Knollenberg Bernhard. Growth of the American Revolution: 1766-1775
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
Dickinson’s defeat for the Pa. Assembly in and , Stillé Dickinson ; Laba-
ree Franklin XII –n., XIII –n. See also Pa. Arch. VII , . He
was again elected in , not this time for Philadelphia County, but as one of the
two members for the city of Philadelphia, same . He was not again elected un-
til
—this time for the county, same VIII .
First Farmer’s Letter, denouncing the N.Y. Restraining Act of , Ford Dickinson
– at , –. While disapproving of Parliament’s right to compel the
colonists to furnish the supplies specified in the Quartering Act, Dickinson ap-
proved of colonial Legislatures providing for troops stationed in their colonies in
a way consistent with the denial of the right of Parliament to demand these sup-
plies, same .
Evidence of the effect of Dickinson’s Letters at Boston is found in a letter from the
American Customs Board there to the Treasury Board Feb. , , denouncing
the letters as of “the most mischievous tendency” and in a letter of Joseph Harri-
son, Collector of Customs at Boston, to Lord Rockingham, June , stating that
he believed the letters were “the principal means of spreading this almost general
Disafection among the People, which has at last broke out in open Acts of Vio-
lence...,” Wolkins “Liberty” and Watson “Harrison” .
Dickinson recognized that there was a real difference in principle between taxes
for revenue and taxes for the regulation of trade, and that it would be possible to
draw a line between them in practice by Parliament’s providing that any revenue
arising incidentally from the application of acts designed to regulate colonial trade
be paid over to the respective colonies in which it was collected. This was done in
the Declaratory Act of , Geo. III ch. .
In and Parliament restricted colonial manufacture of felt hats and sail-
cloth (canvas) and in prohibited the construction in the colonies of any new
mill for slitting, rolling, or plating iron with a tilt hammer or new furnace for mak-
ing steel, Knollenberg Origin –, –.
Second Letter, Ford Dickinson –.
Third Letter, same – at –.
Third Letter, same , –. Dickinson pointed out that colonial revolution
would be far more sweeping in its effects than the deposition by a nation of its king
or race of kings because “Torn from the body to which we are united by religion,
liberty, laws, affection, relation, language and commerce, we must bleed at every
vein,” same . This and subsequent letters contain additional points not men-
tioned in the text. I have tried to cover only those which seem the most important.
Fourth Letter, same –. Dickinson did not mention Franklin, with whom he
had been at loggerheads over a proposed change of the form of government in
Pennsylvania, Knollenberg Origin –, but presumably Dickinson had him
particularly in mind in repudiating those who drew a distinction between “inter-
nal” and “external” taxes.
Fifth Letter, Ford Dickinson – at , –. Dickinson did not give any es-
timate of the cost to the colonies of the restrictions on their trade imposed for the
benefit of the mother country; but Daniel Dulany of Md. in his Considerations ()
had estimated this cost to be £, a year and in a letter of Jan. , , to De
Berdt, the Mass. House of Representatives gave an estimate of £, a year,
Bradford Mass. Papers . A recent estimate is $,, to $,, a year,
Harper “Effect” .
Sixth Letter, Ford Dickinson – at –.
Seventh and eighth Letters, same – at , . In the eighth letter, Dickin-
son brought out the additional point that, in recently defending the colonists from
the French, Great Britain’s motive was not so much concern for the colonists as
the preservation of a valuable asset, and that she not only succeeded in this but
gained a vast accession of land, which, far from benefiting the inhabitants of the
old British colonies, injured them by lowering the value of land in those colonies,
same –.
Ninth Letter, same – at –. This letter made the additional point that
because of differences in the judicial system in England and the colonies, author-
ity to issue general writs of assistance there was not as dangerous as it would be in
the colonies, same .
Te nt h Letter, same – at –.
Te nt h Letter, same .
Eleventh Letter, same – at –.
Twelfth Letter, same –.
Gov. Francis Bernard to Richard Jackson Feb. , , concerning the Farmer’s
Letters, Bernard Papers VI – at –, Harvard Lib. Further indication of
Bernard’s estimate of the importance of the letters is his sending two sets of them
to Under Secretary of State John Pownall, same.
Jensen Founding – has a good sampling of the many surviving contemporary
statements concerning the immense effect of the Farmer’s Letters on colonial
thought and action.
