document_title: No taxation without representation

question_text: where did the phrase taxation without representation come from

text: No taxation without representation

text: Prior to the American Revolution[edit]

text:
Wikisource has original works written by or about:
Oldmixon

text: The English Parliament had controlled colonial trade and taxed imports and exports since 1660.[4] By the 1760s, the Americans were being deprived of a historic right.[5] The English Bill of Rights 1689 had forbidden the imposition of taxes without the consent of Parliament. Since the colonists had no representation in Parliament, the taxes violated the guaranteed Rights of Englishmen. Parliament initially contended that the colonists had virtual representation, but the idea "found little support on either side of the Atlantic".[6] John Dunmore Lang wrote in 1852, "The person who first suggested the idea [of Parliamentary representation for the colonies] appears to have been Oldmixon, an American annalist of the era of Queen Anne or George I. It was afterwards put forward with approbation by the celebrated Dr. Adam Smith, and advocated for a time, but afterwards rejected and strongly opposed, by Dr. Benjamin Franklin."[7]

tag: p

text: The eloquent 1768 Petition, Memorial, and Remonstrance objecting to taxation, written by the Virginia House of Burgesses and endorsed by every other Colony, was sent to the British Government, which seems to have ignored it.[8]

text: American Revolution[edit]

text: The phrase had been used for more than a generation in Ireland.[9][10] By 1765, the term was in use in Boston, and local politician James Otis was most famously associated with the phrase, "taxation without representation is tyranny."[11] In the course of the Revolutionary era (1750–1783), many arguments were pursued that sought to resolve the dispute surrounding Parliamentary sovereignty, taxation, self-governance and representation.[12][13][14][15][16][17]

text: Representative proposals before 1776[edit]

text: In the course of the 1760s and 1770s, William Pitt the Elder, Sir William Pulteney, and George Grenville, amongst other prominent Britons and colonial Americans, such as Joseph Galloway, James Otis Jr., Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, the London Quaker Thomas Crowley, Royal Governors such as Thomas Pownall M.P., William Franklin, Sir Francis Bernard, and the Attorney-General of Quebec, Francis Maseres, debated and circulated plans for the creation of colonial seats in London, imperial union with Great Britain, or a federally representative British Parliament with powers of taxation that was to consist of American, West Indian, Irish and British Members of Parliament.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] Despite the fact that these ideas were considered and discussed seriously on both sides of the Atlantic, it appears that neither the American Congress, nor the colonial Assemblies, nor the British Government in Westminster, at least prior to the Carlisle Peace Commission of 1778, officially proposed such constitutional developments.[26][27][28] It must be noted, however, that Governor Thomas Hutchinson apparently referred to a colonial representational proposal when he wrote that,

text: The Assembly of Massachusetts Bay...was the first which ever took exception to the right of Parliament to impose Duties or Taxes on the Colonies, whilst they had no representatives in the House of Commons. This they did in a letter to their Agent in the summer of 1764...And in this letter they recommend to him a pamphlet, wrote by one of their members, in which there are proposals for admitting representatives from the Colonies to fit in the House of Commons...an American representation is thrown out as an expedient which might obviate the objections to Taxes upon the Colonies, yet...it was renounced...by the Assembly of the Colony which first proposed it, as utterly impracticable.[29][30]

text: Jared Ingersoll Snr., colonial agent for Connecticut, wrote to his American colleague, the Royal Governor of Connecticut Thomas Fitch, that following Isaac Barre's famous Parliamentary speech against the Stamp Act in 1764, Richard Jackson, M.P., supported Barre and other pro-American M.P.s by producing before the House copies of earlier Acts of Parliament that had admitted Durham and Chester seats upon their petitions for representation. The argument was put forward in Parliament that America ought to have representatives on these grounds too.[31] Richard Jackson supposed that Parliament had a right to tax America, but he much doubted the expediency of the Stamp act. He said if it was necessary, as ministers claimed, to tax the colonies, the latter should be permitted to elect some part of the Parliament, "otherwise the liberties of America, I do not say will be lost, but will be in danger."[32][33]

text: The Knox-Burke debates[edit]

text: William Knox, an aide of George Grenville, pamphleteer and subsequent Irish Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, received an appointment in 1756 to the American provinces, and after his return to London in 1761, he recommended the creation of a colonial aristocracy and colonial representation in the British Parliament.[34] He was shortly afterwards appointed agent for Georgia and East Florida, a post which he forfeited by writing in favour of the Stamp Act. In his Grenville-backed pamphlet of 1769, The Controversy between Great Britain and her Colonies Reviewed, Knox suggested that colonial representatives might have been offered seats in the British Parliament if they had sought such representation.[35] Knox submitted that,

text: whilst [the radical colonists] exclaim against Parliament for taxing them when they are not represented, they candidly declare they will not have representatives [in Parliament] lest they should be taxed...The truth...is that they are determined to get rid of the jurisdiction of Parliament...and they therefore refuse to send members to that assembly lest they should preclude themselves of [the] plea [that Parliament's] legislative acts...are done without their consent; which, it must be confessed, holds equally good against all laws, as against taxes...The colony advocates...tell us, that by refusing to accept our offer of representatives they...mean to avoid giving Parliament a pretence for taxing them.[36]

text: Edmund Burke responded to Knox, who had drawn up The Controversy between Great Britain and her Colonies Reviewed as well as The Present State of the Nation (1768) under the supervision of George Grenville, by opining in his political tract Observations on a Late State of the Nation (1769),

text: NOW comes [Knox's] American representation...Is not the reader a little astonished at the proposal of an American representation from that quarter [of Grenville's]? It is proposed merely as a project of speculative improvement; not from the necessity in the case, not to add any thing to the authority of parliament: but that we may afford a greater attention to the concerns of the Americans, and give them a better opportunity of stating their grievances, and of obtaining redress. I am glad to find the author has at length discovered that we have not given a sufficient attention to their concerns, or a proper redress to their grievances. His great friend [Grenville] would once have been exceedingly displeased with any person, who should tell him, that he did not attend sufficiently to those concerns. He thought he did so, when he regulated the colonies over and over again: he thought he did so, when he formed two general systems of revenue; one of port-duties, and the other of internal taxation. These systems supposed, or ought to suppose, the greatest attention to, and the most detailed information of, all their affairs. However, by contending for the American representation, he seems at last driven virtually to admit, that great caution ought to be used in the exercise of all our legislative rights over an object so remote from our eye, and so little connected with our immediate feelings; that in prudence we ought not to be quite so ready with our taxes, until we can secure the desired representation in parliament. Perhaps it may be some time before this hopeful scheme can be brought to perfect maturity; although the author seems to be no wise aware of any obstructions that lie in the way of it.[37]

text: While Knox, Grenville and Burke were not necessarily opposed in principle to direct colonial representation in Parliament, Grenville nonetheless conjectured that Parliament retained a constitutional right to virtually represent the colonial subjects.[37][38]

text: On the American Taxation[edit]

text: Burke supported the doctrine of virtual representation in Britain.[39] Yet in his Parliamentary speech of 1774, entitled On American Taxation, Burke responded to the suggestion that America was virtually represented in Parliament by remarking,

text: What! does the electric force of virtual representation more easily pass over the Atlantic than pervade Wales, which lies in your neighborhood? or than Chester and Durham, surrounded by abundance of representation that is actual and palpable? But, Sir, your ancestors thought this sort of virtual representation, however ample, to be totally insufficient for the freedom of the inhabitants of territories that are so near, and comparatively so inconsiderable. How, then, can I think it sufficient for those which are infinitely greater, and infinitely more remote? You will now, Sir, perhaps imagine that I am on the point of proposing to you a scheme for a representation of the colonies in Parliament. Perhaps I might be inclined to entertain some such thought; but a great flood stops me in my course. Opposuit Natura. I cannot remove the eternal barriers of the creation. The thing, in that mode, I do not know to be possible. As I meddle with no theory, I do not absolutely assert the impracticability of such a representation; but I do not see my way to it; and those who have been more confident have not been more successful...My resolutions, therefore, mean to establish the equity and justice of a taxation of America by grant, and not by imposition; to mark the legal competency of the colony assemblies for the support of their government in peace, and for public aids in time of war; to acknowledge that this legal competency has had a dutiful and beneficial exercise, and that experience has shown the benefit of their grants, and the futility of Parliamentary taxation, as a method of supply.[40]

text: However, Burke apparently qualified such remarks concerning America by stating in the same speech that,

text: The Parliament of Great Britain...is never to intrude into the place of the [provincial legislatures], whilst they are equal to the common ends of their institution. But in order to enable [Parliamentary]...superintendence, her powers must be boundless. The gentlemen who think the powers of Parliament limited may please themselves to talk of requisitions. But suppose the requisitions are not obeyed? What! shall there be no reserved power in the empire, to supply a deficiency which may weaken, divide, and dissipate the whole? We are engaged in war,—the Secretary of State calls upon the colonies to contribute,—some would do it, I think most would cheerfully furnish whatever is demanded,—one or two, suppose, hang back, and, easing themselves, let the stress of the draft lie on the others,—surely it is proper that some authority might legally say, "Tax yourselves for the common Supply, or Parliament will do it for you." This backwardness was, as I am told, actually the case of Pennsylvania for some short time towards the beginning of the last war, owing to some internal dissensions in that colony. But whether the fact were so or otherwise, the case is equally to be provided for by a competent sovereign power. But then this ought to be no ordinary power, nor ever used in the first instance. This is what I meant, when I have said, at various times, that I consider the power of taxing in Parliament as an instrument of empire, and not as a means of supply.[40]

text: William Pitt the Elder[edit]

text: The views of Knox, Grenville and Burke did not go unchallenged: William Pitt was amongst those who disputed that a Parliamentary right or power existed to levy "internal" taxes "for the purposes of raising a revenue" without the consent of actual representatives of the "Commons of America".[41][42][43] "It is my opinion," Pitt said, "that this kingdom has no right to lay a tax upon the colonies."[41]

text: Colonial spokespersons[edit]

text: In 1764, the Massachusetts politician James Otis, Jr., said that,

text: When the parliament shall think fit to allow the colonists a representation in the house of commons, the equity of their taxing the colonies, will be as clear as their power is at present of doing it without, if they please...But if it was thought hard that charter privileges should be taken away by act of parliament, is it not much harder to be in part, or in whole, disfranchised of rights, that have been always thought inherent to a British subject, namely, to be free from all taxes, but what he consents to in person, or by his representative? This right, if it could be traced no higher than Magna Charta, is part of the common law, part of a British subjects birthright, and as inherent and perpetual, as the duty of allegiance; both which have been brought to these colonies, and have been hitherto held sacred and inviolable, and I hope and trust ever will. It is humbly conceived, that the British colonists (except only the conquered, if any) are, by Magna Charta, as well entitled to have a voice in their taxes, as the subjects within the realm. Are we not as really deprived of that right, by the parliament assessing us before we are represented in the house of commons, as if the King should do it by his prerogative? Can it be said with any colour of truth or justice, that we are represented in parliament?

