FREE ESSAY ON TAXATION

TAXATION

Robert E. Goudy
Lynne Lederhouse
U.S. History 2A
July 31, 2000
To Tax or not to Tax 
How the British Empire tried to enforce obedience through Taxation 
Any historical event with-world changing consequences will always have two sides to the
story. What most Americans refer to today as the American Revolution is no different. As
Americans, most of us view eighteenth-century England as a tyrannical power across the
ocean, and see men like George Washington as heroes who fought against the oppressor. If
history and wars were that simple, everyone would understand them, and the need for wars
would be diminished. The truth is, England was not as tyrannical to the colonies as one
would have thought. Actually, the rebels had no idea, nor any intention of establishing a
new and separate government of the people, by the people, and for the people. They only
meant to make a statement and attempt to avoid every tax that Parliament could dream up
in the process. Across the Atlantic Ocean in England's Parliament, some men such as
William Pitt and Edmund Burke understood opposition to taxes by the American colonists.
After all, the colonies had been all but ignored by England since they were established
in the early part of the seventeenth century up until the Seven-Year War (1756 - 1763).
Other men such as George Greenville and Charles Townshend failed to understand the
protests against any taxes implemented by Parliament. These men felt that this was not
only the right of Parliament to demand taxes, but also their duty to raise money for the
Crown. Parliament had the power to demand a tax of every British citizen in the empire,
and these men had developed their own ideas about how those taxes would be implemented.
These ideas were expressed through the Revenue Act of 1763 (later called the Sugar Act)
and the Stamp Act of 1765, the Townshend Acts of 1767, and still later a new set of acts
that are referred to as the Intolerable Acts of 1774. All of these acts were protested in
America and, eventually, the authority of Parliament in the American colonies came to be
questioned by the colonists. In the mid-eighteenth century, the previously mentioned
members of Parliament took their sides and faced the opposition from the colonies head
on. The days of ignoring the rebellious colonies were over. 
The Colonist's could not see England's authority over them past the governor, if they
could see it extending that far. The colonies were [clearly] not a normal part of the
British structure. [1]. They were not included in any day-to-day discussions in
Parliament, and if any laws affecting the colonists did change, it would take them a
minimum of three weeks to reach the shore of their continent across the ocean. 
On the flip side, when the Americans did know of laws regarding trade and taxes, it was
not uncommon for them to smuggle the goods to avoid paying any taxes that may have been
attached to the products. This attitude was clearly a threat to England's relationship
with her colonies. Edmund Burke, a Whig in Parliament, pointed out that any quick and
definite taxing of the colonies after having allowed them to govern themselves for so
long would cause a great many objections from the colonists. This would probably have
been the best method, to convince the colonies that they were subject to the powers of
parliament. Easing the colonies back into accepting and obeying all of the acts passed by
British Parliament was not what most of the other members had in mind. A lot had changed
concerning Parliament's attitude toward the colonies since the Seven Years War.
The Seven Years War was fought primarily on the continent of America, and when it ended
in 1763, the colonists were the ones that benefited the most from it. Throughout the
Seven Years War (1756 - 1763), the English government continually supplied the colonies
with British troops to protect them from the French as well as the Indians who had taken
sides with the French. These troops remained in America even after the French had
surrendered their holdings in Canada to Great Britain. Their continued presence was to
protect the colonists from Indian invasions as well as French retaliation along the
borders. In all, the English Crown incurred $2 million in debt while fighting against the
French and protecting the colonies. Along with all of the money spent to protect these
colonies, there were still about ten thousand troops remaining in American every year.
The colonies had, and still were, reaping the benefits of being citizens of the British
Empire while Great Britain was flipping the bill. George Grenville, the Prime Minister of
Parliament in 1763, did not appreciate the fact that England was paying the bill for the
protection of the American colonists while they were gaining so much from the placement
of troops there. In 1763, the time had come to pay the piper, and the most logical way to
do this was by taxing the American colonies.
The Revenue Act, which came to be the Sugar Act, was actually an extension of an act from
1733 called the Molasses Act. The Molasses Act required a tariff on all sugar products
imported into America from the West Indies. The American colonists, however, had found
that it was not difficult at all to smuggle sugar items into the colonies and avoid the
tariff. Smuggling was illegal in British Empire, and Lord Grenville saw no reason why it
should be permitted in the colonies. The colonies were lightly taxed compared to the rest
of the British Empire. American colonists paid no more than sixpence a year against the
average English taxpayer's twenty-five shillings [2]. The price of sugar products was
actually lowered through this act because the tariff was removed and the duty on foreign
molasses imported into the British colonies was reduced from sixpence to three pence[3].
