Knollenberg Bernhard. Growth of the American Revolution: 1766-1775
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
Correspondence to verify the report of this proposal and to maintain a corre-
spondence with other colonies. Va. House Journals (for –) . The report
that the “Court of inquiry” had power to send persons beyond the seas for trial
was erroneous; as brought out in an earlier note, the Commission of Inquiry did
not have this power.
The instruction of the House of Burgesses to Speaker Peyton Randolph, March
, , same . A copy of his circular letter of March is in R.I. Col. Rec. VII
–.
The favorable responses, May, , to March, , from the twelve other colo-
nies to the Va. proposal for intercolonial Committees of Correspondence, sum-
marized in Collins “Committees” –, are in Va. Journals (for –) –
, –; and Pa. Assembly VIII .
The act of Wm. III ch. () provided that judges of the English courts should
hold office during good behavior (“quam se bene gesserint”) and be dismissible
only on an address to the King by both Houses of Parliament, and that their
salaries should not be diminished while in office. Until their commissions, like
those of Crown officials in general, were terminated by the death of the sovereign;
the act of Geo. III ch. () provided that the commissions of judges should
not be terminated even by the sovereign’s death.
Commissions issued to the Governors of the royal colonies except Massachusetts
authorized them “to constitute and appoint judges,” without limitation as to the
kind of tenure to be granted. Examples are the commission to Gov. George Clin-
ton of N.Y. in , N.Y. Col. Doc. VI and to Gov. Francis Bernard of N.J. (later
Governor of Mass.) in , Greene Provincial Governor . The Governor’s au-
thority under this provision to issue “good behavior” commissions was upheld by
the chief law officers of the Crown in an opinion dated July , , N.Y. Col.
Doc. VI .
Prior to instructions to the Governors of the royal colonies contained noth-
ing to inhibit them from granting judges “good behavior” tenure. From on-
ward, the Crown issued instructions to Governors of all the royal colonies except
Massachusetts to issue “during pleasure only” commissions to judges, and in
issued a peremptory circular letter reenforcing this institution, Labaree Instructions
, .
A Crown letter of Dec. , , referred to “the ancient [i.e., established] prac-
tice and usage” in the colonies to grant judicial commissions “during pleasure
only,” Labaree Instructions I ; also Labaree Royal Government .
Governors of New York granted good behavior commissions to James De Lancey
(–), Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court, in and to associ-
ate justices John Chambers, Daniel Horsmander, and David Jones in , ,
and , same ; Acting Governor Cadwallader Colden of N.Y. to Secretary of
State William Pitt Aug. , , Colden () ; O’Callaghan N.Y. Commissions
, , , . Also, –, Governors of New Jersey issued “good behavior”
commissions to several judges of the New Jersey Supreme Court, Kemmerer N.J.
, , , .
The controversy in several royal colonies from to is discussed in Laba-
ree Royal Government –; Greene Quest for Power –; Knollenberg Origin
–, –. (The discussion in the latter should have been clarified on by
inserting the words “as empowered by their commissions and” before the words
“apparently authorized by this instruction.”) Also, there was controversy in
over judicial tenure in Pa., a proprietory colony, Bailyn Pamphlets –.
The provision in the Mass. charter of empowered the Governor “with the ad-
vice and consent of the Council...to nominate and appoint Judges...,” with-
out any statement as to tenure, Mass. Acts I .
A typical commission and set of instructions to the Governors of Mass., issued to
Gov. William Shirley of Mass. in are in Lincoln Shirley I –.
The custom in Massachusetts was to issue judicial commissions stating nothing as
to tenure, letters between John Adams and William Brattle in the Mass. Gazette
from Jan. to Feb. , , Adams Works III – at . The only Mass. judi-
cial commissions before which I have found (those to Judges Sylvanus Bourne
and John Cushing in and , Cushing Papers, M.H.S.) are silent as to
tenure.
Adams argued, and I think successfully, that commissions which were silent as to
tenure were revocable at the pleasure of the Crown, Adams Works III –,
–.
A typical vote of judicial salaries for one year only by the Mass. Legislature,
April , , is in Mass. Acts XVIII .
Order from Lord Hillsborough to the Treasury Board July , , to pay £
a year (sterling) to Chief Judge Peter Oliver and £ each to the four associate
judges of the Mass. Superior Court, Calendar H.O. Papers (for –) . In line
with the Crown policy of paying officers in the colonies put on the Crown payroll
far more than the salary previously paid by the colony, the chief justice’s salary
from the Crown was over twice that
—£– Mass. money, worth less than
sterling
—previously paid by the province, Mass. Acts XVIII , , , , ,
, , .