text: Otis, Jr., attended the Continental Congress of 1765 along with other colonial delegates. The resolutions of the Congress stated that the Stamp Act had "a manifest tendency to subvert the rights and liberties of the colonists" and that "the only Representatives of the People of these Colonies, are Persons chosen therein by themselves, and that no Taxes ever have been, or can be Constitutionally imposed on them, but by their respective Legislature."[45][46] Furthermore, it was declared that, "it is unreasonable and inconsistent with the Principles and Spirit of the British Constitution, for the People of Great-Britain, to grant to his Majesty the Property of the Colonists."[45][46]

text: Daniel Dulany, Jr., of Maryland, wrote in 1765 that, "the Impropriety of a Taxation by the British Parliament...[is proven by] the Fact, that not one inhabitant in any Colony is, or can be actually or virtually represented by the British House of Commons."[47] Dulany, Jr., denied that Parliament had a right "to impose an internal Tax upon the Colonies, without their consent for the single Purpose of Revenue."[48]

text: In 1766, Benjamin Franklin told the House of Commons that, "an internal tax is forced from the people without their consent if not laid by their own representatives. The Stamp Act says we shall have no commerce, make no exchange of property with each other, neither purchase nor grant, nor recover debts; we shall neither marry nor make our wills, unless we pay such and such sums; and thus it is intended to extort our money from us or ruin us by the consequence of refusing to pay it."[49]

text: Republicanism[edit]

text: For those sympathetic to republicanism, such as James Burgh, Catherine Macauley, and Richard Price, any tax revenue measures that were voted into effect without the direct representation of Americans were "unconstitutional" and "pernicious".[50][51][52][53] Burgh felt that virtual representation was "subversive of liberty" and "unjust in its principles" and that the House of Commons must include colonial representatives when it voted on colonial matters, or operate by using the consent of the colonial Assemblies.[54][55]

text: Heightening of tensions[edit]

text: The Americans rejected the Stamp Act of 1765 brought in by British Prime Minister George Grenville, and violently rejected the remaining tax on tea imports, under the Tea Act passed in May 1773, at the Boston Tea Party on December 16, 1773. The Parliament considered this an illegal act because they believed it undermined the authority of the Crown-in-Parliament. When the British then used the military to enforce laws that the colonists believed Parliament had passed illegally, the colonists responded by forming militias and seized political control of each colony, ousting the royal governors – with the exception of the American-born Royal Governor of Connecticut, John Trumbull, who was allowed to remain as the new Patriot Governor.

text: The complaint was never officially over the amount of taxation (the taxes were quite low, though ubiquitous), but always on the political decision-making process by which taxes were decided in London, i.e. without representation for the colonists in British Parliament.

text: Patrick Henry's resolution in the Virginia legislature implied that Americans possessed all the rights of Englishmen, that the principle of no taxation without representation was an essential part of the British Constitution, and that Virginia alone had the right to tax Virginians.[56]

text: Efforts at conciliation[edit]

text: This offer of actual imperial representation was likewise re-stated to the delegates of the colonies via the colonial agents in 1774, according to Connecticut-born Reverend Thomas Bradbury Chandler, in his publication A Friendly Address to All Reasonable Americans.[57] In February 1775, Britain passed the Conciliatory Resolution which ended taxation for any colony which satisfactorily provided for the imperial defence and the upkeep of imperial officers.[58]

text: Representative proposals after 1776[edit]

text: James Macpherson, a colonial secretary of British West Florida, defended the North administration in an officially sponsored polemic in 1776 named The Rights of Great Britain Asserted.[59][60][61] This work replied to the Continental Congress' July 6, 1775 Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms by proposing that,

text: Had the Americans, instead of flying to arms, submitted the same supposed grievance [as the taxed though unrepresented Palatine counties in England had], in a peaceable and dutiful manner, to the Legislature, I can perceive no reason why their request should be refused. Had they, like the County and City of Chester, represented, that "for lack of Knights and Burgesses to represent them in the High Court of Parliament, they had been oftentimes TOUCHED and GRIEVED with Acts and Statutes made within the said Court, derogatory to their most ancient jurisdictions, liberties and privileges, and prejudicial to their quietness, rest and peace;" this Country [of Britain] would, I am persuaded, have no objection to their being represented in her Parliament... If they are not madly bent on independence, let them propose the conditions on which they wish to continue as subjects...The Legislature of this Kingdom cannot possibly depart from any part of its supremacy over the Colonies; but it is in the power of the Colonies to share in that supremacy. If they complain of being taxed without having the privilege of sending Members to Parliament, let them be represented. Nay, more: Let their representation increase in proportion to the Revenue they shall furnish. If they wish rather to vote their QUOTA towards the general supply, through their own General Courts and Assemblies, the resolution of Parliament on that subject is still open to their choice. But, as long as they assume the language of a Sovereign State, this Kingdom can enter into no negociation [sic], can meet no compromise."[62][63]

text: The noted economist Adam Smith seconded this view in his famous 1776 publication Wealth of Nations when he recommended the Americans "to send fifty or sixty new representatives to Parliament" on the basis of the amount of taxes they would contribute to the Imperial coffers.[64] Writing in October 1776 to Lord North in Strictures upon the Declaration of the Congress of the recent Declaration of Independence, and particularly of James Otis, Jr.'s pamphlet Rights of the British Colonies and its endorsement by the Massachusetts Assembly, Governor Thomas Hutchinson said,

text: The Assembly of Massachusetts Bay, therefore, was the first that took any publick of the [Sugar] Act, and the first which ever took exception to the right of Parliament to impose Duties or Taxes on the Colonies, whilst they had no representatives in the House of Commons. This they did in a letter to their Agent in the summer of 1764, which they took care to print and publish before it was possible for him to receive it. And in this letter they recommend to him a pamphlet, wrote by one of their members, in which there are proposals for admitting representatives from the Colonies to fit in the House of Commons. I have this special reason, my Lord, for taking notice of this Act of the Massachusetts Assembly; that though an American representation is thrown out as an expedient which might obviate the objections to Taxes upon the Colonies, yet it was only intended to amuse the authority in England; and as soon as it was known to have its advocates here [in London], it was renounced by the colonies, and even by the Assembly of the Colony which first proposed it, as utterly impracticable."[29][30]

text: Indeed, the resolves of the Continental Congresses of both 1765 and 1774 declared that imperial representation was too impractical on the footing that "local and other circumstances, cannot properly be represented in the British parliament".[65] The British Government, similarly, does not appear to have formally requested discussions with the Americans concerning the issue of Parliamentary seats until 1778.[66][67] In that year "the commissioners of the king of Great Britain," known as the Carlisle Peace Commission of 1778, made an offer to the Congress of "a reciprocal deputation of an agent or agents from the different states, who shall have the privilege of a seat and voice in the parliament of Great Britain".[28][68]

text: Virtual representation[edit]

text: In Britain, representation was highly limited due to unequally distributed voting constituencies and property requirements; only 3% of the population could vote and they were often controlled by local gentry. This meant that spurious arguments had come to be employed in Britain to try to explain away and cover up the iniquities in its political life.[69][70][71] Therefore the British government tried to argue that the colonists had virtual representation in their interests. In the winter of 1764–65, George Grenville, and his secretary Thomas Whately, invented the doctrine of 'virtual representation' in an attempt extend the scope of such unjust arguments to America, and thereby attempt to legitimise the pernicious policies of the Stamp Act.[72][73][74] In English history, "no taxation without representation" was an old principle and meant that Parliament had to pass all taxes. At first, the "representation" was held to be one of land, but, by 1700, this had shifted to the notion that, in Parliament, all British subjects had a "virtual representation." "We virtually and implicitly allow the institutions of any government of which we enjoy the benefit and solicit the protection," declared Samuel Johnson in his political pamphlet Taxation No Tyranny. He rejected the plea that the colonists, who had no vote, were unrepresented. "They are represented," he said, "by the same virtual representation as the greater part of England." However, the tradition of greater democracy amongst Americans gave impetus to the well-founded charge, voiced by Britons and colonists alike, that virtual representation was "sophistry" and "a mere Cob-web, spread to catch the unwary, and intangle [sic] the weak."[75][76] The colonial insistence on direct representation as opposed to virtual representation has thus been seen by later commentators to have "usher[ed] in a profound political and social revolution, which rooted out most of the remaining traces of monarchic rule and feudalism inherited from the only partially complete English bourgeois revolution. The Americans carried through the bourgeois democratic revolution on a scale never before seen in history."[77]

text: Colonial reactions[edit]

text: Virtual representation was wholly rejected in the colonies, who said the "virtual" was a cover for political corruption and was irreconcilable with their belief that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. In 1765, the American lawyer and politician James Otis, Jr., responded to Soame Jenyns' The Objections to the Taxation of Our American Colonies, by the Legislature of Great Britain, Briefly Considered.[78] Otis' own publication was entitled Considerations on Behalf of the Colonists, in a Letter to a Noble Lord.[78] He wrote in it, "To what purpose is it to ring everlasting changes to the colonists on the cases of Manchester, Birmingham and Sheffield, who return no members? If those now so considerable places are not represented, they ought to be."[78][79] Writing in his 1763 publication The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved, Otis declared that,

