SELECTIONS FROM THE SPEECHES OF MR. PITT, THE FIRST EARL OF CHATHAM.

MR. PITT'S SPEECH AGAINST IMPOSING THE STAMP-ACT ON THE AMERICAN COLONIES, JANUARY 14TH, 1765.

On the re-assembling of Parliament on the 14th of January, 1765, the king went to the House of Lords, and addressed the two Houses, adverting particularly to the disturbances in America, and stating that no time had been lost, on the first advice of them, to issue orders to the governors of the provinces and the commanders of the forces in America, for the exertion of all the powers of government in the suppression of riots and tumults, and in the effectual support of lawful authority. Whatever remained to be done was committed to the wisdom of the legislature. The address of the Commons having been moved by Lord Villiers, Mr. Nugent, afterwards Earl of Clare, "insisted, that the honour and dignity of the kingdom obliged us to compel the execution of the Stamp Act, unless the right of Parliament was acknowledged, and the repeal solicited as a favour. He computed that the expense of the troops now employed in America for the defence of the colonists, amounted to nine-pence in the pound of our land-tax, whilst the produce of the Stamp Act would not raise a shilling a head on the inhabitants of America; but a peppercorn, in acknowledgment of the right, was, he said, of more value than millions without it." Mr. Pitt spoke next in the debate. He commenced in a low tone of voice, which, together with the agitation of the House upon his first rising to address them, prevented the introduction of this celebrated speech from being distinctly heard. Mr. Pitt proceeded to say :

SIR, I came to town but to-day: I was a stranger to the tenor of His Majesty's speech and the proposed address, till I heard them read in this House. Unconnected and

unconsulted, I have not the means of information; I am fearful of offending through mistake, and therefore beg to be indulged with a second reading of the proposed address. (The address being read, Mr. Pitt went on :) I commend the king's speech, approve of the address in answer, as it decides nothing, every gentleman being left at perfect liberty to take such a part concerning America as he might afterwards see fit. One word only I cannot approve of; an early is a word that does not belong to the notice the ministry have given to Parliament of the troubles in America. In a matter of such importance, the communication ought to have been immediate; I speak • not with respect to parties; I stand up in this place single and unconnected. As to the late ministry, (turning him

self to Mr. Grenville, who sat within one of him,) every capital measure they took was--entirely wrong!

As to the present gentlemen,-those, at least, whom I have in my eye,-(looking at the bench on which Mr. Conway sat with the lords of the treasury.)—I have no objection; I have never been made a sacrifice by any of them. Their characters are fair; and I am always glad when men of fair character engage in His Majesty's service. Some of them have done me the honour to ask my poor opinion before they would engage. These will do me the justice to own, I advised them to engage; but notwithstanding-for I love to be explicit-I cannot give them my confidence. Pardon me, gentlemen, (bowing to the ministry,) confidence is a plant of slow growth in an aged bosom; youth is the season of credulity: by comparing events with each other, reasoning from effects to causes, methinks I plainly discover the traces of an overruling influence.

I

There is a clause in the Act of Settlement obliging every minister to sign his name to the advice which he gives his sovereign. Would it were observed !—I have had the honour to serve the crown; and if I could have submitted to influence, I might still have continued to serve; but I would not be responsible for others. I have no local attachments. It is indifferent to me whether a man was rocked in his cradle on this or that side of the Tweed. I sought for merit wherever it was to be found. It is my boast, that I was the first minister who looked for it, and found it, in the mountains of the north. called it forth, and drew into your service a hardy and intrepid race of men; men who, when left by your jealousy, became a prey to the artifices of your enemies, and had gone nigh to overturn the state in the war before the last. These men, in the last war, were brought to combat on your side; they served with fidelity, as they fought with valour, and conquered for you in every part of the world. Detested be the national reflections against them! they are unjust, groundless, illiberal, unmanly.When I ceased to serve His Majesty as a minister, it was not the country of the man by which I was moved, but the man of that country wanted wisdom, and held principles incompatible with freedom.

It is a long time, Mr. Speaker, since I have attended in Parliament. When the resolution was taken in thi

House to tax America, I was ill in bed. If I could have endured to have been carried in my bed, so great was the agitation of my mind for the consequences, I would have solicited some kind hand to have laid me down on this floor, to have borne my testimony against it! It is now an act that has passed.-I would speak with decency of every act of this House, but I must beg the indulgence of the House to speak of it with freedom.

