Knollenberg Bernhard. Growth of the American Revolution: 1766-1775
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
THE BOSTON PORT ACT
AND BRITISH TROOPS TO BOSTON
N
of the East India Company’s tea at
Boston reached London on or before January ,¹ and was con-
sidered at a Cabinet meeting on January , . At this meeting, at-
tended by all members of the Cabinet
—North and Lords Gower, Roch-
ford, Apsley, Sandwich, Suffolk, and Dartmouth²
—it was resolved,
apparently without dissent, that “in consequence of the present disor-
ders in America, effectual steps...be taken to secure the Dependance
of the Colonies on the Mother Country.”³ Just what steps to take was
left for future decision; but, considering the complexion of the Cabinet,
they were likely to be drastic.
North, for reasons indicated in Chapter , would presumably favor
strong measures of punishment for an act violently opposing collection
of the British duty on tea, and, except possibly Dartmouth, none of the
other members of the Cabinet could be expected to oppose drastic
measures against Boston.
Gower and Sandwich, who had succeeded Sir Edward Hawke as
First Lord of the Admiralty in January, , were leading members of
the Bedford party, which had consistently favored stern measures to
suppress colonial insubordination. Suffolk, appointed one of the Sec-
retaries of State in June, , had been a faithful follower of George
Grenville, father of the Stamp Act, until the latter’s death in November,
. Rochford, though not connected with the Bedford or Grenville
parties probably had been among the Cabinet members who voted in
against Grafton’s proposal for total repeal of the Townshend Act
duties. Apsley, Lord Chancellor since January, , had long been on
the bench and out of politics; but his father was a prominent Tory and
he himself had been a Tory member of the House of Commons before
becoming a judge. Besides, having been appointed Lord Chancellor
during the Ministry of North, he presumably could be counted on to
support North’s policies.⁴
At a Cabinet meeting on February , Dartmouth proposed, and
the Cabinet approved, a resolution to request the King to direct the
Governor of Massachusetts “to remove the seat of Government [from
Boston] to such other place in the province as he shall think least likely
to be influenced by the town of Boston,” and to remove the officers of
the customs “to such other port as shall be judged most convenient.”⁵
It was also decided at this meeting to ask the Attorney-General, Ed-
ward Thurlow, and the Solicitor-General, Alexander Wedderburn, for
an opinion whether the proceedings against landing the Company’s tea
at Boston amounted to “the crime of High Treason, and if so against
whom [to proceed], and what will be the proper and legal method of
proceeding against such persons.”⁶
In response to a “case” submitted to them by Dartmouth,⁷ Thurlow
and Wedderburn gave an opinion (February ) that “the Acts and Pro-
ceedings, stated in the above mentioned case, do amount to the Crime
of High Treason, namely, to the levying of War against His Majesty”;
that “Molyneux, Denny, Warren, Church and Johonat, who in the Char-
acter of a Committee went to the length of attacking Clarke,⁸ are charge-
able with the Crime of High Treason”; that Jonathan Williams, Samuel
Adams, John Hancock, Edward Proctor, and many other unnamed per-
sons who had participated in the proceedings at Boston against landing
the tea were apparently guilty of high treason or at least of “high mis-
demeanour”;⁹ and that the accused might be proceeded against either
“by prosecuting Them for their Treason” in Massachusetts or by “trans-
mitting them hither to be tried in some County of England.”
