fbpx
Wikipedia

Townshend Acts

February 15, 2024

The Townshend Acts (/ˈtaʊnzənd/)[1] or Townshend Duties were a series of British acts of Parliament passed during 1767 and 1768 introducing a series of taxes and regulations to fund administration of the British colonies in America. They are named after the Chancellor of the Exchequer who proposed the programme. Historians vary slightly as to which acts they include under the heading "Townshend Acts", but five are often listed:[a]

Charles Townshend spearheaded the laws, but died before their detrimental effects became apparent.

The purposes of the acts were to

  • raise revenue in the colonies to pay the salaries of governors and judges so that they would remain loyal to Great Britain,
  • create more effective means of enforcing compliance with trade regulations,
  • punish the Province of New York for failing to comply with the 1765 Quartering Act, and
  • establish the precedent that the British Parliament had the right to tax the colonies.[4]

The Townshend Acts met resistance in the colonies. People debated them in the streets, and in the colonial newspapers. Opponents of the Acts gradually became violent, leading to the Boston Massacre of 1770. The Acts placed an indirect tax on glass, lead, paints, paper, and tea, all of which had to be imported from Britain. This form of revenue generation was Townshend's response to the failure of the Stamp Act 1765, which had provided the first form of direct taxation placed upon the colonies. However, the import duties proved to be similarly controversial. Colonial indignation over the acts was expressed in John Dickinson's Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania and in the Massachusetts Circular Letter. There was widespread protest, and American port cities refused to import British goods, so Parliament began to partially repeal the Townshend duties.[5] In March 1770, most of the taxes from the Townshend Acts were repealed by Parliament under Frederick, Lord North. However, the import duty on tea was retained in order to demonstrate to the colonists that Parliament held the sovereign authority to tax its colonies, in accordance with the Declaratory Act 1766. The British government continued to tax the American colonies without providing representation in Parliament. American resentment, corrupt British officials, and abusive enforcement spurred colonial attacks on British ships, including the burning of the Gaspee in 1772. The Townshend Acts' taxation of imported tea was enforced once again by the Tea Act 1773, and this led to the Boston Tea Party in 1773 in which Bostonians destroyed a large shipment of taxed tea. Parliament responded with severe punishments in the Intolerable Acts 1774. The Thirteen Colonies drilled their militia units, and war finally erupted in Lexington and Concord in April 1775, launching the American Revolution.

Background edit

Following the Seven Years' War (1756–1763), the British government was deep in debt. To pay a small fraction of the costs of the newly expanded empire, the Parliament of Great Britain decided to levy new taxes on the colonies of British America. Previously, through the Trade and Navigation Acts, Parliament had used taxation to regulate the trade of the empire. But with the Sugar Act of 1764, Parliament sought, for the first time, to tax the colonies for the specific purpose of raising revenue. American colonists argued that there were constitutional issues involved.[6]

The Americans claimed they were not represented in Parliament, but the British government retorted that they had "virtual representation", a concept the Americans rejected.[7] This issue, only briefly debated following the Sugar Act, became a major point of contention after Parliament's passage of the Stamp Act 1765. The Stamp Act proved to be wildly unpopular in the colonies, contributing to its repeal the following year, along with the failure to raise substantial revenue.

Implicit in the Stamp Act dispute was an issue more fundamental than taxation and representation: the question of the extent of Parliament's authority in the colonies.[8] Parliament provided its answer to this question when it repealed the Stamp Act in 1766 by simultaneously passing the Declaratory Act, which proclaimed that Parliament could legislate for the colonies "in all cases whatsoever".[9]

The Five Townshend Acts edit

The Revenue Act 1767 edit

Duties on Tea, etc. (American Plantations) Act 1766
Act of Parliament
 
Long titleAn act for granting certain duties in the British colonies and plantations in America; for allowing a drawback of the duties of customs upon the exportation, from this kingdom, of coffee and cocoa nuts of the produce of the said colonies or plantations; for discontinuing the drawbacks payable on china earthen ware exported to America; and for more effectually preventing the clandestine running of goods in the colonies and plantations.
Citation7 Geo. 3. c. 46
Introduced by10 June 1767, John Paterson[10] (Commons)
Dates
Royal assent29 June 1767[11][12]
Commencement20 November 1767[13]
Repealed15 July 1867
Other legislation
Amended byTaxation of Colonies Act 1778
Repealed byStatute Law Revision Act 1867
Relates toCustoms Act 1770
Status: Repealed
Text of statute as originally enacted

This act was the (joint) first act, passed on 29 June 1767,[11][12] the same day as the Commissioners of Customs Act (see below).

It placed taxes on glass, lead, "painters' colors" (paint), paper, and tea.[14][15][16] It also gave the supreme court of each colony the power to issue "writs of assistance",[17] general warrants that could be issued to customs officers and used to search private property for smuggled goods.[18]

And whereas by an act of parliament,[b] [...] it is lawful for any officer of his Majesty's customs, authorized by writ of assistance under the seal of his Majesty's court of exchequer, [...] and in the day-time to enter and go into any house, shop, cellar, warehouse, or room or other place, and in case of resistance, to break open doors, chests, trunks, and other package there, to seize, and from thence to bring, any kind of goods or merchandize whatsoever prohibited or uncustomed, and to put and secure the same in his Majesty's store-house next to the place where such seizure shall be made; and whereas by an act[c] [...] it is, amongst other things, enacted, that the officers for collecting and managing his Majesty's revenue, and inspecting the plantation trade, in America, shall have the same powers and authorities [as] is provided for the officers of England: but, no authority being expressly given by the said act [...] to any particular court to grant such writs of assistance for the officers of the customs in the said plantations, it is doubted whether such officers can legally enter houses and other places on land, to search for and seize goods, in the manner directed by the said recited acts.

To obviate which doubts for the future, and in order to carry the intention of the said recited acts into effectual execution, be it enacted [...], That from and after the said twentieth day of November, one thousand seven hundred and sixty seven, such writs of assistance, [...] shall and may be granted by the said superior or supreme court of justice having jurisdiction within such colony or plantation respectively.

7 Geo. 3. c. 46, s. 10[19]

There was an angry response from colonists, who deemed the taxes a threat to their rights as British subjects.[citation needed] The use of writs of assistance was significantly controversial since the right to be secure in one's private property was an established right in Britain.[citation needed][20]

The Commissioners of Customs Act 1767 edit

Commissioners of Customs Act 1767
Act of Parliament
 
Long titleAn act to enable his Majesty to put the customs, and other duties, in the British dominions in America, and the execution of the laws relating to trade there, under the management of commissioners to be appointed for that purpose, and to be resident in the said dominions.
Citation7 Geo. 3. c. 41
Introduced by3 June 1767 Grey Cooper, Secretary to the Treasury[21] (Commons)
Dates
Royal assent29 June 1767[22]
Other legislation
Repealed byCustoms Law Repeal Act 1825 (6 Geo. 4. c. 105)
Status: Repealed
Text of statute as originally enacted

This act was passed on 29 June 1767.[22] It created a new Customs Board for the North American colonies, to be headquartered in Boston with five customs commissioners. New offices were eventually opened in other ports as well. The board was created to enforce shipping regulations and increase tax revenue. Previously, customs enforcement was handled by the Customs Board back in England. Due to the distance, enforcement was poor, taxes were avoided and smuggling was rampant.

Be it therefore enacted [...] that the customs and other duties imposed [...] upon any goods or merchandise brought or imported into, or exported or carried from, any British colony or plantation in America, may, from time to time, be put under the management and direction of such commissioners, to reside in the said plantations, as his Majesty [...] shall judge to be most for the advantage or trade, and security of the revenue of the said British colonies.

7 Geo. 3. c. 41 s. 1[23]

Once the new Customs Board was in operation, enforcement increased, leading to a confrontation with smuggling colonists. Incidents between customs officials, military personnel and colonists broke out across the colonies, eventually leading to the occupation of Boston by British troops. This led to the Boston Massacre.[24]

The New York Restraining Act 1767 edit

Rebellion in America Act 1767
Act of Parliament
 
Long titleAn act for restraining and prohibiting the governor, council, and house of representatives, of the province of New York, until provision shall have been made for furnishing the King's troops with all the necessaries required by law, from passing or assenting to any act of assembly, vote, or resolution, for any other purpose.
Citation7 Geo. 3. c. 59
Introduced by27 May 1767 Edward Willes, Solicitor General[25][26] (Commons)
Dates
Royal assent2 July 1767[27][25]
Commencement1 October 1767[25][28]
Repealed15 July 1867
Other legislation
Repealed byStatute Law Revision Act 1867
Status: Repealed
Text of statute as originally enacted

This was the (joint) third of the five acts, passed on 2 July 1767,[27][25] the same day as the Indemnity Act.[27]

It forbade the New York Assembly and the governor of New York from passing any new bills until they complied with the Quartering Act 1765.[28] That act required New York to provide housing, food and supplies for the British troops stationed there to defend the colony. New York resisted the Quartering Act saying they were being taxed, yet had no direct representation in Parliament.[29] Furthermore, New York didn't think British soldiers were needed any more, since the French and Indian War had come to an end.[30]

That from and after the first day of October, one thousand seven hundred and sixty seven, until provision shall have been made by the said assembly of New York for furnishing his Majesty's troops within the said province with all such necessaries as are required by the said acts of parliament ... it shall not be lawful for the governor ... to pass, or give his or their assent to, or concurrence in, the making or passing of any act of assembly; or his or their assent to any order, resolution, or vote, in concurrence with the house of representatives for the time being within the said colony, or for the said house of representatives to pass or make any bill, order, resolution, or vote, (orders, resolutions, or votes, for adjourning such house only, excepted) of any kind, for any other purpose whatsoever

7 Geo. 3. c. 59[28]

Before the act was implemented, New York reluctantly agreed to provide some of the soldiers' needs, so it was never applied.[31]

