210:
avoid iniquity and absurdity, have been explained—the inhabitants of the colonies are, as such, incapable of being electors, the privilege of election being exerciseable only in person, and therefore if every inhabitant of
America had the requisite freehold, not one could vote, but upon the supposition of his ceasing to be an inhabitant of America, and becoming a resident of Great-Britain, a supposition which would be impertinent, because it shifts the question—should the colonies not be taxed by parliamentary impositions, their respective legislatures have a regular, adequate, and constitutional authority to tax them, and, therefore, there would not necessarily be an iniquitous and absurd exemption, from their not being represented by the House of Commons. There is not that intimate and inseparable relation between the electors of Great-Britain, and the inhabitants of the colonies, which must inevitably involve both in the same taxation; on the contrary, not a single actual elector in England might be immediately affected by a taxation in America, imposed by a statute which would have a general operation and effect, upon the properties of the inhabitants of the colonies. The latter might be oppressed in a thousand shapes, without any sympathy, or exciting any alarm in the former. Moreover, even acts, oppressive and injurious to the colonies in an extreme degree, might become popular in England, from the promise or expectation, that the very measures which depressed the colonies, would give ease to the inhabitants of Great-Britain.
262:. They suggest the call for "No taxation without representation" and proposal of the inclusion of American representatives within Parliament, had they actually been implemented, would have encouraged coalition building between Americans and the British opposition (which was opposed to the dominant elite), disrupting the power of the incumbent landed gentry (who made up the elite). Through game theoretic models, Galiani and Torrens show that, once in Parliament, Americans could not feasibly commit to political alliances independent of the British opposition. As a result, mounting pressure for democratic reform would increase, posing a threat to the established British political order. Galiani and Torrens argue that British elites would incur greater losses to their domestic clout from American representation than from simply forfeiting a colony. The implications of forfeiting virtual representation forced the British elite, which dominated the government, to decide between maintaining the rule of the American colonies, which in their minds was infeasible, and engaging in war.
228:
act of parliament, is it not much harder to be in part, or in whole, disfranchised of rights, that have been always thought inherent to a
British subject, namely, to be free from all taxes, but what he consents to in person, or by his representative? This right, if it could be traced no higher than Magna Charta, is part of the common law, part of a British subjects birthright, and as inherent and perpetual, as the duty of allegiance; both which have been brought to these colonies, and have been hitherto held sacred and inviolable, and I hope and trust ever will. It is humbly conceived, that the British colonists (except only the conquered, if any) are, by Magna Charta, as well entitled to have a voice in their taxes, as the subjects within the realm. Are we not as really deprived of that right, by the parliament assessing us before we are represented in the house of commons, as if the King should do it by his prerogative? Can it be said with any colour of truth or justice, that we are represented in parliament?
164:
commodities imported; that duty is added to the first cost and other charges on the commodity, and, when it is offered for sale, makes a part of the price. If the people do not like it at that price, they refuse it; they are not obliged to pay it. But an internal tax is forced from the people without their consent if not laid by their own representatives. The Stamp Act says we shall have no commerce, make no exchange of property with each other, neither purchase nor grant, nor recover debts; we shall neither marry nor make our wills, unless we pay such and such sums; and thus it is intended to extort our money from us or ruin us by the consequence of refusing to pay it." James Otis Jr. reasoned that the legal liberties of
British subjects meant that Parliament should, or could, only tax the colonists if they were
250:, along with other colonial delegates. The resolutions of the Congress stated that the Stamp Act had "a manifest tendency to subvert the rights and liberties of the colonists" and that "the only Representatives of the People of these Colonies, are Persons chosen therein by themselves, and that no Taxes ever have been, or can be Constitutionally imposed on them, but by their respective Legislature." Furthermore, it was declared that, "it is unreasonable and inconsistent with the Principles and Spirit of the British Constitution, for the People of Great-Britain, to grant to his Majesty the Property of the Colonists."
27:
155:, in any county in this kingdom? Would to God that respectable representation was 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 can not continue a century. If it does not drop, it must be amputated.
187:. The colonial electorate perhaps consisted of 10% to 20% of the total population, or 75% of adult males. In Britain, by contrast, representation was highly limited due to unequally distributed voting constituencies and property requirements; only 3% of the population, or between 17% and 23% of males, could vote and they were often controlled by local gentry.
151:
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...There is an idea in some that the colonies are virtually represented in the House. I would fain know by whom an American is represented here. Is he represented by any
160:
taxed by
Parliament till it was incorporated. Pitt pointed out that, unlike the "India company, merchants, stockholders, manufacturers" who "have it in their option to be actually represented...have connections with those that elect, and...have influence over them," the colonists had no such option, connections or influence.
190:
As virtual representation was founded on "a defect in the
Constitution of England," namely, the "Want of a Full Representation of all the People of England," it was, therefore, a pernicious notion that had been fabricated for the sole purpose of arguing the colonists "out of their civil Rights." The
150:
It is my opinion, that this kingdom has no right to lay a tax upon the colonies...The taxes are a voluntary gift and grant of the
Commons alone...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
227:
When the parliament shall think fit to allow the colonists a representation in the house of commons, the equity of their taxing the colonies, will be as clear as their power is at present of doing it without, if they please...But if it was thought hard that charter privileges should be taken away by
214:
Dulany Jr. also wrote that, "the
Impropriety of a Taxation by the British Parliament... the Fact, that not one inhabitant in any Colony is, or can be actually or virtually represented by the British House of Commons." Dulany Jr. denied that Parliament had a right "to impose an internal Tax upon the
209:
The situation of the non-electors in
England—their capacity to become electors — their inseparable connection with those who are electors, and their representatives—their security against oppression resulting from this connection, and the necessity of imagining a double or virtual representation, to
159:
Pitt then stated to
Parliament that, "I myself would have cited the two cases of Chester and Durham...to show that, even under former arbitrary reigns, Parliaments were ashamed of taxing a people without their consent, and allowed them representatives... higher example in Wales—Wales that never was
270:
Cannon argues that for 18th- and 19th-century Britain "the doctrine of virtual representation was no more than a polite fiction. Indeed the assertion that there were no fundamental differences of interest between rich and poor is hard to reconcile with the determination of the upper classes to
163:
Benjamin Franklin told the House of Commons that, "I know that whenever taxation has occurred in conversation where I have been present, it has appeared to be the opinion of every one that we could not be taxed by a Parliament wherein we were not represented...An external tax is a duty laid on
122:, attempted to explicitly articulate a theory that could justify the lack of representation in colonial taxation. Grenville and Whately's theory, known as "virtual representation" put forth that, just like the vast majority of British citizens who could not vote, the colonists were nonetheless
102:, colonists argued, taxes could be levied on British subjects only with their consent. Because the colonists were represented only in their provincial assemblies, they said, only those legislatures could levy taxes in the colonies. This concept was famously expressed as "
146:, a defender of colonial rights, ridiculed virtual representation, calling it "the most contemptible idea that ever entered into the head of a man; it does not deserve serious refutation." Pitt said to the House of Commons in 1766,
201:
191:
colonists, and some Britons, consequently condemned the idea of virtual representation as "a sham". Moreover, the poor state of representation in Britain "was no excuse for taxing the colonists without their consent."
130:
in Parliament, a position that had critics on both sides of the British Empire. Parliament rejected any criticism that virtual representation was constitutionally invalid as a whole, and passed the
58:, reserved the right to speak for the interests of all British subjects, rather than for the interests of only the district that elected them or for the regions in which they held peerages and
142:
The idea of virtual representation "found little support on either side of the Atlantic" as a means of solving the constitutional controversy between colonists and Britons.
