document_title: No taxation without representation

question_text: where did the idea of taxation and representatives come from

root

text: No taxation without representation

text: Prior to the American Revolution[edit]

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

tag: table

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: A Wrinkle in Time (2018 film)

question_text: who is rowan blanchard playing in a wrinkle in time

text: A Wrinkle in Time (2018 film)

text: Premise[edit]

text: After learning her astrophysicist father Alex is being held captive on a distant planet deep in the grip of a universe-spanning evil, Meg Murry works with her highly intelligent younger brother, her new friend and fellow student Calvin O'Keeffe, and three astral travelers, Mrs. Which, Mrs. Whatsit and Mrs. Who to save him.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Oprah Winfrey as Mrs. Which[5]
Reese Witherspoon as Mrs. Whatsit[6]
Mindy Kaling as Mrs. Who[6]
Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Dr. Kate Murry[7]
Michael Peña as Red, the Man with Red Eyes[8]
Storm Reid as Meg Murry[9]
Zach Galifianakis as the Happy Medium[10]
Chris Pine as Dr. Alex Murry[11]
Levi Miller as Calvin O'Keefe[10]
Deric McCabe as Charles Wallace Murry[10]
André Holland as Principal Jenkins[10]
Rowan Blanchard as Veronica[10]
Daniel MacPherson as Paddy O'Keefe
Thomas Leigh as Sandy and Dennys Murry

tag: ul

text: Bellamy Young[10] and Will McCormack[10] have been cast in undisclosed roles.

text: Production[edit]

text: In October 2010, it was announced that Walt Disney Pictures had retained film rights to remake the live-action adaptation of the 1962 novel A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle. Following the financial success of Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland (2010), Disney announced that they had hired Jeff Stockwell to write the screenplay for Cary Granat and his new Bedrock Studios. Cary Granat had previously worked with Disney on the Chronicles of Narnia and Bridge to Terabithia films.[12] The project's budget was supposed to be $35 million, which the company compared to District 9 and Bridge to Terabithia, both of which were made for less than $30 million.[13] On August 5, 2014, Jennifer Lee was announced as the screenwriter, taking over from Stockwell, who wrote the first draft.[14][15] On February 8, 2016, it was reported that Ava DuVernay had been offered the job of directing the film, and she was confirmed to direct later that same month.[16][17] Directing this film, DuVernay would be the first woman of color to direct a live-action film with a production budget over $100 million.[3]

text: On July 26, 2016, Variety reported that Oprah Winfrey began final negotiations to join the film to play Mrs. Which, the eldest of the three Mrs. Ws, celestial beings who help guide the children along their journey.[5] On September 7, 2016, Reese Witherspoon and Mindy Kaling were in talks to join the film, where Witherspoon would play Mrs. Whatsit, who presents as a chatty, grandmotherly hobo, while Kaling would play the literature-quoting Mrs. Who.[6] On September 13, 2016, Storm Reid was cast in the lead role of Meg Murry, a young girl traumatized by the disappearance of her scientist father years before.[9] In October 2016, Gugu Mbatha-Raw and Chris Pine were cast as the parents of Meg, Dr. Kate Murry and Dr. Alex Murry, respectively.[11][7] On November 1, 2016, more cast were announced, which included Zach Galifianakis as the Happy Medium, André Holland as Principal Jenkins, Levi Miller as Calvin, and Deric McCabe as Charles Wallace, along with Bellamy Young, Rowan Blanchard and Will McCormack.[10] The producers on the film would be James Whitaker and Catherine Hand.[10] Michael Peña also joined the cast to play the character Red.[8]

text: Filming[edit]

text: Principal photography on the film began on November 2, 2016, in Los Angeles, California.[10][18][19] After filming in Los Angeles, production moved to New Zealand for two weeks.[10] Tobias A. Schliessler was confirmed to be working on the film as cinematographer, along with other production team members including production designer Naomi Shohan, costume designer Paco Delgado, and visual effects supervisor Rich McBride.[10][20]

