and commercial advantages were, for upwards of a century, nearly the sole benefit which England recognized in the possession of her colonies. 1

Taxes and

mon to de

In all ages, taxes and tribute had been characteristic incidents of a dependency. The subject provinces of tribute com- Asiatic monarchies, in ancient and modern times, pendencies. had been despoiled by the rapacity of satraps and pashas, and the greed of the central government. The Greek colonies, which resembled those of England more than any other dependencies of antiquity, were forced to send contributions to the treasury of the parent state. Carthage exacted tribute from her subject towns and territories. The Roman provinces "paid tribute unto Cæsar." In modern times, Spain received tribute from her European dependencies, and a revenue from the gold and silver mines of her American colonies. It was also the policy of France, Holland, and Portugal to derive a revenue from their settlements.2

English colonies free from imperial taxation.

-

But England, satisfied with the colonial trade, by which her subjects at home were enriched, imposed upon them alone all the burdens of the state. Her costly wars, the interest of her increasing debt, her naval and military establishments, adequate for the defence of a widespread empire, were all maintained by the dominant country herself. James II. would have levied taxes upon the colonists of Massachusetts; but was assured by Sir William Jones that he could no more "levy money without their consent in an assembly, than they could discharge themselves from their allegiance."4 Fifty years later, the shrewd instinct of

Arguments in favor of taxation.

1 Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, book iv. ch. 7.

2 Sir G. Lewis on the Government of Dependencies, 99, 101, 106, 112. 124, 189, 149, 211, et seq.; Adam Smith, book iv. ch. 7; Raynal, Livres i. ii. vi.-ix. xii. xiii.

8"The English Colonists have never yet contributed anything towards the defence of the mother country, or towards the support of its civil government." Adam Smith, book iv. ch. 7.

4 Grahame's Hist. of the United States, i. 366.

2

Sir Robert Walpole revolted against a similar attempt.' But at length, in an evil hour, it was resolved by George III. and his minister Mr. Grenville, that the American colonies should be required to contribute to the general revenues of the government. This new principle was apparently recommended by many considerations of justice and expediency. Much of the national debt had been incurred in defence of the colonies, and in wars for the common cause of the whole empire. Other states had been accustomed to enrich themselves by the taxation of their dependencies; and why was England alone to abstain from so natural a source of revenue? If the colonies were to be exempt from the common burdens of the empire, why should England care to defend them in war, or incur charges for them in time of peace? The benefits of the connection were reciprocal; why, then, should the burdens be all on one side? Nor, assuming the equity of imperial taxation, did it seem beyond the competence of Parliament to establish it. The omnipotence of Parliament was a favorite theory of lawyers; and for a century and a half, the force of British statutes had been acknowledged without question, in every matter concerning the government of the colonies.

No charters exempted colonists from the sovereignty of the parent state, in matters of taxation; nor were there wanting precedents, in which they had submitted to imperial imposts without remonstrance. In carrying out a restrictive commercial policy, Parliament had passed numerous acts providing for the levy of colonial import and export duties. Such duties, from their very nature, were unproductive,imposing restraints upon trade, and offering encouragements to smuggling. They were designed for commercial regulation rather than revenue; but were collected by the king's

1 Walpole's Mem., ii. 70. "I have Old England set against me," he said, by the excise scheme, -"do you think I will have New England likewise?"-Core's Life, i. 123.

2 Wraxall's Mem., ii. 111; Nichols' Recoll., i. 205; Bancroft's Amer. Rev., iii. 307.

8 Adam Smith, book iv. ch. 7; Walpole's Mem., ii. 71.

officers, and payable into the Exchequer. The state had further levied postage duties within the colonies.1

Arguments

side.

But these considerations were outweighed by reasons on the other side. Granting that the war expendion the other ture of the mother country had been increased by reason of her colonies, who was responsible for European wars and costly armaments? Not the colonies, which had no voice in the government, but their English rulers, who held in their hands the destinies of the empire. And if the English treasury had suffered, in defence of the colonies; the colonists had taxed themselves heavily for protection against the foes of the mother country, with whom they had no quarrel. But, apart from the equity of the claim, was it properly within the jurisdiction of Parliament to enforce it? The colonists might be induced to grant a contribution, but could Parliament constitutionally impose at tax, without their consent? True, that this imperial legislature could make laws for the government of the colonies; but taxation formed a marked exception to general legisla tion. According to the principles, traditions, and usage of the constitution, taxes were granted by the people, through their representatives. This privilege had been recognized for centuries, in the parent state; and the colonists had cherished it with traditional veneration, in the country of their adoption. They had taxed themselves, for local objects, through their own representatives; they had responded to requisitions from the Crown for money; but never, until now, had it been sought to tax them directly, for imperial purposes, by the authority of Parliament.

A statesman imbued with the free spirit of our constitution could not have failed to recognize these overruling prin1 Evidence of Dr. Franklin, 1766; Parl. Hist., xvi. 143; Stedman's Hist. of the American War., 10, 44; Rights of Great Britain Asserted, 102; Adolphus Hist., i. 145; Bancroft's Hist. of the American Revolution, ii. 260, et seq.; Dr. Johnson's Taxation no Tyranny, Works, xii. 177; Speech of Lord Mansfield, Jan. 1766; Parl. Hist., xvi. 166; Burke's Speech on American Taxation, 1774, Works, ii. 380; Speech of Governor Pownall, Nov. 16th, 1775; Parl. Hist., xviii. 984.

2 Dr. Franklin's Ev., Parl. Hist., xvi. 139.

ciples. He would have seen, that if it were fit that the colonies should contribute to the imperial treasury, it was for the Crown to demand their contributions through the governors; and for the colonial legislatures to grant them. But neither the king nor his minister were alive to these principles. The one was too conscious of kingly power, to measure nicely the rights of his subjects; and the other was blinded by a pedantic reverence for the authority of Parliament.1

In 1764, an act was passed, with little discussion, imposing customs duties upon several articles imported into The Stamp the American colonies, the produce of these Act, 1765. duties being reserved for the defence of the colonies themselves.2 At the same time, the Commons passed a resolution, that "it may be proper to charge certain stamp duties" in America, as the foundation of future legislation. The colonists, accustomed to perpetual interference with their trade, did not dispute the right of the mother country to tax their imports; but they resolved to evade the impost, as far as possible, by the encouragement of native manufactures. The threatened stamp act, however, they immediately denounced as an invasion of the rights of Englishmen, who could not be taxed otherwise than by their representatives. But, deaf to their remonstrances, Mr. Grenville, in the next session, persisted in his stamp bill. It attracted little notice in this country; the people could bear with complacency the taxation of others; and never was there a Parliament more indifferent to constitutional principles and popular rights. The colonists, however, and their agents in this country, remonstrated against the proposal.

1 Walpole's Mem., ii 70, 220; Bancroft's Hist. of American Revolution, ii. 88.

24 Geo. III. c. 15. Mr. Bancroft regards a measure, introduced by Mr. Townshend in the previous session, for lowering some of the prohibitory duties, and making them productive, as the commencement of the plan for the taxation of America; but that measure merely dealt with existing duties. It was not until 1764, that any new issue was raised with the colonies. Hist. of American Revolution, ii. 102.

3 March 10th, 1764. Parl. Hist. xv. 1427; Grahame's Hist., iv. 179

note

Their opinion had been invited by ministers; and, that it might be expressed, a year's delay had been agreed upon. Yet when they petitioned against the bill, the Commons refused to entertain their petitions, under a rule, by no means binding on their discretion, which excluded petitions against a tax proposed for the service of the year. An arbitrary temper and narrow pedantry prevailed over justice and sound policy. Unrepresented communities were to be taxed, -even without a hearing. The bill was passed with little opposition; but the colonists combined to resist its execution. Mr. Pitt had been ill in bed when the stamp act was passed; but no sooner were the discontents in America brought into discussion than he condemned taxation without representation, and counselled the immediate repeal of the obnoxious act. "When in this House," he said, give and grant, we 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." At the same time, he proposed to save the honor of England by an act declaratory of the general legislative authority of Parliament over the colonies. Rockingham, who had succeeded Mr. Grenville, alarmed by the unanimity and violence of the colonists, readily caught Repeal of the at Mr. Pitt's suggestion. The stamp act was repealed, notwithstanding the obstinate resistance of the king, and his friends, and of Mr. Grenville and the supporters of the late ministry. Mr. Pitt had desired ex

stamp act.

66 we

Lord

1 This monstrous rule, or usage, which set at nought the right of petition on the most important matters of public concern, dates from the Rev olution; and was not relinquished until 1842. - Hatsell, Prec., iii. 226; May's Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 486.

2 Parl. Hist., xvii. 34. We might as well have hindered the sun's setting," wrote Franklin.. Bancroft, ii. 281.

3 Parl. Hist., xvi. 93; Life of Lord Chatham, i. 427.

4 Walpole's Mem., ii. 258, 285, &c.; Rockingham Mem., i. 291-295; ü 250, 294.