463:"II. On the Right to Tax America by William Pitt, Earl of Chatham. Great Britain: I. (710-1777). Vol. III. Bryan, William Jennings, ed. 1906. The World's Famous Orations"
484:"I. His Examination Before the House of Commons by Benjamin Franklin. America: I. (1761-1837). Vol. VIII. Bryan, William Jennings, ed. 1906. The World's Famous Orations"
258:
Sebastian Galiani and Gustavo Torrens propose that virtual representation imposed a dilemma on the British elite, which had a direct influence on the outbreak of the
670:
Considerations on the propriety of imposing taxes in the British colonies, for the purpose of raising a revenue, by act of parliament [by D. Dulany]
205:, Daniel Dulany Jr. of Maryland likewise observed that attempting to tax subjects on the inequitable basis of "virtual" representation was unsound because,
845:
558:
74:, also known as the first Olive Branch Petition. Parliament claimed that their members had the well being of the colonists in mind. The
647:"Considerations on the Propriety of Imposing Taxes in the British Colonies, for the Purpose of Raising a Revenue, by Act of Parliament"
103:
703:
Considerations on the propriety of imposing taxes in the British colonies, for the purpose of raising a revenue, by act of parliament
504:
809:
711:
678:
624:
536:
422:
389:
353:
311:
143:
30:
Virtual Representative (standing, clad in brown) gives the Government (with blunderbuss) permission to rob a colonist. Catholic
583:
559:"Rhetorical Process in Eighteenth-Century England British public address ideology liberalism open/closed political structures"
75:
180:
95:
67:
259:
63:
923:
280:
646:
928:
381:
Liberty and Property: Political Ideology in Eighteenth-century Britain - H. T. Dickinson - Google Books
528:
The Varieties of Political Experience in Eighteenth-Century America - Richard R. Beeman - Google Books
99:
126:
represented in Parliament. Thus Grenville defended all the taxes by arguing that the colonists were
152:
87:
55:
20:
918:
886:
878:
247:
134:
in 1766, asserting the right of Parliament to legislate for the colonies "all cases whatsoever."
562:
26:
861:
Langford, Paul (1988). "Property and 'Virtual Representation' in Eighteenth-Century England".
841:
805:
707:
674:
620:
532:
418:
385:
349:
307:
172:
91:
701:
668:
870:
778:
115:
71:
131:
748:
727:
184:
119:
59:
912:
890:
51:
323:
835:
799:
614:
526:
412:
379:
343:
301:
874:
39:
749:"Avalon Project - Resolutions of the Continental Congress October 19, 1765"
505:"BRIA 8 1 b Who Voted in Early America? - Constitutional Rights Foundation"
246:
In 1765 Otis Jr. attended the Continental Congress, otherwise known as the
98:
because the colonies were not represented in Parliament. According to the
445:
The Founding of a Nation: A History of the American Revolution, 1763–1776
202:
Considerations on the Propriety of Imposing Taxes in the British Colonies
176:
16:
Concept that UK parliamentarians spoke on behalf of all imperial subjects
771:"Why Not Taxation and Representation? A Note on the American Revolution"
483:
462:
882:
414:
Recreating the American Republic - Charles A. Kromkowski - Google Books
35:
31:
215:
Colonies, without their consent for the single Purpose of Revenue."
783:
770:
613:
Boyer, P.; Clark, C.; Halttunen, K.; Hawley, S.; Kett, J. (2012).
283:, American agreement on how to represent and tax the slave states
223:
In 1764, the Massachusetts politician James Otis Jr. said that,
616:
The Enduring Vision: A History of the American People, Concise
584:"Exhibitions | Citizenship | Struggle for democracy"
303:
The Useful Cobbler: Edmund Burke and the Politics of Progress
19:
For the usage in representation theory in mathematics, see
457:
455:
453:
62:. Virtual representation was the British response to the
899:
The House of Lords in the Age of George III (1760–1811)
732:
The rights of the British colonies asserted and proved
743:
741:
769:
Galiani, Sebastian; Torrens, Gustavo (October 2016).
345:
The Constitutional Origins of the American Revolution
447:(New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 240–41.
337:
335:
333:
531:. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 22.
271:reserve political power for men of substance."
225:
148:
94:rejected legislation imposed upon them by the
70:asked for representation in Parliament in the
171:At the time of the American Revolution, only
8:
905:(Oct 2009) Supplement 1, Vol. 28, pp 363–385
417:. Cambridge University Press. p. 126.
114:During the winter of 1764–1765, British MP
348:. Cambridge University Press. p. 71.
782:
373:
371:
25:
292:
78:in the Colonies rejected this premise.
7:
561:. Mcgeefragments.net. Archived from
235:Rights of British Colonies Asserted
199:In his influential 1765 pamphlet,
104:No taxation without representation
14:
619:. Cengage Learning. p. 106.
179:were directly represented in the
411:Kromkowski, Charles A. (2002).
