entitled "An act for the trial of treasons committed out of the king's dominions."

That from the time when the general assembly, or general court, of any colony or plantation in North America shall have appointed by act of assembly duly confirmed, a settled salary to the offices of the chief justice and other judges of the superior court, it may be proper that the said chief justice and other judges of the superior courts of such colony shall hold his and their office and offices during their good behavior, and shall not be removed therefrom but when the said removal shall be adjudged by his Majesty in council, upon a hearing on complaint from the general assembly, or on a complaint from the governor or council or the house of representatives severally, of the colony in which the said chief justice and other judges have exercised the said offices.

That it may be proper to regulate the courts of admiralty or vice-admiralty authorized by the fifteenth chapter of the fourth of George the Third, in such a manner as to make the same more commodious to those who sue and are sued in the said courts; and to provide for the more decent maintenance of the judges in the same.

Why was the British government so determined to assert its right to tax America?

What was Lord North's plan and why was it not suitable as a remedy?

State briefly the substance of Burke's conciliatory resolutions. Chatham, Wilkes, and Burke each considered the American question one of the most important that had been brought before the House of Commons. How do they seem to differ regarding the reason for its importance?

If Burke's plan had been followed, what would probably have been the effect on the history of the British Empire? How do you think the history of America would have been influenced if Burke's plan had been followed?

By what means did Burke hope to infuse the colonies with a patriotic love for English institutions and the empire?

Was any part of Burke's plan introduced into later colonial policy?

Discuss the accuracy of Burke's estimate of colonial character. What democratic principle, advocated by Burke in this speech,

has since his time become commonly accepted as a characteristic of just and sound government?

How does Burke's style differ from that of Otis, Chatham, and Wilkes?

What are the persuasive advantages and disadvantages of such a style?

Would Burke's oratorical style be more or less acceptable in our day than it was in 1775? Why?

Comment briefly on Burke's emphasis on causes and results. Enumerate the various motives to which Burke appealed. Point out instances where Burke's diction is a source of persuasive power.

Knowing what you do of the audience and Burke's speech, how do you account for the fact that the House of Commons rejected his plan by a vote of 270 to 78?

LIBERTY OR DEATH

March 23, 1775

On March 23, 1775, the old church at Richmond, Va. was crowded to the doors by the Convention of Delegates. George Washington and other prominent men were there in the audience. Five days previously, Henry had spoken of war with England as inevitable, and had introduced resolutions for defense. Many of the ablest men in the colonies considered this action premature. Many conceded that war was possible, even probable; but no one had ventured to declare it unavoidable. Feeling against the Mother Country was running decidedly high, and when Henry had concluded his "individual declaration of war against Great Britain," the Convention of Delegates was a new body. To arms," seemed to quiver on every lip; their souls were on fire for action. Tyler says, " Henry rose with an unearthly fire burning in his eye. He commenced somewhat calmly, but the smothered excitement began more and more to play upon his features and thrill in the tones of his voice. The tendons of his neck stood out white and rigid like whipcords. His voice rose louder and louder, until the walls of the building, and all within them seemed to shake and rock in its tremendous vibrations. Finally his pale face and glaring eyes became terrible to look upon. Men leaned forward in their seats, with their heads strained forward, their faces pale, and their eyes glaring like the speaker's. His last exclamation, Give me liberty or give me death!' was like the shout of the leader which turns the rout of battle."

LIBERTY OR DEATH

PATRICK HENRY

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony.

The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason toward my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to

know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry, for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House? Is it that insidious smile1 with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourself to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings

resort.

I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it. Has Great Britain any enemy in this quarter of the world to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains, which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication?