To change the government of Massachusetts is to take away their colony charter, which was granted by King William III and Queen Mary II, all the way back in 1691! Since the Americans aren’t here to defend themselves, it’s like holding a trial without even letting the defendant come into the courtroom! It’s not right to do this without giving them a chance to make up for what they did!
These were some of the arguments used in the British House of Commons against the bill to alter the government of Massachusetts, which was one of the “Intolerable Acts” passed in reaction to the Boston Tea Party. (The bill gave more power to the governor — who was appointed by the Crown — in hopes that he would be able to stop the rebellious demonstrations and enforce the law.) The opponents of the bill were very vocal and sometimes eloquent in their opposition. Those who supported the bill, on the other hand, had numbers on their side, so they could afford to be fairly quiet; but sometimes they matched their opponents in eloquence and energy. Lord North, for example, who was the Prime Minister, usually stuck to calm speeches, but on at least one occasion he put a bit of fire in his remarks about this bill:
Will this country sit still, when they see the Colony proceeding against your own subjects, tarring and feathering your servants; denying your laws and authority; refusing every direction and advice which you send? Are we, Sir, seeing all this, to be silent, and give the Governor no support? Gentlemen say, let the Colony come to your bar, and be heard in their defence; though it is not likely that they will come, when they deny your authority in every instance. Can we remain in this situation long? We must, effectually, take some measure to correct and amend the defects of that Government. … 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. … It is not I say, again, political convenience, it is political necessity that urges this measure: if this is not the proper method, shew me any other which is preferable, and I will postpone it.
Of course, he didn’t postpone it; nobody presented an option that was preferable. (Personally, I doubt that any other plan, no matter how good, would have seemed preferable to him, or that he would have allowed it to be pursued.)
While some members of Parliament argued that Britain was taking too high-handed an approach, the King, and Lord North and his supporters, were tired of letting the Americans push the bounds of British authority. Theirs was a “no more Mr. Nice Guy” approach. When the Parliamentary session had opened in March 1774, the King had urged the members to take steps to “better [secure] the execution of the Laws, and the just dependence of the Colonies upon the Crown and Parliament of Great Britain.” And they did.
Source
American Archives, Series 4, Volume 1, pages 5, 73.