face in Parliament, Charles James Fox, supported this argument in his speech by saying "there is not an American but who must reject and resist the principle and right of our taxing them. The question then, is shortly this: Whether we ought to govern America on these principles? Can this country gain strength by keeping up such a dispute as this? Tell me when America is to be taxed, so as to relieve the burthens of this country"[42] . William Pitt once again took the stand that Englishmen were only supposed to be taxed by their own consent, and a new question was brought before him by men in his opposition, including Lord North, the new Prime Minister of Parliament. What was consent? Was this supposed to mean the consent of the people themselves or the men that had been chosen to represent them, or the majority of their representatives? [43] . This became a question that was examined not only for the colonists , but the people in England as well. After all, "Every man in England [was] taxed, and not one in twenty [was] represented"[44] , but they continued to pay their taxes. It came to be argued that if common men in England were "virtually" represented and they paid their taxes, then the colonists were also "virtually" represented, then they could not be liberated from their taxes. William Pitt again took a stand and to this argument he responded by saying that "the idea of a virtual representation of America in this House [was] the most contemptable that [had] ever entered into the head of man. It [did] not deserve a serious refutation"[45] . The debates went on and on, but one detail seemed to be lost in all of the arguments that were presented. If the colonies did not respect the power of Parliament, then who was actually governing America? With all of the debating that went on in Parliament over the challenge of their power in America, the question always came back to one single problem. It did not matter what laws were enacted if...
