“Pains and Penalties, to be inflicted on the town of Boston”: The Passage of the Boston Port Bill

On March 7, 1774 the motion to consider the Boston Port Bill was presented to the House of Commons. On March 14, the first official reading of the bill took place. It was followed by a debate that lasted all day. During the debates members of the House mainly expressed their opinions for or against the bill; a few moved to change some of the language. At the end of the day a decision was made that the bill merited further consideration. On March 22, the day began with the second reading of the now-amended bill. The debates were more heated and motions to change some of the language continued. By the end of the day, it became clear where most of the members stood on the issue. On March 25, a third reading of the further-amended bill took place. The debates did not last as long as the previous two days. At their conclusion a vote was called to pass, that is, approve, the bill, or not. If it did not pass, the bill would advance no further; if it did pass, it would be sent to the House of Lords where it would go through the same process. In the end, it passed the House of Lords. The final step in the process was for the bill to be sent to King George III for his assent. What follows here is the debate among members of the House of Commons on March 25, as recorded at the time.

Mr. Charles Fox (MP for Midhurst) proposed two Further enactments be left out of the bill,

And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that whenever it shall be made to appear to his Majesty in his Privy Council, that peace and obedience to the laws shall be so far restored in the said town of Boston, that the trade of Great Britain may safely be carried on there . . . his Majesty’s customs duly collected[1]

and

Advertisement

Declared and enacted, that nothing herein contained shall extend or be construed, to enable his Majesty to appoint such . . . quays, wharfs, places or officers, in the said town of Boston . . . until it shall sufficiently appear to his Majesty, that full satisfaction hath been made by or on behalf of the said town of Boston, to the United Company of the East Indies[2]

A vote was taken on each enactment; the outcome was that both enactments would remain in the bill.

Mr. William Dowdeswell (MP for Worcestershire):

By the Bill, a person is to understand, that the commerce of all his Majesty’s subjects is interrupted . . . I cannot give my assent to it until I hear the complaints from the different manufacturers of iron, leather, wool, etc. . . and the merchants of this country, which complaints, I imagine, the hurry of passing this Bill totally prevents . . . Look to the consequences of this Bill; you are contending for a matter which the Bostonians will not give up quietly. I remember . . . when it was held a doctrine in this House . . . that we had no right to tax America. There is now no such opinion . . . Have there been no other towns in Amerca which have disobeyed your orders? Has not Philadelphia, New York, and several other provinces, sent back their tea? Has not the East India Company suffered nearly as much damage from the tea being sent back, as indeed where they have landed it . . . All that you have effected, is to carry your merchandize seventeen miles further from the town of Boston, so that the Bostonians shall be obliged to be at an additional expence in conveying their merchandize from the port of Salem by land. You ask why the Americans do not pay their debts? If you stop the exports, you will of course stop the payment of those debts . . . if parliament continually passes Bils, sometimes to punish the person, at other times the places, you will, by and by, have your hands fully employed; you will soon enflame all America, and stir up a contention you will not be able to pacify[3]

Advertisement

Mr. Welbore Ellis (MP for Petersfield):

this behaviour of the Americans was the most direct opposition to the laws of this country that could possibly be conceived . . . The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dowdeswell) has said, this Bill was unjust and unwise. I differ much from him. This Bill makes it expedient for them to do their duty, and puts the Bostonians upon the inquiry to find out who were the parties that committed this riot; the persons or magistrates in the town, not inquiring into the proceedings, are much to blame, and I cannot think this Bill in the least unwise . . . The hon. gentleman . . . had mentioned that others were guilty, and why were they not punished . . . It is treason in the Bostonians, and can only be deemed a high crime and misdemeanor in the others, but, in my mind, it appears to be wise, first, to single out Boston as the principal ringleader of the whole disturbance, and begin this punishment there, in order to see what effect the proceedings will have . . . [4]

Mr. Edmund Burke (MP for Wendover):

This Bill is attempted to be hastened through the House in such a manner, that I can by no means assent to it . . . you have not now one left in England to be heard in behalf of any of the Colonies; the only obstruction that this Bill has had, has been owing to its own vis inertia; but persons who oppose this Bill, are immediately put to the same kind of punishment in the public Papers which offenders in America are . . . The grievance which is stated in the Papers before you on the table appears to be a universal resistance from all America against any goods, or merchandise that shall be loaded with taxes . . . Observe . . . that the disturbances are general; show me one port in all America where the goods have been landed and vended; the distemper is general, but the punishment is local . . . Have you considered whether you have troops and ships sufficient to enforce a universal proscription to the trade of the whole continent? If you have not, the attempt is childish, and the operation fruitless . . . This Bill has been thought a vigorous, but not a rigorous punishment . . . Every man, Sir, is authorized to be a magistrate, to put a stop to disturbances which he perceives to be committed against his Majesty’s peace; but did you expect that the People who were not present at such disturbances, would be equally punished for not aiding and assisting in putting an end to those riots which they never saw or heard of . . . There are but two ways to govern America: either to make it subservient to all your laws, or to let it govern itself by its own internal policy . . . This is the day, then that you wish to go to war with all America[5]

