The Intolerable Acts, sometimes referred to as the Insufferable Acts or Coercive Acts, were a series of five punitive laws passed by the British Parliament in 1774 after the Boston Tea Party. The laws aimed to punish Massachusetts colonists for their defiance in the Tea Party protest of the Tea Act, a tax measure enacted by Parliament in May 1773. In Great Britain, these laws were referred to as the Coercive Acts. They were a key development leading to the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War in April 1775.

Four acts were enacted by Parliament in early 1774 in direct response to the Boston Tea Party of December 16, 1773: Boston Port, Massachusetts Government, Impartial Administration of Justice, and Quartering Acts. The acts took away self-governance and rights that Massachusetts had enjoyed since its founding, triggering outrage and indignation in the Thirteen Colonies.

The British Parliament hoped these punitive measures would, by making an example of Massachusetts, reverse the trend of colonial resistance to parliamentary authority that had begun with the Sugar Act 1764. A fifth act, the Quebec Act, enlarged the boundaries of what was then the Province of Quebec notably southwestward into the Ohio Country and other future mid-western states, and instituted reforms generally favorable to the francophone Catholic inhabitants of the region. Although unrelated to the other four Acts, it was passed in the same legislative session and seen by the colonists as one of the Intolerable Acts. The Patriots viewed the acts as an arbitrary violation of the rights of Massachusetts, and in September 1774 they organized the First Continental Congress to coordinate a protest. As tensions escalated, the Revolutionary War broke out in April 1775, leading to the declaration of an independent United States of America in July 1776.

Background

Relations between the Thirteen Colonies and the British Parliament slowly but steadily worsened after the end of the Seven Years' War (French and Indian War) in 1763. The war had plunged the British government deep into debt, and so the British Parliament enacted a series of measures to increase tax revenue from the colonies. Parliament believed that these acts, such as the Stamp Act 1765 and the Townshend Acts of 1767, were legitimate means of having the colonies pay their fair share of the costs of maintaining the British Empire. Although protests led to the repeal of the Stamp and Townshend Acts, Parliament adhered to the position that it had the right to legislate for the colonies "in all cases whatsoever" in the Declaratory Act of 1766.

Many colonists argued that under the unwritten British constitution, a British subject's property could not be taken from him (in the form of taxes) without his consent (in the form of representation in government). Therefore, because the colonies were not directly represented in Parliament, it followed that Parliament had no right to levy taxes upon them, a view expressed by the slogan "No taxation without representation". After the Townshend Acts, some colonial essayists took this line of thinking even further, and began to question whether Parliament had any legitimate jurisdiction in the colonies at all. This question of the extent of Parliament's sovereignty in the colonies was the issue underlying what became the American Revolution.

Passage
On December 16, 1773, a group of Patriot colonists associated with the Sons of Liberty destroyed 342 chests of tea in Boston, Massachusetts, an act that came to be known as the Boston Tea Party. The colonists partook in this action because Parliament had passed the Tea Act, which granted the British East India Company a monopoly on tea sales in the colonies, thereby saving the company from bankruptcy. This made British tea less expensive. In addition, there was added a small tax. This angered the colonists. News of the Boston Tea Party reached England in January 1774. Parliament responded by passing four laws. Three of the laws were intended to directly punish Massachusetts. This was for the destruction of private property, to restore British authority in Massachusetts, and to otherwise reform colonial government in America.

On April 22, 1774, Prime Minister Lord North defended the programme in the House of Commons, saying:

The Americans have tarred and feathered your subjects, plundered your merchants, burnt your ships, denied all obedience to your laws and authority; yet so clement and so long forbearing has our conduct been that it is incumbent on us now to take a different course. Whatever may be the consequences, we must risk something; if we do not, all is over.

The Acts 

The Boston Port Act was the first of the laws passed in 1774 in response to the Boston Tea Party. It closed the port of Boston until the colonists paid for the destroyed tea and the king was satisfied that order had been restored. Colonists objected that the Port Act punished all of Boston rather than just the individuals who had destroyed the tea, and that they were being punished without having been given an opportunity to testify in their own defense.

