William Knox on 
 
 American Taxation 
 
 (1769) 
 
UNPTHSIT^ OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARY, STORR? 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2010 with funding from 
 
 Boston Library Consortium IVIember Libraries 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/williamknoxonameOOknox 
 
(©Iti ^outl) itcaflet^^ 
 
 No. 2IO. 
 
 William Knox 
 
 ON 
 
 American 
 
 Taxation 
 
 1769 
 
 Edited by S. E. Morison. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Americans are not accustomed to pay much attention to 
 the Enghsh side of the taxation argument that preceded the 
 American Revolution. The leaders of that great movement 
 succeeded in convincing a fighting minority of their country- 
 men, and many English Whigs as well, that the taxation 
 measures of Grenville and Townshend were illegal and un- 
 constitutional, making resistance a duty as well as a right. 
 Yet their arguments are singularly vulnerable. Down to the 
 eve of war, the colonial leaders acknowledged the jurisdiction 
 of Parliament. They could hardly have done otherwise, 
 since Parhament had frequently legislated for the Colonies in 
 the past, regulated their trade, and levied customs duties. 
 But if Parliament is acknowledged the supreme legislature of 
 the British Empire, it is difficult to escape the logic that it has 
 the power to tax all British subjects. It would be as illogical 
 to deny the power of Congress to levy income taxes or customs 
 duties in Alaska or the Philippines, because these territories 
 have no voting representatives at Washington. 
 
 This pamphlet of William Knox has been selected to represent 
 the English side of the controversy, because it is calm in temper, 
 accurate in facts, and, in substantial agreement with the 
 fundamental theories of the Whigs. It owes much of its force 
 to its recognition of the Whig principles of natural rights and 
 the social compact, as expounded by John Locke. It appeared 
 
Q^n in 1769, during the second stage of the taxation controversy, 
 
 ^\rf) after Parhament had substituted the Townshend duties on 
 
 ^0 . A \ ^ tea, paper, etc., for the Stamp Act. John Dickinson's " Letters 
 of a Farmer in Pennsylvania," the most influential American 
 pamphlet of this period, is frequently referred to by Knox. 
 We have no means of knowing how much influence the " Con- 
 troversy Reviewed" exerted in America; but it is significant 
 that not long after its appearance the more advanced colonial 
 writers ceased to split hairs on the taxation question, and 
 adopted the logical, though historically incorrect, ground 
 that neither King nor Parhament ever had had any right to 
 legislate for the Colonies. 
 
 After the fashion of the time, Knox's ''Controversy Re- 
 viewed" appeared anonymously, and was extremely volumi- 
 nous, covering 207 octavo pages. The present Leaflet is a 
 selection of the more forceful and striking passages. The 
 numerals in brackets are the original page numbers. 
 
THE 
 
 CONTROVERSY 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 Great Britain and her Colonies 
 REVIEWED; 
 
 THE SEVERAL PLEAS OF THE COLONIES, 
 
 In Support of their Right to all the Liberties and Privileges 
 of British Subjects, and to Exemption from the Legislative 
 Authority of Parliament, 
 
 STATED AND CONSIDERED: 
 
 The Nature of their Connection with, and 
 Dependence on, Great Britain, 
 
 UPON THE EVIDENCE OF 
 
 HISTORICAL FACTS 
 
 AND 
 
 AUTHENTIC RECORDS 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed for J. ALNON, oppofite Burlington-PIovfe in 
 Piccadilly. MDCCLXIX. 
 
[i] He that goeth about to persuade a multitude, that they 
 are not so well governed as they ought to be (says the learned 
 and judicious Hooker) shall never want attentive and favorable 
 hearers ; because such as openly reprove supposed disorders of 
 state, are taken for principal friends to the common benefit 
 of all and for men that carry singular freedom of mind. Under 
 this fair and plausible colour, whatsoever they utter passeth 
 for good and current. 
 
 [5] Far be it from me to wish to be thought insensible to 
 the good or ill opinion of my countrymen; but as I consider 
 it to be my duty to promote their welfare to the utmost of 
 my poor ability, I will shew them my opinion, whether they 
 may reward or censure me for my endeavours. On this principle, 
 and actuated by these motives, it is, that, unawed by the terrors 
 which rise before me, I adventure upon my present under- 
 taking; and I set down to review the American controversy, 
 with the single, and I hope honest, purpose of bringing back 
 my fellow subjects in the Colonies to a just sense of their 
 duty to the supreme legislative power, by exposing to them 
 the fallacies by which they have been deluded, and exploring 
 the dangers which the paths wherein they are now bewildered 
 must unavoidably lead them into. 
 
 The several pleas which have been urged by those who 
 have distinguished themselves in this controversy, on behalf 
 of the Colonies, may be comprehended under these two general 
 heads: 
 
 [6] The title of the inhabitants in the Colonies to all the 
 rights, liberties, and privileges of Englishmen; and their claim 
 to exemption from the jurisdiction of parliament. 
 
 It should seem to be of the utmost importance to the Colonies, 
 that the former plea was established before they adduced 
 any proofs in support of the latter; for, should they fail in 
 the one, nothing could be more fatal to their freedom, and 
 consequently to their prosperity, than their succeeding in the 
 other. 
 
 If they should unhappily be able to demonstrate that the 
 Colonies are no part of the British state; that they are the 
 king's domain, and not annexed to the realm ; that the inhabi- 
 tants are not British subjects, nor within the jurisdiction of 
 parhament; they can have no title to such privileges and 
 
immunities as the people of England derive under acts of par- 
 liament, nor to any other of those rights which are pecuHar to 
 British subjects within the realm. . . . 
 
 [7] Whatever grievances they may have to complain of, they 
 must seek redress from the grace of the crown alone; for, 
 should they petition parliament to do them right, they them- 
 selves have authorized the crown to tell parliament, as the 
 secretary of state to James the First did the house of commons, 
 [8] "America is not annexed to the realm, nor within the juris- 
 diction of parhament, you have therefore no right to interfere." 
 
