The trade of the Delaware district before the revolution

Preface

During the past decade there have appeared several books, monographs, and articles which treat colonial history from the imperial and economic points of view. 1 In the light of these studies, there has developed a new conception of the British empire in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, in which the colonies have come to be considered primarily as parts of the empire rather than as the beginnings of the United States. The theory of the continuity of colonial policy has been placed beyond dispute. The acts of trade and navigation have been traced to their sources and have been given a new meaning and a new importance. Many of the acts were passed to prevent imperial disintegration and did not at the time impose any hardship upon the colonies, for instance, the wool act of 1699 and the iron act of 1750. Even the measures which seemed to be most prejudicial to colonial interests were often the product of imperial necessity. The molasses act, for example, was intended primarily as a blow at France, and in the controversy over tea the increasing power of the East India Company was a more significant factor than the question of colonial taxation.

An analysis of legislation from the economic and imperial points of view and its efTect upon the trade of the empire suggests an interesting field for investigation. Especially is this true of the period immediately preceding the American War of

1 Beer, G. L., The origins of the British Colonial System, 1578-1660 (1908).

, The Old Colonial System, Part I, Vols. I and II. 1912.

, British Colonial Policy, 1754-1765. (1907).

Root, W. T., The Relations of Pennsylvania with the British Government, 1696-1765. (1912).

Giesecke, A. A., American Commercial Legislation before 1789. (1910).

Andrews, C. M., Colonial Commerce — The American Historical Review, October, 1914.

Morriss, M. S., Maryland Trade, 1689-1715. (1914).

Lord, E. L., Industrial Experiments in the British Colonies of North America. (1896).

Independence. At that time England, after a long struggle with France for dominion in America, began to take an inventory of her colonial possessions and to reorganize the empire. The trade and navigation acts, which were originally directed against the Dutch, were revised to meet the needs of the time. In addition, other acts were passed in order to put the empire on a more self-sufficing basis. The effect which this reorganization produced is best seen by investigating the economic conditions and the trade of a part of the empire, and, as the American colonies presented the most formidable objections, a study of their trade ought to indicate to what extent the legislation of the period served its purpose. It is with the hope that some light may be thrown upon a few of the commercial and economic problems of the period that the writer ventures to present the results of her investigation of the British trade legislation from 1763, the close of the Seven Years' War, to 1773, when the controversy between Great Britain and the American colonies lost its economic aspect and became more exclusively political in character.

This study was undertaken at the suggestion of Dr. William Roy Smith, of Bryn Mawr College, and to him the writer is deeply indebted for assistance at every stage of her progress. It is a pleasure to mention others who have made valuable suggestions and criticisms, among whom are Dr. Charles Hull, of Cornell University; Dr. Frances Davenport, of the Department of Historical Research of the Carnegie Institute; Mr. Hubert Hall and Dr. Lilian Knowles, of the London School of Economics; Dr. A. F. Pollard, of University College, London, and especially Mr. George Louis Beer, who permitted the use of some of his extracts from the Colonial Papers. Thanks are due also to the officials of the Public Record Office, of the British Museum, of the House of Lords, of Devonshire House, of the Bodleian Library, of the Library of All Soul's College, Oxford, and of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, who were unfailing in their courtesy and attention.

Trade of the Delaware District Before the

Revolution

CHAPTER I Economic Conditions in the Delaware District Before 1763

In treating the problems of the continental colonies it has been the custom, for the most part, to consider them as a whole, or to place special emphasis upon individual colonies. While this method may be used in political, social, or constitutional investigations, it is most inadequate when the subject of trade is under consideration. The thirteen colonies did not constitute an economic unit, and it is frequently difficult to consider any one colony by itself, because the area of trade and the political area did not always coincide. The export and import district of any given port depended largely upon the means of transportation, which, in the eighteenth century, usually meant river transportation. There were only a few roads stretching out from the main centers of population, and these were not capable of being used for heavy traffic. It was observed by an anonymous English writer that "North American productions are weighty and of great bulk, water carriage is extremely necessary to convey them to the seaside for exportation and reconvey to the inland country the manufactures of Great Britain — a convenience without which such settlement can have little or no communication with the mother country, or be of much utility to it." 1 Thus, by using the means of transportation as a basis, the British-American mainland during the eighteenth century can be divided into trading districts. An economic study should concern itself with these districts rather than with individual colonies.

