are tolerated, or if towns are allowed to meet
and vote that measures for defeating such acts are legal. "
With the utmost persistence, he urged an act of Parlia-
ment for punishing all persons concerned in such con-
federacies. "
Meantime, in face of Mein's virulent efforts, more and
more pressure was brought to bear upon the little band of
obdurate importers. 8 On October 4, 1769, the town meet-
ing, ruled by the non-importers, voted its indignation that
1 Boston Chton. , Jan. 18, 1770.
1 Letters quoted by Hosmer, Hutchinson, pp. 166-168, 437-438 ; Wells,
Samuel Adams, vol. i, pp. 281, 301.
* Thus, the Seniors at Harvard College resolved never again to deal
with John Mein. Bos. Gas. , Sept . 4, 1769. The Committee of Mer-
chants published the name of a storekeeper who, under false repre-
sentations, had disposed of two chests of tea which had come from
the store of T. and E. Hutchinson. Ibid. , Sept. 11. The merchants
called before them three dealers who had imported tabooed goods and
induced them to re-ship the goods. Mass. Gas. & News-Letter, Oct. 5-
? ? 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
? NON-IMPORTATION
any citizens should persist in importation, and gave an
appearance of legality to the merchants' boycott of August
11 by declaring that the seven men then proscribed (not
counting the repentant Clarke & Son) should be entered
by name on the town records "that posterity may know
who those persons were that preferred their little private
advantages to the common interest of all the colonies . . . " *
Armed with this resolution, the merchants, who met the
same day, sought again to convince the importers of the
error of their ways. A committee of the merchants con-
ferred with T. and E. Hutchinson, at their own request,
and these gentlemen felt impelled to accede to every article
of the agreement, and they agreed to surrender eighteen
chests of tea, recently imported, as well as any goods which
might arrive later. A letter of the lieutenant governor,
written on the next day to an English friend, explained the
action of his sons: "My sons tell me they have sold their
T to advantage . . . tho' with the utmost difficulty; but
the spirit rose too high to be opposed any longer, and be-
sides the danger to their persons they had good reason to
fear there was a design to destroy the T;" and he con-
cluded by observing that: "It was one of the sellers of
Dutch T who made the greatest clamour; and had they im-
ported any other goods than T, they would not have sub-
mitted. " 2 Theophilus Lillie entered into similar engage-
ments with the merchants. McMasters, Rogers and Ber-
nard returned answers "highly insolent;" and Mein, for
obvious reasons, was not approached. The merchants
1 Mass. Gaz. 6- News-Letter, Oct. 5, 1769; also Bos. Town Recs.
(1758-1769), PP- 297-298.
2 Mass. Arch. , vol. xxvi, p. 386. Lillie was likewise intimidated by
popular clamor, according to his statement in the Mass. Gas. , Jan. I1,
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
? 174
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
voted unanimously that these four men "were unworthy
of the future countenance and favour of the public in any
respect," and appointed a committee to publish the names
of all persons who should thereafter deal with them. 1
Several days later, Nathaniel Rogers gave up his op-
position to the agreement; and the number of firms adver-
tised as " those who AUDACIOUSLY continue to counter-
act the UNITED SENTIMENTS of the Body of Mer-
chants thro'out North-America" was reduced to three. 2
The Committee of Merchants continued its work of super-
vising the enforcement of non-importation with great assi-
duity; and its transactions were made public from time to
time. About the middle of December, the names of A. and
E. Cummings, of Boston, and Henry Barnes, a Marlboro
trader, were added to the list of those "audaciously" of-
fending. 8
Those importers, who had become eleventh-hour con-
verts to non-importation, had yielded chiefly on the sup-
^QgU1'rvn that the apriwtnfn<. wrn1lfJ pYpitv on fannary I,
1770. Imagine, then, their consternat1on wfltill, Ull October
1 TTthe merchant? ma(^e *he operation of the agreement con-
tingent upon the repeal of the Townsheflfl dunes i *~ Still
other 1mporters began to regard pledges that had been wrung
from them through intimidation as having no binding force. 5
This was a situation pregnant with trouble. Late in
December, the merchants' committee of inspection made an
1 Mass. Gas. & Post-Boy, Oct. 9, 1769; also N. Y. Gas. & Mere. ,
Oct. 16.