text: Every British subject born on the continent of America, or in any other of the British dominions, is by the law of God and nature, by the common law, and by act of parliament, (exclusive of all charters from the Crown) entitled to all the natural, essential, inherent and inseparable rights of our fellow subjects in Great Britain. Among those rights...which it is humbly conceived no man or body of men, not excepting the parliament, justly, equitably and consistently with their own rights and the constitution, can take away...[are that the] supreme and subordinate powers of the legislation should be free and sacred in the hands where the community have once rightfully placed them...[that the] supreme national legislative cannot be altered justly ’till the commonwealth is dissolved, nor a subordinate legislative taken away without forfeiture or other good cause. Nor then can the subjects in the subordinate government be reduced to a state of slavery, and subject to the despotic rule of others...Even when the subordinate right of legislature is forfeited, and so declared, this cannot affect the natural persons either of those who were invested with it, or the inhabitants, so far as to deprive them of the rights of subjects and of men — The colonists will have an equitable right notwithstanding any such forfeiture of charter, to be represented in Parliament, or to have some new subordinate legislature among themselves. It would be best if they had both...[Furthermore, the right of every British subject is that the] supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property, without his consent in person, or by representation.[80]

text: Otis simultaneously refuted, in The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved, a contemporary argument that attempted to rationalise virtual representation on the basis of the colonial agents' alleged influence on British policy.[80] "As to the colonists being represented by the provincial agents," he wrote,

text: I know of no power ever given them but to appear before his Majesty, and his ministry. Sometimes they have been directed to petition the parliament: But they none of them have, and I hope never will have, a power given them, by the colonists, to act as representatives, and to consent to taxes; and if they should make any concessions to the ministry, especially without order, the provinces could not by that be considered as represented in parliament.[80]

text: Colonists said no man was represented if he were not allowed to vote. Moreover, even "If every inhabitant of America had the requisite freehold," said Daniel Dulany, "not one could vote, but upon the supposition of his ceasing to become an inhabitant of America, and becoming a resident of Great Britain."[81] The colonists and like-minded Britons insisted that representation was achieved only through an assembly of men actually elected by the persons they were intended to represent.[16]

text: The argument between the colonies and Parliament sought to resolve how the British 'commoners' of the various part of the Empire were represented most constitutionally[18] – as Daniel Dulaney, an American Loyalist and lawyer, put it "[the] constitutional authority [of Parliament's rights to bind American subjects] depends upon the single question, Whether the Commons of Great-Britain are virtually the representatives of the Commons of America, or not.[82]

text: Pitt and Camden[edit]

text: The theory of virtual representation was attacked in Britain by Charles Pratt, 1st Earl Camden, and his ally William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham. William Pitt argued in 1766 that the Commons of Britain ought not to tax the '"Commons of America" without gaining consent of their representatives in stating, "even under former arbitrary reigns, Parliaments were ashamed of taxing a people without their consent, and allowed them representatives. Why did [Grenville] confine himself to Chester and Durham? He might have taken a higher example in Wales—Wales, that never was taxed by Parliament till it was incorporated."[41] He then said,

text: I am no courtier of America. I stand up for this kingdom. I maintain that the Parliament has a right to bind, to restrain America. Our legislative power over the colonies is sovereign and supreme. When it ceases to be sovereign and supreme, I would advise every gentleman to sell his lands, if he can, and embark for that country. When two countries are connected together like England and her colonies, without being incorporated, the one must necessarily govern. The greater must rule the less. But she must so rule it as not to contradict the fundamental principles that are common to both... let the sovereign authority of this country over the colonies be asserted in as strong terms as can be devised, and be made to extend to every point of legislation whatsoever; that we may bind their trade, confine their manufactures, and exercise every power whatsoever, except that of taking their money out of their pockets without their consent."[83]

text: In his first speeches in Parliament, Lord Camden vigorously attacked the declaratory act which was proposed to mollify the crown on the repeal of the Stamp Tax. After his first affirmation of "no taxation without representation" Camden was attacked by British PM Grenville, Chief Justice James Mansfield, Robert Henley, 1st Earl of Northington, and others.[84] He responded:

text: [T]he British Parliament have no right to tax the Americans. I shall not consider the Declaratory Bill now lying on your table; for to what purpose, but loss of time, to consider the particulars of a Bill, the very existence of which is illegal, absolutely illegal, contrary to the fundamental laws of nature, contrary to the fundamental laws of this constitution? A constitution grounded on the eternal and immutable laws of nature; a constitution whose foundation and centre is liberty, which sends liberty to every individual who may happen to be within any part of its ample circumference. Nor, my Lords, is the doctrine new, it is as old as the constitution; it grew up with it; indeed it is its support; taxation and representation are inseparably united; God hath joined them, no British parliament can separate them; to endeavour to do it, is to stab our very vitals. … My position is this—I repeat it—I will maintain it to my last hour,—taxation and representation are inseparable; this position is founded on the laws of nature; it is more, it is itself an eternal law of nature; for whatever is a man's own, is absolutely his own; no man has a right to take it from him without his consent, either expressed by himself or representative; whoever attempts to do it, attempts an injury; whoever does it, commits a robbery; he throws down and destroys the distinction between liberty and slavery. Taxation and representation are coeval with and essential to the constitution. … [T]here is not a blade of grass growing in the most obscure corner of this kingdom, which is not, which was not ever, represented since the constitution began; there is not a blade of grass, which when taxed, was not taxed by the consent of the proprietor. … I can never give my assent to any bill for taxing the American colonies, while they remain unrepresented; for as to the distinction of a virtual representation, it is so absurd as not to deserve an answer; I therefore pass it over with contempt. The forefathers of the Americans did not leave their native country, and subject themselves to every danger and distress, to be reduced to a state of slavery: they did not give up their rights; they looked for protection, and not for chains, from their mother country; by her they expected to be defended in the possession of their property, and not to be deprived of it: for, should the present power continue, there is nothing which they can call their own; or, to use the words of Mr. Locke, ‘What property have they in that, which another may, by right, take, when he pleases, to himself?’"[85]

text: In an appearance before Parliament in January, 1766, former Prime Minister William Pitt stated:

text: The idea of a virtual representation of America in this House is the most contemptible that ever entered into the head of a man. It does not deserve a serious refutation. The Commons of America, represented in their several assemblies, have ever been in possession of the exercise of this their constitutional right, of giving and granting their own money. They would have been slaves if they had not enjoyed it.[86]

text: Grenville responded to Pitt, saying the disturbances in America "border on open rebellion; and if the doctrine I have heard this day be confirmed, nothing can tend more directly to produce a revolution." External and internal taxes are the same, argued Grenville.[87]

text: Modern use in the United States[edit]

text: In the 1860s, suffragette Sarah E. Wall of Worcester, Massachusetts invoked the principle of "no taxation without representation", initiating an anti-tax protest in which she encouraged women not to pay taxes until they were granted the right to vote. Soon after she began this movement, the Worcester city tax collector sued Wall for refusing to pay taxes, and the case reached the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 1863. In "Wheeler v. Wall," the court ruled against Wall and held that despite not having the right to vote, women are still obligated to meet their tax burden. Even still, Wall refused to cooperate with the collector, and as a result, officers seized and sold her property in order to raise the money necessary to meet her tax obligation. After several years, Wall's inexorability eventually prevailed, as the collector began to ignore Wall and allow her to abstain from paying taxes.[88] In 1884, Susan B. Anthony cited Wall's audacity and willingness to stand up for women's suffrage, stating, "for the last twenty-five years, [she] has resisted the tax gatherer when he came around. I want you to look at her. She looks very harmless, but she will not pay a dollar of tax. She says when the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will give her the right of representation she will pay her taxes."[89]

text: The phrase is also used by other groups in America who pay various types of taxes (sales, income, property) but lack the ability to vote, such as felons (who are, in many states, barred from voting), people who work in one state and live in another (thus having to pay income tax to a state they don't live in), or people under 18.[90]

text: To become citizens of the United States, immigrants most often must be permanent residents for a period of time (usually 5 years).[91] Permanent residents must pay taxes on their worldwide income and, in most cases, cannot vote. However, throughout the 19th century, many states did allow immigrants to vote after they had declared their intention to become citizens. This was primarily because these new states were populated in large part by immigrants who had not yet attained citizenship. Throughout U.S. history, non-citizens have been allowed to vote in 40 U.S. states and territories.[92] As of 2005, non-citizens are allowed to vote in seven jurisdictions in the United States: Chicago and six towns in Montgomery County, Maryland.[93]

text: In 2009, the phrase "taxation without representation" was also used in the Tea Party protests, where protesters were upset over increased government spending and taxes, and specifically regarding a growing concern amongst the group that the U.S. government is increasingly relying upon a form of taxation without representation through increased regulatory levies and fees which are allegedly passed via unelected government employees who have no direct responsibility to voters and cannot be held accountable by the public through elections.[94]

text: A modified version of the phrase, "no tuition without representation", is sometimes used in disputes over governance in higher education in the United States to emphasize student's rights to a voice in institutional decisions. The term first emerged in a 1977 dispute at Union County College in New Jersey.[95] It has been used more recently in disputes at Dartmouth College,[96] UC Berkeley School of Law,[97] and elsewhere.

