making and agreeing upon such necessary rules, orders, and bye-laws, for the directing, managing, and ordering, the prudential affairs of such townships: . . . and whereas a great abuse has been made of the power of calling such meetings, and the inhabitants have, contrary to the design of their institution, been misled to treat upon matters of the most general concern, and to pass many dangerous and unwarrantable resolves for remedy whereof, be it enacted, That no meeting shall be called ... without the leave of the Governor, or in his absence of the Lieutenant-Governor, in writing expressing. the special business of the said meeting, first had and obtained, except the annual meeting in the months of March or May for the choice of select men, constables, and other officers, or except for the choice of persons to fill up the offices aforesaid, . . . and also, except any meeting for the election of a representative or representatives in the General Court; and that no other matter shall be treated of at such meetings, except the election of their aforesaid officers or representatives, nor at any other meeting, except the business expressed in the leave given by the Governor, or, in his absence, by the Lieutenant-Governor. 8. And whereas the method at present used in the Province of Massachusetts-Bay, in America, of electing persons to serve on grand juries, and other juries, by the freeholders and inhabitants of the several towns, affords occasion for many evil practices, and tends to pervert the free and impartial administration of justice for remedy whereof, be it further enacted... the jurors to serve at the superior courts of judicature, courts of assize, general gaol delivery, general sessions of the peace, and inferior court of common pleas, in the several counties within the said Province, ・・・ shall be summoned and returned by the sheriffs of the respective counties within the said Province. . . 103 FROM THE QUEBEC ACT 1 An Act for making more effectual provision for the Government of the Province of Quebec in North America. WHEREAS His Majesty, by his Royal Proclamation bearing date the seventh day of October in the third year of his reign, thought fit to declare the provisions which had been made in respect to certain countries, territories and islands in America, ceded to His Majesty by the definitiye Treaty of Peace, concluded at Paris on the tenth day of February 1763: And whereas by the arrangements made by the said Royal Proclamation, a very large extent of country, within which there were several colonies and settlements of the subjects of France, who claimed to remain therein under the faith of the said Treaty, was left without any provision being made for the administration of civil government therein; ... be it enacted... That all the territories, islands and countries in North America belonging to the Crown of Great Britain, bounded on the South by a line from the Bay of Chaleurs, along the high lands which divide the rivers that empty themselves into the river Saint Lawrence from those which fall into the sea, to a point in forty-five degrees of northern latitude, on the eastern bank of the river Connecticut, keeping the same latitude directly west, through the lake Champlain, until, in the same latitude, it meets the river Saint Lawrence; from thence up the eastern bank of the said river to the Lake Ontario; thence through the Lake Ontario, and the river commonly called Niagara; and thence along by the eastern and south-eastern bank of Lake Erie, following the said bank, until the same shall be intersected by the northern boundary granted by the charter of the Province of Pensylvania, in case the same shall be so intersected; and from thence along the said northern and western boundaries of the said Province, until the said western boundary strike the Ohio; . . . and along the bank of the said river, westward to the banks of the Mississippi, and northward to the southern boundary of the territory granted to the Merchants Adventurers of England 1 14 Geo. III, c. 83. Full text in 4 Force's American Archives, i. 216-20, and Shortt and Doughty, Documents rel. to Constitutional History of Canada (1907 ed.), pp. 401-5. trading to Hudson's Bay ; . . . are hereby, during His Majesty's pleasure, annexed to and made part and parcel of the Province of Quebec.... Provided always, that nothing herein contained relative to the boundary of the Province of Quebec shall in any wise affect the boundaries of any other colony. And... it is hereby declared, that His Majesty's subjects professing the religion of the Church of Rome of and in the said Province of Quebec, may have, hold and enjoy the free exercise of the religion of the Church of Rome, subject to the King's Supremacy; ... and that the clergy of the said Church may hold, receive and enjoy their accustomed dues and rights, with respect to such persons only as shall profess the said religion. FROM JAMES WILSON'S CONSIDERATIONS ON August 1774 Considerations on the Nature and Extent of the Legislative Authority of the British Parliament. Philadelphia, 1774. ADVERTISEMENT THE following sheets were written during the late nonimportation agreement: 2 but that agreement being dissolved before they were ready for the press, it was then judged unseasonable to publish them. Many will, perhaps, be surprised to see the legislative authority of the British Parliament over the colonies denied in every instance. Those the writer informs, that, when he began this piece, he would probably have been surprised at such an opinion himself; for that it was the result, and not the occasion, of his disquisitions. He entered upon them with a view and expectation of being able to trace some constitutional line between those cases in which we ought, and those in which we ought not, to acknowledge the power of Parliament over us. In the prosecution of his inquiries, he became fully convinced that such a line does not exist; and that there can be no medium between 1 Works of James Wilson (J. De W. Andrews, ed.), Chicago, 1896, ii. 504, 522-43. 