Knollenberg Bernhard. Growth of the American Revolution: 1766-1775
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
. Rotch told the Privy Council Feb. , , that the “most active” persons at
the meeting, presided over by Jonathan Williams, a nephew by marriage of Ben-
jamin Franklin, were Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Dr. Young, Molineux, and
Dr. Warren, P.C. :.
Rotch’s promise to return the tea without landing it, minutes of Boston mass
meeting of Nov. , , M.H.S. Proc. XX –; Minute Book of Boston Comm.
of Corresp. No. –, Bancroft Papers N.Y. Pub. Lib.; testimony of Rotch
and others before the Privy Council Feb. , , Acts P.C. VI –. As to
Rotch’s part ownership of the Dartmouth, same . His father, Joseph Rotch, ap-
parently was the principal owner, Labaree Tea Party , .
Consignees’ offer to store the tea, and rejection of the offer at the mass meeting of
Nov. , , John Singleton Copley to Isaac Winslow Clarke, Dec. , Copley Let-
ters –; Minutes of the Tea Meetings M.H.S. Proc. XX –. A similar offer
to the Governor and Council of Mass. Nov. was rejected by the Council Nov.
, Tea Leaves –, –. Thomas Hutchinson, Jr., wrote Dec. that, be-
ing at the Castle, “surrounded with cannon, we [the consignees] have [given]
them such answers as we shou’d not have dared to do in any other situation,”
Hutchinson Diary and Letters I .
The Eleanor, James Bruce master, reached Boston Dec. , , Tea Leaves . The
Beaver, Hezekiah Coffin master, reached Boston Dec. , but did not dock until Dec.
, selectmen’s minutes Dec. and , Boston Selectmen’s Minutes (for –) ,
. The committee requiring the vessels to dock at Griffin’s wharf, Rowe’s diary
for Dec. , Rowe – and Hutchinson to Dartmouth on or about Jan. , ,
Mass. Arch. XXVI . The committee’s members, mentioned by Rowe, indi-
cate that it was the one, headed by Samuel Adams, chosen at a Boston mass meet-
ing Nov. , , M.H.S. Proc. XX .
The William, fourth of the Boston tea ships, was wrecked on Cape Cod Dec. ,
, and, a few weeks later, the tea salvaged from her was reshipped and stored
at Castle William, Rowe ; Hutchinson to Dartmouth on or about Jan. , ,
Mass. Arch. XXVI ; Samuel Adams to James Warren Jan. , Frothingham
“Tea Party” . I have not found what eventually became of this tea.
and Chas. II ch. sec. (), extended to the colonies by and Wm. III
ch. sec. (), empowered customs officers, within twenty days after “first en-
try,” to seize dutiable goods on which duty had not been paid; and Geo. I ch.
sec. () authorized customs officers to auction off goods thus seized six
months after they were impounded. “Entry” was construed to mean entering port
with intent of the master to land the ship’s cargo, opinion of Attorney-General
Philip Yorke, Nov. , , Chalmers Opinions .
As brought out in note above, the Dartmouth’s master did not formally enter her
until Nov. , , but the tea became liable for duty on her actually entering the
port of Boston Nov. .
Failure of Rotch, part owner of the Dartmouth, to prepare her for leaving, Scollay
to Lee Dec. , , M.H.S. Coll. ; Hutchinson to Israel Mauduit Dec.
[about Dec. ] Mass. Arch. XXVII –. (The approximate date of this let-
ter is indicated by a statement in the letter that the consignees had been at Castle
William “four weeks.”)
The mass meeting of Dec. , , and developments there are reported in min-
utes of the Tea Meetings, M.H.S. Proc. XX .
Refusal of the Collector to grant clearance for the Dartmouth to return to England
with the Company’s tea on board, without payment of the duty incurred, report
to mass meeting held in morning of Dec. , , same –.
