ishing the innocent with the guilty. "It is wished, then," he said, "to condemn the accused without a hearing, to punish indiscriminately the innocent with the guilty! You will thus irrevocably alienate the hearts of the colonies from the mother country. Before the adoption of so violent a measure, the principal merchants of the kingdom should at least be consulted. The bill is unjust, since it bears only upon the city of Boston, while it is notorious that all America is in flames; that the cities of Philadelphia, of New York, and all the maritime towns of the continent, have exhibited the same disobedience. You are contending for a matter which the Bostonians will not give up quietly. They can not, by such means, be made to bow to the authority of ministers; on the contrary, you will find their obstinacy confirmed and their fury exasperated. The acts of resistance in their city have not been confined to the populace alone, but men of the first rank and opulent fortune in the place have openly countenanced them. One city in proscription and the rest in rebellion can never be a remedial measure for general disturbances. Have you considered whether you have troops and ships sufficient to reduce the people of the whole American continent to your devotion? It was the duty of your governor, and not of men without arms, to suppress the tumults. If this officer has not demanded the proper assistance from the military commanders, why punish the innocent for the fault and the negligence of the officers of the crown? The resistance is general in all parts of America; you must, therefore, let it govern itself by its own internal policy, or make it subservient to all your laws, by an exertion of all the forces of the kingdom. These partial counsels are well suited to irritate, not subjugate." Pownall, Johnstone (late Governor of Florida), Dodsworth, Fox, and others followed Burke on the same side, but argument was of no avail. Without a division, the bill passed by an almost unanimous vote, and on the 31st of March it became a law by the royal assent.
Other oppressive Acts of Parliament—Madness of Ministers.—Warnings of the Opposition unheeded.—The "Quebec Act"
Another bill soon followed, "for better regulating the government of Massachusetts Bay." It was tantamount to an abrogation of the charter of that colony. It gave to the crown the appointment of counselors and judges of the Supreme Court, and the nomination of all other officers, military, executive, and judicial, was given to the governors, independently of any approval by the Council. The sheriffs were empowered to select jurors, a duty before performed by the select-men of the towns. All town meetings, except for elections, were prohibited. This bill, so manifestly hostile to the freedom of British subjects, elicited a warm debate, and Burke and Barré opposed it with all their might. "What can the Americans believe," said Burke, "but that England wishes to despoil them of all liberty, of all franchise, and, by the destruction of their charters, to reduce them to a state of the most abject slavery?.... As the Americans are no less ardently attached to liberty than the English themselves, can it ever be hoped that they will submit to such exorbitant usurpation, to such portentous resolutions?" Pownall warned ministers to pause. He alluded to that powerful engine, the Committees of Correspondence, then unceasingly working in the colonies, and assured ministers that their harsh measure would drive the people to the calling of a general Congress, and perhaps a resort to arms. All opposition was fruitless, and the bill passed the House by the overwhelming majority of two hundred and thirty-nine against sixty-four. Lord Shelburne and others vehemently denounced it in the Upper House, and eleven peers signed a protest in seven long articles.
North had begun to work the lever of oppression so forcibly that it seemed not easy for him to desist. A third bill was introduced, intended to protect the servants of royApril 21, 1774alty in America against the verdicts of colonial juries. It provided for the trial in England of all persons charged in the colonies with murders committed in support of government. It was suggested by a retrospect of the "Boston massacre," and was a most unjust and insulting comment upon the verdict in favor of Captain Preston and his soldiers. It was more—it guarantied comparative safety to those who might shoot a rebel in the name of the king. This measure was bitterly denounced by the opposition leaders. "This," said Colonel Barré, "is, indeed, the most extraordinary resolution ever heard in the Parliament of England. It offers new encouragement to military insolence, already so insupportable.... By this law Americans are deprived of a right which belongs to every human creature—that of demanding justice before a tribunal of impartial judges. Even Captain Preston, who, in their own city of Boston, had shed the blood of citizens, found among them a fair trial and equitable judges." Alderman Sawbridge was more bold and recriminating in his denunciations of the measure. He called it "ridiculous and cruel asserted that it was meant to enslave the Americans, and expressed an ardent hope that they would not admit the execution of any of these destructive bills, but nobly refuse them all. "If they do not," he said, "they are the most abject slaves upon earth, and nothing the ministers can do is base enough for them." Again remonstrance was vain, and the bill passed the House by a majority of one hundred and twenty-seven to forty-four; in the Lords, by forty-nine to twelve. Eight peers entered a strong protest against it. It became a law by royal assent on the 20 th of May.