The Massachusetts Government Act provoked even more outrage than the Port Act because it unilaterally took away Massachusetts' charter and brought it under control of the British government. Under the terms of the Government Act, almost all positions in the colonial government were to be appointed by the governor, Parliament, or the king. The act also severely limited town meetings in Massachusetts to one per year, unless the governor called for one. Colonists outside Massachusetts feared that their governments could now also be changed by the legislative fiat of Parliament.

The Administration of Justice Act allowed the royal governor to order trials of accused royal officials to take place in Great Britain or elsewhere within the Empire if he decided that the defendant could not get a fair trial in Massachusetts. Although the act stipulated for witnesses to be reimbursed after having traveled at their own expense across the Atlantic, it was not stipulated that this would include reimbursement for lost earnings during the period for which they would be unable to work, leaving few with the ability to testify. George Washington called this the "Murder Act" because he believed that it allowed British officials to harass Americans and then escape justice. Many colonists believed the act was unnecessary because British soldiers had been given a fair trial following the Boston Massacre in 1770.

The Quartering Act, which applied to all British colonies in North America, sought to create a more effective method of housing British troops. In a previous act, the colonies had been required to provide housing for soldiers, but colonial legislatures had been uncooperative in doing so. The new Quartering Act allowed a governor to house soldiers in other buildings if suitable quarters were not provided. While many sources claim that the Quartering Act allowed troops to be billeted in occupied private homes, historian David Ammerman's 1974 study claimed that this is a myth, and that the act only permitted troops to be quartered in unoccupied buildings.

Although unrelated to the aforementioned Acts, the Quebec Act, passed in the same parliamentary session, was considered by the colonists to be one of the Intolerable Acts. The Act expanded the territory of the Province of Quebec into much of what is now the American Midwest, which appeared to void the land claims of the Ohio Company on the region. The guarantee of free practice of Catholicism, the majority religion in Canada, was seen by colonists as an "establishment" of the faith in the colonies which were overwhelmingly Protestant. Furthermore, colonists resented the lenient provisions granted to their erstwhile enemies whom they had fought hard against during the French and Indian War.

Effects

Many colonists saw the Intolerable Acts as a violation of their constitutional rights, their natural rights, and their colonial charters. They, therefore, viewed the acts as a threat to the liberties of all of British America, not just Massachusetts. Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, for example, described the acts as "a most wicked System for destroying the liberty of America".

The citizens of Boston not only viewed this as an act of unnecessary and cruel punishment, but the Intolerable Acts drew hatred toward Britain even further. As a result of the Intolerable Acts, even more colonists turned against British rule.

Great Britain hoped that the Intolerable Acts would isolate radicals in Massachusetts and cause American colonists to concede the authority of Parliament over their elected assemblies. It was a calculated risk that backfired, due to the harshness of some of the acts having made it difficult for moderates in the colonies to speak in favor of Parliament. The acts only served to distance the colonies from the Crown, create sympathy for Massachusetts and encouraged colonists from the otherwise diverse colonies to form committees of correspondence which sent delegates to the First Continental Congress. The Continental Congress created the Continental Association, an agreement to boycott British goods. Additionally, it was decided that if the Intolerable Acts were not reversed after a year, goods were to stop being exported to Great Britain as well. The Congress also pledged to support Massachusetts in case of attack, which meant that all of the colonies would become involved when the American Revolutionary War began at Lexington and Concord.

References

Notes

Bibliography

Further reading

 
 
 Norton, Mary Beth. 1774: The Long Year of Revolution (2020) online review by Gordon S. Wood

External links
 Primary documents (British and American) relating to the Intolerable Acts, originally published in the American Archives and presented online by the Northern Illinois University Libraries, also Camden.
 Text of the Boston Port Act
 Text of the Massachusetts Government Act
 Text of the Administration of Justice Act
 Text of the Quartering Act

Great Britain Acts of Parliament 1774
1774 in the Thirteen Colonies
Laws leading to the American Revolution
History of the Thirteen Colonies
참을 수 없는 법(Intolerable Acts 또는 Coercive Acts)은 영국의 북미 식민지에 대해 1774년에 영국 의회를 통과한 일련의 법률을 부르기 위하여 붙여진 이름이다. 이 법들은 13개 식민지의 분노와 극심한 저항을 자극했으며, 결국 미국의 독립으로 발전하는 중요한 계기가 되었다.

