Due in 24 hours

Boston Non-Importation Agreement, August 1, 1768

The merchants and traders in the town of Boston, having taken into consideration the deplorable situation of the trade and the many difficulties it at present labours under on account of the scarcity of money, which is daily decreasing for want of the other remittances to discharge our debts in Great Britain, and the large sums collected by the officers of the customs for duties on goods imported; the heavy taxes levied to discharge the debts contracted by the government in the late war; the embarrassments and restrictions laid on the trade by the several late Acts of Parliament; together with the bad success of our cod fishery this season, and the discouraging prospect of the whale fishery, by which our principal sources of remittances are like to be greatly diminished, and we thereby rendered unable to pay the debts we owe the merchants in Great Britain, and to continue the importation of goods from thence:

We, the subscribers, in order to relieve the trade under those discouragements, to promote industry, frugality, and economy, and to discourage luxury and every kind of extravagance, do promise and engage to and with each other as follows:

That we will not send or import from Great Britain this fall, either on our own account, or on commission, any other goods than what are already ordered for the fall supply.

That we will not send for or import any kind of goods or merchandise from Great Britain, either on our own account, or on commissions, or any otherwise, from January 1, 1769, to January 1, 1770, except salt, coals, fish-hooks and lines, hemp, duck, bar lead and shot, wool-cards, and card-wire.

That we will not purchase of any factors, or others, any kind of goods imported from Great Britain from January 1, 1769, to January 1, 1770. That we will not import on our own account, or on commission, or Purchase from any Who shall import from any other colony in America, from January 1, 1769, to January 1, 1770, any tea, glass, paper, or other goods commonly imported from Great Britain.

That we will not, from and after January 1, 1769, import into the province any tea, paper, glass, or painters' colours, until the Acts imposing duties on these articles have been repealed.

Association of the Sons of Liberty in New York; December 15, 1773

The following association is signed by a great number of the principal gentlemen of the city, merchants, lawyers, and other inhabitants of all ranks, and it is still carried about the city to give an opportunity to those who have not yet signed, to unite with their fellow citizens, to testify their abhorrence to the diabolical project of enslaving America.

The Association of the Sons of Liberty of New York

It is essential to the freedom and security of a free people, that no taxes be imposed upon them but by their own consent, or their representatives. For "What property have they in that which another may, by right, take when he pleases to himself?" The former is the undoubted right of Englishmen, to secure which they expended millions and sacrificed the lives of thousands. And yet, to the astonishment of all the world, and the grief of America, the Commons of Great Britain, after the repeal of the memorable and detestable Stamp Act, reassumed the power of imposing taxes on the American colonies; and insisting on it as a necessary badge of parliamentary supremacy, passed a bill, in the seventh year of his present Majesty's reign, imposing duties on all glass, painters' colours, paper, and teas, that should, after the 20th of November, 1767, be "imported from Great Britain into any colony or plantation in America". This bill, after the concurrence of the Lords, obtained the royal assent. And thus they who, from time immemorial, have exercised the right of giving to, or withholding from the crown, their aids and subsidies, according to their own free will and pleasure, signified by their representatives in Parliament, do, by the Act in question, deny us, their brethren in America, the enjoyment of the same right. As this denial, and the execution of that Act, involves our slavery, and would sap the foundation of our freedom, whereby we should become slaves to our brethren and fellow subjects, born to no greater stock of freedom than the Americans-the merchants and inhabitants of this city, in conjunction with the merchants and inhabitants of the ancient American colonies, entered into an agreement to decline a part of their commerce with Great Britain, until the above mentioned Act should be totally repealed. This agreement operated so powerfully to the disadvantage of the manufacturers of England that many of them were unemployed. To appease their clamours, and to provide the subsistence for them, which the non-importation had deprived them of, the Parliament, in 1770, repealed so much of the Revenue Act as imposed a duty on glass, painters' colours, and paper, and left the duty on tea, as a test of the parliamentary right to tax us. The merchants of the cities of New York and Philadelphia, having strictly adhered to the agreement, so far as it is related to the importation of articles subject to an American duty, have convinced the ministry, that some other measures must be adopted to execute parliamentary supremacy over this country, and to remove the distress brought on the East India Company, by the ill policy of that Act. Accordingly, to increase the temptation to the shippers of tea from England, an Act of Parliament passed the last session, which gives the whole duty on tea, the company were subject to pay, upon the importation of it into England, to the purchasers and exporters; and when the company have ten millions of pounds of tea in their warehouses exclusive of the quantity they may want to ship, they are allowed to export tea, discharged from the payment of that duty with which they were before chargeable. In hopes of aid in the execution of this project, by the influence of the owners of the American ships, application was made by the company to the captains of those ships to take the tea on freight; but they virtuously rejected it. Still determined on the scheme, they have chartered ships to bring the tea to this country, which may be hourly expected, to make an important trial of our virtue. If they succeed in the sale of that tea, we shall have no property that we can call our own, and then we may bid adieu to American liberty. Therefore, to prevent a calamity which, of all others, is the most to be dreaded-slavery and its terrible concomitants-we, the subscribers, being influenced from a regard to liberty, and disposed to use all lawful endeavours in our power, to defeat the pernicious project, and to transmit to our posterity those blessings of freedom which our ancestors have handed down to us; and to contribute to the support of the common liberties of America, which are in danger to be subverted, do, for those important purposes, agree to associate together, under the name and style of the sons of New York, and engage our honour to, and with each other faithfully to observe and perform the following resolutions, viz.