text: Washington, D.C.[edit]

text: In the United States, the phrase is used in Washington, D.C. as part of the campaign for a vote in Congress, to publicize the fact that Washington residents pay Federal taxes, but do not have representation in Congress. In November 2000, the D.C. Department of Motor Vehicles began issuing license plates bearing the slogan "Taxation without representation".[98] In a show of support for the city, President Bill Clinton used the "Taxation Without Representation" plates on the presidential limousine; however, President George W. Bush had the tags replaced to those without the motto shortly after taking office.[99] President Barack Obama announced his intention to use the plates with the motto beginning at his second inauguration.[100] President Donald Trump continued usage of the plates with the protest motto after he was elected, though he has stated he has "no position" on the issue of granting D.C. statehood.[101]

text: In 2002, the Council of the District of Columbia authorized adding the slogan to the D.C. flag, but no new flag design was approved.[102][103] In 2007, the District of Columbia and United States Territories Quarters program was created based on the successful 50 State Quarters program.[104] DC submitted designs containing the slogan, but they were rejected by the U.S. Mint.[105]

text: Modern use in the United Kingdom[edit]

text: British Prime Minister John Major used a modified version of the quote, with the order reversed, in October 1995, when at the United Nations's 50th Anniversary celebrations he said, "It is not sustainable for states to enjoy representation without taxation," in order to criticize the billion-dollar arrears of the United States' payments to the UN, echoing a statement made the previous month at the opening session of the UN General Assembly by UK Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind.[106]

text: Modern use in Canada[edit]

text: In Canada, Québec politician Gilles Duceppe, former leader of the Bloc Québécois, has repeatedly cited this phrase in defending the presence of his party in Ottawa. The Bloc is a Québec sovereigntist party solely running candidates in Canadian Federal elections in the province of Québec. Duceppe's evocation of the phrase implies that the proponents of Quebec's sovereigntist movement have the right to be represented in the body (which they are), the Canadian Parliament, which levies taxes upon them.[107] He will usually cite the sentence in its original English.[108]

text: Use in Australia[edit]

text: The first government of South Australia was by a Legislative Council, whose members were chosen by the Crown and from which office-bearers "Official Members" were selected by the Governor. John Stephens and his South Australian Register were among those who campaigned for democratic reform.[109] Partial reform took place in 1851, when a majority of Members of the South Australian Legislative Council, 1851–1855 were elected.


document_title: Oregon Country

question_text: in the early 1800s what four countries claimed land in oregon

root

text: Oregon Country

text: Early exploration[edit]

text: George Vancouver explored Puget Sound in 1792. Vancouver claimed it for Great Britain on 4 June 1792, naming it for one of his officers, Lieutenant Peter Puget. Alexander Mackenzie was the first European to cross North America by land north of New Spain.[3] arriving at Bella Coola on what is now the Central Coast of British Columbia in 1793. From 1805 to 1806 Meriwether Lewis and William Clark explored the territory for the United States on the Lewis and Clark Expedition. David Thompson, working for the Montreal-based North West Company, explored much of the region beginning in 1807, with his friend and colleague Simon Fraser following the Fraser River to its mouth in 1808, attempting to ascertain whether or not it was the Columbia, as had been theorized about it in its northern reaches through New Caledonia, where it was known by its Dakleh name as the "Tacoutche Tesse". Thompson was the first European to voyage down the entire length of Columbia River. Along the way, his party camped at the junction with the Snake River on July 9, 1811. He erected a pole and a notice claiming the country for Great Britain and stating the intention of the North West Company to build a trading post on the site. Later in 1811, on the same expedition, he finished his survey of the entire Columbia, arriving at a partially constructed Fort Astoria two months after the departure of John Jacob Astor's ill-fated Tonquin.[4]

text: Name origin[edit]

text: The earliest evidence of the name Oregon has Spanish origins. The term "orejón" comes from the historical chronicle Relación de la Alta y Baja California (1598)[5] written by the new Spaniard Rodrigo Motezuma and made reference to the Columbia river when the Spanish explorers penetrated into the actual North American territory that became part of the Viceroyalty of New Spain. This chronicle is the first topographical and linguistic source with respect to the place name Oregon. There are also two other sources with Spanish origins such as the name Oregano which grows in the southern part of the region. It is most probable that the American territory was named by the Spaniards as there are some populations in Spain such as "Arroyo del Oregón" which is situated in the province of Ciudad Real, also considering that the individualization in Spanish language "El Orejón" with the mutation of the letter "g" instead of "j".[6] Another subsequent theory is that French Canadian fur company employees called the Columbia River "hurricane river" le fleuve d'ouragan, because of the strong winds of the Columbia Gorge. George R. Stewart argued in a 1944 article in American Speech that the name came from an engraver's error in a French map published in the early 18th century, on which the Ouisiconsink (Wisconsin River) was spelled "Ouaricon-sint", broken on two lines with the -sint below, so that there appeared to be a river flowing to the west named "Ouaricon".[7][8] This theory was endorsed in Oregon Geographic Names as "the most plausible explanation".[9]

text: Territorial evolution[edit]

text: The Oregon Country was originally claimed by Great Britain, France, Russia, and Spain; the Spanish claim was later taken up by the United States. The extent of the region being claimed was vague at first, evolving over decades into the specific borders specified in the US-British treaty of 1818. The U.S. based its claim in part on Robert Gray's entry of the Columbia River in 1792 and the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Great Britain based its claim in part on British overland explorations of the Columbia River by David Thompson and on prior discovery and exploration along the Coast. Spain's claim was based on the Inter caetera and Treaty of Tordesillas of 1493–94, as well as explorations of the Pacific coast in the late 18th century.[10] Russia based its claim off its explorations and trading activities in the region and asserted its ownership of the region north of the 51st parallel by the Ukase of 1821, which was quickly challenged by the other powers and withdrawn to 54°40′N by separate treaties with the US and Britain in 1824 and 1825 respectively.[11] Spain gave up its claims of exclusivity via the Nootka Conventions of the 1790s. In the Nootka Conventions, which followed the Nootka Crisis Spain granted Britain rights to the Pacific Northwest, although it did not establish a northern boundary for Spanish California, nor did it extinguish Spanish rights to the Pacific Northwest.[12] Spain later relinquished any remaining claims to territory north of the 42nd parallel to the United States as part of the Adams-Onís Treaty of 1819. In the 1820s, Russia gave up its claims south of 54°40′ and east of the 141st meridian in separate treaties with the United States and Britain.[13]

text: Meanwhile, the United States and Britain negotiated the Anglo-American Convention of 1818 that extended the boundary between their territories west along the 49th parallel to the Rocky Mountains. The two countries agreed to "joint occupancy" of the land west of the Rockies to the Pacific Ocean.[citation needed]

text: In 1821, as part of the forced merger between the North West Company and the Hudson's Bay Company, the British Parliament imposed the laws of Upper Canada on British subjects in Rupert's Land and Columbia District, and gave the authority to enforce those laws to the Hudson's Bay Company. Chief Factor John McLoughlin, as HBC's manager in the Columbia District, applied the law to British subjects and sought to maintain law and order over American settlers, as well.[citation needed]

text: In 1843 settlers established their own government, called the Provisional Government of Oregon. A legislative committee drafted a code of laws known as the Organic Law. It included the creation of an executive committee of three, a judiciary, militia, land laws, and four counties. There was vagueness and confusion over the nature of the 1843 Organic Law, in particular whether it was constitutional or statutory. In 1844, a new legislative committee decided to consider it statutory. The 1845 Organic Law made additional changes, including allowing the participation of British subjects in the government. Although the Oregon Treaty of 1846 settled the boundaries of US jurisdiction, the Provisional Government continued to function until 1849, when the first governor of Oregon Territory arrived.[14]

text: A faction of Oregon politicians hoped to continue Oregon's political evolution into an independent nation, but the pressure to join the United States would prevail by 1848, four months after the Mexican-American War.[15]

text: Early settlement[edit]

text: In 1805, the American Lewis and Clark expedition marked the first official American exploration of the area, then creating the first temporary settlement of Euro-Americans in the area near the mouth of the Columbia River at Fort Clatsop. Two years later in 1807, David Thompson of the British-owned North West Company (later the Hudson's Bay Company) penetrated the Oregon Country from the north, via Athabasca Pass, near the headwaters of the Columbia River. From there he navigated nearly the full length of the river through to the Pacific Ocean.

text: In 1810, John Jacob Astor commissioned and began the construction of the American Pacific Fur Company fur-trading post at Fort Astoria just five miles from the site of Lewis and Clark's former Fort Clatsop, completing construction of the first permanent Euro-American settlement in the area in 1811. This settlement later served as the nucleus of present day Astoria, Oregon. During the period of the construction of Fort Astoria, Thompson traveled down the Columbia River, then noting the partially constructed American Fort Astoria only two months after the departure of the supply ship Tonquin.

text: Along the way, Thompson had set foot on and claimed for the British Crown, the lands in the vicinity of the future Fort Nez Perces site at the confluence of the Columbia and Snake rivers. This claim initiated a very brief era of competition between American and British fur traders. During the War of 1812 Fort Astoria was captured by the British and sold to the North West Company. Under British control, Fort Astoria was renamed Fort George.[16]

text: In 1821 when the North West Company was merged with the Hudson's Bay Company, the British Parliament moved to impose the laws of Upper Canada upon British subjects in Columbia District and Rupert's Land, and issued the authority to enforce those laws to the Hudson's Bay Company. Chief Factor John McLoughlin was appointed manager of the district's operations in 1824. He moved the regional Company headquarters to Fort Vancouver (modern Vancouver, Washington) in 1824. Fort Vancouver became the centre of a thriving colony of mixed origin, including Scottish Canadians and Scots, English, French Canadians, Hawaiians, Algonkians, and Iroquois, as well as the offspring of company employees who had intermarried with various local native populations. McLoughlin applied the laws to British subjects, kept the peace with the natives and maintained friendly relations with American merchants and later colonists.[citation needed]

text: Astor continued to compete for Oregon Country furs through his American Fur Company operations in the Rockies.[17] In the 1820s, a few American explorers and traders visited this land beyond the Rocky Mountains. Long after the Lewis and Clark Expedition and also after the consolidation of the fur trade in the region by the Canadian fur companies, American "Mountain Men" such as Jedediah Smith and Jim Beckwourth came roaming into and across the Rocky Mountains, following Indian trails through the Rockies to California and Oregon. They sought beaver pelts and other furs, which were obtained by trapping. These were difficult to obtain in the Oregon Country due to the Hudson's Bay Company policy of creating a "fur desert": deliberate over-hunting of the area's frontiers, so that American trades would find nothing there.[18] The Mountain Men, like the Metis employees of the Canadian fur companies, adopted Indian ways and many of them married Native American women.[citation needed]

text: Reports of Oregon Country eventually circulated in the eastern United States. Some churches decided to send missionaries to convert the Indians. Jason Lee, a Methodist minister from New York, was the first Oregon missionary. He built a mission school for Indians in the Willamette Valley in 1834. Others followed within a few years.[citation needed]

