USA > Rhode Island > Providence County > Providence > State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations at the end of the century : a history, Volume 2 > Part 43
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68
Smuggling was carried on during King George's War by vessels sailing to the West Indies from Newport. These vessels, "under cover of flags of truce", and ostensibly conveying prisoners to the enemies' ports, in reality carried merchandise in violation of the navi- gation acts. This species of trade was especially active in 1747. The colony sloop Tartar captured in May, 1748, off Point Judith, a schoon- er loaded with sugar, which was sailing under a flag of truce.
The colony seems to have insisted on its right to regulate custom fees. At a session of the General Assembly, held in Newport late in 1743, the tariff was raised and a table of fees to be charged by the Admiralty Court was also framed. Earlier in the same year the Assembly refused to recognize the appointment by royal authority of Leonard Lockman as clerk of the naval office at Newport, claiming this office had always been in the appointment of the governor.
1
VIEW OF THE FOX POINT DISTRICT OF PROVIDENCE FROM FORT HILL IN EAST PROVIDENCE, TAKEN IN 1837.
FROM AN OLD PAINTING BY KINGSLEY C. GLADDING, IN THE POSSESSION OF THE RHODE ISLAND HIST. SOC.
440
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
In 1758 the General Assembly repealed an act, passed the previous year, forbidding trade with the Spanishı settlements at Hispaniola, "as no such restrictions existed in the other colonies". This was evidently a direct violation of the acts of trade, but does not appear to have excited any special comment from the home government.
From the close of the French War in 1763 to the outbreak of the Revolution in 1776 there was constant friction between the colonies and the mother country, growing out of the attempts of the latter to enforce the navigation acts and other commercial legislation. Great Britain had in the French war gained jurisdiction over a large extent of territory, but her national debt had thereby been increased enor- mously. In order to recoup herself she proceeded to tax the colonies on the plea that they should bear a part of the burden. The House of Commons resolved, in 1764, that "Parliament had a right to tax the colonies", and the prime minister, Grenville, brought in a scheme of colonial taxation, the principal feature of which was the stamp duties which were to be paid on all commercial and legal documents. The stamp act was not immediately passed, but was deferred to give the colonies an opportunity to suggest a more satisfactory mode of raising revenue. The sugar act was, however, passed at once (April 5, 1764), its object being, as announced in its preamble, to raise "a revenue for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting and securing His Majesty's Dominion in America". This act "reduced the duty upon molasses from sixpence a gallon under the old act, which amounted to prohibition, to three-pence, which was considered a revenue standard. It also placed a duty on coffec, spice, wines and many foreign goods and prohibited the export of lumber or iron except to England. It strengthened the courts of vice-admiralty and provided effectual means of collecting the revenue."1
The original sugar act, or "molasses act", as it was sometimes called, was passed in 1733 and imposed a heavy duty on products im- ported into the northern colonies from the West India Islands which were not under British jurisdiction. This act seriously affected Rhode Island, as it interfered with her trade in rum and molasses with the West Indies. A protest against this act was sent to the Board of Trade and the Rhode Island agent, Richard Partridge, in presenting it, said in his letter, "that the bill divested the colonists of their right as Englishmen, in laying taxes against their consent and without their being represented on the floor of Parliament."2 The act expired by
Arnold's History of R. I. vol. 2, p. 251.
2Idem, vol. 2, p. 124.
441
THE SEA TRADE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT.
limitation in 1764, but was at once revived with some changes. The General Assembly, at a special session held early in 1764, sent a re- monstrance to Joseph Sherwood, then the Rhode Island agent in Lon- don, directing him to present it to the Board of Trade. The governor also wrote to the Board of Trade, showing that the trade with the French sugar islands was of advantage to the colonies and to Great Britain and that this commerce should be left free instead of being hampered by a tariff. The remonstrance and letter, as well as other similar papers sent on to England, failed to prevent the passage of the act.
