Daniel Dulaney Analysis

1) Daniel Dulaney first outlines that that all British subject have a right to representation, if they are being taxed. He also discusses that the British government believes that the colonists have virtual representation. He states that if the representation is virtual it does not exist at all. After establishing this foundation for his argument, he asks “[w]hether the commons of Great Britain are virtually the representatives the commons of America or not.” This is the question he argues to. He explains that Stamp Act supporters admit that the colonies have no representation, but Britain says it’s alright because they are virtually represented, like that non-electors. Dulaney agrees that Britain has the right to preserve the dependence …show more content…
He defines the colonies argument is that no Englishman can be taxed against his will. He refutes this by bringing up examples of towns such as Manchester and Birmingham which choose to not send representatives to Parliament and not be represented. These people are still Englishmen who are taxed, even if they choose to have no representatives. He extends this to America arguing that if these towns can have only a virtual representation, so can the colonial towns. If these colonies are still British, then they should fall into the same category as the towns that choose no …show more content…
For the two arguments, it seems that Parliament never gave the colonies a chance to have representation. If it was never an option, then they don’t have the grounds to say that it’s the same as the other towns. Even if this is not true and they did have the option, according to Dulaney argument, Parliament gave the colonies the right to impose their own internal taxes. Britain cannot come in after giving them that right and try to take it back without provocation or warming. Both of these things lead to Britain not having a right to impose the Stamp Act on the colonies. Plus, if all of this is true, Jenyns argument falls apart. His entire argument is based on the parallel between American colonies and other British towns. If those towns were given a choice and America was not, he has no argument. If Parliament took back the right to impose internal taxes without warming, Jenyns has no argument. In the end, he only has one point, the parallel I just mentioned, and this parallel is has too many ways it could be wrong. In the end Dulaney argument has a firmer basis than