text: American settlers began to arrive from the east by the Oregon Trail starting in the early 1840s, and came in increasing numbers each subsequent year. Increased tension led to the Oregon boundary dispute. Both sides realized that settlers would ultimately decide who controlled the region. The Hudson's Bay Company, which had previously discouraged settlement as it conflicted with the lucrative fur trade, belatedly reversed their position. In 1841, on orders from Sir George Simpson, James Sinclair guided more than 100 settlers from the Red River Colony to settle on HBC farms near Fort Vancouver. The Sinclair expedition crossed the Rockies into the Columbia Valley, near present-day Radium Hot Springs, British Columbia, then traveled south-west down the Kootenai River and Columbia River following the southern portion of the well established York Factory Express trade route.[citation needed]

text: The Canadian effort proved to be too little, too late. In what was dubbed "The Great Migration of 1843" or the "Wagon Train of 1843", an estimated 700 to 1,000 American emigrants came to Oregon, decisively tipping the balance.[19][20] Britain gave up claims to its portion of the Columbia District south of the 49 parallel to the United States by the Oregon Treaty in 1846.[citation needed]

text: The Oregon Treaty[edit]

text: In 1843, settlers in the Willamette Valley established a provisional government at Champoeg, which was personally (but not officially) recognized by John McLoughlin of the Hudson's Bay Company in 1845.[citation needed]

text: Political pressure in the United States urged the occupation of all the Oregon Country. Expansionists in the American South wanted to annex Texas, while their counterparts in the Northeast wanted to annex the Oregon Country whole. It was seen as significant that the expansions be parallel, as the relative proximity to other states and territories made it appear likely that Texas would be pro-slavery and Oregon against slavery.[citation needed]

text: In the 1844 U.S. Presidential election, the Democrats had called for expansion into both areas. After his election as president, however, James K. Polk supported the 49th parallel as a northern limit for U.S. annexation in Oregon Country. It was Polk's uncompromising support for expansion into Texas and relative silence on the Oregon boundary dispute that led to the phrase "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight!", referring to the northern border of the region and often erroneously attributed to Polk's campaign. The goal of the slogan was to rally Southern expansionists (some of whom wanted to annex only Texas in an effort to tip the balance of slave/free states and territories in favor of slavery) to support the effort to annex Oregon Country, appealing to the popular belief in Manifest Destiny. The British government, meanwhile, sought control of all territory north of the Columbia River.[citation needed]

text: Despite the posturing, neither country really wanted to fight what would have been the third war in 70 years against the other. The two countries eventually came to a peaceful agreement in the 1846 Oregon Treaty that divided the territory west of the Continental Divide along the 49th parallel to Georgia Strait; with all of Vancouver Island remaining under British control. This border today divides British Columbia from neighboring Washington, Idaho, and Montana.[citation needed]

text: Hudson's Bay Company[edit]

text: In 1843 the Hudson's Bay Company—HBC shifted its Columbia Department headquarters from Fort Vancouver to Fort Victoria on Vancouver Island. The plan to move to a more northerly location dated back to the 1820s. George Simpson was the main force behind the move north; John McLoughlin became the main hindrance. McLoughlin had devoted his life's work to the Columbia business and his personal interests were increasingly linked to the growing settlements in the Willamette Valley. He fought Simpson's proposals to move north, but in vain. By the time Simpson made the final decision in 1842 to move the headquarters to Vancouver Island, he had had many reasons for doing so. There was a dramatic decline in the fur trade across North America. In contrast the HBC was seeing increasing profits with coastal exports of salmon and lumber to Pacific markets such as Hawaii. Coal deposits on Vancouver Island had been discovered and steamships such as the Beaver had shown the growing value of coal, economically and strategically. A general HBC shift toward Pacific shipping and away from the interior of the continent made Victoria Harbour much more suitable than Fort Vancouver's location on the Columbia River. The Columbia Bar at the river's mouth was dangerous and routinely meant weeks or months of waiting for ships to cross. The largest ships could not enter the river at all. Finally, the growing numbers of American settlers along the lower Columbia gave Simpson reason to question the long term security of Fort Vancouver. He worried, rightfully so, that the final border resolution would not follow the Columbia River. By 1842 he thought it more likely that the US would at least demand Puget Sound, and the British government would accept a border as far north as the 49th parallel, excluding Vancouver Island. Despite McLoughlin's stalling, the HBC had begun the process of shifting away from Fort Vancouver and toward Vancouver Island and the northern coast in the 1830s. The increasing number of American settlers arriving in the Willamette Valley after 1840 served to make the need more pressing.[21]

text: Oregon Territory[edit]

text: In 1848, the U.S. portion of the Oregon Country was formally organized as the Oregon Territory. In 1849, Vancouver Island became a British Crown colony - the Colony of Vancouver Island, with the mainland being organized into the Colony of British Columbia in 1858. Shortly after the establishment of Oregon Territory there was an effort to split off the region north of the Columbia River, which resulted in the creation of Washington Territory in 1853.[citation needed]

text: Descriptions of the land and settlers[edit]

text: Alexander Ross, an early Scottish Canadian fur trader, describes the lower Columbia River area of the Oregon Country (known to him as the Columbia District):

text: The banks of the river throughout are low and skirted in the distance by a chain of moderately high lands on each side, interspersed here and there with clumps of wide spreading oaks, groves of pine, and a variety of other kinds of woods. Between these high lands lie what is called the valley of the Wallamitte  [sic], the frequented haunts of innumerable herds of elk and deer ... In ascending the river the surrounding country is most delightful, and the first barrier to be meet with is about forty miles up from its mouth. Here the navigation is interrupted by a ledge of rocks, running across the river from side to side in the form of an irregular horseshoe, over which the whole body of water falls at one leap down a precipice of about forty feet, called the Falls.

text: After living in Oregon from 1843 to 1848, Peter H. Burnett wrote:

text: [Oregonians] were all honest, because there was nothing to steal; they were all sober, because there was no liquor to drink; there were no misers, because there was no money to hoard; and they were all industrious, because it was work or starve.[22][23]


document_title: Top Gear test track

question_text: who had the fastest lap on top gear

question_tokens: who had the fastest lap on top gear

text: Top Gear test track

text: Layout[edit]

text: The track is on a former Royal Canadian Air Force airbase constructed during the Second World War and later used by British Aerospace as a manufacturing and test facility. The track's main route, marked by painted lines and simple structures such as stacks of tyres, was designed by test drivers from Lotus.[3][4] The layout of the track is designed to put the car through various conditions, ranging from provoking understeer to testing brake balance and tyres. The track is approximately 1.75 miles (2.82 km) long. It is considered to be an equaliser for cars since, according to Richard Hammond, both 0–60 miles per hour (0–96.6 km/h) times and top speed are totally meaningless.[3] The track also incorporates a drag strip; although this is not used for timed segments, it does feature in some challenges and other features on the show.

text: The course starts on the perimeter road outside the Top Gear studio. The first bend is a fast right-left kink named "Crooner Curves." "Willson Bend" is the first proper turn on the track and the first corner usually seen when The Stig is lapping a car.[5] "Chicago", a long right-hand around a tyre wall onto the main runway, was designed by Lotus as a steady state corner, designed to highlight understeer or oversteer of the chassis. Next is "Hammerhead", a left-then-right corner, which again highlights understeer and oversteer. The track comes to a right-hand curve, then the course turns right through the flat-out section called the "Follow Through". After the left hand "Bentley Bend" named after the person who first "discovered" Jeremy Clarkson and former Top Gear presenter, Jon Bentley, but commonly referred to simply as "the tyres", the course comes to "Bacharach Bend", which, after the first series, has been referred to as the "Penultimate Corner" or the "Second-to-last Corner" and is often regarded as one of the most challenging on the course. The final turn before the finish line is "Gambon" in honour of Sir Michael Gambon, who completed the turn on two wheels in episode 8 of Series 1. Prior to this, the corner was known as "Carpenters Corner".[6]

text: Usage[edit]

text: The track is used routinely for the Star in a Reasonably-Priced Car and Power Laps segments on Top Gear. It also serves myriad roles in other portions of the programme, especially in testing cars and in challenges. When testing cars, they are often driven around the airfield by the presenters. Afterwards, they are taken around the test track by The Stig to set a lap time. Occasionally, drag races and speed tests are held on the runway.

text: Cars acquired during challenges must often post lap times (driven by either one of the presenters or The Stig) around the track against either a target time or a time set by The Stig in another vehicle. During many challenges, the track is used in more unorthodox fashions — for instance, serving as a makeshift motorway lane during a challenge testing tailgating prowess with vans.

text: Power Laps[edit]

text: Power Laps is a segment of the programme in which The Stig completes a lap around the track in a reviewed car to compare its performance to previous contenders.

text: To be eligible to appear on the Power Lap Times board, a vehicle must be a road-legal production car and must have sufficient ride height to clear a standard speed bump (referred to by the presenters as a sleeping policeman),[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] although occasionally vehicles that cannot appear on the list are still timed. Whenever a non-qualifying vehicle is raced, the time is compared to the official Power Laps but then removed from the board, for example - the Ferrari FXX owned by Michael Schumacher (1:10.7) was taken off the board after because it both failed to meet road legal standards and used slick tyres.

text: All laps are timed with the car's manufacturer-provided adjustable settings configured for maximum performance — all adjustable suspensions are set at their most efficient, all gear shift maps are at their most aggressive, and driving aids such as traction control are deactivated. Lap times do not offer complete comparisons between the cars, mainly because wet or otherwise poor weather conditions (see time deductions below) can negatively affect lap times.