 Such being the case, w^e are therefore to expect to find the 
 strongest efforts of the colony advocates directed to this point. 
 We may indeed look for the clearest evidence, the most con- 
 vincing arguments, and even demonstrative proofs of their 
 right to these privileges, independent of acts of parhament, 
 since we see them so eager to preclude parliament from the 
 power of conveying to them any privilege whatever. Let us 
 then see on what they found their title. 
 
 In May 1765, the house of burgesses in Virginia resolved, 
 "That the first adventurers and settlers of this his majesty's 
 colony and dominion of Virginia, [9] brought with them and 
 transmitted to their posterity, and all other his majesty's sub- 
 jects since inhabiting in this his majesty's said colony, all the 
 liberties, privileges, franchises, and immunities, that have at 
 any time been held and enjoyed, and possessed by the people 
 of Great-Britain." 
 
 This resolution is adopted by the assembly of Maryland, and 
 repeated in the very same words: and as the assembly of Vir- 
 ginia has been said to have hung out the standard for American 
 liberty, and the other Colonies have little more merit than that 
 of following their leader, I must confess I expected to have 
 found a much clearer proof of the truth of the proposition con- 
 tained in their resolution than I am able to collect from the 
 terms in which it is expressed. They tell us indeed ''That the 
 first adventurers in the reign of James the First, brought with 
 them, and transmitted to their posterity, &c. all the liberties, 
 privileges, franchises, and immunities, that the people of Great- 
 Britain have at any time (since as well as before) enjoyed and 
 possessed." [lo] But in what sort of menstruum, nucleous, or 
 embryo, it was that they carried with them to Virginia, in the 
 reign of James the First, the habeas corpus act, which the 
 people of England did not enjoy or possess till the reign of 
 
Charles the Second; or the bill of rights which they did not 
 enjoy till the reign of William and Mary; the acts for altering 
 the succession and the limitation of the crown, and many others 
 passed in that and the subsequent reigns; as they have not 
 condescended to inform their friends in England, so they can 
 only expect us to admire their profound logical skill, and must 
 content themselves with the more rational applause of their 
 countrymen, who they may have more fully instructed. 
 
 The assembly of Pennsylvania, by their resolutions in the 
 same year, declare, ''That the inhabitants of this province are 
 intitled to all the liberties, rights, and privileges of his majesty's 
 subjects in Great-Britain, or elsewhere; and that the consti- 
 tution of government in this province is founded on the natural 
 rights of mankind, and the noble principles of English liberty, 
 and therefore is or ought to be perfectly free." 
 
 [ii] This resolution asserts in like manner, as do the resolu- 
 tions of Virginia and Maryland, that the people of that colony 
 are intitled to all the rights of British subjects; but it does not 
 pretend that the first settlers carried them there: neither does 
 it found their claim to them upon the royal charter to the pro- 
 prietor, or upon the laws of Great Britain, but upon the "nat- 
 ural rights of mankind, and the noble principles of English 
 liberty." 
 
 That the natural rights of mankind should give any people a 
 right to all the liberties and privileges of Englishmen, is, I 
 believe, a doctrine unknown to all civiUans, except the assem- 
 bly of Pennsylvania. It is indeed a most benevolent doctrine; 
 for if it be established, it will render the blessings which British 
 subjects enjoy under their excellent constitution universal to 
 all people, at least to all those who live under any constitution 
 of government which is founded upon the natural rights of 
 mankind, [12] in whatever part of the world they may inhabit, 
 or whoever may be their sovereign. The native Indians in 
 North America, the Hottentots at the Cape of Good Hope, 
 the Tartars, Arabs, Cafres, and Groenlanders, will all have an 
 equal title to the liberties and rights of Englishmen, with the 
 people of Pennsylvania; for all their constitutions of govern- 
 ment are founded on the natural rights of mankind. 
 
 [21] — But it seems parhament has a right to benefit the 
 colonies, but not to bind them: it may give them bounties, but 
 
it must not impose burdens. Its power over the colonies is 
 somewhat Hke that allowed by the deists to the Almighty over 
 his creatures, he may reward them with eternal happiness if 
 he pleases, but he must not punish them on any account. . . . 
 
 [25] I come now to what Mr. Dickenson calls the American 
 declaration of rights, which are the resolutions of the commit- 
 tees from the several Colony assemblies, which met at New 
 York, 19 October, 1765.* and here we may expect to find the 
 separate and irregular claims of each Colony consolidated and 
 reduced into system and consistency. Their resolutions are as 
 follow: 
 
 [26] "That his majesty's subjects in these Colonies owe the 
 same allegiance to the crown of Great Britain that is owing 
 from his subjects born wdthin the realm, and all due subordina- 
 tion to that august body, the parliament of Great Britain. 
 
 ''That his majesty's liege subjects in these Colonies are in- 
 titled to all the inherent rights and liberties of his natural- 
 born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain." 
 
 [27] What Enghshman could desire more of the Colonies 
 than due obedience to that august body, the parhament of Great 
 Britain? But what is due obedience is a matter in which they 
 and the people of England differ exceedingly; [28] and the com- 
 mittees chose to reserve to the colonies their own construction 
 of the terms, while they hoped the people of England would 
 be led to believe they agreed with them in theirs. 
 
 An Englishman conceives due obedience to parliament to 
 mean lawful obedience, or obedience to an act of parhament. 
 The Colonies conceive the parliament to have no right to 
 make laws for them; and due obedience to parliament is there- 
 fore, in their apprehension, no obedience at all. . . . 
 