Report that the tea on all the tea ships was about to be taken under protection of
the British warships at Boston and carried to Castle Island, Cooper to Franklin
Dec. , , and Scollay to Lee Dec. , M.H.S. Coll. IV –, ; diary of
William Smith Dec. , Sabine William Smith I . I have found no evidence sub-
stantiating this report, but it seems worth noting that at the request of customs offi-
cers at Boston the tea salvaged from the William, wrecked on Cape Cod, was
shipped to and stored at Castle Island, Hutchinson to Dartmouth Jan. , ,
Boston Tea Party Papers, Harvard College Lib.
Boston Whigs’ fear that if the tea were lodged at Castle William, the consignees
would be able to market it surreptitiously, Cooper to Franklin Dec. , ,
M.H.S. Coll. IV . Gov. Hutchinson wrote the directors of the Company Dec.
that his own sons alone had imported over chests in some recent years, Mass.
Arch. XXVII , which they sold “by stealth like smugglers,” Hutchinson to
Bernard Aug. , , same XXVI –.
As noted in Chapter , the Fourteenth Regiment, commanded by Lieut.-Col.
William Dalrymple, was removed from Boston to Castle William, near the mouth
of Boston Harbor, following the Boston “Massacre.” It was replaced in Aug., ,
by the Sixty-fourth Regiment from Halifax, under Lieut.-Col. Alexander Leslie,
Gage I , II .
Hutchinson to Israel Mauduit Dec. [no day], , concerning his messages to
Lieut.-Col. Leslie and Admiral John Montagu, Frothingham “Tea Party” . I
have not found the dates of these messages, but a letter from Hutchinson to Gov.
Tryon Dec. , , expressing the hope that the consigness would remain firm,
same , indicates that he was planning by then to take a firm stand.
Rotch ordered at mass meeting of Dec. , , to apply to Hutchinson for a
pass and his report that the pass was refused, minutes of the meeting, M.H.S. Proc.
XX .
Hutchinson to Mauduit Dec., , concerning the Tea Party, Mass. Arch. XXVII
–, published in part in Frothingham “Tea Party” –. To much the
same effect, Hutchinson to Dartmouth Dec. , , same –; accounts in the
Boston newspapers of the time; Samuel Cooper to Franklin Dec. , Cushing and
others to Arthur Lee Dec. , Scollay to Lee Dec. , M.H.S. Coll. IV –;
and John Andrews to William Barrell Dec. , M.H.S. Proc. (for –) –.
The “men of property,” John Hancock, William Phillips, John Rowe, and William
Dennie, named by Hutchinson, were leading Boston merchants. The Boston se-
lectmen (councilmen) were Hancock, John Scollay, Timothy Newell, Thomas
Marshall, Samuel Austin, Oliver Wendell, and John Pitts, and the town clerk was
William Cooper, Boston Records (for –) .
It seems highly unlikely that the people “wished” to have the Dartmouth “stopped
at the Castle,” though many may well have feared this would happen if she sailed
without a customs clearance or pass from Hutchinson.
Dr. Young was one of the most fiery of the Whig leaders in Boston at this time and
until he left for Newport shortly before the outbreak of the Revolutionary War,
Edes “Young” –. James Hall testified before the Privy Council Feb. , ,
that Young had said at the great mass meeting of Nov. , , “the only way to
get rid of the tea was to throw it over board,” but “the people declared against
Dr. Young’s proposal that the tea be destroyed,” Acts P.C. VI .
Hutchinson evidently believed that a pass issued by him would be honored by the
military and naval commanders, as appears from his letter of Jan. , , to
Bernard, stating: “It would have given me...painful reflection if I had saved it
[the tea] by any concession to a lawless and highly criminal Assembly...,” Froth-
ingham “Tea Party” . Granting the pass would, however, have involved a
breach of his oath as Governor to enforce the British acts of trade and customs,
Hutchinson to Samuel Swift Jan. , , same .