text: Filming for A Wrinkle in Time took place in Eureka, California, in Humboldt County, starting on November 29, 2016, and ending on December 5 or 6.[21] Filming also took place at Eureka's Sequoia Park, located next to Sequoia Park Zoo. No major actors tied to the movie were present in Eureka.[22] In mid-December, Pine was spotted during filming in Los Angeles.[23]

text: Filming locations for A Wrinkle in Time were established to be in Central Otago, New Zealand, during the last two weeks of February 2017.[24] Actors and crew involved were in New Zealand for the two weeks to shoot scenes in the Southern Alps, and shooting took place at Hunter Valley Station near Lake Hāwea, with cast and crew treated to a traditional Māori powhiri and karakia, by the indigenous peoples of New Zealand.[25] Filming wrapped in New Zealand's South Island after two weeks, and DuVernay declared the cast and crew's love for New Zealand in an Instagram post.[26]

text: Music[edit]

text: On September 28, 2017, Ramin Djawadi was announced as the composer for the film, replacing Jonny Greenwood who was initially chosen to compose and scored the film.[27] On February 20, 2018, it was announced that the soundtrack would feature appearances from Sade, Sia, Kehlani, Chloe x Halle, Freestyle Fellowship, DJ Khaled as well as Demi Lovato, with their respective songs "Flower of the Universe", "Magic", "Let Me Live", "Warrior", "Park Bench People" and "I Believe".[28]

text: Release[edit]

text: The film is scheduled to be released on March 9, 2018.[29] It was previously set for an April 6, 2018 release.[30]

text: Marketing[edit]

text: DuVernay announced a teaser trailer for the film would debut at the 2017 D23 expo.[31] It was released on July 15, 2017, day two of the D23 Expo. After its initial release, the trailer was trending at #1 for 48 hours on YouTube, surpassing, for a time, a behind the scenes first look at Star Wars: The Last Jedi. [32]

text: Box office[edit]

text: Four weeks ahead of its release, projections had the film earning $35 million in its opening weekend in the United States and Canada.[33]


document_title: Munnar

question_text: munnar is a hill station in kerala what is the meaning of munnar

text: Munnar

text: The tradition that Col Arthur Wellesley, later to be the Duke of Wellington, leading a British detachment from Vandiperiyar to Bodinayakanur, then over the High Range and into the Coimbatore plains to cut off Tippu Sultan’s retreat from Travancore, was the first Englishman in the High Range appears to be belied by the dates involved. If the story is a dozen years too early for Wellesley, it is quite possible that some other officer in General Meadow’s Army may have had that distinction. Unfortunately, no record of that pioneering mountain crossing has been traced. What is available is a record of that pioneering mountain crossing has been traced. What is available is a record of the surveying of this terrain in 1816-17 by Lt Benjamin Swayne Ward, son of Col Francis Swayne Ward to whom we owe many of the early views of Madras and South India Now available in lithprints.

text: Ward and his assistant Lt Eyre Connor were on orders to map the unexplored country between Cochin and Madurai and so they followed the Periyar into the mountains and then headed north into what at that time was described as ‘‘ the dark impenetrable forests of the High Range’’. They lost men to at least one elephant charge, suffered agony from leech bites and once ran so short of food that a deer run down and being feasted on by wild dogs was manna for the party and their jungle guides. The subsequent report by Ward and Connor was to lead to the Periyar Dam project, completed only in the 1890s,but for the present they were more pre occupied getting into the mountains that they could see towering in the distance from Bodi. Then, on October 14, 1817, ‘‘the weather having improved the ascent into the High Range began’’.

text: Their first major camp was at a flat promontory at 6000 feet. And this was ever afterwards to be known as Top Station. Moving north, they saw to their south the Cardamom Hills, a slope 45 miles long and 30 wide from the heights above Bodi stretching into Travancore. To their north there appeared to be grasslands on high rock peaks. And in front of them, ‘‘an outstanding mountain, shaped like an elephant’s head’’. On November 8, they established camp at the confluence of three rivers, which they judged to be the centre of the district, and from Munnar (Moonar – three rivers), as it came to be known, they surveyed the area, discovered  the  ancient village of Neramangalam in ruins but surmised that it might well have been from here that ivory and peacock feathers, pepper and cardamom, sandalwood and other timber went to the lands to the West across the Arabian Sea”.

