Colonial protests.

Analysis of the act.

"No taxation without

representation."

method of taxation by Parliament, or, perhaps, might vote the necessary funds. Grenville did not believe that the colonists would protest against being taxed by Parliament; but this was precisely what they did. Assembly after assembly petitioned in vigorous language against the proposed measure, but these petitions were not even received by the House of Commons. The act levying stamp duties was brought in and passed without serious opposition, and received the king's assent in March, 1765.

121. The Stamp Act. — The act in itself was on the same line as a law in force in Britain at that time, and in principle was not unlike a stamp act passed by the Massachusetts legislature in 1755 legal documents and official papers were to be written on stamped paper, and a stamp was to be placed on several articles, such as printed books, newspapers, and playing cards; the ordinary business papers. and receipts for money paid were not included, and the measure was less severe in its operation than the law at present in force in Great Britain. It was not intended to draw the money thus raised to England, but to expend it in America in the purchase of food and other supplies for the soldiers. The evil feature of the act as a law was that persons accused of offenses under it might not enjoy the benefits of trial by jury, at the discretion of the prosecuting officer. The Stamp Act was opposed in America, not on its merits as a piece of legislation, but on the ground that "no taxation without representation" was one of the leading maxims of the Constitution of the British Empire and one of the most important rights of the American colonists as Englishmen. It will be well to consider this matter in detail, as the difference in constitutional ideas which appeared at this time was the fundamental cause of the splitting apart of the British nation and of the founding of the Republic of the United States.

122. Representative Institutions. The phrase "no taxation without representation" was familiar to all sections of the British people, but it conveyed very different ideas to

1765]

Representative Institutions

141

those living in Great Britain and to their kinsfolk in the colonies. The British Parliament was composed of two houses, the Peers, comprising hereditary nobles and the bishops, and the House of Commons, which was held to represent the people. The members of the latter body were elected in accordance with a system which was the result of centuries of constitutional development: the apportionment of members was based on the counties and the boroughs; although they differed enormously in population and extent, each of these divisions sent two members to Parliament. No attempt had been made to redress the inequalities of this system except during the Puritan supremacy, and the changes the Puritans had made had been discarded at the Restoration. Furthermore, only four new members had been added to the Commons since the accession of James I. Some of the boroughs contained no inhabitants: in one of these, Old Sarum, it was possible in dry seasons to trace the foundations of old buildings by the color of the grass; in another, Midhurst, the sites of old allotments were marked by stone posts; while one borough "had sunk beneath the waters of the North Sea." These all returned members to the House of Commons; indeed, William Pitt entered political life as "Member for Old Sarum." On the other hand, great centers of trade and human activity returned no members at all. In the colonies, the case was radically different. Repre- Representa sentation was everywhere apportioned on a territorial basis, which was being constantly changed to suit the altered conditions of the several parts of each colony. As new towns or counties were formed, either by the growth of settlements already made or by the colonization of new regions, the inhabitants of these new divisions sent representatives to the colonial legislatures. This right was regarded as a most valuable one in the colonies. When the English government directed the governor of Virginia to refuse his assent to bills erecting new counties unless the people of the new division would forego their right of representation,

tion in the colonies.

The

franchise in England.

In the colonies.

Other differences.

it was resented as an act of tyranny. It was universally felt that all sections of each colony and all bodies of colonists should be represented in the assembly.

In the matter of the franchise there was an equally wide difference of opinion. In Great Britain the county franchise was confined to those who owned land, and in that country it must be remembered the land was owned by a comparatively small number of persons. The borough franchise depended for the most part on the possession of some peculiar privilege. In Midhurst, for instance, the owner of the plots of ground marked by the stone posts, above mentioned, alone enjoyed the franchise; in other places, those persons who had the right to cook their food at a common fire had the right to vote; and a man ordinarily possessed as many votes as he owned rights. The result of this extraordinary condition of things was that a comparatively small number of persons, mostly landowners and members of the House of Lords, returned a majority of the members of the House of Commons.