1 Bos. Gas. , Oct. 9, 1769; Mass. Gas. & News-Letter, Oct. 19.
1 Bos. Ga*. , Dec. 11, 1769; also Mass. Gas. & News-Letter, Dec. 14.
4 Ibid. , Nov. 9, 17, 1769; Hutchinson, Mass. Bay, vol. iii, p. 266.
1 E. g. , iride statements of John Taylor and Theophilus Lillie, Bos.
Eve. Post, Jan. 15, 1770, and Mass. Gas. , Jan. 11.
? ? 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
? NON-IMPORTA TION
175
examination of the goods which had been stored by the
various merchants in their own shops in rooms for which
the committee held keys. They found a considerable quan-
tity wanting in the instance of John Taylor and Theophilus
Lillie, and they heard several other merchants declare their
intention to sell their stored goods after January 1, 1770.
A meeting of the Boston merchants on December 28 voted
a boycott against Taylor and Lillie and all those who should
trade with them. The committee of inspection were di-
rected to examine all stored goods at least once a week;
and their diligence brought immediate result in placing
Benjamin Greene & Company under the ban on the follow-
ing day. 1 But, in spite of these measures, other merchants,
the Hutchinsons among them, were not deterred from re-
newing the sale of their merchandise after January 1.
The merchant body was evidently facing another crisis.
On Wednesday, January 17, 1770, a large number of the
merchants gathered at Faneuil Hall to consider more drastic
measures than hitherto had been employed, and they ad-
journed from day to day, increasing their numbers with each
adjournment.
? THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
the Constitution of their Country, and must expect that
those who have any Regard for it will endeavour in every
constitutional Way to prevent their Building themselves
up on the ruin of their Fellow-Citizens. " Thereupon,
the names of the following men were ordered to be in-
serted in the newspapers as objects of boycott: Theo-
philus Lillie, McMasters & Co. , T. and E. Hutchinson
and Nathaniel Rogers, all unrepentant though named in
the original handbills, and, in addition, John Mein, John
Bernard and Richard Clarke & Son. Richard Clarke
was another nephew of Hutchinson. John Greenlaw,
being called before the meeting upon charge of having
bought goods of violators of the agreement, acknowl-
edged his fault, and he surrendered the goods to the
custody of the committee. 1 A few days later Clarke &
Son, who had been published as importers, fully acceded
to the agreement and were ordered to be reinstated in
the public estimation. '
These new developments brought John Mein to the
firing-line again. In the Chronicle of August 17, he
devoted almost three entire pages to a vindication of
his conduct and leveled a charge of dishonesty against
the signers of the agreement. In his various occupa-
tions, he declared, he daily supported seventeen people,
fourteen of whom lived under his own roof and most of
whom would have lost employment if he had signed the
agreement. In his two years as printer, he had purchased
something like ? 400 worth of paper from the mill at
Milton. He employed four or five people in his book-
bindery and paid his foreman a yearly salary of ? 69 6s. 8d
lawful money. Moreover, it was notorious, he continued,
1 Bos. Go*. , Aug. 14, 1769; also N. Y. Go*. & Merc. , Aug. 28.
1Bos. Goz. Aug. 21, 1769.
? ? 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
? NON-IMPORTATION ^5
that the non-importation was not generally observed.
In support of his statement, he announced his design to
publish, in the course of the following months, a detailed
account of the cargoes of the vessels which had arrived
at Boston since the beginning of the year. He began by
presenting the itemized manifest of the snow Pitt, which
had arrived at Boston on June 1.
This was the opening gun of a bitter campaign, which
continued at semi-weekly intervals, almost without in-
terruption, until the event of the Boston Massacre in
March, 1770. ' Mein's usual course was to place at the
head of the first column of page one of the Chronicle a
copy of the merchants' agreement, with the allowed
articles in enlarged black letters; then to follow with a
trenchant attack on the good faith of signers of the
agreement; and to conclude with a manifest, which pur-
ported to show, by name and item, that signers were
continuing to import clandestinely. Mein revealed him-
self to be a keen and relentless disputant; he utilized
every favorable point to the utmost, and was a past
master of phrase and retort. For instance, inasmuch as
the merchants' resolutions of August n had alluded to
the advocates of non-importation as the "Well Dis-
posed," Mein never lost a chance to apply the term to
the Committee of Merchants; and he did it with many a
satiric turn that must have entirely destroyed the peace
of mind of those worthies.
