Page:History of the United States of America, Spencer, v1.djvu/334

 of thanks should be presented to the king, assuring his majesty that they would not fail to exert every means in their power of effectually providing for the due execution of the laws, and securing the dependence of the colonies upon the crown and Parliament of Great Britain." On the 14th of March, a bill was introduced "for the immediate removal of the officers concerned in the collection of his majesty's customs from the town of Boston, and to discontinue the landing and discharging, lading and shipping of goods, wares, and merchandise, at the said town, or within the harbor thereof."

The proposal of Lord North encountered but little opposition. The warmest advocates of the colonies were unable to justify the daring conduct of the Bostonians in destroying the tea, and even Barre and Conway were in favor of passing the bill. On its final reading, it was opposed by Burke, but it passed nevertheless with very few negatives. A few of the peers protested against the measure, but the House of Lords voted its adoption immediately, and on the 31st of March it received the royal assent.

Another bill was soon after proposed by the irate minister. It was entitled "for better regulating the government of Massachusetts Bay;" but it was equivalent to a complete abrogation of the charter. By this bill, the royal governor was empowered to appoint all the civil authorities whatever, who were also to have the nomination of juries, functions hitherto vested in the people themselves; and as their town meetings had proved the nursery of opposition to government, they were now entirely prohibited, except for the purpose of electing representatives. A third bill, ostensibly designed "for the more impartial administration of justice," provided—in view of such cases as that of Captain Preston—that "any person indicted for murder, or any other capital offence, committed in aiding the magistracy, the governor might send the person so indicted to another colony, or to Great Britain, for trial." These bills were opposed by Barré, Conway, Johnstone, Burke, Fox, and others. Barré, with his usual directness and force, speaking of the third bill, said to the members of the House. "You may think, that a law founded on this motion will be a protection to the soldier who imbrues his hand in the blood of his fellow subjects. I am mistaken if it will. Who is to execute it? He must be a bold man indeed who will make the attempt. If the people are so exasperated that it is unsafe to bring the man who has injured them to trial, let the governor who withdraws him from justice look to himself. The people will not endure it; they would no longer deserve the reputation of being descended from the loins of Englishmen if they did endure it. You have changed your ground. You are becoming the aggressors, and offering the last of human outrages to the people of America, by submitting them to military execution. Instead of sending them the olive branch, you have sent the naked sword. By the olive branch, I mean a repeal of all the late laws, fruitless to you, and oppressive to them. Ask their aid in a constitutional manner,