| Act of Parliament | |
 | |
| Long title | An Act for making more effectual Provision for the Government of the Province of Quebec in North America. |
|---|---|
| Citation | 14 Geo. 3. c. 83 |
| Territorial extent | Province of Quebec |
| Dates | |
| Royal assent | 22 June 1774 |
| Commencement | 1774 |
| Repealed | 1791 |
| Other legislation | |
| Amended by | |
| Repealed by | Constitutional Act 1791 |
| Relates to | Coercive Acts |
Status: Repealed | |
| Text of statute as originally enacted | |
 |
| Part of aseries on the |
| Catholic Church in Canada |
|---|
 |
| Organisation |
| History |
| Media |
TheQuebec Act 1774 (14 Geo. 3. c. 83) (French:Acte de Québec de 1774) was anact of theParliament of Great Britain which set procedures of governance in theProvince of Quebec. One of the principal components of the act was the expansion of the province's territory to take over part of theIndian Reserve, including much of what is now southernOntario,Illinois,Indiana,Michigan,Ohio,Wisconsin, and parts ofMinnesota.
The act removed the reference to theProtestant faith from the oath of allegiance, and guaranteed free practice ofCatholicism and restored the Church's power to imposetithes. Additionally, it restored the use of the Frenchcivil law for matters ofprivate law, except for the granting of unlimitedfreedom of testation in accordance with Englishcommon law; which was maintained for matters ofpublic law, including administrative appeals, court procedure, and criminal prosecution.
In Quebec, English-speaking immigrants from theThirteen Colonies fiercely objected to a variety of its provisions, which they saw as a removal of certain political freedoms. The act was one of the many catalysts that led to theAmerican Revolution. Meanwhile, French-speakingCanadiens varied in their reaction, although the land-owningseigneurs and ecclesiastics were generally happy with its provisions.[1][2]
In the Thirteen Colonies, the act had been passed in thesame session of Parliament as a number of other acts designed as punishment for theBoston Tea Party and other protests, which theAmerican Patriots collectively termed theIntolerable Acts or, in England, the Coercive Acts. Moreover, the act was seen by the colonists as a new model for administration, which would strip them of their self-elected assemblies, and appeared to void some of the colonies' land claims by granting most of theOhio Country to the province of Quebec. The Americans also interpreted the Act as an "establishment" of Catholicism in the colony,[3] as many Americans had participated in theFrench and Indian War, and they now saw the religious freedoms and land given to their former enemy as an affront.[4]
Following the defeat of theKingdom of France by theKingdom of Great Britain in theSeven Years' War, the peace was formalized with theTreaty of Paris of 1763. Under the terms of the treaty, France cededNew France, specifically theFrench colony of Canada, to Britain as it was considered less valuable, since its only significant commercial product at the time wasbeaverpelts, choosing instead to keep the islands ofGuadeloupe andMartinique for their valuablesugar production. This territory along theSt. Lawrence River, calledCanada by the French, was renamedQuebec by the British, after itscapital city. Non-military administration of the territories acquired by the British in the war was defined in theRoyal Proclamation of 1763.
Despite the Treaty of Paris permitting the free exercise of religion for French Catholics,[5] certain restrictions remained under British rule. Under the terms of the peace treaty, Canadiens who chose not to leave became British subjects. In order for them to serve in public offices, they were required to swear an oath to the King that contained specific provisions rejecting the Catholic faith. Given that many of the predominantly Roman Catholic Canadiens were unwilling to take such an oath, this effectively prevented large numbers of Canadiens from participating in the local governments. Furthermore, following the death ofHenri-Marie Dubreil de Pontbriand, French Catholics lacked a bishop, as British ecclesiastical policy did not allow for new appointments prior to the passage of the Quebec Act. To temporarily address this leadership gap, vicar generals were appointed,[6] but the absence of a bishop posed challenges for the Catholic community in maintaining religious guidance and governance. These issues extended to GovernorJames Murray, who faced conflicts in executing his duties in the province. Initially tasked with enforcing Protestantism in Quebec, he was instructed “not to admit of any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of the See of Rome, or any other foreign Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction whatsoever in the Province under your Government.”[6] However, during his tenure, Murray’s stance shifted as he began to support the extension of religious rights to Catholics. His successor,Guy Carleton, received similar instructions regarding the enforcement of British ecclesiastical policy. Despite this, Carleton also demonstrated a degree of flexibility, allowing French Catholics to continue their religious practices as they had prior to British rule.