Admiral Montagu, referred to by Hutchinson, was John Montagu, commander of
the British fleet in North America, a key figure in the Gaspee affair. Captain James
Hall was master of the Dartmouth.
Criticism of Hutchinson for not calling on Montagu to protect the tea ships, Laba-
ree Tea Party – n., and sources cited therein. To similar effect, Samuel
Adams to Arthur Lee Jan. or June, , stating that Hutchinson, “by delaying to
call on the naval power to protect the Tea...led them [the Boston Whigs] to de-
termine their Choice of Difficulties,” i.e., to destroy the tea as a last resort, Cush-
ing S. Adams III . (The letter as published is dated Jan. ; but internal evidence
indicates that the correct date is probably June , .)
Hutchinson to Mauduit Dec. , , and to Bernard Jan. , , Frothingham
“Tea Party” , , as to the assumption the tea would be safe since “so many
men of property had made part of the meetings, and were in danger of being
liable for the value of it.”
Montagu wrote Philip Stephens, Secretary to the Admiralty Board, Dec. , ,
that on application from the Governor or Commissioners of the Customs for pro-
tection, “I shall give the utmost assistance...agreeable to my instructions,” and
on Dec. , he wrote Stephens that had they called for assistance “I could easily
have prevented the execution of this Plan [destruction of the tea] but must have
endangered the Lives of many innocent people by firing on the town,” Boston Tea
Party Papers, Harv. Coll. Lib.
Leslie wrote Lord Barrington, Secretary at War Dec. , , that he was ready to
send his regiment (stationed at Castle William) to Boston any time Gov. Hutchin-
son so requested; on Dec. , in writing Barrington of the destruction of the tea,
he said, “I am informed the [Mass.] Council would not agree to the Troops going
to Town...,” same. A request for this to the Council seems to have been implied
by Gov. Hutchinson in meetings with the Council Nov. –, reported in Te a
Leaves –.
Dartmouth log entry of Dec. , , as to the number assembled on the wharf and
the boarding party being dressed and whooping like Indians, appendix to Traits of
the Tea Party . The Indian dress and whooping of the members of the boarding
party are referred to also in Samuel Cooper to Franklin Dec. , M.H.S. Coll.
IV .
Andrews to Barrell Dec. , , as to the Tea Party, “Andrews Letters” . (An-
drews had written Barrell Dec. , “‘twould puzzle any person to purchase a pair
of p
——ls in town, as they are all bought up, with a full determination to repell
force by force,’” same .) The log of the Dartmouth for Dec. records that it was
after six when “Indians” boarded the tea ships, Traits of the Tea Party . Having
been completed, according to Andrews, before nine, the party evidently was over
in less than three hours.
The item as to the boarding party’s whoop and the answer is in the Massachusetts
Gazette of Dec. , , reprinted in Frothingham “Tea Party” .
John Dean Whitworth, one of the principal witnesses before the Privy Council
concerning the Tea Party, probably was the “Dr. Whitworth,” who (Hutchinson
wrote to an unidentified correspondent Oct. , ) had “lost all his practice here
by his attachment to Government,” Mass. Arch. XXVII .
Whitworth testified before the Privy Council Feb. , , that there were forty or
fifty in the party which boarded the tea ships, Acts. P.C. VI , and this roughly tal-
lies with the statement in the First Continental Congress’ “Address to the People
of Great Britain” Oct. , , that the boarding party consisted of thirty or forty,
Journals Cont. Congress I . However, Andrews wrote Barrell Dec. , , that the
party was said to muster about , “Andrews Letters” , and Samuel Cooper
wrote Franklin Dec. , that it numbered or , M.H.S. Coll. IV .
Rotch’s testimony before the Privy Council Feb. , , as to Samuel Adams’
statement at the meeting that “he did not see what more they could do to save their
Country,” P.C. :. Dr. William Tyler testified that both Adams and Dr. Young
spoke at the meeting “in support of a resolution that the tea be sent back to En-
gland without being landed,” same . I have found no contemporary evidence
for the statements in Bancroft History VI and Quincy Memoir – as to
Josiah Quincy, Jr., having made an eloquent speech at this meeting.