text: The Power Board[edit]

text:
Time
Vehicle
Episode

01:13.7
McLaren 675LT
Series 23, Episode 2

01:13.8
Pagani Huayra
Series 19, Episode 1

01:14.3
BAC Mono
Series 20, Episode 2

01:15.1
Ariel Atom V8 500 (moist)
Series 16, Episode 1

01:15.1
Dodge Viper ACR
Series 23, Episode 1

01:15.7
Audi R8 V10 Plus
Series 23, Episode 3

01:15.8
Lamborghini Huracán
Series 22, Episode 1

01:16.0
Mercedes-AMG GT R
Series 24, Episode 6

01:16.1
Porsche 991 GT3 RS
Series 24, Episode 6

01:16.2
McLaren MP4-12C
Series 17, Episode 3

01:16.5
Lamborghini Aventador LP700-4
Series 17, Episode 6

01:16.8
Bugatti Veyron Super Sport
Series 15, Episode 5

01:17.1
Gumpert Apollo S
Series 11, Episode 6

01:17.3
Ascari A10
Series 10, Episode 9

01:17.4
Ferrari F12
N/A

01:17.5
Mercedes-AMG GT S
Series 22, Episode 4

01:17.6
Koenigsegg CCX (with Top Gear Wing)
Series 8, Episode 4

01:17.6
Honda NSX (second generation)
Series 23, Episode 6

01:17.7
Noble M600 (cold)
Series 14, Episode 5

01:17.8
Nissan GT-R (2012)
Series 17, Episode 4

tag: table

text: Due to the size of the list, only the top 20 are shown. See List of Top Gear test track Power Lap Times for the full list.

text: The second most powerful production car ever featured on Top Gear, the 1001 PS (987 bhp; 736 kW) Bugatti Veyron, was taken around the track by The Stig in Series 12, Episode 4, after 3 years of waiting. However, it disappointed the team by only managing fifth place on the Power Board (currently 16th), an unexpectedly low position ultimately attributed to the car's kerb weight of 1,888 kg (4,162 lb), more than any of the four faster cars.[17] In Series 15 Episode 5 however, the Stig took the 1,200 PS Super Sport version around the track in 1:16.8, thus setting a new lap record.

text: For the 1:17.6 lap, the Koenigsegg CCX (written as "Koeniggggsenisseggsegnignigsegigisegccx2 with the Top Gear wing" on a much-longer magnetic strip, because none of the presenters were able to spell Koenigsegg) was fitted with an optional rear spoiler to provide downforce after The Stig spun the unmodified version off the track. The Stig allegedly recommended this modification, correctly predicting that the car would then be the fastest ever round the track,[18] although Koenigsegg stated that the improvement was due to other adjustments.[19]

text: Lap times of non-qualifying vehicles[edit]

text: A "non-qualifying" vehicle is one that does not meet the presenters' requirements to remain on the board; that is, one that is not a "road car", which according to Top Gear means being: available to buy, fully road-legal (lights, indicators, registration, profile tyres, etc.), and street-worthy (i.e. able to negotiate a speed bump).[7]

text:
0:31.2 – BAE Sea Harrier[20] (Piloted by Lieutenant Nick Arkle RN.[21] Raced against the Saab 9–5 Aero. Took off then flew around track, ended in the air.)
0:59.0 – Renault R24 Formula One car[10] (Wet)
1:03.8 – Lotus T125.
1:08.5 – Pagani Zonda R[22]
1:08.6 – Aston Martin DBR9[12]
1:10.6 – Caparo T1[13]
1:10.7 – Ferrari FXX[15] (Driven by Michael Schumacher on slick tyres)
1:14:0 – Lamborghini Sesto Elemento[23]
1:15.2 – Aston Martin Vulcan (Damp)
– CAP 232 Aerobatic Plane[9] (Piloted by British Aerobatic Champion, Tom Cassells.[24] Raced against the Radical SR3 and was shown crossing the finish line in front, however the time was not shown.)
1:19.1 – Radical SR3[9]
1:22.6 – Westfield XTR2[8]

text: The Caparo, Radical, and Westfield are road-legal in the UK but are unable to clear a speed bump. According to Caparo, the car driven by Top Gear was a prototype that didn't feature the adjustable ride height found on the production model. Because The Stig set his time in the non-adjustable prototype and the production version has not been driven around the track, the Caparo's time remains ineligible for the Power Lap board.

text: Non-Top Gear laps[edit]

text: Occasionally attempts at the Power Lap record are made without the support of the BBC. The following laps of Dunsfold were recorded, filmed and promoted independently of the Top Gear television programme.

text:
1:05.3 – Nissan ZEOD RC (Driven by Wolfgang Reip in hybrid mode)[25]
1:09.9 – Ultima GTR720 (Officially an anonymous driver, on slick tyres. Ultima came back on 19 October 2009 and beat both their previous time and that of the £1.1-million Ferrari FXX track car)[26]
1:12.8 – Ultima GTR720 (Anonymous driver, on road tyres, sponsored by Ultima Sports.)[4]
1:13.6 – Nissan ZEOD RC (driven by Wolfgang Reip in electric vehicle mode)
1:14.2 – Ferrari LaFerrari (driven by Jason Plato on 12 June 2015 as "The Stink" in the TFI Friday revival special on a slightly damp track)[27]
1:17.4 – Caterham 7 CSR 260 (driven by Rob Jenkinson, sponsored by Dunlop Tyres – Injection)[28]

text: Ultima claim that their motive for running a non-televised lap was that they felt that the GTR was being specifically ignored by the producers of Top Gear.[29] Why Dunlop – Injection chose to run a lap of the Dunsfold circuit is not stated, although it is noticeable that the slower "official" Caterham run was limited by cold tyres.

text: Celebrity laps[edit]

text: Star in a Reasonably Priced Car (series 1-22)[edit]

text: Star in a Reasonably Priced Car was a recurring segment on Top Gear. During most programmes, a celebrity (usually, but not exclusively of British fame) is interviewed by Jeremy Clarkson. Discussion is normally amusing, and focuses on car-related matters, such as the celebrity's car history. Then Clarkson and the studio audience watch the guest's fastest lap on the Top Gear test track, after which Clarkson puts the celebrity's time on the time board.

text: Suzuki Liana (2002–2005)[edit]

text: For the first seven series the car driven for lap times was a Suzuki Liana. When first introduced, the car was worth £9995.[30] The car used is stock except for a roll cage and racing seats added as safety measures. Each guest practises with The Stig before making several attempts to complete the test track in the fastest time. The guest does not learn their time until the interview. Practice laps, crashes and the drivers' facial expressions are also shown during the segment.

text: The two slowest laps on the Liana celebrity list are held by Terry Wogan and Richard Whiteley, both of whom were beaten by Billy Baxter, a Bosnian war veteran who is completely blind. He guided the Liana through the track under direction from Clarkson in the passenger seat in a time of 2 minutes 2 seconds, which was 1.4 seconds quicker than Terry Wogan, and 4 seconds faster than Richard Whiteley.

text: The fastest non-professional driver was Ellen MacArthur. Unlike most contenders she made no comments to the camera during her lap. She completed the lap in 1 minute 46.7 seconds, beating Jimmy Carr by 0.2 seconds. The current fastest professional driver in the Liana is Daniel Ricciardo with 1:42.2.

text: The Liana endured considerable abuse from the stars while undertaking their laps. In one incident, actor Michael Gambon clipped the final corner, taking the car onto two wheels. It was done in such a spectacular fashion that the corner was named "Gambon Corner". When Lionel Richie drove the Liana, one of the front wheels fell off, invoking Clarkson to coin the term "pulling a Lionel". Trevor Eve also lost a wheel. The former British transport minister Stephen Ladyman added further injury to the Liana by denting the boot when he lost control during practice and slid backwards into a tyre wall. David Soul destroyed the gearbox of two Lianas during his time on the show due to his rough driving style. Patrick Kielty broke the Liana's front suspension during series 4 when he drove on the grass. Christopher Eccleston was the only celebrity to use a Liana with an automatic transmission, because a hesitant Eccleston admitted he was "only qualified to drive an automatic." To accommodate his needs, Top Gear succeeded in borrowing an automatic Liana, of which only 40 existed in the UK. As a reference to his role in Doctor Who, the automatic Liana was shown materialising onto the racing track, with a TARDIS materialisation sound effect played over it.

text: The Liana has also been modified on several occasions. David Soul's Liana featured a red police light and a white stripe in reference to his Starsky and Hutch role. Johnny Vegas was provided with L-plates as he had not passed his driving test at the time. When Justin Hawkins came on the show, the Liana he drove had flame decals pasted on it. Actor Sanjeev Bhaskar had an ornate tissue box placed in the back, an homage to Indian drivers.

text: In its service, the Liana covered 1,600 laps of the circuit; went through 400 tyres; its brakes were changed 100 times; and it required six new clutches, two new hubs, driveshafts, wishbones, struts and gear linkages and a replacement wing mirror.[31]

text: In July 2005, Formula One driver Damon Hill appeared on the show for the first time as the star. This was kept a surprise to the audience and the viewing public, and when Nigel Mansell came on the show, it was covered up in magazines and on the internet by saying that the Star in a Reasonably Priced Car would be Alan Titchmarsh. Since Mansell's appearance the Liana has remained in use as a vehicle reserved for Formula 1 drivers.

text: For some of the laps more than one person has been present in the car. This was the case for Clarkson's run when he had both Hammond and Jason Dawe in the car. Trinny and Susannah were both in the car for each other's runs. Denise Van Outen was in the car when Johnny Vaughan did his lap; Van Outen never did a lap driving the car. Clarkson was also present as a navigator for Billy Baxter's laps.