Chapter
John Dickinson to James Otis Dec. , , enclosing copies of his Farmer’s Let-
ters and urging that Mass. take the lead in opposing the Townshend Act, Warren–
Adams I –. As to the internal political feud in Pa., which precluded hope of the
Assembly there taking the initiative, Knollenberg Origin –, –. The
word “there” is correctly printed from Dickinson’s manuscript at M.H.S.
Otis’ missing reply to Dickinson is known from the latter’s acknowledgment to
Otis Jan. , , stating “I have just receiv’d your Favor of the first of this Month,
and am extremely happy in finding myself so much esteemed by you,” Warren–
Adams I –.
The first two of the Farmer’s Letters were published in the Boston Evening Post and
the Boston Chronicle of Dec. , , and the first letter in the Boston Gazette of that
date. Subsequent letters were published serially in all three of these papers.
Instructions of the Boston town meeting of Dec. , , presided over by Otis,
to the Boston members of the Mass. House to try to secure a petition to the King
for repeal of the Townshend Act, Boston Records (for –) –. The
Boston members were Otis himself, Thomas Cushing, Samuel Adams, and John
Hancock, same .
Mass. House’s Petition to the King Jan. , , asserting the right of the colonists
to be “taxed only by representatives of their own free election” and begging relief
from taxes levied by Parliament on the colonies, together with supporting letters,
Prior Documents –. The Petition was delivered by the House’s London Agent,
Dennys De Berdt, to Secretary of State Lord Hillsborough for presentation to the
King, De Berdt to Thomas Cushing June , , Matthews “De Berdt” .
Mass. House’s circular letter of Feb. , , to the Speakers of the Assemblies of
the other British colonies in North America, reporting its action and suggesting
“united” applications for relief, same –. The resolution for this (Feb. ) and
its background, Mass. House Journals (for –) , , , .
The Mass. circular letter of Feb. , , laid before the Va. House of Burgesses,
March , by its Speaker Peyton Randolph, Va. Journals (for –) .
Petition to the King, Memorial to the House of Lords, and Remonstrance to the
House of Commons adopted, “nemine contradicente,” by the Va. House Apr. ,
, same –. (Weight was added to these remonstrances by the concurrence
on Apr. of the Crown-appointed Va. Council, same .) The Remonstrance to
the House of Commons stated, “That the Parliament may make Laws for regu-
lating the Trade of the Colonies has been granted” and that such regulation in-
cluded the imposition of “Duties...to restrain the Commerce” of the colonies,
as distinguished from duties “for the sole Purpose of raising a Revenue,” same .
Va. House requests Acting Governor, “President” John Blair, to send copies of its
petitions to the Secretary of State and directs its Speaker to report its proceedings
to the Speakers of other colonial Assemblies, April , , same –. A copy
of the Speaker’s letter, May , is in N.J. Col. Doc. X –. The House also directed
its Committee of Correspondence to send copies of the documents to the House’s
London Agent, requesting him to join the Va. Council’s London Agent in secur-
ing favorable action, Va. Journals (for –) .
N.J. Assembly’s Petition to the King, signed by the Speaker, Cortlandt Skinner,
May , , N.J. Col. Doc. X –.
Petition of Conn. Legislature to the King against the Townshend Act, June ,
, and letter from Gov. William Pitkin to Secretary of State Lord Hillsborough
requesting presentation of the Petition to the King June , Conn. Col. Rec. XIII ,
–.
Proposed transfer of colonial affairs from the Secretary of State for the Southern
Department to a separate, new department, Shelburne’s memorandum Dec.
and , , Geo. III I –; Shelburne to Lady Chatham Dec. , Pitt III –
. Earlier proposals for this were made in , Basye Board of Trade ; in ,
Ritcheson “Pitt and an American Department” ; and in July, , Geo. III I
. See also Brooke Chatham n.
Grafton urges Shelburne to take the new American Department because of dis-
trust of the Bedfords’ principles (presumably those concerning the colonies), Shel-
burne’s memorandum of conference with Grafton Dec. , , Shelburne II ,
and Shelburne to Lady Chatham Dec. , Pitt III .
Shelburne’s choice of the Southern Department and reason for his choice, Shel-
burne to Grafton Dec. , , same –. Shelburne wrote Lady Chatham
Dec. , that he had refused the new department because “I think the general sys-
tem affected by it,” same , an explanation which seems to make no sense. The
greater prestige attached to the older office (Basye “Secretary of State” –) and
its jurisdiction over Irish affairs in which Shelburne, as one of the great Irish
landowners, had a special interest (Shelburne II –) probably influenced his
choice.