text: It was to be nearly 50 years later that Sir Charles Trevelyan, Governor of Madras, instructed  Col Douglas Hamilton to explore the hill country in the western part of the Madras Presidency, requesting special advice on the feasibility of establishing sanatoria for the British in the South and of developing revenue- earning projects without endangering the environment, as had happened in Ceylon where coffee had destroyed not only the rain forest but also paddy cultivation in the north – central rice bowl of ancient Ceylon.

text: Marching south along the Anamallai, Hamilton saw ‘‘the grandest and most extensive (view) I have ever beheld; some of the precipices are of stupendous magnitude and the charming variety of scenery comprising undulating grassy hills, wooded valleys, rocky crags, overhanging precipices, the green rice fields far below in the valley of the Anchanad, the grand mass of the Pulunies (beyond) and the blue ranges in the far distance, present a view far beyond my power to describe…’’

text: On May 7, 1862, Hamilton set out to climb Anaimudi, following a ‘‘well worn elephant path, ascending the opposite slope by a series of short zigzags that were so perfect and regular that we could scarcely Eravikulam plateau (later Hamilton’s Plateau), watered by two streams, one of which bordered the Eravikulam swamp before cascading down 1000 feet in a beautiful waterfall. Separating the plateau from Anaimudi was a deep, thickly forested ravine – later called Inaccessible Valley and, detouring it, they began the climb from the east to the peak. ‘‘On our return, we followed an elephant path for several miles, the gradient of this path was truly wonderful, these sagacious animals avoiding every steep or difficult  ascent, except at one hill which was cleverly zigzagged, owing to masses of sheer rock preventing a regular incline being taken.’’

text: It was to be 15 years later before another report came in. But this was more significant from the viewpoint of this history, for though it came as a result of the shikar expeditions of the ever-exploring John Daniel Munro, he was an opener – up of land and a pioneering planter first and a  shikari  second. Reporting on the High Range in 1877, he wrote, ‘‘ Exclusive of the low Unjenaad valley which is not above 3100 feet, the area within these boundaries may be roughly estimated at 200 square miles with an elevation over 5000 ft … Much of this is worthless land, but there is a good deal fit for cultivation … Coffee … would succeed well at a somewhat lower elevation, and Tea and Cinchona would grow miles available for these purposes, and there being the great inducement of a good climate, it will doubtless not be many years before these fine hills get occupied’’.

text: And Munro, who always had a long – range view of things, indeed proved right again. Mention has already been made of the journey into these hills by Henry Turner and his half – brother ‘Thambi’ A W Turner, the concessions that Munro, then Superintendent of the Cardamom Hills for the Raja of Travancore, got them from the Raja, and the Society the three of them formed in 1879 with Rs 450,000 capital. The agreement they entered into with the Rajah read in part: ‘‘The annual sum of one half British rupee on every acre of  land other than grassland comprised in such deed which has already been or shall hereafter from time to time be opened up for the purpose of cultivation or otherwise’’.

text: While Thambi Turner began in 1879 clearing the forest round the Devikulam camp, later to become the taluk headquarters, Henry returned to Madras and began looking for others willing to take up land here. The first to do so was Baron George Otto Von Rosenberg of Dresden and his sister who were kin of the Turners by marriage. The Baron opened up Manalle, later a part of the family’s Lockhart Estate, and it was developed by his son Baron John Michael in the 1890s, the first tennis court in the hills being added. It was property that was to remain for years in the family. Then came A H Sharp, who opened up Parvathi in the wilds and planted the first tea, to be followed by C Donovan. In1881 came E J Fowler to open up Aneimudi Estate and in 1882, C O Master and G W Claridge, C W W Martin, a fellow of Henry Turner’s in the Madras Civil Service , sent his 18 – year – old nephew Aylmer Ffoulke Martin (Toby) to open Sothuparai near Chittavurrai in 1883 and Toby Martin ever seemed to be clearing new land for others after that. Other estates of this era were H M Knight’s Surianalle, Panniar belonging to J A Hunter and K E Nicoll and the Turners’ Talliar where the last coffee in the High Range flourished on 700 acres.Every one of them benefited from the experience of Ceylon planter John Payne, whom Henry Turner ‘imported’ in 1881. Payne not only opened up Talliar with coffee for the Turners, but he taught his fellow planters in the High Range road tracing, draining and general thottam work. He also cut a riding road, Payne’s Ghat, from Devikulam to Periakanal and opened the district up to ‘civilisation’.

