Produced by Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe, Christine D. and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This file was made using scans of
public domain works from the University of Michigan Digital
Libraries)
TEA LEAVES:
BEING A COLLECTION OF LETTERS AND
DOCUMENTS
RELATING TO THE SHIPMENT OF
TEA
TO THE AMERICAN COLONIES IN THE YEAR 1773, BY THE
East India Tea Company
NOW FIRST PRINTED FROM THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT.
WITH AN INTRODUCTION, NOTES, AND
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICES OF THE BOSTON TEA PARTY,
BY
FRANCIS S. DRAKE.
BOSTON:
A.O. CRANE.
1884.
COPYRIGHTED.
Entered according to Act of Congress, at Washington, DC., 1884,
By A.O. CRANE, Boston, Mass.
Smith & Porter, Printers, Boston.
PREFATORY NOTE.
The collection of letters and documents which has occasioned the
preparation of the present volume, though it has been so long buried in
obscurity, appears to have been originally made with a view to
publication. It was for many years, and until his decease, in the
possession of Mr. Abel Bowen, a well-known engraver and publisher, of
Boston, sixty years ago, and was obtained by him from a person who
procured it in Halifax, N.S., whither many valuable papers, both public
and private, relating to New England, were carried, when in March, 1776,
the British and Tories evacuated Boston. It contains interesting
information relative to the tea troubles that preceded the American
Revolution, much of it new to students of that eventful period.
To the kindness of Mrs. Benjamin Phipps and Mrs. Charles G. Butts, of
Chelsea, daughters of Mr. Bowen, the publisher is indebted for
permission to make public this valuable contribution to American
history.
PUBLISHER'S PREFACE
When contemplating the publication of "Tea Leaves," we issued a
circular, stating our intention, and that, judging from the material
then in our possession, the book would contain about two hundred and
fifty pages, with six illustrations, three of them portraits.
We are happy to announce on the completion of the work, not only
fulfillment of our promises, but much that is additional thereto.
Included in its four hundred pages are twenty portraits, taken from
family paintings, (one-half never before published,) eight other
illustrations, fifty autographs, one hundred and twelve names of members
of the Tea Party, (fifty-eight more than have been heretofore publicly
known), and ninety-six biographies of the same.
Our circular called for a subscription book. All our paper-covered
copies have been subscribed for. The balance of the edition is nicely
bound in cloth, with embellished covers. Price, (as before), five
dollars.
The publisher will welcome all new matter relating to the Tea question,
and will be especially grateful for any hitherto unpublished portraits.
Such material is desired for possible publication in a companion work to
"Tea Leaves."
All who desire the Portraits and Illustrations separate from this
volume, to be used in works on American history, can obtain them from
the Publisher.
In conclusion, we thank our friends who have kindly assisted us, and if
we have not given all credit by name, the neglect has been
unintentional.
A.O. CRANE,
2169 WASHINGTON ST.,
BOSTON, MASS.
INTRODUCTION.
Among the causes which led to the American Revolution, the one most
prominent in the popular judgment is the "tax on tea," imposed by Great
Britain on her American colonies. The destruction, in Boston harbor, in
December, 1773, of the cargoes of tea sent to that port by the East
India Company, was undoubtedly the proximate cause of that memorable
event, and in view of this fact, the occurrence,--"by far the most
momentous in the annals of the town," says the historian
Bancroft,--merits a more thorough and particular consideration than it
has yet received.
The silence necessarily preserved by the actors in this daring exploit,
respecting their connection with it, has rendered this part of the task
one of no little difficulty. Their secret was remarkably well kept; and
but for the family traditions which survive, we should know very little
of the men who composed the famous Boston tea party.
Nevertheless, the attempt to gather up the scattered fragments of
personal reminiscence and biography, in order to give a little more
completeness to this interesting chapter of our revolutionary history,
is here made. The fortunate recovery, by the publisher of this volume,
of the letters of the American consignees to the East India Company,
and other papers shedding light upon the transaction, affords material
aid in the accomplishment of our purpose.
* * * * *
When King Charles II. had finished that first cup of tea ever brewed in
England,--the gift of the newly-created East India Company,--no sibyl
was at hand to peer into the monarch's cup and foretell from its dregs,
the dire disaster to his realm, hidden among those insignificant
particles. Could a vision of those battered tea chests, floating in
Boston harbor, with _tu doces_, in the legible handwriting of history,
inscribed upon them, have been disclosed to him, even that careless,
pleasure-loving prince would have been sobered by the lesson. It was
left for his successor, George III., who failed to read the handwriting
on the wall,--visible to all but the willfully blind,--to realize its
meaning in the dismemberment of an empire.