Lord Hillsborough (Earl of Hillsborough in the Irish peerage, Baron Harwich in
the English) was appointed Secretary of State for the American Department, i.e.,
for the colonies, Jan. , , Beatson Pol. Index II . (He resigned as joint Post-
master-General in favor of Sandwich on this same date, same I .) For the his-
tory of the department, which was abolished in , Spector American Department.
Hillsborough was appointed President of the Board of Trade in July, , Basye
Board of Trade . (The statement in Beatson Pol. Index that he was appointed
to this office Jan. , , is erroneous.)
As to the Board’s important participation in colonial affairs, Basye Board of Trade,
passim, and Knollenberg Origin citations in index under “Board of Trade.”
As to Hillsborough’s political career, sketch of him in D.N.B. and Alvord Missis-
sippi Valley I –, II –. His first appointment to the Board of Trade was at-
tributed to Lord Halifax, Secretary of State in the Grenville Ministry, Lord Hol-
land to George Selwyn Aug. , , Jesse Selwyn I . He was Chatham’s
personal choice for the second term as President of the Board, Chatham to Shel-
burne Aug. , , Pitt III . Hillsborough wrote Grenville Aug. , , that
he also had been offered, but declined, a seat in the Cabinet, Grenville III .
Hillsborough attended all but of the meetings of the Board of Trade during
his two earlier Presidencies, Basye Board of Trade , –. Cecilius Calvert
wrote Gov. Horatio Sharpe of Md. March , , that Hillsborough was “very
assiduous and by proficiency has turned out much business...,” Sharpe III .
As to Hillsborough’s friendly relations with Grenville, Hillsborough to Grenville
Aug. , ; William Knox to Grenville May , Aug. , and Sept. , ,
Grenville III , IV , , . Their relations were of long standing. George
Bubb Dodington wrote in his diary June , , that Grenville was a “bosom
friend” of Hillsborough, Dodington –.
Lord Holland wrote George Selwyn Aug. , , that, though Hillsborough was
“very well,” i.e., on good terms, with the late Grenville Ministry in which he
served as President of the Board of Trade, he was “too wise to be of their opinion
and they had been wiser had they consulted him,” Selwyn I –. Furthermore,
the Grenvillites opposed repeal of the Stamp Act, whereas Hillsborough (so he
said in without any known contradiction) that he had voted for a repeal,
William S. Johnson to Gov. William Pitkin Jan. , , Trumbull .
Grenville to Lord Trevor Dec. , , wondering what stand Hillsborough was
likely to take concerning the colonies, Grenville IV . Similar puzzlement was
mentioned by Dennys De Berdt, Agent for the Mass. House, to Thomas Cushing
Dec. , , Matthews “De Berdt” ; and by Benjamin Franklin, Agent for
the Pa. Assembly, to Joseph Galloway Jan. , , Smyth Franklin V .
Hillsborough to Gen. Thomas Gage March , , and Benjamin Franklin to
William Franklin March , concerning Hillsborough’s attitude toward colonial
non-importation and the Farmer’s Letters, quoted in the text, Gage, II and Smyth
Franklin V .
Presumably such important letters of April, , quoted in the text were not writ-
ten without Cabinet approval; but I have not found any Cabinet minute concern-
ing them.
Hillsborough’s circular letter of April , , quoted in the text, Eng. Hist. Docu-
ments (Jensen) IX –.
Hillsborough to Gov. Francis Bernard April , , quoted in the text, ordering
rescission of the Mass. circular letter, Prior Documents –.
Bernard to Hillsborough June and and July , , as to the vote on rescis-
sion quoted in the text; Letters to Ministry – at . (Bernard gives as the num-
ber voting against rescission.) The names of the voting against rescission and
the for, on June , are listed in the Boston Chronicle of July , . A large num-
ber in the House was appointed to provincial offices by the Governor and thus
subject to his influence, Brennan Massachusetts –.
