<P> 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 . "As to the colonists being represented by the provincial agents," he wrote, </P> <P> 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 . </P> <P> 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 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 . </P> <P> 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--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 . </P>

Why did parliament impose taxes on the colonies