The First and Second Readings of the Boston Port Bill

There are seven parts in the process to approve a bill in England: the first debate and reading, the second debate and reading, the committee stage, the report stage, the third debate and reading, the agreement between both Houses to the same bill, and the royal assent. This article is about the first three stages of the Boston Port Bill.

On March 7, 1774 Lord North, the Prime Minister, read a message from King George III to the members of the House of Commons. The heart of his message was,

His Majesty, upon Information of the unwarrantable Practices which have lately been concerted and carried on in North America; and particularly of the violent and outrageous Proceedings at the Town and Port of Boston . . . with a View of obstructing the Commerce of this Kingdom, fully confiding . . . hath thought fit to lay the whole Matter before His Two Houses of Parliament . . . that they will not only enable his Majesty, effectually, to take Measures, as may be most likely to put an immediate Stop to the present Disorders, but will also take into their . . . Consideration what farther Regulations and Permanent Provisions may be necessary to be established for the better securing the execution of the Laws, and the just Dependence of the Colonies upon the Crown and Parliament[1]

Immediately afterwards, he laid out all of the papers that Lord Dartmouth, the Secretary-of-State for the Colonies, had gathered and presented to North’s Cabinet that would show the Boston Tea Party was not only a criminal act but quite possibly an act of treason. There were 109 documents; they ranged from numerous letters sent by Gov. Thomas Hutchinson to letters sent to the Chairman of the East India Company, from newspaper pages to personal narratives, from minutes of council meetings to voting results taken at town hall meetings and from petitions by the tea consignees to communications from the Customs Office. [2]

Advertisement

Lord North then announced that he wished to bring forward a motion that would begin to address the “farther Regulations and permanent Provisions” requested by the king. What follows here is the debate among members of the House of Commons as recorded at the time.

Mr. George Rice (MP for Carmarthenshire):

assure his Majesty, that this House will, without delay proceed to take into their most serious consideration his Majesty’s . . . Message, together with the Papers accompanying the same; and will not fail to exert every means in their power, of . . . maintaining the due execution of the laws, and securing the just dependance of his Majesty’s colonies upon the crown and Parliament[3]

Mr. William Dowdeswell (MP for Worcestershire):

Advertisement

I would be very far from offering any thing on the present occasion, which might wear the most distant appearance of opposition, or a desire to impede measures of such high consideration. Nevertheless . . . I wish to have it understood, that I do not approve of the present hasty, ill-digested mode of Proceeding.[4]

Mr. Alexander Wedderburn (the Solicitor-General, MP for Bishop’s Castle):

I should imagine that the grand object we ought to labour to accomplish . . . would be unanimity. The voice of this House should be that of one man . . . We are arrived at a certain point, and the question now is, in what manner shall we think proper to act . . . We do not pretend to judge what sort or degree of connection may be necessary to be kept up for our mutual benefit. It perhaps may be prudent to grant them (the colonists) other charters, to enlarge those they already have, or to enter into commercial regulations different from those which at the present bind them.[5]

Mr. Edmund Burke (MP for Wendover):

The learned gentleman suggests that the several governments in America may be new-modelled; that connections different from those already existing may be formed, and commercial regulations, planned on another scale, take place. But I will venture to inform him, that an English government must be administered in the spirit of one, or it will that moment cease to exist. As soon . . . as the civil government of those colonies shall depend for support on a military power, the former will be that moment at an end. The spirit of English legislation is uniform, permanent, and universal; it must execute itself. Or no power under heaven will be able to effect it[6]

Lord George Germain (member of the Privy Council, MP for East Grinstead):

The hon. gentleman . . . has taken great pains to expose the conduct of different administrations, and to extol those who advised the repeal of the Stamp Act . . . It is now contended, that that measure produced the desired effect, and that on its passing everything was peace and tranquility. I know the contrary was the case . . . the Americans were totally displeased, because in the preamble to the repeal, we asserted our right to enact laws of sufficient force and authority to bind them. I am fully convinced . . . that the present situation of affairs in that country, would have never been, and that the people there must and would have returned to their obedience, if the Stamp Act had not been unfortunately repealed.[7]

