■ INIIMIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIII 
 
 011 711 845 9 • 
 
 Holllnger Corp. 
 pH8.5 
 
E 263 
 |.C2 C62 
 XopV ^ 
 
 'AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 THE , QTJE5J&e-:3:nT AND THE AMEEIOAN 
 ^-"^""^ EEYOLUTIOK 
 
 VI 
 
 YICTOE COFFIN. 
 
 w 
 
 (From the Aonnal Beport of the American Historical Association for 1894, pages 273-279.) 
 
 WASHINGTON" :• 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 
 1896. 
 
XVI.-THE QUEBEC ACT AND THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. 
 
 By Victor Coffin. 
 
 The conclusious of the present paper are drawn from a soine- 
 wliat exteuded investigation into the introdnction of English 
 rule into French Canada, 1760-1774 ^ They seem to be appro- 
 priate for use on this occasion because of the belief induced 
 by that investigation that the place held by Canada in the 
 early Eevolutiouary history is in our day much underrated, and 
 has at all times been much misunderstood. One of the earliest 
 exi^ressions of the misconception I speak of is found in the 
 Declaration of Independence; the latest that I have met is put 
 forward with much emphasis by the reviewer of Professor 
 Eggleston's Life of John Patterson, in the New York Nation 
 of July 11 last. The reviewer asserts that from its conquest 
 in 1760 Canada was regarded by the British ministry as a point 
 d'ai^pui "for the support of the ministerial policy in asserting 
 British parliamentary supremacy over the colonies;" and that 
 this position was expressed and intensified by the Quebec act 
 of 1774, "which had for its object, as the Continental Con- 
 gress charged, to substitute the institutes of French customary 
 law for the common law of England, and thereby to make 
 Canadians proper instruments for assisting in the oppression 
 of such as differ from them in modes of government and faith." 
 The first part of this statement my limited time compels me to 
 leave witli the remark that an examination of the pamphlet 
 and other party literature, and of the di^^lomatic and parlia- 
 mentary proceedings during the last years of the war and at 
 the j^eace of 1763, will show it to be thoroughly mistaken. As 
 
 'The result of this iuvestigatiou will be found at length iu the Bulletin 
 
 of the University of Wisconsin, History and Political Science Series (1895), 
 
 under title, The Province of Quebec, 1763-1775. A more extended form of 
 
 the present paper, with I'efereuces, was published in the Yale Review for 
 
 August, 1895. 
 
 273 
 
 H. Mis. 91 18 
 
274 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 to the latter part, the reviewer simply restates the accepted 
 tradition; namely, that the character of the relations between 
 the colonies and the mother country led in 1774 to the joining 
 with the acts for the punishment of the Province of Massachu- 
 setts Bay, an act (the Quebec act) designed to continue to the 
 Canadians the despotic system of government under which 
 they had grown up, and thus to pave the way for using them 
 as docile instruments in the extinguishing of the liberties of 
 the other colonies. In this view this act is denounced in the 
 Declaration of Independence as "abolishing the free system 
 of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein 
 an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to 
 render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing 
 the same absolute rule in these colonies." 
 
 In giving the reasons for my entire dissent from these em- 
 phatic opinions I must speak in the briefest manner, and only 
 of the most prominent points. We have these three features 
 of the Quebec act to consider: (1) The substitution of French 
 for English law; (2) the withholding of the representative 
 institutions which existed in the other provinces; (3) the great 
 territorial extension of the province. And in expressing my 
 belief that these provisions were not due to, or intended to 
 affect, the condition of affairs in the other provinces, I must not 
 be understood as denying the arbitrary and tyrannical spirit 
 of the administration by which they were enacted, nor the fact 
 that that administration was at the moment largely inspired 
 by hostility to the free spirit of American self-government. Its 
 animus is sufficiently seen in the other American acts of the 
 same session; my object is simply to show that, in spite of 
 appearances, it was not guilty of the more far-reaching and 
 treacherous attack on liberty imputed to it on account of the 
 Canadian measure. The Quebec act was founded on miscon- 
 ception and false information, and is one of the most disastrous 
 measures in English colonial history; but a close examination 
 of its genesis has convinced me that it was the result of an 
 earnest and comparatively generous effort for the welfare of 
 the French Canadians, and that it was not to any appreciable 
 degree affected by tyrannical ideas in regard either to them or 
 to the rest of America. 
 