The Indemnity Act 1767 edit

Tea Act 1767
Act of Parliament
 
Long titleAn Act for Taking Off the Inland Duty of One Shilling per Pound Weight upon All Black and Singlo Teas Consumed in Great Britain; and for Granting a Drawback upon the Exportation of Teas to Ireland and the British Dominions in America, for a Limited Time, upon Such Indemnification to Be Made in Respect Thereof by the East India Company, as Is Therein Mentioned; for Permitting the Exportation of Teas in Smaller Quantities Than One Lot to Ireland, or the Said Dominions in America; and for Preventing Teas Seized and Condemned from Being Consumed in Great Britain.
Citation7 Geo. 3. c. 56
Introduced by11 June 1767 Grey Cooper, Secretary to the Treasury[32] (Commons)
Dates
Royal assent2 July 1767[27]
Commencement6 July 1767
Expired5 July 1772
Repealed15 July 1867
Other legislation
Repealed byStatute Law Revision Act 1867
Status: Repealed
Text of statute as originally enacted

This Act was passed together with the New York Restraining Act, on 2 July 1767.[27]

'Indemnity' means 'security or protection against a loss or other financial burden'.[33] The Indemnity Act 1767 reduced taxes on the British East India Company when they imported tea into England. This allowed them to re-export the tea to the colonies more cheaply and resell it to the colonists. Until this time, all items had to be shipped to England first from wherever they were made and then re-exported to their destination, including to the colonies.[34] This followed from the principle of mercantilism in England, which meant the colonies were forced to trade only with England.[35]

The British East India Company was one of England's largest companies but was on the verge of collapse due to much cheaper smuggled Dutch tea. Part of the purpose of the entire series of Townshend Acts was to save the company from imploding. Since tea smuggling had become a common and successful practice, Parliament realized how difficult it was to enforce the taxing of tea. The Act stated that no more taxes would be placed on tea, and it made the cost of the East India Company's tea less than tea that was smuggled via Holland. It was an incentive for the colonists to purchase the East India Company tea.[36][37]

The Vice Admiralty Court Act 1768 edit

Colonial Trade Act 1768
Act of Parliament
 
Long titleAn Act for the more easy and effectual recovery of the penalties and forfeitures inflicted by the acts of parliament relating to the trade or revenues of the British colonies and plantations in America.
Citation8 Geo. 3. c. 22
Introduced by24 February 1768 Lord North, Chancellor of the Exchequer[38] (Commons)
Dates
Royal assent8 March 1768[39]
Commencement1 September 1768
Other legislation
Repealed byCustoms Law Repeal Act 1825 (6 Geo 4 c 105)
Status: Repealed
Text of statute as originally enacted

This was the last of the five acts passed. It was not passed until 8 March 1768,[39] the year after the other four. Lord Charles Townshend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after whom the Townshend Acts were named, had died suddenly in September 1767, and so did not introduce this Act.

The Act was passed to aid the prosecution of smugglers. It gave admiralty courts, rather than colonial courts, jurisdiction over all matters concerning customs violations and smuggling. Before the Act, customs violators could be tried in an admiralty court in Halifax, Nova Scotia, if royal prosecutors believed they would not get a favourable outcome using a local judge and jury.

The Vice-Admiralty Court Act added three new admiralty courts in Boston, Philadelphia and Charleston to aid in more effective prosecutions. These courts were run by judges appointed by the Crown and whose salaries were paid, in the first instance, from fines levied.[40] when they found someone guilty.

[...] all forfeitures and penalties inflected by any act or acts of parliament relating to the trade or revenues of the British colonies or plantations in America, may be prosecuted, sued for, and recovered, in any court of vice-admiralty appointed, or to be appointed, and which shall have jurisdiction within the colony, plantation, or place, where the cause of such prosecution or suit shall have arisen.

8 Geo. 3. c. 22 s. 1[41]

The decisions were made solely by the judge, without the option of trial by jury, which was considered to be a fundamental right of British subjects. In addition, the accused person had to travel to the court of jurisdiction at his own expense; if he did not appear, he was automatically considered guilty.[42]

Townshend's program edit

Raising revenue edit

The first of the Townshend Acts, sometimes simply known as the Townshend Act, was the Revenue Act 1767 (7 Geo 3 c 46).[d][43][44] This act represented the Chatham ministry's new approach to generating tax revenue in the American colonies after the repeal of the Stamp Act in 1766.[5][15] The British government had gotten the impression that because the colonists had objected to the Stamp Act on the grounds that it was a direct (or "internal") tax, colonists would therefore accept indirect (or "external") taxes, such as taxes on imports.[45] With this in mind, Charles Townshend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, devised a plan that placed new duties on paper, paint, lead, glass, and tea that were imported into the colonies.[15][16] These were items that were not produced in North America and that the colonists were only allowed to buy from Great Britain.[46]

The colonists' objection to "internal" taxes did not mean that they would accept "external" taxes; the colonial position was that any tax laid by Parliament for the purpose of raising revenue was unconstitutional.[45] "Townshend's mistaken belief that Americans regarded internal taxes as unconstitutional and external taxes constitutional", wrote historian John Phillip Reid, "was of vital importance in the history of events leading to the Revolution."[47] The Townshend Revenue Act received royal assent on 29 June 1767.[12] There was little opposition expressed in Parliament at the time. "Never could a fateful measure have had a more quiet passage", wrote historian Peter Thomas.[12]

The Revenue Act was passed in conjunction with the Indemnity Act 1767 (7 Geo 3 c 56),[e][49] which was intended to make the tea of the British East India Company more competitive with smuggled Dutch tea.[50] The Indemnity Act repealed taxes on tea imported to England, allowing it to be re-exported more cheaply to the colonies. This tax cut in England would be partially offset by the new Revenue Act taxes on tea in the colonies.[51] The Revenue Act also reaffirmed the legality of writs of assistance, or general search warrants, which gave customs officials broad powers to search houses and businesses for smuggled goods.[18]

The original stated purpose of the Townshend duties was to raise a revenue to help pay the cost of maintaining an army in North America.[52] Townshend changed the purpose of the tax plan, however, and instead decided to use the revenue to pay the salaries of some colonial governors and judges.[53] Previously, the colonial assemblies had paid these salaries, but Parliament hoped to take the "power of the purse"[54] away from the colonies. According to historian John C. Miller, "Townshend ingeniously sought to take money from Americans by means of parliamentary taxation and to employ it against their liberties by making colonial governors and judges independent of the assemblies."[55]

Some members of Parliament objected because Townshend's plan was expected to generate only £40,000 in yearly revenue, but he explained that once the precedent for taxing the colonists had been firmly established, the program could gradually be expanded until the colonies paid for themselves.[3][56] According to historian Peter Thomas, Townshend's "aims were political rather than financial".[56]

American Board of Customs Commissioners edit

To better collect the new taxes, the Commissioners of Customs Act 1767 (7 Geo 3 c 41) established the American Board of Customs Commissioners, which was modeled on the British Board of Customs.[43] The board was created because of the difficulties the British Board faced in enforcing trade regulations in the distant colonies.[57] Five commissioners were appointed to the board, which was headquartered in Boston.[58] The American Customs Board would generate considerable hostility in the colonies towards the British government. According to historian Oliver Dickerson, "The actual separation of the continental colonies from the rest of the Empire dates from the creation of this independent administrative board."[59]

The American Board of Customs Commissioners was notoriously corrupt, according to historians. Political scientist Peter Andreas argues:

merchants resented not only the squeeze on smuggling but also the exploits by unscrupulous customs agents that came with it. Such "customs racketeering" was, in the view of colonial merchants, essentially legalized piracy.[60]

Historian Edmund Morgan says:

In the establishment of this American Board of Customs Commissioners, Americans saw the extension of England's corrupt system of officeholding to America. As Professor Dickerson has shown, the Commissioners were indeed corrupt. They engaged in extensive "customs racketeering" and they were involved in many of the episodes of heightened the tension between England and the colonies: it was on their request that troops were sent to Boston; The Boston Massacre took place before their headquarters; the "Gaspee" was operating under their orders.[61]

Historian Doug Krehbiel argues:

Disputes brought to the board were almost exclusively resolved in favor of the British government. Vice admiralty courts claimed to prosecute vigorously smugglers but were widely corrupt—customs officials falsely accused ship owners of possessing undeclared items, thereby seizing the cargoes of entire vessels, and justices of the juryless courts were entitled to a percentage of the goods from colonial ships that they ruled unlawful. Writs of assistance and blanket search warrants to search for smuggled goods were liberally abused. John Hancock, the wealthy New England merchant, had his ship "Liberty" seized in 1768 on a false charge, incensing the colonists. Charges against Hancock were later dropped and his ship returned because of the fear that he would appeal to more scrupulous customs officials in Britain.[62]

Another measure to enforce the trade laws was the Vice Admiralty Court Act 1768 (8 Geo 3 c 22).[63] Although often included in discussions of the Townshend Acts, this act was initiated by the Cabinet when Townshend was not present and was not passed until after his death.[64] Before this act, there was just one vice admiralty court in North America, located in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Established in 1764, this court proved to be too remote to serve all of the colonies, and so the 1768 Vice Admiralty Court Act created four district courts, which were located at Halifax, Boston, Philadelphia, and Charleston. One purpose of the vice admiralty courts, which did not have juries, was to help customs officials prosecute smugglers since colonial juries were reluctant to convict persons for violating unpopular trade regulations.

