it, had never made any search for the
offenders, and therefore, by a neglect of manifest duty, became
accomplices in the guilt: that the fining of communities for their
neglect in punishing offences committed within their limits was
justified by several examples. In King Charles the Second's time, the
city of London was fined when Dr. Lamb was killed by unknown persons.
The city of Edinburgh was fined and otherwise punished for the affair of
Captain Porteous. A part of the revenue of the town of Glasgow had been
sequestered until satisfaction was made for the pulling down of Mr.
Campbell's house. These examples were strong in point for such
punishments. The case of Boston was far worse. It was not a single act
of violence; it was a series of seditious practices of every kind, and
carried on for several years.

"He was of opinion, therefore, that it would not be sufficient to punish
the town of Boston by obliging her to make a pecuniary satisfaction for
the injury which, by not endeavouring to prevent or punish, she has, in
fact, encouraged; security must be given in future that trade may be
safely carried on, property protected, laws obeyed, and duties regularly
paid. Otherwise the punishment of a single illegal act is no
reformation. It would be therefore proper to take away from Boston the
privilege of a port until his Majesty should be satisfied in these
particulars, and publicly declare in Council, on a proper certificate of
the good behaviour of the town, that he was so satisfied. Until this
should happen, the Custom-house officers, who were now not safe in
Boston, or safe no longer than while they neglected their duty, should
be removed to Salem, where they might exercise their functions."[328]

The Bill passed the first reading without discussion. At the second
reading, Mr. Byng alone voted no, though there was considerable
discussion. "Mr. Bollan, the agent for the Council of Massachusetts Bay,
presented a petition, desiring to be heard in behalf of said Council and
other inhabitants of Boston; but the House refused to receive the
petition."[329]

At the third reading, the Lord Mayor of London presented a petition in
behalf of several natives and inhabitants of North America then in
London. "It was drawn," says the Annual Register, "with remarkable
ability." The petitioners alleged that "the proceedings were repugnant
to every principle of law and justice, and under such a precedent no
man in America could e