H. That adopting this plan and conceding this much would lead to the extension of colonial grievances to all legislation is not true (118-121). 1. In phrasing the resolutions, Burke has used the wording of the Durham Act, already endorsed by Parliament, which related to taxes only (119). Compare with II, C. 2. Colonies have not gone beyond taxation, in any cool hour (120). 3. They will have no interest contrary to the glory and grandeur of England, when not oppressed by its weight (121). I. That this plan would destroy unity of Empire is unsound (122). 1. Admission of Wales, Chester, and Dur ham did not destroy unity (122). 2. England cannot be head and members too; therefore, unity cannot be the kind this would violate (122). 3. Ireland's separate legislature has promoted unity (122). J. Lord North's plan is objectionable (123-131). 1. Mere project (124). 2. Unconstitutional to tax in noble lord's antechamber (125). 3. Gives grievance for remedy (126). a. Impossible to settle proportions c. Will produce only small revenue, or result in quarrels whenever attempts are made to change amounts (129). d. Punctual payments impossible (130). e. Confessed scheme to break col- K. Burke's plan is better (132-136). 3. Party rivalry tends to increase grants 4. It is the only wise plan for America as shown by experience with India (136). Peroration: (137-140). (Burke has now finished deciding his second question-namely, what England shall concede. Thus his case has been presented and proved. now concludes with a peroration in which he appeals to the emotions of his audience.) He L. The British Constitution stands for political freedom (137). A. This causes the loyalty which produces the revenues and inspires army and navy (138). II. Magnanimity in politics is the truest wisdom. "Let us get an American revenue as we have got an American empire. English privileges have made it all that it is; English privileges alone will make it all that it can be" (139). III. Therefore Burke moves his resolutions (140). WHERE BURKE SPOKE All through the middle ages the palace of the Kings of England stood close to Westminster Abbey on the bank of the Thames, about two miles west of the limits of London. Its "great hall"' was a noble room of oak, 300 feet long and 90 high, used for royal festivities and state trials. Projecting from it was the royal chapel, named for St. Stephen, 90 feet long and 30 wide. Two centuries before Burke's time the palace was abandoned as a royal residence, but the hall continued its stately functions: it was here that King Charles was condemned to death and Warren Hastings was impeached. The chapel was fitted up as a House of Commons and had been so used for 220 years before Burke became a member. The three windows that used to light the altar now lighted the back of the speaker's chair, a massive ornamental panel of gilded wood about ten feet high, surmounted by a carved scroll and coat of arms. All around the room ran five rows of cushioned benches with high backs, like terraces of long pews. Twelve feet above these on each side of the room was a very narrow gallery for visitors, supported by iron pillars. From the high ceiling three large chandeliers hung low in the room, each holding a large cluster of candles. The speaker sat on his throne-like chair, robed in a heavy gown of black and wearing an official wig that reached below his shoulders. Before him was a large table at which the clerks sat and on which the great mace rested in its rack. As the speaker looked over this table, down the length of the room, he saw a floor space about 50 feet long. On his right sat the members of the majority. The ministers and leaders were in the front row of benches on the floor level, clothed in court dress of purple velvet knee-breeches and frock coat, and wearing a small sword. On the speaker's left were the members of the "opposition.'' Burke doubtless sat on the front bench. As he rose to speak, he was within a dozen feet of the member on the other side. All about him was a crowd of some 350 aristocratic members: some men of literary distinction, dozens of military and naval officers, many sons and brothers of lords, many country gentlemen of great wealth and influence. When he said "Sir," the parliamentary fiction was that he was beginning an address to the chair; it was customary to say frequently during a speech "Sir" or "Mr. Speaker. The man in the chair was Fletcher Norton, who had been elected to the position as a "king's man" at the time when North became prime minister. He was the most adroit and unprincipled lawyer in the country. He was not dispassionate as a chairman should be, but rude and violent. Hence Burke knew the members would relish the irony of his referring in the first sentence to the austerity of the chair."' NOTES The numbers refer to paragraphs 1. An object depending. For six weeks Burke had been compelled to see North's " grand penal bill" passing through Parliament a measure for punishing the colonies by forbidding them to fish off Newfoundland. It had passed Commons by a large majority, was sure to pass the Lords, and so "'seemed to have taken its flight forever.'' But strangely enough the Lords, wishing it to be more strict in one particular, had returned it to Commons, so that their amendment might be adopted. When Burke came to the House, his mind was all full of the speech which he had served formal notice that he was going to give his "motion." This was the "object" that was "depending" (awaiting settlement). He was so much wrought up over his purpose that this unexpected news of the return of the penal bill seemed a good omen. (In his "frailty" he felt a bit "superstitious. "') 66 Incongruous mixture. "Restraint" was the ancient policy of limiting commerce to the mother country, the policy of trade laws; 'coercion '' was the new policy of the King to compel submission by punishment. The two were utterly incongruous, would not mix. 2. Awful. Awesome, profoundly serious. 3. In February, 1766, General Conway moved that the Stamp Act should be repealed. Burke used all his powers in supporting the resolution, and Pitt supported it with all his weighty and vehement influence. "The colonists," he said, "would have been slaves if they had not enjoyed the right of granting their own money. I rejoice that America has resisted. Three millions of people, so dead to all feelings of liberty as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would have been fit instruments |