The Bill for Regulating the Government of Massachusetts

Following the Boston Tea Party, Parliament passed three Acts that would become known as the Coercive Acts. The first was the Boston Port Bill; it ordered the port of Boston to be shut down until all of the damages incurred at “the Party” were paid for in full. This bill was introduced in the House of Commons on March 7, 1774. It was read and discussed three times before it was passed on March 25. The following day the Bill was sent to the House Lords where it underwent the same process and on March 30 secured the same result. The Bill officially became an Act of Parliament on March 31 when King George gave his assent.

The Boston Port Act was to go into effect on June 1. But instead of waiting to see the Act’s impact, Parliament introduced a second bill, this time for the improvement of the government of the colony of Massachusetts. It was entitled “The Bill for Regulating the Government of Massachusetts.” The bill was introduced in the House of Commons on March 28, while the Boston Port Bill was being read for the second time in the House of Lords. What follows here is the debate about this bill among members of the House of Commons, as recorded at the time.

Lord Frederick North: (Prime Minister and MP for Branbury):

rose and said, he meant now to open [another] . . . Bill [because] an executive power was wanting in that country[1] and that it was highly necessary to strengthen the magistracy . . . There appears to be a total defect in the constitutional power throughout. If the democratic part shews that contempt of obedience to the laws, how is the governor to execute any authority vested in him. If he wants any magistrate to act, whom he knows will be willing to execute the laws, he has not the power of appointing one, the council have alone that power . . . If the governor issued a proclamation, there was hardly found a magistrate to obey it; the governor, of his own authority, can do nothing; he cannot act, or give out any order, without seven of the council consenting . . . the military . . . cannot act without the control of the civil magistrate. How was it possible for the military to maintain good government when they were not called upon by the civil authority. I propose, in this Bill, to take the executive power from the hands of the democratic part of the government; I would propose, that the governor should act as a justice of the peace, and that he should have the power to appoint the officers throughout the whole civil authority, such as the sheriffs, provost, marshal, etc—the chief justice and judges of the supreme court excepted . . . [the] assemblies, or town-meetings, which are now held in Boston, I would have them brought under some regulation, and would not suffer them to be held without the consent of the governor . . . the juries are improperly chosen I think a degree of regulation highly necessary. Some immediate, as well as permanent remedy must be adopted.[2]

Advertisement

Mr. George Byng (MP for Wigan):

said, he could not be as all surprised at hearing that the governor of Boston had no power . . . It was now become a fashion … to give away those places of emolument to men of this country . . . who have never been of the least [capable of] public service to this country.[3]

Sir Fletcher Norton (MP from Guilford and Speaker of the House of Commons):

said, he only got up to know whether there was to be an assembly left to the Americans, or not?[4]

Advertisement

Mr. Stephen Fox (MP for Salisbury):

Can there be any thing so necessary to alter as that government which can neither govern nor manage itself. The people of Boston have behaved in a most outrageous manner, militating against every principle of law and justice, combating against its own constitutional power, and totally subverting every idea of order and regularity . . . Would you wish them to proceed so precipitately to their destruction without once lending the aid of your deliberations to rescue them from the self-conceived and false opinions which they have imbibed. I hope . . . this House will lend its advice, and endeavour to save these hot-headed Americans, not by violent measures, but by firm and manly proceedings.[5]

Lord George Germain (Member of the Privy Council and MP for East Grinstead):

It may not be improper . . . I hope, to throw out a little upon this occasion, and to ask for further information, to know whether this is to be the extent of the proposition with regard to the salutary measures that are to be made and taken in . . . this session. If so . . . I should be glad to give my poor opinion . . . I could have wished that the noble lord, when he was forming this scheme of salvation to this country, would have, at least, considered that there were other parts of the internal government necessary to be put under some regulation . . . I wish to see the council of that country on the same footing as other colonies. There is a degree of absurdity . . . in the election of the council . . . I would not have men of a mercantile cast every day collecting themselves together, and debating about political matters . . . I think that the method of grand juries ought to be much attended to; they are now chosen for life, and have a yearly salary, and these are the men to whom your life and property is entrusted . . . I would wish to see chancery suits determined by a court of chancery, and not by the assembly of that province . . . Oh! Do not break the charter; do not take away their rights that are granted to them by the predecessors of the crown; whoever . . . wishes to preserve such charters, without a due correction and regulation; whoever wishes to preserve such subjects, I wish them no worse than to govern them. Put this people . . . upon a free footing of government; do not let us be every day asserting our rights by words, and they denying our authority and preventing the execution of our laws. Let us . . . persevere in refining that government which cannot support itself.[6]

Lord Frederick North:

If any thing can tend to the relief of the present distresses in America, it is the unanimity of this House, and of men of such abilities as the noble lord, in the projection of measures necessary to be taken. Every proposition the noble lord has mentioned coincides with my mind; I see the propriety of them, and I would wish to adopt them . . . I . . . shall think of the propositions made, and receive them to be canvassed by greater wisdom and abilities than mine. I am clear, with the noble lord, that the constitution of this charter ought not to prevent parliament from interfering to regulate those matters in America, which the indigested measures of their charter have, perhaps, precipitately been, in some degree, a means of preventing the peace and quietness of that country from being restored.[7]

At the end of the day, Sir Charles Whitworth, who had assumed the gavel at the beginning of the day when the House went into a Committee of the Whole, reported from the Committee “that he be directed by the Committee to move the House that leave be given to bring in the Bill for the better Regulating.”[8]

One week later, on April 4, the Earl of Shelburne wrote to the Earl of Chatham (William Pitt the Elder) explaining how the Boston Port Bill passed the House of Lords and that a second, more severe bill had just been introduced in the House of Commons.[9] Two days later, Chatham wrote back to Shelburne,