1st. Resolved, that whoever shall aid or abet, or in any manner assist, in the introduction of tea from any place whatsoever, into this colony, while it is subject, by a British Act of Parliament, to the payment of a duty, for the purpose of raising a revenue in America, he shall be deemed an enemy to the liberties of America.

2d. Resolved, that whoever shall be aiding, or assisting, in the landing, or carting of such tea, from any ship, or vessel, or shall hire any house, storehouse, or cellar or any place whatsoever, to deposit the tea, subject to a duty as aforesaid, he shall be deemed an enemy to the liberties of America.

3d. Resolved, that whoever shall sell, or buy, or in any manner contribute to the sale, or purchase of tea, subject to a duty as aforesaid, or shall aid, or abet, in transporting such tea, by land or water, from this city, until the 7th George III, chap. 46, commonly called the Revenue Act, shall be totally and clearly repealed, he shall be deemed an enemy to the liberties of America.

4th. Resolved, that whether the duties on tea, imposed by this Act, be paid in Great Britain or in America, our liberties are equally affected.

5th. Resolved, that whoever shall transgress any of these resolutions, we will not deal with, or employ, or have any connection with him.

Source:

Niles, Hezekiah, 1777-1839.

Principles and acts of the Revolution in America: or, An attempt to collect and preserve some of the speeches, orations, & proceedings, with sketches and remarks on men and things, and other fugitive or neglected pieces, belonging to the men of the revolutionary period in the United States ... By H. Niles ...

Baltimore, Printed and pub. for the editor, by W.O. Niles, 1822. viii, 495 p. 25 cm. United States--History--Revolution, 1775-1783--Sources.

The First Tea Ship Arrives

The first ship arrived in Boston Harbor on November 28, 1773, and the Sons of Liberty wasted no time in creating an atmosphere of panic in the town. Holding several meetings in the following weeks, patriots resolved that the tea should not be unloaded, for if it was the taxes would be paid. Instead, they insisted that the tea should be sent back on the same ships to England from whence they came. Francis Rotch, the ship owner of the Dartmouth and Beaver was thrown into the middle of the conflict when Samuel Adams and the Boston Committee of Correspondence ordered him to seek a pass first from Richard Harrison, and then on December 16, from the Royal Governor himself. Through it all, John Adams as ever the impartial attorney offered Rotch legal counsel.

Adams Reacts to the Boston Tea Party

But John Adams was not in town the night of December 16, 1773, when patriots took decisive action and destroyed the tea by dumping it into Boston Harbor. When he returned the very next morning, he was shocked that the Sons of Liberty undertook such a foolhardy course, but was nonetheless pleasantly surprised. “There is a Dignity, a Majesty, a Sublimity, in this the last Effort of the Patriots, that I greatly admire” John Adams recorded in his diary. “I can’t but consider it as an Epocha in History.” Eerily prescient of events to come, John Adams questioned how the British Parliament would respond to such a maneuver. After all, the drowning of the East India tea in saltwater was an “Attack upon Property.” “What measures will the ministry take in consequence of this?” Adams wondered. “Will they punish us? How? By quartering troops upon us?—by annulling our Charter? By laying on more duties? By restraining our Trade?” As time would tell, the British Parliament was intent on reprimanding their intractable colonies in the same way as John Adams predicted.

