Arthur Lee’s Warning

Even though American colonists protested the Stamp Act, the Declaratory Act, the Townshend Acts, the Boston Massacre and the Septennial Act, nothing pushed the colonies’ relationship with Britain to the point of no return more than the Boston Tea Party. It was premeditated, it destroyed private property, it violated the Tea Act, and customs officials were intimidated into moving to Castle Island.[1] Unknown at the time, the destruction of tea on the evening of December 16, 1773, began something that now could not be stopped.

Arthur Lee, born December 20, 1740, was the youngest son of Thomas and Hannah Lee. At the time, the Lee family was one of the wealthiest families in Virginia. Arthur had three brothers, Richard Henry Lee, Francis ‘Lightfoot’ Lee and William Lee. The first two men would serve in the Virginia House of Burgesses and the Continental Congress and the third would serve as the Commissioner to the Court of Frederick the Great during the war. Arthur, however, had the broadest background. All of his education took place in Britain. When he was young, his father sent him to Eton College in England.[2] As soon as he completed his studies at Eton, his father enrolled him at the University of Edinburgh where in 1764 he graduated with a degree in medicine. Lee then returned to Virginia and opened a practice. After two years he lost interest in medicine. In 1766, he returned to London and began to study law at the Middle Temple. In 1770, he graduated with a degree in law and opened a practice for the next six years. In the same year, he was appointed Benjamin Franklin’s backup agent for the Colony of Massachusetts to the merchants of London and Parliament. During his ten years (1766-1775) in London, he became acquainted with a number of influential men in politics and commerce.

Many of his letters home were addressed either to his brothers or, surprisingly, to Samuel Adams; between December 1770 and July 1775 Lee and Adams exchanged fifty letters.[3] In his correspondence Lee showed his knowledge of what was occurring in the colonies as well as in Parliament, offered suggestions as to how to write any further appeals or remonstrances to Parliament or the King, and identified who in the Privy Council and Parliament could be trusted. What follows are two letters, the first addressed to Samuel Adams and the second most likely to Richard Henry Lee:

London, February 8, 1774
Dear Sir, I informed you in my last of the insolent abuse which the solicitor-general, Mr. Wedderburne, poured forth against Dr. Franklin before the privy-council, at the hearing of your petition.[4] Dr. Franklin bore it all with a firmness and equanimity which conscious integrity alone can inspire. The insult was offered to the people through their agent; and the indecent countenance given to the scurrilous solicitor by the members of the privy council, was at once a proof of the meanness and malignity of their resentment . . . .
I mentioned that they threatened to take away Dr. Franklin’s place. That threat they have now executed. The same cause which renders him obnoxious to them, must endear him to you. Among other means of turning their wickedness to their own confusion and loss, this of the post-office is not the least desirable, or most difficult . . . .
The present time is extremely critical with respect to the measures which this country will adopt relative to America. From the prevailing temper here, I think you ought to be prepared for the worst. It seems highly probable that an act of parliament will pass this session, enabling his majesty to appoint his council in your province. On Tuesday last the Earl of Buckinghamshire made a motion in the house of lords for an address to the king, to lay before them the communications from Gov. Hutchinson to the secretary of state.[5] He prefaced his motion with declaring, that these papers were to be required merely out of form; for that the insolent and outrageous conduct of that province was so notorious, that the house might well proceed to punishment without any farther information or enquiry. That it was no longer a question whether this country should make laws for America, but whether she should bear all manner of insults and receive laws from her colonies … One can hardly conceive a man’s uttering such an absurd rhapsody even in the delirium of a dream, much less in a deliberate, premeditated speech, and upon the most important question to this country that can ever come before the legislature. He was answered by the Earl of Stair, who said it could be consistent neither with humanity, justice, nor policy, to adopt the noble lord’s ideas against America. Lord Dartmouth then begged the motion might be withdrawn, not, as he said, from any desire to throw cold water on the noble lord’s zeal, but because the despatches were not yet arrived, and they would be laid before the house in due time. The motion was withdrawn . . . .
By very late letters from New-York we understand that it is settled to return the tea, as at Philadelphia; and that the governor will not interfere. This completes the history of that unfortunate adventure; but it leaves Boston singled out as the place where the most violence has been offered to it. Your enemies here will not fail to take advantage of it, and Mr. Hutchinson’s representations I presume will not soften the matter. They will shut their eyes to what is obvious, that his refusal to let it repass the fort compelled you to that extremity. Be prepared therefore to meet some particular stroke of revenge during this session of parliament; and instead of thinking to prevent it, contrive the means of frustrating its effect. I have already mentioned the alterations of your charter relative to the election of the council; but I am in hopes true patriotism is too prevalent and deep-rooted among you, to suffer them to find twelve men even upon the new establishment abandoned enough to betray their country.[6]