what caused colonist to say no taxation without representation

"No taxation without representation" was non a notion born in the American colonies in 1765 with the passage of the Postage Act, or with James Otis'southward 1764 pamphlet The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved, or in his 1761 courtroom oration against Writs of Assistance. Information technology was built-in with the "Pistole" fee in Virginia in 1753.

To better understand the notion, information technology is necessary to sympathize the affair that brought it on. Virginia was a royal colony, and all land issued past the royal governor was done so in the proper name of the Crown. The method of distribution was known every bit the Treasury Right Arrangement.

The securing or purchasing of state in the colony of Virginia was a three-step procedure:

• Step 1: Upon petition, the secretary of the colony'due south land office issued a Correctthat authorized the canton surveyor to conduct a survey of the specific acreage in question. A fee, paid by the purchaser, was required for the warrant.
•  Step two: When completed, the survey was returned to the secretary. If everything was in order, a patent, conferring legal championship, was signed and embossed with a seal past the governor and a copy was entered into a patent book. There was no fee required for the patent.
• Stride three: Each year an annual payment chosen quitrent or Correct-money was required past the Government; every fifty acres required a payment of five shillings. To maintain ownership, the building of a house and keeping a stock (seating) or the cultivating of an acre of state (planting) within three years was required. 1

Early in his administration Gov. Robert Dinwiddie complained,

It has been also long a Practice here [in Virginia], to have Orders for Land … return their Surveys, Works, and Improvements to the Sec'ry'south Part, by wh'ch they pretend to a legal correct, and enjoy the Land for Years before they have out a Patent for them, by wh'ch the Crown has been greatly defrauded. 2

Dinwiddie was aware of this practice because prior to his appointment as lieutenant governor, he served every bit surveyor general for Northward and Primal America.

On Apr 17, 1752, he obtained the unanimous consent of the Virginia Council, the upper house of the Virginia legislature that was appointed past the crown and answered to the governor, to levy a fee of ane pistole (a Spanish gold coin equivalent to sixteen shillings and eight pence) for the signing and sealing of Patents.3 On October 6, Dinwiddie wanted to remove whatsoever doubt about the legality of the fee, and so he submitted the matter to the Board of Trade and Plantation in England for its opinion.4 On January 17, 1753, the Board gave its approval. Lilliputian did the colonists know, just he had petitioned the Board of Merchandise for permission to levy the fee in August 1751 when he was informed of his appointment, but gear up sail for Due north America before the Lath could act upon the petition.5

For the next x months, the governor took no further steps because the House of Burgesses, the lower business firm of the Virginia legislature that was elected by and answered to the colonists, would not convene until Nov. six

On Nov 22, the colonists of Henrico, Chesterfield, Cumberland, Albemarle, Amelia, and Dinwiddie counties complained to the Firm of Burgesses, "of an Unusual Demand that is made in the Secretary'south Office, every bit a Fee to his Laurels, for signing said Patents, and the Apply of the Seal." seven Well-nigh of these colonists were farmers, but some were country speculators. Rev. William Stith, the President of the College of William and Mary, rallied opposition with the slogan "Liberty, Property and no Pistole." 8 He declared, "This Attempt to lay Taxes upon the People WITHOUT Law was certainly Against Police, and an evident Invasion of Property." 9 The Firm of Burgesses appointed three men, Carter Burwell, Charles Carter and Richard Bland, to typhoon a memorial to the governor request past whose authority he demanded the Pistole fee. He informed the Business firm that he had the unanimous support of the Council, the approval of the Board of Trade and past the powers he had received from the dwelling officials before he left England.

On Nov 28, Dinwiddie announced that a fee of one Pistole would be charged for the signing and sealing of whatever patent. ten Now a patent had to be taken out by a colonist immediately after the survey was recorded. It would no longer be allowed to agree land under warrants of survey only. As for the colonists in the w that had paid the survey fee only never filed for a patent then that they would not be listed on the rent rolls and required to pay the yearly quitrent, Dinwiddie required the payment of quitrents in arrears before they paid their Pistole fee. At the same time, he issued orders that patents could not exist obtained past those colonists who had filed surveys before April 17, 1752, in other words, those who were in deficit, until he heard back from the Privy Council.