The Destruction of Tea in Numbers and Facts

	The Boston Tea Party occurred on Thursday, December 16, 1773, and took 3 hours between 7 and 10 PM
	90,000 lbs (45 tons) of tea in 342 containers was thrown overboard
	116 people participated in the destruction of tea
	Each full container had a weight of 400 pounds. Half-containers were 100 pounds each
	The destroyed tea was worth an estimated £10,000. In today’s money this would be approximately equal to a million dollars
	More than 5000 people showed up for the meeting in the Old South Meeting house
	The names of the three B.T.P. ships were Dartmouth, Eleanor and Beaver
	The Tea Party occurred at the Griffin’s Wharf in Boston that no longer exists due to landfills that occurred in 19th century

http://www.boston-tea-party.org/facts-numbers.html

Boston Tea Party Cause

In simplest terms, the Boston Tea Party happened as a result of “taxation without representation”, yet the cause is more complex than that. The American colonists believed Britain was unfairly taxing them to pay for expenses incurred during the French and Indian War. Additionally, colonists believed Parliament did not have the right to tax them because the American colonies were not represented in Parliament.

Since the beginning of the 18th century, tea had been regularly imported to the American colonies. By the time of the Boston Tea Party, it has been estimated American colonists drank approximately 1.2 million pounds of tea each year. Britain realized it could make even more money off of the lucrative tea trade by imposing taxes onto the American colonies. In effect, the cost of British tea became high, and, in response, American colonists began a very lucrative industry of smuggling tea from the Dutch and other European markets. These smuggling operations violated the Navigation Acts which had been in place since the middle of the 17th century. The smuggling of tea was undercutting the lucrative British tea trade. In response to the smuggling, in 1767 Parliament passed the Indemnity Act, which repealed the tax on tea and made British tea the same price as the Dutch. The Indemnity Act greatly cut down on American tea smuggling, but later in 1767 a new tax on tea was put in place by the Townshend Revenue Act. The act also taxed glass, lead, oil, paint, and paper. Due to boycotts and protests, the Townshend Revenue Act taxes on all commodities except tea were repealed in 1770. In 1773, the Tea Act was passed and granted the British East India Company a monopoly on tea sales in the American colonies. The smuggling of tea grew rampant and was a lucrative business venture for American colonists, such as John Hancock and Samuel Adams. The Townshend Revenue Act tea tax remained in place despite proposals to have it waived. American colonists were outraged over the tea tax. They believed the Tea Act was a tactic to gain colonial support for the tax already enforced. The direct sale of tea by agents of the British East India Company to the American colonies undercut the business of colonial merchants. The smuggled tea became more expensive than the British East India Company tea. Smugglers like John Hancock and Samuel Adams were trying to protect their economic interests by opposing the Tea Act, and Samuel Adams sold the opposition of British tea to the Patriots on the pretext of the abolishment of human rights by being taxed without representation.

http://www.bostonteapartyship.com

Economic causes of the Boston Tea Party

In 1773 the East India Company was one of the strongholds of British economy. Suddenly it found itself at odds with the American non-importation restrictions on tea and with a huge inventory it could not move. The company was not able to meet its payment on dividends and loans and was moving towards bankruptcy. Of course the British government was reluctant to let it happen from fear that this may disrupt financial markets. As an alternative to a direct loan the Ministry decided to allow the company to send tea to America without paying an export duty.

The king and Lord North, losing sight of the principle involved, foolishly thought this measure would quiet the Americans, "for," North said, "men will always go to the cheapest markets." So another opportunity for reconciliation was lost. In May, Parliament passed an act in accordance with the king's desires, for so favoring the East India Company--a vast monopoly sitting heavily on the commercial enterprise of England--while respectful petitions and remonstrances from his loyal subjects in America, touching the highest interests of the nation, were treated with scorn.

The British view was that the uprising against the Tea Act was used by colonial political leaders to advance their own political cause.

The king, in answer to such papers, announced that he considered his "authority to make laws in Parliament of sufficient force and validity to bind his subjects in America in all cases whatsoever, as essential to the dignity of the crown, and a right appertaining to the state, which it was his duty to preserve entire and inviolate;" and he expressed his displeasure because, in their petitions and remonstrances, that right was brought into question.

The East India Company, hoping, yet doubting, accepted the proposed arrangement. In August they received a proper license, and filled ships with cargoes of tea for American ports. Agents were appointed at all the sea-ports to receive the tea, and relief for the embarrassed company seemed to be nigh. They were warned by Franklin and other Americans that they would suffer loss by the operation, for their countrymen would not accept the new arrangement. But Lord North quieted the fears of the Company by saying: "It is no purpose making objections, for the king will have it so. He means to try the question with the Americans."