The twelve Rescinders holding office under Bernard or his predecessors were
William Browne, Peter Frye, Jacob Fowle, and Richard Saltonstall of Essex
County; John Chadwick and John Ashley of Berkshire; Jonathan Sayward of York;
Matthew Mayhew of Dukes; Josiah Edson of Plymouth; Israel Williams of Hamp-
shire; Timothy Ruggles of Worcester; and Chillingsworth Foster of Barnstable,
Indexes to Whitmore Civil List –. Four of the remaining five (John Calef of
Essex; Jonathan Bliss, Jonathan Ashley, and Joseph Root of Hampshire) were sub-
sequently appointed to office by Gov. Thomas Hutchinson, same.
Bernard to Hillsborough July , , concerning his proclamation dissolving the
Mass. Legislature, Letters to Ministry . The proclamation, dated July , is in the
Boston Chronicle of July .
The names of the representatives in the new House in and the towns they rep-
resented are in Mass. Acts XVIII –. The five Rescinders in the new House
were Bliss, Williams, John Ashley, Ruggles, and Foster. All five Rescinders from
Essex County, including the two representatives of Salem, next to Boston the most
important commercial town of Massachusetts, were replaced by new men. Three
of the towns represented in the old House by Rescinders sent no representative to
the new.
Bernard to Hillsborough June , , concerning the defeat of several “Tories”
for reelection to the Mass. Council in May, , quoted in the text, Brown Democ-
racy in Mass. . Those called “Tories,” Bernard wrote, were “those who are dis-
posed to support the King’s government, to acknowledge the authority of Parlia-
ment, and to preserve the people from a democratical despotism...,” same.
Petitions to the King complaining of the Townshend Act as unconstitutional and
asking relief: Md., June , , Md. Arch. LXI –; R.I., Sept. , R.I. Col.
Rec. VI , –; Pa., Sept. , Pa. Assembly VII –; Del., Oct. ,
Gentleman’s Mag. XXXIX (Jan., ) –; N.H., Oct. , N.H. Papers VII –
, –; S.C., Nov. , S.C. Gazette, Extraordinary Nov. and Smith S.C. –
; N.C., Dec. , N.C. Col. Rec. VII –; Ga., Dec. , Ga. Col. Rec. XIV –
. Pa. and N.Y. also appealed to both Houses of Parliament, Pa. Assembly VII
–; Gipson Brit. Empire XI .
New York Assembly convened Oct. , , N.Y. Journals – Oct., , ses-
sion, .
The maneuvering in the N.Y. Assembly over action on the Mass. circular letter
can be followed in same , , , , , ; Smith Memoirs I –; Champagne
“Family Politics” –; Friedman “New York Assembly” –.
Adoption, without dissent, Dec. , , of a Petition to the King, Memorial to
the House of Lords, and Representation to the House of Commons for repeal of
the Townshend Act, N.Y. Journals – Oct., , to Jan., , session, –.
Vote December , , for an instruction to the Speaker of the Assembly, Philip
Livingston, to make a favorable reply to the Mass. circular letter, same Oct., ,
to Jan., , session, . On the same day, the Assembly passed resolutions as-
serting its right to petition the King, correspond with other colonies, and, with a
fling at the Restraining Act of (discussed in Chapter ), asserting the right not
to be dissolved by any authority other than the Crown, same . The Governor, Sir
Henry Moore, dissolved the Assembly two days later, same –.
Resolutions of the Va. House of Burgesses defying Hillsborough’s circular letter,
adopted “Nemine Contradicente,” May , , Va. Journals (for –) –.
An earlier unsuccessful effort (March–June, ) to launch a concerted move-
ment for non-importation is described in Schlesinger Col. Merchants –;
Jensen Founding –; Mass. Papers –; Rowe –.
In a list published in Boston in , Adams Family Corresp. I following p. , twenty-
seven persons were listed as “Merchants,” meaning presumably persons engaged
in business chiefly as importers and wholesalers (though some of them probably
sold goods at retail, too). Thirty-six others, classified collectively as “Traders,”
were listed as shopkeeper, factor, iron dealer, dealer in small wares, retailing fac-
tor of crockery ware, toy-seller, apothecary, jeweler, or wine-seller.
Agreement of Boston merchants and traders Aug. , , Andrews “Boston Mer-
chants” , with Rowe’s diary for Aug. , Rowe . The exempted items pre-
sumably were those deemed essential and not otherwise available. (On Nov. ,
, the agreement was revised by enlarging the list of exempted items and by
providing that non-importation of all except the exempted articles should con-
tinue until the Townshend Act duties were repealed, Andrews “Boston Mer-
chants” .)