However, the law officers concluded that “Upon perusing the State
of the Evidence of Mr. Scott,¹⁰ the only Person now in England who can
give evidence,¹¹ We think that, as it stands, it is scarce sufficient to affect
any person with the crime of High Treason unless the resolutions, taken
at the meeting which he speaks of,¹² can be more distinctly established,
and referred to the persons He mentions.”¹³
On receipt of this opinion, Dartmouth rounded up a dozen persons
who had been in Boston during the preceding November and Decem-
ber, and secured depositions from them at a meeting of the Privy Coun-
cil on February .¹⁴ But after considering this testimony, the law offi-
cers informed the Cabinet on February , that, in their opinion, “the
charge of High Treason cannot be maintained against any individuals
on the ground of the depositions taken at the Council Board.”¹⁵
Initially, the Cabinet seems to have planned to take executive action
only against Boston and the leaders of the opposition there,¹⁶ but a res-
olution adopted at a Cabinet meeting on February discloses that, by
this time, the Ministry had decided to ask for the intervention of Par-
liament. The resolution states:
“That it be moved [in Parliament] for leave to bring in a Bill to take
away from the Town & district of Boston the privileges of a Port until
the East India Company shall have been indemnified in the Loss they
have sustained by the Destruction of their Teas, either by the said Town
at large or by the Committee of the Body of the people which con-
ducted the Measures that led to that Act of Violence.”¹⁷
At a meeting on February , the Cabinet came to a decision as to
the procedure to be followed in launching the Boston Port bill.¹⁸ Pur-
suant to this decision, the King, on March , presented to both Houses
of Parliament a message laying before them copies of over a hundred
documents describing the opposition to the landing of the tea at Boston
and elsewhere, with the request that he be enabled “effectually to take
such Measures as may be most likely to put an immediate Stop to the
present Disorders,...and [secure] the Execution of the Laws, and the
just Dependence of the Colonies upon the Crown and Parliament of
Great Britain.”¹⁹
Both Houses promptly adopted addresses thanking the King for
submitting the papers and assuring him that appropriate action would
be taken in accordance with his request,²⁰ and a week later (March ),
North moved in the House of Commons for leave “to bring in a Bill to
discontinue the Landing and Discharging, Lading and Shipping of
Goods, Wares, and Merchandise, at the said Town of Boston, or within
the Harbour thereof....”²¹
Speaking in support of his motion, North stated that, since this was
“the third time the officers of the customs had been prevented from do-
ing their duty in the harbour of Boston,”²² he thought “the inhabitants
of the town deserved punishment” and that, while some individuals
might be made to suffer unjustly, there was ample precedent,²³ “where
the authority of a town had been, as it were asleep and inactive,...for
the town to be fined for such neglect....”²⁴
Again there was but little opposition, and the motion was adopted
without a division.²⁵
The bill as introduced by North March provided for closing the
Port of Boston²⁶ on and after June , , to all commerce except impor-
tation of military or other supplies for the Crown and “fuel or victual
brought coastwise . . . for the necessary use and sustenance of the inhab-
itants of the said town of Boston,” until the following conditions were met:
First: The King in Council must find and declare 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 and his
Majesty’s customs duly collected....”
Second: The King must be convinced that “full satisfaction hath
been made by or on behalf of the said town of Boston to the united com-
pany of merchants of England trading to the East Indies, for the dam-
ages sustained by the said Company by the destruction of their goods
sent to Boston, on certain ships or vessels as aforesaid.”
Third: The Governor or Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts
must certify to the King in Council that “reasonable satisfaction hath
been made to the officers of his Majesty’s revenue, and others, who
suffered by the riots and insurrections, above mentioned”²⁷ in Novem-
ber and December, , and January, .
Furthermore if and when Boston were reopened to general com-
merce, vessels were to load and unload their cargo only “upon such
wharfs, quays and places” as “his Majesty, his heirs or successors shall
judge necessary and expedient....”²⁸
The bill obviously envisaged more than payment to the East India
Company of the value of the destroyed tea, but just what else was far
from clear. What would be required to satisfy the Privy Council that
“obedience to the laws” had been so far restored at Boston as to give as-
surance that British trade could be safely carried on there and customs
duties be duly collected?
What customs officers and others must be compensated and what
was to be “reasonable” satisfaction? Even the amount to be paid the
East India Company was indefinite. Was the amount to be limited to
the value of the tea destroyed
—about £,²⁹—or did the “full” satis-
faction to be given include satisfaction for incidental damages such as
the anticipated profits on the sale of the destroyed tea?
Furthermore, the bill authorized the Crown to select particular wharfs
within the Port of Boston as the only ones at which goods could be legally
landed. Presumably the purpose of this provision was to facilitate en-
forcement of the British customs duties and restrictions on colonial trade;
but it would obviously enable the Crown to favor wharf owners who
were Tories and punish, perhaps bankrupt, those who were Whigs.³⁰
Apparently there was no debate on either the first or second reading
of the bill on March and ,³¹ but it was extensively debated in the
Commons sitting in Committee of the Whole on March , and again
on the third and final reading of the bill two days later.