Mr. Grey Cooper (MP for Grampound):

After such a defiance, can it be expected, that they would come over here to be heard, and say any thing at your bar but what they had already told you, and sent to you expressly in the papers on your table, where they refuse a direct obedience to all your laws . . . It is asked again, Sir, whether the individuals are not to be punished when they are found out? I apprehend that this measure by no means excuses the guilty persons from being brought to condign punishment . . . The Bill before you is a law for the protection of trade; it is a mild measure, if they obey it; if they oppose it, the result of it will only make the punishment. The resolves at Boston I consider as [a] direct issue against the Declaratory Act; they clearly proved a determined resolution in the Americans to oppose every law in this country[6]

Mr. Anthony Bacon (MP for Aylesbury):

Said there was not a port in New England but what had sufficient ware-houses for the reception of all the merchandize of Great Britain.[7]

Former Governor Thomas Pownall (MP for Tregony):

Said, that he had always been of opinion, that internal taxes could not legally be laid . . . [and] wished that the tea duty was repealed, but he did not think this the proper time or season to adopt the measure . . . The Americans have a real love for Government; they love order and Peace [here the House laughed]; . . . I do aver that they love peace, for I look upon this to be the act of the mob, and not of the People[8]

Mr. John Sawbridge (brother of Catharine Macaulay and MP for Hythe):

The offence of destroying the tea was done in the night time, and not tempore diurno; that this was an ex post facto law, and that the law of the Black Act [9] . . . was not in force before [this specific] offence was committed . . . it was an act of cowardice in the Minister to come to parliament to ask for that which had been allowed, and was in the power of the crown to order and direct . . . the removal of the Custom-house officers, and other things mentioned in that Act . . . All [of] these might have been done by the crown, without applying to parliament, but the minister was timorous of proceeding himself, and wanted to skulk behind the protection of the legislature.[10]

Lord Frederick North (Prime Minister and MP for Branbury)

Nor am I, Sir, ashamed, at any time, to take shelter under the legislature. The hon. Gentleman says, the minister might do certain things, which are to be enacted in that Bill, without application to parliament . . . but they could not block up a port, or make it illegal for the landing, lading, and shipping of goods in any place heretofore granted, without the aid of parliament. I will not undertake to say, what will be the consequence or event of this measure; I am strongly of opinion it will be salutary and effective; but I will say, that it was not in the power of the Minister to sit still and take no measure . . . can the hon. gentleman be of opinion, from what he has seen and read from the papers on the table, that any obedience will be paid to such a prosecution, or that it will be in the least degree effective . . . This is no ex post facto law; they committed the offence of destroying the tea, knowing and declaring, at the same time, the law which they offended against. The committee of Boston, Sir, gave the directions for the destruction of the tea, and have declared their resolution of resistance to the obedience of our laws; to hear those very persons who have declared to you, and to all the world, that they intended this violence against the law . . . it is said . . . that we ought not to proceed in this measure till we have heard these very people, who are the great offenders, say at your bar . . . that Great Britain has no authority to tax them; they can make no other plea; they can make no other declaration than what they have already done . . . If we do not mean totally to give up the matter in question, we must assert our right at this time, while we can, whilst it is in our power. Instead of our treating America like a foreign enemy, America has treated us like one; disavowing our authority, and declaring against all obedience to the laws of Great Britain . . . I am of opinion, Sir, that repealing any measure whatever, at this moment, would stamp us with a degree of timidity, and would produce a totally different effect from what I expect this measure will do.[11]

Mr. George Johnstone (former governor of West Florida and MP for Cockermouth);

