Video
Grievance #18 of the Declaration of Independence

Watch
Founding Principles
About this video
What if you didn’t get a jury at your trial?
In Grievance 18 of the Declaration of Independence, Chris Canty, student at George Washington University, explains how colonists were denied the right to trial by jury in certain cases.
Instead, cases like smuggling were sent to admiralty courts, where a single judge decided the outcome. No jury. No peers. Just a ruling from a magistrate.
For colonists, this was a serious violation of their rights. Trial by jury had been a core part of English law since the Magna Carta, and losing it felt like losing a key protection against government power.
This wasn’t just about one case or one court. It was about a bigger issue: if the government can control the courts, can it also control justice?
0:00 If you ask the average person to
0:01 identify the motto of the American
0:03 Revolution, they might be able to recite
0:05 that old classic, no taxation without
0:08 representation. We spend a lot of time
0:09 on that second word, taxation, and sure,
0:12 who likes taxes? But the fourth word of
0:14 the motto helps us understand why they
0:16 were so upset.
0:17 When they endorsed grievance 17, the
0:19 Continental Congress was expressing how
0:21 they were really upset over the issue of
0:23 representation. In the British Empire,
0:25 most people understood that Parliament
0:27 did not actually represent every one of
0:29 its subjects. In 1765, the English
0:32 politician Thomas Whately had explained
0:33 that all British subjects, in fact, were
0:35 virtually represented in Parliament
0:37 because every member of Parliament acted
0:39 in the best interest of the entire
0:41 empire, not on behalf of any individual
0:43 group of constituents. But this
0:45 explanation of virtual representation
0:47 just wasn’t good enough for Americans.
0:48 They were fine with taxes related to
0:50 trade because that was the accepted
0:52 responsibility of the Imperial
0:53 government, and they were fine with
0:55 paying taxes to their colonial
0:56 legislatures that had offered some form
0:58 of representation since the 17th
1:00 century. But when Parliament started
1:01 taxing them directly, they believed it
1:03 had gone too far.
1:05 Patriots like John Adams put it in stark
1:07 terms. Let it be known that British
1:09 liberties, like the right to
1:10 representation, were not the grants of
1:13 princes or parliaments, but original
1:15 rights to which all British subjects
1:17 were entitled. When Parliament imposed
1:19 taxes on colonists without their
1:20 approval, they went against a basic
1:22 enlightenment principle
1:24 that governed the English constitution.
1:27 As John Locke had put it, no one could
1:29 be subjected to the political power of
1:31 another without his own consent. No
1:33 taxation had been enough of a rallying
1:35 cry to get some people protesting in the
1:37 streets, but no representation in a
1:40 government supposedly built on English
1:41 liberty, that was enough of a
1:43 declaration to launch a revolution.