이 법 중 4개는 1773년 12월 16일 ‘보스턴 차 사건’으로 직접적인 반응이 왔다. 영국 의회는 매사추세츠 만 식민지를 본보기로 하여 이러한 징벌적 수단으로 1765년의 《인지세법》에서 시작된 영국 의회의 권위에 반항하는 식민지의 흐름을 차단하려 시도했다. 식민지 정착민  대부분은 이 법이 자신들의 권리를 무단으로 침해하는 것으로 간주하고, 1774년에 ‘제1차 대륙회의’를 열어 시위 협조를 도모했다. 긴장감이 고조되어 이듬해 ‘미국 독립 전쟁’이 발발했고, 결국 독립국 미국의 건국으로 이어졌다.

배경
13개 식민지와 대영제국과의 관계는 1763년에 끝난 ‘7년 전쟁’ 후에 완만하지만, 꾸준히 악화되고 있었다. 프랑스에 승리를 거뒀지만, 이 전쟁을 통해 영국 정부는 큰 빚을 지게 되었고, 영국 의회는 식민지에서의 세수입을 늘리기 위한 일련의 방법을 법제화했다. 의회는 1765년 〈인지세법〉과 1767년의 〈타운젠드법〉과 같은 법률이 대영제국을 유지하기 위한 비용 중 식민지에 전가되는 공정한 부담분을 물리는 법적인  수단이라고 생각했다. 식민지의 거센 항의로 〈인지세법〉과 〈타운젠드법〉은 철폐되었지만, 의회는 1766년 선언으로 ‘어떤 것이든’ 식민지에 입법할 권리가 있다는 입장을 고수했다.

그러나 많은 식민지 정착민들은 대영제국과는 다른 생각을 가지고 있었다. 영국 헌법 하에서 영국 신민의 (세금 형태의) 자산을 식민지 정착민의 동의 없이 징수할 수 없다고 생각했다. 그러므로 식민지가 의회에 직접 대표를 보내 않은 이상, 의회는 자신들에게 세금을 부과할 권리가 없다고 주장하는 사람이 식민지 주민들 중에서 등장했다. 이 견해는 “무대표 무과세”(No Taxation without Representatives)라는 슬로건으로 표현되었다. 《타운젠드법》 이후에 몇몇 식민지 논객이 이런 생각을 제시하여 의회가 식민지의 법적 관할권을 원래 가지고 있는 지에 대한 의문을 던졌다. 식민지의 의회 주권까지 미친 이 의문은 미국이 독립한다는 복선이 깔리게 되는 문제였다.

여러 악법
매사추세츠의 보스턴에서 1773년 《차법》을 의회가 통과시킨 것에 항의하는 ‘자유의 아들들’이 보스턴 항구에서 과세 대상인 차를 대량으로 바다에 버렸다. 이것이 이른바 ‘보스턴 차 사건’이다. 이 사건 소식은 1774년 1월에 영국에 도착했다. 의회는 일련의 법률을 제정하여 보복을 하려했고, 보스턴에서 사유 재산을 불법으로 파괴한 것에 대해 처벌하고, 매사추세츠에서 영국의 권위를 되찾고, 그리고 기타 미국의 식민지 행정 개혁을 목표로 했다.

1774년 4월 22일, 영국 총리 프레드릭 노스는 하원에서 다음과 같이 말하고 이 계획의 편을 들었다.

