Colonial Disenfranchisement in the British Empire - how did it work practically?

Factual Questions
1

“No taxation without representation” is a much quoted slogan of the American revolution, and one that people use today to make comparisons with the lack of representatives for people living in Washington, DC. US citizens who live in Puerto Rico are also unable to vote for representatives in Congress but they have been exempted from most Federal taxation. This disenfranchisement is linked in with current legal residency in Puerto Rico and not with whether a person is ethnically Puerto Rican or whether they were born there.

How did colonial disenfranchisement of the type that inspired the Revolution actually work? Was it solely a matter of residence like the situations today in DC and PR or was it tied to one’s birthplace? If a white British Subject from Philadelphia in 1780 whose parents were both born in Philadelphia was unhappy with being unable to vote for an MP, could he gain the right to vote by moving to, say, Manchester, England, or would he continue to lack the right to vote even after returning to his ancestral homeland because he was still considered a colonist? By comparison, Puerto Ricans who live in New York are allowed to vote in NY elections for Congressional representatives. Likewise, did people from England become automatically disenfranchised by stepping off a boat in Boston, NYC, Norfolk, Halifax, Kingston, or some other “colonial” city or was it only your children or children’s children who lost the vote?

2

I am by far an expert on history, but didn’t much of the voting rights stem from land ownership?

Assuming the monarchy/parliament didn’t create new seats - which I’m guessing they didn’t - I would think the fact that no one owned land in an area that counted was what was the bar to voting.

A little bit later than the revolution, but…

3

It depended.

Broadly speaking, the voting rights in England and Wales could be broken down into four types. None directly barred someone from the colonies.

  1. Any man living within a county who owned freehold land worth more than 40 shillings per annum, which by the eighteenth century wasn’t a huge hurdle, could vote for the county MPs (usually two). So it would be just a case of buying the land to qualify. Residence was irrelevant. Almost nowhere within England and Wales didn’t fall within a county for parliamentary purposes.

  2. Own land within certain boroughs. What lands qualified and how much you needed might well vary, but, again, all you need to do was to buy the land. Residence was usually irrelevant.

  3. Reside in certain other boroughs. There might be further restrictions, such as paying certain local taxes (often that being the test that you were resident), but those were usually very minor.

  4. Hold certain types of local office in certain boroughs, usually as a freeman or as a member of the borough corporation. Which might well depend on residence within the town and/or ownership of property, particularly at the time of appointment.

Also, any votes, however acquired, would have had to be cast in person.

(The Scottish franchises were even more complicated, as a loophole in Scots law meant that the nominal title to some land could be sold separately from actual possession of that land, so it was possible to qualify on the basis of landownership without really owning the land in question. And, yes, that loophole was widely abused.)

Bad choice of location, as, notoriously, Manchester was not enfranchised until 1832 (except between 1654 and 1660). But anyone with enough freehold land in Manchester would still have been able to vote for the Lancashire county MPs.

4

We who live in the 21st Century tend to believe in one man, one vote, both in America and in the Commonwealth. The sole exceptions are the US and Australian Senates, with each state having an equal number of Senators, and the Canadian Commons, where there is a guaranteed minimum number of seats for each province.

In medieval and pre-1832 Britain, this was not the case: the Lords were in origin the leaders of concentrations of military force who held land as direct vassals of the Crown, i.e., Earls and Barons; and the Commons represented communities, i.e., boroughs and counties. Each county (except Yorkshire) and each borough had two members, regarless of population. (Yorkshire, being by far the largest county in area, was divided into three trithings with two members each; “trithing” evolved into “riding”, whence the Canadian term for legislative district.) The idea that the colonies ‘deserved’ Parliamentary representation would have been foreign to them; they were not communiities of England, Scotland, or Wales, were they?

After tje shock of losing the American colonies brought home to them that people valued the franchise and government by their own representatives no matter where they lived, they hit on the idea of “responsible government.” (“Responsible” in this usage means “answerable to.”) Step one was to let the locals elect their own legislature, which would levy taxes and enact internal legislation, while the governor, still appointed by the Crown, generally employed locals as his assistants. Step two was to have the governor ne ‘advised by’ the leader of the majority in the legislature, in the same manner as the Crown is advised by the Prime Minister. Step three was full indepencence.

