WI: the British Parliament had granted representation to all the colonies and dependencies?

[Mario]

One of the claims of the American revolutionaries was that they did not have to accept taxation without representation in the British Parliament.

What could have happened if the United Kingdom would have granted representation in the Parliament to all the colonies and dependencies (the Thirteen Colonies, Canada, India, Australia, South Africa...) of the British Empire?

It would have probably faced a lot of logistics challenges for sure...

 

[Lalli]

There would had indeed been some logisitical issues.

And which point the colonies would become very dominant over British politics? It probably would happen even without Louisiana Purchase.

Another intresting thing is how this would affect to status of slavery.

 

[Mario]

There would had indeed been some logisitical issues.

And which point the colonies would become very dominant over British politics? It probably would happen even without Louisiana Purchase.

Another intresting thing is how this would affect to status of slavery.

Well, the colonies would have become dominant quite soon, specially if India is admitted. However, it could have been possible that the colonies had limited representation, meaning that it would not reflect their demographic weight inside the Empire.

As an example, for an enlarged Parliament with 1000 members:

- 600 members reserved to the British nations
- 200 members reserved to India
- 150 members reserved to US/Canada
- 50 members reserved to the rest of the colonies

This way you ensure that the colonies would never be dominant, but they would have some weight in the decisions.

 

[Comte de Geneve]

India was not a British colony at that time, the areas not under princely rule belonged to the EIC, not the crown. A reasonable offer, but of course one that would not happen, would be to grant North American and Caribbean colonies 2 MP's per colony (like a shire). That number is more than 26 since it would include the Floridas, Canada, the Maritimes, Bermuda and the Caribbean islands; but still only a fraction of the body. Remember that this was still a time of very limited franchise and rotten boroughs. Fairness in representation based on population only developed through the 19th century by the reform acts.

 

[funnyhat]

Well, the colonies would have become dominant quite soon, specially if India is admitted. However, it could have been possible that the colonies had limited representation, meaning that it would not reflect their demographic weight inside the Empire.

As an example, for an enlarged Parliament with 1000 members:

- 600 members reserved to the British nations
- 200 members reserved to India
- 150 members reserved to US/Canada
- 50 members reserved to the rest of the colonies

This way you ensure that the colonies would never be dominant, but they would have some weight in the decisions.

But eventually the colonies will raise the question of why they hold only minority representation when they make up a majority of the empire's population. This arrangement probably just delays decolonization by some years rather than eliminates it.

 

[Analytical Engine]

India was not a British colony at that time, the areas not under princely rule belonged to the EIC, not the crown. A reasonable offer, but of course one that would not happen, would be to grant North American and Caribbean colonies 2 MP's per colony (like a shire). That number is more than 26 since it would include the Floridas, Canada, the Maritimes, Bermuda and the Caribbean islands; but still only a fraction of the body. Remember that this was still a time of very limited franchise and rotten boroughs. Fairness in representation based on population only developed through the 19th century by the reform acts.

Some counties had only one MPs (Wales, most of Scotland), whilst others shared an MP (northern Scotland).

 

[The Last Federalist]

The question is based on a false assumption: that the 13 colonies wanted representation in the British Parliament. What they wanted, and clearly stated, was taxation only by their elected local legislatures with the British Parliament staying out of colonial affairs. This was the situation that had been in effect until after the Seven Years War when Parliament decided to levy taxes on the colonies to help pay off the war debt.
An offer by Parliament for nominal representation in London in return for recognition of Parliament's authority to legislate for all matters regarding the colonies would have probably been roundly rejected by the Continental Congress and the local legislatures.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

No way India is going to get representation. The Thirteen Colonies, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and maybe Cape Colony, since these were all primarily settled by British settlers; perhaps some of the islands in the Caribbean or wherever, since these would be too small to affect the overall demographics; but the UK of the 18th and 19th centuries isn't going to accept subjugation to a bunch of dark-skinned foreigners, which is what letting in India would essentially amount to.

As for how it might work, the Empire would have to be run as a federation, either officially or else by devolving so much power to local authorities that it functions as one in practice. Westminster would probably just focus on defence, foreign policy, and probably trade between the colonies and with other powers as well. Voting could be weighted by population, wealth, or (if they want to copy the Ancient Greek leagues) by how many men they contribute to the common army and navy.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

No way India is going to get representation. The Thirteen Colonies, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and maybe Cape Colony, since these were all primarily settled by British settlers; perhaps some of the islands in the Caribbean or wherever, since these would be too small to affect the overall demographics; but the UK of the 18th and 19th centuries isn't going to accept subjugation to a bunch of dark-skinned foreigners, which is what letting in India would essentially amount to.

As for how it might work, the Empire would have to be run as a federation, either officially or else by devolving so much power to local authorities that it functions as one in practice. Westminster would probably just focus on defence, foreign policy, and probably trade between the colonies and with other powers as well. Voting could be weighted by population, wealth, or (if they want to copy the Ancient Greek leagues) by how many men they contribute to the common army and navy.

You could give each participant in the federation a vote weighed according to their net financial contribution to the empire. Given that Britain's GDP was larger than India's until this very year, such a measure might secure Britain's leading position in the federation for most of the 19th and 20th centuries.

