What the Bill for Regulating the Government of Massachusetts Really Entailed

Lord North officially presented the second Coercive Act entitled the Bill for Regulating the Government of the Massachusetts’ colony on April 15, 1774. It was read for the first time, ordered to be published and commented on by some of the members of the House. On April 22, the bill was read for a second time and followed by a debate. Many of the members had already read the bill and had time enough to develop an opinion. The focus of the bill was the charter of the Massachusetts Bay colony. In order to “regulate the colony’s government,” the colony’s charter that was granted in 1691 by King Willam and Queen Mary, making it a royal colony, needed to be changed. What follows here is the debate about this bill among members of the House of Commons, as recorded at the time.

Sir George Sackville (MP for East Grinstead):

the measure now before the House was a very doubtful and dangerous one; doubtful as to the matter and propriety of regulation, and dangerous as to its consequences . . . charters by government were sacred things, and are only to be taken away by a due course of law, either as a punishment for an offence, or for a breach of the contract, and that can only be by evidence of the facts; nor could he conceive that in either of the cases there could be any such thing as proceeding without a fair hearing of both parties . . . You are now going to alter the charter, because it is convenient . . . I do not like to be present at a business which I think inconsistent with the dignity and justice of this House . . . I cannot conceive it possible to proceed on this Bill upon the small ground of evidence which you have had.[1]

Mr. Welbore Ellis (MP for Petersfield):

Advertisement

I think, chartered rights are by no means those sacred things which never can or ought to be altered . . . wherever private property is concerned, the legislature will not take away without making a full recompence; but wherever the regulation of public matter is the object, they have a right to correct, controul, or take it away, as may best suit the public welfare . . . much bloodshed has been occasioned by taking away or altering of chartered rights . . . but it has always been where encroachments have been made by improper parties, and the attack has been carried on by improper powers.[2]

General Conway (MP for Coventry):

The consequence of this Bill will be very important and dangerous. Parliament cannot break into a right without hearing the parties. The question, then, is simply this: have they been heard? . . . Audi alteram partem [3] It is something so inconsistent with parliamentary proceedings not to do it, that I am astonished at it . . . this is not only the charter of Boston, or of any particular part, but the charter of all America . . . it is my sincere opinion, that we are the aggressors . . . not the colonies. We have irritated and forced laws upon them for these six or seven years last past. We have enacted such a variety of laws . . . all these things have served no other purpose but to distress and perplex . . . In my conscience, I think, taxation and legislation are in this inconsistent. Have you not a legislative right over Ireland and yet no one will dare to say we have a right to tax.[4]

Lord North (Prime Minister and MP for Branbury):

Advertisement

I do not consider this matter of regulation to be taking away their charters in such manner as is represented; it is a regulation of government to assist the crown; it appears it appears to me not to be a matter of political expediency, but of necessity . . . will this country sit still, when they see the colony . . . tarring and feathering your servants; denying your laws and authority; refusing every direction and advice which you send . . . Are we . . . to be silent, and give the governor no support . . . We must effectually take some measure to correct and amend the defects of that government . . . yet so clement, and so long forbearing has our conduct been, that it is incumbent on us now to take a different course. Whatever may be the consequence, we must risk something; if we do not, all is over. The measure now proposed, is nothing more than taking the election of counsellors out of the hands of those people . . . if this is not the proper method, shew me any other which is preferable, and I will postpone it.[5]

Sir George Yonge (MP for Honiton):

It appears to me . . . that it is unanswered and unanswerable, what has been advanced . . . Nothing . . . but fatal necessity can countenance this measure.[6]

Governor Johnstone (MP for Cockermouth):

I see . . . a great disposition in this House to proceed in this business without knowing any thing of the constitution of America; several inconveniences will arise if the sheriff is to be appointed by the governor; the jury will of course be biassed by some influence or other; special juries will be most liable to this . . . No man of common sense, can apprehend that the governor would ever have gone for two or three days into the country during these disturbances, if he had had the command of the military power. The natural spirit of man would be fired, in such a manner, as to actuate him to shew resistance; but in this governor no power was lodged. I disapprove much of the measure which is before us, and I cannot think but its consequences will be prejudicial.[7]

