Knollenberg Bernhard. Growth of the American Revolution: 1766-1775
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
, Mass. Papers –. The petition has not been found, but part at least of its
substance is known from the Committee’s letter and undated memoranda from
De Berdt to Shelburne, Matthews “De Berdt” –, denouncing the granting
of “unlimitted power of the Officer to carry the Vessel he seizes into what port he
pleases” and the provision that if the seizure were found wrongful, the officer
would be “liable to no Cost.”
Complaints against Capt. Hugh Palliser by New England fishermen, Cushing to
De Berdt Jan. , , “Cushing Letters” ; Rothney “Case of Bayne” –;
Kerr “Newfoundland” –; Quebec Gazette Oct. , ; minutes of the Privy
Council March , , Acts P.C. VI –; William S. Johnson to Gov. William
Pitkin of Conn. March , , Trumbull –; corresp. April and May, ,
Home Office Pap. (for –) . Shelburne promised to have any just cause of
complaint removed, De Berdt to Cushing and to Boston merchants Feb. and
March , , Matthews “De Berdt” –.
De Berdt to Boston merchants March and , , stating that he had handed
their petition to Shelburne; that the latter had advised him not to “push it,” since
the House of Commons was offended by the conduct of New York; and that he
was therefore withholding it awaiting a more favorable opportunity to present it
to the House, Matthews “De Berdt” –. I have found no evidence of its ever
being presented.
The Opposition’s unsuccessful proceedings in Parliament, led by the Duke of Bed-
ford, concerning the Mass. Indemnity Act, Apr. to May , , described in
letters and diary entries April to July , Geo. III I , ; Grenville IV –;
Pitt III ; Lewis Walpole XXII –, , ; Trumbull –, –;
Groce Johnson ; Bowdoin–Temple Papers –; Duke of Bedford’s diary Apr., ,
Cavendish I –; Newcastle –; Winstanley Chatham –; and minutes
of the House of Lords Apr. –May , Journals H. of L. XXXI – passim.
The Massachusetts Act of Indemnity, passed after long delay Dec. , , con-
tained the obnoxious pardon clause, Mass. Acts IV –, added apparently to
secure the support of Joseph Hawley, a leading member from western Massachu-
setts, some of whose clients had been convicted of rioting to prevent execution of
the Stamp Act, Hutchinson to an unidentified correspondent Nov. , , Mass.
Arch. XXVI ; Brown Hawley –; Brown “Hawley’s Law Career” –
; Quincy Reports –. Reasons for the long delay appear in Brennan Mass.
– – and Mass. Acts IV .
The Privy Council did, indeed, issue an order May , , approving a recom-
mendation of the Privy Council Committee on Plantation Affairs that the Mass.
Indemnity Act be disallowed, Mass. Acts IV . But this disallowance made no
practical difference since warrants for payment of indemnity to the sufferers from
the riots had been issued in Dec., , same , and, as Hutchinson wrote
Richard Jackson Oct. , , the rioters were safe since “nobody will prosecute
them,” Mass Arch. XXVI .
The N.Y. act appropriating up to £, fully covering the cost of supplies re-
quired by the Quartering Act for the British troops stationed in N.Y., was signed
by Gov. Moore June , , N.Y. Col. Laws –.
The principal law officers of the Crown advised, July , , that the N.Y. ap-
propriations act sufficiently complied with the N.Y. Restraining Act, Shelburne
Papers :–, Clements Lib., and the Privy Council issued an order Aug.
giving effect to this opinion, Acts. P.C. V –. See also B. of T. to the King May
, , N.Y. Col. Doc. VIII –, concerning this matter.
The N.Y. Legislature continued to pass annual acts similar to the act of June ,
, making appropriations for supplying British troops in the colony, N.Y. Col.
Laws IV , , ; V , , , , despite occasional denunciation by
various New Yorkers of this compliance, Gipson Brit. Empire XI –.
