WI: Taxation with representation

What if, instead of resorting violent revolution, the colonials manage to hammer out a deal with the British government? For example, an MP for each of the thirteen colonies? Or a separate, supernational colonial parliament (i.e. imperial confederation from the beginning)? What would the effects be for Britain and the rest of the empire? If the latter course is taken, would that have provided a solution to the Irish question a century before Parnell?

In short, is it feasible and what would it result in?

The Stamp Act Congress agreed that representation in the flesh was "impractical". So if Parliament does say "Fine. Representatives for America.", I'm not sure that they would actually accept that.

I guess if you had early reform of the Rotten and pocket boroughs you could free up seats to give to America.

1776 Great Britian was not a democracy as we know it today. If you allocated seats according to population the Americans have about 28% of the seats in the House of Commons and no representation in the House of Lords.

They would also be seated 3500 miles away with no quick way to report back. With Modern communications it could work - with sailing ships it is unlikely especially once they get out voted once or twice.

Orry said:

I guess if you had early reform of the Rotten and pocket boroughs you could free up seats to give to America.

1776 Great Britian was not a democracy as we know it today. If you allocated seats according to population the Americans have about 28% of the seats in the House of Commons and no representation in the House of Lords.

Click to expand...

Symbolic representation in the Commons, even if not entirely consistent with relative population, could be a useful part of any compromise though. Besides, for metropolitan Britain it could be rather useful to have the colonies representing themselves individually in Parliament rather than confederating them into some form of Albany Plan.

Clippers at the time could manage the trip in a matter of weeks. I think the distance thing is often overstated. I mean, how could the British effectively annoy the Americans so much without it being relatively easy to get news across the Atlantic. Also, several of the Founding Fathers were in favour of democracy but only for the right class of men. In which case its not hard to interpret what your electorate wants. And besides, they are elected to represent a constituency, not go hopping across the Atlantic every five minutes to ask what their constituency thinks about it. Modern MPs don't even do that, at least not where I live.

However, I do accept that its hard to run a centralised state like 18th century Britain with the thirteen colonies attached. So I'd say, give the colonies a measure of autonomy, but in return less representatives in Parliament. That autonomy also wins them less taxes from the British Parliament, and an ability to raise their own colonial taxes and a right to spend those taxes however they like. I think a Secretary of State for the American Provinces would be useful too.

Mumby said:

Clippers at the time could manage the trip in a matter of weeks. I think the distance thing is often overstated. I mean, how could the British effectively annoy the Americans so much without it being relatively easy to get news across the Atlantic. Also, several of the Founding Fathers were in favour of democracy but only for the right class of men. In which case its not hard to interpret what your electorate wants. And besides, they are elected to represent a constituency, not go hopping across the Atlantic every five minutes to ask what their constituency thinks about it. Modern MPs don't even do that, at least not where I live.

Click to expand...

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Sailing-1650/Length-voyages-18th-Centry.htm

So call it a month or two. Troublesome for running a war or something like that, but not unmanageable for simple governance - I don't think Charleston to Philadelphia is that quick by horseback in this era either, for instance.

However, I do accept that its hard to run a centralised state like 18th century Britain with the thirteen colonies attached. So I'd say, give the colonies a measure of autonomy, but in return less representatives in Parliament. That autonomy also wins them less taxes from the British Parliament, and an ability to raise their own colonial taxes and a right to spend those taxes however they like. I think a Secretary of State for the American Provinces would be useful too.

Click to expand...

Its a mystery why there wasn't a position - heck, a department - specifically dedicated to handling the American territories.

That could be a plan:

-Give 1 MP for each colony (maybe 1-3 according to population/electorate/taxes paid to London?) that will be in every way identical to other MPs. That could be combined with the proposal for an early mini-electoral reform as said above, but I don't think it's necessary.

-The colonies may keep their legislatures and have some limited legislating powers. They can appoint and dismiss executives at will, without interference from London.

