selves from any acknowledgment of such authority, except so far as their necessities, from time to time, compelled them to acquiesce in the parliamentary measures expressly extending to them. We have already seen, that they resisted the imposition of taxes upon them, without the consent of their local legislatures, from a very early period.1 § 188. But it was by no means an uncommon opinion in some of the colonies, especially in the proprietary and charter governments, that no act of parliament whatsoever could bind them without their own consent.2 An extreme reluctance was shown by Massachusetts to any parliamentary interference as early as 1640; and the famous navigation acts of 1651 and 1660 were perpetually evaded, even when their authority was no longer denied, throughout the whole of New-England.4 Massachusetts, in 1679, in an address to the crown, declared, that she "apprehended them to be an invasion of the rights, liberties, and properties of the subjects of his majesty in the colony, they not being represented in parliament; and, according to the usual sayings of the learned in the law, the laws of England were bounded within the four seas, and did not reach America." 5 However, Massachusetts, as well as the other NewEngland colonies, finally acquiesced in the authority of parliament to regulate trade and commerce; but denied it in regard to taxation and internal regulation of the 1 Marshall's Colon. ch. 13, p. 353; 1 Pitk. Hist. 89, 90, &c. 98; Id. 164, 174, 179, 182 to 212; Mass. State Papers, 359 to 364. 21 Pitk. Hist. 91; 1 Chalm. Annals, 443. 3 2 Winthrop's Jour. 25. 4 1 Chalm. Annals, 277, 280, 407, 440, 443, 448, 452, 460, 462, 639, 668; 3 Hutch. Coll. 496; Mass. State Papers, [1818,] Introduction; Id. 50; 2 Wilson's Works, 62. 5 1 Chalm. Ann. 407; 1 Hutch. Hist. 322; 2 Wilson's Works, 62, 63. colonies. As late as 1757, the general court of Massachusetts admitted the constitutional authority of parliament in the following words: "The authority of all acts of parliament, which concern the colonies, and extend to them, is ever acknowledged in all the courts of law, and made the rule of all judicial proceedings in the province. There is not a member of the general court, and we know no inhabitant within the bounds of the government, that ever questioned this authority."2 And in another address in 1761, they declared, that "every act we make, repugnant to an act of parliament extending to the plantations, is ipso facto null and void. And at a later period, in 1768, in a circular address to the other colonies, they admitted, "that his majesty's high court of Parliament is the supreme legislative power over the whole empire; " contending, however, that as British subjects they could not be taxed without their own consent.1 § 189. "In the middle and southern provinces," (we are informed by a most respectable historian,5) "no question respecting the supremacy of parliament in matters of general legislation existed. The authority of such acts of internal regulation, as were made for Amer 1 1 Pitk. Hist. 92, 98, 181 to 212, 285, 473, 475; 1 Chalm. Annals, 452, 460; 1 Hutch. Hist. 322; 3 Hutch. Hist. 23, 24; Dummer's Defence, 1 American Tracts, 51; Burke's Speech on Taxation in 1774, and on Conciliation in 1775. 23 Hutch. Hist. 66; Mass. State Papers, 337. 33 Hutch. Hist. 92; App. 463; Marshall's Colon. No. 5, p. 472. 4 Marshall's Colon. ch. 13, p. 371; App. No. 5, p. 472, 473; 1 Pitk. Hist. 186; App. 448, 450, 453. 458.-This was the ground asserted in Mr. J. Otis's celebrated pamphlet on the Rights of the Colonies. 1 American Tracts, [1766,] 48, 52, 54, 56, 59, 66, 73, 99; and also in Dulany's Considerations on Taxing the Colonies, 1 Amer. Tracts, 14, 18, 36, 52. See also 1 Jefferson's Corresp. 6, 7, 12. 5 Marshall's Colon. ch. 13, p. 354. See also 1 Pitk. Hist. 162 tə 212, 255, 275, 276; 1 Jefferson's Corresp. 6, 7, 104; Id. 117. ica, as well as those for the regulation of commerce, even by the imposition of duties, provided these duties were imposed for the purpose of regulation, had been at all times admitted. But these colonies, however they might acknowledge the supremacy of parliament in other respects, denied the right of that body to tax them internally." If there were any exceptions to the general accuracy of this statement, they seem to have been too few and fugitive to impair the general result. In the charter of Pennsylvania, an express reservation was made of the power of taxation by an act of parliament, though this was argued not to be a sufficient foundation for the exercise of it.2 § 190. Perhaps the best