837:Parliamentary Reform 1640-1832
801:Parliamentary Reform 1640-1832
66:in the American colonies. The
54:, including the Lords and the
42:approaches a pit. 1775 cartoon
1:
586:. The National Archives. 1832
834:Cannon, John Ashton (1973).
775:NBER Working Paper No. 22724
183:among the many parts of the
82:American War of Independence
50:was that the members of the
840:. CUP Archive. p. 32.
804:. CUP Archive. p. 32.
798:John Ashton Cannon (1973).
706:. Jonas Green. p. 34.
673:. Jonas Green. p. 14.
525:Beeman, Richard R. (2006).
306:. SUNY Press. p. 158.
181:Parliament of Great Britain
96:Parliament of Great Britain
86:In the early stages of the
68:Second Continental Congress
945:
901:(2009) ch 16 reprinted in
260:American Revolutionary War
64:First Continental Congress
18:
875:10.1017/S0018246X00012000
378:Dickinson, H. T. (1977).
34:enjoys peace, Protestant
384:. Methuen. p. 218.
254:Rationalist explanations
300:Conniff, James (1994).
281:Three-fifths Compromise
242:The Stamp Act Congress
239:
212:
157:
48:virtual representation
43:
903:Parliamentary History
897:McCahill, Michael W.
751:. avalon.law.yale.edu
342:Greene, J.P. (2010).
207:
128:virtually represented
29:
266:19th-century Britain
166:actually represented
118:and his lieutenant,
100:British constitution
700:Dulani, D. (1765).
667:Dulany, D. (1765).
153:knight of the shire
90:, colonists in the
88:American Revolution
56:Crown-in-Parliament
38:burns, and blinded
21:representation ring
863:Historical Journal
248:Stamp Act Congress
44:
847:978-0-521-09736-9
195:Daniel Dulany Jr.
173:England and Wales
92:Thirteen Colonies
936:
894:
857:
855:
854:
822:
821:
819:
818:
795:
789:
788:
786:
766:
760:
759:
757:
756:
745:
736:
735:
724:
718:
717:
697:
691:
690:
688:
687:
664:
658:
657:
655:
654:
643:
637:
636:
634:
633:
610:
604:
601:
595:
594:
592:
591:
580:
574:
573:
571:
570:
555:
549:
548:
546:
545:
522:
516:
515:
513:
512:
501:
495:
494:
492:
491:
480:
474:
473:
471:
470:
459:
448:
443:Merrill Jensen,
441:
435:
434:
432:
431:
408:
402:
401:
399:
398:
375:
366:
365:
363:
362:
339:
328:
327:
321:
320:
297:
237:
168:in Westminster.
116:George Grenville
72:Suffolk Resolves
944:
943:
939:
938:
937:
935:
934:
933:
909:
908:
860:
852:
850:
848:
833:
830:
828:Further reading
825:
816:
814:
812:
797:
796:
792:
768:
767:
763:
754:
752:
747:
746:
739:
726:
725:
721:
714:
699:
698:
694:
685:
683:
681:
666:
665:
661:
652:
650:
645:
644:
640:
631:
629:
627:
612:
611:
607:
602:
598:
589:
587:
582:
581:
577:
568:
566:
557:
556:
552:
543:
541:
539:
524:
523:
519:
510:
508:
503:
502:
498:
489:
487:
482:
481:
477:
468:
466:
461:
460:
451:
442:
438:
429:
427:
425:
410:
409:
405:
396:
394:
392:
377:
376:
369:
360:
358:
356:
341:
340:
331:
318:
316:
314:
299:
298:
294:
290:
277:
268:
256:
244:
238:
232:
221:
197:
140:
132:Declaratory Act
112:
84:
46:The concept of
24:
17:
12:
11:
5:
942:
940:
932:
931:
926:
924:Constituencies
921:
911:
910:
907:
906:
895:
858:
846:
829:
826:
824:
823:
810:
790:
784:10.3386/w22724
761:
737:
719:
712:
692:
679:
659:
638:
625:
605:
596:
575:
550:
537:
517:
496:
486:. bartleby.com
475:
465:. bartleby.com
449:
436:
423:
403:
390:
367:
354:
329:
312:
291:
289:
286:
285:
284:
276:
273:
267:
264:
255:
252:
243:
240:
230:
220:
219:James Otis Jr.
