THE BACKGROUND OF THE REVOLUTION

The American Revolution: by Charles H. Mcllwaine, Ph. D., Professor of History and Government in Harvard University. New York: The Macmillan Co. $2.25.

Were the American colonists constitutionally right in their revolt against English rule in 1776?

This is the question which Professor Mcllwaine investigates in "The American Revolution", and which he answers in a way which is directly opposed to the conclusions of most constitutional historians, English and American. Arguing purely on grounds of constitutionality, the author seeks to prove the complete justification of the refusal of the Continental Congress and American patriots to accept the jurisdiction of the English Parliament in matters outside of the Island which contains England, Ireland, and Wales. Furthermore, he suggests that the revolutionary action was not, first of all, on the part of the Americans, but of the English Parliament itself. The constitutional causes of the War of Independence are traced back to the conduct of Parliament in the revolution of 1648 in England.

Adopts Interesting Method

The methods by which Professor Mcllwaine reaches his radical conclusion is an interesting one. Taking as his thesis the fact that the opposition to Parliament was due to the conflict of two incompatible interpretations of the British constitution, he endeavors to show that the American interpretation was the most logical. First of all, he declares that, by its Commonwealth Act of 1649, the English Parliament unconstitutionally assumed for itself authority which had previously been vested solely in the Crown; the jurisdiction over British territories outside the realm. Although no active opposition to this doctrine was raised in American at the time, neither did the colonists every! give their consent to government by Parliament rather than by the Crown. From this fact, Professor Mcllwaine argues that the English Parliament never had any legal authority over the colonies, which, upon the restoration of Charles II, reverted to the Crown. Hence the acts of the American patriots, and particularly of the Continental Congress, previous to May, 1776, were in no way revolutionary, but were protests on the grounds of constitutionally against the unconstitutional usurpation of power by the English Parliament.

Case Open to Attack

Professor Mcllwaine makes out a very good case, but one that is in many, places open to attack. His Irish analogy, for example, is somewhat strained in places. He passes over with scant attention the imperiousness and contempt of George III for the colonies. He does not emphasize the fact that the colonial struggle was one phase of the general struggle throughout the British possessions for representative self-government, was, as Professor Hart puts it (Formation of the Union) "a part of the struggle between popular and autocratic principles of government in England". In short, Professor Mcllwaine's interpretation is very interesting and suggestive, but not wholly convincing. Nevertheless it is an interpretation that is well worth weighing, and the book is one that will amply repay careful study. The whole matter of the why and wherefores of the American Revolution is so complex that probably no single interpretation will ever gain undisputed authority among historians, and the present study is one that cannot be neglected by any, careful student of the constitutional origins of this country.