Instead of enjoying this reduction in the cost, the colonists boycotted the purchase of
sugar purchases. The colonist's believed if they accepted this tax then they would
succumb to Parliamentary control on the issue of taxation. It would also allow Parliament
to flex its authority over the colonies at will. The colonists did not raise the
necessary funds, and a new act became implemented. This act required a tax on a wide
range of paper products. Including everything from legal documents, to marriage
license's, shipment invoices, land deeds, and even to common items, such as a deck of
cards and practically everything in between. 
The new law was the Stamp Act of 1765. This was despised even more than the Sugar Act
that had preceded it, and this caused even more rebellion in the colonies. Parliament
forced yet again to deal with an unpleasant situation involving the colonies. The debates
on how to handle this particular rebellion were even more heated than the previous ones
involving the Revenue Act. Benjamin Franklin spoke to Parliament concerning The Stamp
Act. He mentioned that the taxes that the colonists hated so much were the internal
taxes, and that is exactly what the Sugar Act and the Stamp Act were. However, if there
were an external tax, then the colonists, according to Franklin, would more readily pay
it and not be so ready to rebel. This idea sparked even more debate. Lord Grenville,
along with other members of parliament [could] not understand the difference between
external and internal taxes. The Stamp Act was doomed from the start. Due to the angry
mobs and the Son's of Liberty, there was not a royal official in the colony that was
willing to enforce this particular act. Many colonists stopped buying English goods in
protest of both acts, the boycott spread rapidly. Under great economic pressure, England
repealed The Stamp Act. Grenville again became devastated by the failure of his plan to
make the colonists pay taxes. He began to worry about the outright refusal of the rebels
to pay. He even said that he [doubted] that they [bordered] on open rebellion . . . [and
feared] they would loose that name to take that of a revolution [4]. In his
disappointment at the failure of both of his plans, Grenville had no way of knowing how
true his words would ring in just a few years. 
Lord Grenville lost the seat of Prime Minister in 1765, but it was not because his plans
to get American colonists to pay their taxes had failed. It was more because most men
agreed with King George III, he once mentioned, (That Grenville was an insufferable
bore). And that he would rather have the Devil as a visitor of Buckingham Palace than to
be forced to listen to George Grenville [5]. Grenville did, however, remain in Parliament
and voted to tax the colonies every chance he had. 
The Sugar Act and the Stamp Act had failed to gain revenue from the American colonists,
British Parliament was still devising plans of how the Americans would be convinced to
pay. William Pitt, the earl of Chatham proposed that the The East India Company should
pay an annual rental to the government. And that the dividend policy of the East India
Company should be regulated by the government to prevent speculation in the company's
stocks. [Furthermore], revenues from the East India Company could have made up the
national deficit and averted the taxation issues with the American colonies[6]. This
bill, however, was refused. The bold refusal of the American colonists was a slap in the
face for Parliament, and it was far from forgotten. A plan to repay the debt was not
enough. Parliament wanted a plan that would convince the colonists to pay their taxes.
This particular test became a challenge, and in 1767, Charles Townshend, a man seeking
popularity, took that challenge. 
Townshend decided that the best way to increase his popularity was to get the American
colonists to obey Parliament and pay their taxes peacefully, quietly, and in orderly
fashion. In order to do this; he took into consideration the speech that Franklin had
delivered several years earlier. Franklin had said that internal taxes were too
cumbersome, and that the people in the colonies would always oppose an internal tax. An
external tax, however, would be treated with a bit more respect in the colonies -- or at
least, that is what Parliament was led to believe. Townshend wanted to be the man who
extracted the desired taxes from the colonies, so he devised a plan, which would involve
an external tax. He decided that in expressing their aversion to the internal taxes such
as the Stamp Act, [the Americans] had admitted the validity of Britain's right to impose
duties[7]. The Townshend Acts first involved the old Navigation Laws, which were
traditional commercial regulations. They were the corner stone of British colonial
policy; they protected and promoted imperial commerce, to the benefit of the mother
country and colonies alike. The colonists had admitted many times that they did not mind
paying a tariff, which meant to regulate trade. They thought that tariffs were necessary
for the success of any country. To placate the colonists as well as Parliament, Townshend
said that the external duties when collected would be applied to the support of civil
government in the colonies and any residue would be sent to England[8]. If this plan
worked, they were finally going to regain control. The Townshend Acts that caused so much
trouble in 1767 proposed imposts on glass, paper, pasteboard, painters' supplies, and
tea[9]. This time, the colonists were so serious about the new tax that they signed a
pact amongst themselves stating that they would not purchase any goods coming to the
colonies from England. 
