THE OBJECTIONS то тНЕ TAXATION OF OUR AMERICAN COLONIES, BY THE Legislature of Great-Britain, BRIEFLY CONSIDERED. Written in the Year 1765. THE OBJECTIONS TO THE TAXATION OF OUR AMERICAN COLONIES, T BRIEFLY CONSIDERED. HE right of the legislature of Great-Britain to impose taxes on her American Colonies, and the expediency of exerting that right in the prefent conjuncture, are propofitions fo indifputably clear, that I should never have thought it neceffary to have undertaken their defence, had not many arguments been lately flung out, both in papers and converfation, which with infolence equal to their abfurdity deny them both. As these are usually mixt up with feveral patriotic and favorite words, fuch as Liberty, Property, Englishmen, &c. which are apt to make strong impreffions on that more numerous part of mankind, who have ears but no understanding, it will not, I think, be improper to give them fome anfwers: to this therefore I fhall fingly confine myself, and do it in as few words as poffible, being fenfible that the feweft will give leaft trouble to myself and probably most information to my reader. THE great capital argument, which I find on this fubject, and which, like an Elephant at the head of a Nobob's army, being once overthrown, muft put the whole into confufion, is this: that no Englishman is, or can be taxed, but by his own confent: by which must be meant one of these three propofitions; either that no Englishman can be taxed without his own confent as an individual; or that no Englishman can be taxed without the consent of the perfons he chufes to reprefent him: or that no Englishman can be taxed without the confent of the majority of all thofe, who are elected by himself and others of his fellow-fubjects to represent them. Now let us impartially confider, whether any one of thefe propofitions are in fact true: if not, then this wonderful ftructure which has been erected upon them, falls at once to the ground, and like another Babel, perifhes by a confufion, of words, which the builders themfelves are unable to understand.. FIRST then, that no Englishman is or can be axed but by his own confent as an individual this is fo far from being true, that it is the very reverse of truth; for no man that I know of is taxed by his own confent; 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 fhall appeal only to the candid representa tives of those unfortunate counties which produce cyder, and fhall willingly acquiefce under their determination. LASTLY, that no Englishman is, or can be taxed, without the confent of the majority of thofe, who are elected by himself, and others of his fellow-fubjects, to represent them. This is certainly as falfe as the other two; for every Englishman is taxed, and not one in twenty reprefented: copyholders, leaseholders, and all men poffeffed of perfonal property only, chufe no re prefentatives; Manchester, Birmingham, and many more of our richest and most flourishing trading towns fend no members to parliament, confequently cannot consent by their reprefentatives, because they chufe none to reprefent them; yet are they not Englishmen? or are they not taxed? I AM well aware, that I fhall hear Locke, Sidney, Selden, and many other great names quoted, E e 4 to |