Chatham Papers, Bun. 97, May, 1766.

Friends' Collection of Mss. IV.

Letters written from Philadelphia by Friends traveling in America in 1757 describe the difficulties of travel over the few poor roads.

(1) Trade Boundaries

The trade area of Philadelphia, one of the most flourishing ports on the American continent, included part of Pennsylvania, the three lower counties on the Delaware, and a large section of West Jersey. These formed, what, for convenience, might be called the Delaware district. In order to give the exact boundaries of this district it would be necessary to ascertain to what market each farmer sent his produce and where he bought his supplies. The lack of material at present makes this impossible. Approximate boundaries only can be defined. Within the province of Pennsylvania the trade was usually confined to the counties of Philadelphia, Bucks, Berks, and Northampton, and the eastern and northern parts of Chester and Lancaster. This area was continually being extended by the opening of new roads, but serviceable roads were not numerous during the colonial period. For example, the principal roads in 1776 connecting the upper Schuylkill and the Susquehannah were a road from Hughes' Saw-Mill, about thirty miles above Reading, to Fort Augusta, and the road running from Reading to a point just south of Fort Augusta. In the lower Susquehannah valley there were many more. The Paxton road began near the house of John Harris, Paxton Township, Lancaster County, and ran into the Highroad Kennison in Whiteland, Chester County. 2 The King's Highway and the New Castle and Conestoga Whiskey roads crossed the Nottingham and New Garden road near Elk Creek and reached Philadelphia by way of Kennett Square and Chester. There was also one from Harris Ferry (Harrisburg) to Lancaster and another to Reading. 3 By means of these highways,

2 Smith, William Roy, Sectionalism in Pennsylvania during the Revolution [in The Political Science Quarterly, Vol. XXIV, No. 2; p. 219.] Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania, Vol. VIII, pp. 56-58. Pennsylvania Archives, 1st Series, Vol. IV, pp. 362-363. Colonial Records, Vol. IX, pp. 651, 182-185.

'Colonial Records, Vol. Ill, pp. 419-420. Map of Nicholas Scull, (1759), and William Scull, (1770). [Pennsylvania Archives, 3rd Series, App. I-IX.] H. Frank Eshleman's Map of the Earliest Highways leading from the Deleware and Schuylkill Rivers to the Susquehannah River and its Branches.

traders, who had taken agricultural products to Philadelphia, or to Baltimore by boat or raft, could bring back manufactured articles from Philadelphia.

It is very improbable that the product of the land west of the Susquehannah, or within a radius of a few miles east of the lower part of it, ever reached the eastern part of Pennsylvania. It was easier to take the produce of this section, put it on rafts and send it to Baltimore or Annapolis. There were three main reasons why the trade of Pennsylvania west of the district defined in the previous paragraph went to Baltimore. The first was lack of roads. Baltimore had grown up simultaneously with the rapid increase of the Scotch-Irish population in the western part of Pennsylvania. It was a great surprise to the eastern merchants, who were accustomed to an undisputed monopoly of the commerce of Pennsylvania and surrounding colonies, when they first realized that this very lucrative western trade was going to a new port outside the province. All efforts made before the War of Independence to counteract this tendency were unsuccessful. 4 Merchants felt the loss of business keenly, but it was difficult to persuade the assembly to appropriate the funds for building the necessary roads. 5 The second reason why the trade went to Maryland may be found in the habits and occupations of the people, which made the Susquehannah the only necessary route. The settlers in that part of the province were agricultural. They produced in the field or the house all the necessities of life. They had little need for the manufactured articles which were imported into the eastern part of the colony. In the third place, political disaffection made them prefer to trade with Maryland. They took great delight in thwarting all the plans of the Quaker assembly to bring the western trade to Philadelphia.

It is more difficult to draw the line in New Jersey beyond which the inhabitants ceased to trade with Philadelphia. There

4 Pennsylvania Archives, Vol. IV, p. 362; IX, pp. 65, 657, 666, 703, 731. Lincoln, C. H., The Revolutionary Movement in Pennsylvania, 1760- 1776. Chap. IV, passim.

was no port in that province which had a very extensive trade. 6 Consequently, New Jersey depended upon the ports of New York and Philadelphia. The trade of East Jersey went to New York, but it was more convenient to send the products of West Jersey to Philadelphia by the Delaware river and its tributaries, or by road.