P. Michell, Secretary to the Court of Directors of the East India Company, to John
Pownall, Feb. , , “praying indemnity for the loss of their teas at Boston,
amounting in value to £,/s/d,” Calendar H.O. Papers (for –) .
Cooper wrote Franklin Dec. , , that there was no injury to “any other prop-
erty or to any man’s person” except one “interloper...who had found means to
fill his pockets with tea [and] upon being discovered, was stripped of his booty and
his clothes together and sent home naked,” M.H.S. Coll. IV . Andrews to Bar-
rell Dec. identified the offender as “one Captain Conner,...not many years
remov’d from dear Ireland,” who had been stripped of his clothes and given “a coat
of mud, with a severe bruising in the bargain...,” “Andrews Letters” .
Descriptions of the “mobs” referred to in the text include those in Hulton Letters
–; Peters History passim; Oliver Origin – and sources cited in the editor’s
notes; Egerton Loyalists passim; Brown King’s Friends passim.
Though Colonial tarring and featherings were much played up both at the time
and later, I have found evidence of fewer than a dozen of these throughout the col-
onies from to April, .
Anne Hulton, sister of a member of the American Customs Board, wrote on Jan-
uary , , that the doctors said “it is impossible” that John Malcom, a customs
officer recently tarred and feathered in Boston, “can live,” Hulton Letters . But he
lived until , Hersey “Malcom” , . Miss Hulton’s report in June, ,
that the Collector of Customs at Boston [ Joseph Harrison], recently attacked by
the “Sons of Violence,” was “mortally” injured (Hulton Letters ) also was untrue;
he was still living in England as late as , Sabine Loyalists I .
There is a good description of the wanton destruction of property in Boston, New-
port, and New York in incident to the opposition to the Stamp Act, and the
subsequent efforts of Whig leaders in the colonies to prevent a recurrence of this,
in Maier Resistance – and sources cited therein. See also Wood “Mobs in the
American Revolution” – and Maier “Popular Uprisings in America” –.
The list of fifty-eight alleged participants in the party was furnished apparently in
or shortly before by George R.T. Hewes to Benjamin Thatcher and pub-
lished in Traits of the Tea Party () –. The later list, accompanying a reprint
of the earlier list, is in Tea Leaves xciii–xciv. According to one of the yarns in Wat-
son Tea Party –, some of the party came from as far away as Lebanon, Maine.
The Mass. Spy (Worcester) of Sept. , , reported a statement said to have been
made by Abiel Wood of Pownallborough, Mass., that John Hancock “was the first
man that went on board the vessel, to destroy the tea.” But it is hardly conceivable
that a person so rich and generally known as Hancock would have risked detec-
tion and suit for damages, not to mention imprisonment, by actively participating
in the Tea Party.
Hutchinson wrote in his diary Dec. , , that “Will More” was reputed to have
been “Captain of the men who destroyed the tea,” Hutchinson Diary and Letters II
, and a barber named Eckley was arrested at the time for alleged participation,
but was acquitted for lack of evidence, Labaree Tea Party , .
John Adams to Hezekiah Niles May , , as to not knowing the names of any
of the participants, Adams Works II n.
Drake’s statement in Tea Leaves lxvii as to who, he supposes, organized the Boston
Tea Party.
The North End Caucus resolved Nov. , , “this body are determined that the
Tea shipped or to be shipped [to Boston] shall not be landed,” Goff Revere II .
The initial watch over the Dartmouth was composed chiefly of members of the
North End Caucus, as appears from comparing the list of the watch in M.H.S. Proc.