* * * * *
A survey of the progress of the revolution up to the beginning of the
year 1773, will help us to understand the political situation. Ten years
of constant agitation had educated the people of the colonies to a clear
perception of their rights, and also to a knowledge that it was the
fixed purpose of the home government to deprive them of the one they
most valued, namely, that of being taxed with their own consent, through
their local assemblies, as had always been the custom, and not at the
arbitrary will of the British parliament--a body in which they were not
and could not be represented--three thousand miles away. The strange
thing about this is, that the people of Great Britain should not have
seen in the light of their own past history--what they have since seen
clearly enough--that the Americans were only contending for principles
for which their own ancestors had often fought, and which they had more
than once succeeded in wresting from the grasp of arbitrary and
tyrannical sovereigns.
Their difficulty seems to have been that they looked upon the Americans,
not as equals, but as inferiors, as their subjects, and as having no
rights that an Englishman was bound to respect. Even the celebrated
moralist, Dr. Johnson, could say of the Americans, "They are a race of
convicts, and ought to be thankful for anything we allow them short of
hanging." King George III., that obstinate but well-meaning monarch, and
his ministers, no doubt honestly believed that the republican tendencies
of the colonists endangered British supremacy. Perhaps they were right
in this, for it was the kind and degree of supremacy that was really in
question. But in entertaining the belief that these tendencies could be
eradicated at a blow, they were, as the event proved, grievously
mistaken.
Another moving cause for the new policy toward the colonies was the
heavy taxation at home,--a result of the late war. Some of this burden
they hoped to transfer from their own shoulders to those of their
transatlantic brethren.
* * * * *
The stamp act of 1765, repealed in the year following, was in 1767,
succeeded by Charles Townshend's revenue acts, imposing duties on paper,
painters' colors, glass and tea. The Americans opposed this measure with
the only weapon at their command--the policy of non-importation. This
policy, while causing much inconvenience to themselves, yet helped them
materially in two ways. In the first place it stimulated home
manufactures, and accustomed the people to do without luxuries, and in
the second place by distressing British merchants and manufacturers, it
brought the united influence of these two powerful bodies to bear upon
parliament for a change in its policy.
The people of the colonies everywhere seconded the non-importation
movement, entering at once upon a course of rigid self-denial, and their
legislatures commended the scheme. An agreement, presented in the
Virginia House of Burgesses, by Washington, was signed by every member.
For more than a year, this powerful engine of retaliation waged war upon
British commerce, in a constitutional way, before ministers would listen
to petitions and remonstrances; and it was not until virtual rebellion
in the British capital, born of commercial distress, menaced the
ministry, that the expostulations of the Americans were noticed, except
with sneers. Early in the year 1770, the obnoxious act was repealed,
except as regarded tea. This item was retained in order that the right
of parliamentary taxation of the colonies might be upheld. The liberal
leaders of parliament did their best to prevent this exception, and the
subject was fully and ably discussed, but they were overruled.
Besides these acts, which had aroused in the colonies a sentiment of
union, and embodied an intelligent public opinion, there were others
which had contributed to the same result. Such were the royal
instructions by which, among other things, accused persons were to be
sent to England, for trial. Still another, was the publication of a
collection of letters from Governor Hutchinson, and other prominent
colonial officials, revealing their agency in instigating the obnoxious
measures. These and other aggravating causes had at length brought
about that, without which, no revolution can succeed,--organization.
Committees of correspondence, local and general, had been created, and
were now in full operation.
One thing more was essential to the success of the colonists,--union.
Instead of pulling different ways, as from a variety of causes they had
hitherto done, the different colonies must bring their combined efforts
to bear in order to effect the desired result. This was brought about by
the destruction of the tea in Boston harbor, and by the Boston port
bill, and other coercive measures, its immediate consequence.
The impolitic reservation of the duty on tea produced an association not
to drink it, and caused all the merchants, except a few in Boston, to
refuse its importation.
Three hundred women of Boston, heads of families, among them many of the
highest standing, had, as early as February, 1770, signed an agreement
not to drink any tea until the impost clause of the revenue acts was
repealed. The daughters of liberty, both north and south, did the same.
The young women of Boston followed the example of their mothers, and
subscribed to the following pledge:
"We, the daughters of those patriots who have, and do now
appear for the public interest, and in that principally
regard their posterity, as such do with pleasure engage with
them in denying ourselves the drinking of foreign tea, in
hopes to frustrate a plan that tends to deprive a whole
community of all that is valuable in life."
From this time forth tea was a proscribed beverage throughout the
colonies. "Balsamic hyperion," made from the dried leaves of the
raspberry plant; thyme, extensively used by the women of Connecticut;
and various other substitutes came into general use. The newspapers of
the day abound with details of social gatherings, in which foreign tea
was totally discarded. They also voiced the public abhorrence for it,
or what it represented, by applying to it all the objurgatory and
abusive epithets they could muster--and their vocabulary was by no means
limited--such as "detestable," "cruel," "villainous," "pernicious,"
"fatal," "devilish," "fiendish," etc.