Mr. Charles Jenkinson (MP for Harwich):

I rise . . . only to observe, that if the colony has not that power within itself to maintain its own peace and order, the legislature should, and ought to have [it] . . . I am, of [the] opinion, that where the right is a high political regulation, you are not . . . bound to hear them; but the hearing of parties is necessary where private property is concerned. It is not only in the late proceedings, but in all former, that they have denied your authority over them; they have refused protection to his Majesty’s subjects, and in every instance disobeyed the laws of this country; either let this country forsake its trade with America, or let us give that due protection to it which safety requires.[8]

Mr. James Harris: (MP for Christchurch):

I cannot see . . . any reason for so wide a separation between America and England . . . that country was hatched from this; and I hope we shall always keep it under the shadow of our wings. It has been said, no representation, no taxation. This was the system formerly adopted, but I do not find it authorized in any book of jurisprudence, nor do I deem it to be a doctrine either reasonable or constitutional, I insist upon it, they are bound to obey both the crown and parliament. The last 12 years of our proceedings have been [a] scene of lenity and inactivity. Let us proceed and mend our method, or else I shall believe . . . that we are the aggressors.[9]

Sir Edward Astley (MP for Norfolk):

If we have had twelve years [of] lenity and inactivity, I hope we shall not now proceed to have twelve years of cruelty and oppression. By the resolution and firmness which I perceive in the House, it seems to indicate a perseverance in the measure now proposed, which I deem to be a harsh one.[10]

Former Governor Thomas Pownall (MP for Tregony):

the few words that I shall trouble the House with . . . will be directed simply to facts, and to the rectifying some matters of fact respecting the constitution of the province of Massachusset’s Bay, which some gentlemen, on both sides [of] the House, seem to me to have mistaken, and to have misstated . . . The case at present ceases to be matter of opinion – it is come to action. The measure which you are pursuing will be resisted, not by force, or the effect of arms . . . but by a regular united system of resistance. I told this House . . . that the people of America would resist the tax which lay then upon them . . . the committees of correspondence in the different provinces are in constant communication . . . they have set up a constitutional courier . . . As soon as intelligence of these affairs reach them, they will judge it necessary to communicate with each other . . . When matters once come to that, it will be, as it was in the late civil wars of this country, of little consequence to dispute who were the aggressors . . . It is of more consequence at this moment so to act – to take such measures – that no such misfortune may come into event . . . by the charter of the province . . . the governor is obliged to take with him, not simply the advice, but the consent of the council, in the nomination of judges and other civil officers – yet it is from the power of the governor’s commission held under the broad seal, that all of the commissions in the province are derived; and cease with the determination of that commission. All those officers, except the attorney general . . . are, according to the powers and privileges of the present charter, appointed by the governor in council. The difference is, that in those governments which are established by the king’s patent commissions, the whole act of appointment is in the governor – which act, indeed, he is by his instructions directed to do in . . . he may advise with the council, but he is not bound to take their consent . . . His commission gives him full power to act . . . Another gentleman . . . thinks that the council are so much, in all cases of government, a part of the supreme executive magistrate, that if they refuse to act with the governor, he cannot do any act of government either civil or military. I know of no Act in which they are constituted such part, but in the case of nomination of civil officers. In every other, the governor, both by the charter and by his commission, is perfect and complete, [the] supreme executive magistrate . . . if it had been my misfortune to have been governor in these times, and if the interposition of the military had been necessary, I would not have applied for the aid – I would have sent them an order. I am sure there is no officer within the province would have dared to have disobeyed it . . . The power to give such an order is, both by the charter and the commission . . . the council, and every member of it, are highly blameable, and are indeed inexcusable, whenever they withhold their authority from the aid and support of government.[11]