Townshend also faced the problem of what to do about the New York General Assembly, which had refused to comply with the Quartering Act 1765 because its members saw the act's financial provisions as levying an unconstitutional tax.[29] The New York Restraining Act (7 Geo 3 c 59),[f][66] which according to historian Robert Chaffin was "officially a part of the Townshend Acts",[3] suspended the power of the Assembly until it complied with the Quartering Act.[67] The Restraining Act never went into effect because, by the time it was passed, the New York Assembly had already appropriated money to cover the costs of the Quartering Act. The Assembly avoided conceding the right of Parliament to tax the colonies by making no reference to the Quartering Act when appropriating this money; they also passed a resolution stating that Parliament could not constitutionally suspend an elected legislature.[68]

Reaction edit

See also: American Revolutionary War § Background and political developments

Townshend knew that his program would be controversial in the colonies, but he argued that, "The superiority of the mother country can at no time be better exerted than now."[69] The Townshend Acts did not create an instant uproar like the Stamp Act had done two years earlier, but before long, opposition to the programme had become widespread.[70][71] Townshend did not live to see this reaction, having died suddenly on 4 September 1767.[72]

 
Dickinson's Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania

The most influential colonial response to the Townshend Acts was a series of twelve essays by John Dickinson entitled "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania", which began appearing in December 1767.[73] Eloquently articulating ideas already widely accepted in the colonies,[73] Dickinson argued that there was no difference between "internal" and "external" taxes, and that any taxes imposed on the colonies by Parliament for the sake of raising a revenue were unconstitutional.[74] Dickinson warned colonists not to concede to the taxes just because the rates were low since this would set a dangerous precedent.[75]

Dickinson sent a copy of his "Letters" to James Otis of Massachusetts, informing Otis that "whenever the Cause of American Freedom is to be vindicated, I look towards the Province of Massachusetts Bay".[76][g] The Massachusetts House of Representatives began a campaign against the Townshend Acts by first sending a petition to King George asking for the repeal of the Revenue Act, and then sending a letter to the other colonial assemblies, asking them to join the resistance movement.[76] Upon receipt of the Massachusetts Circular Letter, other colonies also sent petitions to the king.[77][78] Virginia and Pennsylvania also sent petitions to Parliament, but the other colonies did not, believing that it might have been interpreted as an admission of Parliament's sovereignty over them.[79] Parliament refused to consider the petitions of Virginia and Pennsylvania.[80]

In Great Britain, Lord Hillsborough, who had recently been appointed to the newly created office of Colonial Secretary, was alarmed by the actions of the Massachusetts House. In April 1768 he sent a letter to the colonial governors in America, instructing them to dissolve the colonial assemblies if they responded to the Massachusetts Circular Letter. He also sent a letter to Massachusetts Governor Francis Bernard, instructing him to have the Massachusetts House rescind the Circular Letter. By a vote of 92 to 17, the House refused to comply, and Bernard promptly dissolved the legislature.[81][82]

When news of the outrage among the colonists finally reached Franklin in London he wrote a number of essays in 1768 calling for "civility and good manners", even though he did not approve of the measures.[83] In 1770, Franklin continued writing essays against the Townsend Acts and Lord Hillsborough and wrote eleven attacking the Acts that appeared in the Public Advertiser, a London daily newspaper. The essays were published between January 8 and February 19, 1770, and can be found in The Papers of Benjamin Franklin.[84][85]

Boycotts edit

 
Non-importation agreement, dated October 1767, signed by Bostonians including Paul Revere
See also: Dedham, Massachusetts in the American Revolution § Townshend Acts

Merchants in the colonies, some of them smugglers, organized economic boycotts to put pressure on their British counterparts to work for repeal of the Townshend Acts. Boston merchants organized the first non-importation agreement, which called for merchants to suspend importation of certain British goods effective 1 January 1768. Merchants in other colonial ports, including New York City and Philadelphia, eventually joined the boycott.[86] In Virginia, the non-importation effort was organized by George Washington and George Mason. When the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a resolution stating that Parliament had no right to tax Virginians without their consent, Governor Lord Botetourt dissolved the assembly. The members met at Raleigh Tavern and adopted a boycott agreement known as the "Association".[87]

The non-importation movement was not as effective as promoters had hoped. British exports to the colonies declined by 38 percent in 1769, but there were many merchants who did not participate in the boycott.[88] The boycott movement began to fail by 1770 and came to an end in 1771.[89]

Unrest in Boston edit

 
Paul Revere's engraving of British troops landing in Boston in 1768

The newly created American Customs Board was seated in Boston, so it was there that the Board concentrated on enforcing the Townshend Acts.[90] The acts were so unpopular in Boston that the Customs Board requested assistance. Commodore Samuel Hood sent the fifty-gun fourth-rate ship HMS Romney, which arrived in Boston Harbor in May 1768.[91]

On 10 June 1768, customs officials seized the Liberty, a sloop owned by leading Boston merchant John Hancock, on allegations that the ship had been involved in smuggling. Bostonians, already angry because the captain of the Romney had been impressing local sailors, began to riot. Customs officials fled to Castle William for protection. With John Adams serving as his lawyer, Hancock was prosecuted in a highly publicized trial by a vice-admiralty court, but the charges were eventually dropped.[92][93]

Given the unstable state of affairs in Massachusetts, Hillsborough instructed Governor Bernard to try to find evidence of treason in Boston.[94] Parliament had determined that the Treason Act 1543 was still in force, which would allow Bostonians to be transported to England to stand trial for treason. Bernard could find no one who was willing to provide reliable evidence, however, and so there were no treason trials.[95] The possibility that American colonists might be arrested and sent to England for trial produced alarm and outrage in the colonies.[96]

Even before the Liberty riot, Hillsborough had decided to send troops to Boston. On 8 June 1768, he instructed General Thomas Gage, Commander-in-Chief, North America, to send "such Force as You shall think necessary to Boston", although he conceded that this might lead to "consequences not easily foreseen".[97][98][99] Hillsborough suggested that Gage might send one regiment to Boston, but the Liberty incident convinced officials that more than one regiment would be needed.[100]

People in Massachusetts learned in September 1768 that troops were on the way.[101] Samuel Adams organized an emergency, extralegal convention of towns and passed resolutions against the imminent occupation of Boston, but on 1 October 1768, the first of four regiments of the British Army began disembarking in Boston, and the Customs Commissioners returned to town.[102] The "Journal of Occurrences", an anonymously written series of newspaper articles, chronicled clashes between civilians and soldiers during the military occupation of Boston, apparently with some exaggeration.[103] Tensions rose after Christopher Seider, a Boston teenager, was killed by a customs employee on 22 February 1770.[104] Although British soldiers were not involved in that incident, resentment against the occupation escalated in the days that followed, resulting in the killing of five civilians in the Boston Massacre of 5 March 1770.[105] After the incident, the troops were withdrawn to Castle William.[106]

Partial repeal edit

Customs Act 1770
Act of Parliament
 
Long titleAn act to repeal so much of an act made in the seventh year of his present Majesty's reign, intituled, "An act for granting certain duties in the British colonies and plantations in America for allowing a drawback of the duties of customs upon the exportation, from this kingdom, of coffee and cocoa nuts of the produce of the said colonies or plantations; for discontinuing the drawbacks payable on china earthen ware exported to America, and for more effectually preventing the clandestine running of goods in the said colonies and plantations", as relates to the duties upon glass, red-lead, white-lead, painters colours, paper, paste-boards, mill-boards, and scale-boards, of the produce or manufacture of Great Britain, imported into any of his Majesty's colonies in America; and also to the discontinuing the drawbacks payable on china earthen-ware exported to America; and for regulating the exportation thereof.
Citation10 Geo 3 c 17
Dates
Royal assent12 April 1770
Commencement1 December 1770
Text of statute as originally enacted

On 5 March 1770—the same day as the Boston Massacre, although news traveled slowly at the time, and neither side of the Atlantic was aware of this coincidence—Lord North, the new Prime Minister, presented a motion in the House of Commons that called for partial repeal of the Townshend Revenue Act.[107] Although some in Parliament advocated a complete repeal of the act, North disagreed, arguing that the tea duty should be retained to assert "the right of taxing the Americans".[107] After debate, the Repeal Act (10 Geo 3 c 17)[108] received royal assent on 12 April 1770.[109]

Historian Robert Chaffin argued that little had actually changed:

It would be inaccurate to claim that a major part of the Townshend Acts had been repealed. The revenue-producing tea levy, the American Board of Customs and, most important, the principle of making governors and magistrates independent all remained. In fact, the modification of the Townshend Duties Act was scarcely any change at all.[110]

The Townshend duty on tea was retained when the 1773 Tea Act was passed, which allowed the East India Company to ship tea directly to the colonies. The Boston Tea Party soon followed, which set the stage for the American Revolution.

Notes edit

  1. ^ Dickerson for example, writes that there were four Townshend Acts, and does not mention the New York Restraining Act,[2] which Chaffin says was "officially a part of the Townshend Acts".[3]
  2. ^ Customs Act 1662 (14 Car. 2. c. 11)
  3. ^ Navigation Act 1696 (7 & 8 Will. 3 c. 22)
  4. ^ Also known as the Townshend Revenue Act, the Townshend Duties Act, and the Tariff Act 1767.
  5. ^ Also known as the Tea Act 1767.[48]
  6. ^ Also known as the New York Suspending Act.[65]
  7. ^ Dickinson's letter to Otis was dated 5 December 1767.[76]