The fluctuating conduct of colonies other than N.Y. with respect to the Quarter-
ing Act appears from Gage’s many letters on the subject cited under “Mutiny Act”
and “Quartering of Troops” in Gage II , , especially Gage to Lord Hillsbor-
ough July , , same I , and Shy Toward Lexington –.
Chapter
Estimate of the cost, £,, of the British troops stationed in the colonies and
elsewhere (e.g., Gibraltar) outside Great Britain and Ireland for the current year,
submitted by Lord Barrington to the House of Commons Jan. , , and con-
sidered by the House Jan. , Journals H. of C. XXXI , .
Barrington’s estimate for the troops stationed in the colonies was under £,,
but Charles Garth, London Agent for S.C., to the S.C. Comm. of Corresp., Jan.
, , brings out that George Grenville added the cost of “Contingencies,”
bringing the total to “upwards of £,,” S.C. Hist. Mag. XXIX . William
Beckford to Lord Chatham Jan. Pitt III and William Rouet to Baron Mure
Jan. Caldwell Part II also speak of Grenville’s motion calling for over
£, to be required from the colonies.
Henry S. Conway to the King “Monday evening” [ Jan. , ] quoting
Grenville’s motion to require the colonies to pay for the British troops stationed
there, Geo. III I . Thomas Whately had written Grenville Oct. , , of ru-
mors of a project for “providing an American revenue” from “the quit-rents in the
colonies” payable to the Crown “sufficient to support the military establishment
there,” Grenville III .
The defeat of Grenville’s motion to , Conway to the King [ Jan. , ]
Geo. III I . This motion probably contributed to Benjamin Franklin’s comment,
in a letter of Dec. , , to Joseph Galloway that Grenville “behaves as if a little
out of his head on the article of America,” Smyth Franklin V .
Charles Townshend’s speech in the Commons promising to introduce a bill to tax
the colonies for at least part of the expense of providing for their “safety and
preservation,” Rouet to Mure Jan. , , Caldwell Part II ; Lord Shelburne
to Chatham Feb. Pitt III –; and other contemporary sources cited in
Thomas “Townshend” n.
Townshend’s statement as to planning “by degrees” for a revenue which eventu-
ally would “bear the whole” cost of colonial administration, Sir Roger Newdi-
gate’s diary for Jan. Chaffin “Townshend Acts” .
Chatham at Bath Jan. , , “my pains [from gout] are abated,” Pitt III ;
Feb. , still at Bath, “My gout still hangs”; Chatham at Marlborough, en route to
London Feb. , “gout is not so severe”; Lord Chesterfield in London to Philip
Stanhope March , Chatham arrived “yesterday, full of gout,”same n. Williams
Pitt II , n, citing medical experts, says Pitt’s ailment was “diffused gout
probably complicated with Bright’s disease.”
Shelburne to Chatham Feb. , , as to what he had heard “from general con-
versation” as to Townshend’s plan, Pitt III . Shelburne himself had plans for
raising a revenue from the colonies, Shelburne to Gen. Thomas Gage, Dec. ,
, Gage II ; Shelburne to Chatham Feb. , , Pitt III ; memorandum of
March , Alvord and Carter New Regime .
The dispute within the Cabinet over whether to require the East India Company
to share its territorial revenue with the British government, Brooke Chatham Ad-
ministration –, –, n.; Sutherland East India Co. –; William Beck-
ford to Chatham Feb. , ; Chatham to Duke of Grafton “Wednesday” [prob-
ably March , ] Grafton ; Brooke Chatham Administration n. North was
offered the Chancellorship of the Exchequer in place of Townshend, but declined,
Grafton to the King March ; the King’s reply the same day, Geo. III I –;
North to Grafton “Wednesday night,” Grafton .
Chatham’s reply to Shelburne, Feb. , , making no comment on Shelburne’s
report of Townshend’s statement concerning colonial taxation, Pitt III –.
