"No taxation without representation" is a political slogan that originated in the American Revolution, and which expressed one of the primary grievances of the American colonists for Great Britain. In short, many colonists believed that as they were not represented in the distant British parliament, any taxes it imposed on the colonists (such as the Stamp Act and the Townshend Acts) were unconstitutional and were a denial of the colonists' rights as Englishmen since Magna Carta.
The firm belief that the government should not tax a populace unless that populace is represented in some manner in the government developed in the English Civil War, following the refusal of parliamentarian John Hampden to pay ship money tax. In the context of British taxation of its American colonies, the slogan "No taxation without representation" appeared for the first time in a headline of a February 1768 London Magazine printing of Lord Camden's "Speech on the Declaratory Bill of the Sovereignty of Great Britain over the Colonies", which was given in parliament.August 1768 London Magazine, No Taxation Without Representation headline, published online. The British government argued for virtual representation, the idea that people were represented by members of Parliament even if they did not have any recourse to remove them if they were unsatisfied with the representation, i.e. through elections.
The term has since been used by various other groups advocating for representation or protesting against taxes, such as the women's suffrage movement, advocates of District of Columbia voting rights, students seeking to be included in governance in higher education, the Tea Party movement, and others.
Prior to the American Revolution
According to Michael Hudson, the idea had an early precedent in medieval English law, which established the principle in Magna Carta where chapter 12 states that "no scutage or aid is to be levied in our kingdom, save by the common counsel of our kingdom."'There were proto-democratic elements in the Charter, most significantly the attempt to limit the king's authority to levy taxes without the consent of a committee selected by the barons. The concept of "no taxation without representation" appears in the original Chapter 12: "No scutage or aid is to be levied in our kingdom, save by the common counsel of our kingdom," and even then, only to ransom the king or for specified family occasions.' Michael Hudson, How Elite Infighting Made the Magna Carta, CounterPunch April 8, 2024.
Since 1660, the English Parliament had exercised control over colonial trade and imposed taxes on imports and exports.Unger, pg. 87 By the 1760s, the Americans were being deprived of a historic right.John C. Miller, Origins of the American Revolution. 1943. pp. 31, 99, 104 The English Bill of Rights 1689 had forbidden the imposition of taxes without the consent of Parliament. Since the colonists had no representation in Parliament, the taxes violated the guaranteed Rights of Englishmen. Parliament initially contended that the colonists had virtual representation, but the idea "found little support on either side of the Atlantic". The person who first suggested the idea of Parliamentary representation for the colonies appears to have been John Oldmixon, an English annalist of the era of Queen Anne or George I. It was afterwards put forward with approbation by Adam Smith, and advocated for a time, but afterwards rejected and strongly opposed, by Benjamin Franklin."1.9 Parliamentary Representation. • E-Books • Webjournals . Webjournals.ac.edu.au. Retrieved on July 15, 2013.
The 1768 Petition, Memorial, and Remonstrance, which was written by the Virginia House of Burgesses was likewise sent to Parliament, only to be ignored.H.M. Gladney, "No Taxation without Representation: 1768 Petition, Memorial, and Remonstrance", 2014.
American Revolution
The phrase had been used for more than a generation in Ireland.For a critical and detailed account of how the slogan came about, see the series of three articles posted on the blog Boston 1775, on April 25, 26 and 27, 2009, titled respectively, Who Coined the Phrase "No Taxation Without Representation"?, James Otis, Jr., on Taxation Without Representation, Looking for "Taxation Without Representation" By 1765, the term was in use in Boston, and local politician James Otis was most famously associated with the phrase, "taxation without representation is tyranny." In the course of the Revolutionary era (1750–1783), many arguments were pursued that sought to resolve the dispute surrounding Parliamentary sovereignty, taxation, self-governance and representation.Recreating the American Republic – Charles A. Kromkowski. Retrieved on July 15, 2013.British Friends of the American Revolution – Jerome R. Reich – Google Boeken. Books.google.com. Retrieved on July 15, 2013.
