thought inherent to a British subject, mainly, 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 subject's 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. The sum of my argument is, that civil government is of God, that the administrators of it were originally the whole people: . . . that this constitution is the most free one, and by far the best, now existing on earth; that by this constitution, every man in the dominion is a free man; that no parts of his Majesty's dominions can be taxed without his consent; that every part has a right to be represented in the supreme or some subordinate legislature: that a refusal of this would seem to be a contradiction in practice to the theory of the constitution: that the colonies are subordinate dominions, and are now in such a state, as to make it best for the good of the whole, that they should not only be continued in the enjoyment of subordinate legislation, but be also represented in some proportion to their numbers and estates in the grand legislation of the nation; that this would firmly unite all parts of the British empire in the greatest peace and prosperity, and render it invulnerable and perpetual.

JAMES OTIS, The Rights of the British Colonies. 65-67.

SIR WILLIAM KEITH (1767)

Reasons, humbly offered in Support of the above Proposal to extend the Duties on Stampt Paper and Parchment all over the British Plantations. The author of the above proposal disclaims all views of depriving the British subjects in the plantations of any of those rights and privileges which are derived to them as natural-born subjects of Great Britain; but on the other hand, he cannot consider that part of his Majesty's subjects abroad to be invested with any sort of rights or privileges, that are of

a higher and more independent Nature than what their bretheren of Great-Britain can claim at home. . . . He conceives that the subjects there are under no other Supreme Legislature but that of Great Britain; in so much that every subject in America as often as his occasions require, has an indubitable right to make his humble application to a British Parliament where he virtually conceives himself to be truly represented; because the common interest of the British State of Commonwealth most certainly includes the subjects of America, equally with those of every other part of the Dominion, and so we find it to be understood by the Tenor of the famous Act of Navigation, as well as other restrictive acts relating to commerce and the public revenue.

SIR WILLIAM KEITH, Subject of Taxing the British Colonists in America, pamphlet.

DOCTOR TUCKER'S "LETTER " (1774)

Indeed it has been my constant remark, that when men were at a loss for solid arguments and matters of fact, in their political disputes, they then had recourse to the spirit of the constitution as to their last shift, and the only thing to say. An American, for example, now insists, that according to the spirit of the English Constitutions, he ought not to be taxed without his own consent, given either by himself or by a representative in Parliament chosen by himself. Why ought he not? The constitution says no such thing. But the spirit of it doth; and that is as good, perhaps better. Very well; see then how the same spirit will presently wheel about and assert a doctrine quite repugnant to the claims and positions of you Americans. Magna Charta, for example, is the great foundation of English liberties, and the basis of the English Constitution. But by the spirit of Magna Charta, all taxes laid on by Parliament are constitutional, legal taxes.

Now remember... that the late Tax of Duties upon stamps was laid on by Parliament and therefore according to your own way of reasoning must have been a regular constitutional tax. . . . So that if you will now plead the spirit of Magna Charta against the jurisdiction of Parliament you will plead Magna Charta against itself.

DR. JOSIAH TUCKER, Letter from a Merchant in London to his Nephew in America. 11

EDMUND BURKE (1774)

I propose, by removing the ground of the difference and by restoring the former unsuspecting confidence of the colonies in the mother country, to give permanent satisfaction to your people, and (far from a scheme of ruling by discord) to reconcile them to each other in the same act, and by the bond of the very same interest which reconciles them to British Government. . . .

...

If we adopt this mode; if we mean to conciliate and concede; let us see of what nature the concession ought to be: to ascertain the nature of our concession we must look at their complaint. The colonies complain that they have not the characteristic mark and seal of British freedom. They complain, that they are taxed in a parliament in which they are not represented. If you mean to satisfy them at all, you must satisfy them with regard to this complaint. If you mean to please any people, you must give them the boon which they ask; not what you may think better for them, but of a kind totally different. Such an act may be a wise regulation, but it is no concession.