217:
196:
193:
185:British Empire
139:
136:
120:Thomas Whately
111:
108:
83:
80:
60:spiritual sway
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
941:
930:
929:Voting theory
927:
925:
922:
920:
917:
916:
914:
904:
900:
896:
892:
888:
884:
880:
876:
872:
869:(1): 83–115.
868:
864:
859:
849:
843:
839:
838:
832:
831:
827:
813:
811:9780521097369
807:
803:
802:
794:
791:
785:
780:
776:
772:
765:
762:
750:
744:
742:
738:
733:
729:
723:
720:
715:
713:9780608426686
709:
705:
704:
696:
693:
682:
680:9780608426686
676:
672:
671:
663:
660:
649:. oberlin.edu
648:
642:
639:
628:
626:9781111838256
622:
618:
617:
609:
606:
600:
597:
585:
579:
576:
565:on 2013-05-15
564:
560:
554:
551:
540:
538:9780812201215
534:
530:
529:
521:
518:
507:. Crf-usa.org
506:
500:
497:
485:
479:
476:
464:
458:
456:
454:
450:
446:
440:
437:
426:
424:9781139435789
420:
416:
415:
407:
404:
393:
391:9780416729306
387:
383:
382:
374:
372:
368:
357:
355:9781139492935
351:
347:
346:
338:
336:
334:
330:
325:
315:
313:0-7914-1843-X
309:
305:
304:
296:
293:
287:
282:
279:
278:
274:
272:
265:
263:
261:
253:
251:
249:
241:
236:
229:
224:
218:
216:
211:
206:
204:
203:
194:
192:
188:
186:
182:
178:
174:
169:
167:
161:
156:
154:
147:
145:
137:
135:
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
109:
107:
105:
101:
97:
93:
89:
81:
79:
77:
73:
69:
65:
61:
57:
53:
52:UK Parliament
49:
41:
37:
33:
28:
22:
902:
898:
866:
862:
851:. Retrieved
836:
815:. Retrieved
800:
793:
774:
764:
753:. Retrieved
731:
722:
702:
695:
684:. Retrieved
669:
662:
651:. Retrieved
641:
630:. Retrieved
615:
608:
603:Miller p 212
599:
588:. Retrieved
578:
567:. Retrieved
563:the original
553:
542:. Retrieved
527:
520:
509:. Retrieved
499:
488:. Retrieved
478:
467:. Retrieved
444:
439:
428:. Retrieved
413:
406:
395:. Retrieved
380:
359:. Retrieved
344:
324:Google Books
322:– via
317:. Retrieved
302:
295:
269:
257:
245:
234:
233:James Otis,
226:
222:
213:
208:
200:
198:
189:
170:
165:
162:
158:
149:
144:William Pitt
141:
127:
123:
113:
85:
47:
45:
728:Otis, James
110:Development
913:Categories
853:2015-01-07
817:2015-01-07
755:2015-01-07
686:2015-01-07
653:2015-01-07
632:2015-01-07
590:2015-01-07
569:2013-09-07
544:2015-01-07
511:2013-09-07
490:2015-01-07
469:2015-01-07
430:2015-01-07
397:2015-01-07
361:2015-01-07
319:2015-01-07
288:References
919:Democracy
891:145169476
124:virtually
40:Britannia
275:See also
231:—
177:Scotland
138:Reaction
76:patriots
883:2639238
889:
881:
844:
808:
710:
677:
623:
535:
421:
388:
352:
310:
36:Boston
32:Quebec
887:S2CID
879:JSTOR
842:ISBN
806:ISBN
708:ISBN
675:ISBN
621:ISBN
533:ISBN
419:ISBN
386:ISBN
350:ISBN
308:ISBN
175:and
871:doi
779:doi
106:".
915::
885:.
877:.
867:31
865:.
777:.
773:.
740:^
730:.
452:^
370:^
332:^
893:.
873::
856:.
820:.
787:.
781::
758:.
734:.
716:.
689:.
656:.
635:.
593:.
572:.
547:.
514:.
493:.
472:.
433:.
400:.
364:.
326:.
23:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