I told the Chairman of the East India Company, first in conversation, on asking my opinion, and afterwards by letter, that the evidence might appear in the progress of things; that I conceived the East India Company exporting tea, on their own account, was, under every consideration of their situation . . . wrong, but, under the present discontents and disputed matters of Government in America, criminally absurd, because they were presenting themselves as the butt in the controversy, where they would probably come off with the loss of the whole. The event has justified my prediction; for whatever repayment the Company may obtain from the town of Boston under these cruel coercive measures now proposed, the Company must remain great losers, even if the other Provinces, equally culpable, are made to refund the loss arising from their conduct . . . I’m not one of those who believe that distant provinces can be retained in their duty by preaching or enchantments; I believe that Force or Power, conducted with Wisdom, are the means of securing regular obedience under every establishment . . . The question of taxing America is sufficiently nice to palliate resistance, if the subject had never been litigated in this country; but after the highest characters in this State had declared against the right of this country to impose taxes on America, for the purpose of revenue; after the general voice of the Senate had concurred in repealing the Stamp Act, upon that principle; after those men, who had maintained these doctrines, had been promoted by his Majesty to the first station in the administration of civil and judicial affairs, there is no such mitigation to be pleaded in favor of the Americans from those circumstances . . . It is in vain to say Boston is more culpable than the other Colonies. Sending the ships from thence, and obliging them to return to England, is a more solemn and deliberated act of resistance than the outrage committed by persons in disguise in the night, when the ship refused to depart . . . Notwithstanding the general approbation which has been given to this Bill, and the loud applauses which have been re-echoed to every word of the noble Lord in explaining it, yet no man will be bold enough to say, that this partial punishment is a remedy for the general disease. And yet without knowing what is to follow, no man can be vindicated for giving his assent to it.[12]

Following some closing comments by Lord North, the bill was read for a third time and the vote was taken as to whether the Bill should be sent to the House of Lords or not. The bill passed the House of Commons “without a division.” The next day MP Cooper took the Bill to the House of Lords; the House of Commons was seeking their concurrence. After it was read for the first time, it was ordered that the Bill be read for a second time on the 28th. The Lords’ first piece of business on the 28th was to hear a petition introduced by Lord Wycombe from some Americans who were living in London. The gentleman who presented the petition was Stephen Sayre, an American merchant, banker, diplomatic agent and former sheriff of London. The petition bore twenty-nine signatures; some of the better-known names aside from Sayre were Benjamin Franklin, William Lee, Ralph Izard, Arthur Lee, Thomas Pinckney and Edward Bancroft. They were concerned about the

Pains and Penalties, to be inflicted on the town of Boston, for a trespass, committed by some persons unknown, upon the property of the East India Company, without the said town having been apprized of any accusations being brought against them, or permitted to hear the evidence, if there be any, and to make their defence.[13]

After the petition was read, it was “Ordered, That the said Petition do lie on the table.”[14]

That was followed by the second reading of the Boston Port Bill. Afterwards it was ordered “that the House be put into a Committee upon the said Bill to-morrow.”[15] On March 29, while in the Committee of the Whole House, the Bill was supported by Lords Mansfield, Gower, Littleton, Weymouth and Suffolk; those who opposed were Dukes Richmond and Manchester, Marquis of Rockingham, and Lords Temple, Shelburne, Camden and Stair. After a debate, Lord Boston reported from the Committee “That they had gone through the Bill, and directed him to report the same to the House, without any amendment.”[16]

It was then “Ordered, That the said Bill be read a third time to-morrow.”[17]

On March 30, the Bill was read for a third time. The question was then put, “whether this Bill shall Pass?” It was resolved in the Affirmative, Nemine Dissentiente.[18]

On March 31, “His Majesty being seated on the Throne, adorned with his crown . . . attended by his officials of State, the Lords in their robes and the House of Commons, Speaker, attending; the Royal assent was pronounced severally, by the Clerk’s Assistant to thirty-nine Bills, beginning with the Boston Port Bill.”[19]

———————

[1] Peter Force, ed., American Archives, Fourth Series, Containing a Documentary History of the English Colonies in North America (Washington DC: M. St. Clair Clarke and Peter Force, 1837), 1:48.

[2] Ibid.

[3] William C. Cobbett, The Parliamentary History of England from the Earliest Period to the Year 1803 (London: T. C. Hansard, 1813), 17:1179-81.

[4] Ibid., 17:181.

[5] Force, American Archives, 1:50-1.

[6] Cobbett, The Parliamentary History of England, 17:1185.

[7] Ibid., 17:1186.

[8] Ibid.

[9] The Black Act was passed in 1723. It made poaching-related crimes felonies. The Act was adopted because of the Waltham Black gang who would blacken their faces before each raid; 9 Geo. 1. c. 22.

[10] Cobbett, The Parliamentary History of England, 17:1186.

[11] Ibid., 17:1186-88.

[12] Force, American Archives, 1:53-54.

[13] Ibid.,1: 58-59.

[14] This meant that the petition would be considered at a later time.

[15] Force, American Archives, 1:60.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Unanimously.

[19] Force, American Archives, 1: 60.