 And first, as to the change in civil laws. It will be remem- 
 bered that in October, 1703, a royal proclamation was issued for 
 the purpose ot establishing civil government in the newly 
 
QUEBEC ACT AND AMERICAN REVOLUTION COFFIN. 275 
 
 acquired Provinces of Quebec, Granada, East and West Florida. 
 This proclamation was then, and has been since, understood as 
 subverting- in Canada the whole system of French law and 
 administration; and in this view Bancroft denounces it as an 
 act of extreme tyranny, declaring- that " the history of the world 
 furnishes no instance of so rash inj ustice."^ Lord Mansfield, on 
 the other hand, in his famous Granada decision of 1774 refers to 
 the proclamation as an irrevocable charter of liberties granted 
 to all who did then or might hereafter reside in the regions in 
 question; on the ground that the King had thereby divested 
 himself of his direct legislative authority, and given solemn 
 promises of the establishment of English law and representa- 
 tive institutions. It is clear that if the Quebec act, which 
 undid the work of the proclamation in Canada, showed on this 
 point the designs attributed to it, these designs could not have 
 animated the royal breast in 1703. The promises of the procla- 
 mation were, however, not fulfilled in Canada inregard to repre- 
 sentative institutions, and government remained on this inse- 
 cure basis until 1774. During this whole period the official 
 correspondence and reports are largely occupied with repre- 
 sentations as to the disastrous state of things that exists in 
 consequence of this delay and uncertainty, and with urgent 
 adjurations to hasten the settling- of the constitution. It was 
 found impossible to put English civil law into practice except 
 in commercial matters; and as a matter of fact there can be 
 little doubt that the great body of the French customary law 
 continued undisturbed. Consequently the Quebec act did not 
 " substitute" this law for the " abolished" English; it merely 
 removed all doubt as to which should be the basis of the per- 
 manent code. And that doubt was removed, as far as those in 
 authority were concerned, long before the year 1774; for an 
 examination of the ofQcial correspondence shows that the 
 return to the French law was largely resolved on as early as 
 1707. Down to 1700 the colonial officials were evidently under 
 the impression that the home government aimed to fulfill the 
 promises of the |)roclamation by thoroughly assimilating the 
 province to the English form of the other colonies. But in 
 that year Murray was superseded by Carleton as governor; 
 and the latter came to his duties believing, if not officially 
 
 ^ And yet in the measures taken fourteen years later to redress this sup- 
 posed injustice he and others can see nothing hut a reaching after "un- 
 mixed arhitrary rule." 
 
276 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 instructed, that the ministry was inclined to restore the French 
 civil law. Murray had already strongly urged this course, and 
 from the very first Carleton does not cease to impress upon the 
 home Government its justice and desirabihty. We find among 
 the state papers of this year (1706) a report of the Crown law^ 
 yers, which speaks of the disorder occasioned in the Province 
 of Quebec in consequence of the idea that it was intended 
 " to abolish all the usages and customs of Canada," and urges 
 that it "would be oppressive" hastilj^ to disturb the "local 
 usages and customs" in regard to real i^roperty. In June, 1767, 
 we find Shelburne, the secretary of state, writing to Governor 
 Carleton that the affairs of the in'ovince are under serious con- 
 sideration, the main problem being " how far it is practicable 
 and convenient to blend the English and the French laws;" 
 and in August of the same year the privy council, resolving, on 
 consideration of reports from the board of trade, that fuller 
 information was desirable (" it being unwise and dangerous to 
 frame or reform laws in the dark"), orders a thorough j)re- 
 liminary investigation. In December, Carleton sends home a 
 draft of a proposed ordinance for continuing the French laws 
 in regard to land property; and Hillsborough, who had suc- 
 ceeded Shelburue as secretarj^, replies, March, 1708, that it is 
 approved of, but that for the present it is to be held in reserve 
 pending a general settlement. We thus see that at least six 
 years before the Quebec act the home Government, appar- 
 ently uninfluenced by anything except representations as to 
 the state of the province, had resolved to go almost as far as 
 that act went in regard to the system of laws. The investiga- 
 tion ordered was at once entered upon, and the information col- 
 lected was put into the hands of the Crown lawyers (Thuxlow, 
 Wedderbourue, and Marriot), with orders to make exhaust- 
 ive reports and recommendations. These were delayed from 
 various causes, and it was not until 1771 that this much delib- 
 erated matter was ready to be legislated upon. The Quebec 
 act was unquestionably founded upon these able reports of the 
 Crown lawyers ; and we can not read them without being con- 
 vinced that they were almost entirely inspired by a sincere and 
 generous, if somewhat mistaken, concern for the best interests 
 of the province. 
 