text: In the Eighties, it was only their indomitable will that kept the planters going in this wilderness. They lived in grass – thatched huts with mud and wattle walls and surrounded their homes with elephant trenches. The only medical aid each planter had was ‘‘ his own medicine chest and he had to doctor  himself and his coolies with only Doctor Short’s old book on Medicine in India to help him’’. It was 1889 before the pioneers saw the first European woman in the hills. That was when Baron Otto brought up his wife, the daughter of Henry Gribble of the Madras Civil Service; another Gribble girl married one of the Turner brothers. And in 1890 Toby Martin brought his bride – and they were to live decades in these hills.

text: An event which helped considerably to improve the lives of the early planters was when Claridge and Toby Martin descended from Top Station to Bottom Station (Koranganie at the head of the  Bodi Pass) and went on to Bodinayakanur. There they met Suppan Chetty, who appeared to be the village leader, and negotiated him to send up rice and other provisions by headload and bring down cinchona bark and other products for onward transport. Soon bullocks, donkeys and ponies were brought in to help. This link with Suppan Chetty and his adopted son Alaganan Chetty, later an M L A, was to continue into recent times with their successors, M/s A S Alaganan Chetty & Sons.

text: Another event of significance was the arrival of John Ajoo, A Chinese, at Talliar Estate. One of six Chinese brought out by the East India Company to advice on tea planting and manufacture in the Nilgiris, he was recruited by Henry Turner and sent to the High Range. A small field of tea around the Munnar Estate Manager’s bungalow was once 13 acres in extent and used to be called ‘Chinaman’s Field’. John Ajoo’s son Antony  later owned a small estate called Vialkadavu  next to Talliar in which the Turner family long retained an interest.

text: By 1894, 26 estates, all of them small – holdings, were functioning on the Society’s lands but none was doing well as the cinchona boom began to go bust. The Society, by now, was in financial difficulties and it advertised its land widely in British and Indian newspapers. One of the first to respond was the North and South Sylhet Company, a subsidiary of Finlay Muir, arrived in India in December 1894 to finalise the transaction, then decided to visit the High Range with his son James and P R Buchanan and W Milne (from Ceylon). Accompanying them was H M Knight, a pioneer in the Anamallais and at the time a prominent proprietary planter. James Muir’s record of that journey from December 17, 1894 till January 5, 1895 is not without interest, revealing as it does the conditions of the times. It reads in excerpts:

text: …arrived at Madras on the morning of the 12th December … next few days were occupied  in negotiations regarding the purchase of the shares of the  … Society …and Rs 69/- per share was the price arranged to be paid after deductions for losses and money spent during the year ended 30 November 1894…

text: … We arrived at Ammayanayakanur at 11:30 am the train being  23 minutes late, and … had dinner at 6 pm and about 7’o clock started in the bullock transit – there  being four of these carts altogether – to do some 40 miles, to a village called Tayne(Theni). The bullock transits, and the carriage of all stores to Bodynaikanur , are managed by the United Carrying Company and one has to write the agent of this company at Ammayanayakanur for all that may be required.