 [31] Having thus seen upon what sort of foundations the 
 different colony assemblies build their several titles to the 
 rights and privileges of Englishmen, and that each super- 
 structure, at the approach of reason, vanishes like — the base- 
 
 * The Stamp Act Congress. 
 
less fabric of a vision. — I will not fatigue the reader with a 
 discussion of the arguments introduced by the colony advo- 
 cates in support of the assemblies resolutions. Whatever 
 they can urge in behalf of the Colonies claim to the rights and 
 privileges of Englishmen, whilst they deny that they are 
 subjects of the realm, or natural-born British subjects, and that 
 the Colonies are within the realm, must be obnoxious to the 
 same charges of inconsistency and absurdity to which the 
 assemblies resolutions are so palpably Hable; and the simplest 
 of my countrymen can easily detect the most artful American 
 sophister, [32] by insisting upon his answering this plain ques- 
 tion: Are the people in the Colonies British subjects, or are 
 they aliens or foreigners? 
 
 [33] . . . That they cannot however maintain their title to 
 those rights upon any other ground, than that of their being 
 British subjects, born and inhabiting within the realm, is, I 
 think, sufficiently evident; and therefore, that they may fail in 
 proving that they are not British subjects, and that the Colonies 
 lie without the realm, is the most friendly wish I can give them. 
 How far they have succeeded in the fatal attempt, must be 
 the subject of our next enquiry. 
 
 [34] Wlien the repeal of the stamp-act was their object, 
 a distinction was set up between internal and external taxes; 
 they pretended not to dispute the right of parliament to impose 
 external taxes, or port duties, upon the Colonies, whatever 
 were the purposes of parliament in laying them on, or however 
 productive of revenue they might be. Nay, Doctor Frankhn 
 tells the house of commons, that "they have a natural and 
 equitable right to some toll or duty upon merchandizes carried 
 through that part of their dominions, viz, the American seas, 
 towards defraying the expense that they are at in ships to 
 maintain the safety of that carriage." This, however, was 
 only the language for 1765 and 1766, but when parliament 
 seemed to adopt the distinction, and waiving for the present 
 the exercise of its right to impose internal taxes, [35] imposed 
 certain duties on merchandizes imported into the Colonies,* 
 and carried through those seas which the parliament was 
 
 * The Townshend duties of 1767, on tea, paper, etc. 
 
told were theirs: the distinction between internal and external 
 taxes is rejected by the colony advocates, and a new one de- 
 vised between taxes for the regulatiojt of trade, and taxes for the 
 purpose of revenue. 
 
 This new distinction, however, between taxes for the regula- 
 tion of trade, and taxes for the purpose of revenue, as far as it 
 respects the right of parliament to impose the one, but not the 
 other, is, of all absurdities, the most ridiculous that ever was 
 contended for. It is saying, in other words, that parliament 
 has a right to impose a heavy tax, but not a small one. It 
 may lay one so grievous, that no body can afford to pay it; 
 but it has no authority to impose one which may be easily 
 borne: nay, in the instances referred to by Mr. Dickenson in 
 his Farmer's Letters, it should seem to mean that parliament 
 has no right to reduce a tax which it has had a legal right to 
 impose in a manner extremely burdensome. [36] The right of 
 Parliament to charge foreign molasses with a duty of six- 
 pence a gallon was unquestionable; but, for parliament to 
 reduce the six-pence to three-pence, is a violent usurpation of 
 unconstitutional authority, and an infringement of the rights 
 and privileges of the people in the Colonies. . . . 
 
 [37] It is the purpose of parliament in laying the tax, which, 
 it seems, gives it the right of laying it. Curious reasoning this! 
 — Now, should it happen, that parliament was at any time 
 mistaken in its purpose, [38] and that a tax which it imposed 
 with an intention that no body should pay it, that is, that it 
 should operate as a prohibition, should really turn out to be 
 such a tax as the commodity on which it was charged could 
 bear, and the people in the Colonies were willing to purchase 
 it at the price the tax had raised it to, what should we do then? 
 If the tax be paid it then becomes a revenue tax, and no longer 
 a prohibitory one; and is thenceforward a grievance, and an 
 infringement of the rights of the colonies. On the other hand, 
 suppose parliament should be mistaken in a tax it laid for the 
 purpose of revenue, and it turned out a prohibition, would 
 the tax then become a constitutional one? 
 
 [41] A land-tax is a judicious regulation, inasmuch as it 
 excites the land owner to cultivate and improve his lands; 
 
lO 
 
 and with this very view, taxes are laid upon unimproved lands 
 in America, by the colony assemblies. Thus our East-India 
 duties are many of them calculated to promote our own manu- 
 factures, as well as to raise a revenue. Thus the duties upon 
 French goods Vv^ere imposed with a view to check the trade of 
 France, [42] to encourage our own manufactures, and, at the 
 same time, to raise a fund for defraying the public expences. 
 So likewise are a multitude of our taxes upon articles of luxury 
 and of extravagance in our home consumption; so likewise are 
 the taxes upon many of our exports, to prevent the manufacture 
 of our raw materials abroad, and to encourage it at home. . . . 
 
 [43] This boasted distinction between taxes for the regula- 
 tion of trade, and taxes for the purpose of revenue, we therefore 
 see is without a difference, and will in no sort serve to protect 
 the Colonies from parliamentary internal and external taxation, 
 however it may serve for a pretence, under which to strip par- 
 liament of all jurisdiction over the Colonies. 
 
 [44] I have indeed thought of a distinction which would 
 suit the Colonies purposes much better, and w^hich, I beheve, 
 is what they mean, by the difference between taxes for the 
 purpose of revenue, and taxes as regulations of trade, if they 
 chose to speak it out, which is that between the imposing taxes 
 and collecting them. They would acknowledge, with all their 
 hearts, a right in parliament to do the one, provided it never 
 attempted to do the other. It is this new invention of collecting 
 taxes that makes them burdensome to the Colonies, and an 
 infringement of their rights and privileges; — and herein it is 
 that Mr. Grenville's administration has proved the aera of the 
 Colonies' loss of liberty. 
 
 The duty of six pence a gallon upon foreign molasses, which 
 had been laid thirty years before Mr. Grenville was first com- 
 missioner of the treasury, was no grievance, because it had 
 never been collected; but when that gentleman reduced the duty 
 to three pence, all liberty was at an end — for he took measures 
 for the Colonies to pay the three pence. 
 