-Governors are appointed by the King and confirmed by the respective legislatures. In order for them to be dismissed/impeached, the consent of both London and the colonial legislature is required.

-Governors are appointed as members of the House of Lords. Maybe have the British Commons appoint a governor after he finishes his term on a motion of the colonial legislature when it is found that his service was excellent? Or have the governors elect one among themselves to the House of Lords. Ofc, having just life-membership for all governors would be more simple.

-Colonial laws do not need the consent of anyone else but the colonial legislature and the governor.

-Non-colonial/Imperial laws have nothing to do with colonial legislatures or colonial executives. Governors have the duty to execute these laws without interference from colonial institutions.

-Taxes are legislated and collected by London. One or two seperate taxes may be legislated by the colonies for the functioning of the local institutions and authorities.

-Only local militias of each colony may step on the respective colony. Any other force needs the consent of the colonial legislature.

That last one seems rather problematic in any scenario where one would need military force in any given colony.

If it could be hammered out, the most realistic option is probably each colony elects 2 MPs at-large (like the county seats in Britain) and then a few of the larger cities are enfranchised as boroughs to elect additional burgess MPs. In total the colonies would probably elect maybe 36 MPs to start with. As suggested above, this would probably be achieved by abolishing rotten boroughs and thus freeing up seats to be transferred to America. At the time it would probably be seen as a sinecure that British MPs could take over because surely it's easy to just bribe powerful men in the colonies into ensuring you're re-elected every time...it would take time for them to realise that the Americans are really serious about electing their own men as MPs.

taxation without representation was only one of a long list of grievances between the colonies and Britain. The main problem was that the colonists preferred London as a distant and absentee landlord who rarely meddled in their affairs... at a time when London was taking a belated interest in running the place. The colonists didn't really object to taxation without representation, it was taxation in general... they didn't want any of it, and had evaded even the mild taxes they were supposed to be paying for generations. They also liked smuggling to get around Britain's various mercantile laws, and Britain had essentially ignored that... but no more. Plus there were the problems of the colonists' hunger for more land out west vs. Britain's desire to keep the process more orderly and slower and concerns about the native populations. It's hard to see any real process that would avoid the outbreak of war, other than Britain returning to the old ways of benign neglect...

Mumby said:

However, I do accept that its hard to run a centralised state like 18th century Britain with the thirteen colonies attached. So I'd say, give the colonies a measure of autonomy, but in return less representatives in Parliament. That autonomy also wins them less taxes from the British Parliament, and an ability to raise their own colonial taxes and a right to spend those taxes however they like. I think a Secretary of State for the American Provinces would be useful too.

Click to expand...

I agree with this part. I think if we look at what both sides did, we can find a workable solution that both sides can live with. Something along the line.

1) I think we get some symbolic representation in the House of Lords for the bigger colonies. There are a couple of good ways to do this one. One the Queen/Parliament can persuade existing lords to move to the Colonies and become established in the colonies. They can be given large land grants or upgraded titles or upgrade orders of Knighthood. This option should be 100% acceptable to the other Lords. Or we could just start appointing new American Lords and require them to live in America. Say 2-3 Lords to begin and maybe one per decade. They can also be required to maintain some standing forces or raise some revenue. So for example, the Lord of West Point required to maintain a fort and 2 companies of Red Coats makes sense. And there are American families rich enough to do this type of action. After all, we have Irish and Scottish Lords, so why would this be such a big deal? And you will need some provision so the Lords appointed representative (say his son or other blood relative) can go to England to vote for the American Lord.

2) The UK was not trying to impose full tax on the American Colonies - seems like 1/3 to 1/2 UK levels. The UK does not want to give the Colonies 28% of the vote. This begs for a compromise where the colonies get say 1/3 the votes they should for 1/3 the taxes. It also provides an out if either the UK needs a lot more tax revenue or the colonist greatly desire more representatives. Exempting Puerto Rico from many USA taxes has gone a long way towards them not asking for statehood for over 100 years. Same idea. The MP are probably selected by the state legislatures.

3) Under the USA system, we were much more comfortable imposing duties on states than taxes. There is a potential compromise where the colonies can "win" on lower taxes and representation, but the UK can require the colonies to maintain a standing army that a portion can be used throughout the empire.

IMO, it was a solvable problem if there is a desire to find a solution. The details could vary widely, and perhaps each colony has a different deal with the Crown, but it could have been prevented.

Romanos said:

-Governors are appointed by the King and confirmed by the respective legislatures. In order for them to be dismissed/impeached, the consent of both London and the colonial legislature is required.

-Governors are appointed as members of the House of Lords. Maybe have the British Commons appoint a governor after he finishes his term on a motion of the colonial legislature when it is found that his service was excellent? Or have the governors elect one among themselves to the House of Lords. Ofc, having just life-membership for all governors would be more simple.

Click to expand...

If you add the requirement that the King select a governor who has been a resident of the colony for 10 years and say holds or has held a seat in the legislature, I think the colonist would be delighted. And the King should have enough choices for him to be satisfied among the top 100 or so colonial leaders. For the time, this system which is similar to the Kaiserreich chancellor would seem very progressive.

And your idea for lifetime appoints to the House of Lords makes sense. For the older Lords, it makes the American Lords clearly second class Lords. But for the Americans, it gives the elite like Washington or Jefferson a path to nobility. And if one does something greatly note worth (Washington does well in some war), the King can always upgrade him to a full Lord. I can see colonist raising many companies and regiments in some future war with France trying to win nobility for the man who organized these regiments.

Dave Howery said:

Plus there were the problems of the colonists' hunger for more land out west vs. Britain's desire to keep the process more orderly and slower and concerns about the native populations. It's hard to see any real process that would avoid the outbreak of war, other than Britain returning to the old ways of benign neglect...

Click to expand...

If you have say 10% American MP, I think this problem goes away. The American MP will trade moving the settlement line west for support for the current PM and some item they want. For example, if we still assume their are some Anglo-Dutch wars in the late 1700's, an easy compromise is the Colonies raise regiments/ships for the campaign and the settlement line is moved 100 miles west. Or it could just be agreeing to a 10 year war tax to help pay off the bonds for allowing settlement in the Ohio valley.

And you don't have to get all Americans to agree to pay the tax and not resent it, you just need to get enough that it does not bloom into revolt. We are probably looking at a 5-10% swing in support for the Monarch. And simple things like Earl Benjamin Franklin or Red Coat Captain George Washington will strip the Americans of many of their leaders.

BlondieBC said:

If you have say 10% American MP, I think this problem goes away. The American MP will trade moving the settlement line west for support for the current PM and some item they want. For example, if we still assume their are some Anglo-Dutch wars in the late 1700's, an easy compromise is the Colonies raise regiments/ships for the campaign and the settlement line is moved 100 miles west. Or it could just be agreeing to a 10 year war tax to help pay off the bonds for allowing settlement in the Ohio valley.

Click to expand...

Here's a problem. Let's say the MPs agree to some terms on the subject.

What happens when the actual American settlers still move West?

And you don't have to get all Americans to agree to pay the tax and not resent it, you just need to get enough that it does not bloom into revolt. We are probably looking at a 5-10% swing in support for the Monarch. And simple things like Earl Benjamin Franklin or Red Coat Captain George Washington will strip the Americans of many of their leaders.

Click to expand...

Except that men like Franklin and Washington aren't the ones screaming that the British are oppressing the Americans and lying shamelessly in propaganda campaigns to misrepresent British policy.

Can't see anyone making Sam Adams an earl, however.

Dave Howery said:

taxation without representation was only one of a long list of grievances between the colonies and Britain.[snip]

Click to expand...

London can't win over people like Samuel Adams, and shouldn't try. But at the same time, supporters of independence were a consistent minority up until the point where the war came home and people had to choose. If London is more compromising and doesn't overreact to rabble rousing like the Boston Tea Party, the mass of the indifferent aren't likely to join with the radicals in supporting independence.