In the colonies, on the other hand, the franchise was regulated by general rules and was usually given to all free adult white men who possessed a moderate amount of prop

In the southern colonies, the suffrage was usually restricted to landowners; but it was easy to acquire land in those colonies, and the qualification, although it resembled the English county franchise in form, had no resemblance to it in fact.

In Great Britain the counties and boroughs might send to Parliament any one whom the possessors of the franchise preferred, no matter where he lived, and a man possessing the necessary voting qualifications could vote in as many places as he possessed those rights. In the colonies, residence was ordinarily required for both the voter and the representative. It was felt that the latter really represented the wishes and interests of those who had taken a part in his election. To the colonist, therefore, the phrase "no taxation without representation" meant that

1765]

English Theory of Representation

143

no tax could be levied except by vote of a legislative body in which a person known to the voter, and in whose election he had taken part, had a seat; but to an Englishman the phrase meant simply no taxation except by vote of

the House of Commons."

66

tion.

Mansfield's speech.

Adams's

123. English Theory of Representation. The English Virtual idea of representative government signified representation representaof all classes of the community, and not at all representation by population. The great mass of Englishmen belonging to any particular class had no vote for a member of the House of Commons, but other Englishmen of the same class had a vote. It was held, therefore, that all the members of that class were virtually represented. It was easy to extend the theory and to argue that the colonists were also represented, inasmuch as merchants interested in colonial trade were represented in the House of Commons. The English idea of the matter was admirably summed up by Lord Mansfield, then Chief Justice of England, in the course of the debates in the House of Lords on the repeal of the Stamp Act. He said: "There can be no doubt but that the inhabitants of the colonies are as much represented in Parliament as the greatest part of the people of England are. . . . A member of Parliament chosen for any borough represents not only the constituents and inhabitants of that particular place, but he represents the city of London, and all the commons of the land, and the inhabitants of all the colonies and dominions of Great Britain." Writers like Jefferson contended on the other hand, that however true this might be as to Englishmen, it had no application to the colonists, who, unlike the English people, could exert no pressure, either physical or moral, upon the actual electors and the chosen members.

This wide departure between English and American theories of government can be traced back directly to the middle of the seventeenth century. The Puritans, in the time of their power, reformed the apportionment and the franchise on modern lines. At the time of the Restora

British Ora

tions, I, 150.

Cause of the difference in political

ideas.

The Stamp Act in America. *Frothingham's

*Republic,

177.

Henry's

speech, 1765. *Frothing

ham's

Republic,

tion these changes were distasteful to the majority of Englishmen and they were accordingly discarded, and the old system brought back. The colonies developed on the lines laid down in the instructions to Yeardley (1619) and in the development of representative institutions in New England, modified by the democratic tendencies of the Quakers and their associates. In the course of a century the institutions of the two portions of the British Empire had grown so far apart that further continuance of the two sections of Englishmen under one government, except under some form of federation, was no longer possible. The colonists could not understand the theory which held them to be represented in the British Parliament, and they determined to resist the attempt to tax them to the utmost of their ability.

124. Resistance in America. At the outset, the opinion that there would be no resistance to the act seemed to be justified. The guns of a fort near Philadelphia were spiked; but, except this, there was no demonstration of any importance until the end of May (1765). This quiet was not due to any willingness of the colonists to obey the Stamp Act; it was owing to the fact that there was nothing to oppose. The names of the stamp distributors were not yet known, there were no stamps to destroy, and the enforcement of the act could not be resisted, as it did not go into effect until nearly six months later (in November). It needed only the urging of a bold spirit to bring out the feeling of opposition, which was not dead, but waiting a favorable opportunity to manifest itself.

Patrick Henry's speech on the Parson's Cause had given him great popularity. He was soon elected to fill a vacancy which had occurred in the House of Burgesses, as the representative branch of the Virginia Assembly was termed. He had never before sat in a legislative body, and waited impaHenry, ch. v. tiently for one of the more experienced men to propose a formal protest against the Stamp Act, but the leading men were fully employed in dealing with a matter of financial

178-181;

Tyler's