Events of 1774—All Classes in the Colonies Discontented—All Classes and all the Provinces Reject the East India Company\'s Tea.
The year 1774 commenced, among other legacies of 1773, with that of the discontent of all the colonies,[325] their unanimous rejection of the East India tea, stamped with the threepenny duty of parliamentary tax, as the symbol of the absolutism of King and Parliament over the colonies. The manner of its rejection, by being thrown into the sea at Boston, was universally denounced by all parties in England. The accounts of all the proceedings in America against the admission of the East India tea to the colonial ports, were coloured by the mediums through which they were transmitted—the royal governors and their executive officers, who expected large advantages from being assigned and paid their salaries by the Crown, independent of the local Legislatures; and the consignees of the East India Company, who anticipated large profits from their monopoly of its sale. Opposition to the tea duty was represented as "rebellion"—the assertors of colonial freedom from imperial taxation without representation were designated "rebels" and "traitors," notwithstanding their professed loyalty[Pg 389] to the Throne and to the unity of the empire, and that their utmost wishes were limited to be replaced in the position they occupied after the peace of Paris, in 1763, and after their unanimous and admitted loyalty, and even heroism, in defence and support of British supremacy in America.
"Intelligence," says Dr. Holmes, "of the destruction of the tea at Boston was communicated on the 7th of March (1774), in a message from the Throne, to both Houses of Parliament. In this communication the conduct of the colonists was represented as not merely obstructing the commerce of Great Britain, but as subversive of the British Constitution. Although the papers accompanying the Royal message rendered it evident that the opposition to the sale of the tea was common to all the colonies; yet the Parliament, enraged at the violence of Boston, selected that town as the object of its legislative vengeance. Without giving the opportunity of a hearing, a Bill was passed by which the port of Boston was legally precluded from the privilege of landing and discharging, or of lading or shipping goods, wares, and merchandise; and every vessel within the points Aldeston and Nahant was required to depart within six hours, unless laden with food or fuel.
"This Act, which shut up the harbour of Boston, was speedily followed by another, entitled \'An Act for Better Regulating the Government of Massachusetts,\' which provided that the Council, heretofore elected by the General Assembly, was to be appointed by the Crown; the Royal Governor was invested with the power of appointing and removing all Judges of the Courts of Common Pleas, Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer, the Attorney-General, Provost-Marshal, Justices, Sheriffs, etc.; town meetings, which were sanctioned by the Charter, were, with few exceptions, expressly forbidden, without leave previously obtained of the Governor or Lieutenant-Governor, expressing the special business of said meeting, and with a further restriction that no matters should be treated of at these meetings except the electing of public officers and the business expressed in the Governor\'s permission; jurymen, who had been elected before by the freeholders and inhabitants of the several towns, were to be all summoned and returned by the sheriffs of the respective counties; the whole executive [Pg 390]government was taken out of the hands of the people, and the nomination of all important officers invested in the King or his Governor.
"In the apprehension that in the execution of these Acts riots would take place, and that trials or murders committed in suppressing them would be partially decided by the colonists, it was provided by another Act, that if any persons were indicted for murder, or any capital offence, committed in aiding the magistracy, the Governor might send the person so indicted to another county, or to Great Britain, to be tried.
"These three Acts were passed in such quick succession as to produce the most inflammatory effects in America, where they were considered as forming a complete system of tyranny. \'By the first,\' said the colonists, \'the property of unoffending thousands is arbitrarily taken away for the act of a few individuals; by the second, our chartered liberties are annihilated; and by the third, our lives may be destroyed with impunity.\'"[326]
The passing of these three Bills through Parliament was attended in each case with protracted and animated debates.
The first debate or discussion of American affairs took place on the 7th of March, in proposing an address of thanks to the King for the message and the communication of the American papers, with an assurance that the House would not fail to exert every means in their power of effectually providing for objects so important to the general welfare as maintaining the due execution of the laws, and for securing the just dependence of the colonies upon the Crown and Parliament of Great Britain.
