I'm confused. Why is this listed as the Sugar Act of 1763 in this source? Shouldn't that be 1764?
According to historian Edmund Morgan, the bill was first introduced in Parliament on March 9, 1764 and, when it was passed, Morgan states that it was known as the "the Sugar Act of 1764." (See Edmund S. Morgan & Helen M. Morgan, The Stamp Act Crisis: Prologue to Revolution (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1953) 24 & 27.) Also, historian Fred Anderson states that its official name was the "American Duties Act of 1764," and he goes on to say that "Americans remember the American Duties Act of 1764 as the Sugar Act." Anderson also says that the act was adopted by Parliament on March 22, 1764 and approved by the King on April 5. (See Fred Anderson, Crucible of War: The Seven Years' War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754 - 1766 (New York: Vintage Books, 2000), 574.)
Is the date 1763 listed in the title of the document a typo, or am I missing something? —unsigned comment by 67.177.195.177 (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2008.
I have notified John Cross (talk • contribs) of your query. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the reason is that:
"Early British statutes are cited by regnal year without reference to calendar year. Regnal year refers to the year of a monarch's rule. In order to locate a statute, you must first convert its regnal year into a calendar year by consulting a chart of regnal years..."
It would appear that the Regnal year 1763 ended 24 October 1764.
In America a different dating system may have been used. John Cross 15:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)