Lord Barrington, Secretary at War, had prepared a plan dated May , , to
draw most of the troops in North America to the Atlantic seaboard (a large part
of them to Nova Scotia) to save expense and to have “a good Corps of Troops
always within readiness within a few days sail” to keep the colonists “to Duty &
Obedience,” Alvord and Carter New Regime –. Comments of Shelburne
and Gage on this plan, and Gage’s distribution of the troops in North America,
Gage I –; Gage II ; Alvord and Carter New Regime –, , –.
The highlights of the problem of “Indian charges” are brought out in the Board
of Trade Plan of July, , Alvord and Carter Critical Period –, with the com-
ments on it by Sir William Johnson, Northern Indian Superintendent, same –
; Richard Jackson, Alvord and Carter New Regime –, and Benjamin
Franklin, Smyth Franklin IV –; and in Barrington’s Plan of May, , with
comments on it by Gage and Jackson, Alvord and Carter New Regime –,
–, –. For further light, Alden Stuart – and Sosin Whitehall and
Wilderness –.
Grafton to Chatham March , , reporting Townshend’s statement as to co-
lonial taxation at a Cabinet meeting the night before, Pitt III . To same effect,
Shelburne to Chatham March , same .
The question of regulating the Indian trade, along with other matters relating to
the Indians, was presented to the Board of Trade by a letter of Shelburne dated
Oct. , , Alvord and Carter Trade and Politics –. The Board’s report dated
March , , is in same –.
On Sept. , , the Cabinet voted to ask the Board of Trade to consider how
best to reduce the expense of regulating the American Indian Trade, and on Oct.
, Shelburne asked the Board for advice on this point, same and –. The
Board replied March , , advising that management of the Indian trade be
entrusted to the colonies whose inhabitants were interested in it, same – at
, and orders for this were given in letters of April , from Lord Hillsborough,
Secretary of State for the Colonies, to the appropriate colonial officials, same –
and N.Y. Col. Doc. VIII –.
Chatham to Grafton “Friday [March , ] / past Eleven,” replying to his
letter of the same date, Grafton Mss. .
There is no evidence that Townshend secured Cabinet approval of his colonial tax
plan. An undated letter from Townshend to Grafton, perhaps of May , , pub-
lished and discussed in Norris Shelburne –, Clafflin “Townshend Acts” ,
Namier and Brooke Townshend –, and Thomas “Townshend” –, asserts
that Shelburne had approved the plan at a recent Cabinet meeting, but not that
the Cabinet had. I have not found Grafton’s reply, if any.
Townshend’s budget speech of Apr. , , mentioning his proposed “American
Tax,” Thomas “Townshend” ; Clafflin “Townshend Acts” –.
When first mentioning his project for colonial taxation, in his speech of Jan. ,
, Townshend treated “the distinction between external and internal taxes as
ridiculous in every body’s opinion except the Americans...,” Shelburne to
Chatham Feb. , Pitt III . (In his speech of Jan. , , favoring repeal of the
Stamp Act, Parl. Hist. XVI , Chatham himself had drawn a line between “in-
ternal and external taxes,” but his further remarks showed that the “external
taxes” sanctioned by him were duties for the regulation of trade, not for revenue.)
Townshend’s statement of May , , as to external taxes and the acceptance
of them by many Americans, Thomas “Townshend” quoting Nathaniel Ry-
der’s notes of debate for that date. Townshend added that anyhow the controversy
over taxes “must soon come to an issue. The superiority of the Mother Country
can at no time be better exerted than now,” James West to the Duke of Newcastle
May , Add. Mss. :– (B.M.).
Townshend’s statement as to freeing Crown officials in the colonies from depen-
dence “upon the pleasure of any Assembly,” Garth to S.C. Comm. of Corresp.
May , So. Car. Hist. Mag. XXIX () . In , while Townshend was a mem-
ber of the Board of Trade, the Board had sponsored a very drastic instruction to
the Governor of N.Y. designed to secure a permanent salary for himself and the
colony’s judges, freeing them from future dependence on the N.Y. Legislature,
Labaree Instructions I –.
