an hour's
notice. At their suggestion, the consignee, who came as passenger,
resigned, and the captain agreed to take his ship and cargo back to
London the very next day.

The ship "Nancy," Captain Lockyer, destined for New York, having been
blown off the coast, refitted at Antigua, and proceeding thence to New
York, arrived there April 18, 1774. Some of the committee went on board
and prevented her coming up to the city, but the captain was allowed to
procure some necessary stores, and then, by the advice of the
consignees, returned to London without breaking bulk. A quantity of
tea--private property--was imported from London, and an application from
the consignee to have it returned to England was refused by the
custom-house officers. A number of "Mohawks" then took charge of the
business, and emptied the whole of it into the sea.

A few days later, Captain Chambers, master of the ship "London," trading
to New York, who had on a former occasion received the thanks of her
citizens for refusing to bring the East India Company's tea, was
detected in introducing eighteen boxes of fine tea, curiously concealed
between blankets, etc., which he intended to smuggle, but the people
having discovered it, immediately threw it into the sea, and the
captain, to escape the wrath of the people, took refuge in Captain
Lockyer's vessel, and sailed for England.

Opposition to the obnoxious tea duty had by no means subsided, when, in
October, 1774, the brigantine "Peggy Stewart" approached Annapolis,
Maryland, with a cargo of tea on board. At once there was a great
commotion. Terror seized the owners. They applied to Charles Carroll for
advice. He told them there was but one way to save their persons and
property from swift destruction, and that was to burn their vessel and
cargo instantly, and in sight of the people. It was done, and the flames
did for Annapolis what the "Mohawks" had done for Boston.

* * * * *

"This," said Hutchinson, referring to the action of Boston, "was the
boldest stroke that had been struck in America." Writing to Sir Francis
Bernard, he spoke of it as "an unfortunate event, and what every body
supposed impossible after so many men of property had made part of the
meetings, and were in danger of being liable for the value of it. It
would have given me a much more painful reflection," he continued, "if I
had saved it by any concession to a lawless and highly criminal assembl