When these tariffs were protested in the colonies, England began to feel as though The
colonial merchants were demanding in effect free trade . . . or [at least] easy
smuggling[10]. Free trade was something that England did not even have. All Englishmen
paid their taxes. There was no one in the British Empire, who was exempt from taxes. The
realization that colonies would never willingly pay their taxes to the British Crown
turned out to be the beginning of the end[11]. The reason for this is the Townshend Acts.
Through the Townshend Acts, the colonists were being pinched, and even the English
merchants were feeling the squeeze all the way across the Atlantic. The boycott on
British goods, particularly tea, threatened the livelihood of many English merchants. The
colonists were not going to allow themselves to be taxed. The Townshend Acts were loosing
support because of the economic impact in England, and Parliament was running out of
ideas. The Townshend Acts was repealed late in 1767, but the damage was done. One law did
remain intact and that was the Tea Act. This act remained because Parliament wanted to
keep the Tea Act for the sake of principle. This left a sore spot for the colonists. The
colonists continued to despise the British rule, and eventually acted upon that hatred,
which gained a new set of acts for their trouble. 
In an attempt to convince the colonists to adhere to the laws of Parliament yet again,
the Tea Tax was lowered once more. Tea was now less expensive in the colonies that it was
in England. The tax on tea had been a continual irritant in the colonies, and on December
16, 1773, the famous Boston Tea Party expressed the dislike of British rule. All of the
tea, which had been left on the merchant ships, was dumped into the Boston Harbor in
response to the tax on tea. Of course, Parliament could not allow this type of rebellion;
the destruction of property, to go unpunished, so a new set of laws was created. 
The news of the Boston Tea Party reached Parliament in early 1774. The members of
Parliament, as well as King George III, were outraged. There was no way that this display
of disobedience by the colonists was going to go unpunished. They had wasted more than
400 cases of tea, and someone was going to have to pay for that destruction of property.
In response to the constant insubordination of the colonists, King George III himself
approved of measures that were going to force the colonists into submission. As a result
of the king's approval, Parliament enacted four new laws and updated an old one. These
new laws were the Boston Port Bill; the Administration of Justice Act; the Massachusetts
Government Act; the Quebec Act; and the updating of the Quartering Act, [12]. The
colonists would know them as the Intolerable Acts. It was the intention of Parliament at
the time of these acts to force the colonists to obey the laws and pay the taxes that
they were avoiding.
The first of these laws enacted in 1774 was meant as a direct punishment for the Boston
Tea Party. The Boston Port Bill was a personal policy of the king who [had] regretted
that he had been so easy with the colonies[13]. Lord North, the Prime Minister at the
time, presented this bill to Parliament. They, with the approval of the king, closed all
of the ports in Boston and ordered that they remain closed until payment of the tea was
made. This act alone would be detrimental to the Boston economy. Their expectations
however, were not met. In order to regain control in the colonies, Parliament decided
that the royal officials in the American colonies needed some form of protection from the
unfair legal prosecution and angry mobs. Therefore, they created another new law, the
Administration of Justice Act, which demanded that any British officials tried for crimes
would be extradited to England. Four days later, there would be another motion made by
Parliament to punish the colonies. 
The Quartering Act of 1765 was revised for the final punishment for the colonists.
Previously, the colonists were required to only to supply the soldiers stationed in
America with unoccupied buildings for shelter and some food provisions. The revision
demanded that the hospitality offered to the soldiers be extended to the point of
colonists taking the soldiers into their own homes. The colonists did not get along well
with the troops to begin with, so this revision was especially despised. These acts were
important to England because they enforced obedience (in theory only) from the rebelling
colonists. These new acts became very important to the colonists, the very right of
Parliament enforcing any laws and taxes upon them, since they had no representation in
Parliament. 