XX –, with those mentioned as members of the Caucus in its minutes for
–, Goff Revere II –. These minutes indicate that Nathaniel Barber,
Thomas Hitchborn, John Lowell, Paul Revere, and Abiel Ruddock were particu-
larly active in the Caucus at this period.
Resignation of the Charleston consignees before arrival of the tea ship London, and
arrival of the ship at Charleston Dec. , Gov. William Bull to Dartmouth Dec. ,
Tea Leaves –; also Labaree Tea Party .
Seizure and storage of the Company’s tea after twenty days by local customs offi-
cers, John Morris to Corbyn Morris Dec. and Bull to Dartmouth Dec. , ,
same –. See also Wallace “Chapter of S.C. History” –, Labaree Tea Party
–, –, and Sellers Charleston –.
Seizure and sale of the tea by the S.C. Revolutionary government in ,
Wallace “Chapter of S.C. History” , and S.C. Delegates at the Second Conti-
nental Congress to the President of S.C., John Rutledge, July , , Force Am.
Archives III .
Resignation of the Philadelphia consignees before arrival of the tea ship Polly at
Gloucester Point Dec. , Labaree Tea Party –, –; and newspaper ac-
count Dec. , , Tea Leaves –.
Proceedings at Philadelphia and return of the Polly from Gloucester Point to En-
gland without unloading her cargo, Reed to Dartmouth Dec. , , Reed Reed
I ; Stone “Philadelphia” –; Taylor “Philadelphia Tea Party” III –,
; “Wharton Letters” , ; and newspaper account Dec. , Tea Leaves –
. News of the Boston Tea Party had reached Philadelphia Dec. , , Penn-
sylvania Journal of Dec. .
Gloucester Point was within the limits of the Philadelphia customs house district
established by the customs authorities, Labaree Tea Party –.
Return of the Polly to England on Dec. , , with the tea on board, after being
provisioned, Reed to Dartmouth Dec. , Reed Reed I . Importation of tea into
Great Britain except from “the place of its growth” was forbidden, under penalty
of confiscation by Geo. ch. sec. () and Geo. II ch. sec. ().
Orders were given by the Company in Jan., , too late to affect proceedings at
Philadelphia, to send rejected tea to Halifax, Nova Scotia, but the tea rejected at
Philadelphia was evidently not confiscated when the Polly reached England, Laba-
ree Tea Party –, –.
The “instrument of association” of the “Sons of Liberty of New York” concerning
tea, Nov. , , quoted in the text, broadside quoted in Barker New York –
; Leake Lamb –; and letter of “Brutus” dated May , , in Force I –
n. at –.
“Vast number” of signers of the instrument of association, New York newspapers
of Dec. , , quoted in same n. For additional details, William Smith’s Jour-
nal for Dec. –, , Smith Memoirs I –.
Tea consignees’ letter of Dec. , , to the tea ship headed for New York,
quoted in the text, Tea Leaves –.
Arrival of the tea ship Nancy Benjamin Lockyer, master April , , on the night
of April , Cadwallader Colden to Lord Dartmouth May , , and account
dated Apr. , Force I –. (The ship had first been driven by adverse winds
to Antigua and on her resumed voyage to New York had lost a mast in a severe gale,
Mass. Spy Apr. , , quoted in Schlesinger Col. Merchants and Force I .)
Lockyer keeps the Nancy off Sandy Hook and comes to New York City in the pilot
boat, account of April , , same .
Lockyer to the consignees concerning the tea dated April , , quoted in the
text, and the consignees’ reply of the same date, Tea Leaves –.
Lockyer’s promise to leave, quoted in the text, and the Nancy’s leaving on Apr. ,
, account of April , quoted in the text, Force I , .
Tea shipped to the colonies by parties other than the East India Company was de-
stroyed in several ports, Labaree Tea Party –, –. The most notable of
these incidents were at New York City in April, , Force I ; and at Annapolis
in Oct., , Schlesinger Col. Merchants –.