References edit

  1. ^ "Townshend Acts". Dictionary.com. from the original on 30 January 2023. Retrieved 13 April 2020.
  2. ^ Dickerson (1951), pp. 195–95.
  3. ^ a b c Chaffin (1999), p. 128.
  4. ^ Chaffin (1999), p. 126.
  5. ^ a b Chaffin (1999), p. 143.
  6. ^ Reid (1987), p. 206.
  7. ^ Levy (1995), p. 303.
  8. ^ Thomas (1987), p. 10.
  9. ^ Knollenberg (1975), pp. 21–25.
  10. ^ Commons Journal (1768), p. 398.
  11. ^ a b Lords Journal (1767), pp. 659.
  12. ^ a b c d Thomas (1987), p. 31.
  13. ^ Brunhouse (1930), p. 355.
  14. ^ Pickering (1767), pp. 505–508.
  15. ^ a b c Thomas (1987), p. 9.
  16. ^ a b Labaree (1979), pp. 19–20.
  17. ^ Pickering (1767), p. 511.
  18. ^ a b Reid (1979), pp. 29, 135n24.
  19. ^ Pickering (1767), pp. 505–512.
  20. ^ "Revenue Act of 1767". Revolutionary War and Beyond. from the original on 30 January 2023. Retrieved 15 April 2020.[unreliable source]
  21. ^ Commons Journal (1768), p. 396.
  22. ^ a b Lords Journal (1767), pp. 660.
  23. ^ Pickering (1767), p. 448.
  24. ^ "Commissioners of Customs Act". Revolutionary War and Beyond. from the original on 3 March 2020. Retrieved 15 April 2020.[unreliable source]
  25. ^ a b c d Varga (1956), p. 250.
  26. ^ Commons Journal (1768), p. 387.
  27. ^ a b c d e Lords Journal (1767), pp. 665.
  28. ^ a b c Pickering (1767), p. 607.
  29. ^ a b Chaffin (1999), p. 134.
  30. ^ Varga (1956), p. 235.
  31. ^ Varga (1956), p. 254.
  32. ^ Commons Journal (1768), p. 401.
  33. ^ . Lexico Dictionaries: English. Archived from the original on 27 February 2020.
  34. ^ "Indemnity Act of 1767". Revolutionary War and Beyond. from the original on 6 May 2021. Retrieved 15 April 2020.[unreliable source]
  35. ^ . To Market, To Market: A Study of the Colonial Economy from 1600-1750. Archived from the original on 28 June 2004.
  36. ^ "Historical Facts About The Townshend Acts". Boston Tea Party Ships & Museum. Historic Tours of America. from the original on 3 March 2023. Retrieved 3 March 2023.
  37. ^ Farrand (1898), p. 267.
  38. ^ Commons Journal (1768), p. 633.
  39. ^ a b Lords Journal (1770), p. 137.
  40. ^ Ruppert, Bob (28 January 2015). "Vice-Admiralty Courts and Writs of Assistance". Journal of the American Revolution. from the original on 25 July 2018. Retrieved 25 July 2018.
  41. ^ Pickering (1768), p. 71.
  42. ^ "Vice-Admiralty Court Act". Revolutionary War and Beyond. from the original on 6 March 2020. Retrieved 15 April 2020.[unreliable source]
  43. ^ a b Knollenberg (1975), p. 47.
  44. ^ Labaree (1979), p. 270n12.
  45. ^ a b Reid (1987), pp. 33–39.
  46. ^ Chaffin (1999), p. 127.
  47. ^ Reid (1987), p. 33.
  48. ^ Jensen (1968), p. 435.
  49. ^ Labaree (1979), p. 269n20.
  50. ^ Dickerson (1951), p. 196.
  51. ^ Labaree (1979), p. 21.
  52. ^ Thomas (1987), pp. 22–23.
  53. ^ Thomas (1987), pp. 23–25.
  54. ^ Thomas (1987), p. 260.
  55. ^ Miller (1959), p. 255.
  56. ^ a b Thomas (1987), p. 30.
  57. ^ Thomas (1987), p. 33.
  58. ^ Chaffin (1999), p. 130.
  59. ^ Dickerson (1951), p. 199.
  60. ^ Andreas (2012), p. 34.
  61. ^ Morgan (1978), pp. 104–105.
  62. ^ Krehbiel (2005), p. 228.
  63. ^ Pickering (1768), pp. 294-295.
  64. ^ Thomas (1987), pp. 34–35.
  65. ^ Knollenberg (1975), p. 296.
  66. ^ Pickering (1767), pp. 606–607.
  67. ^ Pickering (1767), p. 606.
  68. ^ Chaffin (1999), pp. 134–135.
  69. ^ Chaffin (1999), p. 131.
  70. ^ Knollenberg (1975), p. 48.
  71. ^ Thomas (1987), p. 76.
  72. ^ Thomas (1987), p. 36.
  73. ^ a b Chaffin (1999), p. 132.
  74. ^ Knollenberg (1975), p. 50.
  75. ^ Knollenberg (1975), pp. 52–53.
  76. ^ a b c Knollenberg (1975), p. 54.
  77. ^ Thomas (1987), p. 84.
  78. ^ Knollenberg (1975), pp. 54–57.
  79. ^ Thomas (1987), pp. 85, 111–112.
  80. ^ Thomas (1987), p. 112.
  81. ^ Thomas (1987), p. 81.
  82. ^ Knollenberg (1975), p. 56.
  83. ^ Isaacson (2004), p. 244.
  84. ^ Franklin; Labaree (ed.), 1969, v. xvii, pp. 14, 18, 28, 33, etc
  85. ^ Isaacson (2004), p. 247.
  86. ^ Knollenberg (1975), pp. 57–58.
  87. ^ Knollenberg (1975), p. 59.
  88. ^ Thomas (1987), p. 157.
  89. ^ Chaffin (1999), p. 138.
  90. ^ Knollenberg (1975), p. 61–63.
  91. ^ Knollenberg (1975), p. 63.
  92. ^ "Notorious Smuggler", 236–246[full citation needed]
  93. ^ Knollenberg (1975), pp. 63–65.
  94. ^ Thomas (1987), p. 109.
  95. ^ Jensen (1968), pp. 296–297.
  96. ^ Knollenberg (1975), p. 69.
  97. ^ Thomas (1987), p. 82.
  98. ^ Knollenberg (1975), p. 75.
  99. ^ Jensen (1968), p. 290.
  100. ^ Reid (1979), p. 125.
  101. ^ Thomas (1987), p. 92.
  102. ^ Knollenberg (1975), p. 76.
  103. ^ Knollenberg (1975), pp. 76–77.
  104. ^ Knollenberg (1975), pp. 77–78.
  105. ^ Knollenberg (1975), p. 78–79.
  106. ^ Knollenberg (1975), p. 81.
  107. ^ a b Knollenberg (1975), p. 71.
  108. ^ Labaree (1979), p. 276n17.
  109. ^ Knollenberg (1975), p. 72.
  110. ^ Chaffin (1999), p. 140.

Bibliography edit

  • Andreas, Peter (2012). Smuggler Nation: How Illicit Trade Made America.
  • Brunhouse, Robert Levere (1930). "The Effect of the Townshend Acts in Pennsylvania". Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography. 54 (4): 355–373. JSTOR 20086751.
  • Chaffin, Robert J. (1999) [1991]. "The Townshend Acts crisis, 1767–1770". In Greene, Jack P.; Pole, Jack R. (eds.). The Blackwell Encyclopedia of the American Revolution. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-55786-547-2.
  • Dickerson, Oliver M. (1951). The Navigation Acts and the American Revolution. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0-8122-1077-4.
  • Dickerson, Oliver M. (March 1946). "John Hancock: Notorious Smuggler or Near Victim of British Revenue Racketeers?". Mississippi Valley Historical Review. 32 (4): 517–540. doi:10.2307/1895239. JSTOR 1895239.
  • Farrand, Max (January 1898). "The Taxation of Tea, 1767-1773". The American Historical Review. 3 (2): 266–269. doi:10.2307/1832503. JSTOR 1832503.
  • Franklin, Benjamin (1969). Labaree, Leonard W. (ed.). The Papers of Benjamin Franklin. Vol. XVII. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Isaacson, Walter (2004). Benjamin Franklin: An American Life. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0-684-80761-4.
  • Knollenberg, Bernhard (1975). Growth of the American Revolution, 1766–1775. New York: Free Press. ISBN 978-0-02-917110-3.
  • Krehbiel, Doug (2005). "British Empire and the Atlantic World". In Finkelman, Paul (ed.). Encyclopedia of the New American Nation. Vol. 1: The Emergence of the United States, 1754–1829.
  • Labaree, Benjamin Woods (1979) [1964]. The Boston Tea Party. Boston: Northeastern University Press. ISBN 978-0-930350-05-5.
  • Jensen, Merrill (1968). The Founding of a Nation: A History of the American Revolution, 1763–1776. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Levy, Leonard W. (1995). Seasoned Judgments. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4128-3382-0.
  • Morgan, Edmund S. (1978). The Challenge of the American Revolution. W. W. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-00876-0.
  • Miller, John C. (1959). Origins of the American Revolution. Stanford University Press.
  • Pickering, Danby (1767). The Statutes at Large. Vol. 27 Being the Fifth Session of the Twelfth Parliament of Great Britain. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Pickering, Danby (1768). The Statutes at Large. Vol. 28 Part 1: Being the Seventh Session of the Twelfth Parliament of Great Britain. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Reid, John Phillip (1979). In a Rebellious Spirit: The Argument of Facts, the Liberty Riot, and the Coming of the American Revolution. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 978-0-271-00202-6.
  • Reid, John Phillip (1987). Constitutional History of the American Revolution, II: The Authority to Tax. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 978-0-299-11290-5.
  • Thomas, Peter D. G. (1987). The Townshend Duties Crisis: The Second Phase of the American Revolution, 1767–1773. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-822967-4.
  • Varga, Nicolas (July 1956). "The New York Restraining Act: It's Passage and Some Effects, 1766-1768". New York History. New York State Historical Association. 37 (3): 233–256. JSTOR 23153870.
  • Journal of the House of Commons. Vol. 31: November the 11th, 1766 to March the 10th, 1768. London: House of Commons. 1803 [1768].
  • Journal of the House of Lords. Vol. 31, 1765–1767. London: His Majesty's Stationery Office. 1830 [1767].
  • Journal of the House of Lords. Vol. 32, 1768–1770. London: His Majesty's Stationery Office. 1830 [1770].