text: After a not very comfortable night in these wagons we arrived at Tayne … We started for Bodynaikanur – Sir John being carried in a chairpart of the way … In the bullock transits mattresses are necessary and indeed one wants as much as possible under one, so as to break the jolting of the carts. We got away from Tayne shortly after 7, and reached Bodynaikanur about half past ten. The distance is supposed to be only some nine miles, but the bullock carts which carried our things went slowly, and Sir John, being carried part of the way in a chair, also caused delay. A large chair had been specially prepared in Madras, but when we arrived at Tayne we could not find what had become of it, and there was a small one there, which Mr Brown had sent back from Bodynaikanur. On arrival at Body we were advised not to stop long there, but to push on to Mettor  the same day as there as severe cholera at Bodi and in the surrounding country … We found the chair which had been sent from Madras at Bodi and it was sent off with 10 carrying coolies, about one O’ clock, to go three miles along the road to Mettor and to wait there. The weight of the chair was 140 pounds , and the coolies had to be promised extra money when they got to Devikulam to induce them to go. Thirty – two coolies went with us from Bodi in addition to the 10 chair coolies, but the larger number of these were required for stores and parts of the tents which had not been already sent on. The bungalow at Bodi … (had a) very obliging (man who was) a fair cook. (We were very sorry to learn that he has since died of cholera, so that it was most fortunate we hurried on to Mettor, as Mrs Knight and Mr Graham who were only a short time at the bungalow also caught cholera and the former died.) … As the road was bad and steep the bearers made but little progress, (so Sir John) left the chair …riding the rest of the way to Mettor … The distance from Bodi to the foot of the ghaut is about 3 miles, the rest of the way being all an ascent and the road a very poor one, even for pack ponies, and would require a great deal of money to be spent on it would be passable for carts ….

text: The chair coolies were started off … to go 5 miles along the road to Devikulam … The road … would  require a great deal  to be done to it before it could be fit for bullock cart traffic … We walked and rode in turn till we got to Devikulam… the distance  between Mettor and Devikulam is about 14 ½  miles… At  Devikulam … went over the map of the Society’s land with the Baron…

text: …(at) Mr Grigg’s Camp … Sir John and Mr Milne had numerous conversations with Mr Grigg  as to roads, the prompt opening out of the property and other matters connected herewith. Mr Grigg strongly advised that a main road should immediately be made through the centre of the property, that it should be constructed economically, and a careful statement kept of the outlay in connection with it, and he undertook  to recover the amount from the Travancore Sircar to continue the road to the West from the Society’s boundary to Cochin which he thought would be the best Shipping Port for the Society’s produce … He also thought the alignment of the proposed railway might be so altered as to enable the traffic between Cochin and the Society’s estate to be carried on this line to advantage part of the way … Sir John inquired if Mr Grigg would like to have a piece of  land specially made over to him so that he might arrange for an additional house being erected, thereon, for the accommodation of the resident as a health  resort. Mr Grigg replied he would very much like to have a suitable site for this purpose not far from where his camp was erected, and a cross was made on the map then, before Sir John, and Mr Grigg indicating the spot, and Sir John undertook to request the directors of  the North and the South Sylhet Tea Companies to make a gift of whatever land Mr Grigg, after further consideration, might select for this purpose…

text: The soil in the forest is deep and rich, and the river can be utilized to drive a large quantity of machinery. A beginning should be made here with both Tea and Coffee as soon as the requisite labour can be obtained. The forest is much infested with leeches and precautions had to be taken against them…

text: It is proposed not to decide where to put coffee until the jungle is all burned off, so as the area that will be put into tea and the area that will be put into coffee is not yet fixed.

text: 1 January 1895

text: It was arranged that Mr Payne should give part of his time to the society to be spent first of all in selecting suitable coffee land inside or outside of the society’s boundaries, and that afterwards he should superintend and be entirely responsible for all the work thereon. For this it was arranged that he should receive a salary of Rs 3000/- per annum, for the present, to be paid monthly. Mr A Ff Martin, presently managing Sothuparai was, with Mr Payne’s approval, selected to be his first assistant with this work, and it was arranged that Mr Martin should receive  a salary of Rs 100/- per month for his partial services as from 1 January 1895, and until the date when he should come over entirely to the service of  the society, from which date his salary was to be Rs 300/- per month, for two years and after that Rs 350/- per month, for one year, always provided he gave entire satisfaction to Mr Payne, under whose orders he was to be. This arrangement however was not to come into force until Mr. Martin had cleared himself to Mr Payne’s satisfaction of the charges brought against him by Mr James Turner.

