How Did William Pitt Steal The Stamp Act
Repeal the Stamp Act Americans, under the control of the British, were faced with undeserved mistreatment. One example out of many came in March of 1765 when Parliament imposed the Stamp Act on the Northern American colonies. This act placed a tax on all printed paper the colonies used in order to help pay the British debt from war. This act built tension between the colonies and Britain because it was the first instance of taxation without representation. When the chance to repeal the Stamp Act was before the House, William Pitt fought for the Americans. William Pitt convinced his constituents that the Stamp Act was unconstitutional, and should be repealed, by using specific sources and reminding the House that Americans helped the British
…show more content…
According to the introduction in William Pitts speech on the Stamp Act, although Pitt firmly believed that Parliament had the right to legislate for the colonies, they did not have the right to tax them.3 In his speech, Pitt fought that it was not reasonable for Parliament to levy taxes on the colonies without representation for the colonies within Parliament while making decisions that would affect the colonies. He argued that the “greater must rule the less; but so rule it, as not to contradict the fundamental principles that are common to both”4, meaning that Britain should rule the colonies, but they had the obligation to treat them fairly. Pitt goes on to make the point that the British could force the Americans to accept the Stamp Act, but it would still be unfair and unreasonable. Pitt does not come in front of the House with multiple examples of cases or laws that prove how and why the Stamp Act is unjust; he only comes with one example, Chester and Durham. Pitt uses the Chester and Durham case to show that “even under arbitrary reign, parliaments were ashamed of taxing people without their consent and allowed them representatives”5. He believes that the Americans are right for revolting against the Stamp Act because it takes away from the
According to the introduction in William Pitts speech on the Stamp Act, although Pitt firmly believed that Parliament had the right to legislate for the colonies, they did not have the right to tax them.3 In his speech, Pitt fought that it was not reasonable for Parliament to levy taxes on the colonies without representation for the colonies within Parliament while making decisions that would affect the colonies. He argued that the “greater must rule the less; but so rule it, as not to contradict the fundamental principles that are common to both”4, meaning that Britain should rule the colonies, but they had the obligation to treat them fairly. Pitt goes on to make the point that the British could force the Americans to accept the Stamp Act, but it would still be unfair and unreasonable. Pitt does not come in front of the House with multiple examples of cases or laws that prove how and why the Stamp Act is unjust; he only comes with one example, Chester and Durham. Pitt uses the Chester and Durham case to show that “even under arbitrary reign, parliaments were ashamed of taxing people without their consent and allowed them representatives”5. He believes that the Americans are right for revolting against the Stamp Act because it takes away from the