Virtual representation

During the winter of 1764–1765, British MP George Grenville and his lieutenant, Thomas Whately, attempted to explicitly articulate a theory that could justify the lack of representation in colonial taxation.

[4] William Pitt, a defender of colonial rights, ridiculed virtual representation, calling it "the most contemptible idea that ever entered into the head of a man; it does not deserve serious refutation.

"[7] James Otis Jr. reasoned that the legal liberties of British subjects meant that Parliament should, or could, only tax the colonists if they were actually represented in Westminster.

At the time of the American Revolution, only England and Wales and Scotland were directly represented in the Parliament of Great Britain among the many parts of the British Empire.

In his influential 1765 pamphlet, Considerations on the Propriety of Imposing Taxes in the British Colonies, Daniel Dulany Jr. of Maryland likewise observed that attempting to tax subjects on the inequitable basis of "virtual" representation was unsound because, The situation of the non-electors in England—their capacity to become electors — their inseparable connection with those who are electors, and their representatives—their security against oppression resulting from this connection, and the necessity of imagining a double or virtual representation, to avoid iniquity and absurdity, have been explained—the inhabitants of the colonies are, as such, incapable of being electors, the privilege of election being exerciseable only in person, and therefore if every inhabitant of America had the requisite freehold, not one could vote, but upon the supposition of his ceasing to be an inhabitant of America, and becoming a resident of Great-Britain, a supposition which would be impertinent, because it shifts the question—should the colonies not be taxed by parliamentary impositions, their respective legislatures have a regular, adequate, and constitutional authority to tax them, and, therefore, there would not necessarily be an iniquitous and absurd exemption, from their not being represented by the House of Commons.

In 1764, the Massachusetts politician James Otis Jr. said that, When the parliament shall think fit to allow the colonists a representation in the house of commons, the equity of their taxing the colonies, will be as clear as their power is at present of doing it without, if they please...But if it was thought hard that charter privileges should be taken away by act of parliament, is it not much harder to be in part, or in whole, disfranchised of rights, that have been always thought inherent to a British subject, namely, to be free from all taxes, but what he consents to in person, or by his representative?

The resolutions of the Congress stated that the Stamp Act had "a manifest tendency to subvert the rights and liberties of the colonists" and that "the only Representatives of the People of these Colonies, are Persons chosen therein by themselves, and that no Taxes ever have been, or can be Constitutionally imposed on them, but by their respective Legislature.

"[18] Furthermore, it was declared that, "it is unreasonable and inconsistent with the Principles and Spirit of the British Constitution, for the People of Great-Britain, to grant to his Majesty the Property of the Colonists.

"[18] Sebastian Galiani and Gustavo Torrens propose that virtual representation imposed a dilemma on the British elite, which had a direct influence on the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War.

Through game theoretic models, Galiani and Torrens show that, once in Parliament, Americans could not feasibly commit to political alliances independent of the British opposition.

Galiani and Torrens argue that British elites would incur greater losses to their domestic clout from American representation than from simply forfeiting a colony.

The implications of forfeiting virtual representation forced the British elite, which dominated the government, to decide between maintaining the rule of the American colonies, which in their minds was infeasible, and engaging in war.

Indeed the assertion that there were no fundamental differences of interest between rich and poor is hard to reconcile with the determination of the upper classes to reserve political power for men of substance.