Reichskommissariat Niederlande


The complaint was never officially over the amount of taxation the taxes were quite low, though ubiquitous , but always on the political decision-making process by which taxes were decided in London , i. The Americans carried through the bourgeois democratic revolution on a scale never before seen in history. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Navigation menu


The views of Knox, Grenville and Burke did not go unchallenged: William Pitt was amongst those who disputed that a Parliamentary right or power existed to levy "internal" taxes "for the purposes of raising a revenue" without the consent of actual representatives of the "Commons of America". When the parliament shall think fit to allow the colonists a representation in the house of commons, the equity of their taxing the colonies, will be as clear as their power is at present of doing it without, if they please But if it was thought hard that charter privileges should be taken away by act of parliament, is it not much harder to be in part, or in whole, disfranchised of rights, that have been always thought inherent to a British subject, namely, to be free from all taxes, but what he consents to in person, or by his representative?

This right, if it could be traced no higher than Magna Charta, is part of the common law, part of a British subjects birthright, and as inherent and perpetual, as the duty of allegiance; both which have been brought to these colonies, and have been hitherto held sacred and inviolable, and I hope and trust ever will.

It is humbly conceived, that the British colonists except only the conquered, if any are, by Magna Charta, as well entitled to have a voice in their taxes, as the subjects within the realm. Are we not as really deprived of that right, by the parliament assessing us before we are represented in the house of commons, as if the King should do it by his prerogative?

Can it be said with any colour of truth or justice, that we are represented in parliament? The resolutions of the Congress stated that the Stamp Act had "a manifest tendency to subvert the rights and liberties of the colonists" and that "the only Representatives of the People of these Colonies, are Persons chosen therein by themselves, and that no Taxes ever have been, or can be Constitutionally imposed on them, but by their respective Legislature.

In , Benjamin Franklin told the House of Commons that, "an internal tax is forced from the people without their consent if not laid by their own representatives. The Stamp Act says we shall have no commerce, make no exchange of property with each other, neither purchase nor grant, nor recover debts; we shall neither marry nor make our wills, unless we pay such and such sums; and thus it is intended to extort our money from us or ruin us by the consequence of refusing to pay it.

For those sympathetic to republicanism , such as James Burgh , Catherine Macauley , and Richard Price , any tax revenue measures that were voted into effect without the direct representation of Americans were "unconstitutional" and "pernicious". The Parliament considered this an illegal act because they believed it undermined the authority of the Crown-in-Parliament.

When the British then used the military to enforce laws that the colonists believed Parliament had passed illegally, the colonists responded by forming militias and seized political control of each colony, ousting the royal governors — with the exception of the American-born Royal Governor of Connecticut, John Trumbull, who was allowed to remain as the new Patriot Governor. The complaint was never officially over the amount of taxation the taxes were quite low, though ubiquitous , but always on the political decision-making process by which taxes were decided in London , i.

Patrick Henry 's resolution in the Virginia legislature implied that Americans possessed all the rights of Englishmen, that the principle of no taxation without representation was an essential part of the British Constitution , and that Virginia alone had the right to tax Virginians. This offer of actual imperial representation was likewise re-stated to the delegates of the colonies via the colonial agents in , according to Connecticut-born Reverend Thomas Bradbury Chandler, in his publication A Friendly Address to All Reasonable Americans.

James Macpherson , a colonial secretary of British West Florida, defended the North administration in an officially sponsored polemic in named The Rights of Great Britain Asserted. Had the Americans, instead of flying to arms, submitted the same supposed grievance [as the taxed though unrepresented Palatine counties in England had], in a peaceable and dutiful manner, to the Legislature, I can perceive no reason why their request should be refused.

If they are not madly bent on independence, let them propose the conditions on which they wish to continue as subjects The Legislature of this Kingdom cannot possibly depart from any part of its supremacy over the Colonies; but it is in the power of the Colonies to share in that supremacy. If they complain of being taxed without having the privilege of sending Members to Parliament, let them be represented.

Let their representation increase in proportion to the Revenue they shall furnish. If they wish rather to vote their QUOTA towards the general supply, through their own General Courts and Assemblies, the resolution of Parliament on that subject is still open to their choice.

But, as long as they assume the language of a Sovereign State, this Kingdom can enter into no negociation [ sic ], can meet no compromise. The noted economist Adam Smith seconded this view in his famous publication Wealth of Nations when he recommended the Americans "to send fifty or sixty new representatives to Parliament" on the basis of the amount of taxes they would contribute to the Imperial coffers. The Assembly of Massachusetts Bay, therefore, was the first that took any publick of the [Sugar] Act, and the first which ever took exception to the right of Parliament to impose Duties or Taxes on the Colonies, whilst they had no representatives in the House of Commons.