The statement of "the Merchants of the Town of
Boston" on August 28, with the fusillade of personal
1These articles were published during the period August 17, 1769 to
March I, 1770. After the issue of October 19, the publication of mani-
fests, though not of jibes and queries directed at the Committee of
Merchants, ceased until December n, when they were resumed. Fifty-
five cargoes were listed in all.
? ? 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
vindications that followed, was a fair example of the
answering volleys which the supporters of the agreement
delivered. 1 Taking the five manifests which had been
published up to that time, they analyzed the figures care-
fully and showed that in no case had a signer deliberately
sought to evade the spirit of the agreement, and that
when a fault had been committed unintentionally, the
goods had been stored. Their analysis of the manifest
of the Pitt will suffice for purposes of illustration. Of
the thirty-one importers interested in the cargo, only
fifteen were Bostonians; and, of these, only four were
signers: Timothy Newell, John Rowe, John Erving and
the Hubbards. Newell had imported tin and iron plates,
which, it was stated, though not inserted in the original
agreement as permissible, were so understood from the
beginning and had since been made so by express vote,
and also several other articles open to importation in
other provinces. Rowe had imported shot and lines,
allowed by the agreement, and blankets and lines, con-
signed to him for use of the army. Erving had imported
Irish linen and beer, which had been ordered prior to
the agreement and were now under care of the commit-
tee. The goods sent to the Messrs. Hubbard had been
directed to their care for Stephen Ayrault, the Newport
merchant. Of the four other manifests discussed by the
committee, three of the vessels, Lydia, Last Attempt
and Paoli, were owned by John Hancock; and each
cargo contained articles forbidden by the agreement.
In one instance, that of N. Green, it was shown that the
34 casks of pork, which he had imported, had originally
been sent by him to London and had failed of sale. In
numerous cases, it was shown that the packages had been
1 Sot. Eve. Post, Aug. 28, 1769; also Bos. News-Letter, Aug. 31.
? ? 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
? NON-IMPORTATION
wrongly labeled in the manifests. In conclusion, the
committee reiterated their former position that the
agreement was being closely obeyed, except by a few
non-signers; and Mein was charged with an attempt to
misrepresent and defraud.
Replies to Mein's attacks came from other sources as
well, usually in the form of flat disclaimers from the in-
dividual merchants accused. 1 Mein again paid his re-
spects to the Committee of Merchants in a lengthy reply
in the Chronicle of October 9 and 12. He made much
of the admission that Newell's importations were ad-
mitted on June 1 although not made an allowed article
until July 26, a palpable injustice to other dealers. He
had "good reason" to believe that Rowe's blankets
were not for army use; and he demanded to know just
where or how Erving's importations had been stored.
As for N. Green's pork, even admitting the circumstances,
was pork an allowed article? "Do the Public begin to
suspect," he wrote on October 23 in his "Catechism of
the 'Well Disposed'," " that a certain scheme is princi-
pally calculated to crush all the young Merchants and
Importers, that the trade may still remain in the hands
of a few grave ' well disposed' Dons, who are believed
to be exceedingly well stocked with Goods? "
Perhaps the most interesting charge which Mein
made was against John Hancock, merchant prince and
1Thus, John Avery denied absolutely that he had imported china
and British linen from London in the Sukey and declared that he had
imported nothing from Great Britain for two years. Bos. News-Letter,
Aug. 31, 1769. Vide statements of F. Johonnot and Benj. Andrews in
the same issue. Francis Green declared wrathily that he "did not de-
viate from the Agreement in any Instance, of Course did not import
any Tea," and he dubbed Mein a " Mushroom Judge" and "conceited
empty Noddle of a most profound Blockhead. " Ibid. , Sept. 21. For
examples'of Mein's rejoinders, vide Bos. Chron. , Sept. 4, 25.