The assumption that Philadelphia had a trade area which included West Jersey and the lower counties is further upheld by the divisions made for the vice-admiralty courts in America. 7 The staff of ofhcers stationed in Philadelphia had supervision over the ports of Pennsylvania, the lower counties, and West Jersey. Furthermore, the local commercial legislation proves conclusively that there existed a trade unity among all of the ports on the Delaware. 8

Philadelphia was the only port within this district whose harbors were of sufficient size to allow ships of more than eighty or ninety tons to enter. 9 A very good description was given of it in a report resulting from an investigation of the ports, districts and towns of America in 1770. "It has been taken for granted that the limits of this port begin where a line divides Pennsylvania from New Castle County and extends along the river Delaware on the Pennsylvania side as far as the river is navigable above Philadelphia — makes about twenty-five miles below and thirty miles above that city. Within this district are several creeks, but only navigable for small vessels, the principal are Chester, Darby and Sahykiir [Schuylkill?] 10

6 Giesecke, American Commercial Legislation before 1789, pp. 103-104. New York had objected to Perth Amboy being made an important port. Osgood, H. L., The American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century, Vol. II, pp. 187-190. A discussion of Elizabethtown as a probable port may be found here.

7 Admiralty Secretary Out Letters, 2 : 1058. Colonial Office, 391 :10. 'W. T. Root, The Relations of Pennsylvania with Great Britain, p. 94.

8 Pennsylvania Statutes at Large, Vol. II, 105, 384; III, 112, 151, 268, 416. Acts regarding Tonnage Duties and Export and Import duties exempt Delaware and West Jersey. Giesecke, American Commercial Legislation Before 1789, p. 86.

9 Pennsylvania Historical Society Memoirs, Vol. II, p. 216. Penn gave careful instructions concerning the location of the chief port in his commonwealth in view of future trade development.

10 Additional Manuscripts, 15484, taken from Chalmers' Library. Ports, districts, and towns of America.

The other ports of the district — Lewes, New Castle, Wilmington and Burlington — played little part in any but the coastwise and contraband trade. Lewes extended thirty miles and included many small creeks. 11 Although admirably situated to serve as a base of operation for the prevention of illicit trade, it was really used as a convenient place to lie in wait for vessels, in order to smuggle cargoes into Philadelphia by taking them to Reedy Island, or some other place and unloading them. Conditions were much the same in the ports of Burlington, New Castle and Wilmington as at Lewes. There was only one officer at Burlington, and it would have been impossible for him to supervise the numerous creeks and river entries in that vicinity. 12

It would be difficult to outline the local trade policy of this district with any degree of accuracy. There was such a small part of the trade which was not in some way influenced by the British laws, that the tendencies towards a definite provincial policy can only be estimated roughly. It is fairly clear, however, that free trade had gained as little headway here as in England. When the exemptions made in favour of West Jersey and Delaware are eliminated, and the district is considered as a whole, there is very little which points to a free trade policy in the present use of the word. 13 Petitions of merchants against taxing trade, discussions in Council, and pamphlets written on the subject, are the only indication of such a tendency. 14

The primary reason for taxing trade was to secure revenue. The annual charge of maintaining and supporting the establishment of the province of Pennsylvania was estimated in 1767 at £13,400. 15 This expense was met by various means. The asu Additional Manuscripts, 15484, taken from Chalmers' Library. Ports, districts, and towns of America.

12 Ibid.

13 See Giesecke, American Commercial Legislation before 1789, passim. Pennsylvania Statutes, Vol. II, pp. 105 ; III, 151, 263, 363, 465. Pennsylvania Archives, 4th Series, Vol. II, p. 961.

14 Colonial Records, Vol. VIII, pp. 30, 31. Pennsylvania Archives, 4th Series, Vol. II, p. 903.

16 Pennsylvania Archives, 4th Series, Vol. Ill, p. 341, Papers of John Penn.

sembly annually voted £1,200. 16 Fees such as licenses for public houses, marriages, pedlars and ships, and fines for offences of persons convicted were of uncertain but considerable value. 17 The sale of new lands brought in an increasing sum as the population grew. 18 A small amount was received from quit rents, but they were always in arrears, and so little care was taken in collecting them that not much was realized from this source. 19 In addition to the sum raised by these methods, it was thought necessary to tax exports and imports which were not subject to English trade laws.