This they did in a letter to their Agent in the summer of , which they took care to print and publish before it was possible for him to receive it. And in this letter they recommend to him a pamphlet, wrote by one of their members, in which there are proposals for admitting representatives from the Colonies to fit in the House of Commons.

I have this special reason, my Lord, for taking notice of this Act of the Massachusetts Assembly; that though an American representation is thrown out as an expedient which might obviate the objections to Taxes upon the Colonies, yet it was only intended to amuse the authority in England; and as soon as it was known to have its advocates here [in London], it was renounced by the colonies, and even by the Assembly of the Colony which first proposed it, as utterly impracticable.

Indeed, the resolves of the Continental Congresses of both and declared that imperial representation was too impractical on the footing that "local and other circumstances, cannot properly be represented in the British parliament". This meant that spurious arguments had come to be employed in Britain to try to explain away and cover up the iniquities in its political life. In the winter of —65, George Grenville, and his secretary Thomas Whately, invented the doctrine of 'virtual representation' in an attempt extend the scope of such unjust arguments to America, and thereby attempt to legitimise the pernicious policies of the Stamp Act.

At first, the "representation" was held to be one of land, but, by , this had shifted to the notion that, in Parliament, all British subjects had a "virtual representation. He rejected the plea that the colonists, who had no vote, were unrepresented. The Americans carried through the bourgeois democratic revolution on a scale never before seen in history.

Virtual representation was wholly rejected in the colonies also who said the "virtual" was a cover for political corruption and was irreconcilable with their belief that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. In , the American lawyer and politician James Otis, Jr. If those now so considerable places are not represented, they ought to be.

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. Nor then can the subjects in the subordinate government be reduced to a state of slavery, and subject to the despotic rule of others 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, 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 Otis simultaneously refuted, in The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved , a contemporary argument that attempted to rationalise virtual representation on the basis of the colonial agents' alleged influence on British policy.

I know of no power ever given them but to appear before his Majesty, and his ministry. Sometimes they have been directed to petition the parliament: But they none of them have, and I hope never will have, a power given them, by the colonists, to act as representatives, and to consent to taxes; and if they should make any concessions to the ministry, especially without order, the provinces could not by that be considered as represented in parliament. Colonists said no man was represented if he were not allowed to vote.

Moreover, even "If every inhabitant of America had the requisite freehold," said Daniel Dulany , "not one could vote, but upon the supposition of his ceasing to become an inhabitant of America, and becoming a resident of Great Britain. The argument between the colonies and Parliament sought to resolve how the British 'commoners' of the various part of the Empire were represented most constitutionally [18] — as Daniel Dulaney, an American Loyalist and lawyer, put it "[the] constitutional authority [of Parliament's rights to bind American subjects] depends upon the single question, Whether the Commons of Great-Britain are virtually the representatives of the Commons of America, or not.

William Pitt argued in that the Commons of Britain ought not to tax the '"Commons of America" without gaining consent of their representatives in stating, "even under former arbitrary reigns, Parliaments were ashamed of taxing a people without their consent, and allowed them representatives. Why did [Grenville] confine himself to Chester and Durham?

He might have taken a higher example in Wales—Wales, that never was taxed by Parliament till it was incorporated. I am no courtier of America. I stand up for this kingdom. I maintain that the Parliament has a right to bind, to restrain America.

Our legislative power over the colonies is sovereign and supreme. When it ceases to be sovereign and supreme, I would advise every gentleman to sell his lands, if he can, and embark for that country.

When two countries are connected together like England and her colonies, without being incorporated, the one must necessarily govern. The greater must rule the less. But she must so rule it as not to contradict the fundamental principles that are common to both In his first speeches in Parliament, Lord Camden vigorously attacked the declaratory act which was proposed to mollify the crown on the repeal of the Stamp Tax.

I shall not consider the Declaratory Bill now lying on your table; for to what purpose, but loss of time, to consider the particulars of a Bill, the very existence of which is illegal, absolutely illegal, contrary to the fundamental laws of nature, contrary to the fundamental laws of this constitution? A constitution grounded on the eternal and immutable laws of nature; a constitution whose foundation and centre is liberty, which sends liberty to every individual who may happen to be within any part of its ample circumference.

Nor, my Lords, is the doctrine new, it is as old as the constitution; it grew up with it; indeed it is its support; taxation and representation are inseparably united; God hath joined them, no British parliament can separate them; to endeavour to do it, is to stab our very vitals.

My position is this—I repeat it—I will maintain it to my last hour,—taxation and representation are inseparable; this position is founded on the laws of nature; it is more, it is itself an eternal law of nature; for whatever is a man's own, is absolutely his own; no man has a right to take it from him without his consent, either expressed by himself or representative; whoever attempts to do it, attempts an injury; whoever does it, commits a robbery; he throws down and destroys the distinction between liberty and slavery.

