The Wrong Remedy

The third and final debate for the bill, For Regulating the Government of Massachusetts, took place on May 2, 1774. The House of Commons unfortunately did not realize that they had arrived “at the Rubicon”; the question by the end of the day was on which side of the Rubicon would they find themselves. What follows here is the debate about this bill among members of the House of Commons, as recorded at the time.

Mr. John Dunning (MP for Calne):

There seems to me be a system of tyranny throughout the whole of the Bills which have been brought into this House . . . It now appears to me, that the inhabitants of Boston are much in the same condition as prisoners surrendering at discretion . . . I have not . . . nor do I see any overt act of treason stated in the preamble of this Bill, so as to authorize the severe punishments which it enacts . . . We are now come to that fatal dilemma ‘resist, and we will cut your throats; submit, and we will tax you’—such is the reward of obedience . . . We seem to be in a strange condition, not knowing whom we have to deal with, nor in what manner to act. If . . . we look into the charter, it will be seen that the governor complained, without cause, of the want of power; it was the ignorance of the governor; he had power, but did not know it . . . Let me ask . . . whether these mischiefs arising from the charter are peculiar to Massachusetts Bay? Are there not deficiencies in others? yet, it is said, an alteration is necessary to make the charter conformable to the royal government. Now do you know that when you have altered it, it will not be dissimilar to many of the others[1]

Sir William Meredith (MP for Liverpool):

Advertisement

now, that the Americans [have] not only resisted the act of parliament, but laid violent hands on the merchant’s property, it was high time to regulate the course of justice . . . [At] the present, Regulations Bills went no further . . . the juries were now appointed according to the mere will and pleasure of the select men, some of whom had been forward in committing those excesses, that occasioned the present uneasiness . . . the council was now appointed by the assembly, and could controul every act of the governor; the execution therefore of every law enacted by the British parliament, was at their option . . . We must therefore either relinquish at once the right of enacting laws, or take the execution of them out of the hands of those that have denied our authority to make them. That we had better break . . . all connections with America, than encourage our merchants to trade thither without the full protection of the laws of their country, both in securing their effects, and in obtaining redress for such injuries as they may sustain[2]

Hans Stanley (MP for Southampton):

their submission to the laws of some country is necessary, as I cannot conceive the independence of an American colony to exist, whilst the balance of power remains in Europe, supported and protected by armies and navies . . . These people must resort to some state, and it must be to a Protestant one: and were they to unite themselves with any other state than this, they would meet a yoke and burden which they would not wish to bear. It is said by some, that this is driving them to a state of slavery; by others, that this proceeding will be ineffectual . . . I cannot sit still, and see with indifference the authority of this country submitting to every indignity they shall offer us . . . I had much rather that this dispute had passed nine years ago, but I would rather meet the attack now than nine years hence; and I should blame myself much if, by any vote of mine, I should separate so valuable a province from this country[3]

Thomas Townshend (MP for Whitchurch):

The importance of this subject, and the melancholy consequences which are likely to ensue, deserve the serious attention of this House . . . I was determined to give support to the most plausible method that was proposed, and I will say, as to this method, ‘Si quid novisti rectius istis, candidus imperti; si non, his utere mecum’[4] I am much averse to the meddling with charters, but when I see the inconveniences that arise from the town-meetings, I do not think myself unreasonable in wishing to adopt an amendment . . . the repeal of the tea act . . . [however I] shall content myself with giving my affirmative to the present bill.[5]

Colonel Isaac Barre (MP for Caine):

The question now before us is, whether we will chuse to bring over the affections of all our colonies by lenient measures, or to wage war with them? I shall content myself with saying . . . that when the Stamp Act was repealed, it produced quiet and ease . . . He condemned much of the behaviour of [the] governor . . . as an accomplice in the present disturbances, and commended the behaviour of governor Tryon (of New York), who, knowing he could not land the tea at the muzzle of his guns, prudently sent it back to England. All other colonies . . . had behaved with nearly the same degree of resistance, and yet you point all of your revenge at Boston alone . . . I think you will very soon have the rest of the colonies on your back . . . You propose . . . to make the council of Boston nearly similar to those of the other royal governments; have not the others behaved in as bad a manner as Boston . . . the office of council, being chosen by the crown, will become so odious, that you will not get a respectable man that dares to accept it, unless you have the military officers for the council . . . what security [will] the rest of the colonies have, that upon the least pretence of disobedience, you will not take away the assembly from the next of them . . . I do not know of any precedent for this Bill . . . You are . . . by this Bill, at war with your colonies; you may march your troops from north to south, and meet no enemy; but the people there will soon turn out . . . a perpetual exertion of your authority will soon ruin you . . . When we are insulted by France and Spain, we negotiate – when we dispute with our colonies, we prepare our ships and our troops to attack them[6]

