Page:Life of William Shelburne (vol 1).djvu/208

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
182
WILLIAM, EARL OF SHELBURNE
CH. IV

recognised as belonging to the Assemblies, and special mention had been made of it in the charters of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. But there was another question, not so easy of answer as that of the right of the colonies to tax themselves, viz. whether the colonies could be taxed by any power but themselves. This question was that to which an affirmative answer was assumed in the third query of the despatch addressed by Egremont to Shelburne.

Two theories on the subject of taxation had for a long time divided the lawyers and statesmen both of the mother-country and of the colonies: on the one hand, that of taxation by the Crown in virtue of the prerogative; on the other, that of taxation by Parliament considered as part of the general legislative power. The first had naturally found favour before the Revolution of 1688, but only a fruitless attempt had been made by Halifax and Townshend to revive it in 1753; the second had, as naturally, prevailed since the Revolution. The law of the question might now be said to depend on the opinion given by Sir Philip Yorke—afterwards Lord Hardwicke—and Sir Clement Wearg in 1724, "that a colony of English subjects cannot be taxed but by some representative body of their own or by the Parliament of England"; and in that given by Sir William Murray—afterwards Lord Mansfield—and Sir Dudley Ryder in 1744, "that a colonial Assembly cannot be compelled to do more towards their own defence than they shall see fit, unless by the force of an Act of Parliament which alone can prescribe rules of conduct for them." The theory embodied in these opinions was supported by appeals to the relations between the ancient colonies and their mother-cities and, what was of more importance, by a certain number of modern precedents. How vague and ill ascertained however these theories were, may be seen by reference to the judgment of Lord Mansfield, in the case of Campbell v. Hall, given a year after this time, viz. July 20th, 1764, the exhaustive and careful character of which is in itself a proof how little understood Lord