With unrest, which was growing into theAmerican Revolution, increasing in the colonies to the south, the British were worried that the Canadiens might also support the growing rebellion. At that time, Canadiens formed the vast majority of the settler population of the province of Quebec (more than 99%) and there was little immigration from Great Britain.To secure the allegiance of the approximately 90,000 Canadiens to the British crown, Murray adopted his policy of local tolerance, which Carleton later advanced by bringing proposals for formal legal protections before Parliament.
A growing class of British merchants in Quebec "viewed with alarm and disgust the leniency manifested toward the French Canadians."[7] These merchants emerged as vocal opponents of Governor Carleton’s policy of religious tolerance, instead advocating for the establishment of Protestantism as the official religion of the province. The conflict extended to the legislative sphere, where Attorney GeneralFrancis Maseres, a representative of the British minority, expressed strong opposition to Catholic influence. He argued that the appointment of a Catholic bishop had reinforced loyalty among French Canadian clergy, preventing their conversion to Protestantism, and criticized the legalization of tithes and the expansion of Quebec’s territory as measures that strengthened "the Popish religion".[8] Maseres became one of Carleton’s main opponents in debates leading to the Quebec Act. Nonetheless, there was a need to compromise between the conflicting demands of the Canadien subjects and those of newly arrived British subjects. These efforts by the colonial governors eventually resulted in the enactment of theQuebec Act, 1774.[9][10]
 | This sectionpossibly containsoriginal research. Cites to Shortt, but that only gives the text of the letters; conclusions being drawn here are not supported by Shortt. Pleaseimprove it byverifying the claims made and addinginline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.(November 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The internal communications of the British colonial government at Quebec suggest a relative failure of the purpose of the Quebec Act. On 4 February 1775, Governor Guy Carleton wrote to GeneralThomas Gage that he believed the Canadiens to be generally happy with the Act, yet he also added:
I must not however conceal from Your Excellency, that the Gentry, well disposed, and heartily desirous as they are, to serve the Crown, and to serve it with Zeal, when formed into regular Corps, do not relish commanding a bare Militia, they never were used to that Service under the French Government, (and perhaps for good Reasons) besides the sudden Dismission of the Canadian Regiment raised in 1764, without Gratuity or Recompence to Officers, who engaged in our Service almost immediately after the Cession of the Country, of taking any Notice of them since, tho' they all expected half pay, is still uppermost in their Thoughts, and not likely to encourage their engaging a second Time in the same Way; as to the Habitants or Peasantry, ever since the Civil Authority has been introduced into the Province, the Government of it has hung so loose, and retained so little Power, they have in a Manner emancipated themselves, and it will require Time, and discreet Management likewise, to recall them to their ancient Habits of Obedience and Discipline; considering all the new Ideas they have been acquiring for these ten years past, can it be thought they will be pleased at being suddenly, and without Preparation embodied into a Militia, and marched from their Families, Lands, and Habitations to remote Provinces, and all the Horrors of War, which they have already experienced; It would give appearance of Truth to the Language of our Sons of Sedition, at this very Moment busily employed instilling into their Minds, that the Act was passed merely to serve the present Purposes of Government, and in the full Intention of ruling over them with all the Despotism of their ancient Masters.[14]
On June 7, after having received word of theBattles of Lexington and Concord, as well as thecapture of Fort Ticonderoga andBenedict Arnold's subsequent raid onFort Saint-Jean, he wrote to Colonial SecretaryDartmouth:
The little Force we have in the Province was immediately set in Motion, and ordered to assemble at or near St. John's; The Noblesse of this Neighbourhood were called upon to collect their Inhabitants, in order to defend themselves, the Savages of those Parts likewise had the same orders; but tho' the Gentlemen testified great Zeal, neither their Entreaties or their Example could prevail upon the People; a few of the Gentry, consisting principally of the Youth, residing in this Place, and its Neighbourhood, formed a small Corps of Volunteers under the Command of Mr. Samuel Mackay, and took Post at St. John's; the Indians shewed as much Backwardness as the Canadian Peasantry. ...[15]
Less than a month later, on 28 June 1775, Chief JusticeWilliam Hey wrote to the Lord Chancellor from Quebec:
What will be your Lordships astonishment when I tell you that an Act passed for the express purpose of gratifying the Canadians & which was supposed to comprehend all that they either wished or wanted is become the first object of their discontent & dislike. English officers to command them in time of war, & English Laws to govern them in time of Peace, is the general wish. The former they know to be impossible (at least at present) & by the latter if I understand them right, they mean no Laws & no Government whatsoever – in the mean time it may be truly said that Gen. Carleton had taken an ill measure of the influence of the seigneurs & Clergy over the lower order of people whose Principle of conduct founded in fear & the sharpness of authority over them now no longer exercised, is unrestrained, & breaks out in every shape of contempt or detestation of those whom they used to behold with terror & who gave them I believe too many occasions to express it. And they on their parts have been and are too much elated with the advantages they supposed they should derive from the restoration of their old Privileges & customs, & indulged themselves in a way of thinking & talking that gave very just offence, as well to their own People as to the English merchants.[16]
On 21 September 1775, Lieutenant-GovernorCramahé, who governed at Quebec while Carleton was in Montreal, wrote to Dartmouth on the failure to rally the people after word arrived of theimpending invasion from the colonies to the south:
My Lord !