Representative proposals before 1776 In the course of the 1760s and 1770s, William Pitt the Elder, Sir William Pulteney, and George Grenville, amongst other prominent Britons and colonial Americans, such as Joseph Galloway, James Otis Jr., Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, the London Quaker Thomas Crowley, Royal Governors such as Thomas Pownall M.P., William Franklin, Sir Francis Bernard, and the Attorney-General of Quebec, Francis Maseres, debated and circulated plans for the creation of colonial seats in London, imperial union with Great Britain, or a federally representative British Parliament with powers of taxation that was to consist of American, West Indian, Irish and British Members of Parliament.Recreating the American Republic – Charles A. Kromkowski. Retrieved on July 15, 2013.Pownall, Thomas (1722–1805), colonial governor and politician, was born on 4 September 1722 in St Mary Magdalen's parish, Linc. Bernardoconnor.org.uk (November 19, 2005). Retrieved on July 15, 2013. – Franklin discussed the merits of American M.P.s with Governor Shirley of Massachusetts in the 1750s, who is said to have agreed – see also Thoughts on the Present State of Affairs with America, and the Means of ... - William Pulteney. Retrieved on July 15, 2013.Constitutional History of the American Revolution: The Authority of Law – John Phillip Reid – Google Boeken. Books.google.com. Retrieved on July 15, 2013. Despite the fact that these ideas were considered and discussed seriously on both sides of the Atlantic, it appears that neither the American Congress, nor the colonial Assemblies, nor the British Government in Westminster, at least prior to the Carlisle Peace Commission of 1778, officially proposed such constitutional developments.The Issue of Representation. Academicamerican.com. Retrieved on July 15, 2013. Governor Thomas Hutchinson apparently referred to a colonial representational proposal when he wrote that, The Assembly of Massachusetts Bay was 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 1764 ... 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 ... an American representation is thrown out as an expedient which might obviate the objections to Taxes upon the Colonies, yet ... it was renounced ... by the Assembly of the Colony which first proposed it, as utterly impracticable.
Jared Ingersoll Sr., colonial agent for Connecticut, wrote to his American colleague, the Royal Governor of Connecticut Thomas Fitch, that following Isaac Barre's famous Parliamentary speech against the Stamp Act in 1764, Richard Jackson, M.P., supported Barre and other pro-American M.P.s by producing before the House copies of earlier Acts of Parliament that had admitted Durham and Chester seats upon their petitions for representation. The argument was put forward in Parliament that America should have representatives on these grounds, too.Prologue To Revolution: Sources And Documents On The Stamp Act Crisis, 1764–1766. Retrieved on July 15, 2013. Richard Jackson supposed that Parliament had a right to tax America, but he much doubted the expediency of the Stamp Act. He said if it was necessary, as ministers claimed, to tax the colonies, the latter should be permitted to elect some part of the Parliament, "otherwise the liberties of America, I do not say will be lost, but will be in danger."The Eve of the Revolution: Carl Becker: 9781932109115: Amazon.com: Books. Amazon.com. Retrieved on July 15, 2013.Prologue To Revolution: Sources And Documents On The Stamp Act Crisis, 1764–1766.Retrieved on July 15, 2013.
The Knox-Burke debates William Knox from Ireland, an aide of George Grenville, pamphleteer and subsequent Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, received an appointment in 1756 to the American provinces, and after his return to London in 1761, he recommended the creation of a colonial aristocracy and colonial representation in the British Parliament.William Knox. Libraryireland.com. Retrieved on July 15, 2013. He was shortly afterwards appointed agent for Georgia and East Florida, a post which he forfeited by writing in favor of the Stamp Act. In his Grenville-backed pamphlet of 1769, The Controversy between Great Britain and her Colonies Reviewed, Knox suggested that colonial representatives might have been offered seats in the British Parliament if they had sought such representation. Knox submitted that: Whilst [the radical colonists] exclaim against Parliament for taxing them when they are not represented, they candidly declare they will not have representatives [in Parliament] lest they should be taxed ... The truth ... is that they are determined to get rid of the jurisdiction of Parliament ... and they therefore refuse to send members to that assembly lest they should preclude themselves of [the] plea [that Parliament's] legislative acts ... are done without their consent; which, it must be confessed, holds equally good against all laws, as against taxes ... The colony advocates ... tell us, that by refusing to accept our offer of representatives they ... mean to avoid giving Parliament a pretence for taxing them.