The colonists accepted the issue. They met the commercial question with one of deeper significance than that of the dearness or cheapness of a commodity. Is there a duty for revenue, imposed on tea? was the true question. It was answered in the affirmative, and it was resolved that tea, whatever its price, should not be landed in America until that duty was taken off.

The committees of correspondence soon produced unity of sentiment on that point throughout the colonies. Public meetings were held. Mutual support was pledged; the agents or consignees were requested to resign, and when the tea-ships arrived, they were not allowed in some places to discharge their cargoes. The spirit of the stamp-act days was aroused.

British View vs. American View

The Traditional Version (American View)

"Taxation without representation is tyranny," British colonists protested when Parliament passed the Stamp Act in 1765. Even with the tax, British tea from India was still cheaper than inferior Dutch tea, but it was the principle involved that prompted the dumping of 342 cases of this disputed commodity into Boston Harbor in 1773.

The British Side

At considerable expense, Britain had won France’s North American territory in the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763). Britain now faced a large postwar debt and the responsibility of additional land to protect and govern. Highly burdened by taxes themselves, the British were merely asking the colonies to bear the expense of their own administration and defense. As each proposed revenue bill met with opposition, it was repealed, Parliament being anxious to appease the colonies. But such "lenity" only encouraged additional disobedience, which was skillfully orchestrated by colonial propagandists. The Boston Massacre of 1770, during which redcoats fired on a mob owing to extreme provocation, was played up as if hundreds of colonists had been killed instead of five.

Scarcely noted in the British press at first, the Boston Tea Party was magnified from a simple matter of destruction of property into an intolerable insult to British authority. Chiefly responsible for the incident were Sam Adams, a tough and cunning professional politician, who was said to control two Boston mobs which he exploited for his own personal gain and glory, and the rich and vain businessman John Hancock, later described as "an elegant revolutionary" of the "native governing class of merchants and landowners who interests were threatened by imperial policies and by the barrier to obtaining western land." These "incendiaries" used all manner of intimidation, even tarring and feathering loyal subjects of the king, to undermine their own current democratic self-rule, although British lawyers determined after careful consideration that the rebels were not guilty of high treason -- yet.

Thanks to the political and physical difficulties of conducting such a huge overseas operation, the world’s greatest power was defeated by a ragged band of revolutionaries. But the loss of the American colonies, as formalized by the Treaty of Paris in 1783, was taken by the British with characteristic aplomb -- rather as if a group of businessmen were closing down an unprofitable branch, it was said.

Significance of the Tea Act, 1773

It is important to understand that the Tea Act actually placed no new tax on tea. Instead it simply gave a tax break to the East India Tea company.

With the existing tax still on the books from the Townshend Duties, East India Tea company was loosing money because its legitimately imported tea could not compete with the tea being illegally smuggled by the colonial merchants. Obviously the British government preferred to help the struggling East India Co. than to see colonial smugglers profiting and using their newly gained financial power to sponsor anti-British protests.

The new measure was also supposed to win the minds of tea consumers in America by driving down the market price of tea. But in the situation already aggrevated by the previous heavy-handed tax measures, this obvious economic benefit was overlooked by the population and the new law was regarded at “Taxation without representation”.

Below is the detailed description of how the Tea Act actually worked for the East India Tea Co. trade with the colonies.

In 1770, Lord North had repealed four of the five Townshend Duties, keeping only the tax on tea. The American colonists had refused to buy the commodity, which had resulted in financial difficulties for the East India Company.

In 1773 Lord North's ministry had passed the Regulating Act for India to control the activities of the Company. The government also took measures to help the East India Company to increase its sales by passing the Tea Act.

Initially the East India Company had suggested that the 3d per lb tax should be removed to encourage the colonists to buy the tea. North could not do this on principle, since the Declaratory Act passed by Rockingham's ministry did say that the British government could legislate for the colonies, and Britain needed (in his eyes) to maintain the right to legislate.

The Tea Act taxed the tea at source (i.e. in India) so there was no tax collection in the colonies. The act allowed the tea to go directly to America instead of having to be imported to Britain and then re-exported to the colonies. This made the tea 9d per lb cheaper, even with the 3d tax. It also allowed the East India Company to sell the tea exclusively to chosen merchants (consignees) in the American colonies. This established monopolies in America and offended colonial merchants.