Additional subscriptions obtained the next day, Rowe’s diary for Aug. , ,
Rowe . The statement in the text as to the subscriptions by Aug. is based on
a letter of Thomas Hutchinson to an unidentified correspondent Aug. , Mass
Arch. XXVI .
The Salem non-importation agreement adopted Sept. , , followed that of
Boston, Andrews “Boston Merchants” .
N.Y. merchants’ agreement Aug. , , same ; New York Journal Sept. . The
N.Y. agreement did not exempt hemp, duck, shot, or fish hooks and lines, ex-
empted in Boston, but exempted grindstones, chalk, tin, sheet copper, and Ger-
man steel, not on the Boston list of exemptions. The N.Y. merchants agreed also
not to import anything from Hamburg and Holland except tiles and bricks.
N.Y. tradesmen’s agreement of Sept. , , Annual Register (for ) –.
“Tradesmen” might, if not otherwise explained, mean either a shopkeeper or one
who followed a trade, i.e., a mechanic, artisan, or craftsman. The statement in the
N.Y. tradesmen’s agreement of that “we will not...buy any kind of goods
from any merchant, store-keeper or retailer...who shall refuse...in signing the
said agreement” shows that “tradesmen” was used here in the latter sense.
John Dickinson’s broadside A Copy of a Letter from a Gentleman in Virginia, to a Mer-
chant in Philadelphia, is in Ford Dickinson –; the quotation is at . The
broadside, undated, was written apparently soon after the Philadelphia mer-
chants had refused in Sept., , to join with those of Boston and N.Y.
Initial refusal of Philadelphia merchants pending British action on the Pa. As-
sembly’s petitions for repeal, to take action, including failure of most of the dry
goods merchants to attend a meeting held Sept. , , Schlesinger Col. Mer-
chants –. The Assembly’s petitions were dated Sept. , the merchants’ own
memorial, Nov. , same –. The memorial gave notice that the merchants
would join in the non-importation movement if their appeal were not successful,
same . There is a good account of the attitude and actions of the Philadelphia
merchants in a letter of Apr. , , signed by eighteen of them to their Lon-
don mercantile correspondents, London Chronicle June , , and Pa. Mag. Hist.
XXVII () –.
Philadelphia merchants’ agreement of Feb. , , suspending further orders un-
til March , Hamilton Letters to Washington III –. As to the background of
this action, Schlesinger Col. Merchants –; Jensen Philadelphia –; Brun-
house “Townshend Acts” –.
Philadelphia agreement of March , , Hamilton Letters to Washington III –
. A copy of the agreement was sent by a committee of Philadelphia merchants,
headed by John Reynell and William West, with a covering letter of March , to
Charles Wallace and other merchants in Annapolis, Md., same –, who for-
warded the papers to George Washington, Washington to George Mason Apr. ,
, Fitzpatrick Washington II . The Boston agreement covered only imports
from “Great Britain,” the Philadelphia agreement from “any...part of Europe
(except Linens & Provisions from Ireland . . .).”
New Haven and New London, Conn., and Newcastle County, Delaware, adopt
non-importation agreements in July and Aug., , Schlesinger Col. Merchants
–.
As to the tardy and initially defective agreement of the merchants of Newport,
R.I., Oct. , , which was not revised in a manner satisfactory to the mer-
chants of other colonies until Jan., , same –. As to an earlier agreement
in Providence, R.I., same .
Though no evidence has been found of any non-importation agreement among
N.J. merchants, they apparently abstained from importing, since the N.J. House
voted Oct. , , to thank the merchants of the colony, as well as those of N.Y.
and Pa., for not importing British merchandise, N.J. Col. Doc. XXVI . The fail-
ure of the N.H. merchants to act is discussed in Upton N.H. – and Schlesinger
Col. Merchants .
Substantial duties were being collected on colonial imports of sugar, wine, and
molasses under the acts of Geo. III ch. (), Geo. III ch. (), and
Geo. III ch. (). In the duty collected on molasses amounted to nearly
£,, on sugar to over £,, and on wine to over £,, Dickerson Naviga-
tion Acts .
Boston merchants’ resolution of Oct. , , to maintain the boycott until all du-
ties for revenue were repealed, refusal of New York and Philadelphia merchants
to concur, and Boston merchants’ recession on Dec. , Schlesinger Col. Merchants
–; Broadside of Dec. , Am. Bibliography IV . Cushing and other Boston
merchants to De Berdt Dec. , , Mass. Papers –. See also Jonathan and
John Amory’s letters Aug. and Sept., , as to background of the Boston revi-
sion of Oct., , Meredith Amory –.
