Juries. A second measure, known as the Quebec Act, extended the boundaries of Canada, so as to include within them the region on the Ohio and the Mississippi, the area of the present States of Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Ohio, thus reversing the decision of Shelburne in 1763.[1] Over this enormous territory it established the rule of a military Governor and a nominated council. The ministers who proposed and defended the Bill hardly concealed their hope that the Roman Catholic population of Canada would allow itself to be used as an instrument to overawe the Protestant settlers in New England. It would have been far better, said Shelburne, to have given the rights of citizens to the Roman Catholics before making them soldiers; "they would now, no doubt, willingly employ the arms in their hands to destroy the privileges of which they were not suffered to partake."[2] A third measure transferred the place of trial of civil officers and soldiers, indicted for any capital offence committed in supporting the Revenue laws, or in suppressing riots, to Great Britain. Two other Acts legalized the quartering of troops within Boston or any other town. All these measures were passed by large majorities, and a proposal of Burke, on the 19th of April 1774, to repeal the Tea Duty was contemptuously rejected. Equally vain were the efforts which Shelburne made in the House of Lords, where he insisted again and again on the true nature of the connection between England and her Colonies. "I
- ↑ 14 George III. c. 83. Mr. Kingsford, in his History of Canada, severely criticises this portion of the Act, which he distinguishes from the other provisions (v. 244, 245). The full text of the Act is given in v. 256. As to the population of Canada see v. 188.
- ↑ Parliamentary History, xviii. 724. Compare vol. i. 260-267. Shelburne in 1766 wished to enfranchise the Roman Catholics, and make them eligible for the Assembly and Council, which Sir Guy Carleton, liberal and sagacious as he was, hesitated to recommend at that time (see supra, p. 302, and Bancroft, History of the United States, vi. 51-55). By "the rights" of citizens in his speech in 1774 Shelburne evidently intended political "rights," as the Bill conferred civil rights on the inhabitants, and was opposed for that reason amongst others. The opposition to the Quebec Bill was not the most creditable part of the attack on the Government. Both in the New England State* and at home it became mixed up with a mere "anti-Roman Catholic" cry against the Bill, because it left the inhabitants of Canada their ancient French civil laws, which they understood, and exempted them from taking the oath of supremacy (Parliamentary History, xvii. 1357-1406). At this time the Protestant inhabitants are laid to have only numbered a few hundreds; the Roman Catholics about 60,000. The small body of English settlers were bitterly opposed to enfranchising the Roman Catholics. See as to Sir Guy Carleton, Kingsford, History of Canada, v. 191, 215-217.