general summary of the rights and liberties asserted by all the colonies is contained in the celebrated declaration drawn up by the Congress of the Nine Colonies, assembled at NewYork, in October, 1765. That declaration asserted, that the colonists "owe the same allegiance to the crown of Great Britain, that is owing from his subjects born within the realm, and all due subordination to that august body, the parliament of Great Britain." That the colonists "are entitled to all the inherent rights and liberties of his [the king's] natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain." "That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people, and the undoubted right of Englishmen, that no taxes be imposed on them, but with their own consent, given personally, or by their representatives." That the people of the "colo 11 Pitk. Hist. 92, 96, 98, 162 to 212; App. No. 4, 448, 450, 453. 21 Chalmers's Annals, 638, 658; 2 Amer. Tracts, Rights of Parlia. Vind. 25. 26; 3 Amer. Tracts, App. 51; Id. Franklin's Exam. 46. 3 The nine States were Massachusetts, Rhode-Island, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and South Carolina. nies are not, and from their local circumstances cannot be represented in the house of commons of Great Britain. That the only representatives of these colonies are persons chosen therein by themselves; and that no taxes ever have been, or can be, constitutionally imposed upon them, but by their respective legislatures. That all supplies of the crown being free gifts from the people, 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 colonies. And that the trial by jury is the inherent and invaluable right of every British subject in these colonies." 1 2 § 191. We here observe, that the superintending authority of parliament is admitted in general terms; and that absolute independence of it is not even suggested, although in subsequent clauses certain grievances by the stamp act, and by certain acts levying duties and restraining trade in the colonies, are disapproved of in very strong language. In the report of the committee of the same body on the subject of colonial rights, drawn up with great ability, it was stated, "it is acknowledged, that the parliament, collectively considered, as consisting of king, lords, and commons, are the supreme legislature of the whole empire; and as such, have an undoubted jurisdiction over the whole colonies, so far as is consistent with our essential rights, of which also they are and must be the final judges; and even the applications and petitions to the king and parliament to implore relief in our present difficulties, will be an ample recognition of our subjection to, and dependence upon 1 Marsh. Hist. Colonies, ch. 13, p. 360, 470, 471; 1 Pitk. Hist. 178, 179, 180, 446. 2 Marsh. Hist. Colon. p. 471, note 4. 1 the legislature." 1 And they contended, that "there is a vast difference between the exercise of parliamentary jurisdiction in general acts for the amendment of the common law, or even in general regulations of trade and commerce through the empire, and the actual exerercise of that jurisdiction in levying external and internal duties and taxes on the colonists, while they neither are, nor can be represented in parliament." 2 And in the petition of the same boody to the house of commons, there is the following declaration : "We most sincerely recognise our allegiance to the crown, and acknowledge all due subordination to the parliament of Great Britain, and shall always retain the most grateful sense of their assistance and protection." But it is added, there is "a material distinction in reason and sound policy between the necessary exercise of parliamentary jurisdiction in general acts for the amendment of the common law, and the regulation of trade and commerce, through the whole empire; and the exercise of that jurisdiction by imposing taxes on the colonies; "thus admitting the former to be rightful, while denying the latter.5 § 192. But after the passage of the stamp act, in 1765, many of the colonies began to examine this subject with more care and to entertain very different opinions, as to parliamentary authority. The doctrines maintained in debate in parliament, as well as the alarming extent, to which a practical application of those doctrines might lead, in drying up the resources, and pros 1 Pitk. Hist. 448, 450. 3 4 Amer. Museum, 89. 21 Pitk. Hist. 453, 454. 5 The celebrated Declaration of the Rights of the colonies by Congress in 1774 (hereafter cited) contains a summary not essentially different. 1 Journ. of Congress, 27 to 31. |