Family-histories and genealogies : containing a series of ...

#fl;jrrn=3JotinBon
" I would therefore," says Johnson, " i'*, inquire into the evils apprehended from
the late measures of the British ministry ; a"''', what British subjects in America may
do, and what, likely, they will do ; s'*''', what the go-vernments have done, may, and
we humbly conceive would do well to, do further. Lastly, conclude with some
advices to my dear countrymen."
Under the first head, speaking of the inalienable right of Englishmen
to be taxed by their own representatives in Parliament, he says :
" To pretend we are Virtually represented by the members of parliament is such a
weak, flimsy argument as deserves no answer. Pray by what members ? Is it those
chosen by the city of London, or any other city. Shire or Burough ? For we know
not to whom to apply as our representatives. The particular members chosen by and
for any Burough or Shire can say they are the representatives of such Burough or
Shire (tho' all are not qualified, and do not vote in their election), because chosen by
the freemen of such Shire, who, by constitution, act for the whole. But is it other-
wise as to the Americans ? Who of the members can say ' I am the representative of
the Americans,' without the consent or vote of a single American ? And if no one
can say it, the right is in no one, and consequently not in the whole. Five hundred
noughts can never make a unit. . . .
" 'Tis ridiculous to common sense that two millions of free people can be repre-
sented by a representative who is elected by no one of them. . . ." '"
Of the privilege of jury-trial, taken away by the Stamp Act, he writes
as follows
:
"" But, in the words of a distinguished writer of the present day, " What was the exact significance
of the ancient constitutional formula which connected taxation with representation? When broadly
stated by the colonists, it must have struck many Englishmen of that day as a mischievous paradox,
since it seemed to deny the right of Parliament to tax, not only Massachusetts, but Manchester and
Birmingham, which were not represented in any intelligible sense in the House of Commons. On the
other hand, the American contention is largely accounted for by the fact that the local assemblies in
which the colonists were represented 'were not formally instituted, but grew up by themselves, because
it was in the nature of Englishmen to assemble '
. . . The truth is that, from the popular point of
view, either the affirmation or the denial of the moot point led straight to an absurdity"— -Popular
Government. By Sir Henry Sumner Maine. . . . New York, 1886, pp. 222-23.
328