No taxation without representation
"No taxation without representation" was a slogan in the period 1763-1775 that summarized a primary grievance of the American colonists in the Thirteen colonies. The colonists complained that taxes were imposed by Parliament without the consent of the colonists, which violated the traditional rights of Englishmen dating back centuries. The point was that the colonies had no representation in Parliament; the British responded that they were "virtually" represented. The Americans said these "virtual representatives" knew nothing about America.
The Americans strenuously rejected the Stamp Act 1765 (which was repealed), and in 1773 violently rejected the tax on tea imports at the Boston Tea Party. Britain retaliated against Boston in a chain of episodes that led to armed rebellion in 1775 and the American Revolution. The colonists formed militias and seized control of each colony, ousting the royal governors. The complaint was never officially over the amount of taxation (which was low), but always on the decision-making process by which taxes were decided in London, without representation for the colonists in British Parliament.
The phrase "No Taxation Without Representation!" was coined by Reverend Jonathan Mayhew in a sermon in Boston in 1750. By 1765 the term "no taxation without representation" was in use in Boston, but no one is sure who first used it. Boston politician James Otis was most famously associated with the term, "taxation without representation is tyranny." 
By the 1760s the Americans came to believe they were being deprived of a historic right.
In the Virginia legislature Patrick Henry passed resolutions to the effect that Americans possessed all the rights of Englishmen; that the principle of no taxation without representation was an essential part of the English Constitution; and that Virginia alone enjoyed the right to tax Virginians. 
Many British leaders agreed with the Americans, but King George III (reigned 1760-1820) and his government took a hard-line position. The British could not accept Virginia's position because it would undermine the authority of Parliament, which it insisted in the "Declaratory Act" was always the final decision-making body. In Britain representation was highly limited; only 3% of the men could vote and they were controlled by local gentry. Therefore the British government argued that the colonists had virtual representation in their interests. 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."
The theory of virtual representation was attacked in Britain by Charles Pratt, the Earl of Camden, and especially by William Pitt. It was wholly rejected in the colonies, who said the "virtual" was a cover for political corruption and was irreconcilable with their republican belief that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. 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." The colonists insisted that representation was achieved only through an assembly of men actually elected by the persons they were intended to represent.
- "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."
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. 
The term has become common in popular usage to complain about exclusion from political participation, a distant and unreponsive government, or high taxes. It was used in the woman suffrage movement, for example, to decry the denial of the right to vote to females. In Washington DC, today, it is a powerful slogan that underscores the District's continuing lack of a vote in the US House, and any representation at all in the U.S. Senate.
- Daniel A. Smith , Tax Crusaders and the Politics of Direct Democracy (1998), 21-23
- John C. Miller, Origins of the American Revolution. 1943. pp. 31, 99, 104
- Miller p 122-25
- Miller p 212
- See 
- Walford Davis Green, William Pitt, Earl of Chatham and the Growth and Division of the British Empire, 1708-1778. 1901. p. 255.
- Green p. 256
- Carpenter, William S. "Taxation Without Representation" in Dictionary of American History, Volume 7 (1976)
- Miller, John C. Origins of the American Revolution. (1943). online edition
- Morgan, Edmund. Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sovereignty in England and America (1989)
- Pole; J. R. Political Representation in England and the Origins of the American Republic (1966) online edition
- Slaughter, Thomas P. "The Tax Man Cometh: Ideological Opposition to Internal Taxes, 1760-1790." William and Mary Quarterly 1984 41(4): 566-591. in Jstor