Gen. Henry Seymour Conway (MP for Coventry):

I attribute the very disagreeable situation we are now in to the weakness of our counsels, and to a series of misconduct. The noble lord attributes the present distracted state of that country to the repeal. I believe he has neither fully attended to the immediate effects of that measure, nor to those which have followed from a contrary conduct or he could never have given such a judgment[8]

Col. Isaac Barré (MP for Caine)

I shall agree with the motion . . . not holding myself engaged to a syllable of its contents . . . our present peace establishment is a ruinous one; and that it eats up that fund which should be appropriated towards relieving our burdens of preparing for a war . . . the expence of our military at this exceeds that of France. These may be matters well worthy of our consideration in the course of our proceedings. It may induce us to make a very considerable saving in that service.[9]

A vote was then taken on the motion; it was agreed that the bill would be taken up by the House. One week later, on March 14, Lord North explained why he was supporting the bill. He said,

it contained two propositions: the one to enable his Majesty to put an end to the present disturbances in America, the other to secure the just dependence of the colonies on the crown of Great Britain . . . Boston had been upwards of seven years in riot and confusion, and associations had been held against receiving British merchandize . . . proceedings were openly carried on in the beginning of last November, to the 17th of December, denying the force or efficacy of the laws of this country . . . that at their public meetings, they had regularly given orders for nightly watches to be appointed, consisting of a large body of persons, which were to prevent the landing of the tea. As the merchandize of Great Britain, this surely was highly criminal, and a direct opposition to the execution of an act of parliament; and as the tea belonging to the East India Company had remained twenty days in the harbour, without a clearance, they were afraid lest it should be seized by the Custom house officers, and by that means landed . . . It had been said, that we owed this proceeding of the Americans to our own ill conduct in taxing and repealing; but if gentlemen would recollect, when the Stamp Act passed, there was hardly a dissenting voice; and when it was repealed, it had the consent of a great majority of that House; that the doctrine then laid down, was that external duties were our right, internal taxes theirs; that when the repeal of the Stamp Act took place here, the clamour raised against that Act in America had subsided . . . It was my fate . . . to propose the repeal of the duties laid on in 1767,[10] and to continue the tea duty only. The reason was, I thought, the non-importation agreements would break up of themselves; which was afterwards the case. He hoped all would agree . . . to proceed unanimously to punish such parts of America [that] denied the authority of this country . . . At Boston we were considered as two independent states; we were no longer to dispute between legislation and taxation, we were now to consider only whether or not we have any authority there; that it is very clear we have none, if we suffer the property of our subjects to be destroyed . . . [I move] that leave be given to bring in a Bill for the immediate removal of the officers concerned in the collection and management of his Majesty’s duties and customs from the town of Boston . . . and to discontinue the landing and discharging, lading, and shipping of goods, wares, and merchandize at the said town . . . or within the harbour thereof.[11]

Gov. George Johnstone (MP for Cockermouth):

desired to know, if it was to be left to the crown to what part of America the Custon-house should be removed?[12]

Lord North responded:

a clause was intended to be inserted in the Bill to leave that matter to the crown.[13]

Mr. George Dempster (MP for Perth Burghs) observed,

that should this indemnification to the East India Company take place by way of tax, it would be collected over America, and thereby injure the property of people who had been entirely innocent of this affair[14]

Mr. John Sawbridge (brother of Catharine Macaulay and MP for Hythe) said he was now

of such opinion, that this country had no right to tax America; that it might be said by some people here, that . . . if this country had a right to take a single shilling out of an American’s pocket, they have a right to take the whole . . . if a requisition was to be sent to Boston to make satisfaction to the India Company, he made no doubt but what it would be complied with.[15]

He said he was against the motion.