The importance of the trade in molasses to the Rhode Island people is obvious from the fact that the remonstrance to the Lords of Trade and Plantations stated that 14,000 gallons were annually imported into the colony from the West Indies, of which only 2,500 were from the English Islands, leaving 11,500 subject to duty. The original act evidently was never enforced, except perhaps in isolated cases, as no such volume of trade as existed in connection with the distilling of rum and the exchange of rum for slaves, could have been developed under the burden of the duty imposed. This is substantiated by the following language used in the remonstrance :
"The present price of molasses is about twelve pence sterling per gallon ; at which rate only can it be distilled into rum for exportation ; wherefore if a duty should be laid on the article the enhanced price may amount to a prohibition, and it may with truth be said that there is not so large a sum of silver and gold circulating in the colony as the duty imposed by the aforesaid act would amount to in one year which makes it absolutely impossible for the importers to pay it.''1
Late in 1764 the Assembly adopted an address on taxation, which was sent to the king, and with this there was also forwarded two copies of the pamphlet by Gov. Stephen Hopkins, entitled "The Rights of the Colonies Examined". In this address the right of Parliament to apply the acts of trade to the colonies was denied and a determination was expressed to preserve the ancient privileges of the colony.
In obedience to a vote passed by a special town meeting, held at Providence August 7, 1765, a committee consisting of Stephen Hop- kins, Nicholas Cooke, Samuel Nightingale, jr., John Brown, Silas Dow- ner and James Angell, was appointed to draw up instructions to the representatives of the town in the General Assembly. This committee reported on August 13, the instructions they presented were unani- mously agreed to, and with some changes they were adopted at a
1R. I. Col. Rec. vol. vi., p. 381.
442
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
special session of the General Assembly held at East Greenwich in September. Four of these resolutions were similar to those passed by the Legislature of Virginia, but the fifth as passed by the Rhode Island Assembly was practically a declaration of independence. This legislation was the most notable and radical that had ever been taken in the colony. The preamble to these resolutions stated that the colo- nists had always had "a full and free enjoyment of British liberty"; that the attempt to tax them without their consent was an infringe- ment of their rights as Englishmen, and that the passage of the stamp act, the enlargement of the admiralty jurisdiction and the burdening of trade, was against their rights. The first two resolutions were his- torical; the last three declared the position of the colony and are worthy of being quoted in full :
"Third-That his Majesty's liege people of this colony have enjoyed the right of being governed by their own assembly in the article of taxes and internal police ; that the same hath never been forfeited, or in any way yielded up, but hath been constantly recognized by the King and people of Great Britain.
"Fourth-That therefore the General Assembly of this colony have in their representative character, the only exclusive right to lay taxes and imports upon the inhabitants of this colony; and that every at- tempt to vest such power in any person or persons whatever other than the General Assembly aforesaid, is unconstitutional and has a manifest tendency to destroy British as well as American liberty.
"Fifth-That his Majesty's liege people, the inhabitants of this colony, are not bound to yield obedience to any law or ordinance de- signed to impose any internal taxation whatsoever upon them other than the laws and ordinances of the General Assembly aforesaid."1
A sixth resolution was added, "directing the officers of the colony to proceed as usual in the execution of their trusts and agreeing to save them harmless for so doing".
Similar action was taken by the other American colonies, and as a concession to the vigorous opposition thus manifested, the stamp act was repealed March 28, 1766, but the sugar act still remained in force. In May of the same year the Acts of Trade were revised, the duty on molasses was reduced to a penny a gallon, the tariff on spice, coffee and sugar was decreased and other changes made in the interests of the colonies. The colony agent, Joseph Sherwood, writing to the colonial authorities about these matters, said "that every grievance is now absolutely and totally removed."
The British Parliament, while conceding a point in repealing the 'Staples's Annals of Providence, pp. 211, 213.
443
THE SEA TRADE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT.