Washington to Mason Apr. , , warmly advocating the adoption of a non-
importation agreement in Va., but pointing out the particular difficulty of carrying
out such an agreement in Va. and the other tobacco colonies, Fitzpatrick Wash-
ington II –; Knollenberg Washington: The Virginia Period –, –.
Mason to Washington Apr. , , replying to his letter of the same date and
heartily agreeing with him as to a non-importation agreement for Va., Hamilton
Washington III –.
On Apr. , , Mason wrote Washington, enclosing some amendments to a
draft of a proposed agreement (“Association”) previously sent him, same –.
I have not found just when Mason’s original draft was sent. It is in same –,
erroneously headed “ & .”
Washington’s diary records that he “Set of [off] for Williamsburg” on Apr. ,
, arriving there three days later, Washington Diaries I , .
Gov. Lord Botetourt’s dissolution of the Va. House of Burgesses for its resolutions
of the day before, denying the right of Parliament to tax the colonies and de-
nouncing its action in addressing the King to bring persons accused of treason in
the colonies to England for trial, Va. Journals (for –) –.
Members, or more accurately the ex-members of the Va. House of Burgesses
assemble at the Raleigh Tavern (“the House of Mr. Anthony Hay”), where a
committee was appointed to prepare a non-importation agreement, which was
adopted the next day, same xxxix, xl. Washington was a member of this commit-
tee, Washington Diaries I .
The Va. non-importation agreement of May , , is in Va. Journals (for –
) xl–xlii.
The Va. non-importation agreement was initially signed by former members
of the recently dissolved Va. House, including Peyton Randolph, Speaker, George
Washington, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry, and by
Richard Clarke “Clerk to the Association.” The names of twenty later signers are
in same xliii, and presumably there were many more, same xliii. However, most of
the importing merchants refrained from signing, Jensen Founding .
The articles other than those imported from Great Britain or the European con-
tinent, taxed for revenue by acts of Parliament included such important items as
wine from Madeira and the Azores and molasses from the West Indies, taxable
under Acts of and .
The provision for non-purchase after Sept. , , in the Va. agreement was sim-
ilar to agreements in other colonies not to drink tea, described in Schlesinger Col.
Merchants , –; Labaree Tea Party –, –, and Patriots –.
The Va. agreement of May , , Va. Journals xl–xlii. The agreement excepted
from the class of goods banned “Paper, not exceeding Eight Shillings Sterling per
reem” and “such Articles of the Produce or [misprinted “of”] Manufacture of Ire-
land as may be immediately brought from thence...,” same xli.
The Md. agreement, dated June , , effective immediately except as to goods
already ordered, is in Md. Arch. LXII –. Though similar to the Va. agree-
ment, its list of banned goods is somewhat more extensive than the Va. list, and
contains an enforcement provision not in the Va. agreement. Barker Md. –
describes the implementation of the agreement in Md.
The non-importation movement in S.C., culminating in the meetings of July
and , , is described at length in Schlesinger Col. Merchants –; Mc-
Crady South Carolina –; Sellers Charleston –, which quotes the list of
articles excepted from the ban on importation.
The S.C. non-importation agreement of July , , published in the South Car-
olina Gazette of July , , is reprinted in Andrews “Boston Merchants” –.
The Ga. non-importation agreement of Sept. , , is discussed in Coleman Ga.
–; Andrews “Boston Merchants” –; and Schlesinger Col. Merchants –
. The background of the N.C. agreement of Nov. , , and its provisions,
similar to those of the Va. agreement of May , are described in same –.
The project for an American episcopate of the Church of England; the war of
pamphlets, and articles in the colonial press precipitated by the pamphlets re-
ferred to in the text; and the refusal of successive British Ministries to support the
project are discussed in an appendix to this chapter.
Gov. Bernard’s messages of July and , , to the Mass. House of Represen-
tatives demanding payment for supplies for the British troops barracked in the col-
ony, required by the colonial Quartering Act, and the House’s flat refusal to com-
ply, Bradford Mass. Papers –.
Chapter
Assault on the Collector of Customs at Pocomoke, Md., early in , Barrow
Trade , .