Of course there were those who would not deny themselves the use of
tea,--drinking it clandestinely in garrets, or preparing it in
coffee-pots to deceive the eye, resorting to any subterfuge in order to
indulge in the use of their favorite beverage. These people, when found
out, did not fail to receive the condemnation of the patriotic men and
women, who, from principle, abstained. There was still a considerable
consumption of tea in America, as the article could be obtained more
cheaply from Holland than from the English East India Company, and on
arrival here could easily be smuggled ashore. It was supposed that of
the three millions of inhabitants of the colonies, one-third drank tea
twice a day, Bohea being the kind preferred; and it was estimated that
the annual consumption, in Massachusetts alone, was two thousand four
hundred chests, some eight hundred thousand pounds.
Tea continued to arrive in Boston, but as no one would risk its sale, it
was stored. The "Boston Gazette," in April, 1770, said: "There is not
above one seller of tea in town who has not signed an agreement not to
dispose of any tea until the late revenue acts are repealed."
John Hancock offered one of his vessels, free of charge, to re-ship the
tea then stored in Boston. His offer was accepted, and a cargo
despatched to London. So strict was the watch kept upon the traders,
that many of those suspected of illicit dealings in tea, among whom was
Hancock himself, found it convenient to publish cards declaring their
innocence. Governor Hutchinson wrote at this time (April, 1770,) to Lord
Hillsborough, the English secretary, "That the importers pleaded that
they should be utterly ruined by this combination, but the Boston
zealots had no bowels, and gave for answer, 'that if a ship was to bring
us the plague, nobody would doubt what was necessary to be done with
her;' but the present case is much worse than that." Theophilus Lillie,
who was selling tea contrary to the agreement, found, one morning, a
post planted before his door, upon which was a carved head, with the
names of some tea importers on it, and underneath, a hand pointing
towards his shop. One of his neighbors, an informer, named Richardson,
asked a countryman to break the post down with his cart. A crowd
gathered, and boys threw stones and chased Richardson to his house. He
fired into them with a shotgun, and killed a German lad of eleven years,
named Snider. At his funeral, five hundred children walked in front of
the bier; six of his school-fellows held the pall, and a large
procession moved from liberty tree to the town-house, and thence to the
burying-place. This exciting affair, preceded by a few days only, the
memorable "Boston massacre" of March 5, 1770.
* * * * *
The application of the East India Company to the British government for
relief from pecuniary embarrassment, occasioned by the great falling off
in its American tea trade, afforded the ministry just the opportunity it
desired to fasten taxation upon the American colonies. The company asked
permission to export tea to British America, free of duty, offering to
allow government to retain sixpence per pound, as an exportation tariff,
if they would take off the three per cent. duty, in America. This gave
an opportunity for conciliating the colonies in an honorable way, and
also to procure double the amount of revenue. But no! under the existing
coercive policy, this request was of course inadmissible. At this time
the company had in its warehouses upwards of seventeen millions of
pounds, in addition to which the importations of the current year were
expected to be larger than usual. To such a strait was it reduced, that
it could neither pay its dividends nor its debts.
By an act of parliament, passed on May 10, 1773, "with little debate and
no opposition," the company, on exportation of its teas to America, was
allowed a drawback of the full amount of English duties, binding itself
only to pay the threepence duty, on its being landed in the English
colonies.
In accordance with this act, the lords-commissioners of the treasury
gave the company a license (August 20, 1773,) for the exportation of six
hundred thousand pounds, which were to be sent to Boston, New York,
Philadelphia and Charleston, S.C., the principal American ports. As soon
as this became known, applications were made to the directors by a
number of merchants in the colonial trade, soliciting a share of what
promised to be a very profitable business. The establishment of a branch
East India house, in a central part of America, whence the tea could be
distributed to other points, was suggested. The plan finally adopted was
to bestow the agency on merchants, in good repute, in the colonies, who
were friendly to the administration, and who could give satisfactory
security, or obtain the guaranty of London houses.
The company and its agents viewed this matter solely in a commercial
light. No one supposed that the Americans would oppose the measure on
the ground of abstract principle. The only doubt was as to whether the
company could, merely with the threepenny duty, compete successfully
with the smugglers, who brought tea from Holland. It was hoped they
might, and that the difference would not compensate for the risk in
smuggling. But the Americans at once saw through the scheme, and that
its success would be fatal to their liberties.
The new tea act, by again raising the question of general taxation,
diverted attention from local issues, and concentrated it upon one which
had been already fully discussed, and on which the popular verdict had
been definitely made up. Right and justice were clearly on their side.
