CANADA HISTORY - DOCUMENTS EMPIRE

Soame Jenkyns, The Objections to the Taxation of our American Colonies by the Legislature of Great Britain, briefly consider'd. c1765

Analysis of the Document - (The Document follows below the Analysis)

Soame Jenyns’ pamphlet The Objections to the Taxation of Our American Colonies by the Legislature of Great Britain, Briefly Considered (c. 1765) is a notable work defending the British Parliament’s right to tax its American colonies, written during the height of tensions that preceded the American Revolution. Jenyns argued that, despite the lack of direct representation in Parliament, the colonies still benefited from British military protection and the empire’s overall governance. Therefore, he contended, they had an obligation to contribute to the costs of maintaining the empire.

For Canada, the debate over the taxation of the American colonies had significant long-term consequences. While Jenyns’ work was primarily focused on the American context, it spoke to a broader imperial dilemma: how Britain would manage its far-flung colonies as they grew more autonomous and distinct. Canada, which remained loyal to Britain during the American Revolution, experienced the impact of this debate through the influx of Loyalists fleeing the newly formed United States. These Loyalists brought with them strong beliefs in British constitutional principles and loyalty to the Crown, shaping the future political culture of British North America.

Jenyns' arguments were part of the broader imperial thinking of the time, which saw colonies as integral parts of a hierarchical empire where the colonies owed allegiance—and financial support—to the mother country. The American colonies’ rebellion against these ideas, rooted in the slogan "no taxation without representation," created a rift that led to the Revolution and the eventual establishment of the United States. For British North America, the fallout from this rebellion—and the stark difference in Canadian and American reactions to British rule—became a defining moment in shaping Canadian identity. Canada's continued loyalty to Britain, in contrast to the American desire for independence, set the stage for its unique trajectory within the British Empire.

After the American Revolution, the arrival of the United Empire Loyalists in Canada further solidified British North America’s connection to the Crown and distanced it from American revolutionary ideals. The political and social systems that developed in Canada were more conservative and deferential to British authority, especially in comparison to the republicanism that flourished in the United States. Jenyns’ defense of taxation, while not directly applicable to Canadian governance, reflected the broader British imperial ethos that emphasized the reciprocal relationship between the colonies and the mother country—a relationship that Canada, unlike the American colonies, would embrace well into the 19th century.

The long-term implications of the ideas discussed by Jenyns continued to influence Canadian history, particularly as Canada’s relationship with Britain evolved. Canada’s gradual push for greater autonomy, culminating in the Statute of Westminster in 1931 and the Canada Act of 1982, reflected the balancing act between maintaining ties to Britain while developing an independent national identity. In this sense, the arguments presented in Jenyns’ pamphlet represent an early manifestation of the tensions that would shape the future of Canada within the British Empire.

In conclusion, The Objections to the Taxation of Our American Colonies by Soame Jenyns offered a defense of British colonial policy that had far-reaching implications beyond the immediate context of the American colonies. While it did not directly address Canada, the ideological struggles it encapsulated played a significant role in shaping the political and social development of British North America. Canada’s continued loyalty to the Crown, its distinct path from the American colonies, and its eventual evolution into a self-governing Dominion within the British Commonwealth all trace back to the debates over governance and taxation that Jenyns’ work articulated so clearly.

The right of the Legislature of Great-Britain to impose taxes on her American Colonies, and the expedicocy of exerting that right in the present conjuncture, are propositions so indisputably clear, that I should never have thought it necessary to have undertaken their defence, had not many arguments been lately flung out, both in papers and conversation, which with insolence equal to their absurdity deny them both. As these are usually mixt up with several patriotic and favorite words such as Liberty, Property, Englishmen, etc., which are apt to make strong impressions on that more numerous part of makkind, who have ears but no understanding, it will not, I think, be improper to give them some answers: to this, therefore, I shall singly confine myself, and do it in as few words as possible, being sensible that the fewest will give least trouble to myself and probably most information to my reader.