In addition the government made a loan of £1.4 million to the East India Company which was to be allowed to ship tea directly and on its own account to America. The Company would pay the 3d duty on the tea's entry into the colonies but was exempt from reimbursing the English customs for the 1/- English duty which would previously have fallen on it. The consequence was that tea would sell at 10/- per lb in America, not the £1 which it had fetched recently. This would increase its consumption and so the Company would be helped out of its financial difficulties. Furthermore, the Company aided the government by taking measures against smuggling now that it was delivering direct to America. The tea was consigned in known quantities and to authorized merchants acting as Company agents. However, by that time, the colonists were suspicious of British motives and the Tea Act led directly to the Boston Tea Party.

Sources for the three articles above

http://www.boston-tea-party.org/economic-causes.html

http://www.boston-tea-party.org/british-view-new.html

http://www.boston-tea-party.org/tea-act.html

Primary Source Investigation Two

Two Accounts of the Boston Tea Party by American Colonists

An eyewitness account of the Boston Tea Party (1773)

George Hewes was a Boston shoemaker, a member of the Sons of Liberty and a participant in the Boston Tea Party. Here he recalls the events of December 16th 1773:

The tea destroyed was contained in three ships, lying near each other at what was called at that time Griffin’s wharf… On the day before the 17th there was a meeting of the citizens of the county of Suffolk, convened at one of the churches in Boston, for the purpose of consulting on measures… to prevent the landing of the tea, or secure the people from the collection of the duty… When the committee returned and informed the meeting of the absence of the Governor, there was a confused murmur among the members and the meeting was immediately dissolved, many of them crying out, “Let every man do his duty, and be true to his country”…

It was now evening, and I immediately dressed myself in the costume of an Indian, equipped with a small hatchet… after having painted my face and hands with coal dust in the shop of a blacksmith, I repaired to Griffin’s wharf, where the ships lay that contained the tea. When I first appeared in the street after being thus disguised, I fell in with many who were dressed, equipped and painted as I was, and who fell in with me and marched in order to the place of our destination.

When we arrived at the wharf, there were three of our number who assumed an authority to direct our operations, to which we readily submitted… We were immediately ordered by the respective commanders to board all the ships at the same time, which we promptly obeyed. The commander of the division to which I belonged, as soon as we were on board the ship, appointed me boatswain and ordered me to go to the captain and demand of him the keys to the hatches and a dozen candles. I made the demand accordingly, and the captain promptly replied…

We then were ordered by our commander to open the hatches and take out all the chests of tea and throw them overboard, and we immediately proceeded to execute his orders, first cutting and splitting the chests with our tomahawks, so as thoroughly to expose them to the effects of the water. In about three hours from the time we went on board, we had thus broken and thrown overboard every tea chest to be found in the ship, while those in the other ships were disposing of the tea in the same way, at the same time. We were surrounded by British armed ships but no attempt was made to resist us…

During the time we were throwing the tea overboard, there were several attempts made by some of the citizens of Boston and its vicinity to carry off small quantities of it for their family use. To effect that object, they would watch their opportunity to snatch up a handful from the deck, where it became plentifully scattered, and put it into their pockets.

One Captain O’Connor, whom I well knew, came on board for that purpose, and when he supposed he was not noticed, filled his pockets and also the lining of his coat. But I detected him and gave information to the captain of what he was doing. We were ordered to take him into custody, and just as he was stepping from the vessel, I seized him by the skirt of his coat… He had to run a gauntlet through the crowd upon the wharf nine each one, as he passed, giving him a kick or a stroke…

The next morning, after we had cleared the ships of the tea, it was discovered that very considerable quantities of it were floating upon the surface of the water; and to prevent the possibility of any of its being saved for use, a number of small boats were manned by sailors and citizens, who rowed them into those parts of the harbor wherever the tea was visible, and by beating it with oars and paddles so thoroughly drenched it as to render its entire destruction inevitable

Account by Samuel Cooper

This fascinating account came directly from one of the participants. Unlike some other accounts that were re-told by biographers this one was actually written by Mr. Cooper himself. It is not exactly known when the manuscript was written, but at the time of the Party Cooper was only 16 years old and for many people the events that occur at this age remain in memory quite clearly. You can find more about the life of this patriot from the few facts that are known about him that allowed us to create his short biography.

The duty on tea gave great umbrage to the colonists generally and in Boston an association was formed in 1770 to drink no tea until the duty was repealed. This course was persisted in 1773 the arrival of 3 ships from England laden with tea caused great disgust.