Further reading edit

  • Barrow, Thomas C. (1967). Trade and Empire: The British Customs Service in Colonial America, 1660–1775. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-89925-4.
  • Breen, T. H. (2005). The Marketplace of Revolution: How Consumer Politics Shaped American Independence. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-518131-9.
  • Chaffin, Robert J. (January 1970). "The Townshend Acts of 1767". William and Mary Quarterly: A Magazine of Early American History. 27 (1): 90–121. doi:10.2307/1923840. JSTOR 1923840.
  • Chaffin, Robert J. (2000). "The Townshend Acts crisis, 1767–1770". In Greene, Jack P.; Pole, Jack R. (eds.). A Companion to the American Revolution. Vol. 27. pp. 134–150.
  • Clark, Dora Mae (July 1940). "The American Board of Customs, 1767-1783". The American Historical Review. 45 (4): 777–806. doi:10.2307/1854451. JSTOR 1854451.
  • Frese, Joseph R. (1969). "Some Observations on the American Board of Customs Commissioners". Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society. Third Series. 81: 3–30. JSTOR 25080668.
  • Harlan, Robert D. (1974). "David Hall and the Townshend Acts". The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America. 68 (1): 19–38. doi:10.1086/pbsa.68.1.24302418. JSTOR 24302418. S2CID 163738868.
  • Knight, Carol Lynn H. (1990). The American Colonial Press and the Townshend Crisis, 1766–1770: A Study in Political Imagery. Lewiston: E. Mellen Press. ISBN 978-0-88946-841-2.
  • Leslie, William R. (September 1952). "The Gaspee Affair: A Study of Its Constitutional Significance". Mississippi Valley Historical Review. 39 (2): 233–256. doi:10.2307/1892182. JSTOR 1892182.
  • Thomas, P. D. G. (January 1968). "Charles Townshend and American Taxation in 1767". The English Historical Review. 83 (326): 33–51. doi:10.1093/ehr/LXXXIII.CCCXXVI.33. JSTOR 561762.
  • Ubbelohde, Carl (1960). The Vice-Admiralty Courts and the American Revolution. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

