This bill encountered more opposition than that of the Boston Port Bill, and it was considerably altered in committee. As it stood when presented anew, after the Easter recess, the council of Massachusets Bay was placed on the same footing as the councils of other colonies: the nomination was vested in the crown., and they were to have no negative voice, or power to appoint, as hitherto, the judicial officers of the province. Moreover, the mode of choosing juries was altered, and the continual assemblies and town-meetings held in Boston were not to be convened without the consent of the governor, unless for the annual election of certain officers. The bill, as altered, however, encountered much opposition. In support of it Mr. Welbore Ellis asserted that it was the duty of the legislature to alter or take away charters, if they were abused, or found deficient; and he was supported in these views by Mr. Charles Jenkinson and Mr. Dyson, who argued that in this case the house proceeded, not in its judicial, but in its legislative capacity, regulating and supplying deficiencies in charters granted by the crown. The opposition took a different view of the measure, denouncing it as arbitrary and likely to lead to permanent evils. Thus General Conway could see nothing but increased exasperation, misfortune, and ruin from the adoption of such measures; and he, with other members, asked for more time, and demanded that the province should be heard before an act was passed which would deprive its people of their chartered rights. The opposition, also, argued, that the Bostonians and their neighbours had flourished for nearly fourscore years under their democratic charter, and that, therefore, they ought not now to be deprived of it. Some even asked what crime and errors the New Englanders had really been guilty of, as though they had never heard of the outrages which had been committed. In reply to this latter question, Lord North said, with more than his usual warmth, “I will tell you what the Americans have done: they have tarred and feathered the officers and subjects of Great Britain; they have plundered our merchants, burnt our ships, denied all obedience to our laws and authority! Our conduct has been clement and forbearing, but now it is incumbent to take a different course. Whatever may be the consequence, we must risk something, or all is over.” To adopt such a measure as this, however, was clearly risking too much. Governor Pownall, who said that he spoke for the last time on the subject, warned ministers of the more than probable consequences of it, in these terms:—“The measure which you are pursuing will be resisted, not by force or the effect of arms, but by a regular united system. I told this house, four years ago, that the people of America would resist the tax then permitted to remain on them—that they would not oppose power to power, But would become implacable. Have they not been so from that time to this very hour? I tell you again, that they will resist the measures now pursued in a more vigorous way. Committees of correspondence in the different provinces are in constant communication: they do not trust in the conveyance of the post-office; they have set up a constitutional courier, which will quickly grow up to the superseding of your post-office. As soon as intelligence of these affairs reaches them, they will judge it necessary to communicate with each other: it will be found inconvenient and ineffectual to do so by letters. They must confer; they will hold a conference; and to what these committees, thus met in congress, will grow up, I will not say. Should recourse be had to arms, you will hear of other officers than those appointed by your governor Then, as in the late civil wars of this country, it will be of little consequence to dispute who were the aggressors.” Sir Richard Sutton spoke in a similar strain; asserting, that though it was not confessed, the Americans were aiming at total independence, and would never again submit quietly to English laws and regulations of trade.
This debate took place on the second reading of the bill. The third reading occurred on the 2nd of May, when Sir William Meredith insisted that the parliament of Great Britain had an indisputable right to lay duties upon the Americans, and to tax them externally. Mr. Thomas Townshend, also, though equally warm as Sir William Meredith in opposition to ministers on general points, gave this measure his decided support. Though averse to meddling with charters, he said, the evils of town-meetings justified interference, and that the institution of juries was properly altered according to the forms of the mother country. Thurlow, the attorney-general, and Lord North spoke in favour of the bill, likewise, on this occasion, the latter expressing a hope that good consequences might arise from its adoption. It was opposed by Mr. Burke, Mr. Charles Fox, and Colonel Barré, the latter of whom reprobated the violence of both houses. “In the lords,” said he, “the phrase is, ‘We have passed the Rubicon!’—in the commons, ‘Delenda est Carthago!’” But opposition was of no avail. The bill was carried by an overwhelming majority in the lower house; and when it was taken into the upper house, though it was severely criticised, opposed, and denounced by a few lords, most of the peers were in its favour, and it passed into a law.