? ? 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
? ! <58 THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
non-importer, for having imported five bales of "British
Linen" in the Lydia, which arrived at Boston on April
18, 1769. As that gentleman was out of the city, his
manager, William Palfrey, came to his defense in a sworn
statement that the contents of the bales had been misre-
presented by Mein, and that they were, in reality, " Rus-
sia Duck," allowed by the agreement. Mein replied by
publishing a copy of the cocket, certified by the customs
collector and comptroller, which attested the correctness
of his description. This verbal exchange continued for
some time,1 and received some attention in the Newport
Mercury, September 4, 1769, where it was observed that
Hancock as "one of the foremost of the Patriots in Boston
. . . would perhaps shine more conspicuously . . . if he
did not keep a number of vessels running to London and
back, full freighted, getting rich, by receiving freight on
goods made contraband by the Colonies. "" Hancock him-
self took no notice of Mein's attack until a letter from the
New York Committee of Merchants made allusion to it;
and in a signed statement he announced: "This is ONCE
FOR ALL to certify to whom it may concern, That I
have not in one single Instance, directly or indirectly,
deviated from said Agreement; and I now publickly defy
all Mankind to prove the CONTRARY. " 3 The truth
seems to be that the worst irregularity of which he was
guilty was an occasional carelessness on the part of his
ship-masters in receiving prohibited goods as freight;
and this did not become an offense under the Boston
1 For this dispute, vide Bos. CAron. , Aug. 21, 28, Sept. 4, 18, Oct.
9; and Bos. News-Letter, Aug. 31, 1769.
1"Civis" in the N. ff. Gas. , July 6, 13, 1770, expressed surprise
that " Mr. Hancock would suffer a consignment of 35 chests of tea to
a gentleman in this town, to come in a vessel of his from London . . . "
1 Under date of January 4. A'. Y. Journ. Jan. 18, 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
? NON-IMPORTATION 1gp
agreement until July 26, 1769. 1 The discrepancy be-
tween the description in the manifest and the actual con-
tents of Hancock's bales was, in all probability, due to
clerical carelessness or possibly to the notorious practice
of merchants to doctor their freight lists in order to
evade export duties in England.
In the Chronicle of October 19, Mein announced that,
if the '"well disposed' Committee" did not discontinue
"their abusive hints and publications either here or at
New York, the Public shall be entertained with Anec-
dotes of the lives and practices of many of these Worthies
as individuals; for all due pains shall be taken to unkennel
them; and already . . . a great store of materials has
been collected. " This promised expose, however, never
progressed further than a preliminary description, a week
later, of "The Characters of some who are thought to
be 'W. D. '," wherein much was said of "Deacon Clod-
pate, alias Tribulation Turnery, Esq. ," "William the
Knave,"' and other personages scarcely recognizable by
readers of the twentieth century. A few weeks later,
Mein collected the various controversial articles and
published them in a pamphlet of one hundred and thirty
'Hancock's vessel, Boston Packet, arrived on August 10 with 54
chests of tea in her cargo. Hancock wrote on Sept. 6, 1769 to his
London representatives, Haley & Hopkins: "The merchants of this
town having come into a new agreement not to suffer any freight to be
taken on board their vessels, I beg you would note the same, & prevent
any of it, except Coals, Hemp, Duck & Grindstones being put on board
any of my vessels. You will please to inform my ship masters that
they may conform themselves accordingly. " Brown, John Hancovk
His Book, p. 166.
'Probably John Barrett and William Palfrey. Barrett had imported
woolcards but had been credited on the manifest with " turnery. " This
labored performance gave " great offense" to the non-importing party,
according to Hutchinson, Mass. Bay, vol. iii, p. 259.
? ? 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
pages, under the title, Slate of the Importations from
Great Britain into Boston, from Jan. 1769 to Aug. 17,
1769. 1 Editions were gotten out the following year
which tabulated the later importations. These pam-
phlets were widely read in the other commercial prov-
inces and were frequently dispersed by employees of the
Customs Board. 2
The merits of the dispute between Mein and the mer-
chants may now be sufficiently clear. The strength of
Mein's position lay in being a literalist in his interpreta-
tion of the agreement; in failing to differentiate between
permissible and prohibited importations; and in testing
the efficacy of the agreement by examining the importa-
tions of non-signers as well as signers, of outsiders as
well as Bostonians, of non-merchants as well as mer-
chants. The success of the non-importation regulation,
on the other hand, lay in the sagacious exercise of a rule
of reason by the Committee of Merchants with regard
to the interpretation of the agreement, meantime placing
stress upon the performance of signers, and bringing all
possible pressure to bear upon recalcitrant merchants.
This was the course of action that was adroitly carried
out by the merchants.
While Mein was the one unrelenting opponent of non-
importation, it should not be thought that he was with-
out earnest support.
