[March 7.] A message from his majesty, on account of the late disturbances in America, was presented to both houses. Particular mention was made of the outrage committed by the people at Boston. Matters are now brought to a crisis, and ministry are bent upon vigorous, sperited measures. To prevent opposition from the merchants, the public papers were filled with writings on the subject, which painted the misconduct of the colonies in the strongest colours, and urged in particular the impossibility of the future existence of any trade to America, if this flagrant outrage on commerce, as it is pronounced, went unpunished. These, with other endeavors, had the proposed effect. The resentment against the Americans became as high and as strong as could be desired, within the house; but the storm was to be directed against the _Massachusetts_. The minister, in debate, stated that the opposition to the authority of parliament had always originated in that colony; and that that colony had always been instigated to such conduct, by the irregular and seditious proceedings of Boston. It was become necessary therefore to begin with that town. He had forgot, or would not mention, that the violent opposition to the stamp act originated in Virginia. [Mar. 14.] Leave was given to bring in a bill “for the immediate removal of the officers concerned in the collection of the customs from Boston, and to discontinue the landing and discharging, lading and shipping of goods, wares and merchandises at Boston, or within the harbor thereof.” At the first introduction of the bill it was received with general applause. Mr. _Bollan_, however petitioned to be heard for the Massachusetts council, and in behalf of himself and other inhabitants of Boston. The commons refused to admit his petition, though a few days back they had received one from him as agent for the council. The lords were actually hearing him on a petition, as a person duly qualified. On the third reading of the bill another petition was presented in the name of several natives and inhabitants of North America; which insisted strongly on the injustice of the act, and its tendency to alienate the affections of America; and expressly declared, that the attachment of America could not long survive the justice of Great-Britain. The minority members maintained that the bill stood simply as a proscription of one of the greatest trading towns in the British dominions from the use of their port, and from all the commerce by which thousands obtained their bread. “Have we not (say they) given an extent of power to his majesty to prevent the port of Boston from ever being reinstated, if the king should think proper? A fine is laid; the trade is prohibited until it is paid; and when the fine is paid, the town may be as far from recovering her trade as ever. The act provides, that the crown must have satisfaction, and that the laws of trade and revenue should be obeyed. There is a sting in this.