In moving this address to pledge Parliament to the exertion of every means in its power, Mr. Rice said: "The question now brought to issue is, whether the colonies are or are not the colonies of Great Britain." Lord North said, "Nothing can be done to re-establish peace, without additional powers from Parliament." Nugent, now Lord Clare (who had advocated the Stamp Act, if the revenue from it should not exceed a peppercorn, as a symbol of parliamentary power), entreated that there might be no divided counsels. Dowdeswill said: "On the[Pg 391] repeal of the Stamp Act, all America was quiet; but in the following year you would go in pursuit of your peppercorn—you would collect from peppercorn to peppercorn—you would establish taxes as tests of obedience. Unravel the whole conduct of America; you will find out the fault is at home." Pownall, former Governor of Massachusetts and earnest advocate of American rights, said: "The dependence of the colonies is a part of the British Constitution. I hope, for the sake of this country, for the sake of America, for the sake of general liberty, that this address will pass with a unanimous vote." Colonel Barré even applauded the good temper with which the subject had been discussed, and refused to make any opposition. William Burke, brother of Edmund Burke, said: "I speak as an Englishman. We applaud ourselves for the struggles we have had for our constitution; the colonists are our fellow-subjects; they will not lose theirs without a struggle." Wedderburn, the Solicitor-General, who bore the principal part in the debate, said: "The leading question is the dependence or independence of America." The address was adopted without a division.[327]
On the 14th of March, Lord North explained at large his American policy, and opened the first part of his plan by asking leave to bring in a Bill for the instant punishment of Boston. He stated, says the Annual Register, "that the opposition to the authority of Parliament had always originated in the colony of Massachusetts, and that colony had been always instigated to such conduct by the irregular and seditious proceedings of the town of Boston; that, therefore, for the purpose of a[Pg 392] thorough reformation, it became necessary to begin with that town, which by a late unpardonable outrage had led the way to the destruction of the freedom of commerce in all parts of America: that if a severe and exemplary punishment were not inflicted on this heinous act, Great Britain would be wanting in the protection she owed to her most peaceable and meritorious subjects: that had such an insult been offered to British property in a foreign port, the nation would have been called upon to demand satisfaction for it.
"He would therefore propose that the town of Boston should be obliged to pay for the tea which had been destroyed in their port: that the injury was indeed offered by persons unknown and in disguise, but that the town magistracy had taken no notice of it, had never made any search for the offenders, and therefore, by a neglect of manifest duty, became accomplices in the guilt: that the fining of communities for their neglect in punishing offences committed within their limits was justified by several examples. In King Charles the Second\'s time, the city of London was fined when Dr. Lamb was killed by unknown persons. The city of Edinburgh was fined and otherwise punished for the affair of Captain Porteous. A part of the revenue of the town of Glasgow had been sequestered until satisfaction was made for the pulling down of Mr. Campbell\'s house. These examples were strong in point for such punishments. The case of Boston was far worse. It was not a single act of violence; it was a series of seditious practices of every kind, and carried on for several years.
"He was of opinion, therefore, that it would not be sufficient to punish the town of Boston by obliging her to make a pecuniary satisfaction for the injury which, by not endeavouring to prevent or punish, she has, in fact, encouraged; security must be given in future that trade may be safely carried on, property protected, laws obeyed, and duties regularly paid. Otherwise the punishment of a single illegal act is no reformation. It would be therefore proper to take away from Boston the privilege of a port until his Majesty should be satisfied in these particulars, and publicly declare in Council, on a proper certificate of the good behaviour of the town, that he was so satisfied. Until this should happen, the Custom-house officers, who were now not safe in Boston, or safe no longer than while they neglected[Pg 393] their duty, should be removed to Salem, where they might exercise their functions."[328]
The Bill passed the first reading without discussion. At the second reading, Mr. Byng alone voted no, though there was considerable discussion. "Mr. Bollan, the agent for the Council of Massachusetts Bay, presented a petition, desiring to be heard in behalf of said Council and other inhabitants of Boston; but the House refused to receive the petition."[329]
At the third reading, the Lord Mayor of London presented a petition in behalf of several natives and inhabitants of North America then in London. "It was drawn," says the Annual Register, "with remarkable ability." The petitioners alleged that "the proceedings were repugnant to every principle of law[Pg 394] and justice, and under such a precedent no man in America could enjoy a moment\'s security; for if judgment be immediately to follow on accusation against the people of America, supported by persons notoriously at enmity with them, the accused unacquainted with the charges, and from the nature of their situation utterly incapable of answering and defending themselves, every fence against false accusation will be pulled down.
"They asserted that law is executed with as much impartiality in America as in any part of his Majesty\'s dominions. They appealed for proof of this to the fair trial and favourable verdict in the case of Captain Preston and his soldiers.
"That in such a case the interposition of parliamentary power was full of danger and without precedent. The persons committing the injury were unknown. If discovered, the law ought first to be tried. If unknown, what rule of justice can punish the town for a civil injury committed by persons not known to them?
"That the instances of the cities of London, Edinburgh, and Glasgow were wholly dissimilar. All these towns were regularly heard in their own defence. Their magistrates were of their own choosing (which was not the case of Boston), and therefore they were more equitably responsible. But in Boston the King\'s Governor has the power, and had been advised by his Council to exert it; if it has been neglected, he alone is answerable."[330] In conclusion, the petitioners strongly insisted on the injustice of the Act, and its tendency to alienate the affections of America from the mother country.