Townshend’s plan for colonial taxation outlined in the House of Commons
May , , Garth to S.C. Comm. of Corresp. May , So. Car. Hist. Mag XXIX
() –; William Samuel Johnson, London Agent for Conn., to Gov. Wil-
liam Pitkin of Conn., May (differing in some details from Garth’s account), Trum-
bull ; Clafflin “Townshend Acts” –. A similar plan had been considered
by the Rockingham Ministry in , John Huske to Townshend Apr. , ,
Namier and Brooke Townshend .
Townshend’s estimate in his statement of May , , that the proposed duties
would yield £, to £, a year, Nathaniel Ryder’s notes for May ,
Thomas “Townshend” .
Grenville’s speech May , , against Townshend’s proposed relaxation of the
restriction of colonial imports directly from southern Europe, Thomas Bradshaw
to Grafton [May ] Grafton , William Samuel Johnson, London Agent for
Conn., to Gov. William Pitkin of Conn. May , Trumbull . (The meaty letters
of Johnson during his Agency in London, Feb., , to June, , same –,
are wonderfully valuable because he was not only able and diligent but excep-
tionally judicious.)
Franklin and Johnson wrote that British merchants trading to Portugal and Spain
had “made a clamour about the intention of suffering ships to go directly with
wine, fruit and oil to America,” and that others declared it was “dangerous to re-
lax the Act of Navigation, the chief security of the Supremacy of this country,
while the Colonies were disputing and denying that very sovereignty which this
act was principally intended to establish,” Franklin to Joseph Galloway, June ,
, Smyth Franklin V ; Johnson to Pitkin and to Jared Ingersoll June , Trum-
bull and “Ingersoll Letters” .
Taxing colonial imports of tea was envisaged by Townshend in his initial promise
to bring in a bill to tax the colonies, Shelburne to Chatham Feb. , , Pitt III
, and had again been mentioned by him in May, Thomas Bradshaw to Grafton
May , Grafton . (On Feb. , , Franklin had written a member of Parlia-
ment, Richard Jackson, that a duty on colonial imports of tea “might perhaps not
be amiss” if “money must be raised from us...,” Van Doren Franklin and Jackson
, but I have found no evidence that Townshend knew of Franklin’s suggestion.)
Townshend’s plan presented to the House of Commons in Committee June ,
, and in regular session June , Journals H. of C. XXXI , –; Garth to
S.C. Comm. of Corresp. June , So. Car. Hist. Mag. XXIX () –. The de-
tails of the duties other than those on paper are in Journals H. of C. XXXI . The
duties on paper are from the act as passed, Geo. III ch. sec. .
Townshend’s estimates of the revenue from the proposed duties, same .
(Thomas “Townshend” n. speaks of Townshend’s estimate of £,, based
on the assumption of duty-paid colonial imports of . million pounds of tea a
year, as “wildly” optimistic, but in Gov. Thomas Hutchinson of Mass. esti-
mated colonial consumption of tea to be million pounds a year, M.H.S. Proc.
XIX , and in , Gilbert Barkly, a Philadelphia merchant, . million, Drake
Tea Leaves .)
The provision in the Acts of , , and for application of the revenue
from the acts toward “defending,” etc., the colonies, Geo. III ch. sec. ; Geo.
III ch. , preamble; Geo. III ch. sec. .
Proposed application of revenue from the Townshend Act primarily to salaries of
judges and other civil officials in the colonies, resolutions presented to the House
of Commons June , , Journals H. of C. XXXI .
The efforts over many years of the British government to persuade or compel co-
lonial Legislatures to provide for permanent, rather than year-to-year, salaries for
Crown-appointed colonial Governors and judges have been described in various
books and articles on American colonial history, notably Labaree Royal Government
–.
