I can't speak to the English aspect of things, but the Boston Tea Party made American leaders really uncomfortable. There's a really good book specifically answering your question called The Shoemaker and The Tea Party by Alfred Young. In a nutshell, American leaders were not happy with the idea that the lower classes could do that sort of thing. You have to remember that most of the American leaders were wealthy, while many of the rebels were not. In making the nation one of the things that they really wanted to avoid was giving the lower classes to much power and the Boston Tea Party was a very visible reminder that the lower classes, mostly sailors and dockworkers in this case, could overthrow the leaders if they got angry enough.

The Boston Tea Party was actually largely forgotten (or intentionally erased) after the American Revolution and was not remembered until the early 1800s, not so coincidentally when most of the Revolutionary generation were dead and right at the start of Jacksonianism, which celebrated the average man.

Good day /u/phantomtirebuyer! Great question, but incredibly difficult to answer. Just like any divisive social or political event, the reactions to the destruction of the tea were numerous, and varied, but I will try to provide a few good examples of the prevalent sentiments.

Firstly, it’s important to note that even here in Boston, the issue was contested. Not everyone in colonial America had patriotic sentiments, and many in Boston were distraught over this destruction. John Rowe, a wealthy merchant in Boston, and a man known to “trim” the line between Patriots and Tories writes in his journal:

“Dec 16. I being a little Unwell staid at home all Day & all the evening. The Body meeting in the Forenoon adjourn’d until afternoon. Broke up at Dark. Several Things passed between Mr Rotch & them. A number People appearing in Indian Dresses went on board the three Ships Hall, Bruce & Coffin, they opened the Hatches, joisted out the Tea & flung it overboard—this might I believe have been prevented. I am sincerely sorry for the Event. Tis said near two thousand People were present at this affair.”

On the flip side, John Adams, the prominent Boston lawyer, writes in a letter shortly after learning about the destruction of the tea, “This is the most magnificent movement of all! There is a dignity, a majesty, a sublimity, in this last effort of the patriots that I greatly admire. The people should never rise without doing something to be remembered — something notable and striking. This destruction of the tea is so bold, so daring, so firm, intrepid and inflexible, and it must have so important consequences, and so lasting, that I can't but consider it as an epocha in history!”

Across the ocean, the British reactions were equally varied. Quoting from Benjamin Woods Labaree’s book The Boston Tea Party, "Later in the year Richard Champion, the Bristol merchant, recalled that popular anger against Boston was so great after news of the Tea Party had arrived that he scarcely dared to speak out in defense of America. ‘The clamour against the proceeding is high and general," wrote [Benjamin] Franklin, as he strongly urged the Bostonians to compensate the East India Company for its loss.’”

Many in Parliament shared the anger of their constituents. Lord North, the Prime Minister, and Lord Dartmouth, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, began devising punitive measures for Boston after learning of the destruction of the tea. They decide that Boston Harbor should be closed to all vessels until restitution for the destruction is paid, and they present to Parliament the Boston Port Bill. Lord North says of the Bill, “There does result what will in its consequence be a punishment upon the town of Boston. I am not sorry for it, Sir; I think the town of Boston has deserved the animadversion of every part of this country.” During the Parliamentary sessions debating the proposed Boston Port Bill, “… Mr. Van [a Member of Parliament] rose to say that the offenses of the Americans were ‘flagitious… the town of Boston ought to be knocked about their ears and destroyed. Delenda est Cathago… you will never meet with the proper obedience to the laws of this country until you have destroyed that nest of locusts.’” That’s right friends, a Minister of Parliament compared Boston to Carthage, and openly advocated for its immediate destruction. Now not all in Parliament were in favor of the Boston Port Bill.

Many ministers, including John Sawbridge, William Dowdeswell, Edmund Burke, and Rose Fuller led an opposition to the Boston Port Bill—they failed. On March 25, 1774 William Bollan, an agent working in London on behalf of the Council of Massachusetts Bay, petitioned Parliament for permission to speak on Boston’s behalf. The House of Commons voted 170 to 40 not to allow his testimony. The destruction of the tea so incensed Parliament, and the King, that they would not even entertain a debate. For many, the fate of Boston had already been decided.

Again, this is such an open and enormous question. You could easily author an entire book detailing the various reactions, but hopefully the anecdotes and quotations provided will help illustrate the situation for you. Let me know if you'd like more clarification!

Yours, L. Pitts