Stephen Fox: (MP for Salisbury):

I rise . . . with an utter detestation and abhorrence of the present measures. It is asserted by many gentlemen, that these measures are adopted to keep up the regard of the people, but I can by no means acquiesce in that . . . As to the second Bill, it has a most wanton and wicked purpose; we are either to treat the Americans as subjects or as rebels. If we treat them as subjects, the Bill goes too far; if as rebels, it does not go far enough. They have never submitted, and I trust they never will. We have refused to her the parties in their defence, and we are going to destroy their charter without knowing the constitution of their government. I am utterly against such measures as these, which can tend to nothing but to raise disturbance and rebellion[7]

Henry St. John (MP for Wootton Bassett):

It has been stated that this Bill is taking away all the rights of the Americans in one day, and that it is a total destruction of their charter. What is this . . . but a gross misrepresentation of parliamentary proceedings. I hold it . . . imprudent to meddle with chartered rights, but in cases where the rights of that charter are exercised to the detriment and injury of the people . . . parliament has saved America from the jaws of tyranny, by amending their constitution . . . we are perpetually altering and ameliorating our own constitution, upon emergencies; is there, then, no emergency at this present instant, when your officers are obliged to take shelter in your castle;[8] when the magistrates refuse to execute their authority to keep the peace; when your ships are plundered, and your trade obstructed; and whenever a person endeavours to reform the constitution of that country, he incurs nought but pains and penalties. Is it no defect, that the inhabitants, when they meet to choose their officers of the town, determine upon points that go to the very vitals of the constitution . . . I cannot agree that the measure is hostile; if it is, it is hostility adopted for the prevention of bloodshed . . . It is not . . . the strength of America that we dread; they have neither men, army or navy. What then have we to fear – do we dread the loss of our trade . . . They threaten us with not paying their debts; but I am afraid, if we give way to them, they will not allow that they owe us any . . . let us not proceed weakly nor violently, but with resolution and firmness[9]

George Byng (MP for Wigan):

It is said this measure is adopted to prevent bloodshed; is it then that you send armies there for that purpose? It has been said, that parliament had bowed its head to every minister as often as measures have been adopted . . . It has been said, that these Bills are for amending the constitution. Will gentlemen call that amendment a good one, which directs, that the judges’ places shall be at the disposal of the crown? Surely not. It has been said . . . that there has been treason and traitors but that the traitors are not known. There . . . can be no treason without traitors, therefore endeavour to find out the traitors first, that they may be punished, to save the destruction of an innocent people. It has been urged, that this Bill is only for a short time; but the same argument that operates for its continuance for an hour, will operate equally for its perpetuity[10]

Gen. Henry Seymour Conway (MP for Thetford):

I have said, that we are the aggressors, and I say so still . . . it is better to have peace with America, and war with all the world, than to be at war with America; because, if they are at peace with us, they will contribute to support us in time of war[11]

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

I should be sorry to be a supporter of those measures, which are termed wicked and tyrannical; but as I cannot think that this Bill has any such designs, I shall readily adopt it . . . America, at this instant, is nothing but anarchy and confusion . . . Where are the courts of justice . . . where are your judges . . . where are your council: Where is your governor? All of them intimidated by a lawless rabble . . . I really think the first Bill for blocking up the port, is the only Bill of pains and penalties, when you deprive that port of its trade . . . The Bill before you is not such a Bill; there are no pains nor penalties; their government will be restored, and private property protected . . . It is incumbent on every man to give his opinion from his own breast upon this great occasion . . . I cannot help once more condemning that mob of people, which, under the profession of liberty, carries dark designs in its execution[12]

Charles Fox (MP for Midhurst):

