njoy a moment's security; for if judgment be
immediately to follow on accusation against the people of America,
supported by persons notoriously at enmity with them, the accused
unacquainted with the charges, and from the nature of their situation
utterly incapable of answering and defending themselves, every fence
against false accusation will be pulled down.

"They asserted that law is executed with as much impartiality in America
as in any part of his Majesty's dominions. They appealed for proof of
this to the fair trial and favourable verdict in the case of Captain
Preston and his soldiers.

"That in such a case the interposition of parliamentary power was full
of danger and without precedent. The persons committing the injury were
unknown. If discovered, the law ought first to be tried. If unknown,
what rule of justice can punish the town for a civil injury committed by
persons not known to them?

"That the instances of the cities of London, Edinburgh, and Glasgow were
wholly dissimilar. All these towns were regularly heard in their own
defence. Their magistrates were of their own choosing (which was not the
case of Boston), and therefore they were more equitably responsible. But
in Boston the King's Governor has the power, and had been advised by his
Council to exert it; if it has been neglected, he alone is
answerable."[330] In conclusion, the petitioners strongly insisted on
the injustice of the Act, and its tendency to alienate the affections of
America from the mother country.

The petition was received, but no particular proceedings took place upon
it.

The Bill passed the House on the 25th of March, and was carried up to
the Lords, where it was likewise warmly debated; but, as in the Commons,
without a division. It received the Royal assent on the 31st of
March.[331]

Dr. Ramsay remarks: "By the operation of the Boston Port Act, the
preceding situation of its inhabitants and that of the East India
Company was reversed. The former had more reason to complain of the
disproportionate penalty to which they were indiscriminately subjected,
than the latter of that outrage on their property, for which punishment
had been inflicted. Hitherto the East India Company were the injured
party; but from the passing of this Act the balance of injury was on the
opposite side. If wrongs received entitled the former to reparation, the
latter had a much stronger title on the same ground. For the act of
seventeen or eigh