Opponents of non-importation
began, after a time, to perceive the apparent contradic-
tion between the methods of the merchants and their
shibboleths. Shall we "still pretend to talk of LIBERTY,
PROPERTY and RIGHTS without a blush? " demanded
"Martyr. " "Have we not . . . established courts of
inquisition in the colonies unparalleled in any age or na-
1 Boston Chron. , Nov. 20, 1769. 'Pa. 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
? NON-IMPORTATION
171
tion? where . . . was there ever an instance of men, free
men, being summoned by illegal and mock authority to
answer for actions as offences, which are warranted by
the laws of the land, the law of nations and the law of
God ? --' for he that will not provide for his family is worse
than an infidel'. " 1 Theophilus Lillie, one of the pro-
scribed merchants, declared: "I had rather be a slave
under one master, for if I know who he is, I may per-
haps be able to please him, than a slave to an hundred
or more who I don't know where to find nor what they
will expect from me. "" Another merchant, Colburn
Barrell, placed his failure to re-ship certain goods, as he
had agreed, partly on the ground that "it was an un-
lawful agreement made with what I must call an unlaw-
ful assembly; such an agreement as both the laws of my
Maker and my Country forbid me to stand to. "8 He
maintained, further, that the laboringmen in town and
country could better afford to pay the Townshend duties
the remainder of their lives than to pay the prices ex-
acted by the merchants that winter for the necessary
articles of baize and other woolens. 4 Another newspaper
writer argued pleasantly that he thought all marrying
should discontinue until the revenue acts should be re-
pealed. "Those who marry," he observed, "may possi-
bly have children; and if we have one spark of genuine
Liberty animating our breasts, can we bear the thought
of transmitting the most abject slavery to another gen-
eration? Besides, the Ministry at home, when they see
lBos. Chron. , Jan. 15, 1770. Vide also "A Bostonian" in ibid. ,
Feb. 5.
*Mass. Gas. , Jan. 11, 1770; also Bos. Chron. , Jan. 15.
1Mass. Gaz. & News-Letter, Nov. 17, 1769.
s. Chron. , Dec. 11, 1769.
? ? 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
our fixed determination to depopulate the country, will
be more shockingly mortified than . . . by any of our
resolutions to impoverish by Non-Importation. " In
short, he confided that his plan was to have all the
women stored and a committee appointed for keeping the
keys, of which he himself should be chairman. "If any
man should refuse to deliver up his wife or daughter
upon such an interesting occasion, he must be deemed
AN ENEMY To H1s COUNTRY. "'
Thomas Hutchinson got close to the root of the situ-
ation in frequent letters to the home government. He
denounced " the confederacy of the merchants " as unlaw-
ful, and showed that statutes of Parliament would al-
ways be nullified in America " if combinations to prevent
the operation of them and to sacrifice all who conform
to them are tolerated, or if towns are allowed to meet
and vote that measures for defeating such acts are legal. "
With the utmost persistence, he urged an act of Parlia-
ment for punishing all persons concerned in such con-
federacies. "
Meantime, in face of Mein's virulent efforts, more and
more pressure was brought to bear upon the little band of
obdurate importers. 8 On October 4, 1769, the town meet-
ing, ruled by the non-importers, voted its indignation that
1 Boston Chton. , Jan. 18, 1770.
1 Letters quoted by Hosmer, Hutchinson, pp. 166-168, 437-438 ; Wells,
Samuel Adams, vol. i, pp. 281, 301.