Comparatively speaking, not that many people in the colonies need to stay loyalist or neutral for the political environment to flip the other way. In that situation, an abortive rebellion in one colony could easily be seen as petulance and unnecessarily dangerous to colonial livelihoods in the others.

It's worth bearing in mind that Calais had representation in the UK parliament, and this was noted in debates at the time. As others have said, this won't be a panacea to solve all problems. It would, however:

(1) be a clear and evident move of good faith by the British government that makes it very hard for agitators to claim their rights are going backwards
(2) show that grievances can be redressed within recourse to extralegal methods
(3) give a much louder voice for colonial concerns due to the presence of a few dozen American MPs making speeches and hanging around Westminster

I believe Chatham had a plan for imperial representation that was hanging round the interwebs, but I can't find it now. Does anyone have a link?

PS. Someone above suggested establishing British Lords in the colonies would help things. This couldn't be further from the truth. Men of importance in the colonies were scared stiff of the idea that they could be pushed aside by a corrupt system in Britain allowing aristocrats from the home islands to come over.

Elfwine said:

That last one seems rather problematic in any scenario where one would need military force in any given colony.

Click to expand...

I don't get it, you mean the process would be too slow? Maybe in exceptional cases, London or the Governor alone can allow the entrance/passage of any other military force, provided that he is satisfied that the colony's security is at risk and the militia cannot defend the colony alone effectively; but the legislature must ratify such a decision within 60/90/120 days.

BlondieBC said:

If you add the requirement that the King select a governor who has been a resident of the colony for 10 years and say holds or has held a seat in the legislature, I think the colonist would be delighted. And the King should have enough choices for him to be satisfied among the top 100 or so colonial leaders. For the time, this system which is similar to the Kaiserreich chancellor would seem very progressive.

And your idea for lifetime appoints to the House of Lords makes sense. For the older Lords, it makes the American Lords clearly second class Lords. But for the Americans, it gives the elite like Washington or Jefferson a path to nobility. And if one does something greatly note worth (Washington does well in some war), the King can always upgrade him to a full Lord. I can see colonist raising many companies and regiments in some future war with France trying to win nobility for the man who organized these regiments.

Click to expand...

Yes, a residency requirement would be very useful towards a compromise.

As for the Lords, that's certainly the best scenario, but I do have my doubts about it; maybe it's best to just decide that colonies and their governors should have nothing to do with the Lords, at least for the next decades. And by war with France, are you referring to the Napoleonic wars? I'm not sure Americans would be too delighted to fight a war in Europe that, maybe they think has nothing to do with them; and being forced to fight it by the British would definetely ignite revolutionary actions sooner rather than later.


As for the taxation-MPs representation analogy, I think that initally the MPs number should be sympolic, but the compromise should contain a provision whereby a colony may individually "embrace" imperial taxes or portions thereof and automatically gain seats in the Commons by some (negotiations?) mechanism at any later time.

I've found this, but it doesn't look long enough to contain the actual plan, so I didn't want to buy it:

http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/content/XXII/LXXXVIII/756.full.pdf

I don't see why they wouldn't just let the colonies elect their own governors and just have the King (on paper; in practice it would be Parliament of course) appoint a Lord Lieutenant or similar to liaise with the elected governor and advise him of the Westminster government's preferred policy direction. Several colonies already elected their governors or lieutenant-governors before the American Revolution, albeit on a constrained franchise (but then for some of them that continued after the Revolution as well).

You see, in the 300+ years of the British Empire, nobody seems to have ever seriously proposed adding colonial representatives to the British parliament, (other than during the ARW as a last-ditch effort) so I really have to assume it wasn't a very good idea.

And, on the face of it, creating a massive centralized Imperial Parliament legislating for everything on multiple continents seems extremely unworkable even after the invention of the telegraph, so I imagine that's why it was never brought up.