The Burgesses believed it was an arbitrary exaction by executive fiat. On Dec iv, they passed resolutions:

Resolved, That the said Demand is illegal and arbitrary, contrary to the Charters of this Colony, to his Majesty'south, and his Royal Predecessors Instructions to the several Governors, and the Express Order of his Majesty Male monarch William of Glorious Memory, in his Privy-Council, and manifestly tends to subverting the Laws and Constitution of this Government …

Resolved, That whoever shall pay a Pistole, as a fee to the Governor, for the Use of the Seal to Patents for Lands, shall be deemed a Betrayer of the Rights and Privileges of the People. 11

They likewise appointed Attorney General Peyton Randolph every bit a special amanuensis tasked with delivering a memorial, also written past Burwell, Carter, and Bland, to King George III and obtaining, if possible, a redress of their grievances. When Dinwiddie learned that Randolph was offered the special agent position, he urged him not accept it, claiming it was in disharmonize with his position equally an officer of the Crown. When Randolph disregarded his asking, Dinwiddie declared the office of Attorney General vacant and then appointed George Wythe the new Attorney Full general. 12

Richard Bland wrote A Modest and True State of the Case following the passage of the resolutions. He denounced the fee, calling Dinwiddie's proposal, "destructive of the Rights and Liberties of my Country." He also stated that while other governors collected such fees with the approval of their legislatures, Virginia "cannot be deprived of the to the lowest degree part of their property without [the] consent" of their representatives.

The Rights of the Subjects are so secured by Law that they cannot be deprived of the least part of their holding without their own consent. Upon this Principle of Law, the Liberty and Property of every Person who has the felicity to live under a British Government is founded. The Question and so ought not to exist about the smallness of the demand but the Lawfulness of information technology.

For if it is confronting Law, the same Power which imposes one Pistole may impose an Hundred, and this not in one example simply but in every case in which this Leviathan of Power shall think fit to exercise its authority …

This revenue enhancement is indefensible …

If their Governors demand a Fee for every Public instrument they sign and they have no Law for such demand, they certainly do wrong, they demand that which the Police force does non give them & therefore are guilty of taking from the subjects without legal authority … King James the first in the year 1609 by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of England granted all the Lands in Virginia to the Treasurer and Company of Adventurers, and gave them Power to make, ordain and institute all way of Laws, Orders, Directions, Instructions, Forms and Ceremonies of Government and Majestracy fit and necessary for and concerning the Government of the said Colony and Plantation, and from Time to Fourth dimension to distribute, convey, assign and set over such detail portions of Lands … upon his Majesty's subjects equally by the said Company should exist nominated, appointed and allowed. 13

Banal argued that if the Burgesses did not fight this violation of the English constitution, then "like a small spark if non extinguished in the beginning volition presently gain ground and at concluding blaze out into an Irresistible flame." Dinwiddie wrote to the Governor of S Carolina, "W't Influence You take over Y'r Assembly I know not, but I frankly tell You I have none over this here." 14

In England, the Privy Council did not see to hear arguments until June xviii, 1754. This gave both sides ample time to set their arguments. Peyton Randolph with the assistance of Robert Henley and Alexander Forrester, presented the colony's position; James Abercromby, former colonial agent for South Carolina, with the assistance of William Murray and Alexander Hume Campbell, presented the governor'due south position. Henley and Forrester argued the post-obit points:

• When Virginia's Royal lease was granted, King James I gave the colony the ability "to make and institute all way of laws;"
• In 1689, Lord Howard of Effingham was denied the authorization to levy "a signing and sealing" fee by the Privy Council;
• Governor Dinwiddie was granted authority "to settle fees," not regulate them;
• The fee was a tax and an internal tax at that;
• The action deprived the colonists of their property without their consent.fifteen

Murray and Campbell argued the post-obit points:

• The Male monarch owned the land and could grant it on whatsoever terms he pleased;
• The Rex delegated his say-so to his Royal agent, the Governor;
• A "signing and sealing" fee was charged in every other Royal colony;
• The Purple agent, unlike Lord Effingham, had secured the blessing of the Quango as instructed by the crown and Lath of Trade before announcing the fee;
• The fee would provide an accurate rent coil and a means whereby state speculators could no longer defraud the King of his quitrents. 16

Fifty-fifty though some members of the Council considered the fee to be a tax, as Bland and the Burgesses did, on June 24, the Quango rejected the petition. While information technology did society Dinwiddie to levy a fee only on patents of 100 acres or more,17 it denied him the right to collect quitrents in arrears for lands w of the Allegheny Mountains.

