n Without Representation" became the colonists' next attempt at avoiding the laws of England, and it sparked debates and reactions in all of Parliament. "The right of the legislature of Great Britain to impose taxes upon her colonies . . . [was] so indisputably clear that" most men felt as though they "should never have thought it necessary to have undertaken their defense . . . "[39] . William Pitt, who had been sympathetic with the colonists and had said many times that they should not be taxed, never said that England could not tax the colonies. That power was evident. When he asked that Parliament not tax the colonists, he reminded them that while he was opposing the taxes, he "at the same time, [asserted] the authority of this kingdom over the colonies to be sovereign and supreme in every circumstance"[40] . What he and the rest of the British government began to face was the question of the supremacy of Great Britain. They either ruled the colonies completely and totally, or they did not rule the colonies at all. The trouble was, every member of Parliament and even the king could see where the cards were falling on this particular issue. Great Britain was not ruling the colonies at all. They had challenged the authority of Parliament at every turn, and this latest question of authority based on representation was just another excuse to avoid the laws. It was pointed out by Soame Jenyns, another member of Parliament at this time, that the colonists themselves even admitted that even if they were directly represented in Parliament, that they believed it would still have no right to impose taxes upon them and then use that money because "it would be an unjust tax. [The tax would] not be equal on all, and if it [was] not equal, it [could] not be just, and if it [was] not just, no power whatever [could] impose it." Jenyns thought this type of logic was absolutely absurd, because "no tax can be imposed exactly equal on all"[41] . A new ...