I am sorry to transmit to Your Lordship the disagreeable account of a disagreeable Business, some time in the Beginning of this Month, upon news of the Rebel Army approaching, General Carleton set out for Montreal in great Haste; the 7th instant the Rebels landed in the Woods near St. John's, and beat back to their Boats by a Party of Savages incamped at that Place; in this Action the Savages behaved with great Spirit and Resolution, and had they remained firm to our Interests, probably the Province would have been safe for this Year, but finding the Canadians in General averse to the taking up Arms for the Defence of their Country, they withdrew, and made their Peace.
After their Defeat the Rebels retired to the Isle aux Noix, where they continued till lately, sending out some Parties, and many Emissaries, to debauch the Minds of the Canadians and Indians, in which they have proved too successful, and for which they were too well prepared by the Cabals and Intrigues of these two last years; We knew of their being reinforced, and very considerably, I suppose, as they appeared in Numbers near St. John's last Sunday Evening; where or when they landed, or the Particulars since, we have but very imperfect Accounts of, all Communications with the Forts of St. John's and Chambli, being, as far as I can find, entirely cut off.
No Means have been left untried to bring the Canadian Peasantry to a Sense of their Duty, and engage them to take up arms in Defence of the Province, but all to no Purpose. The Justice must be done to the Gentry, Clergy, and most of the Bourgeoisie, that they have shewen the greatest Zeal and Fidelity to the King's Service, and exerted their best endeavours to reclaim their infatuated Countrymen; ...[17]
The Quebec Act angered some Americans. Along with four punitive acts passed in the same parliamentary session (called theCoercive Acts in England), it was termed one of theIntolerable Acts by the Patriots, and contributed to the coming of the American Revolution.
Frontiersmen fromVirginia and other colonies were already entering the areas that the act transferred to Quebec. Land development companies such as theOhio Company had already been formed to acquire ownership of large tracts and sell land to settlers and trade with the Indians. Americans denounced the act for promoting the growth of "Papism" (Catholicism)[18] and cutting back on their freedom and traditional rights. In particular, the colonial governments ofNew York,Pennsylvania and Virginia were angered by the unilateral assignment of the Ohio lands to Quebec, which had each been granted them in their royal charters.[19] TheGeorge Rex protest flag was created in New York as a result.[20]
Langston (2005) looked at press reaction in New England. Some colonial editors explained their views on how it reorganized Canadian governance, explaining how they felt it established direct rule by the Crown and limiting the reach of English law to criminal jurisprudence.Isaiah Thomas of theMassachusetts Spy drew links between theQuebec Act and legislation circumscribing American liberties, such as theTea Act and theCoercive Acts. Editors shaped public opinion by writing editorials and reprinting opposition letters from both sides of the Atlantic. TheFirst Continental Congress, which met from 5 September to 26 October 1774,addressed the inhabitants of Quebec, warning them of the perils of the supposedly arbitrary and tyrannical nature of Parliament.
The Quebec Act's main significance in theThirteen Colonies was that it angered the Patriots, and dismayed theLoyalists who supported the Crown, and helped to accelerate the confrontation that became the American Revolution.[21][page needed] The act is listed as one of the rebels'27 colonial grievances in theDeclaration of Independence:[22]
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring 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 into these Colonies.
The First Continental Congresspetitioned Parliament to repeal the Intolerable Acts, which Parliament declined to do. Instead, in February 1775 Parliament passed theConciliatory Resolution in an attempt to curry favour with the angry colonists. This was too little, too late, as the war broke out before news of its passage could reach the colonies.[23] Although theContinental Congress did eventually receive this proposal, they ultimately rejected it.
In Quebec, the 1774 act was effectively superseded by theConstitutional Act 1791, which partitioned Quebec into two new provinces,Upper andLower Canada.
The Quebec Act 1774 is an important predecessor to theFirst Amendment to theConstitution of the United States by establishing religious freedom.[24]
.svg)
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)
| Before 1763 |
|
|---|---|
| Grenville ministry (1763–1765) |
|
| Rockingham ministry (1765–1766) |
|
| Chatham andGrafton ministries (1766–1770) |
|
| North ministry (1770–1782) |
|
| Other legal issues | |