A copy of the Treasury warrant, Aug. , , for Oliver’s salary, commencing the
preceding July , is in Dickerson “Revenue” . The salaries were payable from
“the Duties on Tea, imported into America,” Treasury Minute July , T.::,
.
Lieut. Gov. Andrew Oliver wrote Francis Bernard as early as Aug. , , of a
report concerning the Crown’s proposed payment of the judges’ salaries circulat-
ing in Boston, Brown Democracy . Samuel Adams wrote Elbridge Gerry Oct.
that Gov. Thomas Hutchinson was reputed to have recently received official word
of this, Cushing S. Adams II .
Boston town meeting Oct. , , chooses a committee headed by Samuel
Adams to request Gov. Hutchinson for information as to the report of the Crown’s
paying the salaries of justices of the Mass. Superior Court, Boston Records (for –
) –. Some months earlier, the Mass. House of Representatives had
protested against Hutchinson’s being paid his salary as Governor by the Crown
instead of, as heretofore, by the province, messages exchanged by the House and
the Governor, June –July , , Bradford Mass. Papers –.
Hutchinson’s evasive answer (undated) as to the judges’ salaries quoted in the text,
and election at a Boston town meeting, Nov. , , of a Committee of Corre-
spondence headed by James Otis, Samuel Adams, and Joseph Warren, to prepare
and circulate a statement of the rights of the colonies, etc., Boston Records (for –
) –.
The Boston Committee’s statement and proposed circular letter Nov. , ,
same –.
Boston town meeting Nov. , , adopts the Committee’s statement and pro-
posed letter and orders their distribution by the town clerk, William Cooper, same
. (A biographical sketch of Cooper is in Hassam “Suffolk Registers of Probate”
–).
Letters from over one hundred towns (out of about in Mass.) in Boston
Comm. of Corresp. papers, N.Y. Pub. Lib., and photocopies of pertinent town
records at the Mass. Hist. Soc. are analyzed in Brown “Mass. Towns Reply”
–. Hutchinson’s worried letters concerning the movement are cited and
described in Brown “Democracy in Mass.” .
Hutchinson’s speech at the opening of the winter session of the Mass. Legislature
Jan. , , Bradford Mass. Papers –. See also Hutchinson’s speech of
Feb. , same –.
Mass. Council’s reply to Hutchinson’s speech, Jan. , , same –. The
members of the Legislature had earlier been exasperated not only by Hutchin-
son’s acceptance of a salary from the Crown, same –, but also by a pro-
tracted controversy over removal of the place of meeting of the Legislature from
Boston to Cambridge and Hutchinson’s refusal for some time to reestablish
Boston as the place of meeting, Lord and Calhoun “Removal” –.
Mass. House of Representatives’ reply Jan. , , to Hutchinson’s speech,
Bradford Mass. Papers –. The committee of eight members of the House
chosen to prepare this reply was headed by Samuel Adams, John Hancock, and
Joseph Hawley of Northampton.
Benjamin Franklin wrote Thomas Cushing May , , that Dartmouth had re-
cently told him he thought it necessary to lay before Parliament the “Declaration
of the [Massachusetts] General Assembly, asserting its Independency...however
unwilling he was to do it...,” Smyth Franklin VI . But there is no evidence that
he did so until , perhaps because the Ministry was reluctant to “widen the
breach with the colonies...at this Time when the disturbed State of Europe gives
some Apprehensions of a general War,” same .
The Ministry laid before the House of Commons on April , , copies of the
whole series of Hutchinson’s messages and the spirited replies of the Mass. House
in and , Force I .
Chapter
and Wm. III ch. secs. and (), with extensions listed in Pickering
Statutes X , gave the United Company of Merchants Trading to the East Indies
a monopoly of trade between Great Britain and the East Indies, with a proviso
that the Company sell its imports at auction (“inch of candle”) in England.
The Act of forbidding importation into the colonies of East Indian products,
including tea, from any place but Great Britain was Geo. I ch. sec. .
The act of Geo. II ch. sec. () authorized the British Treasury Board to
permit importation of tea into Great Britain by others than the British East India
Company if the latter neglected to keep the British market supplied with tea at
reasonable prices, but I have found no evidence that the Board ever granted such
permission.