Chapter
The London Chronicle of Jan. , , published a long account of the Boston Tea
Party.
The Cabinet at this time (all members of the House of Lords except North, who
was eldest son of an English peer) consisted of North, First Lord of the Treasury
and Chancellor of the Exchequer; Apsley, Lord Chancellor; Gower, President of
the Council; Sandwich, First Lord of the Admiralty; and three Secretaries of
State
—Rochford, Suffolk, and Dartmouth. Only North, Gower, and Rochford
had been in the Cabinet when the decision was made in to retain the Town-
shend Act duty on tea.
Cabinet minutes Jan. , , as to taking “effectual steps to secure the Depen-
dance of the Colonies,” Dartmouth Pap. II ; inadequately summarized in
Dartmouth () . The Cabinet also resolved at this meeting to assent to a pro-
posed motion by Lord Buckinghamshire for submission to the House of Lords of
all papers bearing on the colonial opposition to landing the Company’s tea, re-
ported in Journals H. of L. XXXIV – and Lord Shelburne to Lord Chatham
Feb. , Pitt IV –. Summaries of this and later Cabinet meetings Jan.–
March, Sosin “Mass. Acts of ” –.
Sketches of all seven of the members of the Cabinet in , named in the text, in
D.N.B.
Minutes of Cabinet meeting Feb. , , Dartmouth Pap. II , inadequately
summarized in Dartmouth () , and North to the King Feb. (misdated Jan.
as printed) as to the resolution for “punishing the Town of Boston” by removing
the customs officials and the place of meeting of the Mass. Legislature from
Boston, Geo. III III . In June, , the Legislature and the American Customs
Board were moved to Salem and the Boston customs officers to Plymouth, Mass.,
Gage II , and Warren “Colonial Customs Service” . See also H.O. Papers
(for –) , ; Gage II ; Donoughue British Politics –.
Cabinet minutes of Feb. , , concerning possible prosecutions for treason,
Dartmouth () and Dartmouth Pap. II . Minutes of a Cabinet meeting
held the next day make clear that it was the Cabinet’s intention to bring the ac-
cused to England for trial, same .
Dartmouth to Attorney-General Edward Thurlow, Feb. , , asking the opin-
ion of himself and Solicitor-General Alexander Wedderburn on questions of trea-
son submitted in an accompanying document entitled “State of the Case,” H.O.
Papers (for –) –. This document (erroneously dated “, January”)
is listed and inadequately summarized in Dartmouth () –. There is a copy
of it in C.O. :: (P.R.O.).
The committee referred to in the law officers’ reply is the one described in Chap-
ter as having threatened Richard Clarke and others if they refused to resign as
Boston agents for the East India Company. The full names, as usually spelled, of
the men named in the reply are William Molineux, William Dennie, Joseph War-
ren, Benjamin Church, and Gabriel Johonnot.
The involvement of Jonathan Williams, Samuel Adams, John Hancock, and Ed-
ward Proctor mentioned in the law officers’ reply is indicated in Chapter .
“Mr. Scott” referred to in the law officers’ reply was James Scott, master of John
Hancock’s ship Hayley, which brought the earliest news of the Tea Party to En-
gland. Scott (who twenty-odd years later married Hancock’s widow) wrote Han-
cock Feb. , , “I had a tolerable passage from Boston and...was immedi-
ately summoned up to Lord Dartmouth and asked a few questions but very
trifling....They have never sent for me since,” Old-Time New England XXV ()
–. Part of this letter is published in Baxter Hancock –, which (n.) gives
an account of the Hayley.
The law officers’ statement that Scott was “the only Person in England who can
give evidence” seems to imply that they had not yet heard of the persons from
Boston, mentioned in note below, but the officers may have meant that Scott
was the only available eyewitness of the supposed treasonable conduct and hence
the only person legally qualified to testify.
Judging from a statement of Wedderburn on Feb. , , referred to in note ,
the meeting spoken of by Scott was the mass meeting in Boston on Nov. , ,
described in Chapter .
