The sun., 1903-07-19

without consent of the owner, given per-
sonally or by his representatives. That
was the ordinary. specific way Of putting
II. But the ground taken was general,
/. o., Parliament had no authority over indi-
viduals in the colonies Except incidentally
In the regulation of their external ahairs)
for want Of representation by them. In
opposition to this assertion, the L0yalsts
maintained that what had come to be called
virtual representation" satisfied the mean
ing Of the British Constitution; and In that
sense America was represented In Parlia-
nlent. According to the Loyalist Howard,
the maxim that Englishmen could not be
taxed without their consent was dry
maxim; 1t was not to be teken literally.
Rightly explained. !4e said, it did not sup
port the Whig case It was, he alleged,
the opinion OF the House OK Commons,
and might be considered as "law OF Par
lament that the Commons were the
representatives of every British subject,
wheresoever he might be. In that view,
the maxim in question was fully vindicated
and the whole benefit Of It was extended
to the colonies. In literal sense, the
maxim never was, and never could be,
carried out, -Was the Isle Of Man, or Jer-
sey. or Guernsey represented in that sense?
What was the value Of the representation
of each man in the Kingdom Of Scotland
which contains near two millions OF people.
and yet not more than three Thousand
had vote in the election of Members Of
Parliament? The moneyed interests Of
Britain, though vast, had no share in the
representation; and copyholders could not
vote for Members OF Parliament
The Loyalist Galloway Of Pennsylvania
who had been Speaker Of the House
OF Assembly Of that province, did not
60 80 far as Howard. The rights OF
Americans, he believed, could be traced
to no other source than the Constitution
Of the British State; and this was founded
upon real property al the thing to be, above
all, protected. Hence. real property in
England was represented in Parliament
He insisted that real property in America
ought also to have representation In Parlia-
ment; the emigrants had neither surren-
dered, forfeited nor lost their rights OF
representation by coming to America;
Americans, as the subjects OF free State,
were justly entitled to participate in the
government Of IL. They should be restored
to their ancient and essential right Of
sharing in the making of laws That right
originally was, and still is, Of theNessence
! Of the British Constitution. As the case
| now stood, the British Government was
as absolute and despotic over the colonies
as any monarch could be. That was a
| situation in which people accustomed to
liberty, especially Americans, could not
! easily acquiesce. Many Of the Loyalists
thought that Galloway proved too much;
| for, TO the suggestion that the Parliament
might grant the colonies representation If
request were properly made, the answer
on both sides Of the Atlantic uniformly
was that the geographical situation OF the
colonies made the idea impracticable
Representation being out of the question,
the colonies were not to be subject to the
| general authority Of the Parliament. Such
was the Wing or patriot position.
As to the third ground on which the claim
OF exemption from the authority Of Par
! lament was based, that of the charters,
| the Wings generally held that these instru.
ments confirmed their assertion Of exemp-
ton. Most Loyalists, on the other hand
took contrary view. The Whig position
was best defined by Samuel Adams by
Dulaney and by Alexander Hamilton
! Adams and Dulaney treated the charters
as contracts or compacts. The original
contract between the King and the first
planters was. said Samuel Adams in 1868.
a promise on behalf OF the nation, made
on authority not till lately questioned,
that. if the adventurers, at their own cost
would purchase the country, subdue the
wilderness and thereby enlarge the King 4
dominions. they and their posterity should
enjoy such rights and privileges as in their
respective charters were expressed which.
in general, were all the rights, liberties
and privileges Of his Majesty's natural
born subjects within the realm. The prin.
cipal privileges implied by some and ex.
pressed by other charters, was freedom
from all taxes but such as they should
consent to in person or by representatives
chosen by themselves. Hamilton made,
in Prof Bgelow's opinion. the most original
and telling argument. He asserted that
the charters, and British action concerning
them, showed the colonies to be without
the realm and jurisdiction Of Parliament"
| n, then, he argues, the colonies were, at
the outset. without the realm and iurisdc-
ton of Parliament, no human authority
could afterward alter the case without
their own consent Now let us see how
the Loyalists regarded the claim that ex-
emption from the jurisdiction OF Parlia-
ment could be deduced from the charters.
Galloway pronounced the idea a delusion
' The charters, he said, had been granted
by the King as the Representatives Of Great
Britain; they had therefore, been granted by
Parliament, and hence the colonies derived
their rights from the British Legislature.
The King, he insisted, held the Great Seal
in his representative capacity only. One
right which he had under the seal was to
form territories within the realm into
inferior bodies polite, vesting In the peo-
pile there the power to make laws for the
regulation Of internal police. but not to dis
charge the people from obedience to Parlia-
ment, because that would weaken and
dsmember and, in the end, destroy the
State. Galloway brushed aside the plea
put forward by some, that the oath OF
allegiance in America was taken to the
King, not as representative Of Great Britain
but as representing the several Legislatures
of the colonies This, he said, was a
new and unheard-of capacity of his
Majesty; it made his Majesty the represen.
tative Of his own representatives, delegates
or substitutes. Seabury dealt with the
matter thus: "To talk of being liege
subjects to King George while we disavow