Smuggling of tea into the colonies from Holland and other non-British ports had
long been common before passage of the Townshend Act, Labaree Tea Party –.
(The lower price of tea in Holland and other foreign countries as compared with
England is brought out in same , and Drake Tea Leaves , . Competing for-
eign companies operating in the East Indies were said to be able to undersell the
British Company because they were not required to pay heavy import duties on tea
such as were imposed in Great Britain, Gentleman’s Mag. for Dec., , XLII .)
Labaree Tea Party suggests as a safe guess a colonial consumption of tea of
“,, pounds a year...three-quarters of which were smuggled.” Some cur-
rent estimates of colonial consumption of tea ran to over million pounds a year,
Tea Leaves , ; M.H.S. Proc. XIX () .
Average annual exports of tea from England to the thirteen colonies – as
given in the text, Labaree Tea Party . Since there was much smuggling of tea into
England, Mui “Smuggling” –, some of the tea exported from England to the
colonies may have been tea from foreign countries smuggled into England, but
probably most, if not all, was tea imported into England by the Company. (I have
seen no figures as to exports of tea from Scotland to the colonies.)
Exportation of tea from England to the thirteen colonies –, Labaree Te a
Party .
The Company’s financial distress, Franklin to Cushing Jan. , , Smyth Franklin
VI –. Franklin implies that the colonial boycott was the chief cause of the dis-
tress, but other, no less important, causes are brought out in Sutherland East India
Co. –; Annual Register (for ) –; Macpherson Hist. of Commerce with In-
dia –. Correspondence between the Ministry and the Company from Nov.,
, to May, , refers to the latter’s desperate financial situation and the Min-
istry’s readiness to assist, Miscellanies , India Office Lib.
Resolution quoted in the text adopted at stockholders’ meeting Jan. , , East
India Company Court Minutes vol. fol. , India Office Lib. (Repealing the
Townshend Act duty on tea to help the Company regain its colonial market was
suggested in an article in Gentleman’s Mag. for Jan., , XLIII , and Franklin
wrote Cushing Jan. , that he had proposed this “in all Companies,” Smyth
Franklin VI .)
Petition voted by the stockholders of the Company Feb. , , as quoted in the
text, Labaree Tea Party , .
Petition of the Company to the House of Commons March , , asking that
“Leave may be given to export Teas, Duty-free, to America...,” Journals H. of C.
XXXIV . The petition also requested leave to export “Tea to Foreign Parts,
free of all Duty, the Company being obliged to keep in their Warehouses a Quan-
tity of Tea equal to Eighteen Months national Consumption.”
The act of Geo. III ch. sec. () provided for the refund of three-fifths of
the British import duty, amending an act of Geo. III ch. , for refund of the en-
tire British import duty on tea reexported to the colonies. These acts, including
provisions collateral to the refunds, are discussed in Farrand “Taxation of Tea”
–.
The British import duty on tea was approximately % ad valorem, same .
Lord North’s statement as to the tea duty quoted in the text is from a speech to
the House of Commons April , , Labaree Tea Party , .
The resolutions in the House of Commons April , , for the bill as to tea ex-
ported to the colonies, described in the text, are in Journals H. of C. XXXIV .
They had been discussed and approved the day before in the House sitting in
Committee of the Whole, same and Labaree Tea Party –, . An act of
Geo. II ch. () had exempted from British inland duties tea reexported to
the colonies. The provision as to inland duties in the resolution quoted in the text
would extend this exemption to tea reexported to foreign parts.
There are good biographical sketches of William Dowdeswell, Barlow Trecothick,
George Johnstone, William Pulteney, and Charles Wolfram Cornwall in Namier
and Brooke Commons II, III passim. My statements in the text concerning them, un-
less otherwise noted, are from these sketches.
Dowdeswell’s statement in the debate of April , , quoted in the text, Laba-
ree Tea Act .
Charles Garth to S.C. Comm. of Corresp. May , , quoting Trecothick’s re-
marks of April , , Garth Papers, S.C. Archives Department, Columbia,
S.C. Trecothick, who had been brought up in the colonies and married a Boston
girl, was London Agent for N.H., –, Kammen Agents . There are
many references to him cited in the index of same and in Sosin Agents . So
far as is known, Garth, though a member of the House of Commons, did not sup-
port Dowdeswell.