… the permit'r from thence. [England] gives the People here all they desir'd, y't is those y't have occupied the Land for two years with't Quit rents or any gild for Pay'g the arrears, are at present to have the Patents with't and Charge w'tever, by w'ch the Crown will greatly suffer; withal, I shall obey the society. [He was] much surpriz'd at the B'd of Trade's Taciturnity, and not interim with more Spirit.18

In the end, both sides won and both sides lost. Dinwiddie firmly believed that he was acting within the limits of his say-so and that the colonists were encroaching on the prerogative of the Rex, while the Burgesses firmly believed that a fee or tax could not be imposed on Virginians without beginning having their voice heard on the matter.

The Pistole fee and the disruption if caused in the governance of Virginia was a direct precursor x years after to "No Taxation without Representation" associated with the Stamp Act.

1 Richard Slatten, "Interpreting Headrights in Colonial Virginia Patents: Uses and Abuses," National Genealogical Club Quarterly, 75 (September 1987), 169–179.

2 "Governor Dinwiddie to the Lords of Merchandise, Oct. 25, 1754," in Robert A Brock, ed., The Official Records of Robert Dinwiddie (Richmond: Wm. Ellis Jones, 1883), 1:363.

iii Henry R. McIlwaine and Wilmer L. Hall, eds., Executive Journals of the Quango of Colonial Virginia (Richmond, 1925-1945), 5:385.

4 "Governor Dinwiddie to the Board of Trade, October vi, 1752," Colonial Function Papers, Form 5/1327 (London: Public Records Role), 497-98.

five Ibid.

6 Ibid., "The Lath of Merchandise to Dinwiddie, January 17, 1753," 5-vii.

7 John Pendleton Kennedy and Henry R. McIlwaine, eds., Journals of the Firm of

Burgesses of Virginia, 1752-1758 (Richmond: Colonial Press, E. Waddey Company, 1909), 129.

8 Jack P. Greene, ed., "The Example of the Pistole Fee: The Report of a Hearing on the Pistole fee Dispute earlier the Privy Council, June 18, 1754," in Virginia Magazine History and Biography, 66 (1958), 400-01.

ten "Governor Dinwiddie to the Firm of Burgesses, November 28, 1752," in Robert A Brock, ed., The Official Records of Robert Dinwiddie (Richmond: William Ellis Jones, 1883), 1:45.

xi Kennedy and McIlwaine, eds., Journals of the Business firm of Burgesses of Virginia, 154-55.

12 Ibid., 168-69.

13 Paul Leicester Ford, ed., A Fragment on the Pistole Fee, claimed past the Governor of

Virginia (Brooklyn, NY: Historical Printing Society, 1891), 31-43.

14 "Governor Dinwiddie to Governor Glen, April fifteen, 1754," in Brock, ed., The Official Records of Robert Dinwiddie, 1:128.

fifteen Kennedy and McIlwaine, eds., Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 141, 143-44.

16 "William Murray, Lord Mansfield, Attorney General for the Governor, 18 June 1754," George Chalmers Papers in the Manuscript Partitioning (New York: New York Public Library, 1782); The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 66, No. 4 (Oct., 1958), 406-08.

17 "The Board of Merchandise to Governor Dinwiddie, July 3, 1754," Colonial Office Papers, Class 5/1367 (London: Public Records Part), 94-100.

18 "Governor Dinwiddie to James Abercromby, July 23, 1754," in Brock, ed., The Official Records of Robert Dinwiddie, 2:115.

fancherscablevoled.blogspot.com

Source: https://allthingsliberty.com/2016/03/the-first-no-taxation-without-representation-crisis/

Share this post