Mr. George Byng (MP for Wigan) asked

the noble lord one question, whether this measure was not preventing the English ships from trading there, and a punishment on ourselves?[16]

Mr. Dowdeswell asked,

will you punish Boston alone? Did not other towns send your tea back to England and refuse the landing? Have they committed no offence? He asked if there was any evidence of a general concurrence of the inhabitants of Boston . . . He disapproved much of the Bill, and said, he should give a negative to it.[17]

Mr. John Cavendish (MP for York),

approved of the proposition but hoped, if the merchants of this country could any way be injured by it, that time would be given them to come and petition.[18]

Capt. Constantine Phipps

felt no reason to imagine, that any opposition to the Bill . . . could be effectual; that it was no new thing to direct and order a port for the reception of the trade of America . . . he did not attribute the disturbances to the Stamp Act, or the repeal of it. When he was in that country, he thought that that Act might have been put in execution . . . He imagined, one of the provisions that would be adopted by the House, would be to repeal the Declaratory Act . . . the most absurd and unconstitutional Act ever passed. Let America alone, and it would return of itself to obedience, and do not let us search for trifling taxes, by way of experiment, to try our power; the moment they see that taxation is . . . for experiment only, they will always oppose you.[19]

Lord George Cavendish (MP for Derbyshire)

was not sure but the object before the House would be prejudicial to our trade; that he looked to the mutual interest of the two countries . . . he wished that no idle ideas of superiority might prevail, for that country which is kept by power, is in danger of being lost every day.[20]

Colonel Barré

was urged to rise to discharge his duty in not giving a silent vote upon the occasion. The proposition before the House, he could not help giving his hearty affirmative to; that he liked it, harsh as it was; he liked it for its moderation; and argued, that the noble lord’s (North’s) conduct would be of the same stamp throughout. He said, I think Boston ought to be punished, she is your eldest son.[21]

Following Barré’s comments, the Bill was read for the first time. At the end of the day on the 14th, King George wrote to Lord North,

It could not be expected that any proposal on American affairs would pass without opposition, but the Bill being ordered without a division is a material point gained; and I trust, if the different propositions are brought as forward as possible, that this arduous business will be gone through with much [less] trouble than was supposed[22]

The next day, Lord Shelburne wrote to William Pitt, the Earl of Chatham and pro-American, who was unable to take part in the debate due to illness,

Colonel Barré tells me, that finding the Rockinghams divided, that is, Mr. Dowdeswell, after some hesitation, directly opposing, and Lord John Cavendish rather tending to approbation and decidedly declaring a division, thought the best service he could do America was to support government to a certain degree, avowing his original principles, that he might have more weight to resist propositions . . . I [also] accidently met Lord Dartmouth yesterday . . . he stated with great fairness, and with very little reserve . . . his determination to cover America from the present storm to the utmost of his power, even to repealing the act . . . This, together with Lord North’s language, which Colonel Barré tells me was of a moderate cast, leads me to hope the further measures will not be so hostile as was expected[23]

Pitt did not write back until the 20th:

It is most true that I am extremely anxious about the measures now depending with regard to America . . . The violence committed upon the tea-cargo is certainly criminal . . . the Americans . . . violate the most indispensable ties of civil society [and] owe reparation for such aa destruction . . . This is . . . clear and evident; but equally clear to me, that in pursuing this just object, government may become unjust; if they attempt to blend the enforcement of general declared rights of the British parliament . . . with aa due satisfaction for tumultuous act . . . the methods, too, proposed, by way of coercion, appear to me too severe . . . for reparation ought first to be demanded in a solemn manner, and refused by the town and magistracy of Boston, before such a bill of pains and penalties can be called just.
Perhaps a fatal desire to take advantage of this guilty tumult of the Bostonians, in order to crush the spirit of liberty among the Americans . . . has taken possession of the heart of government. If that mad and cruel measure should be pushed, one need not be a prophet to say, England has seen her best days. Boston, I hope and believe . . . would make reparation . . . but to consent quietly to have no right over their own purse, I conceive the people of America will never be brought to do. I . . . believe America once at ease about internal taxation, would also acquiesce under, and friendly intercourse be again opened; without which, we, not they, shall be undone.” [24].

