1775] The colonies as corporations. Representation. 195 exemption from taxation by Parliament because of want of represent- ation, than were other corporations than was indeed the City of London. Dulany met this argument thus. The colonies had complete legislative authority, and the people were represented in their legis- latures, and in no other way. The power of making bye-laws vested in corporations, such as the City of London, was incomplete, being limited to a few particular subjects. And as for London, the Common Council were actually represented in Parliament, having a choice of members. The power of the colonies to make laws was not limited by anything else than what resulted from their subordinate relation to Great Britain. The term bye-law would be as improper when applied to the assemblies as the expression Acts of Assembly would be if applied to Parliament. Thacher, writing about the same time, said that it was impossible to consider the colonies as corporations, in the sense of corporations existing in England. Distance had made it necessary that the colonies should have the power of legislation ; the colonies could not have existed otherwise. Now the colonies had always taxed themselves in their own legislatures, and had supported a complete domestic government among themselves ; was it then just that they should be doubly taxed ? The loyalist Galloway of Pennsylvania, lately Speaker of the House of Assembly of that province, agreed with this view, as expressing the purport of the charters ; which however he regarded as usurpations. The inferior corporations of England, he said, were governed by the general laws of the State, and their powers were so confined that they had frequent occasion to apply to Parliament for laws and regulations necessary to their own welfare. The colonies " were made competent to every act which could be necessary in a society perfectly independent." There was nothing for which they had to look to Parliament. They were not obliged by their charters to send any of their transactions for the inspection or control either of the Crown or Parliament ; and they could declare war or make peace, in virtue of their charters. Galloway had indeed in 1775 thought that the colonies ought to be represented in Parliament, under the British Constitution, regardless of their charters. The rights of Americans, he believed, could be traced to no other source than the constitution of the British State ; and this was founded upon real property as the thing to be above all protected. Hence real property in England was represented in Parliament. Real property in America ought also to have representation there; the emigrants had neither surrendered, forfeited, nor lost their rights of representation by coming to America; Americans, as the subjects of a free State, were justly entitled to participate in the government of it ; they should be restored to their ancient and essential right of sharing in the making of laws. That right originally was, and still is, of the essence of the British Constitution. As the case now stood, the British government was as absolute and despotic over the colonies as any monarch could be. That CH. vi. 132
