The history of the rise, progress, and establishment of the independence of the United States of America, Vol. 1 (of 3) : $b Including an account of the late war, and of the thirteen colonies, from their origin to that periodGordon, William
History
The history of the rise, progress, and establishment of the independence of the United States of America, Vol. 1 (of 3) : $b Including an account of the late war, and of the thirteen colonies, from their origin to that period
Gordon, William
United States -- History -- Colonial period, ca. 1600-1775; United States -- History -- Revolution, 1775-1783
The extension of the Hæbeas Corpus act to the plantations, by queen
Anne, appears to have been only by instructions to the governors, and
not by any act of parliament. By what prerogative could she extend that
act to the colonists, were they not before entitled to its benefit? If
entitled to, it was unjust in any power to deny them the advantage of
the act; and the royal favour to the Virginians, consisted solely in the
queen’s _asserting to her subjects their legal rights and properties_
(as the burgesses expressed themselves) by giving suitable directions on
the business. The high sense of colonial liberty exhibited by the _York_
and _Massachusetts_ general courts, was opposed by the _English_
government.
[1696.] An act was passed by the parliament, declaring that “All laws,
bye-laws, usages and customs, which shall be in practice in any of the
plantations, repugnant to any law made or to be made in this kingdom,
relative to the said plantations, shall be void and of none effect.”
There might be no design on the part of the ministry of taxing any of
the colonies; but about 1696, a pamphlet was published, recommending the
laying a parliamentary tax on one of them. It was answered by two others
much read; which totally denied the power of taxing the colonies,
because they had no representation in parliament to give consent. No
answer, public or private, was given to these pamphlets; no censure
passed upon them; men were not startled at the doctrine, as either new
or illegal, or derogatory to the rights of parliament.[53]
Though the parliament might not then claim the right of taxing, they
claimed the right of punishing disobedience to their laws, with the loss
of charter privileges. In the 11th of _William_ III. an act was passed
[1699.] for the trial of pirates in _America_, in which there is the
following clause, “Be it further declared, _that if any of the
governors, or any person or persons in authority_ there, shall _refuse
to yield obedience to this act_, such refusal is hereby declared to be a
_forfeiture_ of all and every the _charters_ granted for the
_government_ or _propriety_ of such plantation.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account