stamp act, had expressly reserved the right to tax the colonies. The chancellor of the exchequer, Charles Townshend, determined to exer- cise this right, and he proposed a small duty on glass, lead, paints, paper and tea. The act imposing these duties went into operation November 20, 1767, but it at once aroused the most determined opposi- tion in all the colonies. In Rhode Island the resistance was chiefly manifested by the non-importation agreements which were very gen- erally signed by the citizens. These agreements bound the signers not to import or use British goods, especially those mentioned in the new act, and they were very generally observed. One of the results was, to encourage domestic manufactures, the effect of which was very marked in the subsequent development of the State of Rhode Island. The attempt of the British authorities to enforce the acts in regard to taxation and commerce was the cause of constant trouble. "Disagree- ments between the colonial and revenue officers were incessant and mutual recriminations were constantly made to the home government of hindrance in collecting duties and of tyranny in the mode of exact- ing them. To trace the manifold phases that these troubles assumed would be both tedious and useless. They present the opposite sides of the same principle, resistance to the Acts of Trade on one hand and the determination to enforce them at all hazards on the other-with very much of wrong-dealing on both."1
Among the incidents of this period that illustrate the friction be- tween the colonies and the royal authorities were the scuttling of the armed sloop Liberty in Newport Harbor, July 19, 1769, and the burning of the armed schooner Gaspee, June 9-10, 1772, just below Providence. Both vessels had been attempting, in a way obnoxious to the traders and sailors on the bay, to enforce the revenue laws. Smug- gling was carried on quite openly, but the people believed the laws were unjust and the whole community was in league against the authority of the crown as represented by the Admiralty Court, the revenue officers, and the naval vessels sent to enforce their authority.
The hardy English settlers who founded the colonies on Narragan- sett Bay developed an independent commonwealth under the forms of English law. They recognized the royal authority only so far as it was in agreement with their ideas of liberty ; the moment it interfered with those ideas they either ignored, evaded or resisted it. They es- tablished their own admiralty courts, commissioned their own priva- teers, made their own tariffs and collected their own custom dues ; and although they were time and again accused, and the charges proved, of
1Arnold's History of R. I., vol. 2, p. 276.
444
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
doing these things which were in contravention of the royal preroga- tives, they still continued, by hook or crook, in their self-willed way. As time went on their persistence was less overt, but none the less effective, and by the arts of the politician-even at the royal court itself-they fought the battle for commercial liberty, and practically won the fight. The war of the Revolution was only the culmination of the long struggle.
The lists of privateers in the colonial wars and in the Revolutionary struggle, printed in the preceding pages, give the names of many of the merchants both of Newport and Providence. The leading mer- chants of Newport at the beginning of her commercial development were John and William Wanton and Francis Brindley, while during the period of the colonial wars, Godfrey Malbone, John Brown, George Wanton, Joseph Wanton, Seuton Grant, Daniel Ayrault, jr., William Mumford, Stephen Hopkins, Philip Wilkinson, William Ellery, were among the most conspicuous. In the middle of the eighteenth century a number of enterprising Jews became prominent merchants at New- port. Of these the leaders were Aaron and Moses Lopez, "who at one time owned twenty-seven square rigged vessels, several of which were whaleships, besides many smaller craft."1 Moses Hays, a Jew, was also a prominent merchant. In 1763 there were sixty families of Jews in Newport; they were chiefly engaged in commerce and had exerted a great influence in the development of the port.
Th father of the commerce of Providence was Pardon Tillinghast, who built the first wharf and warehouse in 1679. Others of the towns- men engaged in commerce in a very limited way during the early years of the eighteenth century, as is evidenced by the building of wharves and warehouses on the Providence River at that period. It was not, however, until James and Obadiah Brown started in business as merchants, about 1733, that any great impetus was given to the commercial development of Providence. The subsequent history of this evolution centers around the achievements of the sons of James Brown, their associates and successors. James and Obadiah Brown were great-grandsons of Chad Brown, one of the first settlers of Provi- dence, and James had married Hope, daughter of Nicholas Power and granddaughter of Pardon Tillinghast. The two brothers employed four sloops in the West India trade in 1736 and Obadiah was captain of one of them. James Brown died in 1739 and his three sons, Nich- olas, Joseph and John, were, as they came of age and developed ability, taken into the business of their uncle, Obadiah. During this period
1Arnold's History of R. I., vol. 2, pp. 177, 447.
445
THE SEA TRADE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT.
the Browns extended their trade and sent vessels to Europe and Africa ; they probably, like the contemporary merchants of Newport, engaged in the slave trade, and very likely they sent out privateers during the Spanish and French wars.
Obadiah Brown died in 1761 and his three nephews then reorganized the house as Nicholas Brown & Co. They admitted, in 1763, as a partner their brother Moses, the youngest son of James Brown. The four brothers for a period of ten years, 1763 to 1773, worked together and greatly extended their business, which became the most important commercial house in the colony.