External links edit

February 15, 2024
townshend, acts, townshend, duties, were, series, british, acts, parliament, passed, during, 1767, 1768, introducing, series, taxes, regulations, fund, administration, british, colonies, america, they, named, after, chancellor, exchequer, proposed, programme, . The Townshend Acts ˈ t aʊ n z en d 1 or Townshend Duties were a series of British acts of Parliament passed during 1767 and 1768 introducing a series of taxes and regulations to fund administration of the British colonies in America They are named after the Chancellor of the Exchequer who proposed the programme Historians vary slightly as to which acts they include under the heading Townshend Acts but five are often listed a The Revenue Act 1767 passed on 29 June 1767 The Commissioners of Customs Act 1767 passed on 29 June 1767 The Indemnity Act 1767 passed on 2 July 1767 The New York Restraining Act 1767 passed on 2 July 1767 The Vice Admiralty Court Act 1768 passed on 8 March 1768 Charles Townshend spearheaded the laws but died before their detrimental effects became apparent The purposes of the acts were to raise revenue in the colonies to pay the salaries of governors and judges so that they would remain loyal to Great Britain create more effective means of enforcing compliance with trade regulations punish the Province of New York for failing to comply with the 1765 Quartering Act and establish the precedent that the British Parliament had the right to tax the colonies 4 The Townshend Acts met resistance in the colonies People debated them in the streets and in the colonial newspapers Opponents of the Acts gradually became violent leading to the Boston Massacre of 1770 The Acts placed an indirect tax on glass lead paints paper and tea all of which had to be imported from Britain This form of revenue generation was Townshend s response to the failure of the Stamp Act 1765 which had provided the first form of direct taxation placed upon the colonies However the import duties proved to be similarly controversial Colonial indignation over the acts was expressed in John Dickinson s Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania and in the Massachusetts Circular Letter There was widespread protest and American port cities refused to import British goods so Parliament began to partially repeal the Townshend duties 5 In March 1770 most of the taxes from the Townshend Acts were repealed by Parliament under Frederick Lord North However the import duty on tea was retained in order to demonstrate to the colonists that Parliament held the sovereign authority to tax its colonies in accordance with the Declaratory Act 1766 The British government continued to tax the American colonies without providing representation in Parliament American resentment corrupt British officials and abusive enforcement spurred colonial attacks on British ships including the burning of the Gaspee in 1772 The Townshend Acts taxation of imported tea was enforced once again by the Tea Act 1773 and this led to the Boston Tea Party in 1773 in which Bostonians destroyed a large shipment of taxed tea Parliament responded with severe punishments in the Intolerable Acts 1774 The Thirteen Colonies drilled their militia units and war finally erupted in Lexington and Concord in April 1775 launching the American Revolution Contents 1 Background 2 The Five Townshend Acts 2 1 The Revenue Act 1767 2 2 The Commissioners of Customs Act 1767 2 3 The New York Restraining Act 1767 2 4 The Indemnity Act 1767 2 5 The Vice Admiralty Court Act 1768 3 Townshend s program 3 1 Raising revenue 3 2 American Board of Customs Commissioners 4 Reaction 4 1 Boycotts 4 2 Unrest in Boston 5 Partial repeal 6 Notes 7 References 8 Bibliography 9 Further reading 10 External linksBackground editFollowing the Seven Years War 1756 1763 the British government was deep in debt To pay a small fraction of the costs of the newly expanded empire the Parliament of Great Britain decided to levy new taxes on the colonies of British America Previously through the Trade and Navigation Acts Parliament had used taxation to regulate the trade of the empire But with the Sugar Act of 1764 Parliament sought for the first time to tax the colonies for the specific purpose of raising revenue American colonists argued that there were constitutional issues involved 6 The Americans claimed they were not represented in Parliament but the British government retorted that they had virtual representation a concept the Americans rejected 7 This issue only briefly debated following the Sugar Act became a major point of contention after Parliament s passage of the Stamp Act 1765 The Stamp Act proved to be wildly unpopular in the colonies contributing to its repeal the following year along with the failure to raise substantial revenue Implicit in the Stamp Act dispute was an issue more fundamental than taxation and representation the question of the extent of Parliament s authority in the colonies 8 Parliament provided its answer to this question when it repealed the Stamp Act in 1766 by simultaneously passing the Declaratory Act which proclaimed that Parliament could legislate for the colonies in all cases whatsoever 9 The Five Townshend Acts editThe Revenue Act 1767 edit Duties on Tea etc American Plantations Act 1766Act of Parliament nbsp Parliament of Great BritainLong titleAn act for granting certain duties in the British colonies and plantations in America for allowing a drawback of the duties of customs upon the exportation from this kingdom of coffee and cocoa nuts of the produce of the said colonies or plantations for discontinuing the drawbacks payable on china earthen ware exported to America and for more effectually preventing the clandestine running of goods in the colonies and plantations Citation7 Geo 3 c 46Introduced by10 June 1767 John Paterson 10 Commons DatesRoyal assent29 June 1767 11 12 Commencement20 November 1767 13 Repealed15 July 1867Other legislationAmended byTaxation of Colonies Act 1778Repealed byStatute Law Revision Act 1867Relates toCustoms Act 1770Status RepealedText of statute as originally enactedThis act was the joint first act passed on 29 June 1767 11 12 the same day as the Commissioners of Customs Act see below It placed taxes on glass lead painters colors paint paper and tea 14 15 16 It also gave the supreme court of each colony the power to issue writs of assistance 17 general warrants that could be issued to customs officers and used to search private property for smuggled goods 18 And whereas by an act of parliament b it is lawful for any officer of his Majesty s customs authorized by writ of assistance under the seal of his Majesty s court of exchequer and in the day time to enter and go into any house shop cellar warehouse or room or other place and in case of resistance to break open doors chests trunks and other package there to seize and from thence to bring any kind of goods or merchandize whatsoever prohibited or uncustomed and to put and secure the same in his Majesty s store house next to the place where such seizure shall be made and whereas by an act c it is amongst other things enacted that the officers for collecting and managing his Majesty s revenue and inspecting the plantation trade in America shall have the same powers and authorities as is provided for the officers of England but no authority being expressly given by the said act to any particular court to grant such writs of assistance for the officers of the customs in the said plantations it is doubted whether such officers can legally enter houses and other places on land to search for and seize goods in the manner directed by the said recited acts To obviate which doubts for the future and in order to carry the intention of the said recited acts into effectual execution be it enacted That from and after the said twentieth day of November one thousand seven hundred and sixty seven such writs of assistance shall and may be granted by the said superior or supreme court of justice having jurisdiction within such colony or plantation respectively 7 Geo 3 c 46 s 10 19 There was an angry response from colonists who deemed the taxes a threat to their rights as British subjects citation needed The use of writs of assistance was significantly controversial since the right to be secure in one s private property was an established right in Britain citation needed 20 The Commissioners of Customs Act 1767 edit Commissioners of Customs Act 1767Act of Parliament nbsp Parliament of Great BritainLong titleAn act to enable his Majesty to put the customs and other duties in the British dominions in America and the execution of the laws relating to trade there under the management of commissioners to be appointed for that purpose and to be resident in the said dominions Citation7 Geo 3 c 41Introduced by3 June 1767 Grey Cooper Secretary to the Treasury 21 Commons DatesRoyal assent29 June 1767 22 Other legislationRepealed byCustoms Law Repeal Act 1825 6 Geo 4 c 105 Status RepealedText of statute as originally enactedThis act was passed on 29 June 1767 22 It created a new Customs Board for the North American colonies to be headquartered in Boston with five customs commissioners New offices were eventually opened in other ports as well The board was created to enforce shipping regulations and increase tax revenue Previously customs enforcement was handled by the Customs Board back in England Due to the distance enforcement was poor taxes were avoided and smuggling was rampant Be it therefore enacted that the customs and other duties imposed upon any goods or merchandise brought or imported into or exported or carried from any British colony or plantation in America may from time to time be put under the management and direction of such commissioners to reside in the said plantations as his Majesty shall judge to be most for the advantage or trade and security of the revenue of the said British colonies 7 Geo 3 c 41 s 1 23 Once the new Customs Board was in operation enforcement increased leading to a confrontation with smuggling colonists Incidents between customs officials military personnel and colonists broke out across the colonies eventually leading to the occupation of Boston by British troops This led to the Boston Massacre 24 The New York Restraining Act 1767 edit Rebellion in America Act 1767Act of Parliament nbsp Parliament of Great BritainLong titleAn act for restraining and prohibiting the governor council and house of representatives of the province of New York until provision shall have been made for furnishing the King s troops with all the necessaries required by law from passing or assenting to any act of assembly vote or resolution for any other purpose Citation7 Geo 3 c 59Introduced by27 May 1767 Edward Willes Solicitor General 25 26 Commons DatesRoyal assent2 July 1767 27 25 Commencement1 October 1767 25 28 Repealed15 July 1867Other legislationRepealed byStatute Law Revision Act 1867Status RepealedText of statute as originally enactedThis was the joint third of the five acts passed on 2 July 1767 27 25 the same day as the Indemnity Act 27 It forbade the New York Assembly and the governor of New York from passing any new bills until they complied with the Quartering Act 1765 28 That act required New York to provide housing food and supplies for the British troops stationed there to defend the colony New York resisted the Quartering Act saying they were being taxed yet had no direct representation in Parliament 29 Furthermore New York didn t think British soldiers were needed any more since the French and Indian War had come to an end 30 That from and after the first day of October one thousand seven hundred and sixty seven until provision shall have been made by the said assembly of New York for furnishing his Majesty s troops within the said province with all such necessaries as are required by the said acts of parliament it shall not be lawful for the governor to pass or give his or their assent to or concurrence in the making or passing of any act of assembly or his or their assent to any order resolution or vote in concurrence with the house of representatives for the time being within the said colony or for the said house of representatives to pass or make any bill order resolution or vote orders resolutions or votes for adjourning such house only excepted of any kind for any other purpose whatsoever 7 Geo 3 c 59 28 Before the act was implemented New York reluctantly agreed to provide some of the soldiers needs so it was never applied 31 The Indemnity Act 1767 edit Tea Act 1767Act of Parliament nbsp Parliament of Great BritainLong titleAn Act for Taking Off the Inland Duty of One Shilling per Pound Weight upon All Black and Singlo Teas Consumed in Great Britain and for Granting a Drawback upon the Exportation of Teas to Ireland and the British Dominions in America for a Limited Time upon Such Indemnification to Be Made in Respect Thereof by the East India Company as Is Therein Mentioned for Permitting the Exportation of Teas in Smaller Quantities Than One Lot to Ireland or the Said Dominions in America and for Preventing Teas Seized and Condemned from Being Consumed in Great Britain Citation7 Geo 3 c 56Introduced by11 June 1767 Grey Cooper Secretary to the Treasury 32 Commons DatesRoyal assent2 July 1767 27 Commencement6 July 1767Expired5 July 1772Repealed15 July 1867Other legislationRepealed byStatute Law Revision Act 1867Status RepealedText of statute as originally enactedThis Act was passed together with the New York Restraining Act on 2 July 1767 27 Indemnity means security or protection against a loss or other financial burden 33 The Indemnity Act 1767 reduced taxes on the British East India Company when they imported tea into England This allowed them to re export the tea to the colonies more cheaply and resell it to the colonists Until this time all items had to be shipped to England first from wherever they were made and then re exported to their destination including to the colonies 34 This followed from the principle of mercantilism in England which meant the colonies were forced to trade only with England 35 The British East India Company was one of England s largest companies but was on the verge of collapse due to much cheaper smuggled Dutch tea Part of the purpose of the entire series of Townshend Acts was to save the company from imploding Since tea smuggling had become a common and successful practice