Taxation and Representation: The Rights of Colonists and the Rights of Parliament

     When the first British settlers voyaged across the ocean to make their homes, on the shores of what would become America, the possibility of a scuffle between colonists and the British crown was not considered. After all, British subjects were loyal to crown and country. After the French and Indian war, the colonist’s loyalty to the crown seemed solidified. A new sense of pride ran through the colonies with the defeat of the French. With spirits high and loyalty strong, an uprising of colonists against the crown of Great Britain seemed unfathomable. And then it happened. The colonists were at odds with the crown over the validity of the taxation, they perceived, being imposed upon them without representation. Slowly, the once solid loyalty to the crown faded with each coin that was taken from the colonists’ pockets, and placed in the purse of the king.

The debate with Great Britain over the validity of taxation began with influential colonists, such as James Otis and John Cruger, penning letters to Parliament disputing Great Britain’s right to tax American colonists without proper representation in the House of Commons. In particular, the Stamp Act along with other Acts of Parliament that had been passed without input from American colonists—which restricted American commerce. Colonists did not dispute their loyalty to the Crown, or the right of the Crown to impose taxation. However, they believed they were to be considered British citizens, with “the [same] inherent rights and liberties” as men and women living in Great Britain. Indeed, Otis and Cruger addressed

James Otis

Parliament and the King with the upmost respect when making the case for the need of an American representative in Parliament. Colonists viewed their relationship with Great Britain as one that made them an extension of Great Britain. They viewed themselves as, “free born British subjects, entitled to all the essential civil rights of such.” This, they argued, meant they should have a voice in Parliament when it came to passing new acts of legislature, and that their representatives should be someone from the American colonies that they chose. James Otis plead to Parliaments sensibilities, by reminding them that it was impossible to determine the ability of the colonists to bear taxes, or determine what laws were needed, if they did not have an American representative advising them.

John Cruger

Colonists did not believe their request was one that was unwarranted or egregious. They saw their request as a modest one, citing their compliance of supporting a national standing army. Although they had financially supported a standing army in America, they made certain to remind Parliament that it would have been more beneficial if they had raised the money themselves for the standing army, instead of being levied taxes for the army, without their consent. The levying of taxes, without input from the colonists, in order to have a standing army was a perfect example of what they considered an offense against their liberty. To the colonists, their requests to representation in parliament was essential to their freedom and their liberty. To further the argument that the American colonists were being stripped of their liberty, they called attention to Admiralty courts being held beyond their “ancient limits.” Cruger argued, without a trial by jury, a British subject was surely stripped of their liberty.
Although the colonists felt they were being stripped of their liberty by having their property taken from them without their consent, they nonetheless plead their case in a way that made it clear they did not desire to be separate from their mother country. Indeed, they professed their love and reverence for both mother country and King. The colonists wanted to remain as a part of Great Britain, with the liberties and rights afforded to them by the British Constitution, intact. 
Unfortunately, for the colonists, the message of love for their mother country was drowned out by their requests for the Stamp Act and other taxation Acts to be repealed. This was made evident by responses from Parliament in the form of letters, and most decidedly with The Declaratory Act.

Soame Jenyns

     Soame Jenyns dismissed the colonists’ pleas of reverence for their mother country with accusations of insolence and absurdity. Likewise Samuel Johnson used rather harsh language when responding to the requests of the colonists stating, “He that denies the English parliament the right of taxation, denies it [parliament].” And in what seemed an effort to use the colonists own words (or lack thereof) against them, Johnson goes on to state, “this power over the colonies was never disputed by themselves.” 
According to Great Britain, the colonies were “wholly dependent upon” and subordinate to the “imperial crown and parliament of Great Britain.” American colonists did not have the right to refuse to pay taxes on the basis they did not have a representative in Parliament. The fact that they were Englishmen was reason enough for taxation, according to Jenyns. Johnson added that taxes were justly exacted by authority to benefit the whole, and all subordinate communities, including America, were subject to taxation.

     The colonists claims of being deprived of liberty through taxation was met with the retort that “the liberty of an Englishman…cannot mean…an exemption from taxes.” Parliament did not grant any special privileges or exemptions from taxes to the American colonists, and Jenyns reminded them that even if they had granted such an exemption that it would have come from the Crown, and the Crown cannot “supersede the right of the whole legislature.”
Parliament, and likewise the King, viewed the colonists request for a reprieve from taxation as absurd, since America consisted of British subjects, and all subjects were subordinate to the authority of Parliament. Because Parliament considered themselves the only authority and judge regarding who was to be taxed and how much, they owed nothing more to the colonists than to inform them what they were obliged to do as subjects to the Crown. With The Declaratory Act, Parliament further flexed their muscles when and reiterated that they alone had all the power and authority to “bind the colonies and people of America” in whatever way they choose. 

Jenyns acknowledged the colonists’ individual charters, which had been given their authority from the Crown, but reminded them that with the privilege of having their own charter for their distinct governments, came the responsibility of paying taxes. The refusal to pay taxes would equate giving up their liberty of their own accord. That would be how American subjects became slaves and lose their liberty, not by remittance of taxes. Taxes were a necessity and accessed at the discretion of Parliament. Therefore, Americans had a “duty to pay the costs of their own safety” to ensure they would not lose their liberty.