 - Next, let us consider the withholding of representative insti- 
 tutions. It was on this ground, I think, that was mainly 
 based the opinion (not unreasonable, considering contemporary 
 
QUEBEC ACT AND AMERICAN REVOLUTION — COFFIN. 277 
 
 events), prevailing tliroiigliout tbe old colonies that the con- 
 stitution given to the Province of Quebec was the herald of a 
 direct attack on old-established liberties. And 1 admit that 
 on first view there would seem to be little question, apart from 
 direct evidence, that the state of feeling in England in regard 
 to American assemblies did influence the ministerial mind in 
 this matter. It surely was to be expected. But even if there 
 were an unwillingness to establish another such assembly until 
 the difficulties with the existing ones had been somewhat ap- 
 peased, we can scarcely regard such caution as indicative of a 
 deep-laid and systematic attack on the institution. The facts 
 show that there could have been no such intention. The first 
 reference to the matter is on September 2, 1765, when we find 
 the board of trade reporting to the privy council that the 
 "situation and circumstances of the colony (Canada) have not 
 hitherto been thought to admit of a house of assembly," but 
 that the only obstacle they can find is the difficulty in regard 
 to admitting Catholics as members. IsTo further mention is 
 made of this, and the next imi>ortant offlcial document is the 
 report of Canadian affairs by Solicitor-General Wedderbourne, 
 December, 1772, which sets forth very clearly the main reasons 
 for withholding an assembly. He contends that it is at pres- 
 ent wholly inexpedient to form one in Canada on account of 
 the peculiar difficulties presented by the religion of the great 
 mass of the inhabitants. These difficulties he points out very 
 forcibly, and advises instead of an assembly the form of gov- 
 ernment by a large appointed council that was actually estab- 
 lished by the Quebec act. For the public attitude of the min- 
 istry in this matter we may go to the debate in the Commons 
 on the Quebec act itself. The main impression which a study 
 of this spirited and protracted discussion leaves with us as to 
 tlie point is that the opposition were very careful not to press 
 for an immediate assembly, and that the ministry Avere very 
 careful to defend their withholding it purely on the grounds : 
 (1) That it would be unjust to exclude the French Eoman 
 Catholic majority, and (2) that it would be unsafe to admit it. 
 Attorney- General Thurlow asserted without contradiction that 
 no one had claimed that it was at i)resent fit to give an assem. 
 bly to Canada; and Fox admitted that he would not explicitly 
 state that such a step was then expedient. Lord Beauchamp, 
 a Government supporter, affirmed tbat no member had advo- 
 cated the appointment of a council because of the conduct of 
 
278 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 the popular assemblies in America, or had ventured to say that 
 au assembly would be always advisable. It is evident on the 
 whole that the opposition could not offer a solution of the diffi- 
 culties that lay in the way, and that the Government, what- 
 ever secret motives may have influenced it, was quite able to 
 defend its position by pointing- to these difficulties. It would 
 be more correct to say, however, that the Quebec act deferred 
 than that it denied an assembly, for the words are '' whereas 
 it is at present inexpedient." There was not at any time any 
 serious consideration of the permanent refusal to the Canadi- 
 ans of representative institutions; and the last word on the 
 subject in the Quebec act debate was the following from Lord 
 North: 
 
 That it is desirable to give the Canadians a constitution in every resiject 
 like the constitution of Great Britain, I will not saj'; but I earnestly hope 
 that they will, iu the course of time, enjoy as much of our laws and as 
 much of our constitution as may be beneficial to that country and safe 
 for this. But that time has not yet come. 
 