Remarks of Johnstone, Pulteney, and Cornwall on April , , along the same
lines as those of Dowdeswell and Trecothick, Labaree Tea Party .
Garth to S.C. Comm. of Corresp. May , , as to North declining “any politi-
cal argument touching the Right of Parliament to impose Taxes on the Ameri-
cans,” Garth Papers, S.C. Archives Department, Columbia, S.C.
Dowdeswell’s statement on April , , digested in the text, was “It is the pep-
percorn that was so much contended [for]; for this you risk the export of two
million [pounds of tea] to America,” Labaree Tea Act . The allusion to “pep-
percorn” was to earlier statements in Parliament that even if taxes imposed by
Parliament on the colonies yielded only a peppercorn, they should be retained in
support of Parliament’s assertion of right to tax the colonies.
I have found no evidence that Edmund Burke, though he was London Agent for
the N.Y. Assembly, spoke at any stage of the proceedings on the Tea Act. In letters
to the N.Y. Comm. of Corresp. April and July , , he did not mention the
East India Company’s petition, the proceedings on the Tea Act, or even the Act
itself, Burke II –, –. In the latter he wrote simply (p. ), “The Ses-
sion is ended. The East India Companys Political and Financial affairs are put into
the hands of the Crown, but I am much afraid, with little Benefit either to the
Crown or the Publick.”
The passage of the Tea Act of , Geo. III ch. , through the House of Com-
mons can be followed in the minutes of the Commons from Apr. to May , ,
Journals H. of C. XXXIV – passim.
The bill for the Tea Act from the Commons passed the House of Lords May ,
, and was assented to by the King May , Journals H. of L. XXXIII , .
Arthur Lee in London to Samuel Adams Dec. , , quoted in the text, charg-
ing the Ministry with deliberate provocation of the colonies, Samuel Adams Pa-
pers, N.Y.P.L.
John Almon’s charge against George III quoted in the text, Almon Pitt II . My
citation is to the seventh () edition of the book, which was first published in or
about . Benjamin Franklin wrote William Franklin July , , “the late Mea-
sures have been, I suspect, very much the King’s own,” but he did not charge the
King with the design to bring the issue of colonial taxation to a head, Smyth
Franklin VI .
I have not found any Cabinet minutes or any correspondence of any one in the
North Ministry or of the King bearing on the question of deliberate provocation
of the colonists. But the fact that at this same session of Parliament, the Ministry
successfully sponsored an act, Geo. III ch. (), long sought for by the col-
onists, relaxing the restriction imposed by the Colonial Currency Act on the issue
of currency, indicates that the Ministry had no desire to provoke the colonists. The
protracted colonial efforts to secure such an act are described in Sosin “Paper
Money” –.
Assurances had been given by letters dated April, , to May, , from Boston
and Philadelphia merchants to correspondents in England that the Company’s
tea would capture the colonial market if the Company tea could be offered for a
lower price than smuggled tea, Drake Tea Leaves –, and Charles Garth, Lon-
don Agent for S.C., to the S.C. Comm. of Corresp. May , , S.C. Transcripts,
Garth Letter Book –; Smyth Franklin VI states that the Ministry be-
lieved this would be the case.
North observed in the Commons Apr. , , “If the East India Company will
export tea to America they will very much increase that [Townshend Act] duty,”
Labaree Tea Party ; and John Norton wrote from London to correspondents in
Va. July , of the government’s making “a cat’s paw of the Company...to estab-
lish the d per lb. American duty,” Norton . To similar effect, Franklin to Cush-
ing June , Franklin Letter Book, L.C. (copied, with the misprint of “confine” for
“continue,” in Smyth Franklin VI ) and William Bollan to the Mass. Council
Sept. , Bowdoin–Temple Papers .
William Palmer, one of the leading London tea merchants, wrote on May , ,
that the Company’s “present stock of tea is not only near seventeen million, but
the quantity expected to arrive this season does also considerably exceed the de-
mand of twelve months...,” Tea Leaves .
A letter dated July , , from an unidentified London correspondent, pub-
lished in the Pa. Gazette of Oct. , states that “a few days ago,” the Company had
determined, over the protest of the Duke of Richmond, “that tea should be sent
to America,” Labaree Tea Party , .
The Company’s petition to the Treasury Board Aug. [misprinted April] , ,
for a license to export up to , pounds of tea to the colonies, Tea Leaves –
. The Treasury granted the Company a license, dated Aug. , to export to the
colonies “a quantity of teas, equal in weight to one thousand seven hundred large
chests of Bohea tea, which quantity will not exceed six hundred thousand pounds
weight,” same –. The license was signed by North, Charles James Fox, and
Charles Townshend (“Spanish Charles”), a cousin of the sponsor of the Town-
shend Act.
The pounds of tea shipped and the names, destinations, and dates of sailing of the
ships carrying the tea, Labaree Tea Party –, , .
A list of all the tea consignees is given in Court of Directors of the Company to the
Philadelphia consignees Oct. , , “Papers relating to the Shipment of the
Tea,” Hist. Soc. of Pa. See also Tea Leaves , , , ; Taylor “Philadelphia
Tea Party” III . Most, if not all, of the chosen firms had been dealers in tea, and,
though political considerations may well have influenced some of the appoint-
ments, I have not found persuasive evidence of this.
The Company’s initial shipments of tea to the colonies in consisted of ,
chests of Bohea to of all other varieties combined, Labaree Tea Party . The
Company’s suggested selling prices were: Bohea, s. per pound; Congou, s. d.;
Singlo, s. d.; Suchong, s.; and Hyson, s., same.
William Kelly to the Company’s Committee of Warehouses July , , as to
commissions payable to the Company’s agents, Tea Leaves –; see also Laba-
ree Tea Party , –. The sponsors in London were to give bond for the per-
formance of the agreements, and for this and other services were, of course, to
share in the net commissions. An agreement between Abraham Dupuis & Co.,
sponsors of Richard Clarke & Sons, provided that the former was to receive one-
third of the net commissions, “Clarke Papers” –.
The method and terms of sale of tea in the colonies prescribed by the Company,
East India Co. Directors to Thomas & Isaac Wharton Oct. , , “Papers relat-
ing to the Shipment of the Tea,” Hist. Soc. of Pa.
The Company to the Boston consignees Sept. , , as to mode of paying the
Townshend Act duty on the tea shipped to them, East India Co. Misc. XXI fol. ,
India Office Library, London.
William Bollan to James Bowdoin of the Mass. Council, Sept. , , Bowdoin–
Temple . As to Bollan, D.A.B. and pages cited under “Bollan” in the index of
Kammen Agents .
The Townshend Act duty of three pence a pound on , pounds of tea, the
amount of the Company’s initial shipment to the colonies, would be ,,
pence, or over £, sterling.
Chapter
Initial misunderstanding as to the meaning of the Tea Act, Labaree Tea Party
–, ; Conn. Journal Sept. , ; New-York Gazette Sept. ; Boston Newsletter
Oct. ; Rivington’s New-York Gazetteer Oct. ; Ben Booth to James & Drinker
Oct. , Taylor “Philadelphia Tea Party” II ; Gov. William Tryon of N.Y. to
Dartmouth Nov. , N.Y. Col. Doc. VIII –; John Dickinson’s public letter of
Oct. , correcting the misunderstanding, Ford Dickinson –.
The passages quoted in the text from the N.Y. Journal and the Pa. Journal, Labaree
Tea Party .
Denunciation of the Tea Act and the Company’s plan by “Scaevola” (Thomas
Mifflin) in the Pa. Chronicle Oct. , ; also by “Hamden” (Benjamin Rush) in
the Pa. Journal Oct. . Identification of “Scaevola” and “Hamden,” Rush to
William Gordon Oct. , Rush I –.
Examples of the newspaper outcry against the act in other colonies: Mass. Spy Oct.
and Nov. , , New-York Journal Oct. , and S.C. Gazette (Supplement) Nov. .
Resolutions of the Philadelphia mass meeting of Oct. , , are in the Pennsyl-
vania Gazette of Oct. reprinted in Jensen Hist. Doc. –. The circular letter
from the Mass. Committee of Corresp. to similar Committees in other colonies
Oct. , denouncing the British Ministry for “allowing the East India Company
—
to ship their Teas to America,” a plan tending “both to destroy the Trade of the
Colonies & increase the revenue” and calling for opposition by all the colonies,
Cushing S. Adams III .
There was in fact no immediate threat of the Company’s establishing a monop-
oly of the sale of tea at retail in the colonies; the Company’s agents there were in-
structed to sell the tea at auction to all comers, but I have found no evidence that
this was generally known in the colonies at the time of the outcry against the
threatened monopoly. Moreover, nothing in the Tea Act forbade the Company to
sell its tea at retail in the colonies if it later chose to do so.