My idea, therefore, without considering whether we yield as matter of right, or grant as matter of favour, is, to admit the people of our colonies into an interest in the constitution; and, by recording that admission in the journals of parliament, to give them as strong an assurance as the nature of the thing will admit, that we mean forever to adhere to that solemn declaration of systematic indulgence. . . .

I . . . wish you to recognize, for the theory, the ancient constitutional policy of this kingdom with regard to representation, as that policy has been declared in Acts of Parliament; and, as to practice, to return to that mode which a uniform experience has marked out to you as best; and in which you walked with security, advantage, and honour until the year 1763.

My resolutions therefore mean to establish the equity and justice of a taxation of America, by grant, and not by imposition; . . . and to acknowledge that experience has shown the benefits of their grants, and the futility of parliamentary taxation as a method of supply.

EDMUND BURKE, Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies. Burke's Works, II. 21-60.

WILLIAM PITT (1774)

This, my Lords, though no new doctrine, has always been my received and unalterable opinion, and I will carry it to my grave, that this country had no right under heaven to tax America. It is contrary to all the principles of Justice and civil polity, which neither the exigencies of the State, nor even an acquiescence in the taxes, could justify upon any occasion whatever. Such proceedings will never meet their wished-for success; and instead of adding to their miseries, as the bill now before you most undoubtedly does, adopt some lenient measures which may lure them to their duty; proceed like a kind and affectionate parent over a child whom he tenderly loves, and instead of those harsh and severe proceedings, pass an amnesty on all their youthful errors, clasp them once more in your fond and affectionate arms; and I will venture to affirm you will find these children worthy of their sire. But should their turbulence exist after your professed terms of forgiveness, which I hope and expect this house will immediately adopt, I will be among the foremost of your Lordships to move for such measures as will effectually prevent a future relapse, and make them feel what it is to provoke a fond and forgiving parent! a parent, my Lords, whose welfare has been my greatest and most pleasing consolation. This declaration may seem unnecessary; but I will venture to declare, the period is not far distant, when she will want the assistance of her most distant friends; but should the all-disposing hand of Providence prevent me from affording her my poor assistance, my prayers shall be ever for her welfare. Length of days be in her right hand, and in her left riches and honour : may her ways be the ways of pleasantness, and all her paths be peace! †

WILLIAM PITT, EARL OF CHATHAM'S Speech in the House of Lords, 27th day of May, 1774. Chatham's Works, XLI. 292.

The bill for "Quartering Soldiers" was passed, notwithstanding the eloquence of Pitt.

JOURNALS OF CONGRESS (1775)

Benjamin Franklin, Arthur Lee, agents, dated, London, February 5th, 1775. We think it proper to inform you, that your cause was well defended by a considerable number of good and wise men in both houses of parliament, though far from being a majority: and that many of the commercial and manufacturing parts of the nation, concerned in the American trade, have presented, or, as we understand, are preparing to present, petitions to parliament, declaring their great concern, for the present unhappy controversies with America, and praying expressly, or in effect, for healing measures, as the proper means of preserving their commerce, now greatly suffering or endangered.

WILLIAM BOLLEN, Journals of Congress (May, 1775). I. 75, 76.

CRITICAL COMMENT

MACAULAY (1844)

Grenville proposed a measure destined to produce a great revolution, the effects of which will long be felt by the whole human race.

We speak of the act for imposing stamp duties on the North American colonies. . . . The Stamp Act will be remembered as long as the globe lasts. . .

In the meantime, every mail from America brought alarming tidings. The crop which Grenville had sown, his successors had now to reap. The colonies were in a state bordering on rebellion. The stamps were burned. The revenue officers were tarred and feathered. All traffic between the discontented provinces and the mother country was interrupted. . . . The Stamp was indefensible, not because it was beyond constitutional competence of Parliament, but because it was unjust and impolitic, sterile of revenue, and fertile of discontents.

T. B. MACAULAY, The Earl of Chatham (Ed. Rev., Oct. 1844).

CHAMBERLAIN (1887)

When the Stamp Act Congress met in New York, October 7th, 1765, that city was the headquarters of the British forces