Moses Brown retired from the firm in 1773 and thereafter interested himself in study, philanthropy, education and social and industrial progress. He furnished the capital which enabled Samuel Slater to begin the spinning of cotton at Pawtucket in 1790, and without being. directly engaged in this industry he did more for its successful estab- lishment than any man except Slater. His papers and letters, many of which are in existence, throw a great deal of light on local contem- porary history. He died September 8, 1836.
The Brown brothers sent some of their ships out as privateers during the Revolution, but their business was much contracted during the war. At this period Joseph retired from the firm and became a professor of experimental philosophy in the local college. The two remaining brothers, John and Nicholas, separated about 1782, and John in 1787 started on the south shore of Tockwotton Hill the bold enterprise of trading direct to the East Indies. The locality was called from that fact India Point, which name it still retains. Nicholas Brown carried on the business of the old house, took as a partner George Benson and the firm became known as Brown & Benson. This firm followed the example of John Brown and engaged in the East India trade, with headquarters near India Point. Other merchants followed their exam- ple, and after the close of the Revolution India Point was the most flourishing section of Providence, and in the vicinity of its wharves there were distilleries, a glass manufactory, rope walks, ship vards, ship chandlers' stores and other places of trade. The present great manufacturing house of Brown & Ives, with its immense connected interests, is the lineal descendant of the commercial house established by the Brown Brothers, and then successively carried on by Nicholas Brown & Co., Brown & Benson, Brown, Benson & Ives, and Brown & Ives. The present owners, the Goddards and the Gammells, are the descendants of Nicholas Brown.1
1Providence Plantations, p. 247.
A VIEW OF SOUTH WATER STREET, PROVIDENCE, ABOUT 1857.
-
447
THE SEA TRADE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT.
Stephen Hopkins, governor of the colony for ten years shortly be- fore the Revolution, and one of the Rhode Island signers of the Declar- ation of Independence, was associated with the Browns in many of their mercantile ventures. Other prominent Providence merchants of the Revolutionary period were Nicholas Cooke, Welcome Arnold, Jo- seph Russell, John Smith, William Russell, Daniel Tillinghast, Jolin Innes Clark, Joseph Nightingale, Daniel Jenckes, Edward Kinnicutt, Jabez Bowen, Rufus Hopkins, William Wall and John Jenckes. At later periods, Edward Carrington & Co., Munroe, Snow & Munroe, Cyrus Butler, S. G. Arnold & Co., Humphrey & Everett, Aborn & Jackson, and others, were conspicuous.
The following letter from Moses Brown in answer to questions from Tristam Burges, throws considerable light on the commerce of Provi- dence and corroborates many of the facts already recounted, obtained from other sources. Mr. Burges, who represented the State in Con- gress from 1825 to 1835, desired to prepare a historical lecture on commerce, and in order to get his material, addressed the following questions to Moses Brown. The originals are now among the Moses Brown papers in the cabinet of the Rhode Island Historical Society :
Tristam Burges to Moses Brown, January 12, 1826.
"Ist. In what way can a correct and full knowledge of the mari- time affairs of Rhode Island be acquired; so as to write an entire history of the Navigation and Commerce thereof, from the beginning of the State up to the adoption of the Constitution ?
"2d. How numerous were the vessels of this State, to what ports or places either among sister colonies on the Continent or in the West Indies or in Europe, did they navigate or trade ?
"3rd. Were they engaged in the fisheries and which and to what extent ?
"4th. Who were the principal merchants, shipowners and nautical men ?
"5th. Was there a Custom House at which vessels entered and cleared and what were its regulations and where was it established ? Who were its officers? Where is it probable its documents may be found ?
"6th. How early had Rhode Island provided for defense? What was that provision at any time either on land or water?
"7th. How many armed vessels were fitted out, to whom did they belong ? Who commanded each of them? Were the officers and men mostly from Rhode Island ? What vessels were captured by private armed vessels? What was their lading?
"8th. What did Admiral Hopkins bring from New Providence and to where was his second cruise ?"
448
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS.