 [50] For if the authority of the legislative be not in one 
 instance equally supreme over the Colonies as it is over the 
 people of England, then are not the Colonies of the same com- 
 
II 
 
 munity with the people of England. All distinctions destroy 
 this union; and if it can be shewn in any particular to be dis- 
 solved, it must be so in all instances whatever. There is no 
 alternative: either the Colonies are a part of the community 
 of Great Britain, [51] or they are in a state of nature with 
 respect to her, and in no case can be subject to the jurisdiction 
 of that legislative power w-hich represents her community, 
 w^hich is the British parliament. 
 
 [55] It would be endless to trace this doctrine of taxes through 
 all its consequences. I have already gone far enough to shew, 
 that upon Mr. Dickenson's principles, where they cannot be 
 imposed, there can be neither restraints upon trade, nor exer- 
 cise of sovereign authority; [56] and that if Great Britain 
 does not possess the right of taxing the Colonies, she has no 
 right to exercise any jurisdiction over them; but that the 
 Colonies are, as Mr. Dickenson says they are, of themselves, 
 "a distinct community, or one political body of which each 
 colony is a member, separated from the rest of the w^orld," 
 and especially from Great Britain. Yet notwithstanding, 
 these are clearly the consequences w^hich must follow from his 
 premise; and that such are the consequences the Colonies mean 
 should follow from them; yet Mr. Dickenson, not caring to 
 discover the whole of their purpose so fully at present, in the 
 beginning of his second letter, thus expresses himself: ^'The 
 parliament unquestionably possesses a legal authority to regu- 
 late the trade of Great Britain and all her Colonies: such an 
 authority is essential to the relation between a mother country 
 and her Colonies, and necessary for the common good of all. 
 He who considers these provinces, as states distinct from the 
 British empire^ has very slender notions of justice, or of their 
 interests: we are but parts of a whole, [57] and therefore there 
 must exist a power somewhere to preside and preserve the connec- 
 tion in due order; this power is lodged in parliament.'^ . . . 
 
 [59] Perhaps all these seeming al^surdities, and contradic- 
 tions would be reconciled or obviated, if we rightly understood 
 the account he gives us in the first page of his first letter, of 
 the connection between Great Britain and her Colonies; and 
 it is a pity his learned editor has not given the pubUc a disser- 
 
12 
 
 tation upon that most ingenious and instructive passage. ''We 
 are," that is, the Colonies are, says he "as much dependent on 
 Great Britain, as a perfectly free people can be on another." 
 
 But the main objection, and on which all the other objec- 
 tions made by the Colonies against the right of parhament to 
 impose taxes upon them, is founded, remains to be examined. 
 [60] "They tell us, that it is the true principle of government, 
 that no man should pay a tax to which he does not consent, 
 either in his own person, or by his representative chosen by 
 him; that the Colonies are not represented in the British 
 parliament, and therefore cannot be taxed by it." 
 
 This doctrine, that taxation and representation upon the 
 true principles of government must go together, is so well cal- 
 culated to captivate the multitude in this country, and so flat- 
 tering to the Americans, as it intirely abrogates the authority 
 of parliament to tax the Colonies; that it is not surprizing it 
 has found partizans in Great Britain, and has been universally 
 adopted in America, without much enquiry or examination into 
 its foundation, in reason or fact. And yet, if it be applied, as 
 in the instance before us, to an actual or a distinct representa- 
 tion of all those who are taxed, and no other will serve the pur- 
 pose of the Colonies, it is not true of any government now 
 existing, nor, I believe, of any which ever did exist. In this 
 sense it neither is nor ever was true in Great Britain! [61] It 
 is not true in any of the charter or royal governments in Amer- 
 ica: it is not true in the province of Massachusetts Bay, in 
 which by the last history of it, there appears not only to be 
 a multitude of individuals, but even forty townships of free- 
 holders now taxed, who have no distinct representatives: so 
 far therefore is this doctrine of distinct representation and taxa- 
 tion from going together, ' ' being joined by God himself; founded 
 in the eternal law of nature; having grown up wdth the con- 
 stitution of England;" that it never existed, either in England, 
 or any other country in the world. 
 
 [64] ... All the corporations and boroughs who elect mem- 
 bers for parliament, do it by virtue of a charter for that pur- 
 pose from the crown, or by prescription, which, in law, pre- 
 supposes a grant or charter beyond time of memory. The 
 kings of England for many centuries constantly exercised the 
 right of creating corporations, with the power of chusing 
 
13 
 
 members to parliament, and vested that power in many or 
 in a few at their discretion; some of these, particularly the 
 two universities, were incorporated for that purpose so late as 
 the reign of James the First; and, unless it is restrained by 
 the act of the union of the two kingdoms, I do not know that 
 this power has ever been taken away. 
 
 [65] This right in corporations of electing representatives 
 to parliament, is therefore clearly derived from the grant of 
 the crown; and the members of the corporation exercise that 
 right, because the corporation holds of the crown. ... 
 
 [66] It is, moreover, worthy of remark, that these members 
 sent to parliament by the freeholders and corporations, 
 are not called the representatives of the people, but the commons 
 in parliament. They are so styled in all the old writs and 
 records; they are so styled to this day in every act of parlia- 
 ment; and they act not only for their own particular communi- 
 ties, by whom they are severally elected, but each of them 
 for the com^munity of the whole. 
 
 [67] The subjects of Great Britain are not, however, without 
 their representatives, though the members who compose the 
 House of Commons cannot be said to be distinctly so. Neither 
 are they bound by laws, nor is their money taken from them 
 without their own consent given by their representatives. 
 The King, Lords, and Commons are their representatives; for to 
 them it is that they have delegated their individual rights over 
 their lives, liberties, and property; and so long as they approve 
 of that form of government, and continue under it, so long do 
 they consent to whatever is done by those they have instructed 
 with their rights. 
 