But the point remans: in the older view, you as a subject/citizen did not deserve a vote; your right to a vote derived from being a member of a community which historically had representation in Commons. And Virginia, Massachusetts, Quebec, Cape Colony, and New South Wales did not have such representation.

Minor nitpick to APB’s masterly post: In addition to what he lists, the two universities (Oxford and Cambridge) also had seats, with theoretical constituencies of university faculty and graduates.

5

Before the 1940s all citizens of all the UK, the various Dominions and colonies were considered “British subjects” with the same status. Qualification to vote was based on (as mentioned by other posters) ownership of property in a constituency, or (later) residence in a constituency. “Aliens” were disqualified from voting, even if they met the criteria, but British subjects from throughout the Empire were not considered “aliens”. So a person from Canada, Australia, the Cape, etc., who made his permanent residence in the UK and was otherwise qualified would be entitled to vote; and correspondingly a Briton who made his permanent residence in a colony would generally be entitled to vote in the colonial legislature, if there was one and he met any other qualifications.

6

Race would be irrelevant; only property & religion mattered in Great Britain. A black British subject would be allowed to vote as long as he was of age, met whatever the property qualification for that constituence and was a member of the Church of England (or Church of Scotland in Scotland). Hell, until the 1830s the law didn’t actually specify that voters had to be male (unlike in New Jersey there’s no record of any women taking advantage of that loophole).

[QUOTE=ctnguy]
…So a person from Canada, Australia, the Cape, etc., who made his permanent residence in the UK and was otherwise qualified would be entitled to vote; and correspondingly a Briton who made his permanent residence in a colony would generally be entitled to vote in the colonial legislature, if there was one and he met any other qualifications.
[/QUOTE]

This is actually still true regarding Commonwealth citizens who live in the UK. After one year’s residence they have the same right to vote & hold public office as British citizens. Same deal for the Irish even though Ireland left the Commonwealth in 1949. I don’t think any other Commonwealth countries still do that (other than grandfathered electors), but New Zealand allows all permanent residents to vote (but not hold office).

7

Indeed - and also run for office, as demonstrated by Bonar Law, born in New Brunswick, Canada, who moved to the UK, entered politics, and eventually became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

Ditto, going the other way, for John A. Macdonald, born in Scotland, emigrated to Canada, and became first Prime Minister of Canada. More recently, John Turner was born in the United Kingdom, moved to Canada, and became Prime Minister (although for a very short time).

8

Having been twice quoted I now realise that I wrote “entitled to vote in the colonial legislature” when I meant “entitled to vote in elections for the colonial legislature”; my hypothetical Briton would not be entitled to vote in the legislature unless he had been elected to it! :smack:

9

[quote=“Polycarp, post:4, topic:656489”]

We who live in the 21st Century tend to believe in one man, one vote, both in America and in the Commonwealth…/quote

I think women are also allowed to vote nowadays.

Only two universities? Dear me, you’d think there might also have been a couple of universities in Scotland.

10

And Tommy Douglas, prime minister of Saskatchewan and introducer of universal health care ( also father-in-law of the popular actor Donald Sutherland ), who was born in Falkirk.

And in Bonar Law’s time a rascally press baron with great political ambitions in London was Lord Beaverbrook, born in Canada — the Robert Maxwell of his day ( born in Ruthenia, I think ). The point being, no matter how awful someone is, they can scarcely be worse than our own native-born.

11

Also, the Maxim machine gun.

12

IIRC, Puerto Ricans who move to any U.S. state and register to vote there are fully entitled to vote in any Federal, state or local election, from President on down to dogcatcher.

Step Two (B) might be said to be “Have a Governor-General appointed from among their own countrymen rather than imported from the UK, but remain a Crown Colony (or now, British Overseas Territory).”