Moses Brown replied at length, interpolating some matters not directly connected with the questions. These have been omitted, as indicated, and the remainder forms an account that in this connection is of much value :
"Providence 12th of 1st Mo. 1836. "Respected Friend :-
"Thy letter of this day is received and I much approve thy object of collecting material for a historical Lecture or History of the Navi- gation and Commencement of Rhode Island from the beginning of the State up to the establishing the Constitution. It is but little I can assist thee in, but so far as my knowledge and recollections may afford to thee will be cheerfully handed thee.
"I conclude that as Newport or Rhode Island was began to be settled, tho after our Town, the first purchasers and settlers being much more welthy than Providence settlers, that Navigation was much larger and begun there earlier than here, their records and merchants afford more information than ours, and point out the first Collectors Office which is the best place to obtain this information needed.
"In 1764 Daniel Jenks and Nicholas Brown were appointed by the General Assembly a Committee, to unite with others to be appointed by other States for petitioning his Majesty for a repeal of the Act of Charles 2d, called the Sugar Act, etc., and to prevent the Stamp duties which was then under consideration; accordingly extensive petitions were drawn by the Merchants of this Town, as well as Boston and probably Newport. That for the County of Providence States there was fifty-four sail of vessels in our Town, 40 sail of which used the West India trade and the 14 are coasters; of the 40 sail, 24 vessels used the foreign trade as the Dutch, Danes, French and Spanish ports; the other 16 to the English. Our exports thou will of course know without naming, tho papers mention most all we have had to send. Our returns mentioned are Salt, Molasses, Rum, Sugar, Coffee, Cotton, Piments, etc. That committee of assembly reported in October, 1764, and the Governor was ordered to transmit two copies of the request. This year, 1764, the General Assembly past an act stating the fees of the collector, controlor and searchers of the Customs and Naval officers. This year also November 1764 the Genr. Assembly ordered the piece Gov. Hopkins wrote entitled 'The Rights of Col- onys Examined,' to be printed and two fair copies were ordered to be sent to our Agent in England to be by him put in print and to use the same in conjunction with other Agents, most to the advan- tage of the Collony.
"1765, October session, commissioners appointed to meet at New York such from the other States, drew up their opinions respecting the rights and liberties of the Colonists, an address to his Majesty & to both the houses of Parliament to procure a repeal of the Stamp Act, and all clauses of any other Acts appertaining, where the jurisdiction
449
THE SEA TRADE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT.
of the Admiralty is extended beyond its antient limits, and the late acts for the restriction of American Commerce. Copies were signed by Commissioners of 6 of the colonies, those from Connecticut, New York & So. Carolina not being impowered to sign. Copys sent to the Agents also.
"N. B. At the time the 54 sail of vessels, before mentioned was numbered, our State was estimated to contain 49000 inhabitants. In August 31, 1748, I have an advertisement for the sale of the Brigan- tine Hannah with all her appertinances as riging, sales, cables, an- chors, etc. Signed by all her owners, ten in number which I preserve for the autograph of each as I remember them all, and as it shows not only who they were but is a pretty clear indication of the small prop- erty then amongst our trade and Navigation.
"More than 12 years before this date I find by my ancestors books, they owned or was principaly concerned in 4 sloops that used the West India Trade. My father Obediah Brown was captain in one of them and owned in part.
"Thy first Interrogation will be difficult to Answer, that is from the beginning of the settlement of the State to the adoption of the Constitution, which made me think of Roger Williams, who says on our Records at a meeting of the Town, 29th of August 1676, that Providence Williams brought up his Mother from Newport and cleared the town of all the Indians, and of Gov. Coddington's going by water from Portsmouth to Newport in or about 1640, but we have an evidence here of one of our Town Clerks, Shadrick Manton being going to sea as early as 1669, so there was Navigation then, and I have the curiosity of a printed bill of Lading signed by Caleb Cranston for 14 barrels of cyder in the Good Ship called the Elizabeth & Mary, bound to Cattalina, consigned to the Master Caleb Cranston in 1690. As we never had in this Town a Custom House office untill after the Revolution when Col. Jeremiah Olney were chosen tho Ebenezer Thompson was Naval Officer a little before chosen by the State, After Wallis took the command of Narragansett bay, another Col- lector one of the Commissioners was sent. Joseph Wanton the old and long collector was superseded.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.