branches might have suffered a temporary damage, but it would have been trifling; as by the last of August we might have had the news of the Port’s being open again. So that by the folly, injustice, and madness alone of the popular leaders, has this Act been attended with the distresses and inconveniences which are now so sensibly felt. Now let me ask, with what reason, with what justice, could an Englishman, could an American, could any one, who wished the prosperity of Britain, complain of an Act which was made solely to benefit the English merchant in preference to the Dutch? especially in the sale of an article of so much importance, in such constant and extensive use and consumption; and after the people here, being deluded and hurried on by a seditious tribe of demagogues had, in open violation of the common rights of society, of every principle of justice, of their allegiance to their Sovereign, of their constitutional dependance upon Great Britain, so wantonly and maliciously destroyed so large and valuable a quantity of merchandise, let me ask, where is the man so destitute of every principle of honesty, of every sentiment of honour, so deaf to the call of equity and justice, and the demands of law, as to hesitate one moment to make the most ample and satisfactory restitution in his power? To this question, to which it must pain every loyal American to return an answer, I, with equal grief and astonishment, reply, the Town of Boston, in Town-Meeting assembled, were the men. These men, who by their conduct, had drawn down the resentment of the Nation; by their subsequent unaccountable proceedings, have been the wilful cause of the continuation of those distresses, of which they now so highly complain and so sensibly feel the effects; and such has been their fatal influence, that they prevailed upon the House of Representatives to appoint a solemn fast, to beseech of the Almighty a sanction to their violence and robbery. What unpardonable hypocrisy! What unheard-of mockery of Heaven! What unparalleled effrontery! Can it be supposed that the Divine Being, who, by the principles of natural religion implanted in the human mind, and by the repeated precepts in his written word, has so plainly commanded us to abstain from fraud, rapine, and injustice, and has denounced the most heavy woes upon those who are guilty of these heinous crimes, will ever hearken to the supplications of those who refuse to make restitution to their fellow-creatures, whom they have grossly, wantonly, and unreasonably injured? Nevertheless, the good people of the province were so far deluded and misled, as to adopt so unpardonable a measure. It was, however, hoped, that the Members of the Continental Congress, free from the infatuation which was so prevalent here, unbiased by our prejudices, uninfluenced by passions, and attentive to the true interests of the Province and Continent, would have recommended the payment for the Tea, as a necessary step to a reconciliation. But alas! we find them influenced by the same factious leaders, by their conduct virtually approving of this daring injustice. Upon no other principle can we account for their inserting the Boston Port Act in the list of grievances, when a compliance with the most obvious, indispensable demands of justice, would at once have suspended the execution of it.

The next particular in this very comprehensive article, is another Act, “empowering the Governour of the Massachusetts-Bay to send persons indicted for murder in that Province to another Colony, or even to Great Britain, for trial, whereby such offenders may escape legal punishment.” It is really astonishing to see the low artifice and glaring falsehood made use of in this description of the Act. It is not true that the Governour is thus empowered, as the Act expressly requires the advice and consent of the Council, before any person can be removed to any other place prescribed by the Act for trial; so that, however arbitrarily the Governour may be disposed to act in this instance, if the Council refuse their consent, he can do nothing. What could induce the Congress thus to sacrifice their characters as honest men, (as I presume some of them were,) is totally unaccountable. If the Act is really grievous, is it not much better to represent it in a true light, than by falsehood and high colouring, to mislead and deceive every reader who does not examine the statute for himself? To make the people believe that the Governour has it in his power to tyrannize at pleasure over them, when in reality he can do nothing himself? If it is not grievous, will such misrepresentations make it so? Can they be justified upon any good and virtuous principle? Ought not those men, who, by such pitiful, base methods, can attempt to stir up a people to acts of treason and rebellion, and destroy the peace and happiness of millions, to be held in everlasting infamy and contempt? Reason dictates, justice demands, that they should.

Let us attend to the other expressions used in the description of this Act: “Send persons indicted for murder in that province to another Colony, or even to Great Britain, for trial.” Is not this expression plainly calculated to induce a belief that all persons indicted for any murder may be thus removed? Is it not general and indefinite, without any exception, without any restriction, to the particular offences specified in the Act? I grant, that were the Act such as is here represented, it would be a most alarming grievance, a matter requiring every effort in our power to get it redressed; and the more distressing and oppressive it would be if true, so much greater is the guilt and wickedness of those men who would make us believe it to be so. But if we examine the statute itself, we shall find it really calculated to promote the more impartial administration of justice in those instances to which it relates. If we advert to the design of its being made, and the cause which gave rise to it, we shall be convinced of its propriety and expediency. The destruction of the Tea above mentioned had been effected in open and direct opposition to, and violation of, an Act of Parliament; no Magistrate had interposed to prevent it; it was the prevailing opinion of the common people, who formed their political creed upon the principles, practices, and information of their seditious leaders, that Acts of Parliament were not binding in America. They, therefore, did not consider themselves as committing an act of treason in destroying it, but at most a trespass at common law; nay! some, in their phrensy, thought it a meritorious action, and that they were doing God service by their zeal in such a cause. If, therefore, any civil Magistrate, or others by his command, had, in resisting these rioters and traitors, put any of them to death, and had been brought to a trial for it here, such was the ferment of the times, so infectious and extensive, the infatuation, that the chance was ten thousand to one that the jury to pass upon their lives would consist of men who had adopted these erroneous opinions, who would therefore think the conduct of the accused unlawful and criminal, and consequently bring them in guilty of murder; and I have no doubt but this would have been the case, had such resistance been made at that time. The Parliament might justly suppose that this notorious violence passing “uncontrolled and unpunished,” was owing to this cause; at least this is the most favourable and charitable construction that they could put upon it. But be that as it may, their attention to future instances of the same kind, to prevent such daring outrages, to induce submission to Acts of Parliament, and to encourage the civil Magistrate and others in the execution of their duty, was evidently the design of the Act; and it is equally evident, to use the words in the preamble of the Act, that Magistrates, and others might “be discouraged from the proper discharge of their duty, by an apprehension that, in case of their being questioned for any acts done in execution of the Laws and Statutes of the Realm, they might be liable to be brought to trial for the same before persons who do not acknowledge the validity of the laws, in the execution whereof, or the authority of the Magistrate, in support of whom such acts had been done”. Especially when, for a bare disavowal of the violence and opposition to British laws, and the illegal, dangerous spirit that then did and still does prevail, whole Towns have been stigmatised, and individuals insulted and abused. Nay, if those who would venture to resist and quell any riots or mobs fortunately were acquitted by their peers, upon a fair, open, and impartial trial, they have still been pursued with unrelenting vengeance, and their names and characters held up to publick view in the most infamous and odious light: witness the institution on the fifth of March; that disgrace to humanity, dishonour to the laws, and paragon of infernal malice! Thus, while every discouragement has been given to the due execution of the laws, when we were absolutely reduced to a state of lawless anarchy, can we with reason complain of an Act calculated