| The Coercive Acts were passed by the British Parliament between 31 March and 02 June 1774, and the delegates meeting in the Second Continental Congress had responded, between 21 and 26 October of that same year, with letters to their fellow-colonists and the people of Great Britain along with an address to the King, imploring them, and him, to understand why the colonists were upset. The only problem was that the Parliament and King just pushed those letters, petitions and addresses aside. It wasn't until January of 1775 that Parliament took up the letters and petitions and started to give them the consideration they deserved. Unfortunately, too many ill feelings had already begun to fester on both sides of the Atlantic. Despite erroneous characterizations by historians through the years, not all of the members of the British Parliament were in agreement with the Acts that had been, and were continuing to be, passed. A simple glance at the vote tallies for any of the Acts reveals that only a few of them were passed unanimously. And so, as 1775 dawned, some voices called for moderation. William Pitt the Elder, who as 1st Earl of Chatham had served as prime minister between July 1766 and October 1768, submitted a proposal for the recognition of self-government by the American Colonies before the House of Lords. That proposal was rejected by the Lords. Then Pitt proposed the removal of British troops from in and around Boston; the result being that that proposal also was rejected. Pitt did not give up; he next submitted a plan of conciliation, which was likewise rejected by the Lords. Perhaps sensing that the majority of the Lords who had voted down Pitt's proposals might be softening, Frederick North, prime minister from 1770 to 1782, submitted his own proposal of conciliation. On 20 February 1775, North proposed his Conciliatory Resolution that suggested relieving any colony of paying most duties if it contributed to the common defence. Unlike Pitt's motives, it would appear that North hoped that his resolution would hinder a union of the colonies because certain of them would participate in the provisions of his resolution while others would not. Lord North's Conciliatory Resolution was approved and passed by the Parliament on 27 February 1775. Then, thumbing his nose at the Continental Congress, Lord North sent his Resolution to the legislative bodies of each of the colonies. As a result, the Resolution did not reach the delegates meeting in the Second Continental Congress until 26 May 1775, thirty-seven days after British troops fired upon American patriots on Lexington Green. Lord North's Conciliatory Resolution was discussed by the delegates meeting in the Second Continental Congress on 31 July, during which session, they voted to reject it. |
| The House in a Committee on the American Papers. Motion made, and question proposed:
Resolved, That it is the opinion of this Committee, that when the Governour, Council, and Assembly, or General Court, of any of his Majesty's Provinces or Colonies in America, shall propose to make provision, according to the condition, circumstances, and situation of such Province or Colony, for contributing their proportion to the common defence, (such proportion to be raised under the authority of the General Court, or General Assembly of such Province or Colony, and disposable by Parliament,) and shall engage to make provision also for the support of the Civil Government, and the Administration of Justice, in such Province or Colony, it will be proper if such proposal shall be approved by his Majesty and the two Houses of Parliament, and for so long as such provision shall be made accordingly, to forbear, in respect of such Province or Colony, to levy any Duty, Tax, or Assessment, or to impose any farther Duty, Tax, or Assessment, except only such Duties as it may be expedient to continue to levy or to impose for the regulation of commerce; the nett produce of the duties last mentioned to be carried to the account of such Province or Colony respectively. |
| From American Archives, Fourth Series, Volume I, Published by M. St. Clair Clarke and Peter Force, 1833, Page 1611. |
| Note: A transcription of this Resolution can be found in the Journals Of The Continental Congress, Volume II, Government Printing Office, 1905, Pages 224-225. But one word is transcribed incorrectly in that source. Instead of the word Governour in the phrase "That it is the opinion of this Committee, that when the Governour, Council, and Assembly, or General Court...", it is transcribed as General, to read: "That it is the opinion of this Committee, that when the General Council, and Assembly, or General Court...". |
| Lord North's Conciliatory Resolution was discussed by the delegates meeting in the Second Continental Congress on 31 July, during which session, they voted to reject it. Following is a transcription of their reply. |
| The Congress took the said resolution into consideration, and are thereupon of opinion:
That the colonies of America are entitled to the sole and exclusive privilege of giving and granting their own money; that this involves a right of deliberating whether they will make any gift, for what purposes it shall be made, and what shall be its amount; and that it is a high breach of this privilege for any body of men, extraneous to their constitutions, to prescribe the purposes for which money shall be levied on them, to take to themselves the authority of judging of their conditions, circumstances and situations; and of determining the amount of the contribution to be levied. That as the colonies possess a right of appropriating their gifts, so are they entitled at all times to enquire into their application, to see that they be not wasted among the venal and corrupt for the purpose of undermining the civil rights of the givers, nor yet be diverted to the support of standing armies, inconsistent with their freedom and subversive of their quiet. To propose, therefore, as this resolution does, that the monies given by the colonies shall be subject to the disposal of parliament alone, is to propose that they shall relinquish this right of inquiry, and put it in the power of others to render their gifts, ruinous, in proportion as they are liberal. That this privilege of giving or of withholding our monies, is an important barrier against the undue exertion of prerogative, which, if left altogether without controul, may