2 In 1770. acknowledging and denyng that power in all cases. Which of these two alternatives is most consistent with law, with the principles of liberty, and with the happiness of the colonies, let the public determine. To them the writer submits his sentiments, with that respectful deference to their judgment, which, in all questions affecting them, every individual should pay. August 17th, 1774. But from what source does this mighty, this uncontrolled authority of the House of Commons flow? From the collective. body of the commons of Great Britain. This authority must,, therefore, originally reside in them; for whatever they convey to their representatives must ultimately be in themselves. And have those, whom we have hitherto been accustomed to consider as our fellow-subjects, an absolute and unlimited power over us? Have they a natural right to make laws, by which we may be deprived of our properties, of our liberties, of our lives? By what title do they claim to be our masters ? What act of ours has rendered us subject to those, to whom we were formerly equal? Is British freedom denominated from the soil, or from the people of Britain? If from the latter, do they lose it by quitting the soil? Do those, who embark freemen in Great Britain, disembark slaves in America? Are those who fled from the oppression of regal and ministerial tyranny, now reduced to a state of vassalage to those who then equally felt the same oppression? Whence proceeds this fatal change? Is this the return made us for leaving our friends and our country-for braving the danger of the deep-for planting a wilderness inhabited only by savage men and savage beasts-for extending the dominions of the British Crown-for increasing the trade of the British merchantsfor augmenting the rents of the British landlords-for heightening the wages of the British artificers ? Britons should blush to make such a claim: Americans would blush to own it. It is not, however, the ignominy only, but the danger also, with which we are threatened, that affects us. The many and careful provisions which are made by the British Constitution, that the electors of Members of Parliament may be prevented from choosing representatives who would betray them; and that the representatives may be prevented from betraying their constituents with impunity, sufficiently evince that such precautions have been deemed absolutely necessary for securing and maintaining the system of British liberty. How would the commons of Great Britain startle at a proposal to deprive them of their share in the legislature, by rendering the House of Commons independent of them! With what indignation would they hear it! What resentment would they feel and discover against the authors of it! Yet the commons of Great Britain would suffer less inconvenience from the execution of such a proposal, than the Americans will suffer from the extension of the legislative authority of Parliament over them. The Members of Parliament, their families, their friends, their posterity, must be subject as well as others to the laws. Their interest, and that of their families, friends, and posterity, cannot be different from the interest of the rest of the nation. A regard to the former will therefore direct to such measures as must promote the latter. But is this the case with respect to America? Are the legislators of Great Britain subject to the laws which are made for the colonies? Is their interest the same with that of the colonies? If we consider it in a large and comprehensive view we shall discern it to be undoubtedly the same, but few will take the trouble to consider it in that view; and of those who do, few will be influenced by the consideration. Mankind are usually more affected with a near though inferior interest than with one that is superior, but placed at a greater distance. As the conduct is regulated by the passions it is not to be wondered at if they secure the former, by measures which will forfeit the latter. Nay, the latter will frequently be regarded in the same manner as if it were prejudicial to them. It is with regret that I produce some late regulations of Parliament as proofs of what I have advanced. We have experienced what an easy matter it is for a minister with an ordinary share of art to persuade the Parliament and the people that taxes laid on the colonies will ease the burthens of the mother country; which, if the matter is considered in a proper light, is in fact to persuade them that the stream of national riches will be increased by closing up the fountain from which they flow. . . Let us pause here a little. Does neither the love of gain, the love of praise, nor the love of honor influence the members of the British Parliament in favor of the Americans ? On |