A short passage from the Parliamentary record from June 1774 goes a long way toward illustrating the political climate in Britain at that time. A motion had been made and seconded to summon an additional witness to provide information about Canada (Parliament was debating a bill about Quebec). The Prime Minister, Lord North, was against the motion, not least because it would delay the bill, which he supported:
Mr. Dempster, Governor Johnstone, Mr. Burke, Mr. Baker, Mr. Turner, &c., spoke in favour of the motion, and none but Lord North against it.
When the question was put, the House divided: Yeas, 36; Nays, 90.
So it passed in the Negative.
Even before that, four other people had spoken in support of the motion. But it didn’t matter. They could talk all they wanted. Their opponents, on the other hand, didn’t need to talk much; they had numbers on their side, so all they had to do was vote.
The Quebec Bill wasn’t one of the “Intolerable Acts,” aimed at punishing Boston for the Tea Party — though many Americans saw it that way — but the same sort of thing happened in many of the debates regarding those acts. If you read the debates, the arguments of the opposition seem eloquent, forceful and persuasive; but the votes fell on the other side. You can argue all you want, but actions speak louder than words.
Source
American Archives, Series 4, Volume 1, page 203.