The Rights of the British Colonies
Asserted and Proved
James Otis
1764
Every British subject born on the continent of America, or in any other of the British dominions, is by the
law of God and nature, by the common law, and by act of parliament, (exclusive of all charters from the
Crown) entitled to all the natural, essential, inherent and inseparable rights of our fellow subjects in
Great Britain. Among those rights are the following, which it is humbly conceived no man or body of
men, not excepting the parliament, justly equitably and consistently with their own rights and the
constitution, can take away.
1st. That the supreme and subordinate powers of the legislation should be free and sacred in the hands
where the community have once rightfully placed them.
2dly. The supreme national legislative cannot be altered justly ?till the commonwealth is dissolved, nor a
subordinate legislative taken away without forfeiture or other good cause.
Nor then can the subjects in the subordinate government be reduced to a state of slavery, and subject
to the despotic rule of others. A state has no right to make slaves of the conquered. Even when the
subordinate right of legislature is forfeited, and so declared, this cannot affect the natural persons either
of those who were invested with it, or the inhabitants,13 so far as to deprive them of the rights of
subjects and of men?The colonists will have an equitable right notwithstanding any such forfeiture of
charter, to be represented in Parliament, or to have some new subordinate legislature among
themselves. It would be best if they had both. Deprived however of their common rights as subjects,
they cannot lawfully be, while they remain such. A representation in Parliament from the several
Colonies, since they are become so large and numerous, as to be called on not to maintain provincial
government, civil and military among themselves, for this they have chearfully done, but to contribute
towards the support of a national standing army, by reason of the heavy national debt, when they
themselves owe a large one, contracted in the common cause, can?t be tho?t an unreasonable thing, nor
if asked, could it be called an immodest request . . . Besides the equity of an American representation in
parliament, a thousand advantages would result from it. It would be the most effectual means of giving
those of both countries a thorough knowledge of each others interests; as well as that of the whole,
which are inseparable.
…
No representation of the Colonies in parliament alone, would however be equivalent to a subordinate
legislative among themselves; nor so well answer the ends of increasing their prosperity and the
commerce of Great-Britain. It would be impossible for the parliament to judge so well, of their abilities
to bear taxes, impositions on trade, and other duties and burthens, or of the local laws that might be
really needful, as a legislative here.
3dly. No legislative, supreme or subordinate, has a right to make itself arbitrary. It would be a most
manifest contradiction, for a free legislative, like that of Great-Britain, to make itself arbitrary.
4thly. The supreme legislative cannot justly assume a power of ruling by extempore arbitrary decrees,
but is bound to dispense justice by known settled rules, and by duly authorized independant judges.
5thly. The supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property, without his consent in
person, or by representation.
6thly. The legislature cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands. These are their
bounds [i.e. the limits of Parliament], which by God and nature are fixed, hitherto have they a right to
come, and no further:
1. To govern by stated laws.
2. Those laws should have no other end ultimately, but the good of the people.
3. Taxes are not to be laid on the people, but by their consent in person, or by deputation.
4. Their whole power is not transferable.
…
That the colonists, black and white, born here, are free born British subjects, and entitled to all the
essential civil rights of such, is a truth not only manifest from the provincial charters, from the principles
of the common law, and acts of parliament; but from the British constitution, which was reestablished
at the revolution, with a professed design to lecture the liberties of all the subjects to all generations.
Now can there be any liberty, where property is taken away without consent? Can it with any colour of
truth, justice or equity, be affirmed, that the northern colonies are represented in parliament? Has this
whole continent of near three thousand miles in length, and in which and his other American dominions,
his Majesty has, or very soon will have, some millions of as good, loyal and useful subjects, white and
black, as any in the three kingdoms, the election of one member of the house of commons?
…
I can see no reason to doubt, but that the imposition of taxes, whether on trade, or on land, or houses,
or ships, on real or personal, fixed or floating property, in the colonies, is absolutely irreconcileable with
the rights of the Colonists, as British subjects, and as men. I say men, for in a state of nature, no man can
take my property from me, without my consent: If he does, he deprives me of my liberty, and makes me
a slave. If such a proceeding is a breach of the law of nature, no law of society can make it just?The
very act of taxing, exercised over those who are not represented, appears to me to be depriving them of
one of their most essential rights, as freemen; and if continued, seems to be in effect an entire
disfranchisement of every civil right. For what one civil right is worth a rush, after a man?s property is
subject to be taken from him at pleasure, without his consent? If a man is not his own assessor in
person, or by deputy, his liberty is gone, or lays intirely at the mercy of others.
…
If an army must be kept in America, at the expence of the colonies, it would not seem quite so hard if
after the parliament had determined the sum to be raised, and apportioned it, to have allowed each
colony to assess its quota, and raise it as easily to themselves as might be. But to have the whole levied
and collected without our consent is extraordinary.
…
We all think ourselves happy under Great-Britain. We love, esteem and reverence our mother country,
and adore our King. And could the choice of independency be offered the colonies, or subjection to
Great-Britain upon any terms above absolute slavery, I am convinced they would accept the latter. The
ministry, in all future generations may rely on it, that British America will never prove undutiful, till
driven to it, as the last fatal resort against ministerial oppression, which will make the wisest mad, and
the weakest strong.
…
The sum of my argument is, That civil government is of God . . . 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 their consent: That every part
has a right to be represented in the supreme or some subordinate legislature: That the 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 number and estates, in the grand legislature 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.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/1763-otis-rights-of-british-colonies-asserted-pamphlet
The Objections to the Taxation of our
American Colonies by the Legislature
of Great Britain, briefly consider’d.
Soame Jenyns, 1765
The right of the Legislature of Great-Britain to impose taxes on her American Colonies, and the
[expediency] of exerting that right in the present conjuncture, are propositions so indisputably clear,
that I should never have thought it necessary to have undertaken their defence, had not many
arguments been lately flung out, both in papers and conversation, which with insolence equal to their
absurdity deny them both. As these are usually mixt up with several patriotic and favorite words such as
Liberty, Property, Englishmen, etc., which are apt to make strong impressions on that more numerous
part of mankind, who have ears but no understanding, it will not, I think, be improper to give them some
answers . . .
The great capital argument, which I find on this subject . . . is this; that no Englishman is, or can be taxed,
but by his own consent: by which must be meant one of these three propositions; either that no
Englishman can be taxed without his own consent as an individual; or that no Englishman can be taxed
without the consent of the persons he chuses to represent him; or that no Englishman can be taxed
without the consent of the majority of all those, who are elected by himself and others of his fellowsubjects to represent them. Now let us impartially consider, whether any one of these propositions are
in fact true: if not, then this wonderful structure which has been erected upon them, falls at once to the
ground, and like another Babel, perishes by a confusion of words, which the builders themselves are
unable to understand.
First then, that no Englishman is or can be taxed but by his own consent as an individual: this is so far
from being true, that it is the very reverse of truth; for no man that I know of is taxed by his own
consent; and an Englishman, I believe, is as little likely to be so taxed, as any man in the world.
Secondly, that no Englishman is or can be taxed but by the consent of those persons whom he has chose
to represent him; for the truth of this I shall appeal only to the candid representatives of those
unfortunate counties which produce cyder, and shall willingly acquiesce under their determination.
Lastly, that no Englishman is, or can be taxed, without the consent of the majority of those, who are
elected by himself, and others of his fellow-subjects, to represent them. This is certainly as false as the
other two; for every Englishman is taxed, and not one in twenty represented: copyholders, leaseholders,
and all men possessed of personal property only, chuse no representatives; Manchester, Birmingham,
and many more of our richest and most flourishing trading towns send no members to parliament,
consequently cannot consent by their representatives, because they chuse none to represent them; yet
are they not Englishmen? or are they not taxed?
I am well aware, that I shall hear Locke, Sidney, Selden, and many other great names quoted to prove
that every Englishman, whether he has a right to vote for a representative, or not, is still represented in
the British Parliament; in which opinion they all agree: on what principle of common sense this opinion
is founded I comprehend not, but on the authority of such respectable names I shall acknowledge its
truth; but then I will ask one question, and on that I will rest the whole merits of the cause: Why does
not this imaginary representation extend to America, as well as over the whole island of Great-Britain? If
it can travel three hundred miles, why not three thousand? if it can jump over rivers and mountains,
why cannot it sail over the ocean? If the towns of Manchester and Birmingham sending no
representatives to parliament, are notwithstanding there represented, why are not the cities of Albany
and Boston equally represented in that assembly? Are they not alike British subjects? are they not
Englishmen? or are they only Englishmen when they solicit for protection, but not Englishmen when
taxes are required to enable this country to protect them?
But it is urged, that the Colonies are by their charters placed under distinct Governments, each of which
has a legislative power within itself, by which alone it ought to be taxed; that if this privilege is once
given up, that liberty which every Englishman has a right to, is torn from them, they are all slaves, and all
is lost.
The liberty of an Englishman . . . cannot mean; that is, an exemption from taxes imposed by the
authority of the Parliament of Great Britain; nor is there any charter, that ever pretended to grant such a
privilege to any colony in America; and had they granted it, it could have had no force; their charters
heing derived from the Crown, and no charter from the Crown can possibly supersede the right of the
whole legislature: their charters are undoubtedly no more than those of all corporations, which
impower them to make byelaws, and raise duties for the purposes of their own police, for every subject
to the superior authority of parliament; and in some of their charters, the manner of exercising these
powers is specified in these express words, “according to the course of other corporations in GreatBritain”: and therefore they can have no more pretence to plead an exemption from this parliamentary
authority, than any other corporation in England.
It has been moreover alleged, that, though Parliament may have power to impose taxes on the Colonies,
they have no right to use it, because it would be an unjust tax; and no supreme or legislative power can
have a right to enact any law in its nature unjust: to this, I shall only make this short reply, that if
Parliament can impose no taxes but what are equitable, and the persons taxed are to be the judges of
that equity, they will in effect have no power to lay any tax at all. No tax can be imposed exactly equal
on all, and if it is not equal, it cannot be just: and if it is not just, no power whatever can impose it; by
which short syllogism, all taxation is at an end; but why it should not be used by Englishmen on this side
the Atlantic, as well as by those on the other, I do not comprehend. . .
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1751-1775/soame-jenyns-the-objections-to-the-taxationconsiderd-1765.php
TAXATION NO TYRANNY
Samuel Johnson
1775
“the supreme power of every community has the right of requiring, from all its subjects, such
contributions as are necessary to the publick safety or publick prosperity,” which was considered, by all
mankind, as comprising the primary and essential condition of all political society, till it became disputed
by those zealots of anarchy, who have denied, to the parliament of Britain the right of taxing the
American colonies . . .
A tax is a payment, exacted by authority, from part of the community, for the benefit of the whole. From
whom, and in what proportion such payment shall be required, and to what uses it shall be applied,
those only are to judge to whom government is intrusted. In the British dominions taxes are
apportioned, levied, and appropriated by the states assembled in parliament.
Of every empire all the subordinate communities are liable to taxation, because they all share the
benefits of government, and, therefore, ought all to furnish their proportion of the expense.
This the Americans have never openly denied. That it is their duty to pay the costs of their own safety,
they seem to admit; nor do they refuse their contribution to the exigencies, whatever they may be, of
the British empire; but they make this participation of a publick burden a duty of very uncertain extent,
and imperfect obligation, a duty temporary, occasional, and elective, of which they reserve to
themselves the right of settling the degree, the time, and the duration; of judging when it may be
required, and when it has been performed.
They allow to the supreme power [Parliament] nothing more than the liberty of notifying to them its
demands or its necessities . . .
An English colony has very liberal powers of regulating its own manners, and adjusting its own affairs.
But an English individual may, by the supreme authority, be deprived of liberty, and a colony divested of
its powers, for reasons of which that authority is the only judge.
In sovereignty there are no gradations. There may be limited royalty, there may be limited consulship;
but there can be no limited government. There must, in every society, be some power or other, from
which there is no appeal, which admits no restrictions, which pervades the whole mass of the
community, regulates and adjusts all subordination, enacts laws or repeals them . . .
He that denies the English parliament the right of taxation, denies it, likewise, the right of making any
other laws, civil or criminal, yet this power over the colonies was never yet disputed by themselves. They
have always admitted statutes for the punishment of offences, and for the redress or prevention of
inconveniencies; and the reception of any law draws after it, by a chain which cannot be broken, the
unwelcome necessity of submitting to taxation . . .
http://www.samueljohnson.com/tnt.html

Purchase answer to see full
attachment