In order to qualify the severity of the bill for regulating the government of Massachusets, Mr. Rose Fuller, on the 19th of April, moved that the house should, that day se’nnight, resolve itself into a committee for taking into consideration the question of a total repeal of the tea duty. This was opposed by Lord North, who contended that no acts of lenity ought to attend their restrictive measures. He argued, that to repeal at this time would show such wavering and inconsistent policy as would defeat the good effects of that vigorous system which had been too long delayed, and which was now adopted. The expediency of the repeal, however, was ably advocated by Mr. Burke. He contended, that from the period of the repeal of the Stamp Act, the practical right of taxing America ought to have been for ever banished from the minds of all statesmen; and he severely exposed the absurdity of continuing a tax merely for the sake of a preamble to an act of parliament, when five-sixths of the revenue intended to be raised by it had been abandoned. Burke then gave a concise detail of our ministerial and political transactions with America; after which he recommended the repeal of this impost as a measure of policy, and advised the house, if they found any ill effects arising from this concession, then at once to stop short, and to oppose the ancient policy and practice of the empire to innovations on both sides. This, he said, would enable them to stand on great, manly, and sure grounds. As for the distinctions of rights he deprecated all reasonings about them. “Leave the Americans,” he observed, “as they anciently stood; and these distinctions, born of our unhappy contest, will die with it. Be content to bind America by laws of trade. You have always done so; and let this be your reason for continuing to do it. Do not burden them with taxes; for you were not used to do so from the beginning. These are arguments for states and kingdoms: leave the rest to the schools where alone they can be discussed with safety.” The rejection of this advice, he said, would be followed by resistance on the part of the colonies; for if the sovereignty of England and the freedom of America could not be reconciled, the Americans would be sure to cast off sovereignty: no man would be argued into slavery. The opinions which Burke uttered on this occasion were at variance with those expressed on the passing of the Declaratory Act, and with the act itself. He attempted to reconcile them, however, by the nice distinction of a double power in parliament. He remarked:—“The parliament of Great Britain sits at the head of her extensive empire in two capacities—one as the local legislature of this island, with the executive power as her instrument of action; the other and nobler capacity is what I call her imperial character, by which she guides and controls all the inferior and provincial legislatures.” In this, he maintained, her power was boundless; and having entered at large on its utility, and the manner in which it had been exercised, he thus concluded:—“It is agreed that a revenue is not to be had from America: if, then, we lose the profit, let us at least get rid of the odium.” No arguments, however powerful, were of avail—the motion was negatived.
A third measure of restriction introduced into the commons by ministers was “A Bill for the impartial Administration of Justice in the Cases of Persons questioned for any Acts done by them in the Execution of the Laws, as for the Suppression of Riots and Tumults in the Province of Massachusets Bay, in New England.” By this bill the governor, if he found that a person indicted for murder, or any other capital offence, incurred in suppressing such tumults, was not likely to obtain an impartial trial, might send the person so indicted to another colony or to Great Britain, to be fairly tried there. This bill was to be limited to four years, and in support of it Lord North argued, that it was absolutely necessary to give effect to the other coercive measures; that it was in vain to appoint a magistracy that would act if none could be found bold enough to act with them and execute their orders; that these orders would probably be resisted by force; and this force would necessitate force on the side of government, and probably occasion the shedding of blood. He asked, what officers would risk this event if the rioters themselves, or their abettors, were afterwards to sit as their judges? And he alleged, that a precedent was to be found in our own laws, in the case of smuggling, it being customary to remove the trial of smugglers to another county: the Scotch rebels were also, he said, in 1745, tried in England. North next urged, that particular privileges ought to give way on some occasions, and that when the public safety of our own country was endangered even the Habeas Corpus had been suspended. The bill, he remarked, was not meant to screen guilt, but to protect innocence. The Americans, he said, must be taught that we will no longer sit quietly under their insults; and that, being roused, our measures, though free from cruelty and revenge, would be as efficacious as they were necessary. This was the last act, he stated, that he had to propose in order to perfect his plan, and that the rest would depend on the vigilance of his majesty’s servants employed in America. In conclusion, he mentioned that four regiments, usually stationed in different parts of North America, had all been ordered to Boston; and that General Gage was appointed governor and commander-in-chief.
This measure was opposed with greater vehemence and better arguments than those which had preceded it. Colonel Barré, who had given a partial support to the Boston Port Bill, denounced it as unprecedented, unwarranted, and as fraught with misery and oppression to America, and with danger to this country. It stigmatised a whole people, he remarked, as persecutors of innocence, and as men incapable of doing justice, whereas the very reverse was the fact. As a proof of the impartiality of Bostonian courts and juries, he instanced the acquittal of Captain Preston and the soldiers who had killed some persons in a riot; and he denied that the instances of trials for smuggling and for treason, adduced by Lord North, were at all applicable to the present case. He asked, what reliance the Americans could have on the impartiality of juries in other provinces, or in England, and dwelt with great force on the danger of screening the soldiery, whose passions were already inflamed against the people of Massachusets Bay. “A soldier,” he observed, “feels himself so much above the rest of mankind, that the strict hand of the civil power is necessary to check and restrain the haughtiness of disposition which such superiority inspires. What constant care is taken in this country to remind the military that they are under the restraint of civil power! In America their superiority is felt still more. Remove the check of the law, as this bill proposes, and what insolence, what outrage, may you not expect! Every passion that is pernicious to society will be let loose on a people unaccustomed to licentiousness and intemperance. The colonists, who have been long complaining of oppression, will see in the soldiery those who are to enforce it on them; while the military, strongly prepossessed against the people as rebellious, unawed by the civil power, and actuated by that arbitrary spirit which prevails in the best troops, will commit violences that might rouse the tamest people to resistance, and which the vigilance of their officers cannot effectually restrain. The inevitable consequences will be open rebellion, which you profess by this act to obviate. I have been bred a soldier; I have served long; I respect the profession, and live in the strictest habits of friendship with many officers; but no country gentleman in this house looks on the army with a more jealous eye, or would more strenuously resist the setting them above the control of civil power. No man is to be trusted in such a situation. It is not the fault of the soldier, but the vice of human nature, which, unbridled by law, becomes insolent and licentious, wantonly violating the peace of society, and trampling upon the rights of human kind.” In conclusion, Barré warned ministers of the results of their restrictive measures; entreating them, likewise, not to urge them on to rebellion. In the course of his speech Lord North had said that he had had the advantage of being aided by the ablest lawyers; and when Colonel Barré had concluded his harangue Mr. Wedderburne, the solicitor-general, arose, and explained and defended the principles of the bill, which, he observed, was limited as to time, and intended solely to procure a fair trial for the imputed offences of all who might be concerned or engaged to act under government.
