| Part of a series on the | ||||||
| American Revolution | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 TheCommittee of Five presents their draft of theDeclaration of Independence to theSecond Continental Congress inPhiladelphia | ||||||
| ||||||
Forming a republic
| ||||||
 United States portal | ||||||
TheIntolerable Acts, sometimes referred to as theInsufferable Acts orCoercive Acts, were a series of five punitive laws passed by theBritish Parliament in 1774 after theBoston Tea Party. The laws aimed to punishMassachusetts colonists for their defiance in the Tea Party protest of theTea Act, a tax measure enacted by Parliament in May 1773. In Great Britain, these laws were referred to as theCoercive Acts. They were a key development leading to the outbreak of theAmerican Revolutionary War in April 1775.
Four acts were enacted by Parliament in early 1774 in direct response to the Boston Tea Party of 16 December 1773: Boston Port, Massachusetts Government, Impartial Administration of Justice, and Quartering Acts.[1] The acts took away self-governance and rights that Massachusetts had enjoyed since its founding, triggering outrage and indignation in theThirteen Colonies.
The British Parliament hoped these punitive measures would, by making an example of Massachusetts, reverse the trend of colonial resistance to parliamentary authority that had begun with theSugar Act 1764. A fifth act, theQuebec Act, enlarged the boundaries of what was then theProvince of Quebec notably southwestward into theOhio Country and other future mid-western states, and instituted reforms generally favorable to thefrancophoneCatholic inhabitants of the region. Although unrelated to the other four Acts, it was passed in the same legislative session and seen by the colonists as one of the Intolerable Acts. ThePatriots viewed the acts as an arbitrary violation of the rights of Massachusetts, and in September 1774 they organized theFirst Continental Congress to coordinate a protest. As tensions escalated, the Revolutionary War broke out in April 1775, leading to the declaration of an independentUnited States of America in July 1776.
.jpg)
Relations between theThirteen Colonies and the British Parliament slowly but steadily worsened after the end of theSeven Years' War (French and Indian War) in 1763. The war had plunged the British government deep into debt, and so theBritish Parliament enacted a series of measures to increase tax revenue from the colonies. Parliament believed that these acts, such as theStamp Act 1765 and theTownshend Acts of 1767, were legitimate means of having the colonies pay their fair share of the costs of maintaining theBritish Empire. Although protests led to the repeal of the Stamp and Townshend Acts, Parliament adhered to the position that it had the right to legislate for the colonies "in all cases whatsoever" in theDeclaratory Act 1766.
Many colonists argued that under the unwrittenBritish constitution, a British subject's property could not be taken from him (in the form of taxes) without his consent (in the form of representation in government). Therefore, because the colonies were not directly represented in Parliament, it followed that Parliament had no right to levy taxes upon them, a view expressed by the slogan "No taxation without representation". After the Townshend Acts, some colonial essayists took this line of thinking even further, and began to question whether Parliament had any legitimate jurisdiction in the colonies at all.[2] This question of the extent ofParliament's sovereignty in the colonies was the issue underlying what became the American Revolution.
On 16 December 1773, a group ofPatriot colonists associated with theSons of Liberty destroyed 342 chests of tea inBoston, Massachusetts, an act that came to be known as theBoston Tea Party. The colonists partook in this action because Parliament had passed theTea Act, which granted theBritish East India Company a monopoly on tea sales in the colonies, thereby saving the company from bankruptcy. This made British tea less expensive. In addition, there was added a small tax.[citation needed] This angered the colonists. News of the Boston Tea Party reached England in January 1774. Parliament responded by passing four laws. Three of the laws were intended to directly punish Massachusetts. This was for the destruction of private property, to restore British authority in Massachusetts, and to otherwise reform colonial government in America.