It was not that they were poor and unable to pay, but because they would
not submit to wrong. The amount of the tax was paltry, and had never
been in question. Their case was not--as in most revolutions--that of a
people who rose against real and palpable oppression. It was an abstract
principle alone for which they contended. They were prosperous and
happy. It was upon a community, at the very height of its prosperity,
that this insidious scheme suddenly fell, and it immediately aroused a
more general opposition than had been created by the stamp act. "The
measure," says the judicious English historian, Massey, "was beneficial
to the colonies; but when was a people engaged in a generous struggle
for freedom, deviated by an insidious attempt to practice on their
selfish interests?"
"The ministry believe," wrote Franklin, "that threepence on a pound of
tea, of which one does not perhaps drink ten pounds a year, is
sufficient to overcome all the patriotism of an American." The measure
gave universal offence, not only as the enforcement of taxation, but as
an odious monopoly of trade. To the warning of Americans that their
adventure would end in loss, and to the scruples of the company, Lord
North answered peremptorily, "It is to no purpose making objections, the
king will have it so. The king means to try the question with America."
How absurd was this assertion of prerogative, and how weak the
government, was seen when on the first forcible resistance to his plans,
the king was compelled to apply to the petty German states for soldiers.
Lord North believed that no difficulty could arise, as America, under
the new regulation, would be able to buy tea[1] from the company at a
lower price than from any other European nation, and that buyers would
always go to the cheapest market.
Before receiving intelligence of the passage of the new act, in the summer
of 1773, political agitation in the colonies had in great measure
subsided. The ministry had abandoned its design of transporting Americans
to England for trial; the people were prosperous; loyal to the king;
considered themselves as fellow subjects with Britons, and indignantly
repelled the idea of severing their political connection. The king,
however, was obstinately bent upon maintaining the supreme authority of
parliament to make laws binding on the colonies "in all cases whatsoever."
He was unfortunate in having for his chief adviser, Lord North, who sought
to please the king even against his own better judgment. He was still more
unfortunate in North's colleagues,--Mansfield, Sandwich, Germaine,
Wedderburne and Thurlow,--violent or corrupt men, wholly unfit for the
grave responsibilities they had assumed.
Governor Hutchinson[2] asserts that "when the intelligence first came to
Boston it caused no alarm. The threepenny duty had been paid the last
two years without any stir, and some of the great friends to liberty had
been importers of tea. The body of the people were pleased with the
prospect of drinking tea at less expense than ever. The only apparent
discontent was among the importers of tea, as well those who had been
legal importers from England, as others who had illegally imported from
Holland, and the complaint was against the East India Company for
monopolizing a branch of commerce which had been beneficial to a great
number of merchants."
The circular-letter of the Massachusetts Committee of Correspondence of
October 21, 1773,--by which time the public sentiment against the new
regulation had been thoroughly aroused,--said of it: "It is easy to see
how aptly this scheme will serve both to destroy the trade of the
colonies and increase the revenue. How necessary then it is that each
colony should take effectual methods to prevent this measure from having
its designed effects."
One of the Boston consignees writing to London, says, under date of 18th
October: "But what difficulties may arise from the disaffection of the
merchants and importers of tea to this measure of the East India
Company, I am not yet able to say. It seems at present to be a matter of
much speculation, and if one is to credit the prints, no small
opposition will be made thereto.... My friends seem to think it will
subside; others are of a contrary opinion." Another, under date of
October 30th, gives it as his opinion that the uneasiness is fomented,
if not originated, by persons concerned in the Holland trade, a trade
which, he is informed, is much more practiced in the Southern
governments than here.
In a letter dated New York, November 5th, Abraham Lott, one of the New
York consignees, says, that if the tea arrives subject to duty, "there
will be no such thing as selling it, as the people would rather buy so
much poison, as they say it is calculated to enslave them and their
posterity, and are therefore determined not to take what they call the
nauseous draught." The tenor of these letters and of the American
newspapers, must have given the British public an inkling of what was to
come.
It was thought by all the colonies that this was the precise point of
time when it was absolutely necessary to make a stand, and that all
opposition to parliamentary taxation must be for ever given up, if this
critical moment was neglected. The only practical way open to defeat the
measure seemed to be through popular demonstrations.
The press now became more active than ever in its political discussions.
As to the mode of payment of the tea duty, it said: "We know that on a
certificate of its being landed here, the tribute is, by agreement, to
be paid in London. The landing, therefore, is the point in view, and
every nerve will be strained to obtain it." It was asked in New York,
"are the Americans such blockheads as to care whether it be a hot red
poker, or a red hot poker which they are to swallow, provided Lord North
forces them to swallow one of the two?"
