The friends of the Americans are of different opinions. Some think,
that, being unrepresented, they ought to tax themselves; and others,
that they ought to have representatives in the British parliament.
If they are to tax themselves, what power is to remain in the supreme
legislature? That they must settle their own mode of levying their money
is supposed. May the British parliament tell them how much they shall
contribute? If the sum may be prescribed, they will return few thanks
for the power of raising it; if they are at liberty to grant or to deny,
they are no longer subjects.
If they are to be represented, what number of these western orators are
to be admitted? This, I suppose, the parliament must settle; yet, if men
have a natural and unalienable right to be represented, who shall
determine the number of their delegates? Let us, however, suppose them
to send twenty-three, half as many as the kingdom of Scotland, what will
this representation avail them? To pay taxes will be still a grievance.
The love of money will not be lessened, nor the power of getting it
increased.
Whither will this necessity of representation drive us? Is every petty
settlement to be out of the reach of government, till it has sent a
senator to parliament; or may two of them, or a greater number, be
forced to unite in a single deputation? What, at last, is the difference
between him that is taxed, by compulsion, without representation, and
him that is represented, by compulsion, in order to be taxed?
For many reigns the house of commons was in a state of fluctuation: new
burgesses were added, from time to time, without any reason now to be
discovered; but the number has been fixed for more than a century and a
half, and the king's power of increasing it has been questioned.
Pages:
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371