On March 22, one week after the first reading of the Boston Port Bill, Lord North called for a second day of debate on the Boston Port Bill.

Mr. Rose Fuller (MP for Rye) said:

that Boston [was] a port of the greatest consequences to this country . . . that the Bill before them was totally unprecedented . . . that the penalty of blocking up their port was too severe for the first offence; [and] that when the nation came to know the contents of this Bill, he was sure they would be dissatisfied with it . . . nor would I wish this Bill to take place, until they had refused the payment [for the tea][25]

Mr. Henry Herbert (MP for Wilton) said,

the proposition would by no means relieve us, but throw us into greater difficulties; the Bostonians would certainly resist the payment . . . the Americans were a strange set of people, and that it was in vain to expect any degree of reasoning from them; that instead of making their claim by argument, they always chose to decide the matter by tarring and feathering; that the method now proposed in the Bill would become more a punishment by their refusal than by their compliance[26]

Lord North:

the people at Boston had begun many years ago to endeavour to throw off all obedience to this country: . . . resolutions of censure and warning will avail nothing; we must therefore proceed to some immediate remedy . . . with firmness and without fear; they will never reform until we take a measure of this kind . . . The merchandize now will be landed at Marble-head, in the port of Salem, which is putting Boston about seventeen miles from the sea with respect to foreign trade . . . it is impossible to suppose but some of our own people may in some degree suffer a little, but we must compare those temporary inconveniences with the loss of that country . . . If the consequences of their not obeying this Act are likely to produce rebellion, those consequences belong to them, and not to   us[27]

Mr. Bamber Gascoigne (MP for Weobley):

It is not . . . the acts of tarring and feathering only that shew their displeasure to persons who have offended them; they have other modes of punishment, which they make use of . . . the house of any person with whom they are displeased, they immediately daub over with excrement and tar, by which means the whole family is obliged to quit it. These people, he was afraid, would hardly ever be brought to reason[28]

Mr. John Montague (MP for Huntingdonshire):

after all these struggles for the possession of such a jewel in the crown of this country, it would be madness, it would be folly indeed . . . were we not to pursue the most determined conduct to preserve it; the giving up that gem which we have so carefully and so diligently polished, or neglecting to enforce that due obedience, and cultivate the friendship, would be as it were an actual surrender of all our right and claim . . . Those acts of the Americans call now loudly for that power and that interposition which has been so long, and with so much danger to this country withheld.[29]

Mr. Byng:

This Bill will prevent all importation of goods to Boston, and thereby create that association in the Americans which you have so much wished to annihilate. You are not punishing the Bostonians; you are punishing the English merchants[30]

Mr. Hans Stanley (MP for Southhampton) said,

that the place where trade and merchandize could not be landed in safety was not a port; it was therefore proper that some other port should be found out where the subjects of this country might land their merchandize in safety. I think . . . the Bill which is now before you, as far as it can convey punishment will be unavoidable; something must be done, an immediate remedy must be had[31]

Mr. Dempster said,

he knew of no Act to which he gave his hearty consent in a more willing manner, than to that which was for the repeal of the Stamp Act . . . our disorders had arisen from our attempts to tax the Americans by that odious Act; he was very sure the destruction of America would be certain if we should offer to tax it. Have we not . . . given an extent of power to his Majesty, to prevent the port of Boston from ever being reinstated if the king should think proper? What limit or line is drawn to define when it will be proper, right, and just, that the port of Boston should be reinstated?[32]

Mr. Charles Jenkinson (MP for Harwich):

What is become of all our trade, if the proceedings of the Bostonians are to become a precedent to the rest of the colonies; we have gone into a very expensive war for the attainment of America; the struggle we shall now have to keep it, will be but of little expence.[33]