"All America is in a flame on account of the tea exportation," wrote a
British officer at New York to a friend in London. "The New Yorkers, as
well as the Bostonians and Philadelphians, it seems, are determined that
no tea shall be landed. They have published a paper in numbers called
the 'Alarm.' It begins, 'Dear countrymen,' and goes on exhorting them to
open their eyes, and then, like sons of liberty, throw off all
connection with the tyrant--the mother country.' They have on this
occasion raised a company of artillery, and every day almost, are
practicing at a target. Their independent companies are out, and
exercise every day. The minds of the townspeople are influenced by the
example of some of their principals. They swear that they will burn
every tea-ship that comes in; but I believe that our six and twelve
pounders, with the Royal Welch Fusileers, will prevent anything of that
kind."
Philadelphia, the largest town in the colonies, led off in the work of
opposing the plans of the home government. In a handbill signed
"Scævola," circulated there, with the heading, "By uniting we stand, by
dividing we fall," the factors appointed, by the East India Company were
characterized as "political bombardiers to demolish the fair structure
of liberty;" and it was said that all eyes were fixed on them, and they
were urged to refuse to act.
At a large meeting held at the State House on October 18, resolutions
were passed declaring that the duty on tea was a tax imposed on the
colonists without their consent, and tended to render assemblies
useless; that the shipment by the East India Company was an attempt to
enforce the tax, and that every one who should be concerned in the
unloading, receiving or vending the tea, was an enemy to his country. In
accordance with one of the resolutions of the meeting, a committee was
appointed to wait on the consignees in that city, to request them, from
regard to their own characters and the public peace, and good order of
the city and Province, immediately to resign their appointment. The
Messrs. Wharton gave a satisfactory answer, which was received with
shouts of applause. Groans and hisses greeted the refusal of another
firm to commit themselves, until the tea arrived. So general and so
commanding was the movement, however, that in a few days they also
resigned. "Be assured," wrote Thomas Wharton, one of the consignees,
"this was as respectable a body of inhabitants as has been together on
any occasion, many of the first rank. Their proceedings were conducted
with the greatest decency and firmness, and without one dissentient
voice."
A few days after the action of Philadelphia, a meeting was held at the
city hall, New York, (October 26,) when the tea consignees were
denounced, and the attempted monopoly of trade was stigmatized as a
"public robbery." The press was active, and handbills were circulated
freely among the people. A series of these called the "Alarm," has been
already mentioned. "If you touch one grain of the accursed tea you are
undone," was the sentiment it conveyed. "America is threatened with
worse than Egyptian slavery.... The language of the revenue act is, that
you have no property you can call your own, that you are the vassals,
the live stock, of Great Britain." Such were the bold utterances of the
New Yorkers. Within three weeks the New York agents withdrew from the
field. It was thereupon announced that government would take charge of
the tea upon its arrival.
The New York Sons of Liberty at once reorganized; owners and occupants
of stores were warned against harboring the tea, and all who bought,
sold or handled it, were threatened as enemies to the country. Handbills
were issued, notifying the "Mohawks" to hold themselves in readiness for
active work. At the very moment when the tea was being destroyed in
Boston, handbills were circulating in New York calling a meeting of "all
friends to the liberties and trade of America," for one o'clock the next
day, at the city hall, "on business of the utmost importance."
John Lamb, one of the most active of the Sons of Liberty of New York,
afterwards a colonel of artillery in the Revolutionary army, was the
speaker at the meeting, and the large assembly unanimously voted that
the tea should not be landed. The governor sent a message to the people
by the mayor, engaging upon his honor that the tea should not be sold,
but should remain in the barracks until the council advised to the
delivery of it, or orders were received from England how to dispose of
it, and that it should be delivered in an open manner at noon-day. The
mayor having asked if the proposals were satisfactory, there was a
general cry of "no! no!" The people were at length quieted with the
assurance that the ship should be sent back.
It was at Boston, the ringleader in rebellion, that the issue was to be
tried. It was then the most flourishing commercial town on the
continent, and contained a population of about sixteen thousand, almost
exclusively of English origin. Though there were no sidewalks in the
town, and, except when driven aside by carts or carriages, every one
walked in the middle of the street, "where the pavement was the
smoothest," an English visitor had twenty years before pronounced it to
be, "as large and better built than Bristol, or any other city in
England except London." The only land communication between Boston and
the surrounding towns at that period, was by way of the narrow neck at
its southern extremity. Her inhabitants were industrious, frugal and
enterprising, and were equally distinguished for their pertinacity and
independence. They were nearly all of the same church, and were strict
in the observance of Sunday. Though many had acquired a competence, few
were very rich or very poor, and their style of living had little
diversity. In her free schools all were taught to read and write. A
score of enterprising booksellers, among them Henry Knox, imported into
the colony all the standard books on law, politics, history and
theology, while a free press and town meetings instructed her citizens
in political affairs. Her mechanics, many of whom were ship-builders,
were active in all town meetings. Ever jealous of her rights, she had
grown up in their habitual exercise, and was early and strenuous in her
opposition to the claims of parliamentary supremacy. Even her divines,
many of whom were distinguished by their learning and eloquence, gave
the sanction of religion to the cause of freedom. For these reasons
Boston was the fittest theatre for the decisive settlement of the grave
question at issue.