Rose Fuller, member for Rye, long a resident of Jamaica but now liv-
ing in England, maintained that Boston ought not be punished unless
and until demand was made for a fixed indemnity, say £,, to be
paid within a reasonable, specified time, and the demand was not met.³²
A number of other speakers also opposed on various grounds the bill as
it stood. George Byng, a staunch follower of Rockingham, proposed an
amendment to except trade with British merchants; Charles James Fox
moved to amend the bill in various ways; and George Dempster,
William Dowdeswell, Edmund Burke, Lord John Cavendish, Thomas
Townshend, John Sawbridge, and George Johnstone, former Governor
of West Florida, flatly opposed the bill or sought to have its operation
deferred.³³
Among the numerous supporters of the bill, Charles Van, member
for the Welsh borough of Brecon, made himself conspicuous by declar-
ing that “the town of Boston ought to be knocked about their ears, and
destroyed; Delenda est Carthago,” and that Great Britain would “never
meet with that proper obedience in the colonies to the laws of this coun-
try, until you have destroyed that nest of locusts.”³⁴ The most striking as-
pect of the debate was, however, the conduct of two usual champions of
the colonists, Henry S. Conway and Isaac Barré, who spoke not against,
but in support of, the bill.³⁵
There was no call for a division on either day,³⁶ because, according
to Edmund Burke, opponents of the bill “made so little impression that
it was not thought advisable to divide the House.”³⁷ But a related mo-
tion to accept a petition against the bill from William Bollan, London
Agent for the Massachusetts Council, was defeated to .³⁸
The Boston Port bill passed the Commons on March and was
promptly laid before the House of Lords, where it was supported by
a number of speakers, including Lord Mansfield, Chief Justice of the
King’s Bench, who declared the recent event at Boston an overt act of
high treason.³⁹ The bill was opposed by the Duke of Richmond, Lord
Shelburne, Lord Camden, and several other peers,⁴⁰ but passed the
Lords, apparently without a division at any stage, on March and was
assented to by the King the next day.⁴¹
Shelburne wrote Lord Chatham March that Dartmouth had re-
cently told him he was determined “to cover America from the present
storm to the utmost of his power,”⁴² but there is no evidence of Dart-
mouth’s having opposed the measures taken against Boston and Mas-
sachusetts, either in the Cabinet or in Parliament.⁴³ Indeed, Benjamin
Franklin seems to have sized Dartmouth up pretty accurately in writing
his son, William Franklin, that Dartmouth “is truly a good Man, and
wishes sincerely a good Understanding with the Colonies, but does not
seem to have Strength equal to his Wishes” and that “with Dispositions
for the best Measures, is easily prevail’d with to join in the worst.”⁴⁴
Some of the members of the House of Commons who had refrained
from opposing the Boston Port bill said they had done so under the im-
pression that, if this bill were passed, the Ministry would propose repeal
of the colonial tea duty.⁴⁵ But there apparently had been a misunder-
standing; when Fuller moved for repeal of the duty, North opposed the
motion, and, though Edmund Burke and others strongly supported Ful-
ler, his motion was defeated to .⁴⁶
To ensure enforcement of the Act, Governor Thomas Hutchinson
was to be replaced as Governor of Massachusetts by General Thomas
Gage, Commander in Chief of the British army in North America, who
was to be supported at Boston by four regiments. These, he had told the
King, would be “sufficient to [deal with] any disturbance.”⁴⁷
On April , orders were given to send the Fourth, Fifth, Thirty-eighth,
and Forty-third Regiments from England and Ireland to Boston,⁴⁸ and,
five days later, Gage, in England on leave of absence, was appointed Gov-
ernor under a commission and instructions giving him greater author-
ity than that of former Governors of Massachusetts.⁴⁹ Previously, the
Governor had had authority to reprieve (subject to review by the King),
but not to pardon, persons accused of willful murder or treason; Gage’s
commission empowered him to pardon persons convicted of these, as
well as of lesser, offenses.⁵⁰ Previous instructions directed the Governor
not to declare martial law “without the advice and consent of our Coun-
cil”; this limitation was omitted in the instructions to Gage.⁵¹
Furthermore, at a Cabinet meeting on April , attended by Gage
and the law officers of the Crown, it was decided that “in case of dan-
gerous tumult and insurrection...it will be the duty of the Governor
of the Province to...repel force and violence by every means within
his reach.”⁵² This would, of course, include the use of the British troops
at Boston under Gage’s orders in his capacity as Commander in Chief
of all British troops in North America.
Gage also was furnished with a copy of the law officers’ opinion as to
treason in Boston (quoted earlier in this chapter), with instructions “to
employ your utmost Endeavours to obtain sufficient Evidence against
the principal Actors [named] therein; and in case...you shall be of
opinion that upon Indictment of them there is a probability of their be-
ing brought to punishment, it is His Majesty’s Pleasure that you...di-
rect the proper Steps to be taken for their Prosecution.”⁵³
In his covering letter, Dartmouth wrote, “His Majesty trusts that no
opposition will, or can, with any Effect, be made to the carrying the
Law into Execution...but Should it happen otherwise your Authority
as the first Magistrate, combined with your Command over the King’s
Troops, will, it is hoped, enable You to meet every opposition, and fully
to preserve the public peace, by employing those Troops with Effect
should the madness of the People on the one hand or the timidity or
want of Strength of the peace officers on the other hand, make it nec-
essary to resort to their assistance....