Parliament realized how difficult it was to enforce the taxing of tea The Act stated that no more taxes would be placed on tea and it made the cost of the East India Company s tea less than tea that was smuggled via Holland It was an incentive for the colonists to purchase the East India Company tea 36 37 The Vice Admiralty Court Act 1768 edit Colonial Trade Act 1768Act of Parliament nbsp Parliament of Great BritainLong titleAn Act for the more easy and effectual recovery of the penalties and forfeitures inflicted by the acts of parliament relating to the trade or revenues of the British colonies and plantations in America Citation8 Geo 3 c 22Introduced by24 February 1768 Lord North Chancellor of the Exchequer 38 Commons DatesRoyal assent8 March 1768 39 Commencement1 September 1768Other legislationRepealed byCustoms Law Repeal Act 1825 6 Geo 4 c 105 Status RepealedText of statute as originally enactedThis was the last of the five acts passed It was not passed until 8 March 1768 39 the year after the other four Lord Charles Townshend the Chancellor of the Exchequer after whom the Townshend Acts were named had died suddenly in September 1767 and so did not introduce this Act The Act was passed to aid the prosecution of smugglers It gave admiralty courts rather than colonial courts jurisdiction over all matters concerning customs violations and smuggling Before the Act customs violators could be tried in an admiralty court in Halifax Nova Scotia if royal prosecutors believed they would not get a favourable outcome using a local judge and jury The Vice Admiralty Court Act added three new admiralty courts in Boston Philadelphia and Charleston to aid in more effective prosecutions These courts were run by judges appointed by the Crown and whose salaries were paid in the first instance from fines levied 40 when they found someone guilty all forfeitures and penalties inflected by any act or acts of parliament relating to the trade or revenues of the British colonies or plantations in America may be prosecuted sued for and recovered in any court of vice admiralty appointed or to be appointed and which shall have jurisdiction within the colony plantation or place where the cause of such prosecution or suit shall have arisen 8 Geo 3 c 22 s 1 41 The decisions were made solely by the judge without the option of trial by jury which was considered to be a fundamental right of British subjects In addition the accused person had to travel to the court of jurisdiction at his own expense if he did not appear he was automatically considered guilty 42 Townshend s program editRaising revenue edit The first of the Townshend Acts sometimes simply known as the Townshend Act was the Revenue Act 1767 7 Geo 3 c 46 d 43 44 This act represented the Chatham ministry s new approach to generating tax revenue in the American colonies after the repeal of the Stamp Act in 1766 5 15 The British government had gotten the impression that because the colonists had objected to the Stamp Act on the grounds that it was a direct or internal tax colonists would therefore accept indirect or external taxes such as taxes on imports 45 With this in mind Charles Townshend the Chancellor of the Exchequer devised a plan that placed new duties on paper paint lead glass and tea that were imported into the colonies 15 16 These were items that were not produced in North America and that the colonists were only allowed to buy from Great Britain 46 The colonists objection to internal taxes did not mean that they would accept external taxes the colonial position was that any tax laid by Parliament for the purpose of raising revenue was unconstitutional 45 Townshend s mistaken belief that Americans regarded internal taxes as unconstitutional and external taxes constitutional wrote historian John Phillip Reid was of vital importance in the history of events leading to the Revolution 47 The Townshend Revenue Act received royal assent on 29 June 1767 12 There was little opposition expressed in Parliament at the time Never could a fateful measure have had a more quiet passage wrote historian Peter Thomas 12 The Revenue Act was passed in conjunction with the Indemnity Act 1767 7 Geo 3 c 56 e 49 which was intended to make the tea of the British East India Company more competitive with smuggled Dutch tea 50 The Indemnity Act repealed taxes on tea imported to England allowing it to be re exported more cheaply to the colonies This tax cut in England would be partially offset by the new Revenue Act taxes on tea in the colonies 51 The Revenue Act also reaffirmed the legality of writs of assistance or general search warrants which gave customs officials broad powers to search houses and businesses for smuggled goods 18 The original stated purpose of the Townshend duties was to raise a revenue to help pay the cost of maintaining an army in North America 52 Townshend changed the purpose of the tax plan however and instead decided to use the revenue to pay the salaries of some colonial governors and judges 53 Previously the colonial assemblies had paid these salaries but Parliament hoped to take the power of the purse 54 away from the colonies According to historian John C Miller Townshend ingeniously sought to take money from Americans by means of parliamentary taxation and to employ it against their liberties by making colonial governors and judges independent of the assemblies 55 Some members of Parliament objected because Townshend s plan was expected to generate only 40 000 in yearly revenue but he explained that once the precedent for taxing the colonists had been firmly established the program could gradually be expanded until the colonies paid for themselves 3 56 According to historian Peter Thomas Townshend s aims were political rather than financial 56 American Board of Customs Commissioners edit To better collect the new taxes the Commissioners of Customs Act 1767 7 Geo 3 c 41 established the American Board of Customs Commissioners which was modeled on the British Board of Customs 43 The board was created because of the difficulties the British Board faced in enforcing trade regulations in the distant colonies 57 Five commissioners were appointed to the board which was headquartered in Boston 58 The American Customs Board would generate considerable hostility in the colonies towards the British government According to historian Oliver Dickerson The actual separation of the continental colonies from the rest of the Empire dates from the creation of this independent administrative board 59 The American Board of Customs Commissioners was notoriously corrupt according to historians Political scientist Peter Andreas argues merchants resented not only the squeeze on smuggling but also the exploits by unscrupulous customs agents that came with it Such customs racketeering was in the view of colonial merchants essentially legalized piracy 60 Historian Edmund Morgan says In the establishment of this American Board of Customs Commissioners Americans saw the extension of England s corrupt system of officeholding to America As Professor Dickerson has shown the Commissioners were indeed corrupt They engaged in extensive customs racketeering and they were involved in many of the episodes of heightened the tension between England and the colonies it was on their request that troops were sent to Boston The Boston Massacre took place before their headquarters the Gaspee was operating under their orders 61 Historian Doug Krehbiel argues Disputes brought to the board were almost exclusively resolved in favor of the British government Vice admiralty courts claimed to prosecute vigorously smugglers but were widely corrupt customs officials falsely accused ship owners of possessing undeclared items thereby seizing the cargoes of entire vessels and justices of the juryless courts were entitled to a percentage of the goods from colonial ships that they ruled unlawful Writs of assistance and blanket search warrants to search for smuggled goods were liberally abused John Hancock the wealthy New England merchant had his ship Liberty seized in 1768 on a false charge incensing the colonists Charges against Hancock were later dropped and his ship returned because of the fear that he would appeal to more scrupulous customs officials in Britain 62 Another measure to enforce the trade laws was the Vice Admiralty Court Act 1768 8 Geo 3 c 22 63 Although often included in discussions of the Townshend Acts this act was initiated by the Cabinet when Townshend was not present and was not passed until after his death 64 Before this act there was just one vice admiralty court in North America located in Halifax Nova Scotia Established in 1764 this court proved to be too remote to serve all of the colonies and so the 1768 Vice Admiralty Court Act created four district courts which were located at Halifax Boston Philadelphia and Charleston One purpose of the vice admiralty courts which did not have juries was to help customs officials prosecute smugglers since colonial juries were reluctant to convict persons for violating unpopular trade regulations Townshend also faced the problem of what to do about the New York General Assembly which had refused to comply with the Quartering Act 1765 because its members saw the act s financial provisions as levying an unconstitutional tax 29 The New York Restraining Act 7 Geo 3 c 59 f 66 which according to historian Robert Chaffin was officially a part of the Townshend Acts 3 suspended the power of the Assembly until it complied with the Quartering Act 67 The Restraining Act never went into effect because by the time it was passed the New York Assembly had already appropriated money to cover the costs of the Quartering Act The Assembly avoided conceding the right of Parliament to tax the colonies by making no reference to the Quartering Act when appropriating this money they also passed a resolution stating that Parliament could not constitutionally suspend an elected legislature 68 Reaction editSee also American Revolutionary War Background and political developments Townshend knew that his program would be controversial in the colonies but he argued that The superiority of the mother country can at no time be better exerted than now 69 The Townshend Acts did not create an instant uproar like the Stamp Act had done two years earlier but before long opposition to the programme had become widespread 70 71 Townshend did not live to see this reaction having died suddenly on 4 September 1767 72 nbsp Dickinson s Letters from a Farmer in PennsylvaniaThe most influential colonial response to the Townshend Acts was a series of twelve essays by John Dickinson entitled Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania which began appearing in December 1767 73 Eloquently articulating ideas already widely accepted in the colonies 73 Dickinson argued that there was no difference between internal and external taxes and that any taxes imposed on the colonies by Parliament for the sake of raising a revenue were unconstitutional 74 Dickinson warned colonists not to concede to the taxes just because the rates were low since this would set a dangerous precedent 75 Dickinson sent a copy of his Letters to James Otis of Massachusetts informing Otis that whenever the Cause of American Freedom is to be vindicated I look towards the Province of Massachusetts Bay 76 g The Massachusetts House of Representatives began a campaign against the Townshend Acts by first sending a petition to King George asking for the repeal of the Revenue Act and then sending a letter to the other colonial assemblies asking them to join the resistance movement 76 Upon receipt of the Massachusetts Circular Letter other colonies also sent petitions to the king 77 78 Virginia and Pennsylvania also sent petitions to Parliament but the other colonies did not believing that it might have been interpreted as an admission of Parliament s sovereignty over them 79 Parliament refused to consider the petitions of Virginia and Pennsylvania 80 In Great Britain Lord Hillsborough who had recently been appointed to the newly created office of Colonial Secretary was alarmed by the actions of the Massachusetts House In April 1768 he sent a letter to the colonial governors in America instructing them to dissolve the colonial assemblies if they responded to the Massachusetts Circular Letter He also sent a letter to Massachusetts Governor Francis Bernard instructing him to have the Massachusetts House rescind the Circular Letter By a vote of 92 to 17 the House refused to comply and Bernard promptly dissolved the legislature 81 82 When news of the outrage among the colonists finally reached Franklin in London he wrote a number of essays in 1768 calling for civility and good manners even though he did not approve of the measures 83 In 1770 Franklin continued writing essays against the Townsend Acts and Lord Hillsborough and wrote eleven attacking the Acts that appeared in the Public Advertiser a London daily newspaper The essays were published between January 8 and February 19 1770 and can be found in The Papers of Benjamin Franklin 84 85 Boycotts edit nbsp Non importation agreement dated October 1767 signed by Bostonians including Paul RevereSee also Dedham Massachusetts in the American Revolution Townshend Acts Merchants in the colonies some of them smugglers organized economic boycotts to put pressure on their British counterparts to work for repeal of the Townshend Acts Boston merchants organized the first non importation agreement which called for merchants to suspend importation of certain British goods effective 1 January 1768 Merchants in other colonial ports including New York City and Philadelphia eventually joined the boycott 86 In Virginia the non importation effort was organized by George Washington and George Mason When the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a resolution stating that Parliament had no right to tax Virginians without their consent Governor Lord Botetourt dissolved the assembly The members met at Raleigh Tavern and adopted a boycott agreement known as the Association 87 The non importation movement was not as effective as promoters had hoped British exports to the colonies declined by 38 percent in 1769 but there were many merchants who did not participate in the boycott 88 The boycott movement began to fail by 1770 and came to an end in 1771 89 Unrest in Boston edit nbsp Paul Revere s engraving of British troops landing in