text: The road … from Marioor to Chinnar, is just about as bad as could be imagined, and, in many places, is not unlike the rocky bed of a mountain stream … it being impossible to ride – the horses having to be guided with great care by the syces, but at the end of 3 miles we came to a level road and here we found 3 bullock gharries … waiting for us … Sir John lay down in one of them and the other two were loaded with the baggage… The first 4 miles or so of the road that we had to do to Oodamullapet, our destination, were very bad and heavy with sand, and we made very slow progress, but after that we got on to an excellent road …’’

text: H M Knight was appointed the first General Manager, but with his new bride having just died, he was making plans to leave the country. Nevertheless, opening up of the jungle continued under Payne and with other experienced planters brought in from Ceylon. And A Suppan Chetty’s  Pankajam Company at the foot of the ghats. In 1897, the Kannan Devan Hills produce company was registered as a separate company with a capital of 1.5 million and together with, a few years later, the American Direct Tea Trading Company Ltd., another member of the Finlay Group, became holders of almost the entire concession, except for a few estates first planted in the lower reaches by the pioneers. They owned 26 Estates, a few with coffee, most with cinchona.

text: Etymology

text: The name Munnar is believed to mean "three rivers",[5] referring to its location at the confluence of the Mudhirapuzha, Nallathanni and Kundaly rivers.[6]

text: Location

text: Geographic coordinates of Munnar is 10°05′21″N 77°03′35″E. Munnar town is situated on the Kannan Devan Hills village in Devikulam taluk and is the largest panchayat in the Idukki district covering an area of nearly 557 square kilometres (215 sq mi).[citation needed]

text: Road

text: Munnar is well connected by both National highways, state highways and rural roads. The town lies in the Kochi - Dhanushkodi National highway (N.H 49), about 130 km (81 mi) from Cochin, 31 km (19 mi) from Adimali, 85 km (53 mi) from Udumalpettu in Tamil Nadu and 60 km (37 mi) from Neriyamangalam.

text: Distance from major cities

text: from Kochi - Ernakulam - 150 km

text: Railway

text: The nearest major railway stations are at Ernakulam and Aluva (approximately 140 kilometres (87 mi) by road). The Nearest Functioning Railway station is at Udumalaipettai.

text: Airport

text: The nearest airport is Cochin International Airport, which is 110 kilometres (68 mi) away. The Coimbatore and Madurai airports is Template:Nowrap165 kilometres (103 mi) from Munnar.

text: Administration

text: The panchayath of Munnar formed in 1961 January 24 is divided into 21 wards for administrative convenience. Coimbatore district lies in the north, Pallivasal in south, Devikulam and Marayoor in east and Mankulam, Kuttampuzha panchayaths in the west.

text:
Vaguvarai
Chokkanad
Iravikulam
Kannimalai
Periyavarai
Munnar colony
Ikkanagar
Old Munnar
Chatta Munnar
Nallathanni
Sivanmalai
Munnar town
Cholamalai
Kadalar
Rajamalai
Kallar
Lakkam
Thalayar
Lakshmi
Nadayar
Moolakkada

text: Flora and fauna

text: Most of the native flora and fauna of Munnar have disappeared due to severe habitat fragmentation resultant from the creation of the plantations. However, some species continue to survive and thrive in several protected areas nearby, including the new Kurinjimala Sanctuary to the east, the Chinnar Wildlife Sanctuary, Manjampatti Valley and the Amaravati reserve forest of Indira Gandhi Wildlife Sanctuary to the north east, the Eravikulam National Park and Anamudi Shola National Park to the north, the Pampadum Shola National Park to the south and the proposed Palani Hills National Park to the east.

