When England received news of the Boston Tea Party on January 27, 1774, and when Parliament began debating what to do about it in March of that year, British officials saw it as the last in a long trail of lawlessness and public agitation. They knew something must be done. Abandoning the tax on tea was unthinkable, as that would show Parliament to be weak and ineffective.
Reasons for the Intolerable Acts (Coercive Acts) and the Boston Port Act
Other of the American colonies and their principle port cities had turned tea away peaceably, showing their dissatisfaction with Parliament’s earlier laws. Only Boston resorted to violence. For eight years, since the Stamp Act in 1765, Bostonians had been responding in the same manner. The British saw a number of problems with this, as the following language drawn mostly from the Boston Port Act shows.
- Dangerous commotions…have been fomented and raised in the town of Boston…by diverse ill-affected persons.
- Insurrections have been fomented…by diverse ill-affected persons.
- …to the subversion of his Majesty’s government
- …to the utter destruction of the publick peace, and of good order
- …certain valuable cargoes of teas…were seized and destroyed
- …the commerce of his Majesty’s subjects cannot be safely carried on there
- …the customs payable to his Majesty cannot be duly collected
- …it is therefore expedient that the officers of his Majesty’s customs should be removed from that town
For these reasons, Parliament turned away from taking a conciliatory approach toward Boston, away from redressing the colonists’ grievances, and took a harsh stand.
What Did the Boston Port Act Require?
The official report about conditions in Boston, by the governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, were laid before the House of Commons on March 7, 1774. On March 14 Lord North, the Prime Minister, indicated he would soon be submitting a bill to deal with the situation, and submitted it on March 18. Discussion of the bill lasted until March 25, when the Commons passed it with little dissent. The house of Lords passed it on March 30, and the king approved it the next day.
The bill called for totally closing the port of Boston, beginning June 1, 1774 (about the earliest day it could be effectively done, given the slowness of cross-oceanic communications at that time). The specific provisions of the act are as follows, again using a mixture of words in the act and modernization.
- [It is] not lawful…to lade put, or cause or procure to be laden or put, off or from any quay, wharf, or other place…between Nahant Point…and Alderton Point into any boat, [etc.] any goods, wares, or merchandise whatsoever, to be brought from [any other place], including parts of Massachuset’s [sic] Bay.
- The penalty shall be forfeiture of the goods and vessel, including weaponry [and other outfitting] on the vessel. This included any smaller vessels for transferring goods from shore to a larger, ocean-going vessel.
- Any wharf keeper (warfinger) and port worker that loads/unloads cargo shall be fined triple the value of the cargo.
- Any vessels within one league of Boston Harbor may be ordered to leave within six hours, upon forfeiture of vessel, cargo, and outfitting.
- Royal military stores were exempt. Foodstuffs required for the colony were exempt, but only after inspection at Marblehead and with on-board customs and military escort. Any vessels in the harbor on June 1, 1774 that depart within fourteen days were exempt.
- Enforcement of the act was left to the navy, customs officers, and temporary treasury officers appointed for the purpose of enforcement. The act included anti-bribery fines of 500 pounds.
- Penalties were disposed of by prior acts, including one dating to the 1600s.
- Any contract related to shipping through Boston port is null and void, if the shipping was to be after June 1.
Duration of the Penalties
The Act had no expiration. The wording allowed the king and his Privy Council latitude in determining when the port could be re-opened. It gave them this guidance, and limitation on when the king could open the port.
- The king may open the port when order is restored in Boston, in his and the Privy Council’s judgment—or a part of the port could be opened.
- Upon restitution to the East India Company for the tea destroyed
- When “reasonable satisfaction” is made to the officers of his Majesty’s revenue officers and others who suffered at the hands of the Boston mobs. This provision appears to require and apology, and possibly restitution or payment of damages.
Parliament would eventually rescind this act, but only after open rebellion had broken out, when England no longer controlled the port of Boston.
Source:
Yale Law Library, the Avalon Project, citing Great Britain – The Statures at large [from 1225 to 1867] by Danby Pickering.
 |
 |
 |