text: Liana leaderboard[edit]

text:
1:46.7 – Ellen MacArthur
1:46.9 – Jimmy Carr
1:47.1 – Simon Cowell
1:47.3 – Ronnie O'Sullivan
1:47.8 – Ian Wright
1:47.9 – Chris Evans
1:47.9 – Rory Bremner (written as Roree)
1:48.0 – Trevor Eve
1:48.0 – Justin Hawkins
1:48.0 – Paul McKenna
1:48 – Jodie Kidd[32]
1:48 – Jay Kay
1:48 – Patrick Kielty
1:48.6 – Rob Brydon
1:48.8 – Stephen Ladyman
1:49.0 – Neil Morrissey
1:49.7 – Roger Daltrey (mildly moist)
1:50.0 – Martin Clunes
1:50.0 – Jeremy Clarkson (with passengers)
1:50.0 – Lionel Richie (written as Rich Tea)
1:50.0 – Cliff Richard
1:50.0 – Patrick Stewart
1:50.0 – Jamie Oliver
1:50.0 – Gordon Ramsay
1:50.7 – David Walliams
1:51.0 – Ranulph Fiennes
1:51.1 – Timothy Spall
1:51.2 – Carol Vorderman (mildly moist)
1:51.3 – James Nesbitt
1:51.4 – Christian Slater
1:51.5 – Joanna Lumley
1:51.5 – Omid Djalili
1:51.5 – Sanjeev Bhaskar (wet) (written as Sanjiv)
1:52.0 – David Dimbleby
1:52.0 – Rick Parfitt
1:52.0 – Eddie Izzard
1:52.0 – Jordan
1:52.4 – Christopher Eccleston (automatic) (written as Dr. Who)
1:52.7 – Tim Rice
1:53.0 – Vinnie Jones
1:53.2 – Johnny Vaughan (with passenger Denise van Outen, originally 1:53.4)
1:53.3 – Fay Ripley (mildly moist)
1:53.4 – Bill Bailey (wet)
1:53.5 – Jack Dee
1:54.0 – Steve Coogan (wet, originally stated to be 1:53)
1:54.0 – Ross Kemp (wet)
1:54.0 – Alan Davies (wet)
1:54.0 – Stephen Fry (moist)
1:54.0 – Tara Palmer-Tomkinson
1:54.0 – David Soul
1:54.0 – Rich Hall
1:54.0 – Martin Kemp (wet)
1:54.1 – Trinny Woodall (very wet, with passenger Susannah Constantine)[33]
1:55.0 – Michael Gambon (wet)
1:55.4 – Geri Halliwell (written as Harry Jellywell)
1:55.7 – Susannah Constantine (very wet, with passenger Trinny Woodall)
1:56.0 – Boris Johnson
1:57.0 – Anne Robinson
1:57.0 – Jonathan Ross (penalised for cutting a corner)
1:57.1 – Davina McCall (very wet)
1:58.6 – Johnny Vegas (provisionally licensed)
2:01.0 – Harry Enfield
2:02.0 – Billy Baxter (blind man with Clarkson as passenger guide)
2:03.4 – Terry Wogan (originally listed as 2:04)
2:06.0 – Richard Whiteley

tag: ol

text: Chevrolet Lacetti (2006–2009)[edit]

text: Starting with the eighth series the Liana was replaced by a Chevrolet Lacetti and a new blank scoreboard. The format was changed so that each star would have five practice laps, and then a final timed lap, with no allowance being given for mishaps.

text: As a starter for the new car and format, an open day was held for any celebrity who wanted to take part. Seven stars recorded times that day: James Hewitt (who Jeremy and Richard referred to as the 'Well Spoken Man' after failing to recognise him), comedians Alan Davies and Jimmy Carr, rock stars Rick Wakeman and Justin Hawkins, footballer Les Ferdinand, and actor Trevor Eve who topped the time at 1 minute 47.0 seconds. Jimmy Carr, who held second place in the Liana behind Ellen MacArthur, spun off while doing his timed lap and got the second to one slowest time ever around the track at 2 minutes, 8.91 seconds.

text: On 28 January 2007, Jamie Oliver posted a time of 1:47.70 in melted snow and standing water. Given the rivalry Oliver felt towards fellow celebrity chef, and then-lapboard leader, Gordon Ramsay, Oliver asked that the 4-second allowance normally granted for wet laps be used to put him at the top of the leaderboard "just for a day".

text: Actress Billie Piper posted a time of 1:48.3 but was deemed by The Stig to have failed to complete a lap properly, as she failed to negotiate some corners. The Stig suggested a three-second time penalty, but after Clarkson consulted the audience, it was decided to let the time stand, which her Doctor Who co-star, David Tennant, tried to overturn on 23 December 2007 show, at the end of the following series. Clarkson remarked that if Tennant had worn a see through top (like Piper for her interview), he "would have been faster than Simon Cowell".

text: In the 11 November 2007 episode, Simon Cowell retook his status as the holder of the fastest lap with a time of 1:45.90. According to Clarkson, the cameramen said they had never seen such consistency in the practice laps.[34] However, Cowell was knocked off the top spot in Series 11 by Jay Kay, who now holds the fastest time in the Lacetti, although Clarkson selected the fastest of Jay Kay's times rather than the last run, which was slower than Cowell's time, seemingly due to a dislike of Cowell (he claimed earlier in the episode that Cowell had been at the top of the leaderboard for too long). Had this not happened, Cowell would have been knocked off the top by Grand Designs host Kevin McCloud.

text: Clarkson has referred to the part of the board with times of 1:51 and over as the 'Thespian Zone' due to the propensity for classically trained actors to post slow times.

text: Series 11 featured a slight change to the format, with two 'Stars' per episode instead of the previous one (although there had been a couple of editions in previous series' with more than one guest). Each of the pair are professionally associated with their fellow guest, usually both either act in or present the same TV show. Unlike previous episodes where two stars have appeared, the stars drove individual laps without the other present in the car.

text: On 28 March 2010, Richard Hammond attended the demolition of the two 550 ft chimneys at Lafarge Cement's Northfleet Works.[35] On the first episode of Series 15, it was shown that the Lacetti was partially crushed by placing it in the path of one of the falling chimneys.

text: Lacetti leaderboard[edit]

text:
1:45.81 – Jay Kay[36]
1:45.85 – Brian Johnson
1:45.87 – Kevin McCloud
1:45.9 – Simon Cowell
1:46.1 – Jennifer Saunders
1:46.3 – Michael Sheen
1:46.3 – Gordon Ramsay
1:46.5 – Usain Bolt
1:46.9 – Peter Jones
1:47.0 – Trevor Eve
1:47.1 – Peter Firth
1:47.4 – Lawrence Dallaglio
1:47.4 – Les Ferdinand
1:47.5 – Eric Bana (wet)
1:47.6 – James Hewitt[n 1]
1:47.7 – Jamie Oliver (melted snow and standing water)
1:47.7 – Hugh Grant
1:48.0 – Ewan McGregor
1:48.1 – Rupert Penry-Jones
1:48.1 – Chris Evans (wet)
1:48.3 – James Blunt (wet)
1:48.3 – Billie Piper (cut corner, penalty not added)
1:48.4 – Justin Hawkins
1:48.5 – Simon Pegg
1:48.5 – Theo Paphitis[n 2]
1:48.7 – Mark Wahlberg
1:48.7 – Michael McIntyre
1:48.8 – David Tennant
1:48.8 – Jay Leno
1:48.9 – Will Young (damp)
1:49.4 – Michael Parkinson (written as Sir Michael Parky)
1:49.6 – Ronnie Wood
1:49.7 – Harry Enfield
1:49.8 – Sienna Miller
1:49.9 – Jools Holland
1:50.3 – Michael Gambon
1:50.3 – Alan Davies
1:50.9 – Steve Coogan (hot)
1:51.0 – Stephen Fry (hot)
1:51.2 – Alan Carr
1:51.4 – Ray Winstone (hot)
1:51.7 – Keith Allen (very wet)
1:51.7 – Rob Brydon (wet)
1.51.8 – Seasick Steve (moist)
1:51.8 – Justin Lee Collins
1:52.2 – Tom Jones
1:52.5 – Guy Ritchie (wet)
1:52.8 – Dame Helen Mirren
1:53.4 – James Corden (wet)
1:54.0 – Kristin Scott Thomas
1:54.3 – Philip Glenister (wet)
1:54.7 – Kate Silverton (very wet)
1:55.3 – Rick Wakeman
1:57.4 – Boris Johnson (very wet)
1:57.4 – Fiona Bruce (very wet)
2:01:0 – Brian Cox
2:08.9 – Jimmy Carr (spun off on timed lap)

text: Kia Cee'd (2010–2013)[edit]

text: In the last episode of the fourteenth series of the show, Clarkson revealed that they were thinking about getting a new Reasonably Priced Car for the next series. On 27 June, during the first episode of the fifteenth series, it was revealed to be the Kia Cee'd and, as with the Chevrolet Lacetti, another open day was held to welcome the new car. Nick Robinson, Peter Jones, Al Murray, Bill Bailey, Peta Todd, Louie Spence and Amy Williams were among the initial drivers. Clarkson commonly refers to the Kia phonetically as the "Cee-apostrophe-d".[37] Sophie Raworth, Bill Turnbull and Fiona Bruce all did the Star in a Reasonably Priced Car for Children in Need 2012.

text: Cee'd leaderboard[edit]

text:
1:42.1 – Matt LeBlanc
1:42.2 – Rowan Atkinson
1:42.8 – Michael Fassbender (ice on the second-to-last corner)
1:42.8 – John Bishop
1:43.5 – Ross Noble
1:43.6 – James McAvoy
1:43.7 – Ryan Reynolds
1:43.7 – Matt Smith
1:44.2 – Tom Cruise
1:44.4 – Amy Macdonald
1:44.5 – Nick Frost
1:44.9 – Simon Pegg
1:45.2 – Cameron Diaz
1:45.2 – Alex James
1:45.4 – Mick Fleetwood
1:45.5 – Rupert Grint
1:45.9 – Peter Jones
1:45.9 – Boris Becker (wet)
1:46.1 – Andy García
1.46.8 – Bill Turnbull
1:47.0 – Alastair Campbell
1:47.7 – Louis Walsh
1:47.8 – Sophie Raworth
1:47.8 – Danny Boyle (wet)
1:48.1 – Al Murray
1:48.1 – Bob Geldof
1:49.0 – Jeff Goldblum[n 3]
1:49.0 – Jonathan Ross (wet)
1:49.4 – will.i.am (wet) (automatic)
1:49.8 – Slash (wet)
1:49.9 – Nick Robinson
1:49.9 – Peta Todd[n 4] (damp)
1:50.3 – Amber Heard (automatic)
1:50.5 – Fiona Bruce
1:50.8 – Bill Bailey[n 5] (wet)
1:50.9 – Amy Williams (wet)
1:53.3 – Johnny Vaughan (wet)
1:53.69 – Louie Spence (wet)
1:56.3 – Alice Cooper (wet + automatic)
1.56.7 – John Prescott (wet + automatic)
2:09.1 – Damian Lewis (snow)

text: Vauxhall Astra (2013–2015)[edit]

text: In the first episode of series 20, Clarkson and Hammond revealed their new Reasonably Priced Car – A 1.6 Tech Line Vauxhall Astra. In similar fashion to earlier "new starts", an open day was held for multiple stars to drive the car. Following the abrupt end of Series 22 as a result of Clarkson's dismissal from the show, the Astra was returned to Vauxhall before being auctioned off for charity on 27 December 2015 for £17,800.