The monopoly argument, Schlesinger Col. Merchants –. The extension of the
Company’s privilege of direct sale in the colonies to other East Indian products was
suggested (Oct. , ) by at least one of the Company’s American agents, Thomas
Wharton of Philadelphia, Tea Leaves –. These products included pepper,
other spices, silks, shellac, saltpeter, drugs, and china, Saxby British Customs ,
. Joseph Reed of Philadelphia wrote Lord Dartmouth Dec. that “India
goods compose one-third of our importations from England,” Reed Reed I .
Schlesinger’s statement quoted in the text as to the monopoly point, Schlesinger
Col. Merchants .
Evidence that the tax point was at least as important as the threat of monopoly in
arousing colonial opposition, Thomas Wharton in Philadelphia to Thomas Wal-
pole Oct. , , Tea Leaves ; James & Drinker and Thomas and Isaac Whar-
ton et al. in Philadelphia to various correspondents Nov. , Nov. , and Dec. ,
Taylor “Philadelphia Tea Party” III , , X –; Abraham Lott in N.Y. to
William Kelly Nov. , Tea Leaves ; town meeting and Mass. Council Nov. and
, Boston Records (for –) , Tea Leaves –; also Labaree Tea Party –
, .
Nullification of the Stamp Act of by securing resignation of the colonial
Stamp Distributors, Knollenberg Origin –.
The Boston consignees included the firm of Thomas and Elisha Hutchinson, sons
of Gov. Hutchinson. Gov. Hutchinson to William Palmer, prominent London tea
merchant, Aug. , , stating, “I wish you may succeed on behalf of my Sons to
whom I have given a hint,” Mass. Arch. XXVII , apparently refers to efforts
by Palmer to secure the Company’s tea agency at Boston for the Governor’s sons.
Gov. Thomas Hutchinson’s encouragement of the consignees to hold out,
Hutchinson to Gov. William Tryon of N.Y. Nov. and Dec. , , and to
an unidentified correspondent Nov. , Mass. Arch. –; James Bowdoin to
John Temple Dec. , Bowdoin–Temple ; Samuel Cooper to Benjamin Franklin
Dec. , M.H.S. Coll. IV .
Refusal of the Hutchinsons and other Boston consignees to resign, Schlesinger
Col. Merchants – and Labaree Tea Party –. (The statements in
Schlesinger Col. Merchants that Richard Clarke, member of one of the con-
signee firms at Boston that refused to resign, was Gov. Hutchinson’s nephew, and
in Labaree Tea Party that the Governor’s son Thomas married Clarke’s daugh-
ter are apparently erroneous; I have found no such close tie of blood or marriage
between the Governor and the Clarkes.)
Resolution of the North End Caucus Oct. , , to prevent vending of tea in
the colonies sent by the East India Company, Goff Revere II . Paul Revere, Abiel
Ruddock, and John Lowell were chosen at this meeting to be a committee “to cor-
respond with any Committee chosen in any part of town, on this occasion; and
call this body together at any time they think necessary,” same.
Hutchinson to Francis Bernard Aug. , , refers to William Molineux (some-
times spelled Mollineux or Mollineaux) as “the infamous Molineux,” Mass. Arch.
XXVI –; and John Rowe wrote in his diary Oct. , , that Molineux
was believed to be “first Leader in Dirty Matters,” Rowe . Numerous entries
concerning Molineux in Rowe’s diary, same – passim, , indicate that
though hot-tempered, he was respected by many substantial merchants of the
town. Molineux is also referred to in Andrews “Boston Merchants” n., ,
, and M.H.S. Proc. X –.
The efforts on Nov. , , to frighten the Boston agents to resign are described
in Richard Clarke & Sons to Abraham Dupuis Nov. [no day], , Tea Leaves –
. Clarke states that William Dennie, Dr. Joseph Warren, Dr. Benjamin
Church, Major [Nathaniel] Barber, [Benjamin] Henderson, Gabriel Johonnot,
[Edward] Proctor, and Ezekiel Cheever accompanied Molineux, same . John
Rowe’s diary for Nov. gives a somewhat different list, including Samuel Adams,
Rowe . The night before, Johonnot and Proctor were chosen members of a
committee “to wait upon the Committee of Correspondence of this town...,”
presumably in connection with the tea matter, Goff Revere II –.
