destruction, and declared that if
animosities should rise as high as during the time of the Stamp Act, the
tea might safely be shipped and securely landed. That then the Colony
had an old man to deal with (Colden); but now they would have to contend
with a vigorous military governor, (Tryon,) one who had shown his energy
in putting down insurrectionary movements in North Carolina. The
Committee of Vigilance took note of these offensive declarations, and on
November 5, called a meeting at the Coffee House. The people assembled,
denounced Kelly, and burnt his effigy, and after the representative was
consumed, a gentleman observed that it was matter of regret that the
principal could not be dealt with in the same summary and exemplary
manner."

[41] Thomas Wharton was a wealthy and influential merchant of
Philadelphia, and of the sect called Quakers. In the enterprise of
Galloway and Goddard to establish the "Chronicle," a leading newspaper,
he was their partner, and the parties supposed that Franklin, who was a
correspondent of Wharton's, on his return from England, would join them.
In 1777, he was apprehended, and sent prisoner to Virginia, and at a
later period was proscribed as an enemy to his country, and lost his
estate, under the Confiscation Acts of Pennsylvania. His son, Thomas
Wharton, Jr., was a distinguished Whig, and President of Pennsylvania.
In the early part of the Revolution, and indeed until the time when
blood was shed, father and son acted together, and were members of the
same deliberative assemblies and committees.

[42] A portion of this article, which fairly represents the views of the
consignees on the vexed tea question, is as follows:

"The objectors say the tea duty will be a means of supporting the
Parliament of Great Britain in raising money from us. How it can affect
this matter I am utterly at a loss to comprehend. Have not large
quantities of tea for some years past been imported into this Province
from England, both on account of the dealers in tea there and the
merchants here, all which have paid the American duty? How in the name
of common sense does it differ, unless it be in favor of America, for a
New England merchant to have his tea shipped from Great Britain, on his
own account, or receive it on commission from the grocers there, and on
its arrival, paying the customary duty, than if it had been shipped by
the East India Company, who were the original importers? What
consistency