The Polly affair at Dighton, Mass., in April, , Morgan Stamp Act –.
Rescue of goods seized by customs officers at Newbury, Mass., in March, ,
Barrow Trade , .
The rescue of goods seized by customs officers at the storehouse of Enoch Illfley
at Falmouth, Mass. (now Portland, Maine), Gipson Brit. Empire XI –. As
pointed out in the second appendix to Chapter , this incident also involved op-
position to use of general writs of assistance.
The controversies at Charleston, S.C., in –, and Henry Laurens’ leading
part in some of them, Barrow Trade –, –, –, ; Gipson Brit.
Empire XI –; Wallace Laurens –; Sellers Charleston – (marred by
some misdating).
There are sketches of the members of the Board in Clark “American Customs
Board” – and Channing “Commissioners” –. Further details as to
John Temple, son-in-law of James Bowdoin of Boston, are in Bowdoin–Temple Pa-
pers xv–xvii and as to Charles Paxton, in Wolkins “Paxton” –. Little is
known of Burch, who was described in Thomas Hollis to Andrew Eliot May ,
, as of little fortune, but “a learned, ingenious, virtuous good man, a Lover of
Truth & Liberty,” Hollis Papers, Mass. Hist. Soc.
The Commission establishing the American Customs Board Sept. , , is in
American Gazette (London, ) –. Details concerning the Board’s personnel
and operations are in Clark “American Customs Board” –; Channing
“Commissioners” –; Dickerson “British Control of American Newspa-
pers”; and Dickerson “Use Made of the Revenue.” The initial plan was to estab-
lish the American Board in Philadelphia, Customs Board report of Jan. , ,
cited in Chaffin “Townshend Acts” n.
The Board held its first meeting Nov. , , Paxton to Lord Townshend Feb. ,
, Wolkins “Paxton” . The Townshend Act, Geo. III ch. (), pro-
vided that the duties levied by the act were to take effect Nov. , .
William S. Johnson to Jared Ingersoll Nov. , , as to Paxton’s influence with
Charles Townshend having led to the choice of Boston as headquarters, “Inger-
soll Letters” –. As to Paxton’s connection with Townshend, Wolkins “Pax-
ton” –. Conjectures as to possible other reasons for choosing Boston are
given in Gipson Brit. Empire XI – and Dickerson Navigation Acts –.
Philadelphia initially had been proposed, Claffin “Townshend Acts” .
Bernard to Shelburne Sept. , , as to threats against the Commissioners, par-
ticularly Paxton, Barrow Trade , . Paxton had shown particular zeal in en-
forcing the obnoxious British acts of trade and revenue as Surveyor of Customs at
Boston, same , and had apparently diverted to himself funds which should have
been paid into the Massachusetts Treasury, Mass. Journals XXXVII Part , –
, , ; XXXVIII Part , , –, –; and report of cases of Gray
v. Paxton (, ) in Quincy Reports –.
Ann Hulton, sister of Commissioner Henry Hulton, to Mrs. Adam Lightbody
Dec. , , and Lord George Germain to Gen. John Irwin Dec. , concerning
the reception at Boston on Nov. , of Commissioners Paxton, Henry Hulton, and
William Burch, Hulton Letters and Stopford I . Temple was probably already
there and the fifth, John Robinson, arrived Nov. , American Customs Board to
the Treasury Board Feb. , , Wolkins “Paxton” .
Paxton wrote Lord Townshend Feb. , , “I have since my arrival Suffered
the Indignitie of being burnt in Effigie,” same . To same effect, Commissioners
to Treasury Feb. , Wolkins “Liberty” . I have seen no evidence as to when
and under what circumstances this incident occurred.
The hanging of Paxton and Inspector-General John Williams in effigy on March
, , Commissioners to Treasury March , same –; Bernard to Lord
Shelburne March , Letters to Ministry –. The Commissioners explained to the
Treasury in their letter of March , that Williams was considered obnoxious “by
being our immediate Instrument in regulating this Port....”
Boston town meeting votes May , , not to permit use of Faneuil Hall for the
Election Day dinner if the Commissioners were invited, Boston Records (for –
) .
Joseph Harrison to Lord Rockingham concerning Hancock’s wealth and popu-
larity with “the Mob,” and his “generous, benevolent Disposition,” and his being
“very charitable to the Poor,” June , , Watson “Harrison” , . Thomas