보스턴 항구법
‘보스턴 차 사건’에 대응하여 가장 먼저 입법된 법률이다. 동인도 회사가 파기된 차의 배상을 받을 때까지, 또한 질서가 회복되어 국왕이 만족할 때까지 보스턴 항구를 폐쇄한다는 내용이다. 차를 폐기한 식민지의 특정인이 아닌, 보스턴 전체를 이 법으로 처벌하는 것에 반대하며 변호할 기회조차 주지 않고 처벌했다는 것에 대해 거센 항의가 일어났다.

매사추세츠 통치법
이 법은 매사추세츠 정부를 일방적으로 영국 정부의 지배하에 두도록 변경했기 때문에 보스턴 항구법보다 더 큰 분노를 샀다. 통치법에 의하면 식민지 정부의 모든 임원은 영국 정부 혹은 국왕이 임명하는 것으로 되어 있었다. 이 법은 또한 매사추세츠의 타운미팅의 활동을 엄격히 제한했다. 매사추세츠 이외의 식민지는 자신들의 정부도 영국 의회가 완전히 금지시켜 버리는 것을 두려워했다.

재판권법
매사추세츠 관리가 고발당하여 그곳에서 공정한 재판을 받을 수 없다고 생각할 때, 총독이 다른 식민지 혹은 영국 본국에 재판장을 옮기는 것을 인정한 법률이다. 이 법에서는 증인에게 그 제반 경비를 지불한다고 규정했지만, 실제로는 재판에서 증언하기 위해 일을 내팽개치고 대서양을 통과할 수 있는 식민지 사람은 거의 없었다. 조지 워싱턴은 영국 장교가 미국인에게 위해를 가해도 심판을 피할 수 있게 한다고 생각하고 이 법을 ‘살인법’이라고 불렀다. 1770년 ‘보스턴 학살 사건’ 이후에 영국 군인들에게 공정한 재판을 하지 않았기 때문에, 식민지 사람 중에는 이 법이 불필요하다고 생각하는 사람이 있었다.

병영법

병영법은 모든 식민지에 적용되며 미국에서 영국군 병사가 효율적인 주거를 마련할 수 있는 방법을 창출하게 되었다. 이전 법은 식민지 군인들에게 주택을 공급하도록 요구하고 있었지만, 식민지 의회는 이 법에 비협조적이었다. 새로운 병영법은 적당한 숙소가 마련되지 않는 경우 총독이 다른 건물을 군인에게 제공하는 것을 인정했다. 많은 사료에서 병영법으로 군대에 개인이 점유하고 있는 집에 묵을 수 있도록 했다고 주장하지만, 사학자 데이비드 아마만의 1974년의 연구에 따르면 그것은 신화일 뿐이고, ‘아무도 살지 않는 건물에 묵는 것을 인정했을 뿐’이라고 주장했다. 많은 식민지 사람은 병영법이 반대해할 것으로 생각했지만 적어도 ‘참을 수 없는 법’에 대한 항의를 낳았다.

퀘벡법

보스턴의 사건과 관련없는 법률이었지만, 통과된 시점이 식민지 사람들로 하여금 이 법이 자신들을 처벌하기 위해 계획한 법이라고 오해를 사게 했다. 퀘벡 식민지 영토를 확대시켜 그 지역의 프랑스계 가톨릭 주민에 일방적으로 유리한 개혁을 실시한 것이다. 그러나 선거에 의한 식민지 의회를 구성하는 것을 인정하지 않았다. 퀘벡법은 영국 식민지의 다양한 집단의 이익에 반하고 있었다. 토지 투기업자들과 개척자들은 식민지가 권리를 주장하고 있던 서부의 땅을 대표 권한이 없는 정부에 전달되는 것을 반대했다. 많은 사람들이 퀘벡에서 가톨릭이 우세할 것이라는 공포에 떨었으며, 프랑스계 캐나다인이 영국계 미국인을 압박할 것을 두려워했다.

외부 링크 
 Primary documents (영미) 참을 수 없는 법에 대해, originally published in the American Archives and presented online by the Northern Illinois University Libraries.
 Boston Port Act 전문
 Massachusetts Government Act 전문
 Administration of Justice Act 전문
 Quartering Act 전문
 Quebec Act 전문

미국 독립 전쟁
영국의 법