The first duties exacted were ad valorem. 20 This duty was usually 5%. It was soon supplanted by specific duties on certain articles, such as tobacco, sugar, cocoa, molasses, dye woods and tea ; other goods, except salt, iron and munitions of war retained the ad valorem duty of 5%.

The early tariff legislation levying specific import duties on sugar, spirits, and wine, gave encouragement to direct trade from place of growth, to home shipping and to provincial production of spirits. 21 These bills, as well as those regarding tonnage during the first three decades, show clearly that the element of protection was very strong. 22 In fact the eagerness to protect home shipping and industries was so great that the provincial tariff legislation interfered at times with the British. 23 Further indications of a protective policy may be found in bounties offered for home production of certain products, and in the system of drawbacks on re-exportation. 24

"Colonial Office, 5:112. 11 Ibid.

18 Pennsylvania Archives. 4th Series, Vol. Ill, 341-2.

10 Pennsylvania Archives. 2nd Series, Vol. V, 603. Colonial Records, Vol. Ill, p. 63.

21 Pennsylvania Statutes, Vol. II, 105; III, 112, 151, 268, 416. James Madison, Letters and other writings (New York, 1899), Vol. I, 226.

23 Pennsylvania Statutes, Vol. II, 385, 543 ; III, 166, 238. ** Giesecke, p. 30.

24 Pennsylvania Statutes, Vol. Ill, 115, 154. Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives, Vol. Ill, 6, 7, 128, 129, 314, 324. Pennsylvania Archives, 4th Series, Vol. I, 674, Papers of George Thomas.

In two ways this district was more or less isolated from the mother country. It was principally controlled by the government of Pennsylvania. Since this government was proprietary in form, the deputy governor was appointed by the proprietor and was directly responsible to him. According to a statute of 1696, the appointment had to be approved by the crown and the deputy governor had to take an oath that he would perform his duties in regard to the trade laws. If the laws were not obeyed he was liable to a fine of £1,000, or removal from office. 25 Robert Quary, the first judge of the vice-admiralty in Philadelphia, made complaint against Deputy Governor Markham, who had not been approved, and finally forced William Penn in 1699 to remove him. 26 But that was about as far as any supervision of the deputy governors extended. Almost all the other colonial governors were required to send in detailed reports of the state of manufactures and trade in their respective provinces. These were in answer to circular letters sent out by the board of trade. By mistake, one was sent to John Penn when he was deputy governor, and the correspondence which followed between Secretary Shelburne, Thomas Penn and John Penn shows clearly that the Penns considered their province as private property. Thus noninterference had allowed them to develop along independent lines. 27

A second cause for isolation may be found in the undesirable economic character of the district considered from the mercantilist point of view. In the eighteenth century the ideal colony was one which produced raw material to be manufactured in the mother country, supplied food-stuffs which were not grown at home, or brought in bullion. In no way was this standard attained in the Delaware district. The products were virtually the same as those of England, so that instead of having an exchangeable commodity for British manufactures, the district was really

25 Root, The Relations of Pennsylvania with the British Government, 1696-1765, p. 49.

27 Penn Letter Book, Vol. IX, pp. 109, 241. Penn Manuscript, Vol. X, p. 192. C. O., 5:112, Letter from John Penn to Thomas Penn.

a competitor of Great Britain. This state of affairs hindered considerably any direct trade, such as existed between England and the southern colonies, or between England and the West Indies.

(2) Products and Industries

The Delaware district was primarily agricultural. The chief exports were provisions of various kinds and lumber. Of the provisions, the most important were wheat, flour and bread. 28 From the time of the earliest settlements it was realized that wheat could be produced more easily than any other product, and flour milling and bread baking became thriving industries. But the desire to produce something which could be exchanged directly with the mother-country led to experiments with other products, particularly tobacco, which yielded a large revenue to the government, and did not compete with the agricultural industries of England. For these reasons the tobacco colonies held a favoured position in the English colonial system. 29 In 1701, William Penn, who was anxious to encourage tobacco and rice as staples and to promote the cod fisheries and fur trade, wrote to the board of trade that, if such industries were not developed, his colonies would not be at all useful to the mother country. 30

For a time it seemed that tobacco would become the staple. The quality was very inferior to that produced in Virginia and Maryland, but it sold for a higher price, because there existed before the Act of Union a flourishing illegal trade between traders of this district and merchants in England who smuggled tobacco into Scotland. 31 "The great price which tobacco yields here," wrote Quary to the board of trade in 1700, "encourages the country to plant more than ever ; it hath been sold here this year

28 C. O., 5:1280, Aug. 10, 1765. Letter from H. S. Conway to Governor Penn, in which he explains the competition between England and the Delaware district.