 ''Laws they are not (says Hooker) which public approba- 
 tion hath not made so. But approbation not only they give, 
 who personally declare their assent by voice, sign, or act, 
 but also when others do it in their names, by right originally 
 at the least derived from them. And to be commanded we 
 do consent, when that society whereof we are part hath at any 
 time before consented, without revoking the same after by 
 the like universal agreement." [68] And Mr. Locke, who fol- 
 lowed this learned investigator of the rights of mankind, in 
 his answer to Sir Robert Filmer,* after having shewn that 
 
 * Locke's Second Treatise of Government (Old South Leaflet, No. 208). 
 
14 
 
 the origin of all power is from the people only; that every 
 form of government, whether a democracy, an oligarchy, an 
 elective or heriditary monarchy, is nothing more than a trust 
 delegated by the society to the person or persons so appointed, 
 lays it down as a fundamental maxim in all governments : ' ' That 
 the legislative is the joint power of every member of the society, 
 given up to that person or assembly which is legislator; and 
 that even the executive, when vested in a single person, is to 
 be considered as the representative of the common-wealth." 
 And he then adds; ''Nobody doubts but an express consent of 
 any man entering into society, makes him a perfect member 
 of that society, a subject of that government. The difficulty 
 is what ought to be looked upon as a tacit consent; and to this 
 I say, [69] that every man that hath any possessions or enjoyment 
 of any part of the dominions of any government, doth thereby 
 give his tacit consent, and is as far forth obliged to obedience to 
 the laws of that government during such enjoyment, as any one 
 under it.'' 
 
 Upon this principle, the king and the two houses of parlia- 
 ment, are by our constitution representatives of the legislative, 
 as the king alone is of the executive power of the common- 
 wealth; and, upon this principle, every subject of Great 
 Britain, when he is taxed by parliament, is taxed by his own 
 consent, for he is then taxed by consent of those whom the 
 society has impowered to act for the whole; and every member 
 of the community must therefore subscribe his tacit consent 
 to all such taxes as may be imposed, or other legislative acts 
 that may be done by those whom the society has appointed, 
 as long as the form of government subsists. This is the British 
 constitution; and if the British subjects in America still con- 
 tinue to be part of our community it follows that they also are 
 represented by the British legislative, and equally bound by 
 its laws. 
 
 [70] That the first inhabitants of the Colonies were part 
 of the British community, and bound to obey its legislative 
 power in all respects, as any other subjects at the time of 
 the establishment of those Colonies, will not be denied. How 
 then has that obedience been altered or released? Those 
 Colonies were all created by charters or temporary authorities, 
 from the executive power of this community, except in the 
 cases of Jamaica, New York, and the late acquisitions of 
 Quebec, the Ceded Islands, and the Two Floridas, which 
 
15 
 
 were conquests made by this community upon foreign powers, 
 and such of their subjects as remained were incorporated with 
 us under our laws and obedience. . . . 
 
 [71] But suppose it had been otherwise; can it be con- 
 tended, that the executive power of the crown, can, by any 
 grant or authority, alter or annul the legislative power in the 
 article of taxation, or any other? Will those who contend 
 that this right of taxation belongs only to, and can only be 
 exercised by the deputies of the people, contend at the same 
 time for a right in the crown or executive to annul or restrain 
 the legislative power, partly composed as it is of these deputies, 
 in that very article of taxation? If they do, let them hear 
 Mr. Locke in reply. He will tell them, that ''even the legis- 
 lative power itself cannot transfer the power of making laws 
 to any other hands; for it being but a delegated power from the 
 people, they who have it cannot pass it over to others." [72] He 
 says, moreover, that "all obedience, which, by the most solemn 
 ties any one can be obliged to pay, ultimately terminates in 
 this supreme power, the legislative, and is directed by those 
 laws which it enacts; nor can any oaths to any foreign power 
 whatsoever or any domestic subordinate power ^ discharge any 
 member of the society from his obedience to the legislative, 
 acting pursuant to their trust; nor oblige him to any obedience 
 contrary to the laws so enacted, or farther tlian they do allow; 
 it being ridiculous to imagine, one can be tied ultimately to 
 obey any power in the society which is not supreme." He 
 says in another place; ''there can be but one supreme power, 
 which is the legislative, to which all the rest are and must be 
 subordinate." 
 
 [73] . . . The kings of England never had personally, nor ever 
 claimed to have any property in the lands in the Colonies. 
 [74] Those of them who carried their claims of prerogative the 
 highest, never pretended to have any other title to those 
 lands than what they derived from their possession of the 
 crown of England, and they granted them under that title to 
 their present possessors, or their ancestors; for all grants 
 of lands in the Colonies have been marie under the great seal 
 of England, or by authority derived under the great seal of 
 
i6 
 
 England, which is the same thing, from the first discovery 
 of America to this day. 
 
 [76] The lands in all the Colonies having therefore been 
 clearly shewn to be part of the dominions of Great Britain, and 
 the possessors of them to hold them under authorities and 
 titles derived from the British state, Mr. Locke would require 
 no other proof of the right of the legislative power of Great 
 Britain to the obedience of the possessors of those lands; for, 
 speaking of the manner by which a man tacitly makes himself 
 a subject of any country or government, he says: 
 
 "It is commonly supposed, that a father could oblige his 
 posterity to that government of which he himself was a subject, 
 and that his compact held them; whereas it being only a neces- 
 sary condition annexed to the land, [77] and the inheritance of 
 an estate which is under that government, reaches only those 
 who will take it on that condition, and so is no natural tie or 
 engagement, but a voluntary submission; for every man's 
 children, being by nature as free as himself, or any of his 
 ancestors ever were, may, whilst they are in that freedom, 
 choose what society they will join themselves to, what common- 
 wealth they will put themselves under; but if they will enjoy 
 the inheritance of their ancestors, they must take it on the same 
 terms their ancestors had it, and submit to all the conditions 
 annexed to such a possession.'* *' Whoever (says he in another 
 place) by inheritance, purchase, permission, or otherways, 
 enjoys any part of the land so annexed to, and under the govern- 
 ment of, that commonwealth, must take it with the condition 
 it is under ; that is, of submitting to the government of the com- 
 monwealth under whose jurisdiction it is, as far forth as any 
 subject of it." 
 
 [78] I have quoted these passages from Mr. Locke's Treatise 
 upon Civil Government, because his opinions in this treatise 
 have been principally rehed on as the foundation of many 
 extravagant and absurd propositions which he never meant to 
 encourage; and because I have the highest regard in general 
 for the good sense and free spirit of that excellent work, written 
 to defend the natural rights of men, and particularly the 
 principles of our constitution, when they were attacked both 
 by force and fraud: 
 
17 
 
 [84] But what puts Mr. Locke's meaning in these pages 
 out of all question, is what he says in his eighth chapter of 
 the beginning of civil societies: ''That every man, when he 
 at first incorporates himself into any commonwealth, he, by 
 his uniting himself thereunto, annexes also and submits to 
 the community, those possessions which he has or shall acquire, 
 [85] that do not already belong to any other government: 
 for it would be a direct contradiction for any one to enter into 
 society with others, for the securing and regulating of property, 
 and yet to suppose his land, whose property is to be regulated 
 by the laws of the society, should be exempt from the juris- 
 diction of that government to which he himself, the proprieter 
 of the land is a subject. By the same act therefore, whereby 
 any one unites his person, which was before free to any com- 
 monwealth, by the same he unites his possessions, which were 
 before free to it also; and they become, both of them, person 
 and possession, subject to the government and dominion of 
 that commonwealth as long as it hath a being." 
 
 Can any words more strongly express the right of the supreme 
 legislature to tax or dispose of the property of the subject 
 for public purposes, than do these last quoted? And those who 
 would draw from any other more loose or general expressions 
 of Mr. Locke, any argument to exempt the property of any 
 subject from taxes imposed by the supreme legislative for the 
 public service, [86] must impute to him such inconsistencies 
 as Mr. Locke was incapable of, and charge him with con- 
 tradictions w^hich ought to destroy his credit, both as an honest 
 man and a clear reasoner. 
 
 I might indeed have brought it to a much speedier conclusion, 
 and have exposed the absurdity and impracticability of the 
 doctrine, from the very principles upon which its promulgers 
 would establish it. They say; ''That no man ought to be 
 taxed, but by his own consent;^' or, in other words, "that the 
 consent of those who pay the taxes is necessary to their being 
 constitutionally imposed. [87] That this consent must be 
 given by the people themselves who pay the taxes, or by 
 their distinct representatives chosen by them." And these, 
 they say, are the rights of Englishmen. Now if these be the 
 rights of Englishmen, I will undertake to say, there is scarce 
 a session of parliament passes in which they are not most 
 
i8 
 
 notoriously violated, and if parliament did not do so, it could 
 lay no taxes whatever. 
 
 When the tax was laid upon hops, did the people who were 
 to pay the tax, viz. the hop-growers, consent to it, either by 
 themselves or their distinct representatives? Did the people 
 in the cyder counties, or their distinct representatives, consent 
 to the tax upon cyder? Is the land-tax kept up at three shillings 
 with the consent of all the land-owners in the kingdom, or that 
 of all the knights of shires, their distinct representatives? 
 What tax is it indeed to which those who pay it, or their dis- 
 tinct representatives, have all consented? — [S8] But if this 
 actual and distinct consent of the taxed, or of their distinct 
 representatives, be constitutionally necessary to their being 
 taxed; by consequence, whenever such consent is not given, 
 no tax can be constitutionally imposed. . . . 
 
 [91] Thus, whilst they exclaim against parliament for taxing 
 them when they are not represented, they candidly declare 
 they will not have representatives, lest they should be taxed — 
 like froward children, they cry for that which they are de- 
 termined to refuse, if it should be offered them.* The truth 
 however is, that they are determined to get rid of the juris- 
 diction of parliament in all cases whatsoever, if they can; and 
 they therefore refuse to send members to that assembly, lest 
 they should preclude themselves of this plea against all its 
 legislative acts — that they are done without their consent; 
 which, it must be confessed, holds equally good against all 
 laws, as against taxes. [92] For it is undoubtedly a principle 
 of the British constitution, "that no man shall be bound by 
 any law to which he does not give his consent," of equal efficacy 
 with that of his not being taxed, but by his own consent. In 
 what manner however that consent is given, we have already 
 seen; and the futility and falacy of the pretence, that it cannot 
 be given but by distinct representatives, elected by those who 
 pay taxes, or are bound by laws, have been sufficiently exposed. 
 
 The colony advocates however, not caring to develope their 
 whole purpose at present, tell us, that by refusing to accept our 
 offer of representatives, they only mean to avoid giving parlia- 
 
 * The colonial delegates to the Stamp Act Congress of 1765 declared 
 against sending colonial representatives to Parliament. Compare Samuel 
 Adams's Rights of the Colonists, in Old South Leaflet No. 173, p. 6. 
 
19 
 
 ment a pretence for taxing them, which they say it is not neces- 
 sary for parhament to do, as they have assemblies of their own 
 in each Colony, who are the representatives of the people; 
 and w^ho, being acquainted with their circumstances, can best 
 judge what taxes they can bear, and what sums they ought 
 to contribute to the public occasions, whenever his majesty 
 shall call upon them for their aid. 
 
 [93] The colony assemblies are indeed but seven-and-twenty, 
 and perhaps it might happen, that they should all agree in 
 opinion upon some one point; but I much fear that point 
 would not be — to lay taxes upon themselves. There is much 
 more reason to apprehend it might be as we have seen — not to 
 do so. Mankind are in general apt enough to agree to keep 
 their money, but not so frequently of one mind when the 
 proposition is to part with it. But to take the matter on its 
 fairest side, let us suppose these twenty-seven states all equally 
 disposed to shew regard to his majesty's requisition — provided 
 they think the occasion fitting. Upon what occasion then 
 shall his majesty call upon them? Not to settle a permanent 
 revenue for support of their own civil establishments; for he 
 has already made requisitions to many of them, without end, 
 for that purpose, and always without effect; and those few 
 who have complied most heartily regret it. Shall it be for 
 support of the military establishment kept up in time of peace? 
 The continental Colonies tell us ''they don't want our troops; 
 and if we keep any among them we must pay them.'' [94] 
 Shall it be for a fund to give presents to the Indians? The 
 islands say, ' ' they have nothing to do with the Indians. Those 
 who have the benefit of their trade, and live upon their lands, 
 ought to give them presents." Shall it be for discharge of the 
 public debt? One and all will tell us, ''that is the affair of 
 Great Britain alone." Suppose then a w^ar breaks out; the 
 Indians attack the back settlers in Virginia — what will Caro- 
 lina contribute for defence of that province? ^'Just as much 
 as she has ever done." What will the Islands give? Exactly 
 the same. Suppose the Barbary states quarrel with us; the 
 fishing colonies, and the rice and sugar colonies, suffer by their 
 depredations on the ships bound to Portugal and the Streights 
 — what would Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, do in 
 the matter? A war in Germany becomes the occasion of 
 the requisition; rice, sugar, and tobacco all go thither, but no 
 fish — why then should New England, Nova Scotia, or Quebec,. 
 
20 
 
 give any thing? [95] If it was for support of the Itahan states, 
 these colonies might indeed contribute something, as they buy 
 their fish; but if that were the occasion would Pennsylvania, 
 Virginia, or Carolina do so? 
 
 [106] The late war, though commenced in America, and 
 occasioned by a dispute about American territories, was not, 
 say the colony advocates, a colony quarrel; nor are the acqui- 
 sitions made by the crown in the course of it, and retained by 
 the treaty of Paris, of any advantage to the inhabitants of the 
 old provinces; on the contrary, the value of their possessions 
 has been much lessened by the addition of such extensive ter- 
 ritories. But not to injure their cause by abridging their argu- 
 ments, I will set them down in their own words, and at full 
 length as I find them in Dr. Franklin's Examination, and in 
 the Farmer's Letters. 
 
 [107] Dr. Franklin thus delivers himself before the House 
 of Commons in 1765: "I know the last war is commonly spoke 
 of here, as entered into for the defence, or for the sake of the 
 people of America. I think it quite misunderstood. It began 
 about the limits between Canada and Nova Scotia, about ter- 
 ritories to which the crown indeed laid claim, but were not 
 claimed by any British colony: none of the lands had been 
 granted to any colonist; we had therefore no particular con- 
 cern or interest in that dispute. As to the Ohio, the contest 
 there begun about your right of trading in the Indian country, 
 a right you had by the treaty of Utricht, which the French 
 infringed; they seized the traders, and their goods, which 
 were your manufactures; they took a fort which a company 
 of your merchants and their factors and correspondents had 
 erected there, to secure that trade. Braddock was sent with 
 an army to retake that fort (which was looked on here as another 
 encroachment on the king's territory) and to protect your 
 trade. [108] It was not till after his defeat (in 1755), that 
 the Colonies were attacked. They were before in perfect peace 
 with both French and Indians. The troops were not there- 
 fore sent /or their defence. The trade with the Indians, though 
 carried on in America, is not an American interest. The people 
 of America are chiefly farmers and planters; scarce any thing 
 they raise or produce is an article of commerce with the Indians. 
 The Indian trade is a British interest; it is carried on with 
 
21 
 
 British manufactures for the profit of British merchants and 
 manufacturers ; therefore the war, as it commenced for defence 
 of territories of the crown, the property of no American, and 
 for the defence of a trade purely British, was really a British 
 war.'' 
 
 Having been asked, "Is it not necessary to send troops to 
 America to defend the Americans against the Indians?" The 
 Doctor rephes, "No; by no means: it never was necessary. 
 They defended themselves when they were but an handful, and 
 the Indians much more numerous. [109] They continually 
 gained ground, and have driven the Indians over the moun- 
 tains without any troops sent to their assistance from this 
 country." 
 
 [in] The high rank Dr. Franklin so fitly holds among the 
 philosophers of the age, the honourable testimony borne to 
 his literary merit by the university of Oxford, and his great 
 knowledge of the colony affairs, must give his evidence a de- 
 gree of credit little short of proofs of holy writ; more especially 
 when it is considered, that although an oath had not been 
 administered, yet his testimony was called for by the great 
 council of the nation, upon a matter of the highest importance 
 to the state, and given with suitable solemnity. Mr. Dicken- 
 son's private character is not indeed so well known, but it is 
 very respectable; and as the spirit he was endeavouring to 
 infuse into his countrymen must soon have carried them to 
 make their appeal to heaven, he cannot surely be suspected of 
 attempting to rouse them by falsehoods to an undertaking, 
 for the success of which they were to depend on the favour of 
 the Almighty. How shall I then venture to controvert the 
 assertions of either of these gentlemen? [112] The evidence 
 of other individuals, however respectable will be thought insuf- 
 ficient, as none other can be supposed to have had equal means 
 of information. — The opinion of governors or military com- 
 manders, would be deemed partial, either to themselves or this 
 country, and the informations transmitted to ministers are 
 always suspected to be adapted to the taste of the minister, or 
 suited to serve some particular purpose. The evidence which 
 I shall therefore have recourse to, is no other than that of the 
 assemblies of the Colonies of Virginia and Massachuset's Bay; 
 the one colony situate in the neighborhood of the Ohio, and the 
 
22 
 
 Other bordering upon Nova Scotia. The members of those 
 assembUes must therefore be supposed to have had as com- 
 petent knowledge of the state of affairs in their respective coun- 
 tries, and of the causes of the late war, as either Doctor Frank- 
 lin or Mr. Dickenson. 
 