No little excitement prevailed among the inhabitants of Boston, on account of the arrival of the ships laden with tea from England. Every effort was made to send these ships back but without success and it was soon evident that the tea would be landed unless some active measures were adopted by the citizens to prevent it. A town meeting was called on the afternoon of December 16, 1773 to devise measures for getting rid of this annoyance. At this meeting, which was held in the Old South Meeting House corner of Main and Milk Street, Jno. Hancock presided.

A little before sundown an alarm was created among the assembled citizens by the cry of fire, which was supposed to be given by some of the British officers who had attended the meeting in citizen dress and had given the alarm for the purpose of breaking up the assembly. They had nearly effected this object when the town clerk, Wm. Cooper rose and in a loud voice told the citizens that there was no fire to be apprehended but the fire of the British and begged them to keep their plaices.

Immediately after a detach’t of about 20 men disguised as Indians was seen to approach in single file by the west door of the Church. They marched with silent steps down the isle and so passed by the south door brandishing their tommahaws [tomahawks] in that direction. The appearance of these men created some sensation. No one appeared to expect their arrival and the object of their visit seemed wholly inexplicable. On leaving the church, they proceeded in the same order in which they entered it, down Milk Street through that part of town which led to Gray’s and Tiletson’s wharves where the tea ships lay.

Arrived at the wharves they divided into three troops each with a leader gained possession of the ships quietly and proceeded to lighten them of their cargo by hoisting out the boxes and emptying their contents into the dock. No noise was heard except the occasional clink of the hatchet in opening the boxes and the whole business was performed with so much expedition that before 10 o’clock that night the entire cargo of the three vessels were deposited in the docks.

Many a wishful eye was directed to the piles of tea which lay in the docks and one poor fellow (5) who could not resist the temptation had filled the lining of his cloak with about a bushel of the plants. He was soon observed by the crowd and the process of lightening him of his burden was short. He was dragged a little distance on the wharf to a barrel and was soon furnished with a coat of tar and shavings.

Source: Boston Tea Party Historical Society http://www.boston-tea-party.org

Below are 3 out of the 4 so called Intolerable (Coercive Acts) passed by Parliament after the Boston Tea Party.

The Boston Port Act

AN ACT to discontinue, in such manner, and for or such time as are therein mentioned, the landing and discharging, lading or shipping, of goods, wares, and merchandise, at the town, and within the harbour, of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts’ Bay, in North America.

…That from and after June 1, 1774, it shall not be lawful for any person or persons whatsoever to lade, put, or cause to procure to be laden or put, off or from any quay, wharf, or other place, within the said town of Boston…

WHEREAS dangerous commotions and insurrections have been fomented and raised in the town of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts’ Bay, in New England, by divers ill affected persons, to the subversion of his Majesty’s government, and to the utter destruction of the public peace, and good order of the said town; in which commotions and insurrections certain valuable cargoes of teas, being the property of the East India Company, and on board certain’ vessels lying within the bay or harbour of Boston, were seized and destroyed: And whereas, in the present condition of the said town and harbour, the commerce of his Majesty’s subjects cannot be safely carried on there, nor the customs payable to his Majesty duly collected; and it is therefore expedient that the officers of his Majesty’s customs should be forthwith removed from the said town: … be it enacted …, That from and after June 1, 1774, it shall not be lawful for any person or persons whatsoever to lade, put, or cause to procure to be laden or put, off or from any quay, wharf, or other place, within the said town of Boston, or in or upon any part of the shore of the bay, commonly called The Harbour of Boston, between a certain headland or point called Nahant Point, on the eastern side of the entrance into the said bay, and a certain other headland or point called Alderton Point, on the western side of the entrance into the said bay, or in or upon any island, creek, landing place, bank, or other place, within the said bay or headlands, into any ship, vessel, lighter, boat, or bottom, any goods, wares, or merchandise whatsoever, to be transported or carried into any other country, province, or place whatsoever, or into any other part of the said province of the Massachusetts’ Bay, in New England; or to take up, discharge, or lay on land, … within the said town, or in or upon any of the places aforesaid, out of any boat, … any goods, wares, or merchandise whatsoever, to be brought from any other country, province, or place, or any other part of the said province of the Massachusetts’ Bay in New England, upon pain of the forfeiture of the said goods, … merchandise, and of the said boat, … and of the guns, ammunition, tackle, furniture, and stores, in or belonging to the same: And if any such goods, … shall, within the said town, or in any the places aforesaid, be laden or taken in from the shore into any barge, … to be carried on board any ship or vessel outward bound to any other country or province, … or to be laden into such barge, … from or out of any ship or vessel coming in … from any other country, such barge, … shall be forfeited and lost….