 The ministry in short were encouraged to delay representa- 
 tive institutions because they were assured by the colonial 
 officials that the great body of the French Canadian jjeople 
 had no desire for them, and could safely, and perhaps benefi- 
 cially, be left without them for a few years to come ; but there 
 is no evidence to show that this delay was intended as the first 
 step of a system of oppression which was ultimately to be ex- 
 tended to the other colonies through the instrumentality of 
 the docile slaves that had been secured in Canada. 
 
 Lastly, as to the subject of the territorial extension of the 
 province. This I had hoped to take up more thoroughly : but 
 I must be content with pointing out the line of argument. The 
 Province of Quebec was confined iu 1704 (against the remon- 
 strances of its inhabitants), and extended in 1774, not through 
 invidious designs against the other colonies, but mainly, if 
 not entirely, from consideration connected solely with the 
 Indians and the fur trade. The importance of this trade in 
 British eyes at the time need not be dwelt upon, and it will 
 be readily seen that the general relations with the savages 
 depended upon it and upon the treatment of the Indian terri- 
 tories. It can be clearly established that the steadily increas- 
 ing anarchical character of the conditions in these regions had 
 by 1774 convinced the authorities that they should be annexed 
 to some one civil government; and having reached this con- 
 clusion it was inevitable that there should be chosen for this 
 
QUEBEC ACT AND AMERICAN KEVOLUTION COFFIN. 279 
 
 purpose the province to which the region, or the most of it, 
 was believed to have belonged, from which it could be gov- 
 erned most easily and which was most directly under imperial 
 control. 
 
 From the above examination we must at least conclude that 
 if the Quebec act was dictated by hostility to the growth and 
 liberty of the other colonies, its authors took unusual pains to 
 keep its real purpose hidden. But why should such conceal- 
 ment have been thought necessary? This same government 
 had just carried through three bills of the most stringent and 
 repressive nature, striking, to the popular view, heavier blows 
 at American freedom and growth than anything contained 
 in the Quebec act; and in these measures it had found itself 
 backed by a consistent and overwhelming support, both in Par- 
 liament and in the country. Why should it now have scrupled 
 to say that it was also taking measures of precaution in Can- 
 ada? The government of that day was not an enlightened 
 one, and would have been well content to secure popular sup- 
 port without looking to the future; and it might well luive 
 concluded that the x>reserving of the fur trade and the vast 
 regions of the West from the encroachments of the rebellious 
 colonies would have proved a popular measure. Eather than 
 concealed, indeed, we should expect to see this feature, if occu- 
 pying a prominent position in the ministerial mind, put forward 
 with prominence. We should expect it to have been used to 
 explain and defend before a bigoted public that apparent estab- 
 lishment of the popish worship which so aroused the horror 
 of the Continental Congress, and which was as unpopular in 
 England as in America. 1 have spoken above of the act as 
 one of the most disastrous in English colonial history. It was 
 not popular in England ; it was detested in America ; it was not 
 called for or welcomed by the Canadians; it was as useless at 
 the time as it has since proved injurious. And if I had not 
 already exceeded my time I should like to give reasons for 
 believing that the religious provisions of the act had very 
 little real influence in Canada, and that the ill-timed intoler- 
 ance of the Continental Congress had comparatively little to 
 do with the ill success of the invasions of 1775-7G. Canada 
 was preserved to Great Britain not through the Quebec act, 
 but in spite of it. The controlling forces at this critical point 
 in the history of North America were the mismanagement of 
 the Revolutionary cause and the vigor and ability of the 
 British leaders. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 711 845 9 
 
011 71 
 
 Hollinge] 
 pHf 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS