Page 140 - American Stories, A History of the United States

authority throughout Britain and its colonies. According to this theory, parliamentary
decisions superseded any legislation passed by colonial assemblies. The British ruling 5.1
classes had a historic view of the role of Parliament that most colonists never shared.
They insisted that Parliament was the dominant element within the constitution. It
protected rights and property from an arbitrary monarch. Under the Stuart monarchs, 5.2
especially Charles I (r. 1625–1649), the authority of Parliament had been challenged.
But the crown did not formally recognize Parliament’s supreme authority in mat-
ters such as taxation until the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Almost no one, including 5.3
George III, would have dissented from a speech made in 1766 before the House of
Commons, in which a representative declared, “The parliament hath, and must have,
from the nature and essence of the constitution, has had, and ever will have a sovereign 5.4
supreme power and jurisdiction over every part of the dominions of the state, to make
laws in all cases whatsoever.”
Such a constitutional position did not leave much room for compromise. Most
members of Parliament took a hard line on this issue. The notion of dividing or sharing
sovereignty made no sense to the British ruling class. As Thomas Hutchinson, royal Quick Check
governor of Massachusetts, explained, no middle ground existed “between the supreme Why were members of the British
authority of Parliament and the total dependence of the colonies: it is impossible there government adamant in their de-
should be two independent legislatures in one and the same state.” fense of parliamentary sovereignty?

No taxation Without Representation:
the American Perspective

Americans did not see it in their “interest” to maintain the “supremacy of Parliament.”
The crisis in imperial relations forced the colonists first to define and then defend prin-
ciples rooted in their own political culture. For more than a century, their ideas about
the colonies’ role within the British empire had remained a vague, untested bundle of
assumptions about personal liberties, property rights, and representative institutions.
By 1763, however, certain fundamental American beliefs had become clear. From
Massachusetts to Georgia, colonists defended the powers of the provincial assemblies.
They drew on a rich legislative history of their own. In the eighteenth century, the
American assemblies had expanded their authority over taxation and expenditure.
Since no one in Britain bothered to clip their legislative wings, these provincial bodies
assumed a major role in policymaking and routine administration. In other words, by
midcentury the assemblies looked like American copies of Parliament. It seemed unrea-
sonable, therefore, for the British suddenly to insist on the supremacy of Parliament. As
the legislators of Massachusetts observed in 1770, “This house has the same inherent
rights in this province as the house of commons in Great Britain.”
The constitutional debate turned ultimately on the meaning of representation
itself. In 1764, a British official informed the colonists that even though they had not
elected members to Parliament—indeed, even though they had had no direct con-
tact with the current members—they were nevertheless “virtually” represented by that
august body. The members of Parliament, he declared, represented the political inter-
ests of everyone who lived in the British empire. It did not really matter whether every-
one had cast a vote.
The colonists ridiculed this notion of virtual representation. The only representa-
tives the Americans recognized as legitimate were those actually chosen by the peo-
ple for whom they spoke. On this crucial point they would not compromise. As John
Adams insisted, a representative assembly should mirror its constituents: “It should
think, feel, reason, and act like them.” Since the members of Parliament could not pos-
sibly “think” like Americans, it followed logically they could not represent them. And
if they were not genuine representatives, the members of Parliament— pretensions to
sovereignty notwithstanding—had no business taxing the American people. Thus, in Quick Check
1764 the Connecticut Assembly declared in bold letters, “NO LAW CAN BE MADE How did Parliament and the Ameri-
OR ABROGATED WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE BY THEIR can colonists differ in their ideas
REPRESENTATIVES.” about representative government?
107