The petition was received, but no particular proceedings took place upon it.
The Bill passed the House on the 25th of March, and was carried up to the Lords, where it was likewise warmly debated; but, as in the Commons, without a division. It received the Royal assent on the 31st of March.[331]
[Pg 395]
Dr. Ramsay remarks: "By the operation of the Boston Port Act, the preceding situation of its inhabitants and that of the East India Company was reversed. The former had more reason to complain of the disproportionate penalty to which they were indiscriminately subjected, than the latter of that outrage on their property, for which punishment had been inflicted. Hitherto the East India Company were the injured party; but from the passing of this Act the balance of injury was on the opposite side. If wrongs received entitled the former to reparation, the latter had a much stronger title on the same ground. For the act of seventeen or eighteen individuals, as many thousands were involved in one general calamity."[332]
[Pg 396]
Shortly after the passing of the Boston Port Bill, the second Bill was brought into Parliament, entitled "An Act for the Better Regulating of the Government of the Province of Massachusetts Bay." This Bill was brought in on the 28th of March, three days before the Royal assent was given to the Boston Port Bill. As the town of Boston had received no notice of the Bill which closed its port, and had therefore no opportunity to vindicate its conduct or rights; so the Province received no notice of the Bill which changed its system of government, which abrogated so much of its Charter as gave to its Legislative Assembly the choice of the Council; abolished town meetings, except for the choice of town officers, or on the special permission of the Governor, which gave to the Crown the appointment and removal of the sheriffs, and to the sheriffs the selection of the juries, which had hitherto been elected by the people. After an animated debate, led by Dunning in opposition, the Bill passed the Commons by a vote of more than three to one.
The third penal Bill brought in and passed was said to have been specially recommended by the King himself. It authorized, at the discretion of the Governor, the removal for trial to Nova Scotia or Great Britain of all magistrates, revenue officers, or soldiers indicted for murder or other capital offence. Mr. Bancroft says: "As Lord North brought forward this wholesale Bill of indemnity to the Governor and soldiers, if they should trample upon the people of Boston and be charged with murder, it was noticed that he trembled and faltered at every word; showing that he was the vassal of a stronger will than his own, and vainly struggled to wrestle down the feelings which his nature refused to disavow."[333]
Colonel Barré, who had supported the Boston Port Bill, said: "I execrate the present measure; you have had one meeting of[Pg 397] the colonies in Congress. You may soon have another. The Americans will not abandon their principles; for if they submit they are slaves." The Bill passed the Commons by a vote of more than four to one.
The fourth Bill legalized the quartering of troops within the town of Boston.
The question now arises, What were the effects of these measures upon the colonies? We answer, the effects of these measures were the very reverse of what had been anticipated and predicted by their advocates in England, both in and out of Parliament. The general expectation in England was that they would not be resisted in America; that Boston and Massachusetts would submit; that if they should not submit, they would be isolated from the other provinces, who would not identify themselves with or countenance the extreme proceedings of Boston and of Massachusetts. These measures had been adopted by the Government and Parliament of Great Britain in the months of March and April, and were to take effect the 1st of June. In the two following months of May and June, America spoke, and twelve colonies out of thirteen (Georgia alone excepted) protested against the measures of the British Parliament, and expressed their sympathy with Boston and Massachusetts. Boston itself spoke first, and instead of submitting, as had been predicted by Lords Mansfield and others, held a town meeting as soon as they received intelligence of the passing of the Boston Port Bill, at which resolutions were passed expressing their opinion of the impolicy, injustice, inhumanity and cruelty of this Act, from which they appealed to God and to the world; also inviting other colonies to join with them in an agreement to stop all imports and exports to and from Great Britain and Ireland and the West Indies until the Act should be repealed.[334]
[Pg 398]
Mr. Bancroft, remarks:
"The merchants of Newburyport were the first who agreed to suspend all commerce with Britain and Ireland. Salem, also, the place marked out as the new seat of government, in a very full town meeting, and after unimpassioned debates, decided almost unanimously to stop trade, not with Britain only, but even with the West Indies. If in Boston a few cravens proposed to purchase a relaxation of the blockade by quailing before power, the majority were beset by no temptation so strong as that of routing at once the insignificant number of troops who had come to overawe them. But Samuel Adams, while he compared their spirit to that of Sparta or Rome, was ever inculcating patience as the characteristic of a true patriot; and the people having sent forth their cry to the continent, waited self-possessed for voices of consolation."[335]
[Pg 399]
In the meantime, according to the provisions of the Char............