A petition for a town meeting was at once presented to the selectmen, representing that the teas were shortly expected, and that it was apprehended that the consignees might now be sufficiently informed on the terms of its consignment, to be able to give their promised answer to the town. A meeting was therefore appointed for the next day.
John Hancock was the moderator of the last town meeting, in which public sentiment was legally brought to bear upon the consignees. It was held on the 18th. The meeting was quiet and orderly, and its business was speedily transacted.
A committee was appointed to wait on the consignees for a final answer to the request of the town, that they resign their appointment. This was their reply:
"Boston, November 18, 1773.
Sir,—In answer to the message we have this day received from the town, we beg leave to say that we have not yet received any order from the East India Company respecting the expected teas, but we are now further acquainted that our friends in England have entered into general engagements in our behalf, merely of a commercial nature, which puts it out of our power to comply with the request of the town.
We are, sir, your most humble servants,
Richard Clarke & Sons,
Benj. Faneuil, Jr., for self and
Joshua Winslow, Esq.,
Elisha Hutchinson, for my
Brother and self."
Immediately on receiving this answer, the meeting, without vote or comment, dissolved. "This sudden dissolution struck more terror into the consignees," says Hutchinson, "than the most minatory resolves;" and but for his efforts, they would have followed the example of those of Philadelphia, who had resigned six weeks before.
Next day (November 19), the consignees, in a petition to the governor and council, asked leave to resign themselves, and the property committed to their care, to his Excellency and their Honors, as guardians and protectors of the people, and that means might be devised for the landing and securing the teas, until the petitioners could safely dispose of them, or could receive directions from their constituents. Their action was the cause of much comment in the newspapers, and debate in the council. It was urged in opposition to the scheme, that it was no part of the legitimate functions of this body to act as trustees and storekeepers for certain factors of the East India Company.
In a letter to a friend, dated November 24, Hutchinson thus expresses his views of the situation. He says: