In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

CHAPTER SIX THE IMPERIAL CONTRACT The fourth contract contributing to the revolutionary debates along with the social contract, the original contract, and the settlement contract was the imperial contract. On the matter of Parliament's authority to tax the colonies, the imperial contract was perhaps the most important and certainly the most frequently mentioned of the contracts, and, in fact, was seldom if ever cited to support any constitutional argument other than that authority. Stated simply in nonlegal terms, the contract exacted colonial payment for imperial protection. [1]f the COLONIES constitute Parts and Portions of the BRITISH EMPIRE , frequently claiming, and as often enjoying the powerful PROTECTION of the LEGISLATURE, at an immense Expense of Blood and Treasure, to the main Body of the Kingdom; it follows, as clear as the Sun, that the same COLONIES ought to be subject to AMODERATE TAXATION, imposed by the supreme Legislature upon them in common with their Fellow Subjects, for the Protection and Safety of the whole; and for the Relief of the main Body, from the Burthen incurred on their Account. As originally stated, the claim that the British were owed support by the colonies- a claim of quasi-contract alleging an obligation great 65 66 THE IMPERIAL CONTRACT enough to justify direct imperial taxation - consisted of two counts. The first count alleged that current taxes in Great Britain were unusually heavy because "a great part of the national debt" had been "contracted" by the mother country "protecting" the North American settlements "from the arbitrary attempts of their implacable enemies." The second count asserted that this huge debt had been contracted during the Seven Years War when imperial forces had made the continent safe for British America.l Although many writers on the imperial side of the revolutionary debate assumed the validity of the imperial contract, few who gave its existence any thought were willing to state it as a constitutional absolute and say, as did Henry Goodricke, that its existence and terms were "not of dispute." Most of those invoking the imperial contract attempted to develop some contractual theory to establish its legality. "[T]he first and great principle of all government, is, that support is due in return for protection ," was probably the explanation with the widest acceptance. "On this acknowledged principle," it was said, "the stamp-act was planned." That claim seems to be correct; George Grenville, the minister responsible for the Stamp Act, made the argument several times. "Protection and obedience are reciprocal," he told the Commons. "Great Britain protects America; America is bound to yield obedience." By obedience he meant the payment of taxes, and why not? The Americans were obligated to reciprocate. "When they want the protection of this kingdom, they are always very ready to ask it. ... The nation has run itself into an immense debt to give them their protection." It was only proper, then, that they contribute a small share toward the public expense, an expense arising from themselves.2 There were several other grounds or alternative arguments upon which the imperial-contract claim was based. The simplest, as might be expected, was moral obligation.3 Another was equality; the British taxpayers were said to be bearing an unequal share of the financial costs of defending the Empire.4 A third was equity; "The people of England," one writer reasoned, "are taxed in Consequence of the last American War; is it not equitable that the Americans should bear their Part?" Governor William Franklin seems not only to have thought so, but to have felt the equity strong enough to give rise to an equitable contract. Do not forget the benefits received from the mother country, he told the New Jersey Council and Assembly, bidding his listeners "to acknowledge that it is to her Support, held forth at the Expence of her Blood and Treasure, that they principally owe that Security which hath raised them to their present State of Opulence and Importance. In this Situation, therefore, Justice requires that they should, in Return, contribute according to their respective Abilities to the Common Defence."5 The theory of an equitable contract could be explained not only in terms of both justice and equity- it THE IMPERIAL CONTRACT was "just and equitable" that Americans "contribute a reasonable proportion for the support of that government, by which they are protected" - but also in terms of equality, or a theory of equitable equality. "[W]i11 not the government become unjust and oppressive," John Shebbeare asked, "if...

Share