Two men of very different metal were especially prominent in Boston at
this time,--Thomas Hutchinson, the royal governor, and Samuel Adams, the
man of the people. Both were natives of the town, and graduates of
Harvard College. Hutchinson, during a public life of over thirty years,
had held the offices of representative, councillor, chief justice and
lieutenant-governor. No man was so experienced in the affairs of the
colony, no one so familiar with its history, usages and laws. As a
legislator and as a judge he had manifested ability and impartiality.
Unfortunately for his peace of mind, and for his reputation, he set
himself squarely against the popular movement. He advised altering the
charters of the New England provinces; the dismemberment of
Massachusetts; the establishment of a citadel in Boston; the stationing
of a fleet in its harbor; the experiment of martial law; the
transportation of "incendiaries" to England, and the prohibition of the
New England fisheries, at the same time entreating of his correspondents
in England to keep his opinions secret.
For these errors of judgment he paid dearly in the obloquy heaped upon
him by his countrymen, and his exile from his native land, in which he
earnestly desired that his bones might be laid. The recent publication
of his diary and letters shows that he not only acted honestly and
conscientiously in opposing the popular current, but that he, at the
same time, used his influence to mitigate the severe measures of
government. He counselled them against the stamp act; against closing
the port of Boston, and against some features of the regulating act, as
too harsh and impolitic. It was his sincere wish that his countrymen
would admit the supremacy of parliament, and he believed that such a
result could be attained without bloodshed. He was courteously received
in England,--where his course was very generally approved,--and offered
a baronetcy, which, however, he declined on the score of the
insufficiency of his estate. His judgment in American affairs, though
often sought by the ministry, seems to have been seldom followed. Candor
requires that in the light of his letters and diary, in which his real
sentiments appear, the harsh judgment usually passed upon Hutchinson,
should be materially modified.
His opponent, Samuel Adams, the great agitator, possessed precisely
those qualities that the times required. His political creed was, that
the colonies and England had a common king, but separate and independent
legislatures, and as early as the year 1769, he had been a zealous
advocate of independence. He was the organizer of the Revolution,
through the committees of correspondence, which he initiated, and was
one of those who matured the plan of a general congress. A genuine lover
of liberty, he believed in the capacity of the Americans for
self-government. It was Samuel Adams who, the day after the "massacre"
of March 5, 1770, was chosen chairman of the committee, to demand of the
governor the immediate removal of the troops from the town of Boston.
The stern and inflexible patriot clearly exposed the fallacy of
Hutchinson's reply to the demand, and compelled the governor to yield.
No flattery could lull his vigilance, no sophistry deceive his
penetration. Difficulties did not discourage, nor danger appall him.
Though poor, he possessed a lofty and incorruptible spirit, and though
grave and austere in manner, was warm in his feelings. His affable and
persuasive address, reconciled conflicting interests, and promoted
harmonious action. As a speaker he was pure, concise, logical and
impressive, and the energy of his diction was not inferior to the depth
of his mind. As a political writer he was clear and convincing, and was
the author of able state papers. No man had equal influence over the
popular mind with Samuel Adams, who has been aptly styled, "the last of
the Puritans."
At Boston, where the feeling against receiving the tea was strongest,
the consignees were, "by a singular infelicity," either relatives of the
hated governor, or in sympathy with the odious administration. Two of
them were his sons. Richard Clarke was his nephew. One of Clarke's
daughters married Copley, the painter, and became the mother of Lord
Lyndhurst, the future lord-chancellor of England. Benjamin Faneuil and
Joshua Winslow were respectable merchants. All but Faneuil were
connected by marriage. They were well aware of the temper of the people,
and of the proceedings in Philadelphia and New York; and would doubtless
have yielded to the popular demands, but for Hutchinson. Public
sentiment was stimulated against them by representing them as crown
officers, whereas they were only factors. They were thus put upon the
footing of the obnoxious stamp officers.
* * * * *
The North End Caucus,[3] composed mostly of mechanics, met frequently to
consider what should be done, and voted (October 23d,) that they would
oppose with their lives and fortunes, the vending of any tea that might
be sent to the town for sale by the East India Company. "We were so
careful," says Paul Revere, "that our meetings should be kept secret,
that every time we met, every person swore upon the Bible not to
discover any of our transactions, but to Hancock, Warren or Church, and
one or two more leaders."