A fourth bill, for quartering troops in America, was also brought in, and took the course of others. Rose Fuller, who generally supported ministers, attempted to break the severity of the several enactments, and produce a reconciliation with the colonics, by proposing a repeal of the act imposing the duty on tea. His proposition was negatived by a large majority. On the annunciation of the result, Mr. Fuller uttered these remarkable words: "I will now take my leave of the whole plan; you will commence your ruin from this day! I am sorry to say that not only the House has fallen into this error, but the people approve of the measure. The people, I am sorry to say, are misled. But a short time will prove the evil tendency of this bill. If ever there was a nation rushing headlong to ruin, it is this."
Evidently anticipating rebellion in America, and distrustful of the loyalty of the newly-acquired colony of Quebec, or Canada, a fifth act was brought forward by ministers, making great concessions to the Roman Catholic population of that province. This law, known as
Proceedings in Massachusetts on Account of the Port Bill.—Recall of Hutchinson.—Division of Sentiment. Quebec Act
the Quebec Act, has already been noticed in detail on pages 156—7. * Let us now turn our eyes back to the colonies, and observe the spirit of the people of Boston on hearing of the plans maturing for their enslavement and ruin.
Intelligence of the passage of the Boston Port Bill reached Massachusetts in May. May 13 Already the Assembly had taken high, but correct ground on the subject of the salaries of crown officers in the colonies. In January that body resolved that it was incumbent upon the judges to determine at once whether they would receive their salaries direct from the crown, or depend therefor upon the votes of the Assembly. Chief-justice Oliver was questioned upon this point, and replied that he should hereafter look to the crown for the emoluments of office. The Assembly then resolved, by a majority of sixty-nine to nine, "That Peter Oliver hath, by his conduct, proved himself an enemy to the Constitution of the province, and is become greatly obnoxious to the good people of it; that he ought to be removed from the office of chief justice; and that a remonstrance and petition to the governor and Council, for his immediate removal, be prepared." They also resolved to impeach the chief justice. The governor not only refused to remove him, but declared the acts of the Assembly unconstitutional. **
Fortunately for Hutchinson's personal safety, but much to his chagrin, his recall accompanied the Port Bill, and General Gage was appointed his successor. Thus far, in all matters relative to the agitations in the colonies, Gage had behaved so discreetly that he enjoyed a considerable share of public confidence and esteem, and in proportion as the people of Boston detested Hutchinson they were disposed to respect the new governor. Hutchinson, deprived of the shield of delegated power, so much feared the resentment of the Boston populace, that he retired to his country house at Milton, where he remained in seclusion until a June l, 1774 favorable opportunity offered for him to leave the province. It is an erroneous belief that the people were unanimous in opposition to government and in support of republican views. For a while, when the issue came, the parties were very nearly balanced in Boston; and during the whole time of its occupancy by the British troops, until the evacuation in 1776, a large portion of the inhabitants were loyal. Before Hutchinson departed, one hundred and twenty merchants of Boston, and many lawyers, magistrates, and principal gentlemen of that town, and Salem, and Marblehead, signed an address to him, in which they expressed entire approbation of his public conduct, and affectionate wishes for his prosperity. These "addressors" were afterward obliged to recant. Some who would not left the province, and were the earliest of the refugee Loyalists.