Adoption of the resolutions for Townshend’s plan and passage of the bill em-
bodying them can be followed in proceedings of the Commons June –, Journals
H. of C. XXXI –, , , , , , and in proceedings of the Lords,
June –, Journals H. of L. XXXI – passim.
Garth wrote the S.C. Comm. of Corresp. July , , that there had been “an in-
timation” in the House of Commons of dissatisfaction with the bill, but that “the
friends of America are too few to have any share in a Struggle with a Chancellor
of the Exchequer,” S.C. Hist. Mag. XXIX () . What the “intimation” was
or by whom is not stated. I have found no evidence of any outright opposition.
The statements in Miller Origins – that the House of Commons voted to
in favor of the duties and that “Grenville and Burke both cast their votes against
the act” are supported by an editorial note to a letter from Bradshaw to Grafton
of May , , Grafton n. But the letter itself (same –), read in the light
of the minutes of Parliament for May and (Journals H. of C. XXXI and
), shows that the vote referred to was on the New York Restraining Act.
The act imposing colonial import duties, Geo. III ch. (), was assented to
by a commission from the King June , , Journals H. of C. XXXI .
Undocumented statement in Williams Pitt II that Chatham was vexed with
Townshend because of his “threats to tax America.”
Lord George Sackville wrote John Irwin March , , that the Lord Chancellor
(Lord Camden), who was Chatham’s particular friend in the Cabinet, had re-
cently “held very stout language in the House of Lords” favoring vigorous action
to control the colonies and that it was believed that Chatham, too, “has changed
his ideas about America, and means to act with vigour,” Stopford H.M.C. .
The difficulty of the Rockingham party’s attacking the bill for the Townshend Act
was recognized in a letter of Aug. , , from William Dowdeswell to Rock-
ingham concerning a suggestion that the Rockingham party sponsor an act to re-
peal the Townshend Act. Dowdeswell pointed out that the molasses duty levied by
the Act of , sponsored by the Rockingham Ministry, was “to say the truth for
revenue not for [regulation of] commerce,” Hoffman Burke .
Most of the British pamphlets of , , and early denouncing the colo-
nists are listed in Dickerson Navigation Acts –. Some of the articles in British
newspapers and magazines are cited and discussed in Hinkhouse Preliminaries –
passim. Among the most important of the pamphlets are Good Humour or a Way
with the Colonies; [ Josiah Tucker] Letter from a Merchant in London; and Charles Lloyd
Conduct of the Late Administration.
Franklin’s pieces of this period ably defending the colonists are in Crane Franklin’s
Letters to Press –. Several other London imprints for , listed in Dickerson
Navigation Acts –, were pro-colonial.
Letters concerning the tide having turned in Great Britain against America,
Thomas Whately to John Temple Feb. , , Bowdoin–Temple Papers –; Lord
George Sackville to Gen. John Irwin Feb. , Stopford I ; Johnson to Gov. Pitkin
May and June , Trumbull –, and to Samuel Johnson May , Beardsley
W. S. Johnson ; Franklin to Galloway June , Smyth Franklin V .
British merchants’ resentment over failure of colonial merchants to reply to their
circular letters as to repeal of the Stamp Act (discussed in Chapter ), Franklin to
Galloway June , , Smyth Franklin V –; Johnson to Pitkin Oct. , ,
Trumbull .
Franklin’s testimony in the House of Commons and his statement of the names of
the members who questioned him and their respective questions are in The Exam-
ination of Dr. Franklin (London, ) reprinted in Smyth Franklin IV –; X
–. His testimony as to colonial acceptance of duties levied by Parliament
“to regulate commerce,” is in same IV –, .
Franklin’s statement that external taxes were not objected to in principle by the
colonists, same , , ; Nathaniel Ryder’s notes of debates, Gipson “The
Great Debate” –. Franklin wrote Lord Kames April , , that the pub-
lished account of his testimony was “imperfect,” same V , but I have found no
evidence that he ever denied being correctly quoted on this point.