The Caucus and the Long-Room Club were local organizations, and were all
included in the larger and more important one, known as "The Sons of
Liberty." This association pervaded nearly all the colonies. It was
first known in Boston as the "Union Club," and gained its later name
from the phrase employed in the British parliament by Col. Barré, in his
famous speech. It was formed in 1765, soon after the passage of the
stamp act, and had among its members most of the leading patriots of the
day. Their organization was secret, with private pass-words, to protect
them from Tory spies. On public occasions, each member wore, suspended
from his neck, a medal, on one side of which was the figure of a
stalwart arm, grasping in its hand a pole, surmounted with a cap of
liberty, and surrounded by the words, "Sons of Liberty." On the reverse
was a representation of Liberty Tree. It was under this tree, in the
open space known as "Liberty Hall,"--at the junction of Newbury, Orange
and Essex Streets,--that their public meetings in Boston were held.
The Sons of Liberty issued warrants for the arrest of suspected persons;
arranged in secret caucus the preliminaries of elections, and the
programme for public celebrations; and in fact were the mainspring,
under the guidance of the popular leaders, of every public demonstration
against the government. In Boston they probably numbered about three
hundred. The 14th of August,--the anniversary of the repeal of the stamp
act,--was celebrated by them for several years, with grand display and
festivity.
Under date of January 15, 1766, John Adams says, in his diary: "I spent
the evening with the Sons of Liberty, at their own apartment, in Hanover
Square, near the Tree of Liberty. It is a counting-room, in Chase &
Speakman's distillery; a very small room it is. There were present, John
Avery, a distiller, of liberal education; John Smith, the brazier;
Thomas Crafts,[4] the painter; Benjamin Edes,[5] the printer; Stephen
Cleverly, brazier; Thomas Chase, distiller; Joseph Fields, master of a
vessel; Henry Bass; George Trott, jeweller; and Henry Welles. I was very
cordially and respectfully treated by all present. We had punch, wine,
pipes and tobacco, biscuit and cheese, etc. They chose a committee to
make preparations for grand rejoicings upon the arrival of the news of a
repeal of the stamp act." The counting-room of which Adams speaks,
could, from its small size, have been the committee-room of the body
only.
Governor Bernard wished to send some of the leading Sons of Liberty to
England, for trial, but did not dare do so. New York was the centre of
the organization, to which all communications from the other colonies
were sent. A correspondent in London kept them informed of the
proceedings and designs of the British ministry.
* * * * *
At one o'clock in the morning of the 2d of November, 1773, the
consignees were aroused from their slumbers by a violent knocking at
their doors, and a summons was left for them to appear at Liberty Tree
on the following Wednesday, to resign their commissions; and not to fail
at their peril. A handbill was, at the same time, posted about the town,
notifying the people of Boston and the vicinity to be present at the
same time and place, to witness their resignation.
[Illustration: Signature, Benjamin Church]
On the appointed day, a large flag was hung out at Liberty Tree. The
public crier announced the meeting, at the top of his voice, and the
church bells, were rung for an hour. At noon, five hundred persons
assembled. Samuel Adams, John Hancock and William Phillips,
representatives of Boston, were present, with William Cooper,--the
patriotic town clerk,--and the board of selectmen. The consignees
failing to appear, a committee, consisting of William Molineux, William
Dennie, Dr. Joseph Warren, Dr. Benjamin Church,[6] Henderson Inches,
Edward Proctor, Nathaniel Barber, Gabriel Johonnot,[7] and Ezekiel
Cheever, waited on them at Clarke's warehouse, at the foot of King (now
State) Street, where they, together with a number of their friends, had
assembled. As they passed the town house, still standing at the head of
this street, Hutchinson, who saw the procession, says that "the
committee were attended by a large body of the people, many of them not
of the lowest rank."
[Illustration: Signature, Henderson Inches]
Molineux was the spokesman. "From whom are you a committee?" asked
Clarke. "From the whole people," was the reply. "Who are the committee?"
"I am one," said Molineux, and he named the rest. "What is your
request?" "That you give us your word to sell none of the teas in your
charge, but return them to London in the same bottoms in which they were
shipped. Will you comply?" "I shall have nothing to do with you," was
the rough and peremptory reply, in which the other consignees, who were
present, concurred. Molineux then read the resolve, passed at Liberty
Tree, declaring that those who should refuse to comply with the request
of the people, were "enemies to their country," and should be dealt with
accordingly.