29 C. O., 5:1289, pp. 2034. Little attention was paid to the fact that a great deal of the tobacco was re-exported to foreign countries, and that upon re-exportation all of the duties were drawn back. The main idea was to get the revenue regardless of subsequent drawbacks.

3x Beer, G. L., Mss. notes based on Colonial Papers.

for above thirty shillings per hogshead, which is more than the best Virginia and Maryland hath yielded, though the tobacco of this country is not half so good ; the reason is from the advantage of illegal trade here." 32

In the same letter Quary said that Pennsylvania had determined to plant tobacco in the three upper as well as in the three lower counties. 33 Before 1700, the amount produced was never more than 300 or 400 hogsheads, but in 1700 and 1701, it had increased to 3000 or 4000 hogsheads 34 and the production probably reached its height in 1705-1706, when John Evans, the deputygovernor, wrote that tobacco was of great importance to the people in general but especially to those of the lower counties. From this time there was a decrease in the production as is indicated by the custom house papers of Philadelphia, 1704-1713, which registered the amount of the penny a pound duty on exportation of tobacco from one colony to another. 35 The trade in tobacco was gradually superseded by trade in wheat, which was the more natural product of the province. Sir William Keith wrote, in 1722, that it was more profitable to grow wheat than tobacco, owing to the trade which had grown up with the other ports on the American continent, the West Indies and the southern ports of Europe. 36

As early as 1700, Robert Quary said that the people by their

C. O., 5 :390, June 1, 1724, Custom House, London. In 1722, there were 137,721 pounds of tobacco exported from Pennsylvania to England. The amount was small compared with that sent from Virginia — 28,313,336 pounds — and compared with the other exports from Pennsylvania.

The Custom House Papers of Philadelphia 1704-1713. Duty of penny a pound on exportation of tobacco from Philadelphia. [This duty was 1704-5 £825 18s. Id. levied on tobacco exported from colony to 1705-6 973 13 10 colony by parliament in the act 25 Chas.

II C 7 to ''prevent exportation of goods from colony to colony and so to foreign countries in Europe evading the English Customs." See Morriss — Colonial Trade of Maryland 1689-1715, p. 50 Col. S. P. A. W. I. 2306.] C. O., 5:1273, R 42. C. O., 5:1277, pp. 227-234.

1706-7

1707-8

1708-9

1709-10

1710-11

1711-12

250 Smith Coi^egs Studies in History

industry had greatly improved agriculture and had made bread and flour a drug on the market in the West Indies. 37 Colonel Thomas, in 1740, pointed out that the production of wheat was of great importance in that the proceeds of the large quantities which were exported from Philadelphia centered in Great Britain. 38 It was in time discovered, however, that the exportation of flour and bread was more profitable than that of wheat. In the latter part of the colonial period the trade statistics show that considerable quantities of wheat were imported into Philadelphia from the other colonies, although very little was exported. At the same time there was a large exportation of bread and flour. 39

Grist mills had existed in the district even before William Penn came to America. According to Bishop the first one was built on the Darby road, in 1643, by Colonel John Printz, the governor of New Sweden ; one was built in New Castle in 1658, and another at Trenton in 1680. Germantown possessed the first mill in Philadelphia County, but soon after the founding of Pennsylvania many mills were in operation throughout the district. The places where they were situated became markets for the grain of the surrounding country, and after the local demand was supplied the surplus was sent to Philadelphia for exportation. The flour and bread industry gradually developed until in time it exceeded all others. The following table will give some idea of its increasing importance : 40

Year Wheat (Bu.) Flour (Bbls.) Bread (Casks)