“And if any such goods, … shall, within the said town, or in any the places aforesaid, be laden or taken in from the shore into any barge, … to be carried on board any ship or vessel outward bound to any other country or province, … or to be laden into such barge, … from or out of any ship or vessel coming in … from any other country, such barge, … shall be forfeited and lost…”  

X

Provided also, and it is hereby declared and enacted, That nothing herein contained shall extend, or be construed, to enable his Majesty to appoint such port, harbour, creeks, quays, wharfs, places, or officers, in the said town of Boston, or in the said bay or islands, until it shall sufficiently appear to his Majesty that full satisfaction hath been made by or on behalf of the inhabitants of the said town of Boston to the united company of merchants of England trading to the East Indies, for the damage sustained by the said company by the destruction of their goods sent to the said town of Boston, on board certain ships or vessels as aforesaid; and until it shall be certified to his Majesty, in council, by the governor, or lieutenant governor, of the said province, 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, in the months of November and December, in the year one thousand seven hundred and seventy three, and in the month of January, in the year one thousand seven hundred and seventy four.

AN ACT for or the impartial administration of justice in the cases of persons questioned for any acts done by them in the execution of the law, or for the suppression of riots and tumults, in the province of the Massachusetts’ Bay, in New England.

WHEREAS in his Majesty’s province of Massachusetts’ Bay, in New England, an attempt hath lately been made to throw off the authority of the parliament of Great Britain over the said province…

WHEREAS in his Majesty’s province of Massachusetts’ Bay, in New England, an attempt hath lately been made to throw off the authority of the parliament of Great Britain over the said province, and an actual and avowed resistance, by open force, to the execution of certain acts of parliament, hath been suffered to take place, uncontrouled and unpunished, …: and whereas, in the present disordered state of the said province, it is of the utmost importance … to the reestablishment of lawful authority throughout the same, that neither the magistrates acting in support of the laws, nor any of his Majesty’s subjects aiding and assisting them therein, or in the suppression of riots and tumults, … should be discouraged from the proper discharge of their duty, by an apprehension, that in case of their being questioned for any acts done therein, they may be liable to be brought to trial for the same before persons who do not acknowledge the validity of the laws, in the execution thereof, or the of the magistrate in support of whom, such acts had been done: in order therefore to remove every such discouragement from the minds of his Majesty’s subjects, and to induce them, upon all proper occasions, to exert themselves in support of the public peace of the province, and of the authority of the King and Parliament of Great Britain over the same; be it enacted …, That if any inquisition or indictment shall be found, or if any appeal shall be sued or preferred against any person, for murther, or other capital offense, in the province of the Massachusetts’ Bay, and it shall appear, by information given upon oath to the governor … of the said province, that the fact was committed by the person against whom such inquisition or indictment shall be found, or against whom such appeal shall be sued or preferred, as aforesaid, either in the execution of his duty as a magistrate, for the suppression of riots, or in the support of the laws of revenue, or in acting in his duty as an officer of revenue, or in acting under the direction and order of any magistrate, for the suppression of riots, or for the carrying into effect the laws of revenue, or in aiding and assisting in any of the cases aforesaid; and if it shall also appear, to the satisfaction of the said governor … that an indifferent trial cannot be had within the said province, in that case, it shall and may be lawful for the governor …, to direct, with the advice and consent of the council, that the inquisition, indictment, or appeal, shall be tried in some other of his Majesty’s colonies, or in Great Britain; and for that purpose, to order the person against whom such inquisition or indictment shall be found, … to be sent, under sufficient custody, to the place appointed for his trial, or to admit such person to bail, taking a recognizance … from such person, with sufficient sureties, … in such sums of money as the said governor … shall deem reasonable, for the personal appearance of such person, if the trial shall be appointed to be had in any other colony, before the governor, … of such colony; and if the trial shall be appointed to be had in Great Britain, then before his Majesty’s court of King’s Bench, at a time to be mentioned in such recognizances; and the governor, … or court of King’s Bench, where the trial is appointed to be had in Great Britain, upon the appearance of such person, according to such recognizance, or in custody, shall either commit such person, or admit him to bail until such trial….