Opinion of Thurlow and Wedderburn Feb. , , Gage Pap., Clements Lib. (A
copy enclosed in Dartmouth to Gen. Thomas Gage Apr. , , same.) It is diffi-
cult to believe that these officers really considered the proceedings at Boston as
amounting to making war on the King.
Dartmouth’s rounding up twelve men lately arrived from Boston and interview-
ing them Feb. , , Donoughue British Politics –. The testimony of these
men at a meeting of the Privy Council Feb. , , in P.C. : (P.R.O.) is well
summarized in Acts P.C. VI – and less well in same V –.
Statement to the Cabinet by Thurlow and Wedderburn concerning trial for trea-
son, Cabinet minutes Feb. , Dartmouth Pap. II:, inadequately summarized
in Dartmouth () . “Minutes of Conversation with Lord Dartmouth,” dated
March , , probably by Buckinghamshire, discloses that Wedderburn thought
there was sufficient evidence to prosecute Williams, Hancock, and Molineux for
treason, but that Thurlow disagreed, Lothian –.
The plans and tentative proceedings of the Cabinet Feb. –, , to pun-
ish Boston and the Whig leaders there by executive action are described in
Donoughue British Politics –.
Minutes of Cabinet meeting of Feb. , , quoted in the text, Dartmouth Pap.
II –, summarized inadequately in Dartmouth () . William Lee wrote
his brother Richard Henry Lee March that the coercive measures adopted
by the Cabinet had been opposed by Dartmouth and North (Dartmouth’s step-
brother and close friend), Ford William Lee I , but no evidence of disagreement
is recorded in any of the known Cabinet minutes. All members of the Cabinet but
Suffolk attended the meeting on Feb. .
Cabinet meeting of Feb. , , decided upon procedures to be initiated March
, Dartmouth Pap. II , inadequately summarized in Dartmouth () .
The message from the King to both Houses of Parliament with accompanying
documents, May , , Force I –, . On March , the administration sub-
mitted two important additional papers to both Houses, a letter from Hutchinson
to Dartmouth of Jan. , , and a clipping from the Massachusetts Gazette of
Jan. , both concerning the recent tarring and feathering in Boston of a customs
officer, John Malcom, same , . The letter and clipping are published in Hersey
“Malcom” –.
Address of thanks to the King for his message and accompanying papers and as-
surance of action in accordance with his request adopted by both Houses March
, , Force I –, . Speeches in the House of Commons of North in favor of
the address and of Rockingham’s followers William Dowdeswell and Edmund
Burke, warning against hasty action and the use of force are given and discussed
in same –, ; London Chronicle for March ; and Donoughue British Politics
–. The address was adopted in the Lords apparently without any discussion.
North’s motion in the Commons March , , for leave to bring in a bill to pro-
hibit the landing or shipping of goods at Boston, Force IV –. Closing the Port
of Boston would, of course, be a much more severe measure than that envisaged
in Dartmouth’s earlier proposal for removal of the customs officers from Boston,
which, while burdensome to those using the Port of Boston by requiring them to
go or send to some other town for clearance, would not ban the use of Boston as
a port
—as was recognized in Thurlow and Wedderburn to Dartmouth Feb. ,
Donoughue British Politics –.
North’s reference to two other times besides the tea affair when officers of the cus-
toms had been prevented from doing their duty at Boston presumably relates to
the flight of the British Customs Commissioners from Boston at the time of the
Liberty riot in and at the time of the Boston “Massacre” in , described in
Chapters and .
Of the precedents cited by North for fining Boston because of the Boston Tea
Party, the fine levied on Edinburgh in connection with the Captain John Porteous
incident in , Mahon Hist. of Eng. II –, was the most closely in point.
North’s speech in the Commons in support of his motion of March , , Force
IV –; Parl. Hist. XVII –.