I hope the day may be soon appointed to consider the state of the nation with respect to America. I hope gentlemen will come to this debate with all the temper and impartiality that His Majesty recommends, and the importance of the subject requires: a subject of greater importance than ever engaged the attention of this house! that subject only excepted, when, near a century ago, it was the question whether you yourselves were to be bond or free. In the mean time, as I cannot depend upon health for any future day, such is the nature of my infirmities, I will beg to say a few words at present, leaving the justice, the equity, the policy, the expediency of the act to another time. I will only speak to one point,—a point which seems not to have been generally understood: —I mean, to the right. Some gentlemen (alluding to Mr. Nugent) seem to have considered it as a point of honour. If gentlemen consider it in that light, they leave all measures of right and wrong, to follow a delusion that may lead to destruction. It is my opinion, that this kingdom has no right to lay a tax upon the colonies. At the same time I assert the authority of this kingdom over the colonies to be sovereign and supreme in every circumstance of government and legislation whatsoever. The colonists are the subjects of this kingdom, equally entitled with yourselves to all the natural rights of mankind and the peculiar privileges of Englishmen ; equally bound by its laws, and equally participating in the constitution of this free country. The Americans are the sons, not the bastards, of England. Taxation is no part of the governing or legislative power. The taxes are the voluntary gift and grant of the Commons alone. In legislation the three estates of the realm are alike concerned; but the concurrence of the Peers and the Crown to a tax is only necessary to clothe it with the form of a law. The gift and grant is of the Commons alone. In ancient days, the Crown, the barons, and the clergy possessed the lands. In those days, the barons and the

clergy gave and granted to the Crown. They gave and granted what was their own. At present, since the discovery of America, and other circumstances permitting, the Commons are become the proprietors of the land. The church (God bless it!) has but a pittance. The property of the Lords, compared with that of the Commons, is as a drop of water in the ocean; and this House represents those Commons, the proprietors of the land, and those proprietors virtually represent the rest of the inhabitants. When, therefore, in this House we give and grant, we give and grant what is our own. But in an American tax, what do we do? "We, Your Majesty's Commons for Great Britain, give and grant to Your Majesty,"-What? Our own property?—No! "We give and grant to Your Majesty the property of Your Majesty's Commons of America."-It is an absurdity in terms.

The distinction between legislation and taxation is essentially necessary to liberty. The Crown, the Peers, are equally legislative powers with the Commons. If taxation be a part of simple legislation, the Crown and the Peers have rights in taxation as well as yourselves; rights which they claim, which they will exercise, whenever the principle can be supported by power.

There is an idea in some, that the colonies are virtually represented in this House. I would fain know by whom an American is represented here. Is he represented by any knight of the shire, in any county in this kingdom? Would to God that respectable representation were augmented to a greater number! Or will you tell him that he is represented by any representative of a borough ?—a borough which perhaps its own representatives never saw. -This is what is called the rotten part of the constitution. It cannot continue a century. If it does not drop, it must be amputated. The idea of a virtual representation of America in this House is the most contemptible that ever entered into the head of man: it does not deserve a serious refutation.

The Commoners of America, represented in their several assemblies, have ever been in possession of the exercise of this their constitutional right, of giving and granting their own money. They would have been slaves if they had not enjoyed it. At the same time this kingdom, as the supreme governing and legislative power, has always bound the colonies by her laws, by her regulations and

restrictions in trade, in navigation, in manufactures-in every thing except that of taking their money out of their pockets without their consent. Here I would draw the line,

Quam ultra citraque nequit consistere rectum.

Sir, I have sometimes been charged with having given birth to sedition in America. Several have spoken their sentiments with freedom against this unhappy act, and that freedom has become their crime. Sorry I am to hear the liberty of speech in this House imputed as a crime. But the imputation shall not discourage me. It is a liberty I mean to exercise. No gentleman ought to be afraid to exercise it. It is a liberty by which the gentleman who calumniates it might have profited. He ought to have profited. He ought to have desisted from his project. The gentleman tells us, America is obstinate; America is almost in open rebellion. I rejoice that America has resisted. Three millions of people so dead to all the feelings of liberty, as voluntarily to let themselves be made slaves, would have been fit instruments to make slaves of all the rest. I come not here armed at all points with law-cases and Acts of Parliament, with the statute-book doubled down in dogs' ears, to defend the cause of liberty: if I had, I myself would have cited the two cases of Chester and Durham. I would have cited them to show that, even under arbitrary reigns, Parliaments were ashamed of taxing a people without their consent, and allowed them representatives. Why did the gentleman confine himself to Chester and Durham? He might have taken a higher example in Wales; Wales, that never was taxed by Parliament until it was incorporated. I would not debate a particular point of law with the gentleman: I know his abilities. I have been obliged to his diligent researches. But, for the defence of liberty, upon a general principle, upon a constitutional principle, it is a ground on which I stand firm; on which I dare meet any man. The gentleman tells us of many who are taxed, and are not represented-the India Company, merchants, stockholders, manufacturers. Surely many of these are represented, in other capacities, as owners of land, or as freemen of boroughs. It is a misfortune that more are not actually represented. But they are all inhabitants of this kingdom, and, as such, are they not