Page:Cambridge Modern History Volume 7.djvu/190

 158 Lord North and the tea-duty. [1773 furnished the anti-British party in America with the opportunity which they wanted of making a hostile demonstration. Hitherto there had been no special motive for the tea-dealer to force upon the colonies a commodity which they received with disfavour. In the autumn of 1773, cargoes of tea were exported by the East India Company to Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charlestown. At none of these ports was the tea allowed to be sold ; but, except at Boston, the colonists were content to put such pressure on the vendors as to induce them to withdraw the tea. In this case, however, as throughout the struggle, Boston gave the signal for definite and forcible resistance. When the arrival of the tea-ships was imminent, town-meetings were held, at which the persons to whom the tea was consigned were asked to resign that charge. On their refusal, a riot ensued, and the house of one of the consignees was destroyed. The governor endeavoured to induce the Council to take special steps for keeping the peace, but in vain. When the first ship actually appeared, a town-meeting was summoned. In the notice calling it, the tea was denounced as " the worst of plagues,*" and its introduction as the "last, worst, and most destructive measure of administration." Another unauthorised notice was posted, stating that to allow the tea to be landed would "betray an inhuman thirst for blood, 1 ' and that " those who made the attempt would be considered and treated as wretches unworthy to live, and be made the first victims of popular resentment." The fable of the wolf and the lamb has seldom found a better illustration. A meeting was held, at which not only the citizens of Boston but men from the neighbouring towns attended; and a resolution was passed, prohibiting, as if by legal authority, the landing of the tea. The best solution undoubtedly would have been the departure of the obnoxious vessels. There were in truth only two courses which government could with any safety adopt. The one would have been to be prepared with such armed forces as could suffice to put down any riot. The other was to leave the colonists without a rational grievance and then enforce authority. Unhappily the return of the vessels was hindered by legal technicalities. The goods, having once entered the harbour, could not leave it till they had paid the Customs duty; and this they could not do without being landed. One would have supposed that, when the process of landing was rendered impossible by a display of violence, it might have been dispensed with, so long as all the other legal forms were observed. Even the refusal of the Customs officers need not have been final, since it might have been overridden by a special permit from the governor. He refused, however, on the very pedantic plea that his oath of office bound him to carry out the revenue laws, and that these would be broken if he permitted a vessel to evade the Customs regula- tions. The regulations also required that the cargo should be landed duty paid on it within twenty days of the ship reaching the port.