74,809

35,438

9,730

38,643

38,570

9,622

53,320

56,639

12,436

125,960

365,522

148,887

34,736

51,699

252,744

38,320

92,012

284,872

50,504

182,391

265,967

48,183

The years period when t he trade

38 Ibid.

39 Colonial Customs

(Record Office)

40 Bishop, J.

American Manufactures, 139-144.

and bread became noticeably more important. They were years of unusual harvests both in Europe and America. This worked a great hardship upon the wheat exporting provinces. It brought about a stagnation of currency in Pennsylvania, and threatened her prosperity. Governor Gordon, in his address to the assembly in 1731, pointed out that "all possible measures should be taken to recommend them to a greater degree abroad that they may find a readier sale." 41 He remarked further, "I have understood that, when this colony was young and had but little experience, it exceeded all its neighbors in the fineness of its flour and bread and goodness of its beer, which are the only produce of our grain ; the first two have greatly contributed to their improvement as well as the reputation of the province. And it will still become the legislature to continue their care and concern in a point of such consequence to the whole." 42

As the above indicates care was taken that the flour and bread which was exported should attain a high standard. It was enacted in 1700, "that all biscuits and flour made for transportation shall be well made and honestly and truly packed for the encouragement of our trade and credit : that those who purchase the same may not be cheated or defrauded. And all such persons that make flour or biscuits for transportation shall set their several brand marks on each cask before shipped, on the penalty of five shillings for every cask by them sold and unmarked as aforesaid. And if any bread or flour shall pass out of this province or territories falsely packed and the same happen to be returned, in all such cases the persons offending shall pay to the party wronged double damages for the same." 43

From time to time this act was renewed and additions were made to it. Each addition was more stringent, and was usually passed on the advice of the governor when he noticed a tendency

41 Pennsylvania Archives, 4th Series, Vol. I, 474.

42 Ibid.

43 Pennsylvania Statutes at Large, Vol. II, 96.

252 Smith Coixegs Studies in History

for the quality to deteriorate. 44 For example, Governor Gordon in addressing the assembly, on November 2, 1738, said : "The better your commodities exported from hence are, the better price they will fetch at markets abroad. Care too ought to be taken that the exporter is not deceived. . . . This consideration applied to your flour trade will induce you to take some further care of it; for though the laws you already have will be of great service if well executed, some further regulations seem necessary, particularly to prevent the mixture of different sorts of grain, which every man sees are now reaped in every field." 45

Similar care was taken in the preparation of other provisions which were exported from Philadelphia. 46 There was a flourishing export trade in cattle, and the packing of beef and pork to be used in the West Indies was very important. Hence we find numerous laws passed, demanding that these provisions be made merchantable and inflicting severe penalties on those who evaded them. Laws of this nature were very easily evaded, and were probably less effective than the force of competition.

Not a little profit was realized in the fur trade. The beaver trade was important in the Schuylkill valley before William Penn came, and skins of all kinds in fairly large quantities were exported from Philadelphia during the entire colonial period. In the opening years of the eighteenth century they formed with tobacco the chief articles of export. From Christmas, 1699, to Christmas 1700 the following were sent: 516 pounds of buck in hair, 326 pounds of cat, 1222 pounds of fox, 121 beaver skins, 4921 pounds of raccoon, together with some elk, bear and mink. 47 The table of exports from Philadelphia show that there were :

44 These renewals and additions were made on : May 22, 1722, Pennsylvania Statutes at Large, Vol. Ill, 321; August 18, 1727, Ibid., Vol.

IV, 73; January 19, 1733, Ibid., Vol. IV, 248; March 9, 1745, Ibid., Vol.

45 Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives of Pennsylvania, Vol. Ill, 324.

46 Pennsylvania Statutes at Large, Vol. II, 96; III, 22, 275; IV, 75; V, 97, 400.

47 Bean, T. W., History of Montgomery County, p. 120. C. O., 5 :1291, pp. 226-227.

Before 1759, the Indian trade in Pennsylvania, where the traders were very numerous and enterprising, 49 was practically unrestricted. Any one could engage in it upon obtaining a license from the governor. 50 After that time regulations were made because of the increasing difficulties with the Indians. This trade was" considered of such importance that in 1766 the establishment of a colony in the Illinois country was strongly urged. 51 Philadelphia was to be one of the chief places for importing British manufactures for the numerous Indian tribes which lived near the lakes and the different branches of the Mississippi.