No Taxation without Representation became the colonists' next attempt at avoiding the
laws of England. William Pitt, who had been sympathetic with the colonists and had said
many times that they should have not been taxed, never said that England could not tax
the colonies. That power was evident. When he asked that Parliament not tax the
colonists, he reminded them that while he was opposing the taxes, he at the same time,
[asserted] the authority of this kingdom[14]. What he and the rest of the British
government began to face was the question of the supremacy of Great Britain. Either they
ruled the colonies completely and totally, or they did not rule the colonies at all. The
trouble was every Member of Parliament and even the king could see where the cards were
falling on this particular issue. Great Britain was not ruling the colonies at all. They
had challenged the authority of Parliament at every turn, and this latest question of
authority based on representation was another excuse to avoid the laws. It was pointed
out by Soame Jenyns, another member of Parliament at this time, that the colonists
themselves even admitted that even if they were directly represented in Parliament, that
they believed it would still have no right to impose taxes upon them and then use that
money because it would be an unjust tax. [The tax would] not be equal on all, and if it
[was] not equal, it [could] not be just, and if it [was] not just, no power whatever
[could] impose it. Jenyns thought this type of logic was absurd, because no tax can be
imposed exactly equal on all[15]. A new face in Parliament, Charles James Fox, supported
this argument in his speech by saying there is not an American but who must reject and
resist the principle and right of our taxing them. The question then, is shortly this:
Whether we ought to govern America on these principles? Can this country gain strength by
keeping up such a dispute as this? Tell me when America is taxed, to relieve the burthens
of this country[16]. William Pitt again took the stand that Englishmen were only supposed
to be taxed by their own consent. Men brought a new question before him in his
opposition, including Lord North, the new Prime Minister of Parliament. What was consent?
Was this supposed to mean the consent of the people themselves or the men, which have
been chosen to represent them, or the majority of their representatives? [17]. This
became a question that was examined not only for the colonists, but the people in England
as well. After all, Every man in England [was] taxed, and not one in twenty [was]
represented[18], but they continued to pay their taxes. It came to be argued that if
common men in England were virtually represented and they paid their taxes, then the
colonists were also virtually represented, then they could not be liberated from their
taxes. William Pitt again took a stand and to this argument he responded by saying that
the idea of a virtual representation of America in this House [was] the most contemptible
that [had] ever entered into the head of man. It [did] not deserve a serious
refutation[19]. The debates went on and on, but one detail seemed to be lost in all of
the arguments that were presented. If the colonies did not respect the power of
Parliament, then who was actually governing America? With all of the debating that went
on in Parliament over the challenge of their power in America, the question always came
back to one single problem. It did not matter what laws were enacted if the colonists did
not adhere to them. Edmund Burke reminded everyone in Parliament that a great black book
and a great many red coats [would] never be able to govern [America][20]. Truer words may
have never been spoken in Parliament. The men in that room may have enacted the laws, but
the military was what England depended upon to defend and uphold her policies. Burke and
Pitt and their supporters could see that England was not going to be able to force
America back into obedience, while others maintained that they either had the right to
tax the colonies or they did not.
1774 had diminished the number of men in Parliament who sympathized with the situation
faced by people in America. It was certainly the right of Parliament to tax the colonies
for their debt incurred by the Seven Years War, but none of the policies was doing
anything to help collect revenues in the amount needed to pay England's debts. Parliament
had attempted to retrieve the money that the colonists owed for the protection they had
received during the war and the stationing of the troops there ever since. Their method
for regaining the funds that had been spent on America's behalf was always a tax of some
sort or another. When Lord Grenville's internal taxes were not welcome in the colonies,
they were repealed. In their place, Charles Townshend attempted to collect payments for
that same debt though an external tax, which Benjamin Franklin had pointed out to
Parliament as an alternative to the troublesome taxes. This set of taxes failed as well,
and Parliament began to realize that the colonists simply had no intention or desire
whatsoever to pay any sort of tax to cover the cost of their protection. While William
Pitt and Edmund Burke supported the position of the colonists' refusal to pay these
taxes, they maintained that Parliament did have the right to impose any taxes as well as
other laws upon the colonists. The right to impose a law or a tax, however, came with no
guarantee that it would be followed. That is what happened with all of the taxes that
were imposed by Parliament upon the colonies. The colonists defied every act of
Parliament and even questioned their right to be an authority over them. This forced the
British government to enact even harsher laws where the colonists were concerned.
