Constitution with her. Is this your boasted peace-not to sheathe the sword in the scabbard, but to sheathe it in the bowels of your countrymen? Will you quarrel with yourselves, now the whole house of Bourbon is united against you; while France disturbs your fisheries in Newfoundland, embarrasses your slave trade to Africa, and withholds from your subjects in Canada their property stipulated by treaty; while the ransom for the Manilas is denied by Spain, and its gallant conqueror basely traduced into a mean plunderer—a gentleman whose noble and generous spirit would do honor to the proudest grandee of the country?

The Americans have not acted in all things with prudence and temper; they have been wronged; they have been driven to madness by injustice. Will you punish them for the madness you have occasioned? Rather let prudence and temper come first from this side. I will undertake for America that she will follow the example. * Upon the whole, I will beg leave to tell the House what is my opinion. It is, that the Stamp Act be repealed absolutely, totally, and immediately. That the reason for the repeal be assigned-viz., because it was founded on an erroneous principle. At the same time, let the sovereign authority of this country over the colonies be asserted in as strong terms as can be devised, and be made to extend to every point of legislation whatsoever; that we may bind their trade, confine their manufactures, and exercise every power whatsoever, except that of taking money from their pockets without their consent.

What does Chatham recognize as the supreme legal authority and source of law for both England and America?

What were Chatham's reasons for considering the taxation of America the most important question that had come before the House of Commons since the days of the Stuarts?

What is the distinction made by Chatham between the right to tax and the right to legislate?

Does modern law recognize this distinction?

Point out persuasive elements in Chatham's speech. Did he understand the temper of Englishmen?

What statements in the last paragraph show that he did not understand the temper of Americans?

What evidence is there in Chatham's speech that a movement for the independence of America was already under way?

WAR WITH AMERICA

February 6, 1775

THE favorable impression created by the repeal of the Stamp Act was largely destroyed by the passage soon after of the Declaratory Act in which Parliament laid no import or duty but asserted its right to tax America. This action was a colossal blunder, inasmuch as it ignored the fact that the Americans had not refused to furnish money to support the government but had denied this very right" of taxation which now was expressly reaffirmed. Before the end of the year, also, King George III, who had no sympathy with the democratic aspirations of the colonists, induced Parliament to lay new duties on tea and other articles imported by the Americans.

66

Continued disorder in America and decreasing trade again brought about the repeal in March, 1770, of all these duties except that on tea. The latter duty the King determined to retain, it is said, from a desire to "try the question with America." In the hope of making the tax more acceptable the duty was reduced to six cents a pound, which permitted tea to be sold in America at a cheaper price than in England. The colonists, however, who were seeking a democratic system of taxation rather than low taxes, refused to pay the decreased duty. A mob threw four ship loads of tea into Boston harbor. Incensed with their lack of respect for the royal authority, the King induced Parliament to take away the old charter of Massachusetts and to pass other acts of a drastic nature.

As these measures threatened to destroy English liberty in America, concerted action on the part of the colonists was demanded. On September 1, 1774, the Continental Congress met in Philadelphia and passed resolutions in which trade with England was boycotted. Nevertheless in a very calm and conciliating Petition to the King the Congress once more reaffirmed its loyalty to the Empire and asserted its willingness to pay all taxes justly levied in accordance with the English Constitution. Clashes between armed citizens and British troops, nevertheless, had already occurred more than once. John Wilkes rose in Parliament to speak it was clearly evident that America and the Mother Country were on the verge of war.

On February 6, 1775, when

WAR WITH AMERICA

JOHN WILKES

I AM surprised that in a business of so much moment as this before the House, respecting the British colonies in America, a cause which comprehends almost every question relative to the common rights of mankind, almost every question of policy and legislation, it should be resolved to proceed with so little circumspection, or rather with so much precipitation and heedless imprudence. With what temerity are we assured that the same men who have been so often overwhelmed with praises for their attachment to this country, for their forwardness to grant it the necessary succors, for the valor they have signalized in its defense, have all at once so degenerated from their ancient manners as to merit the appellation of seditious, ungrateful, impious rebels! But if such a

2

change has, indeed, been wrought in the minds of this most loyal people, it must at least be admitted that affections so extraordinary could only have been produced by some very powerful cause.1 But who is ignorant, who needs to be told of the new madness that infatuates our ministers? Who has not seen the tyrannical counsels they have pursued for the last ten years? They would now have us carry to the foot of the throne a resolution stamped with rashness and injustice, fraught with blood, and a horrible futurity. But before this be allowed them, before the signal of civil war be given, before they are permitted to force Englishmen to sheathe their swords in the bowels of their fellow-subjects, I hope this House will consider the rights of humanity, the original ground and cause of the present dispute. Have we justice on our side? No; assuredly no. He must be altogether a stranger to the British Constitution who does not know that contributions are voluntary gifts of the people; and singularly blind not to perceive that the words "Liberty and property so grateful to English ears, are nothing better than mockery and insult to the Americans, if their property can be taken without their consent. And what motive can there exist for this new rigor, for these extraordinary measures? Have not the Americans always demonstrated the utmost zeal and liberality whenever their succors have been required by the Mother Country?

In the last two wars they gave you more than you asked for, and more than their facilities warranted; they were not only liberal toward you, but prodigal of their substance. They fought gallantly and victoriously by your side, with equal valor, against our and their enemy, the common enemy of the liberties of Europe and America, the ambitious and faithless French, whom we now fear and flatter. And even now at a moment when you are planning their destruction, when you are brand