 [129] Extract from the Address of the Assembly of 
 Virginia to the King, 1754. 
 
 "As the endeavours of the French to estabhsh a settlement 
 upon our frontiers, is a high insult offered to your majesty, and 
 if not timely opposed wz7/z vigour and resolution, must be attended 
 with the most fatal consequences; we have (notwithstanding 
 the great poverty of the colony, and the low condition of the 
 public revenue, occasioned by the bad state of our tobacco trade, 
 and a large debt due from the country, for raising and main- 
 taining of soldiers upon the expedition against Canada in the 
 year 1746) granted a supply of ten thousand pounds towards 
 defraying and protecting your majesty's subjects against the 
 encroachments of the French, which, though not sufficient to 
 answer all the ends for which it is designed, is the utmost that 
 your people under their present circumstances are able to bear. 
 We therefore most humbly beseech your majesty, to extend 
 your royal beneficence to us your loyal subjects, [130] that we 
 may be enabled to effectually defeat the unjust and pernicious 
 designs of your enemies." 
 
 [131] Extract from the Draught of a Representation of the 
 Commissioners met at Albany, July 9th 1754. 
 
 [132] ''That the said Colonies being in a divided, disunited 
 state, there has never been any joint exertion of their force, or 
 councils, [133] to repel or defeat the measures of the French; 
 and particular Colonies are unable and unwilling to maintain 
 the cause of the whole. 
 
23 
 
 That it seems absolutely necessaiy, that speedy and effectual 
 measures be taken to secure the Colonies from the slavery 
 tiiey are threatened with." 
 
 [179] Whilst parliament was thus in every reign, and almost 
 in every session, exercising its supreme legislative authority 
 over the Colonies, the ministers and servants of the crown 
 were not wanting on their part, in carrying the laws into due 
 execution, or in exerting the Prince's just authority, for pre- 
 serving the Colonies in their dependance on the king and par- 
 liament of Great Britain. 
 
 [198] In the year 1764, the Colonies were made acquainted 
 through their agents, that a revenue would be required from 
 them, towards defraying the charge of the troops kept up 
 among them, and to give this intimation the more efhcacy, a 
 resolution was propounded to, and adopted by the house of 
 commons, that for the purpose of raising such a general reve- 
 nue, a stamp duty might be necessary. 
 
 [199] The Colonies by this, saw that government was in 
 earnest, and they could not doubt of the intimation given 
 them from the king's ministers; that if they did not make 
 grants in their own assemblies, parliament would do it for 
 them. Mr. Grenville, indeed, went so far as to desire the agents 
 to acquaint the Colonies, that if they could not agree among 
 themselves, upon raising a revenue by their own assemblies, 
 yet if they all or any of them disliked stamp duties, and would 
 propose any other sort of tax which would carry the appearance 
 of equal efficacy, he would adopt it. But he warmly recom- 
 mended to them the making grants by their own assemblies, 
 as the most expedient method for themselves on several ac- 
 counts. The issue of this business is well known. The Colo- 
 nies universally refused to raise a fund among themselves, for 
 those who seemed inclined to do so, made no offer of any specific 
 sum, nor made any grant in their assemblies, nor laid any tax 
 for the purpose. [200] They did not imitate the more prudent 
 conduct of the New York assembly, in the year 17 15, and par- 
 liament therefore did in 1765, what parliament would have 
 done in that year, if the like refusal had been made. 
 
 I shall here stop my researches into the political history of 
 
24 
 
 the Colonies, and of the conduct which has been held by par- 
 Uament and ministry towards them. And let me now ask 
 the advocates for their independency, upon which period of 
 this history it is, that they would fix, as the epocha of the 
 Colonies emancipation from the sovereign authority of the 
 supreme legislature of the realm, or where will they carry us 
 for those pretended rights and privileges which exempt them 
 from its Jurisdiction? We have sought for them in the statute 
 books, but we found them not; we have looked for them in the 
 conduct of a long series of ministers; and in the opinions of 
 the truly learned and great lawyers, that were of council to our 
 kings, in the past ages, and lo, they are not there. Where then 
 shall we hope to meet with them? [201] In extravagant decla- 
 mations and unfounded arguments. In the weak artifices of 
 party and in the studied misrepresentations of designing and 
 interested men. 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 A talent for political controversy distinguished William Knox from the 
 office-holding class to which he belonged. Born in Ireland in 1732, he 
 received one of the places at the King's disposal in Georgia, in 1757. After 
 his return to England in 1761 he was appointed agent of Georgia and East 
 Florida in London, but his publication of two pamphlets in defense of the 
 Stamp Act caused his services to be dispensed with. In 1770, possibly 
 as a reward for "The Controversy Reviewed," he was made under secre- 
 tary in the Colonial Office, which position he held throughout the American 
 Revolution. He retired on a fat pension in 1782, and died in 1810. His 
 other pamphlets on American affairs are: "A Letter to a Member of Par- 
 liament." (1764.) "The Claim of the Colonies to an Exemption from 
 Internal Taxes." (1765.) " Instruction of the free Indians and Negroe 
 Slaves in the Colonies." (1768.) "The Present State of the Nation." 
 (1768.) "A Defense on the Quebec Act." (1774.) Other important 
 pamphlets on the Tory side of the taxation controversy are listed in 
 Edward Charming, History of the United States, III, 80. 
 
 As a part of its "Old South Work," the Old South Association in 
 Boston has published, during the course of years, over two hundred 
 historical leaflets. A subject catalogue is available on request. 
 
 Prices up to ten, 10 cents each, post-paid. 
 
 Discounts on larger quantities. 
 
 Please address orders and inquiries to 
 
 THE LEAFLET COMMITTEE 
 The Old South Association 
 
 Washington and Milk Streets, Boston 8, Massachusetts 
 
University of 
 Connecticut 
 
 Libraries 
 
 39153020726446