 

[Mario]

You could give each participant in the federation a vote weighed according to their net financial contribution to the empire. Given that Britain's GDP was larger than India's until this very year, such a measure might secure Britain's leading position in the federation for most of the 19th and 20th centuries.

If that federative model succeeds and endures up to the 21st century, we could have seen Boris Johnson and Donald Trump sharing bench at the Commons...interesting.

 

[tus3]

You could give each participant in the federation a vote weighed according to their net financial contribution to the empire. Given that Britain's GDP was larger than India's until this very year, such a measure might secure Britain's leading position in the federation for most of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Which is very unlikely to happen if such a federation comes to pass. It would need to happen before the Indian nationalists are only satisfied with full independence (thus before OTL's India's independence) and would likely also prevent the License Raj and autarky with the result that India's economic take off will begin in the first half of the twentieth century instead of the 1990's...
Not that it matters a lot, the OP mentioned representation for the Thirteen Colonies, so the empire would be dominated by the North American colonies anyway.

 

[Imperial Advocate]

A British 'Imperial Federation' between the Thirteen Colonies and the white dominions is doable, though all of India might be a bit of a stretch.

Though keeping the Thirteen Colonies+Canada might also mean that the British Empire shall inherit all of North America more likely. The British ITTL probably seize Louisana, Texas, California, Cuba, and maybe North Mexico in later wars. Maybe even enlarge South Africa include its 'greater' borders (ie. all of OTL Namibia, Bechanaland, Rhodesia, and more).

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Parliamentary representation would help, but because communication across the Atlantic required a month long trip by ship, some level of autonomy would be necessary for practical purposes and political palatability. I second those who see this as a stepping stone to Imperial Federation.

 

[Fulano]

Though keeping the Thirteen Colonies+Canada might also mean that the British Empire shall inherit all of North America more likely. The British ITTL probably seize Louisana, Texas, California, Cuba, and maybe North Mexico in later wars. Maybe even enlarge South Africa include its 'greater' borders (ie. all of OTL Namibia, Bechanaland, Rhodesia, and more).

I don't know, I legit think it would be the opposite. A British Empire that has the North American lands as equals probably wouldn't expand that much, after all, they never did OTL. America did after they got their independence, but they had a totally different mindset by that point, and even they didn't want to expand indiscriminately even if they had the chance (like in Mexico, Central America and in Hispaniola).
And Britain always respected the boundaries of the other powers (at least in the continent, the Caribbean was another story) so I don't see them taking Louisiana and the western lands without provocation, and even that, I don't know if they wanted to integrate more Francophones and Hispanophones to their lands. They barely tolerated the Boers in South Africa, and they were North Germanic Protestants, unlike the French and Spaniards.

 

[LuckyLuciano]

But eventually the colonies will raise the question of why they hold only minority representation when they make up a majority of the empire's population. This arrangement probably just delays decolonization by some years rather than eliminates it.

maybe they could make citizenship laws incredibly harsh?

 

[Imperial Advocate]

I don't know, I legit think it would be the opposite. A British Empire that has the North American lands as equals probably wouldn't expand that much, after all, they never did OTL. America did after they got their independence, but they had a totally different mindset by that point, and even they didn't want to expand indiscriminately even if they had the chance (like in Mexico, Central America and in Hispaniola).
And Britain always respected the boundaries of the other powers (at least in the continent, the Caribbean was another story) so I don't see them taking Louisiana and the western lands without provocation, and even that, I don't know if they wanted to integrate more Francophones and Hispanophones to their lands. They barely tolerated the Boers in South Africa, and they were North Germanic Protestants, unlike the French and Spaniards.

This is a possibility, though the British forbidding the colonists' expansion Westwards was one of the major causes of the American Revolution ITTL. With the colonists' granted self-governance within the British Empire, Westward expansion shall most likely still take place, esp. as the thirteen colonies expands in population. Plus, the Spanish lands North of the 30th parallel were largely sparsely populated (unlike Central Mexico), so this land can be easily settled by Anglo-Americans just like in OTL. Expect Francophone minorities in Louisiana to get the Acadia treatment.

 

[Aichi72]

This is a possibility, though the British forbidding the colonists' expansion Westwards was one of the major causes of the American Revolution ITTL. With the colonists' granted self-governance within the British Empire, Westward expansion shall most likely still take place, esp. as the thirteen colonies expands in population. Plus, the Spanish lands North of the 30th parallel were largely sparsely populated (unlike Central Mexico), so this land can be easily settled by Anglo-Americans just like in OTL. Expect Francophone minorities in Louisiana to get the Acadia treatment.

Why would they get the Acadia treatment? Québec certainly didn't. And the movement of Anglo-American settlers westward doesn't mean the movement of the Anglo-American state westward. Those settlers could be content with life in Louisiana or Mexico/New Spain.

 

[funnyhat]

maybe they could make citizenship laws incredibly harsh?

Would that not lead, then, to protests and calls for independence?

 

[LuckyLuciano]

Would that not lead, then, to protests and calls for independence?

Why would harsh immigration laws lead to calls for independence? it would lower the population and make it more homogenous with the metropole. I doubt alt-Americans would be opposed; every time theres been a new group of immigrants coming to America some politician had passed or proposed a law banning it.