II

And, to prevent a failure of justice, from the want of evidence on the trial of any such inquisition, indictment or appeal, be it further enacted, That the governor … is hereby authorised and required, to bind in recognizances to his Majesty all such witnesses as the prosecutor or person against whom such inquisition or indictment shall be found, or appeal sued or preferred, shall desire to attend the trial of the said inquisition, … for their personal appearance, at the time and place of such trial, to give evidence: and the said governor … shall thereupon appoint a reasonable sum to be allowed for the expenses of every such witness …

VI

[Persons brought before justices etc. accused of any capital crime in the execution of their duty, to be admitted to bail.]

VIII

And be it further enacted … That this act … shall … be, and continue in force, for and during the term of three years.

An ACT for the better regulating the government of the province of the Massachusetts’ Bay, in New England.

…the governors whereof are appointed by his Majesty’s commission, under the great seal of Great Britain…

WHEREAS the method of electing such counsellors or assistants, to be vested with the several powers, authorities, and privileges, therein mentioned, … in which the appointment of the respective governors had been vested in the general courts or assemblies of the said colonies, hash, by repeated experience, been found to be extremely ill adapted to the plan of government established in the province of the Massachusetts’ Bay … , and hath … for or some time past, been such as had the most manifest tendency to obstruct, and, in great measure, defeat, the execution of the laws; to weaken the attachment of his Majesty’s well disposed subjects in the said province to his Majesty’s government, and to encourage the ill disposed among them to proceed even to acts of direct resistance to, and defiance of, his Majesty’s authority: And it hath accordingly happened, that an open resistance to the execution of the laws hath actually taken place in the town of Boston, and the neighbourhood thereof, within the said Province: And whereas it is, under these circumstances, become absolutely necessary, … that the said method of annually electing the counsellors or assistants of the said Province should no longer be suffered to continue, but that the appointment of the said counsellors or assistants should henceforth be put upon the like footing as is established in such other of his Majesty’s colonies or plantations in America, the governors whereof are appointed by his Majesty’s commission, under the great seal of Great Britain: Be it therefore enacted …, that from and after August 1, 1774, so much of the charter … [of 1691] … which relates to the time and manner of electing the assistants or counsellors for the said province, be revoked, … and that the offices of all counsellors and assistants, elected and appointed in pursuance thereof, shall from thenceforth cease and determine: And that, from and after the said August 1, 1774, the council, or court of assistants of the said province for the time being, shall be composed of such of the inhabitants or proprietors of lands within the same as shall be thereunto nominated and appointed by his Majesty . . , provided, that the number of the said assistants or counsellors shall not, at any one time, exceed thirty six, nor be less than twelve.

II

And it is hereby further enacted, That the said assistants or counsellors, so to be appointed as aforesaid, shall hold their offices respectively, for and during the pleasure of his Majesty….

III

And be it further enacted …, That from and after July 1, 1774, it shall and may be lawful for his Majesty’s governor for the time being of the said province, or, in his absence, for the lieutenant governor, to nominate and appoint, under the seal of the province, from time to time, and also to remove, without the consent of the council, all judges of the inferior courts of common pleas, commissioners of Oyer and Terminer, the attorney general, provosts, marshals, justices of the peace, and other officers to the council or courts of justice belong….

VI

And be it further enacted …, That, upon every vacancy of the offices of chief justice and judges of the superior court of the said province, from and after July 1, 1774, the governor for the time being, or, in his absence, the lieutenant governor, without the consent of the council, shall have full power and authority to nominate and appoint the persons to suceed to the said offices, who shall hold their commissions during the pleasure of his Majesty …

VII

And whereas, by several acts of the general court, … the freeholders and inhabitants of the several townships, districts, and precincts, qualified, as is therein expressed, are authorized to assemble together, annually, or occasionally, upon notice given, in such manner as the said acts direct, for the choice of selectmen, constables, and other officers, and for or the making and agreeing upon such necessary rules, orders, and byelaws, for the directing, managing, and ordering, the prudential affairs of such townships, districts, and precincts, and for other purposes: and whereas a great abuse has been made of the power of calling such meetings, and the inhabitants have, contrary to the design of their institution, been misled to treat upon matters of the most general concern, and to pass many dangerous and unwarrantable resolves: for remedy whereof, be it enacted, that from and after August 1, 1774, no meeting shall be called by the select men, or at the request of any number of freeholders of any township, district, or precinct, without the leave of the governor, or, in his absence, of the lieutenant governor, in writing, expressing the special business of the said meeting, except the annual meeting in the months of March or May, for the choice of select men, constables, and other officers, or except for the choice of persons to fill up the offices aforesaid, on the death or removal of any of the persons first elected to such offices, and also, except any meeting for the election of a representative or representatives in the general court; and that no other matter shall be treated of at such meetings…