Page:Cambridge Modern History Volume 7.djvu/225

-1774] Virtual representation. 193 Parliament had no authority over individuals in the colonies (except incidentally, in the regulation of their external affairs) for want of representation by them. In answer to this position it was contended that what came to be called "virtual representation" satisfied the meaning of the constitution; and in that sense, America, it was said, was represented in Parliament. The maxim, as the loyalist Howard was willing to call it, that English- men could not be taxed without their consent, was a "dry maxim"; it was not to be taken literally. Rightly explained, it did not support the Whig case. It was, said Howard, the opinion of the House of Commons, and might be considered as a " law of Parliament," 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 extended to the colonies. In a literal sense the maxim never was and never could be carried out. Was the Isle of Man, or Jersey, or Guernsey represented in that sense ? What was the value of the representation of each man in the kingdom of Scotland, which contained near two millions of people, and yet not more than three thousand had a vote in the election of members of Parliament? The moneyed interest of Britain, though vast, had no share in the representation ; and copyholders could not vote for members of Parliament. Otis replied with legal sarcasm. Howard had said that the opinion of a House of Commons was a " law of Parliament." Therefore it was determined by Act of Parliament, that Americans were, and should believe they were, in fact represented in the House of Commons ! Would any man's calling himself an agent or representative make him such? Howard saw no difference between a literal sense of his "dry maxim" and no sense at all. Could it be argued that, because it was impracticable that each individual should in fact be represented, there should be no representation whatever ? Seabury said that the Whig doctrine had arisen from an artful change of terms. To say that an Englishman was not bound by laws to which the representatives of the nation had not given their consent was to say what was true. But to say that an Englishman was bound by no laws but those to which he had consented in person, or by his represent- ative, was saying what never was true, and never could be true. A great part of the people of England had no share in the choice of representatives. One of the Commissioners of the Treasury, in England, speaking more directly still, said that the merchants of London, the proprietors of the public funds, the inhabitants of Leeds, Halifax, Birmingham, and Manchester, and the East India Company, did not choose representatives ; and yet they were all represented in Parliament. " And the colonies, being exactly in their situation, are represented in the same manner." C. JM. H. VII. CH. VI. 13