William Strahan to David Hall April as to the powerful impression made by
Franklin’s testimony, Pa. Mag. Hist. X () –. To similar effect, contempo-
rary letters in Sparks Franklin VII – and William Knox in The Controversy
(London, ) .
The emptiness of the distinction between internal and external taxes had been
pointed out in Parliament by both Grenville and Townshend. Grenville wrote
Lord Buckinghamshire Jan. , , that in the Commons, the day before, Town-
shend had treated the “distinction between Internal and External Taxes with the
same contempt that I did,...calling it absurd, nonsensical and ridiculous...,”
Lothian –.
Franklin’s letter signed “Benevolus” in the London Chronicle Apr. , (reprinted
in the Gazetteer of London June ), reiterating the colonists’ acceptance of Parlia-
ment’s authority to impose external, though not internal, taxes on them, Crane
Franklin’s Letters to Press .
There was little protest in the colonies against the duty on molasses levied by the
act of Geo. III ch. (); even the sweeping protest by New York merchants in
December, , against numerous objectionable British measures (described in
Chapter ), said nothing against the duty on molasses levied by this act. (Figures
of colonial imports of molasses reported for customs – in Harper “Mer-
cantilism” n. and for in Jensen Hist. Doc. indicate that the molasses duty
levied by the Act of yielded over £, sterling a year.)
In outlining his colonial tax plan to the Commons, May , , Townshend said
he proposed “to lay taxes upon America but not internal taxes, because, though
he did not acknowledge the distinction, it was accepted by many Americans and
this was sufficient,” Ryder’s diary for May , Thomas “Townshend” .
None of the proposed duties could be considered immoderately high, and (as
brought out in Chapter of this book) the principal duty, the duty on tea, was
more than offset by refund of British import duties on tea reexported to the colo-
nies provided for by an act ( Geo. III ch. ) passed at the same session in which
the Townshend Act was passed.
The background of the act authorizing establishment of the American Board of
Customs Commissioners is discussed in Chaffin “Townshend Acts” –. The
establishment of such a Board was recommended in a report from the English
Customs Board to the Treasury Apr. , , approved by the Treasury the next
day, Barrow Trade –, .
The motion in the House of Commons June , , for leave to bring in a bill for
the act for an American Customs Board, the rapid progress of the bill through the
Commons, apparently without a division at any stage, its approval by the House
of Lords June , and assent by the King June can be followed in Journals H. of
C. XXXI –. The act was Geo. III ch. (). The background of the act
is given in Chaffin “Townshend Acts” –.
Chapter
Examples of colonial complaints concerning the Townshend Act on or before the
date (Nov. , ) it was to take effect, Charles Carroll of Carrollton to Henry
Graves Aug. , , Carroll Letters –; John Rowe’s diary for Nov. , Rowe
; Providence Gazette Sept. , ; New-York Journal Nov. ; Boston Evening-Post
Sept. , Oct. ; and the items in the Boston Gazette cited in note below.
Items against the act were published in the Boston Gazette Aug. , , ; Oct. ,
.
Vote of Boston town meeting Oct. , , approving a subscription paper not to
purchase any of nearly forty articles listed in the paper, Boston Records (for –
) –. There is a good discussion of the non-consumption movement of
– in Schlesinger Col. Merchants –, which is supplemented by Jensen
Founding , –.
Vote of Boston town meeting Nov. , , denouncing threatening papers
posted in the town and resolving to assist the magistrates in suppressing disorders,
Boston Records (for –) . I have not identified the “threatening Papers”
referred to in the proceedings of the meeting, but James Otis’ speech, quoted in
the text, indicates that they were directed against the Townshend Act.
Governor Francis Bernard to Lord Shelburne Oct. and Nov. , , con-
cerning James Otis, Bernard Papers VI –, . To same effect, Thomas
Hutchinson to Richard Jackson Nov. (should be ), , Mass. Arch. XXV
–.