text: Astra leaderboard[edit]

text:
1:44.6 – Olly Murs
1:44.7 – Nicholas Hoult
1:44.7 – Aaron Paul
1:45.1 – Brian Johnson
1:45.6 – Jimmy Carr[n 6]
1:46.1 – Hugh Jackman
1:46.7 – David Haye
1:46.8 – Warwick Davis
1:47.1 – Margot Robbie
1:47.2 – Will Smith
1.47.8 – Benedict Cumberbatch
1:48.5 – Rachel Riley
1:48.5 – Gillian Anderson (Mildly moist)
1:48.8 – Charles Dance
1:48.9 – Joss Stone
1:49.2 – Kiefer Sutherland (wet)
1:49.4 – James Blunt (very very wet)[n 7]
1:49.9 – Ron Howard
1:49.9 – Tom Hiddleston (very wet)
1:50.1 – Hugh Bonneville (wet)
1:51.0 – Steven Tyler
1:51.5 – Mike Rutherford
1:54.3 - Ed Sheeran (automatic) (wet)
1.54.5 – Jack Whitehall (automatic)

text: F1 drivers[edit]

text: All Formula One drivers are put into their own list with regard to lap times because of their exceptional skill level. When the Liana was pulled out from retirement to allow Jenson Button to make a time, Clarkson noted that the Liana would be pulled out for use by Formula 1 drivers in the future.

text: The original 'black' Stig and the first 'white' Stig have done laps around the track in the Suzuki Liana. Both had their times removed from the leaderboard upon their departure.

text: The first Stig was Perry McCarthy, who once test drove for the Williams F1 team, and drove for the ill-fated Andrea Moda Formula One team.[38] The second Stig was Ben Collins; in the first episode of Series 13 the Stig was "revealed" to be Michael Schumacher, although this was a joke in the vein of the rest of his appearance on the show.

text: On 6 July 2011, Sebastian Vettel managed to top the board with a time of 1:44.0. Vettel's lap was the first time someone taking a 'Formula One drivers' line through the first corner was able to top The Stig's time, as Rubens Barrichello took the tighter line. Clarkson also mentioned on this episode that the current Stig has yet to do a lap of the track in the Liana, therefore there is currently no time on the board for the Stig. On 17 February 2013, Lewis Hamilton returned to do a dry lap and lowered the F1 Drivers record by 1.1s to 1:42.9. This was in the wake of his move to Mercedes AMG for the 2013 season. On 8 February 2015, Daniel Ricciardo topped the board with a lap time of 1:42.2. Ricciardo took the tighter line through the first corner, claiming that it covered less distance.

text: The times and details of the F1 drivers' laps are as follows:

text:
No.
Driver
Time
Series
Episode
Notes

1
Daniel Ricciardo
1:42.2
22
3
Placed three identical lap times

2
Lewis Hamilton
1:42.9
19
4
Second attempt

3
Mark Webber
1:43.1
20
6
Second attempt

4
Sebastian Vettel
1:44.0
17
3

5
Rubens Barrichello
1:44.3
15
3

6
Ben Collins
1:44.4
8
2
The Stig II (removed from the board during interview with Vettel)

7
Nigel Mansell
1:44.6
7
5

8
Lewis Hamilton
1:44.7
10
8
Wet & oily

9
Jenson Button
1:44.7
8
8
Hot

10
Jenson Button
1:44.9
14
5
Second attempt. Wet

11
Perry McCarthy
1:46.0
N/A
N/A
The Stig I (removed from the board)

12
Kimi Räikkönen
1:46.1
18
7
Very wet

13
Damon Hill
1:46.3
6
5

14
Mark Webber
1:47.1
6
10
Extremely wet

15
Michael Schumacher
DNF
13
1
Joke lap – DNF

text: Star in a Rallycross Car (series 23)[edit]

text: For series 23, "Star in a Reasonably Priced Car" was renamed as "Star in a Rally-Cross Car" segment, with the track expanded to include a "Rallycross" route, featuring the addition of a jump and a water splash obstacle, but retaining the use of some of the corners.[39] Two celebrities were invited to partake in setting a fast lap time with the use of a Mini Rallycross Car. This segment was used only in this series, as following Evans' resignation, it was scrapped due to negative feedback.[40]

text: Mini Rallycross leaderboard[edit]

text:
1:52.6 – Anthony Joshua
1:53.9 – Damian Lewis
1:53.9 – Brian Cox
1:54.4 – Bear Grylls
1:56.3 – Gordon Ramsay
1:57.7 – Kevin Hart
2:01.4 – Sharleen Spiteri
2:10.9 – Jesse Eisenberg
2:12.0 – Patrick Dempsey (monsoon)
2:16.4 – Paul Hollywood (very wet)
2:21.6 – Jennifer Saunders (appalling)
2:27.1 – Greg Davies (abysmal)

text: Star in a Reasonably Fast Car (series 24-present)[edit]

text: Toyota GT86 (2017-present)[edit]

text: Starting from the twenty-fourth series, the format of "Star in a Reasonably Priced Car" was revived following the axing of the rally-cross format, though the name was changed to "Star in a Reasonably Fast Car" for its return.[41] The car introduced for this segment was the Toyota GT86, with both The Stig and Chris Harris going out to instruct the celebrities on how to drive the new car.[42] Footage of several celebrities who drove the car before the first episode of the twenty-fourth series, was aired on spin-off programme Extra Gear.

text: GT86 leaderboard[edit]

text:
1:35.4 – Chris Hoy
1:36.1 – Jay Kay
1.37.5 - Ross Noble
1:39.5 – Max Whitlock
1:44.0 – David Tennant
1:45.7 – Ore Oduba
1:47.1 – James McAvoy (wet)
1:47.2 – Frankie Dettori
1:50.4 – Tinie Tempah (wet)
1:53.0 – Jon Culshaw
1:58.7 – Tamsin Greig (wet)
2:07.9 – Shazia Mirza

text: Time deductions[edit]

text: This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (August 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Sometimes an additional term is written next to the time (such as H for hot). This indicates that The Stig and the Top Gear team consider that the prevalent weather conditions have affected the lap time or car's performance. The time on the board is not adapted: e.g. 1:50.0 MM (mildly moist) is deemed to be equivalent to 1:48.0 on a normal dry track, but is listed amongst the 1:50 times. The only lap ever done in the snow was that of Damian Lewis, whose time of 2:09.1 holds the record as the slowest ever completed lap; due to this, he was placed on a special separate "snow board". Lewis Hamilton on his first appearance had his lap listed as W+O (wet and oily) due to large slicks of oil left on the track after an earlier car test.

text: The following list describes how many seconds it costs a car or gives a car an advantage.

text:
Term
Conditions
Adjustment[citation needed]

Hot (H)
Track surface or car performance affected by high temperature or humidity
−2 seconds

Mildly moist (MM) or damp (D)
Track surface slightly damp with some dry patches after light rain or drizzle
−2 seconds

Moist (M)
Track surface slightly wet due to shower of rain
−3 seconds

Wet (W) or melted snow (MS)
Track surface wet due to light rain or melted snow
−4 seconds

Very wet (VW)
Track surface wet (with large puddles) due to heavy rain
−6 seconds

Very very wet or flipping wet (FW)[43]
Track surface wet (with flood water) due to heavy rain
−8 seconds

Snow (Snow)
Track covered in snow (partially defrosted)
Unknown
(only used once; listed on its own board)

text: Maps[edit]

text:
TopGear.com map and guide to the test track
TopGearbox.com test track guide

tag: ul

text: Appearance in games[edit]

text: On 24 October 2007, it was announced that players of the PlayStation 3 game, Gran Turismo 5 Prologue, would be able to download episodes of Top Gear within the game, and that the test track would be one of the included circuits in the full game (Gran Turismo 5).[44][45]

text: A very basic yet driveable version of the track appeared around 2003 for the PC hardcore racing simulation Grand Prix Legends. There is also a version of the test track for the realistic PC racing simulation rFactor, produced with permission from Dunsfold park.[46] The track has also been produced as an add-on for World Racing 2.[47]

text: Top Gear have also added a basic version of the test track on the games section of their own website, with the title of "Be a star in our reasonably priced car". A Top Gear mobile phone game also features the track.[citation needed]

text: The game Gran Turismo 5, developed by Polyphony Digital features a fully rendered version of the Top Gear track. Players have the ability to drive and race on the track.

text: The track also appeared in Forza Motorsport 4; the Top Gear logo appeared in a trailer for Forza 4 on the Top Gear website.[48] Cars were shown racing in the follow-through section during the E3 2011 trailer.[49] It is known that in the actual game there is options to race on the full track, race both of the rings in separate races and race on Top Gear's drag race mile. There is also an achievement in Forza 4 for completing a lap of the Top Gear Test Track in the Kia Cee'd fittingly named "Star in a reasonably priced car".

text: Forza Motorsport 4's sequel, Forza Motorsport 5, also features the Top Gear test track. The track layouts from Forza Motorsport 4 return, with the exception of the drag race mile, which has been removed. Forza Motorsport 5's sequel, Forza Motorsport 6, also features the Top Gear Test Track, with the full track and both separated rings. This time, the rings are able to race frontward and backward. All the layouts are available with sunny or rainy weather.

text: Top Gear - Extreme Parking, Android game.[50]

text: Notes[edit]

text:
Jump up ^ James Hewitt's name was written on the scoreboard as the "Well spoken man" after the presenters failed to recognise him.
Jump up ^ written as Theo Pamphlet
Jump up ^ Goldblum did not exit third gear during his lap.
Jump up ^ Listed as "Peta 23 From Essex" on leaderboard
Jump up ^ Listed as "Angelina Jolie" on leaderboard since series 15, episode 2, referring to Bailey's insistence on wearing an "Angelina Jolie" name tag during the open day.
Jump up ^ written as Jimmy Crash
Jump up ^ The entry on the board says 'FW' (for F***ing Wet)