13

Puertoriqieños, Guamanians, Northian Marianians, and Virgin Islanders (and presumably the sexually active ones as well) may not choose electors to vote for the president and vice president owing to how that law works, but like D.C. they choose a ‘delegate’ to Congress who has right to the floor, and both voice and vote in committees, but not a vote in the full House or Senate, and local self-government subject to any supersession of local decisions which Congress chooses to exercise. They are U.S. citizens, free to travel and to relocate without ICE let or hindrance, and ir is as such they hold the right to vote in any state. FWIW though they do not have direct voice in the choosing of the President, both major party conventions seat delegations from the commonwealths and territories and give them votes.

(It is not true that Northern Marianians could vote for President once. For 20 minutes. In 1960. :D)

Good point; thanks.

14

[QUOTE=Elendil’s Heir]
Step Two (B) might be said to be “Have a Governor-General appointed from among their own countrymen rather than imported from the UK, but remain a Crown Colony (or now, British Overseas Territory).”
[/QUOTE]

Historically, that’s not how it worked, Elendil’s Heir. For instance, in the Province of Canada, responsible government was achieved when Lord Elgin gave royal assent to the Rebellion Losses Bill in 1849. However, all subsequent Governors for the Province were British.

The Dominion of Canada had responsible government from the beginning, but all the Governors-General were British, until the appointment of Vincent Massey in 1952, long after Canada achieved effective independence from Britain with the passage of the Statute of Westminster in 1931.

ETA: I think the same pattern was followed in the other earlier Dominions, like Australia and New Zealand; not sure how it worked with the later, post WWII dominions - but Mountbatten was the last Governor General of an independent India.

15

Australia had it’s first local Governor-General, Sir Isaac Isaacs (a Jew) in 1931, but also had British Governors-General as late as the 1960s. Australia didn’t adopt the Statute of Wesminster until 1942. The last British state Governor was appointed sometime in the 1980s. Also in the '80s it was suggested that Prince Charles be appointed Governor-General, but nobody wanted that (other than Prince Charles).

16

No. Lord Mountbatten was the first GG of India (not Pakistan where he was never popular). There was at least one additional GG of India (a local) until India became a Republic in 1950.

Post WW2 most colonies were granted independence in stages, with the penultimate one being Dominion status which in some case last only months with the GG just being a local who would soon be President.

Finally, a note about British India. Imperial policy post WW1 was to deal with nationalistic aspirations by transferring the majority of powers to the provinces who would have responsible government, while retaining the colonial setup at the center. After the Government of India Act 1935, India became a Federation under the Empire.

17

Thanks for the correction and info - I’m not as up on Indian and Pakistani constitutional history as I should be, obviously.

So, the pattern suggested by Elendil’s Heir was followed in the later, post-WWII de-colonialisation dominions, like India and Pakistan, but not in the earlier ones like Canada and Australia.

18

Chakravarti Rajagopalachari

19

Yes. You have the pattern for the white dominions (as they were then known) and you had the post colonization pattern. The former was based upon the general assessment made after the unfortunate events of 1776, when a (white) colony wanted self government, they would get it eventually.

Interestingly the British Government after WW1 wanted to eventually set up responsible government in India, the biggest problem was opposition to that idea at home, the 1935 Act was a compromise between nationalistic and British conservative views. And this, BTW not opposition to the Nazi’s ws the real reason why Winston Churchill was out of office.

20

IIRC the line we learned was that the British did not learn their lesson after the 1776 rebellion. They in fact clamped down and had much more centralized control - the governors could overrule the legislature, ignore bills etc. - until the rebellions of 1837 in Upper and Lower Canada. (Ontario and Quebec, essentially). Second time, the lesson finally sunk in and they let the legislatures have more control.

One example of the parliament of Britain - the “rotten boroughs” were cities that had members of parliament from long before, but had been abandoned; Old Sarum, the former site of Salisbury was one such. (Just a flat hilltop today with some stubby ruined walls). In the early middle ages, it was a town with members in parliamnet, and never lost them. Nobody lived there, so one or two landowners could “elect” the members of parliament. It was simple to buy your way into parliamnt, you simply had to outbid the other guys for the one voter. The reform to eliminate these was not until the early 1800’s, IIRC.