Finally, when these laws were implemented, the colonists sparked a new debate as a last
effort to avoid paying their taxes by saying that they were not represented in
Parliament. The colonist's were not directly represented in Parliament, but, as it had
been pointed out, no Englishman was directly represented either. Men in England may have
been able to claim representation, but, in reality, the population of Great Britain was
so large and there were so few Parliamentary members, that not one in twenty people
living in England was represented in Parliament [21]. Parliament never asked the
colonists to pay a tax that they could not afford. In reality, they were asked to pay
less for the items that they had already been purchasing. In theory, parliament thought
that everyone in the British Empire had to pay a higher tax than what was asked of the
colonies. This is not to mention that these taxes were going to be funding the continued
protection the British colonists in America. The Seven Years War, which benefited the
colonists, was extremely expensive. It had become a burden for the British Crown to pay
the bill for the thousand's of soldiers that had to be stationed in the colonies. The
colonists, in reality, were only asked to pay for their fair share of the protection that
benefited them, (Which was the majority of the bill). Parliament not only had every right
as the sovereign power of the British Empire to ask the tax of the colonists, but it was
also their duty to keep the Crown from going bankrupt. 
How enjoyable it would be if Parliament could see how powerful and influential the United
States has become in lieu of all of their attempts to collect taxes, through the use of
sovereignty and bullying tactics. For them to see now what the uncontrollable and
rebellious American colonist's have achieved, without parliamentary ways and the England
crown. If only English Parliament could see us now, this would definitely be most
satisfying, to the early leaders of our great nation. 
Work cited:
1 Ubbelohde, Carle. The American Colonies and the British Empire:1607 - 1763. (Arlington
Heights, Ill. Davidson Inc, 1975) 2
2. Hibbert, Christopher. Redcoats and Rebels: The American Revolution through British
Eyes. (New York, Avon Books, 1990) xviii.
3. Miller, John. Origins of the American Revolution. (Stanford, Stanford Univeristy
Press, 1959) 101.
4. Grenville, George. In The American Revolution Through British Eyes. Ed Martin Kallick
and Andrew MacLeish. (New York, Harper and Rowe, 1969) 101.
5. Hibbert, Christopher. Redcoats and Rebels. xvii - xviii.
6. Long J.C. George III: The Story of a Complex Man. (Boston, Mass, Little, Brown and
Company, 1960), 178.
7. Lancaster, Bruce. The American Heritage Book of the American Revolution. (New York,
1958) 23.
8. Long, J.C. George III. 179.
9. Long, J.C. George III. 179.
10. Miller, John. The Origins of the American Revolution. 102.
11. Lancaster, Bruce. The American Heritage Book of the American Revolution. 23.
12. The Quartering Act had been in place since 1765, and was only updated in 1774.
13. Long J. C. George III. 211.
14. Pitt, William. In The American Revolution Through British Eyes. Ed Martin Kallick and
Andrew MacLeish. (New York, haper and Rowe, 1069) 366.
15. Jenyns, Soame In The American Revolution Through British Eyes.Ed Martin Kallick and
Andrew MacLeish. (NewYork, Harper and Rowe, 1969) 426.
16. Fox, Charles James. In The Spirit of Seventy-Six. Ed. Herny Steele Commager and
Richard B. Morris. (New York: Evenston, 1967) 13
17. Jenyns, Soame. The American Revolution Through British Eyes. 423.
19. Pitt, William. The American Revolution Through British Eyes. 424.
20. Burke, Edmund. The Spirit of Seventy-Six. 15
21. Jenyns, Soame. The American Revolution through British Eyes. 424.
Internet Resources:
1. http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/E/sugar_stamp/actxx.htm
2. http://www.adw03.dial.pipex.com/peel/c-eight/stampact.htm
3. http://www.usconstitution.net/stamp.html
4. http://ahp.gatech.edu/townshend_act_1767.html
5. http://ahp.gatech.edu/quartering_act_1765.html
6. http://www.tax.org/museum/1756-1776.htm
7. http://ahp.gatech.edu/boston_port_act_1774.html
8. http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/laws/quartering.htm
9. http://www.tax.org/museum/Docs/440docs.htm
10. http://www.bartelby.org/225/0803.html