Taxation and representation are coeval with and essential to the constitution. I can never give my assent to any bill for taxing the American colonies, while they remain unrepresented; for as to the distinction of a virtual representation, it is so absurd as not to deserve an answer; I therefore pass it over with contempt.

The forefathers of the Americans did not leave their native country, and subject themselves to every danger and distress, to be reduced to a state of slavery: Locke, 'What property have they in that, which another may, by right, take, when he pleases, to himself?

The idea of a virtual representation of America in this House is the most contemptible that ever entered into the head of a man. It does not deserve a serious refutation. The Commons of America, represented in their several assemblies, have ever been in possession of the exercise of this their constitutional right, of giving and granting their own money.

They would have been slaves if they had not enjoyed it. Grenville responded to Pitt, saying the disturbances in America "border on open rebellion; and if the doctrine I have heard this day be confirmed, nothing can tend more directly to produce a revolution. In the s, suffragette Sarah E. Wall of Worcester, Massachusetts invoked the principle of "no taxation without representation", initiating an anti-tax protest in which she encouraged women not to pay taxes until they were granted the right to vote.

Soon after she began this movement, the Worcester city tax collector sued Wall for refusing to pay taxes, and the case reached the Massachusetts Supreme Court in Wall," the court ruled against Wall and held that despite not having the right to vote, women are still obligated to meet their tax burden.

Even still, Wall refused to cooperate with the collector, and as a result, officers seized and sold her property in order to raise the money necessary to meet her tax obligation. After several years, Wall's inexorability eventually prevailed, as the collector began to ignore Wall and allow her to abstain from paying taxes.

Anthony cited Wall's audacity and willingness to stand up for women's suffrage, stating, "for the last twenty-five years, [she] has resisted the tax gatherer when he came around. I want you to look at her. She looks very harmless, but she will not pay a dollar of tax. She says when the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will give her the right of representation she will pay her taxes. The phrase is also used by other groups in America who pay various types of taxes sales , income , property but lack the ability to vote, such as felons who are, in many states, barred from voting , people who work in one state and live in another thus having to pay income tax to a state they don't live in , or people under To become citizens of the United States, immigrants most often must be permanent residents for a period of time usually 5 years.

However, throughout the 19th century, many states did allow immigrants to vote after they had declared their intention to become citizens. This was primarily because these new states were populated in large part by immigrants who had not yet attained citizenship. Chicago and six towns in Montgomery County, Maryland. In , the phrase "taxation without representation" was also used in the Tea Party protests , where protesters were upset over increased government spending and taxes, and specifically regarding a growing concern amongst the group that the U.

A modified version of the phrase, "no tuition without representation", is sometimes used in disputes over governance in higher education in the United States to emphasize student's rights to a voice in institutional decisions. In the United States, the phrase is used in Washington, D. In November , the D. Department of Motor Vehicles began issuing license plates bearing the slogan "Taxation without representation".

Bush had the tags replaced to those without the motto shortly after taking office. In , the Council of the District of Columbia authorized adding the slogan to the D. British Prime Minister John Major used a modified version of the quote, with the order reversed, in October , when at the United Nations 's 50th Anniversary celebrations he said, "It is not sustainable for states to enjoy representation without taxation," in order to criticize the billion-dollar arrears of the United States' payments to the UN, echoing a statement made the previous month at the opening session of the UN General Assembly by UK Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind.

Duceppe's evocation of the phrase implies that the proponents of Quebec's sovereigntist movement have the right to be represented in the body which they are , the Canadian Parliament , which levies taxes upon them. The first government of South Australia was by a legislative council , whose members were chosen by the Crown and from which office-bearers "Official Members" were selected by the Governor.

John Stephens and his South Australian Register were among those who campaigned for democratic reform. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Taxation An aspect of fiscal policy Policies. Desai Dhammika Dharmapala James R.

Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War. District of Columbia voting rights. Members of the Partnership for Sustainable Textiles urge the government in Bangladesh to advocate for compliance with the agreements reached for the transition of the Bangladesh Accord.

In a letter to the Bangladeshi Government, members… Read more. Members of the Partnership for Sustainable Textiles committed to take more responsibility for sustainability in their own supply chain. In the annual Roadmaps, they demonstrate how they handle the work to improve fair wages, environmental protection… Read more. The company with a deep heritage manufactures high quality workwear and attaches great value on ecological textiles and a sustainable business management.

In eight different workshops, the members discussed the structural development… Read more. The Partnership for Sustainable Textiles and its members are pleased to welcome the Naturschutzbund Deutschland e. The Naturschutzbund Deutschland e. In a joint letter,… Read more. The steering commitee of the Partnership for Sustainable Textiles decided yesterday to exclude seven members with immediate effect. They had not fulfilled their reporting obligations and had not submitted any roadmaps and progress reports, which… Read more.