When the committee reported the result to the crowd outside, the cry was
raised, "Out with them! out with them!" Those within attempted to close
the doors; but the people unhinged them, and carried them off. Justice
Nathaniel Hatch, who, in the king's name, now commanded the peace, was
hooted at and struck, when the people were persuaded to desist. The
committee returned to Liberty Tree, where they reported to the meeting,
which quietly dispersed. Of those composing this gathering, the
consignees wrote to the East India Company, as follows: "They consisted
chiefly of people of the lowest rank; very few respectable tradesmen, as
we are informed, appeared amongst them. The selectmen say they were
present to prevent disorder." There can be little doubt that the
political assemblies of that day, as do those at the present time,
fairly represented the body of the people. The mechanics of Boston,
whatever their rank in the social scale, were the active patriots of the
revolutionary period.
The Sons of Liberty having failed, and the Tories asserting that the
meeting at Liberty Tree was irregular, petitioners for a town meeting
declared that the people were alarmed at a report that the tea had been
shipped to America, and feared that the tribute would be exacted, and
that the liberties, for which they had so long contended, would be lost
to them and their posterity. A meeting was therefore called by the
selectmen for the next day, at ten o'clock in the forenoon.
That night a threatening letter was placed under the door of Mr.
Faneuil, one of the consignees, warning them that a much longer delay in
complying, would not fail to bring upon them "the just reward of their
avarice and insolence."
The town meeting, held on the 5th of November, was fully attended, and
was presided over by John Hancock. After due consideration, it adopted
the resolves of the Philadelphians of October 18, declaring that freemen
have an inherent right to dispose of their property; that the tea tax
was a mode of levying contributions on them without their consent; that
its purpose tended to render assemblies useless, and to introduce
arbitrary government; that a steady opposition to this ministerial plan
was a duty which every freeman owed to his country, to himself, and to
his posterity; that the East India Company's importation was an open
attempt to enforce this plan; and that whoever countenanced the
unloading, vending or receiving the tea, was an enemy to his country. A
committee, consisting of the moderator, Henderson Inches, Benjamin
Austin, and the selectmen of the town, were chosen to wait on the
consignees and request them, from a regard to their own characters, and
the peace and good of the town and province, immediately to resign their
appointment.
At this meeting, a Tory handbill, called the "Tradesmen's Protest,"
against the proceedings of the merchants on the subject of tea
importation, was introduced. After the reading, without comment, the
tradesmen present were desired to collect themselves at the south side
of the hall, where the question was put whether they acknowledged the
"Tradesmen's Protest," and the whole, amounting to at least four
hundred, voted in the negative. The paper, its printer, and those who
circulated it, were denounced as base, false and scandalous. This gave a
finishing blow to the "Protest," of which nothing more was heard.
After voting that it was the just expectation of the town that no one of
its merchants should, under any pretext whatever, import any tea liable
to duty, the meeting adjourned until three o'clock.
[Illustration: Signature, Joseph Warren]
At that hour there was again a full assembly. The committee reported
that they had communicated the resolves of the town to the Messrs.
Clarke and Mr. Faneuil, who informed them that they must consult Thomas
and Elisha Hutchinson, the other consignees, who were at Milton, and
could not give an answer until the following Monday. Samuel Adams,
Joseph Warren, and Molineux were then desired to acquaint Messrs. Clarke
and Faneuil, that the town expected an immediate answer from them. This
was very soon received, and pronounced unsatisfactory, by a unanimous
vote. John Hancock, John Pitts, Samuel Adams, Samuel Abbott, Joseph
Warren, William Powell, and Nathaniel Appleton,[8] were chosen a
committee to wait on the Hutchinsons, and request an immediate
resignation, and the meeting adjourned until the next day.
On Saturday, Faneuil Hall was again crowded. The committee reported that
it could not find Elisha Hutchinson, either at Milton or Boston. Thomas
Hutchinson, Jr., informed them, in a letter, that when he and his
brother were appointed factors, and the tea arrived, they would be
sufficiently informed to answer the request of the inhabitants.
This reply stirred up some of the hot blood in the assembly, and a cry
of "to arms! to arms!" was received with applause and clapping of hands.
Discretion, as usual, prevailed, and the meeting voted that the replies
were "daringly affrontive" to the town, and then dissolved. The governor
tried to collect evidence of the inflammatory speeches that had been
made, but could find no person willing to give it.
A quiet week followed. The tea-ships were nearing the harbor, and the
journals were filled with political essays generally, strong, well put,
and elevating in tone. Locke, in the "Boston Gazette," said: "It will be
considered by Americans whether the _dernier ressort_, and only asylum
for their liberties, is not an American Commonwealth." It was evident to
the leaders on both sides, that a crisis was at hand. Hutchinson foresaw
that this "would prove a more difficult affair than any which had
preceded it;" and in his letters admits that the mass of the people
acted in the conviction that their rights were invaded. Believing the
supremacy of parliament was in issue, he determined, though standing
almost alone, and in opposition to the advice of his political friends,
to make no concession. In a letter written at this period, to Lord
Dartmouth, Secretary for the Colonies, he describes, with minuteness,
the state of political affairs. He says: