Dbq Jury Trial

Words: 430
Pages: 2

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: The right of trial by jury was abridged by the Sugar Act of 1764, which was passed by the British parliament for a number of reasons. However, its main objective was to end the smuggling of sugar and molasses from non-British Caribbean sources, such as the French and Dutch West Indies. This was important to the British Empire because it needed funding to cover the costs of the French and Indian War (1754-63), and the smuggling trade occurring in New England decreased their revenues. As a result, this act was heavily enforced by admiralty and vice-admiralty courts. Because of the lack of juries in these courts, smugglers who were apprehended would have to go through a trial without …show more content…
As public protests and participation in consumer boycotts increased in the American colonies, the British were compelled to respond by enacting regulations known to the colonists as the Intolerable Acts of 1774. These acts were directed towards Massachusetts Bay as a reaction to the Boston Tea Party (1773). One of the regulations, The Massachusetts Government Act, abolished Massachusetts's charter of 1691 and granted the British complete control over the colonial government. This meant that counsellors and other governmental positions were appointed by the Crown, and town meetings were restricted.

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: The Quartering Act of 1765, enacted in response to the French and Indian War (1754–63), required governors to lodge British soldiers. The additional Quartering Act was a part of the Intolerable Acts of 1774, or as the British refer to it, the Coercive Acts. As previously stated, these regulations were a response to the Boston Tea Party (1773) and are seen as punitive actions conducted against the Massachusetts Bay colony. The Quartering Act of 1774 nevertheless, permitted all colonial governors to house British troops in private