Had they stopped here, much ground would have been gained for English government, and the great work of reducing back the colonies to order, and a competent measure of obedience, would have been more than half accomplished. By going on to further severities, I fear, all is put to the hazard. America guilty, would have submitted; and subsequent lenitives might have restored mutual good will and necessary confidence. America disenfranchised, and her charter mutilated, may, I forbode, resist; and the cause become general on that vast continent. If this happen, England is no more, how big words soever the sovereign in his Parliament of Great Britain may utter.[10]

On April 15, Lord North presented the “first very determined measure” to the House of Commons.[11]

The breviat of which was read, containing the propositions which, in moving for the Bill . . . with this addition and alteration, “that the nomination of the Council should be by the crown” . . . that the council would have much the same power as before, except the nomination of judicial officers; that he had altered the mode of chusing of juries . . . that the principle on which our juries were formed seemed to be highly approved of . . . that he had now adopted the mode of choice as near the method of chusing the juries in England as possible.[12]

Mr. Rose Fuller (MP for Rye):

gave notice, that he intended to move for the Committee to enquire into the Tea duty on Thursday next, to see whether or not it was possible to repeal that Act before the present one took place.[13]

Mr. George Dempster (MP for Perth Burghs):

asked the noble lord, by whom the governors and judges were appointed formerly, and by whom paid.[14]

Lord Frederick North:

said, the judges were paid by the crown; and that their salaries were to accrue out of the duties chargeable on the tea.[15]

Mr. William Dowdeswell (MP for Worcestershire):

said, he was unwilling to let the day pass without some observations . . . He observed, that government had now received sufficient advice for regulating their conduct[16] . . . but the further they went the worse they were; that the House had now a Bill before them, which was calculated to destroy the charter of the province of Massachuset’s Bay; that, if indeed we were now to make a new charter for governing and regulating the number of emigrants that are daily going to America, we should, perhaps, make it in a different manner, and suit it more to the disposition of the times; but I wish . . . to see no new charter granted. The Americans have laboured with unwearied industry, and flourished for near fourscore years under that democratic charter; They have increased their possessions and improved their lands to a pitch we could not have expected, and we have reaped the benefits of their labour yet you are now going to destroy that very charter which has subsisted to the mutual benefit of both countries; he charter which they have breathes a spirit of liberty superior to any thing either of the former or present times. It was granted in king William’s times, and is more adapted to the spirit of a free people, than any charter that can possibly be framed by any minister now; but, I hope, before this Bill passes, that you will, at least, recollect yourselves in a cool, dispassionate manner, and look upon Americans as your children, and call them by whatever name you will, rebellious or disobedient, that will consider at the same time, that they are forward children . . . and that the ill humour and disposition of a child is oftentimes brought about by the petulant obstinacy of a foolish parent . . . You are not now contending for a point of honour; you are struggling to obtain a most ridiculous superiority, to which I hardly know a name bad enough to stamp it with. The regulations which you are going to enact, will be so inadequate and so improper a remedy, that in my opinion it would be better to give up the whole, than to correct in such a violent and imprudent manner.[17]

Mr. Charles Van (MP for Brecon):

said, if they (the Americans) oppose the measures of government that are now sent out, I would do as was done of old, in the times of ancient Britons. —I would burn and set fire to all their woods and leave their country open, to prevent that protection thy now have; and if we are likely to lose that country, I think it better lost by our won soldiers than wrested from us by our rebellious children.[18]

Former Governor Thomas Pownall (MP for Tregony):

rose to give the House an account of the mode in which juries were chosen in America . . . He gave an account in what manner the council were chosen . . . that they were elected by the whole legislature, and not by the people at large; that the select men were a kind of aldermen much the same as those in corporations in England; that about forty were chosen in each town, after which the remaining ones were generally appointed as persons proper to serve upon juries, from which five or six people were taken . . . the grand juries were struck off from capital men, who were appointed for that purpose . . . great inconvenience would arise from the town meetings not being held without the consent of the governor; that all business of a municipal nature was done at a town meeting; that these towns were, in many places, 300 miles from the capital, and that business must stand still in many instances, in these towns, till the governor’s consent could be obtained.[19]

Following the brief discussion, “the Bill was then read a first time.”[20] The second discussion and reading was scheduled for April 22.

[1] America in general but Massachusetts in particular.

[2] William C. Cobbett, The Parliamentary History of England from the Earliest Period to the Year 1803 (London: T.C. Hansard, 1813), 17:1192-1193.

[3] Ibid., 17:1194.

[4] Ibid; Lord North “assured the member, that there would be nothing in this Bill that affected either the assembly or the council in their legislative power,” Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid., 17:1194-96.

[7] Ibid., 17:1196-97.

[8] Peter Force, ed., American Archives, Fourth Series, Containing a Documentary History of the English Colonies in North America (Washington DC: M. St. Clair and Peter Force, 1837), 1:67.

[9] Included in the letter to Chatham, was a warning about what was to come: “Lord Suffolk declared very plainly, that other very determined measures should be offered, before the end of the session.”

[10] William Stanhope Taylor and John Henry Pringle, eds. Correspondence of William Pitt, Earl of Chatham (London: John Murray, 1840), 341-43.

[11] See Note 8.

[12] Cobbett, The Parliamentary History of England, 17:1197.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid., 17:1197-98.

[16] Ibid., 17:1199.

[17] Ibid., 17:1198-99.

[18] King George to Lord North, April 17, 1774, in George the Third’s Letters to Lord North (London: J. Murray, 1867), No. 223, p. 181.

[19] Cobbett, The Parliamentary History of England, 17:1199.

[20] Ibid., 17:1194.