The motion for leave to bring in this bill was passed without a division, and it was introduced on the 21st of April, on which occasion another stormy debate occurred. Alderman Sawbridge contended, that it was a ridiculous and cruel measure—a measure designed to enslave the Americans, by a minister who would, if opportunity was afforded him, enslave England. He added:—“But I sincerely hope the Americans will not admit of the execution of any of those destructive bills, but nobly refuse them all. If they do not, they are the most abject slaves upon the face of the earth, and nothing which the minister can do is base enough for them.” Lord North, in reply, calmly disclaimed any intention of enslaving America, and declared that the assertion was about as true as another report, circulated in some quarters, which stated that the colonists had seen their error, and were willing to make reparation to the East India Company for the tea they had destroyed. Instead of making reparation, he added, letters had been recently received which conveyed intelligence of renewed acts of violence. In the course of the debate one member 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 it, are misled. But a short time will prove the evil tendency of this bill. If ever there was a nation running headlong to its ruin it is this.” The people were, in fact, as violently excited against the Americans, and the Bostonians in particular, as the ministers themselves, which doubtless had the effect of encouraging them in their measures. As a dissolution of parliament was near at hand, this may have caused the absence of many members; for it is a remarkable circumstance, that during the debates on these momentous questions there never was a full house. On the third reading, indeed, only one hundred and fifty-one members were present—one hundred and twenty-seven out of which number voted for the measure.
In the house of lords the bill was opposed in the same manner, and to a similar degree as in the commons. One of the most striking arguments against the measure was uttered by the Marquess of Rockingham. After reviewing ministerial transactions relative to America, since the repeal of the Stamp Act, and denouncing the tea duty as an uncommercial and unproductive claim, retained only as a bone of contention, he remarked:—“If officers were men of honour and sensibility, their situation would be worse under the protection of such a law than without it, as no acquittal could be honourable where the prosecutor had not the usual means of securing a fair trial.” The bill, however, passed by a large majority—eight peers signing a strong protest against it, in which it was designated as “a virtual indemnity for murder.”
During these debates the Earl of Chatham had been absent from indisposition. An opportunity, however, was afforded him of uttering his sentiments concerning the measure adopted towards America, on the 27th of May, in a discussion on a bill “for the quartering and better regulating the troops in the colonies.” He had long been complaining of the gout and other infirmities; but on this night, which was the third reading of the bill, he made a very long speech. He commenced by asserting, that the whole history of the Americans, their descent, and the character and disposition which they inherited from their English ancestors, all forbade the thought that they would ever submit to slavish and tyrannical principles; for as was the mother, so were her offspring. He admitted that the conduct of the Americans, and especially the Bostonians, was unwarrantable; but he denied that the means adopted to bring them back to a sense of their duty were either wise or just. Against the blocking up the harbour of Boston he inveighed most bitterly, assuming in the face of all fact, that it was “some guilty profligates” who had been concerned in destroying our goods, and not the main body of the people. He assumed, also, what was notoriously untrue, that the colonies had no thought of prosecuting the quarrel; asserting, that their gratitude was full to overflowing for the repeal of the Stamp Act, and that it was the tea tax alone which had goaded them on to insubordination and rebellion. Forgetting, moreover, that his own Declaratory Act had inflamed the passions of the colonists after the repeal of the Stamp Act, he charged ministers with having purposely irritated them into their late outrages. Finally, although it is clear that Chatham, as a minister, would never have granted the objects which the American leaders required of the government, he recommended the substitution of kindness for severity. He remarked:—“Proceed like a kind and affectionate parent towards a child whom he tenderly loves; and, instead of these harsh and severe proceedings, pass an amnesty on all their youthful errors; clasp them once more in your fond and affectionate arms, and I will venture to affirm that you will find them children worthy of their sire. But should their turbulence exist after your proffered terms of forgiveness, I, my lords, will be among the foremost to move for such measures as will effectually prevent a relapse, and make them feel what it is to provoke a fond and forgiving parent.” It is manifest, however, that the children had already resolved to run all risks in discarding allegiance to their parent, and that they could never be bound to their duty by the law of kindness. So the majority of the peers whom Chatham addressed seemed to think, for the bill he was opposing passed.