* Thus, the Seniors at Harvard College resolved never again to deal
with John Mein. Bos. Gas. , Sept . 4, 1769. The Committee of Mer-
chants published the name of a storekeeper who, under false repre-
sentations, had disposed of two chests of tea which had come from
the store of T. and E. Hutchinson. Ibid. , Sept. 11. The merchants
called before them three dealers who had imported tabooed goods and
induced them to re-ship the goods. Mass. Gas. & News-Letter, Oct. 5-
? ? 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
? NON-IMPORTATION
any citizens should persist in importation, and gave an
appearance of legality to the merchants' boycott of August
11 by declaring that the seven men then proscribed (not
counting the repentant Clarke & Son) should be entered
by name on the town records "that posterity may know
who those persons were that preferred their little private
advantages to the common interest of all the colonies . . . " *
Armed with this resolution, the merchants, who met the
same day, sought again to convince the importers of the
error of their ways. A committee of the merchants con-
ferred with T. and E. Hutchinson, at their own request,
and these gentlemen felt impelled to accede to every article
of the agreement, and they agreed to surrender eighteen
chests of tea, recently imported, as well as any goods which
might arrive later. A letter of the lieutenant governor,
written on the next day to an English friend, explained the
action of his sons: "My sons tell me they have sold their
T to advantage . . . tho' with the utmost difficulty; but
the spirit rose too high to be opposed any longer, and be-
sides the danger to their persons they had good reason to
fear there was a design to destroy the T;" and he con-
cluded by observing that: "It was one of the sellers of
Dutch T who made the greatest clamour; and had they im-
ported any other goods than T, they would not have sub-
mitted. " 2 Theophilus Lillie entered into similar engage-
ments with the merchants. McMasters, Rogers and Ber-
nard returned answers "highly insolent;" and Mein, for
obvious reasons, was not approached. The merchants
1 Mass. Gaz. 6- News-Letter, Oct. 5, 1769; also Bos. Town Recs.
(1758-1769), PP- 297-298.
2 Mass. Arch. , vol. xxvi, p. 386. Lillie was likewise intimidated by
popular clamor, according to his statement in the Mass. Gas. , Jan. I1,
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
? 174
THE COLONIAL MERCHANTS: 1763-1776
voted unanimously that these four men "were unworthy
of the future countenance and favour of the public in any
respect," and appointed a committee to publish the names
of all persons who should thereafter deal with them. 1
Several days later, Nathaniel Rogers gave up his op-
position to the agreement; and the number of firms adver-
tised as " those who AUDACIOUSLY continue to counter-
act the UNITED SENTIMENTS of the Body of Mer-
chants thro'out North-America" was reduced to three. 2
The Committee of Merchants continued its work of super-
vising the enforcement of non-importation with great assi-
duity; and its transactions were made public from time to
time. About the middle of December, the names of A. and
E. Cummings, of Boston, and Henry Barnes, a Marlboro
trader, were added to the list of those "audaciously" of-
fending. 8
Those importers, who had become eleventh-hour con-
verts to non-importation, had yielded chiefly on the sup-
^QgU1'rvn that the apriwtnfn<. wrn1lfJ pYpitv on fannary I,
1770. Imagine, then, their consternat1on wfltill, Ull October
1 TTthe merchant? ma(^e *he operation of the agreement con-
tingent upon the repeal of the Townsheflfl dunes i *~ Still
other 1mporters began to regard pledges that had been wrung
from them through intimidation as having no binding force. 5
This was a situation pregnant with trouble. Late in
December, the merchants' committee of inspection made an
1 Mass. Gas. & Post-Boy, Oct. 9, 1769; also N. Y. Gas. & Mere. ,
Oct. 16.
1 Bos. Gas. , Oct. 9, 1769; Mass. Gas. & News-Letter, Oct. 19.
1 Bos. Ga*. , Dec. 11, 1769; also Mass. Gas. & News-Letter, Dec. 14.
4 Ibid. , Nov. 9, 17, 1769; Hutchinson, Mass. Bay, vol. iii, p. 266.
1 E. g. , iride statements of John Taylor and Theophilus Lillie, Bos.
Eve. Post, Jan. 15, 1770, and Mass. Gas. , Jan. 11.
? ? 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
? NON-IMPORTA TION
175
examination of the goods which had been stored by the
various merchants in their own shops in rooms for which
the committee held keys. They found a considerable quan-
tity wanting in the instance of John Taylor and Theophilus
Lillie, and they heard several other merchants declare their
intention to sell their stored goods after January 1, 1770.
A meeting of the Boston merchants on December 28 voted
a boycott against Taylor and Lillie and all those who should
trade with them. The committee of inspection were di-
rected to examine all stored goods at least once a week;
and their diligence brought immediate result in placing
Benjamin Greene & Company under the ban on the follow-
ing day. 1 But, in spite of these measures, other merchants,
the Hutchinsons among them, were not deterred from re-
newing the sale of their merchandise after January 1.
The merchant body was evidently facing another crisis.
On Wednesday, January 17, 1770, a large number of the
merchants gathered at Faneuil Hall to consider more drastic
measures than hitherto had been employed, and they ad-
journed from day to day, increasing their numbers with each
adjournment.
