events), prevailing throughout the old colonies that the constitution given to the Province of Quebec was the herald of a direct attack on old-established liberties. And I 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 appeased, 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. No further mention is made of this, and the next important official 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 present 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 established by the Quebec act. For the public attitude of the ministry 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 the point is that the opposition were very careful not to press for an immediate assembly, and that the ministry were very careful to defend their withholding it purely on the grounds: (1) That it would be unjust to exclude the French Roman 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 present 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 that no member had advocated the appointment of a council because of the conduct of

the popular assemblies in America, or had ventured to say that an assembly would be always advisable. It is evident on the whole that the opposition could not offer a solution of the difficulties that lay in the way, and that the Government, whatever 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 Canadians 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 respect like the constitution of Great Britain, I will not say; but I earnestly hope that they will, in 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 representative institutions because they were assured by the colonial officials that the great body of the French Canadian people had no desire for them, and could safely, and perhaps beneficially, 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 extended 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 in 1764 (against the remonstrances 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 territories. 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 conclusion it was inevitable that there should be chosen for this

purpose the province to which the region, or the most of it, was believed to have belonged, from which it could be governed 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 concealment 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 Parliament and in the country. Why should it now have scrupled to say that it was also taking measures of precaution in Canada? The government of that day was not an enlightened one, and would have been well content to secure popular support without looking to the future; and it might well have concluded that the preserving of the fur trade and the vast regions of the West from the encroachments of the rebellious colonies would have proved a popular measure. Rather than concealed, indeed, we should expect to see this feature, if occupying 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 establishment of the popish worship which so aroused the horror of the Continental Congress, and which was as unpopular in England as in America. I 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 intolerance of the Continental Congress had comparatively little to do with the ill success of the invasions of 1775–76. 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.

XVII. THE HISTORICAL ARCHIVES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.

By ANDREW HUSSEY ALLEN, Chief of the Bureau of Rolls and Library.

The historical archives deposited in the Department of State, by several acts of Congress, for preservation, and presumably with the purpose of ultimate publication, are regarded without material divergence of intelligent opinion as the most valuable collection of documents extant upon the early political history of the nation. But a lack of popular knowledge touching their volume, value, condition, and accessibility has within a few years by persistent fostering been developed into a serious misconception of the Department's purposes respecting their uses-a misconception which finally appeared last year in a public statement of the nature of an assault upon the Department by a prominent member of this association (formerly its president), untimely, unjustified, and further confusing the situation. The purpose of this paper, within the brief time and space allotted, is, at this, the earliest opportunity, to correct this misapprehension, so far as possible, first, by a statement of facts in contradiction, and secondly, by such assurances as incidental comment may convey.

These archives are virtually held in trust by the Department for the use of historical writers and students, and it is their devotion to that use with which their custodians are concerned. The collections comprise:

(1) The records and papers of the Continental Congress, in 307 volumes, folio, deposited in the custody of the Secretary of State by the acts of Congress of July 27, 1789, and September 15, 1789, entitled, respectively, "An act for establishing an Executive Department, to be denominated the Department of Foreign Affairs," and "An act to provide for the safe-keeping of the acts, records, and seal of the United States, and for other purposes."