On 22 April 1774, Prime MinisterLord North defended the programme in theHouse of Commons, saying:
The Americans have tarred and feathered your subjects, plundered your merchants, burnt your ships, denied all obedience to your laws and authority; yet so clement and so long forbearing has our conduct been that it is incumbent on us now to take a different course. Whatever may be the consequences, we must risk something; if we do not, all is over.[3]
TheBoston Port Act was the first of the laws passed in 1774 in response to the Boston Tea Party. It closed the port of Boston until the colonists paid for the destroyed tea and the king was satisfied that order had been restored. Colonists objected that the Port Act punished all of Boston rather than just the individuals who had destroyed the tea, and that they were being punished without having been given an opportunity to testify in their own defense.[4]
TheMassachusetts Government Act provoked even more outrage than the Port Act because it unilaterally took away Massachusetts' charter and brought it under control of the British government. Under the terms of the Government Act, almost all positions in the colonial government were to be appointed by the governor, Parliament, or the king. The act also severely limitedtown meetings in Massachusetts to one per year, unless the governor called for one. Colonists outside Massachusetts feared that their governments could now also be changed by the legislative fiat of Parliament.[citation needed]
TheAdministration of Justice Act allowed the royal governor to order trials of accused royal officials to take place in Great Britain or elsewhere within the Empire if he decided that the defendant could not get a fair trial in Massachusetts. Although the act stipulated for witnesses to be reimbursed after having traveled at their own expense across the Atlantic, it was not stipulated that this would include reimbursement for lost earnings during the period for which they would be unable to work, leaving few with the ability to testify.George Washington called this the "Murder Act" because he believed that it allowed officials to harass colonists and then escape justice.[5] Many colonists believed the act was unnecessary because British soldiers had been given a fair trial following theBoston Massacre in 1770.[citation needed]
TheQuartering Act, which applied to all British colonies in North America, sought to create a more effective method of housing British troops. In a previous act, the colonies had been required to provide housing for soldiers, but colonial legislatures had been uncooperative in doing so. The new Quartering Act allowed a governor to house soldiers in other buildings if suitable quarters were not provided. While many sources claim that the Quartering Act allowed troops to be billeted in occupied private homes, historian David Ammerman's 1974 study claimed that this is a myth, and that the act only permitted troops to be quartered in unoccupied buildings.[6]
Although unrelated to the aforementioned Acts,[7] theQuebec Act, passed in the same parliamentary session, was considered by the colonists to be one of the Intolerable Acts. The Act expanded the territory of theProvince of Quebec into theGreat Lakes region and much of what is now theMidwestern United States, which appeared to void the land claims of theOhio Company on the region. The guarantee of free practice of Catholicism, the majority religion in Canada, was seen by colonists as an "establishment" of the faith in the colonies which were overwhelmingly Protestant. Furthermore, colonists resented the lenient provisions granted to their erstwhile enemies whom they had fought hard against during theFrench and Indian War.[8]
Many colonists saw the Intolerable Acts as a violation of theirconstitutional rights, theirnatural rights, and their colonial charters. They, therefore, viewed the acts as a threat to the liberties of all of British America, not just Massachusetts. Legislation denouncing the act (theLoudoun andFairfax resolves) was swift, andRichard Henry Lee of Virginia described the acts as "a most wicked System for destroying the liberty of America".[9]
The citizens of Boston viewed the Intolerable Acts as unnecessary and cruel punishment, further inflaming hatred toward Britain. Even more Bostonians turned against British rule.[10]
Great Britain hoped that the Intolerable Acts would isolate radicals in Massachusetts and cause American colonists to concede the authority of Parliament over their elected assemblies. The calculated risk backfired: the harshness of some of the acts made it difficult for colonial moderates to speak in favor of Parliament.[11] Instead, the acts only served to distance the colonies from the Crown, create sympathy for Massachusetts and encourage colonists from the otherwise diverse colonies to formcommittees of correspondence which sent delegates to theFirst Continental Congress. The Continental Congress created theContinental Association, an agreement to boycott British goods. Additionally, it was decided that if the Intolerable Acts were not reversed after a year, goods were to stop being exported to Great Britain as well. The Congress also pledged to support Massachusetts in case of attack, which meant that all of the colonies would become involved when theAmerican Revolutionary War began atLexington and Concord.[12]
| Before 1763 |
|
|---|---|
| Grenville ministry (1763–1765) |
|
| Rockingham ministry (1765–1766) |
|
| Chatham andGrafton ministries (1766–1770) |
|
| North ministry (1770–1782) |
|
| Other legal issues | |