I take this to be the question, whether America is to be governed by force, or management . . . Just as the House of Commons stands to the House of Lords, with regard to taxation and legislation, so stands America with Gret Britain. There is not an American, but who must reject and resist the principle and right of our taxing them . . . I look upon this measure to be in effect taking away their charter; if their charter is to be taken away, for God’s sake let it be taken away by law, and not by a legislative coercion . . . The only method by which the Americans will ever think they are attached to this country, will be by laying aside the right of taxing . . . I wish gentlemen would consider, whether it is more proper to govern by military force, or by management.[13]

Edward Thurlow (Attorney General and MP for Tamworth):

The form of the present law was adopted to give magistracy that degree of authority which it ought to be vested with for the execution of the laws; but this Bill carries with it no degree of severity, unless the pleasure of disobeying is greater than that of the punishment. To say that we have a right to tax America, and never to exert that right, is ridiculous . . . the right of taxing was never in the least given up to the Americans. Their charter is mere matter of legislative power; and whoever looks into it, will see that no power whatever was meant to be given them so as to controul the right of taxation from Great Britain.[14]

Edmund Burke (MP for Wendover):

It has been asserted, that the nation is not alarmed, that no petitions of discontent are received. How can persons complain, when sufficient time is not given them to know what you are about . . . I have to protest against this Bill, because you refuse to hear the parties aggrieved . . . Repeal . . . the Act which gave rise to this disturbance, this will be the remedy to bring peace and quietness, and restore authority . . . a great many red coats will never be able to govern it.[15]

Lord Frederick North (Prime Minister and MP from Banbury):

All that these Acts profess to do, is to restore some order in the province . . . it is not a military government that is established, but the alteration of a civil one. I am sure that this is . . . the best method at present; I do not say it will succeed, but I hope for the good consequences of it . . . By what means is authority to be maintained, but by establishing that authority from parliament . . . I do not know . . . what is the proper time to lay a fresh tax on America; but this I know, that this is not the proper time to repeal one. We are now to establish our authority, or give it up entirely.[16]

The vote was then taken as to whether the bill would pass. The yeas were 239 and the nays were 64. The next day the bill was sent to and read for the first time in the House of Lords. That same evening King George wrote to Lord North, “I am infinitely pleased at finding by the note I received this morning from you, that the Regulation Bill has passed the House of Commons, and that the majority was so considerable.”[17]

On May 6, it was read for the second time. and on May 11, after a debate over some amendments, the bill was read for the third and final time. That same day “It was resolved in the Affirmative.”[18] King George gave his royal assent on May 20.

In the words of historian B. D. Bargar

The Charter was as sacred to the people of Massachusetts as the principle of parliamentary supremacy was to the British officialdom. Instead of moving closer to compromise, Britain and her colonies were heading in opposite directions. Since Dartmouth (the Secretary of State for the colonies) and his colleagues in the ministry failed to understand the nature of the disease, they applied the wrong remedy.[19]

[1] William C. Cobbett, The Parliamentary History of England from the Earliest Period to the Year 1803 (London: T.C. Hansard, 1813), 17:1300-02.

[2] Ibid., 17:1302-03.

[3] Ibid., 17:1303-04.

[4] “If you can better these principles, tell me; if not, join me in following them.”

[5] Ibid., 17:1304-05.

[6] Ibid., 17:1305-07.

[7] Ibid., 17:1307-08.

[8] Castle Wiiliam on Castle Island in Boston Harbor.

[9] Ibid., 17:1309.

[10] Ibid., 17:1310

[11] Ibid., 17:1311.

[12] Ibid., 17:1312-13.

[13] Ibid., 17:1313.

[14] Ibid., 17:1313-14.

[15] Ibid., 17:1314-15.

[16] Ibid., 17:1315-16.

[17] King George to Lord North, May 3, 1774,in George the Third’s Letters to Lord North (London: J. Murry, 1867), 183.

[18] Peter Force, ed., American Archives, Fourth Series, A Documentary History of the English Colonies North America (Washington DC: M. St Clair, 1837), 1:92-93.

[19] B. D. Bargar, Lord Dartmouth and the American Revolution (Columbia, SC: The University of South Carolina Press, 1965), 114.