“Sovereignty of the King in his Parliament over the Colonies,” Dart-
mouth continued, “requires a full and absolute submission, and His
Majesty’s Dignity demands that, until that submission be made, the
Town of Boston, where so much anarchy and confusion have prevailed,
should cease to be the place of the Residence of his Governor, or of any
other Officer of Government who is not obliged by Law to perform his
functions there.” Hence, Gage and all other officials not thus excepted,
until otherwise ordered, were “to make the Town of Salem the place of
your residence....”⁵⁴
The Boston Port Act was only the first of several colonial measures
projected by the North Ministry, the most important of which was the
Massachusetts Regulating Act altering the charter and laws of the
province.⁵⁵
PROPOSALS FOR A TIGHTER REIN
ON MASSACHUSETTS
T
of the Massachusetts Regula-
ing Act of is understandable only in the light of letters over
many years from important officials in the colonies to officials in En-
gland, declaring that the whole of Massachusetts, not Boston alone,
was singularly unruly and suggesting alterations in the form of govern-
ment of the colony to make it more tractable.*
These came not only from members of the harassed American Cus-
toms Board,¹ thrice driven to seek safety at Castle William, but from
others who wrote presumably with more detachment.
In June, , following the recent Liberty riot (described in Chapter ),
Gage, then as now Commander in Chief of the British army in North
America,² wrote Lord Barrington, Secretary at War³ and one of the so-
called “King’s Friends,”⁴ that the riot portended “open Revolt, not only
of the City of Boston but of the whole Province of Massachusetts Bay.”
“Quash this Spirit at a Blow,”⁵ he said, “without too much regard to the
Expence, and it will prove oeconomy in the End. Such Resolute and
determined Conduct will Astonish the rest of the Provinces and damp
the Spirit of Insurrection that may lurk amongst them. . . .” “If,” Gage
added, “the Principles of Moderation and Forbearance are again
adopted [as they had been in dealing with colonial opposition to the
* J. W. Tyler, Smugglers and Patriots: Boston Merchants and the Advent of the American Revolution (Boston:
Northeastern University Press, ). [B.W.S.]
Stamp Act],...There will be an End to these Provinces as British Col-
onies, give them what Name you please.”⁶
In May, , deploring the fact that Parliament had taken no action
to punish those responsible for assembling the extra legal convention at
Boston (described in Chapter ), Gage wrote Barrington recommending
“Impeachment⁷ of those who signed the Letters of Convention”;⁸ “Abo-
lition of the Town Meetings of Boston”;⁹ establishment of “a Corporation
in lieu thereof, as in other Citys...”;¹⁰ and “Appointment of the Council
by the King.” (In all the royal colonies except Massachusetts, the provin-
cial Council or Upper House was appointed by mandate of the King.¹¹
In Massachusetts, the Council was chosen annually by joint ballot of the
newly elected House of Representatives and the outgoing Council,¹² sub-
ject to rejection by the Governor of any or all of the members so chosen.)¹³
Again deploring the weakness of the British government in dealing
with the colonies in general and Massachusetts in particular, Gage wrote
Barrington in September, , “I think it must be plain to every Man,
that no Peace will ever be established in that Province till the King
Nominates his Council, and Appoints the Magistrates, And that all
Town-Meetings are absolutely abolished....”¹⁴
Two months later, he wrote Barrington, “I declare to your Lordship
my private Opinion, that America is a mere Bully, from one End to the
Other....”¹⁵
Extreme unrest at home, marked by the Wilkes riots, and the immi-
nent threat of war with Spain over the Falkland Islands¹⁶ discouraged
action by the British government or Parliament against the colonies in
–; all British military resources were needed elsewhere. But
soon after quiet was restored at home and the Falkland Island dispute
was peacefully settled, Gage wrote Barrington (April, ), “The pro-
found Tranquillity you enjoy at present is a happy Circumstance...[in
which] to regulate the Affairs of this Country....It is necessary...that
Great Britain should not only assert but also support that Supremacy
which she claims over the Members of the Empire, or she will Soon only
be supreme in Words. . . .” And in the next to last private letter he wrote
Barrington before leaving for England on leave in June, , Gage
stressed the importance of not yielding to any colonial demands. It was,
he pointed out, “an Axiom in Politicks that a Government when forced