Resolutions of Boston town meeting concerning the tea consignees Nov. , ,
Boston Records (for –) –.
Consignees’ replies Nov. and , , same –. James Bowdoin wrote John
Temple Dec. , crediting Hutchinson with “dictating all their [the consignees’]
measures,” Bowdoin–Temple , and Samuel Cooper wrote Benjamin Franklin
Dec. to similar effect, M.H.S. Proc. IV . While, so far as is known, Hutchin-
son was not a partner in his sons’ importing business, he had long taken an active
part in their dealings in tea, as clearly appears from his correspondence with
William Palmer, a leading tea exporter, from Nov. , , to Aug. , , Mass.
Arch. XXVI –XXVII .
Jonathan Clarke’s arrival at Boston from London Nov. , , undated petition
of the Boston tea consignees to the Governor and Council of Mass. considered by
the Council Nov. , Col. Soc. Public. VIII – at .
Resolutions at Boston town meeting Nov. , , calling for a definite answer
from the consignees as to resigning, committee chosen to deliver the message, and
the consignees’ answer, Boston Records (for –) –.
Jonathan Clarke’s promise to the selectmen of Boston at a meeting on Nov. ,
, Boston Selectmen’s Minutes (for –) –; John Scollay to Arthur Lee
Dec. , M.H.S. Coll. IV –. Clarke probably was frightened, as well he
might be, his father having recently had the windows of his home broken by a
threatening mob, mentioned in Cooper to Franklin Dec. , same .
Log of the Dartmouth concerning her movements on Nov. and , , Traits of
the Tea Party –.
Log of the Dartmouth as to docking at Griffin’s wharf Dec. , , same . She
had initially “turned up to” Rowe’s wharf, same, but was apparently ordered by a
committee of local Whigs to proceed to Griffin’s, John Rowe’s diary for Dec. ,
Rowe –. She was formally entered at the Customs House on Nov. , “Tea
Minutes” . Francis Rotch, her owner, had been asked by the Boston Commit-
tee of Correspondence to defer entry until that date, Rotch’s statement to the
Privy Council Feb. , , P.C. :.
Statements referred to in the text are quoted in the appendix to this chapter.
Boston selectmen’s unsuccessful effort Nov. , , to get in touch with Clarke,
Boston Selectmen’s Minutes (for –) ; Scollay to Lee Dec. , M.H.S. Coll.
IV .
Lieut.-Col. Alexander Leslie at Castle William to Gen. Frederick Haldimand, Dec.
, , “the Commissioners of Customs & the Tea Agents took refuge with
me the th ult. & are still here,” Montresor . To same effect, Hutchinson to the
Company Dec. , , Mass. Arch. XXVII –. (Hutchinson’s advance
arrangements for the consignees’ reception there, Hutchinson to Gov. William
Tryon Dec. , , same , published in part in Frothingham “Tea Party” .)
The Commissioners of Customs, finding themselves again the special “object of
the People’s rage,” fled to Castle William, Am. Customs Board to British Treasury
Jan. , , Barrow Customs , . They went there Nov. , , Leslie to
Haldimand, Montresor .
Meeting of the Boston Committee of Correspondence on arrival of the Dartmouth
Nov. , , Boston Comm. of Corresp. Minutes, (N.Y.P.L.); Tea Leaves xiii;
Labaree Tea Party , . The Committee, consisting of twenty-one members,
included James Otis, Samuel Adams, Dr. Joseph Warren, Dr. Benjamin Church,
Dr. Thomas Young, and William Molineux, Boston Records (for –) .
Handbills distributed in the early morning of Nov. , , inviting the people to
meet at Faneuil Hall at .. that same day, John Scollay to Arthur Lee Dec. ,
M.H.S. Coll. IV . A copy of the handbill is in Tea Leaves xliii. The Committee
had previously (Oct. ) sent a circular letter to Committees of Correspondence in
other Mass. towns pointing out the dangers of allowing importation of the tea and
the necessity of opposing it, Labaree Tea Party , .
Minutes of Boston mass meeting Nov. , , resolving that the Company’s tea
be returned without payment of duty and that “there be a watch kept for the se-
curity of...vessel and cargo,” with a list of the twenty-five men chosen for the ini-
tial watch, M.H.S. Proc. XX –; Scollay to Lee Dec. , , M.H.S. Coll. IV