General Conway:

I am particularly happy in the mode of punishment that is adopted in it, but I disclaim anything in the debate that tends to call up old sores, or create anger. I was much for the repeal of the Stamp Act, and am not ashamed to own it; nor do I think that that measure was the reason of these disorders.[34]

Mr. Charles Fox (MP for Midhurst) said he

should give it (the Bill) his negative, as it was trusting the crown with that power which parliament were afraid to trust themselves with . . . [The Bill] did not give a true and exact distinction by what means, and at what period, the crown was to exercise that power . . . The quarrel . . . was with parliament, and parliament was proper power to end it[35]

Lord North:

The test of the Bostonians will not be the indemnification of the East India Company alone it will remain in the breast of the King not to restore the port until peace and obedience shall be observed in the port of Boston[36]

Mr. CharlesVan (MP for Brecon),

agreed to the flagitiousness of the offence in the Americans, and therefore was of opinion that the town of Boston ought to be knocked about their ears, and destroyed. Delenda est Carthage [37] . . . I am of opinion you will never meet that proper obedience to the laws of this country, until you have destroyed that nest of locusts.[38]

Colonel Barré:

The proposition made ye I thought a moderate one, though . . . it is a tax, and as long as I sit here among you, I will oppose the taxing of America, The Bill, I am afraid, draws in the fatal doctrine of submitting to taxation . . . keep your hands out of the pockets of the Americans, and they will be obedient subjects.[39]

Following Barré’s comments, the Bill was read for the second time. On March 21, King George wrote to Lord North,

The Boston Port Bill having been read a second time without debate or division, is so very favourable to the measure, that I cannot refrain from expressing the pleasure it gives me.[40]

There would be one more day of debate and a final reading. If the bill was going to pass or fail the decision would be made on March 25; if it passed it would then be sent to the House of Lords where it would go into a committee.

[1] R. C. Simmons and P. D. G. Thomas, eds., Proceedings and debates of the British Parliament respecting North America, 1754-1783 (Millwood, NY: Kraus International Publications, 1984), 4:26-31 (the House of Lords) and 4:31-35 (the House of Commons).

[2] The same documents would be laid before the House of Lords; digital.lib.niu.edu/islandora/object/niu-amarch%3A81422.

[3] William Cobbett, The Parliamentary History of England from the Earliest Period to the Year 1803 (London: T. C. Hansard, 1813), 17:1159-60.

[4] Ibid., 17:1160

[5] Ibid., 17:1161.

[6] Ibid., 17:1161-62.

[7] Ibid., 17:1162.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid., 17:1163.

[10] The Townshend Duties

[11] Ibid., 17:1163-67.

[12] Ibid., 17:1167.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid., 17:1167-68.

[16] Ibid., 17:1168.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid., 17:1169.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] W. Bodham Donne, ed., The Correspondence of King George the Third with Lord North 1768 to 1783 (London: J. Murray, 1867), 1:174 – Letter 214.

[23] William Stanhope Taylor and John Henry Pringle, eds., Correspondence of William Pitt, Earl of Chatham (London: John Murray, 1840), 4:334-36.

[24] Ibid., 4: 336-38

[25] Cobbett, The Parliamentary History, 17:1170

[26] Ibid., 17: 1170-71.

[27] Ibid., 17:1171-73.

[28] Ibid., 17:1173.

[29] Ibid., 17:1173-74.

[30] Ibid., 17:1175; this is a similar comment to the one he made on March 14.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Ibid., 17:1176.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Ibid., 17:1177.

[36] Ibid., 17:1178.

[37] “Carthage must be destroyed.”

[38] Ibid., 17:1178.

[39] Ibid., 17:1178-79.

[40] W. Bodham Donne, ed., The Correspondence of King George the Third to Lord North 1768 to 1783 (London: J. Murray, 1867), 1:176—Letter 216.