The great capital argument, which I find on this subject, and which, like an Elephant at the head of a Nobob's army, being once overthrown, must put the whole into confusion, is this; that no Englishman is, or can be taxed, but by his own consent: by which must be meant one of these three propositions; either that no Englishman can be taxed without his own consent as an individual; or that no Englishman can be taxed without the consent of the persons he chuses to represent him; or that no Englishman can be taxed without the consent of the majority of all those, who are elected by himself and others of his fellow-subjects to represent them. Now let us impartially consider, whether any one of these propositions are in fact true: if not, then this wonderful structure which has been erected upon them, falls at once to the ground, and like another Babel, perishes by a confusion of words, which the builders themselves are unable to understand.

First then, that no Englishman is or can be taxed but by his own consent as an individual: this is so far from being true, that it is the very reverse of truth; for no man that I know of is taxed by his own consent; and an Englishman, I believe, is as little likely to be so taxed, as any man in the world.

Secondly, that no Englishman is or can be taxed but by the consent of those persons whom he has chose to represent him; for the truth of this I shall appeal only to the candid representatives of those unfortunate counties which produce cyder, and shall willingly acquiesce under their determination.

Lastly, that no Englishman is, or can be taxed, without the consent of the majority of those, who are elected by himself, and others of his fellow-subjects, to represent them. This is certainly as false as the other two; for every Englishman is taxed, and not one in twenty represented: copyholders, leaseholders, and all men possessed of personal property only, chuse no representatives; Manchester, Birmingham, and many more of our richest and most flourishing trading towns send no members to parliament, consequently cannot consent by their representatives, because they chuse none to represent them; yet are they not Englishmen? or are they not taxed?

I am well aware, that I shall hear Locke, Sidney, Selden, and many other great names quoted to prove that every Englishman, whether he has a right to vote for a representative, or not, is still represented in the British Parliament; in which opinion they all agree: on what principle of common sense this opinion is founded I comprehend not, but on the authority of such respectable names I shall acknowledge its truth; but then I will ask one question, and on that I will rest the whole merits of the cause: Why does not this imaginary representation extend to America, as well as over the whole island of Great-Britain? If it can travel three hundred miles, why not three thousand? if it can jump over rivers and mountains, why cannot it sail over the ocean? If the towns of Manchester and Birmingham sending no representatives to parliament, are notwithstanding there represented, why are not the cities of Albany and Boston equally represented in that assembly? Are they not alike British subjects? are they not Englishmen? or are they only Englishmen when they sollicit for protection, but not Englishmen when taxes are required to enable this country to protect them?

But it is urged, that the Colonies are by their charters placed under distinct Governments, each of which has a legislative power within itself, by which alone it ought to be taxed; that if this privilege is once given up, that liberty which every Englishman has a right to, is torn from them, they are all slaves, and all is lost.

The libery of an Englishman, is a phrase of so various a signification, having within these few years been used as a synonymous term for blasphemy, bawdy, treason, libels, strong beer, and cyder, that I shall not here presume to define its meaning; but I shall venture to assert what it cannot mean; that is, an exemption from taxes imposed by the authority of the Parliament of Great Britain; nor is there any charter, that ever pretended to grant such a privilege to any colony in America; and had they granted it, it could have had no force; their charters heing derived from the Crown, and no charter from the Crown can possibly supersede the right of the whole legislature: their charters are undoubtedly no more than those of all corporations, which impower them to make byelaws, and raise duties for the purposes of their own police, for ever subject to the superior authority of parliament; and in some of their charters, the manner of exercising these powers is specified in these express words, "according to the course of other corporations in Great-Britain": and therefore they can have no more pretence to plead an exemption from this parliamentary authority, than any other corporation in England.

It has been moreover alleged, that, though Parliament may have power to impose taxes on the Colonies, they have no right to use it, because it would be an unjust tax; and no supreme or legislative power can have a right to enact any law in its nature unjust: to this, I shall only make this short reply, that if Parliament can impose no taxes but what are equitable, and the persons taxed are to be the judges of that equity, they will in effect have no power to lay any tax at all. No tax can be imposed exactly equal on all, and if it is not equal, it cannot be just: and if it is not just, no power whatever can impose it; by which short syllogism, all taxation is at an end; but why it should not be used by Englishmen on this side the Atlantic, as well as by those on the other, I do not comprehend.

END