be exercised to our great oppression; and all history shews how efficacious is its intercession for redress of grievances and re-establishment of rights, and how improvident it would be to part with so powerful a mediator. We are of opinion that the proposition contained in this resolution is unreasonable and insidious: Unreasonable, because, if we declare we accede to it, we declare without reservation, we will purchase the favour of parliament, not knowing at the same time at what price they will please to estimate their favor; it is insidious, because, individual colonies, having bid and bidden again, till they find the avidity of the seller too great for all their powers to satisfy; are then to return into opposition, divided from their sister colonies whom the minister will have previously detached by a grant of easier terms, or by an artful procrastination of a definitive answer. That the suspension of the exercise of their pretended power of taxation being expressly made commensurate with the continuance of our gifts, these must be perpetual to make that so. Whereas no experience has shewn that a gift of perpetual revenue secures a perpetual return of duty or of kind disposition. On the contrary, the parliament itself, wisely attentive to this observation, are in the established practice of granting their supplies from year to year only. Desirous and determined, as we are, to consider, in the most dispassionate view, every seeming advance towards a reconciliation made by the British parliament, let our brethren of Britain reflect, what would have been the sacrifice to men of free spirits, had even fair terms been proffered, as these insidious proposals were with circumstances of insult and defiance. A proposition to give our money, accompanied with large fleets and armies, seems addressed to our fears rather than to our freedom. With what patience would Britons have received articles of treaty from any power on earth when borne on the point of a bayonet by military plenipotentiaries? We think the attempt unnecessary to raise upon us by force or by threats, our proportional contributions to the common defence, when all know, and themselves acknowledge, we have fully contributed, whenever called upon to do so in the character of freemen. We are of opinion it is not just that the colonies should be required to oblige themselves to other contributions, while Great Britain possesses a monopoly of their trade. This of itself lays them under heavy contribution. To demand, therefore, additional aids in the form of a tax, is to demand the double of their equal proportion: if we are to contribute equally with the other parts of the empire, let us equally with them enjoy free commerce with the whole world. But while the restrictions on our trade shut to us the resources of wealth, is it just we should bear all other burthens equally with those to whom every resource is open? We conceive that the British parliament has no right to intermeddle with our provisions for the support of civil government, or administration of justice. The provisions we have made, are such as please ourselves, and are agreeable to our own circumstances: they answer the substantial purposes of government and of justice, and other purposes than these should not be answered. We do not mean that our people shall be burthened with oppressive taxes to provide sinecures for the idle or the wicked, under colour of providing for a civil list. While parliament pursue their plan of civil government within their own jurisdiction, we also hope to pursue ours without molestation. We are of opinion the proposition is altogether unsatisfactory, because it imports only a suspension of the mode, not a renunciation of the pretended right to tax us: because, too, it does not propose to repeal the several Acts of Parliament passed for the purposes of restraining the trade, and altering the form of government of one of our colonies: extending the boundaries and changing the government of Quebec; enlarging the jurisdiction of the courts of Admiralty and vice-Admiralty; taking from us the rights of trial by a jury of the vicinage, in cases affecting both life and property; transporting us into other countries to be tried for criminal offences; exempting, by mock-trial, the murderers of colonists from punishment; and quartering soldiers on us in times of profound peace. Nor do they renounce the power of suspending our own legislatures, and of legislating for us themselves in all cases whatsoever. On the contrary, to shew they mean no discontinuance of injury, they pass acts, at the very time of holding out this proposition, for restraining the commerce and fisheries of the provinces of New England, and for interdicting the trade of other colonies with all foreign nations, and with each other. This proves unequivocally, they mean not to relinquish the exercise of indiscriminate legislation over us. We are of opinion the proposition is altogether unsatisfactory, because it imports only a suspension of the mode, not a renunciation of the pretended right to tax us: because, too, it does not propose to repeal the several Acts of Parliament passed for the purposes of restraining the trade, and altering the form of government of one of our colonies: extending the boundaries and changing the government of Quebec; enlarging the jurisdiction of the courts of Admiralty and vice-Admiralty; taking from us the rights of trial by a jury of the vicinage, in cases affecting both life and property; transporting us into other countries to be tried for criminal offences; exempting, by mock-trial, the murderers of colonists from punishment; and quartering soldiers on us in times of profound peace. Nor do they renounce the power of suspending our own legislatures, and of legislating for us themselves in all cases whatsoever. On the contrary, to shew they mean no discontinuance of injury, they pass acts, at the very time of holding out this proposition, for restraining the commerce and fisheries of the provinces of New England, and for interdicting the trade of other colonies with all foreign nations, and with each other. This proves unequivocally, they mean not to relinquish the exercise of indiscriminate legislation over us. By Order of the Congress, John Hancock, PRESIDENT Philadelphia, July 31, 1775. |
| From Journals Of The Continental Congress, Volume II, Government Printing Office, 1905, Pages 225-234. |