Adoption of North’s motion, March , , without division, Geo. III III , and
speeches by William Dowdeswell and others opposing or questioning it, Force IV
–. (Unpublished notes for – of debates in the House of Commons by
Henry Cavendish, M.P. for Lostwithiel and for – by Matthew Breckdale,
M.P. for Bristol, are used in Namier and Brooke Commons and the former in Don-
oughue Brit. Politics. However, they round out but do not essentially change the
picture presented by the published reports of the Parliamentary debates in re-
lating to the colonies.)
The bill defined the Port of Boston to include all of Boston Bay from Nahant Point
on the north to Point Allerton on the south, embracing not only Boston, but the
towns of Chelsea, Charlestown, Dorchester, Quincy, Weymouth, Hingham, and
Hull.
The provision requiring “reasonable satisfaction” to “officers of his Majesty’s rev-
enue, and others” unquestionably included John Malcom, a British customs offi-
cer, tarred and feathered at Boston on Jan. , , whose case is discussed in
“Malcom (Hersey)” – and was referred to by Rose Fuller in the House of
Commons on March , Force I . But, apparently, no other particular persons
were identified, thus creating ambiguity as to just what was required.
The quotations in the text are from the bill as passed, Geo. III ch. , which did
not differ significantly from the bill as introduced.
East India Company to John Pownall, Under Secretary of State, Feb. , , ask-
ing indemnity for the loss of its tea at Boston, valued at £,, H.O. Papers (for
–) .
The dangerous implications of authorizing the Crown to select particular wharfs
as the exclusive places for legal landing of goods are brought out in Davidson Pro-
paganda –.
The Boston Port bill was read in the Commons on March , , apparently
without comment, Force IV . At the second reading of the bill on March ,
George Byng, a staunch member of the Rockingham group, said “No,” to it,
Donoughue British Politics . But his seems to have been the only opposition
voiced, and the reading passed without a division, the King to North March ,
Geo. III III .
Rose Fuller’s speech March , , not to punish Boston unless and until a spe-
cific indemnity had been demanded and refused, Force I . According to an un-
signed, undated statement in the Chatham Papers (P.R.O.) quoted in Sosin
“Mass. Acts of ” , some London merchants offered to guarantee payment
of over £, to the East India Company if North would drop the proposed
Boston Port bill, but that North insisted on their being “answerable for the future
peaceable conduct & entire acquiescence” of the Bostonians, which, of course,
they could not promise.
Byng, George Dempster, and others besides Fuller who spoke against the Boston
Port bill March and , , Force I –, –. For the constituencies rep-
resented by Byng, Dempster, and Fuller and brief biographical sketches of them,
Namier and Brooke Commons II, III passim.
Charles Van’s speech on March , , declaring that Boston ought to be de-
stroyed for its “flagitiousness,” Force IV –. Speeches in the Commons by
other supporters of the Boston Port bill are in same –, –.
Remarks of Henry S. Conway and Isaac Barré March , , supporting the bill,
same I , . (North’s listing of Barré as speaking against the bill, Geo. III III ,
was evidently an error, Lewis Walpole XXVIII , with Walpole Last Journals I
and Barré’s statement May , Force I .)
There was no division on the bill on March or , North to the King March
and , Geo. III III , .
Edmund Burke wrote the N.Y. Comm. of Corresp. Apr. , , that the argu-
ments made in the Commons by opponents of the bill “made so little impression
that it was not thought advisable to divide the House,” Burke II .
Motion March , , to receive William Bollan’s petition on behalf of Mass.
against the bill defeated to , Force I ; North to the King March , Geo.
III III . See also Burke to N.Y. Comm. of Corresp. Apr. , Burke II , and Bol-
lan to Committee of Mass. Council March , , and , Bowdoin–Temple –
, –.
The Boston Port bill was submitted to the House of Lords March , , Force
I –. Those speaking in favor of the bill in the Lords March , same ; Lord