The uncontrolled mob violence accompanying the opposition to execution of the
Stamp Act is described in Knollenberg Origin , , , –; Morgan
Stamp Act –, –, –; Maier Resistance –.
The tenants’ uprising on the Hudson, encouraged by the anti–Stamp Acts riots, is
described in Mark Agrarian Conflicts –. Soon afterward, Gen. Thomas Gage
wrote Henry S. Conway (June , ) that “the Rich and most Powerfull People
of the Province,” greatly alarmed, had got what they deserved, since their oppo-
sition to execution of the Stamp Act had taught the populace “to rise in Opposi-
tion to the Laws,” Gage I .
Gage to Conway Sept. , , and to the Duke of Richmond Aug. , , as
to the fear aroused, especially among “the better Sort,” in the colonies by uncon-
trollable mob violence, same I –, . Gov. Henry Moore of N.Y. wrote Lord
Hillsborough July , , that the reluctance of N.Y. merchants to join the non-
importation agreement was partly attributable to the fact that “The Apprehen-
sions which every Person of property was under during our late Commotions from
the Licentiousness of the Populace are not yet forgotten,” N.Y. Col. Doc. VIII .
Franklin’s testimony in the House of Commons had been published in pamphlet
form in Philadelphia (Sept., ), New York (Sept., ), Boston (Oct., ),
and Williamsburg (Dec., ), Adams Bibliography –, and had been ap-
plauded by friends of his in the colonies, Sparks Franklin VII –. Further-
more, his current article signed “Benevolus,” referred to in Chapter , had been
republished in June, , without indication of disapproval, in several colonial
newspapers, Crane Franklin’s Letters to Press .
The incongruity of colonial Whigs challenging the Townshend Act was brought
out by “A True Patriot,” who published a letter in the Boston Evening-Post of
Oct. , , stating “assuredly they cannot pretend to dispute the right of [Par-
liament to levy] an external one [tax] as that is a point that has been given up these
many years by all the colonies in America, particularly during the disputes over
the stamp act.”
Franklin stated in his testimony to the House of Commons in Feb., , that if
Parliament should levy a duty on colonial exports so high “as to lessen the demand
for it,” the colonists, while not denying Parliament’s right to levy it, “would com-
plain of it as a burthen, and petition you to lighten it,” Smyth Franklin IV .
Labaree Franklin XII n. states that, “In general, advertisements cost from s to
s local currency, with substantial discounts for repeated insertions,” giving an av-
erage of not more than s. per advertisement. Wright Am. Negotiator (London, )
lxii gives the ratio of Pa. currency to sterling as not less than . to , so that the
cost per advertisement in sterling would be not more than . pence ( divided by
.) per advertisement. Thus, the stamp tax of s. sterling per advertisement,
would be, as stated in the text, about % of the price of the advertisement.
The Pa. Gazette was printed on a single sheet requiring a stamp of one penny ster-
ling a copy. An advertisement of the prospective Pa. Chronicle published in the
Gazette of Dec. , , indicates that the subscription rate of each was s a year,
or about . pence weekly per issue, doubtless in Pa. currency. In terms of sterling
this would be less than . pence a copy. Thus, the stamp tax of one penny sterling
a copy would be, as stated in the text, about % of the price of the newspaper.
The annual subscription price of the relatively low-priced weekly Boston Chronicle,
printed on one whole sheet, is stated in its opening issue of Dec. , , to be s
d ( pence) or . pence per issue “lawful.” The ratio of “lawful” money to ster-
ling was .
/
to , Wright Am. Negotiator lxi–lxii, so that the price in sterling would
be about . pence per copy. Thus, the stamp tax of a penny sterling would be
about % of the price of the Boston Chronicle.
The Stamp Act levied a duty of pence sterling a copy on almanacs. The first page
of the issue of the famous Astronomical Diary, or Almanack, of Nathaniel Ames,
published in Boston, gives the price as “s d per dozen,” or . pence a copy,
presumably lawful money. Converting the stamp tax of pence sterling to lawful
money would give . pence or exactly twice the cost of the Almanack itself.
