Page:Cambridge Modern History Volume 7.djvu/226

 194 Virtual representation explained. [i764 It fell to Dulany to make the chief answer. The non-electors of England were under no personal incapacity to vote. All the inhabi- tants of the towns named, the members of the East India Company, and the rest might acquire the franchise. In point of fact there were electors in the towns, and even members of Parliament. Further, the interests of the non-electors, the electors, and the representatives, were individually the same ; to say nothing of the connection among neighbours, friends, and relatives. The security of the non-electors against oppression was that oppression of them would fall also upon the electors and the representatives. Again, if non-electors should not be taxed by Parliament, they would not be taxed at all ; and it would be iniquitous that they should enjoy the benefits resulting from taxation and yet not bear any of the burdens. In that state of things a double virtual representation might reasonably be supposed. The electors, who were inseparably connected with the non-electors in interest, might in voting be deemed to represent the non-electors ; and the persons chosen were therefore the representatives of both. This was the only rational explanation of virtual representation. The inhabitants of the colonies, as such, were incapable of being electors; if everyone in America had the requisite freehold interest, not one could vote. Nor was there any intimate and inseparable relation between the electors of Great Britain and the colonists which must involve them in the same taxation. Not a single elector in England might be immediately affected by a taxation in America imposed by a statute having a general operation in the colonies. The latter might be oppressed without any sympathy or alarm in England. Indeed oppression of the colonies, by taxation, might be popular in England, as giving ease to the people there. Ultimately England would be liable to be affected, but not soon enough to cause alarm. Dulany wrote in October, 1764; in January, 1765, Pitt adopted the argument in a speech in favour of repealing the Stamp Act, referring to Dulany's pamphlet in terms of admiration. The argument was destined to prevail through the world as established British doctrine. Another complaint arising in virtue of the British Constitution, as the colonists held, was that the departments of the local governments were interfered with in England and confused. "It is indispensably necessary to good government," declared the Continental Congress of 1774, "and rendered essential by the British Constitution, that the constituent branches of the legislature be independent of each other; that therefore the exercise of legislative power in several colonies, by council appointed, during pleasure, by the Crown, is unconstitutional, dangerous and destructive of American legislation." It was a common objection to the American contention that the colonies were only corporations engaged in trade, agriculture, and other pursuits, and that accordingly the colonists were no more entitled to