The Parliament of Great Britain. is never to invade the place of [provincial laws] as long as they are equal to the common objectives of their institution. But to [parliamentarian]. Superintendence, their powers must be unlimited. Those gentlemen who consider Parliament`s powers to be limited may be happy to talk about requisitions. But suppose the requirements are not met? What! Won`t there be reserved power in the empire to fill a deficiency that can weaken, divide and disperse the whole? We are at war, – the Minister of Foreign Affairs calls on the colonies to contribute, – some would do it, I think most would gladly deliver whatever is necessary, – one or two, suppose, sit down and let yourself be relieved, leave the stress of conscription on the other, – it is certainly true that an authority could legally say: “Tax yourself for common supply, or Parliament will do it for you. This delay, as I was told, was in fact the case in Pennsylvania for a brief period at the beginning of the last war, due to some internal disagreements in that colony. But whether the fact is the case or not, the case must also be provided by a competent sovereign power. But then it should not be an ordinary power, and it should never be used in the first place. That is what I meant when I said several times that I regarded the power of taxation in Parliament as an instrument of empire and not as a means of supply. The offences were tried in the Vice-Admiralty Courts without a jury. The refusal of a peer trial was a second wound in the minds of the settlers. The Stamp Act Congress then ended with a controversial note when delegates drafted three petitions to send to the King, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Ruggles resisted the petitions and left without signing them. Without a preface, he abruptly asked what he had been told about the Duke of Wharton`s behaviour the night before. But there were also conflicts between two representatives from Massachusetts. James Otis, an arsonist lawyer, had popularized the phrase “unrepresentative taxation is tyranny” in a number of public arguments. However, Timothy Ruggles, a moderate former Speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, was elected President of Congress, which was seen by some delegates as a measure to undermine the effectiveness of Congress. In English history, “no tax without representation” was an old principle and meant that Parliament had to renounce all taxes. At first, “representation” was considered one of the countries, but by 1700 this had shifted to the idea that in parliament, all British subjects had “virtual representation”. “We practically and implicitly authorize the institutions of any government we enjoy and demand protection,” Samuel Johnson explained in his policy pamphlet Taxation No Tyranny. He rejected the complaint that the settlers, who had no votes, were not represented.
“They are represented,” he said, “by the same virtual representation as most of England.” However, the tradition of greater democracy among Americans gave impetus to the well-founded accusation, voiced by the British and settlers, that virtual representation was a “fallacy” and “a simple spider web spread to catch the unwary and confuse the weak.”   The colonial insistence on direct representation as opposed to virtual representation was thus initiated by later commentators as “a profound political and social revolution that erased most of the remaining traces of monarchical domination and feudalism inherited from the only partially complete English bourgeois revolution. The Americans led the bourgeois-democratic revolution on a scale never before seen in history.  In 1766, Benjamin Franklin declared in the House of Commons that “an internal tax is applied by the people without their consent, unless it is levied by their own representatives. The Stamp Act states that we will not exchange, exchange goods with each other, buy, grant or collect debts; we will not marry or make our will unless we pay this or that amount; and therefore it is intended to extort our money or ruin us by refusing to pay it.  The term “taxation without representation” describes a population that is forced to pay taxes to a government agency without having a say in the policies of that government. The term originated in a slogan of the American colonial masters against their British rulers: “Taxation without representation is tyranny.” I know of no power that has ever been given to them, except to appear before Her Majesty and Her ministry. .