David Hall to Franklin June and Oct. , , concerning the threat of the
Stamp Act to colonial newspaper publishers, Labaree Franklin XII , .
James Parker to Franklin Apr. , , concerning his thought of giving up his
printing business because of his “Apprehensions” over the effect the “Cruel
Stamp-Duty” will have on colonial printers, same . On Aug. , he wrote
Franklin that he was planning, after all, to go on with his printing business “tho’
to little purpose” since “the Stamp-Duty like a killing Frost, strikes a deadly blow
at all that business...,” same .
The duties payable under the Stamp Act, Geo. III ch. (), covered so wide
a range of transactions that it takes ten pages of Pickering Statutes to list them all.
The difference between the Stamp Act and the Townshend Act in impact on the
merchants was noted by John Dickinson in A Copy of a Letter from a Gentleman in Vir-
ginia, to a Merchant in Philadelphia (), Ford Dickinson –. Berating Philadel-
phia merchants for not joining those of Boston in a non-importation agreement,
Dickinson pointed out that the Stamp Act obliged the merchants “to sacrifice a
very considerable Interest,” while the Townshend Act duties could be passed
along by them to their customers.
Kaestle “Farmer’s Letters” describes twenty-three newspapers published in the
thirteen colonies in December, , and the first five months of . Brigham
Am. Newspapers I –, –; II –, – adds four more published in
this period: Daniel and Robert Fowle The New-Hampshire Gazette, and Historical
Chronicle of Portsmouth; Christopher Sauer Germantowner Zeitung; Henrich Miller
Wochentliche Philadelphische Zeitung; and Benjamin Mecom Connecticut Gazette of New
Haven, which expired with the issue of Feb. , .
Kaestle “Farmer’s Letters” lists nineteen newspapers that carried some or all
of the letters. In addition, the Connecticut Gazette also carried the first three letters
and the New-Hampshire Gazette most, if not all, of them. I have not seen files of the
German-language papers published in Pa.; but Hildeburn Printing in Pa. II n.
states they did not carry any of the letters. Kaestle’s well-reasoned guess as to
the three S.C. papers is correct. Crouch and Timothy published the letters; Wells
did not.
Details as to publication in and influence of John Dickinson’s letters of “A
Farmer”
—the pamphlet edition was entitled Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania, to
the Inhabitants of the British Colonies
—are in Kaestle “Farmer’s Letters” –;
Ford Dickinson –; and Tyler History –. The Letters were later pub-
lished in pamphlet form in Virginia in combination with Arthur Lee’s “Monitor’s
Letters,” and in England, Ireland, and in a French translation purportedly printed
in Amsterdam, Ford Dickinson – and Adams Bibliography –.
The vast influence of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense is evidenced not only by the
great number of editions of the pamphlet, twenty-five (Gimbel Common Sense pas-
sim and Adams Bibliography –), but by many references to it in the corre-
spondence of the time.
Dickinson’s The Late Regulations . . . (Philadelphia, ) same –. Other less
well known earlier pamphlets by Dickinson are reprinted in same –.
Facts as to Dickinson’s early life, Stillé Dickinson, passim; D.A.B.; Colbourn “Dick-
inson” and “Dickinson’s London Letters” –; Jacobson Dickinson –, –
. A new, documented biography of Dickinson is much needed.
As to the political struggle in Pa. from to , with Franklin and Dickinson
on opposite sides, Knollenberg Origin –; Jacobson Dickinson –; Labaree
Franklin XI, XII passim.
Dickinson’s service in the Pa. Assembly as representative of the County of
Philadelphia from to , Pa. Arch. VI –, VII – passim;
Knollenberg Origin , –. As to Dickinson’s service with the Stamp Act
Congress of , Niles Principles , – and Ford Dickinson .