text: Endemic species

text:
These protected areas are especially known for several threatened and endemic species including Nilgiri Thar, the grizzled giant squirrel, the Nilgiri wood-pigeon, elephant, the gaur, the Nilgiri langur,  the sambar, and the neelakurinji (that blossoms only once in twelve years).
[7][8]

text: Land ownership

text: There has been action to address the problems of property takeovers by the land mafia that have, according to successive governments, plagued the area. In 2011, the government estimated that 20,000 hectares of land had been illegally appropriated and launched a campaign of evictions that had first been mooted in 2007.[9]

text: Places of interest

text: There are four major directions are there in Munnar. Mattupatty Direction, Thekkedy Direction, Adimaly Direction and Coimbatore Direction. Climate and Tea Plantation is the base for Munnar Tourism. Tourists come here to see the plush green carpet that is strewn all around. The tourists count increases per year with a major number during the months of April – May when summer vacations begin across the country. In 2018, a huge number of tourists is expected during the months of August- September when the kurinji blooms once in 12 years.

text: Mattupatty Direction

text:
Subramanya Temple, Munnar
Rose Garden
Carmelagiri Elephant Park
Mattupetty Dam
Cowboy Park
Kundala Dam
Top Station

text: Thekkedy Direction

text:
Signal Point View Point
Idly Hill View Point
Devikulam Sri Ayyappan Temple
Lockhart Tea Museum
Lockhart Tea Park
Thankaiah Cave
Lockhart Gap View Point
Periyakanal Water Falls
Anayirangal Dam / Boating

text: Adimaly Direction

text:
Pothamedu View Point
Spices Plantation Visit
Cheeyapara Water Falls

text: Coimbatore Direction

text:
Eravikulam National Park
Anamudi Peak
Marayur Sandle Forest
Lakkan Water Falls
Muniyara

text: Other Direction

text: Munnar Tea Museum

text: Geography and climate

text: The region in and around Munnar varies in height from 1,450 meters (4,760 ft) to 2,695 meters (8,842 ft) above mean sea level. The temperature ranges between 5 °C (41 °F) and 25 °C (77 °F) in winter and 15 °C (59 °F) and 25 °C (77 °F) in summer.[10] Temperatures as low as −4 °C (25 °F) have been recorded in the Sevenmallay region of Munnar.[11][not in citation given]

text: Köppen-Geiger climate classification system classifies it as subtropical highland (Cwb).[12]

text:
hideClimate data for Munnar

Month

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Year

Average high °C (°F)

22.4 (72.3)

23.7 (74.7)

25.3 (77.5)

25.6 (78.1)

25.6 (78.1)

23.7 (74.7)

22.4 (72.3)

22.8 (73)

23.2 (73.8)

22.7 (72.9)

21.8 (71.2)

21.9 (71.4)

23.4 (74.2)

Daily mean °C (°F)

17.6 (63.7)

18.7 (65.7)

20.2 (68.4)

21 (70)

21.4 (70.5)

20.3 (68.5)

19.3 (66.7)

19.5 (67.1)

19.6 (67.3)

19.2 (66.6)

18.3 (64.9)

17.7 (63.9)

19.4 (66.9)

Average low °C (°F)

12.9 (55.2)

13.7 (56.7)

15.1 (59.2)

16.5 (61.7)

17.3 (63.1)

16.9 (62.4)

16.3 (61.3)

16.3 (61.3)

16 (61)

15.7 (60.3)

14.8 (58.6)

13.5 (56.3)

15.4 (59.8)

Average precipitation mm (inches)

18 (0.71)

29 (1.14)

47 (1.85)

129 (5.08)

189 (7.44)

420 (16.54)

583 (22.95)

364 (14.33)

210 (8.27)

253 (9.96)

164 (6.46)

64 (2.52)

2,470 (97.25)

Average rainy days

2

2

3

6

8

9

10

9

10

12

8

5

84

Mean monthly sunshine hours

248

232

248

240

217

120

124

124

150

155

180

217

2,255

Source #1: Climate-Data.org, altitude: 1461m[12]

Source #2: Weather2Travel for sunshine and rainy days[13]

text: Gallery

text:
Lockhart Tea MuseumTea plantations at Munnar

Munnar Tea Museum

Beautiful view of Munnar tea plantation

Mountain ranges covered by clouds at Munnar

Tea plantations at Munnar

Munnar Heritage Tour, Lockhart Tea Factory

Nilgiri Thar

Chokarmudy View Point

Kundala Dam and  Lake

Attukad Water Falls

Lockhart Tea Park

Lockhart Tea Museum