Mr. Richard Tavistock (MP for Tavistock):

what was just now said is very worthy [of] the consideration of this House; and if, from what the hon. Gentleman says . . . and I believe he is well informed . . . it appears that America is preparing to arms; and that the deliberations of the town-meetings tend chiefly to oppose the measures of this country by force. He has told you . . . that the Americans will appoint other officers than those sent by government to command their troops . . . that a post-office is established on their account from town to town, in order to carry their treacherous correspondence from one to another . . . if these things are true . . . I find we have been the aggressors, by continually doing acts of lenity . . . I think and speak boldly when I say it, that this country has a right to tax America . . . Americans are the subjects of this country . . . but I do not say I would put any new tax on at this particular crisis; but when things are returned to a peaceable state, I would then begin to exercise it . . . I think we have a right to tax Ireland, if there was a necessity so to do, in order to help the mother country. If Ireland was to rebel and resist our laws, I would tax it. The mother country has an undoubted right and controul over the whole of its colonies . . . I am of [the] opinion, that if the administration of this country had not been changed soon after the passing of the Stamp Act, that tax would have been collected with as much ease as the land-tax is in Britain.[12]

Former Governor Thomas Pownall:

I apprehend I have been totally misunderstood. I do not assert the Americans were now in rebellion, but that they are going to rebel.[13]

Mr. Charles Fox (MP for Midhurst):

I am glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, that now is not the time to tax America; that the only time for that is, when all these disturbances are quelled, and they are returned to their duty; so, I find, taxes are to be the reward of obedience; and the Americans, who are considered to have been in open rebellion, are to be rewarded by acquiescing to their measures. When will be the time when America ought to have heavy taxes laid upon it . . . I believe America is wrong on resisting against this country, with regard to its legislative authority. It was an old opinion . . . that there was a dispensing power in the crown. But whenever that dispensing power was pretended to be exercised, it was always rejected and opposed to the utmost because it operated . . . as a detriment to my property and liberty . . . there has been a constant conduct practised in this country, consisting of violence and weakness; I wish those measures may not continue . . . the present Bill before you is not what you want; it irritates the minds of the people; but does not correct the deficiencies of that government.[14]

Sir Gilbert Elliot (MP for Roxburghshire):

there was not the least degree of absurdity in taxing your own subjects, over whom you declared you had an absolute right; though that tax should, through necessity, be enacted at a time when peace and quietness were the reigning system of the times; you declare you have that right. Where is the absurdity in the exercise of it?[15]

Sir Richard Sutton (MP for St. Albans):

read a copy of a letter . . . from the governor of America to the Board of Trade, shewing, that at the most quiet times, the disposition to oppose the laws of this country were strongly ingrafted in them, and that all their actions conveyed a spirit and wish for independence . . . I do believe . . . that the opposition to the measures of the legislature of this country, is a determined prepossession of the idea of total independence.[16]

Later that evening, King George sent the following letter to Lord North,

Your account of the Bill for regulating the Government of the Massachusetts Bay having been read for the second time this day, after some debate, though without a division, gives me infinite satisfaction, as I trust little more trouble will be given during the subsequent steps in the House of Commons.[17]

Three days later, Lord Dartmouth, the Secretary of State for the American Colonies received the following letter from Governor Hutchinson, the outgoing Governor of the Massachusetts Bay colony:

The Town is full of rumours of intended measures, and there are very different conjectures upon the behaviour of the people when such measures are to be executed. I hope I shall be directed & enabled to do my duty[18]

The third and final reading, debate and vote was scheduled for Friday, May 2. If the bill passed, it would be sent to the House of Lords for their review and vote. If it passed in the House of Lords, it would then be presented to the King for his assent.

[1] William C. Cobbett, The Parliamentary History of England from the Earliest Period to the Year 1803 (London: T.C. Hansard, 1813), 17 1277-78.

[2] Ibid., 17:1278-79.

[3] Latin for listen to the other side.

[4] Ibid., 17:1279-80.

[5] Ibid., 17:1280-81.

[6] Ibid., 17: 1281.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid., 17:1281-2.

[9] Ibid., 17:1782

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid., 17:1282-6.

[12] Ibid., 17:1286-7.

[13] Ibid., 17:1287.

[14] Ibid., 17:1288.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid., 17:1288-9.

[17] King George to Lord North, April 22, 1774, in George the Third’s Letters to Lord North (London: J. Murray, 1867), No. 225, p. 182.

[18] The National Archives, Kew, UK: Colonial Office, 5/763, ff. 164-65.