Boston in 1768The newly created American Customs Board was seated in Boston so it was there that the Board concentrated on enforcing the Townshend Acts 90 The acts were so unpopular in Boston that the Customs Board requested assistance Commodore Samuel Hood sent the fifty gun fourth rate ship HMS Romney which arrived in Boston Harbor in May 1768 91 On 10 June 1768 customs officials seized the Liberty a sloop owned by leading Boston merchant John Hancock on allegations that the ship had been involved in smuggling Bostonians already angry because the captain of the Romney had been impressing local sailors began to riot Customs officials fled to Castle William for protection With John Adams serving as his lawyer Hancock was prosecuted in a highly publicized trial by a vice admiralty court but the charges were eventually dropped 92 93 Given the unstable state of affairs in Massachusetts Hillsborough instructed Governor Bernard to try to find evidence of treason in Boston 94 Parliament had determined that the Treason Act 1543 was still in force which would allow Bostonians to be transported to England to stand trial for treason Bernard could find no one who was willing to provide reliable evidence however and so there were no treason trials 95 The possibility that American colonists might be arrested and sent to England for trial produced alarm and outrage in the colonies 96 Even before the Liberty riot Hillsborough had decided to send troops to Boston On 8 June 1768 he instructed General Thomas Gage Commander in Chief North America to send such Force as You shall think necessary to Boston although he conceded that this might lead to consequences not easily foreseen 97 98 99 Hillsborough suggested that Gage might send one regiment to Boston but the Liberty incident convinced officials that more than one regiment would be needed 100 People in Massachusetts learned in September 1768 that troops were on the way 101 Samuel Adams organized an emergency extralegal convention of towns and passed resolutions against the imminent occupation of Boston but on 1 October 1768 the first of four regiments of the British Army began disembarking in Boston and the Customs Commissioners returned to town 102 The Journal of Occurrences an anonymously written series of newspaper articles chronicled clashes between civilians and soldiers during the military occupation of Boston apparently with some exaggeration 103 Tensions rose after Christopher Seider a Boston teenager was killed by a customs employee on 22 February 1770 104 Although British soldiers were not involved in that incident resentment against the occupation escalated in the days that followed resulting in the killing of five civilians in the Boston Massacre of 5 March 1770 105 After the incident the troops were withdrawn to Castle William 106 Partial repeal editCustoms Act 1770Act of Parliament nbsp Parliament of Great BritainLong titleAn act to repeal so much of an act made in the seventh year of his present Majesty s reign intituled An act for granting certain duties in the British colonies and plantations in America for allowing a drawback of the duties of customs upon the exportation from this kingdom of coffee and cocoa nuts of the produce of the said colonies or plantations for discontinuing the drawbacks payable on china earthen ware exported to America and for more effectually preventing the clandestine running of goods in the said colonies and plantations as relates to the duties upon glass red lead white lead painters colours paper paste boards mill boards and scale boards of the produce or manufacture of Great Britain imported into any of his Majesty s colonies in America and also to the discontinuing the drawbacks payable on china earthen ware exported to America and for regulating the exportation thereof Citation10 Geo 3 c 17DatesRoyal assent12 April 1770Commencement1 December 1770Text of statute as originally enactedOn 5 March 1770 the same day as the Boston Massacre although news traveled slowly at the time and neither side of the Atlantic was aware of this coincidence Lord North the new Prime Minister presented a motion in the House of Commons that called for partial repeal of the Townshend Revenue Act 107 Although some in Parliament advocated a complete repeal of the act North disagreed arguing that the tea duty should be retained to assert the right of taxing the Americans 107 After debate the Repeal Act 10 Geo 3 c 17 108 received royal assent on 12 April 1770 109 Historian Robert Chaffin argued that little had actually changed It would be inaccurate to claim that a major part of the Townshend Acts had been repealed The revenue producing tea levy the American Board of Customs and most important the principle of making governors and magistrates independent all remained In fact the modification of the Townshend Duties Act was scarcely any change at all 110 The Townshend duty on tea was retained when the 1773 Tea Act was passed which allowed the East India Company to ship tea directly to the colonies The Boston Tea Party soon followed which set the stage for the American Revolution Notes edit Dickerson for example writes that there were four Townshend Acts and does not mention the New York Restraining Act 2 which Chaffin says was officially a part of the Townshend Acts 3 Customs Act 1662 14 Car 2 c 11 Navigation Act 1696 7 amp 8 Will 3 c 22 Also known as the Townshend Revenue Act the Townshend Duties Act and the Tariff Act 1767 Also known as the Tea Act 1767 48 Also known as the New York Suspending Act 65 Dickinson s letter to Otis was dated 5 December 1767 76 References edit Townshend Acts Dictionary com Archived from the original on 30 January 2023 Retrieved 13 April 2020 Dickerson 1951 pp 195 95 a b c Chaffin 1999 p 128 Chaffin 1999 p 126 a b Chaffin 1999 p 143 Reid 1987 p 206 Levy 1995 p 303 Thomas 1987 p 10 Knollenberg 1975 pp 21 25 Commons Journal 1768 p 398 a b Lords Journal 1767 pp 659 a b c d Thomas 1987 p 31 Brunhouse 1930 p 355 Pickering 1767 pp 505 508 a b c Thomas 1987 p 9 a b Labaree 1979 pp 19 20 Pickering 1767 p 511 a b Reid 1979 pp 29 135n24 Pickering 1767 pp 505 512 Revenue Act of 1767 Revolutionary War and Beyond Archived from the original on 30 January 2023 Retrieved 15 April 2020 unreliable source Commons Journal 1768 p 396 a b Lords Journal 1767 pp 660 Pickering 1767 p 448 Commissioners of Customs Act Revolutionary War and Beyond Archived from the original on 3 March 2020 Retrieved 15 April 2020 unreliable source a b c d Varga 1956 p 250 Commons Journal 1768 p 387 a b c d e Lords Journal 1767 pp 665 a b c Pickering 1767 p 607 a b Chaffin 1999 p 134 Varga 1956 p 235 Varga 1956 p 254 Commons Journal 1768 p 401 Meaning of Indemnity Lexico Dictionaries English Archived from the original on 27 February 2020 Indemnity Act of 1767 Revolutionary War and Beyond Archived from the original on 6 May 2021 Retrieved 15 April 2020 unreliable source Mercantilism Imports and Exports To Market To Market A Study of the Colonial Economy from 1600 1750 Archived from the original on 28 June 2004 Historical Facts About The Townshend Acts Boston Tea Party Ships amp Museum Historic Tours of America Archived from the original on 3 March 2023 Retrieved 3 March 2023 Farrand 1898 p 267 Commons Journal 1768 p 633 a b Lords Journal 1770 p 137 Ruppert Bob 28 January 2015 Vice Admiralty Courts and Writs of Assistance Journal of the American Revolution Archived from the original on 25 July 2018 Retrieved 25 July 2018 Pickering 1768 p 71 Vice Admiralty Court Act Revolutionary War and Beyond Archived from the original on 6 March 2020 Retrieved 15 April 2020 unreliable source a b Knollenberg 1975 p 47 Labaree 1979 p 270n12 a b Reid 1987 pp 33 39 Chaffin 1999 p 127 Reid 1987 p 33 Jensen 1968 p 435 Labaree 1979 p 269n20 Dickerson 1951 p 196 Labaree 1979 p 21 Thomas 1987 pp 22 23 Thomas 1987 pp 23 25 Thomas 1987 p 260 Miller 1959 p 255 a b Thomas 1987 p 30 Thomas 1987 p 33 Chaffin 1999 p 130 Dickerson 1951 p 199 Andreas 2012 p 34 Morgan 1978 pp 104 105 Krehbiel 2005 p 228 Pickering 1768 pp 294 295 Thomas 1987 pp 34 35 Knollenberg 1975 p 296 Pickering 1767 pp 606 607 Pickering 1767 p 606 Chaffin 1999 pp 134 135 Chaffin 1999 p 131 Knollenberg 1975 p 48 Thomas 1987 p 76 Thomas 1987 p 36 a b Chaffin 1999 p 132 Knollenberg 1975 p 50 Knollenberg 1975 pp 52 53 a b c Knollenberg 1975 p 54 Thomas 1987 p 84 Knollenberg 1975 pp 54 57 Thomas 1987 pp 85 111 112 Thomas 1987 p 112 Thomas 1987 p 81 Knollenberg 1975 p 56 Isaacson 2004 p 244 Franklin Labaree ed 1969 v xvii pp 14 18 28 33 etc Isaacson 2004 p 247 Knollenberg 1975 pp 57 58 Knollenberg 1975 p 59 Thomas 1987 p 157 Chaffin 1999 p 138 Knollenberg 1975 p 61 63 Knollenberg 1975 p 63 Notorious Smuggler 236 246 full citation needed Knollenberg 1975 pp 63 65 Thomas 1987 p 109 Jensen 1968 pp 296 297 Knollenberg 1975 p 69 Thomas 1987 p 82 Knollenberg 1975 p 75 Jensen 1968 p 290 Reid 1979 p 125 Thomas 1987 p 92 Knollenberg 1975 p 76 Knollenberg 1975 pp 76 77 Knollenberg 1975 pp 77 78 Knollenberg 1975 p 78 79 Knollenberg 1975 p 81 a b Knollenberg 1975 p 71 Labaree 1979 p 276n17 Knollenberg 1975 p 72 Chaffin 1999 p 140 Bibliography editAndreas Peter 2012 Smuggler Nation How Illicit Trade Made America Brunhouse Robert Levere 1930 The Effect of the Townshend Acts in Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 54 4 355 373 JSTOR 20086751 Chaffin Robert J 1999 1991 The Townshend Acts crisis 1767 1770 In Greene Jack P Pole Jack R eds The Blackwell Encyclopedia of the American Revolution Malden Massachusetts Blackwell ISBN 978 1 55786 547 2 Dickerson Oliver M 1951 The Navigation Acts and the American Revolution Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania Press ISBN 978 0 8122 1077 4 Dickerson Oliver M March 1946 John Hancock Notorious Smuggler or Near Victim of British Revenue Racketeers Mississippi Valley Historical Review 32 4 517 540 doi 10 2307 1895239 JSTOR 1895239 Farrand Max January 1898 The Taxation of Tea 1767 1773 The American Historical Review 3 2 266 269 doi 10 2307 1832503 JSTOR 1832503 Franklin Benjamin 1969 Labaree Leonard W ed The Papers of Benjamin Franklin Vol XVII New Haven Yale University Press Isaacson Walter 2004 Benjamin Franklin An American Life New York Simon amp Schuster ISBN 978 0 684 80761 4 Knollenberg Bernhard 1975 Growth of the American Revolution 1766 1775 New York Free Press ISBN 978 0 02 917110 3 Krehbiel Doug 2005 British Empire and the Atlantic World In Finkelman Paul ed Encyclopedia of the New American Nation Vol 1 The Emergence of the United States 1754 1829 Labaree Benjamin Woods 1979 1964 The Boston Tea Party Boston Northeastern University Press ISBN 978 0 930350 05 5 Jensen Merrill 1968 The Founding of a Nation A History of the American Revolution 1763 1776 New York Oxford University Press Levy Leonard W 1995 Seasoned Judgments Transaction Publishers ISBN 978 1 4128 3382 0 Morgan Edmund S 1978 The Challenge of the American Revolution W W Norton ISBN 978 0 393 00876 0 Miller John C 1959 Origins of the American Revolution Stanford University Press Pickering Danby 1767 The Statutes at Large Vol 27 Being the Fifth Session of the Twelfth Parliament of Great Britain Cambridge UK Cambridge University Press Pickering Danby 1768 The Statutes at Large Vol 28 Part 1 Being the Seventh Session of the Twelfth Parliament of Great Britain Cambridge UK Cambridge University Press Reid John Phillip 1979 In a Rebellious Spirit The Argument of Facts the Liberty Riot and the Coming of the American Revolution University Park Pennsylvania State University Press ISBN 978 0 271 00202 6 Reid John Phillip 1987 Constitutional History of the American Revolution II The Authority to Tax Madison University of Wisconsin Press ISBN 978 0 299 11290 5 Thomas Peter D G 1987 The Townshend Duties Crisis The Second Phase of the American Revolution 1767 1773 Oxford Oxford University Press ISBN 978 0 19 822967 4 Varga Nicolas July 1956 The New York Restraining Act It s Passage and Some Effects 1766 1768 New York History New York State Historical Association 37 3 233 256 JSTOR 23153870 Journal of the House of Commons Vol 31 November the 11th 1766 to March the 10th 1768 London House of Commons 1803 1768 Journal of the House of Lords Vol 31 1765 1767 London His Majesty s Stationery Office 1830 1767 Journal of the House of Lords Vol 32 1768 1770 London His Majesty s Stationery Office 1830 1770 Further reading editBarrow Thomas C 1967 Trade and Empire The British Customs Service in Colonial America 1660 1775 Harvard University Press ISBN 978 0 674 89925 4 Breen T H 2005 The Marketplace of Revolution How Consumer Politics Shaped American Independence Oxford University Press ISBN 978 0 19 518131 9 Chaffin Robert J January 1970 The Townshend Acts of 1767 William and Mary Quarterly A Magazine of Early American History 27 1 90 121 doi 10 2307 1923840 JSTOR 1923840 Chaffin Robert J 2000 The Townshend Acts crisis 1767 1770 In Greene Jack P Pole Jack R eds A Companion to the American Revolution Vol 27 pp 134 150 Clark Dora Mae July 1940 The American Board of Customs 1767 1783 The American Historical Review 45 4 777 806 doi 10 2307 1854451 JSTOR 1854451 Frese Joseph R 1969 Some Observations on the American Board of Customs Commissioners Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society Third Series 81 3 30 JSTOR 25080668 Harlan Robert D 1974 David Hall and the Townshend Acts The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 68 1 19 38 doi 10 1086 pbsa 68 1 24302418 JSTOR 24302418 S2CID 163738868 Knight Carol Lynn H 1990 The American Colonial Press and the Townshend Crisis 1766 1770 A Study in Political Imagery Lewiston E Mellen Press ISBN 978 0 88946 841 2 Leslie William R September 1952 The Gaspee Affair A Study of Its Constitutional Significance Mississippi Valley Historical Review 39 2 233 256 doi 10 2307 1892182 JSTOR 1892182 Thomas P D G January 1968 Charles Townshend and American Taxation in 1767 The English Historical Review 83 326 33 51 doi 10 1093 ehr LXXXIII CCCXXVI 33 JSTOR 561762 Ubbelohde Carl 1960 The Vice Admiralty Courts and the American Revolution Chapel Hill University of North Carolina Press External links editText of the Townshend Revenue Act Article on the Townshend Acts with some period documents from the Massachusetts Historical Society Documents on the Townshend Acts and Period 1767 1768 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Townshend Acts amp oldid 1190384995, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.