Final answer:
Disagreement between the British view that Colonists had to contribute financially to the Empire and the Colonists' view that taxation without direct representation was unjust boils down to a fundamental conflict over the rights of English subjects and the concept of representation.
Step-by-step explanation:
The stance that the British believed the Colonists had to "pay their part" for the defense and management of the Empire, particularly after the expensive French and Indian War, is a contentious topic. While some might agree that as part of the British Empire, it was the Colonists' duty to contribute (A), the prevalent cry of "no taxation without representation" (D) voiced the Colonists' view that imposing taxes without their direct representation in British Parliament was unjust. The colonial political system was predicated on direct representation, and any tax for the purpose of revenue, not related to the regulation of trade, was viewed as an overreach of Parliamentary authority. The colonists believed that Parliament could impose taxes to regulate trade as it was a long-standing practice tied to the control of the Empire's commerce; however, revenue-raising taxes for the army or debt produced a different reaction because these touched upon the deeper principles of English rights as outlined in the English Bill of Rights.
Moreover, the British notion of "virtual" representation was not acceptable to the colonists due to their 'peculiar circumstances'—such as lack of frontier concerns or pacifist beliefs—and the idea reduced their status as free English subjects, denying them rights enshrined by the English Bill of Rights. Therefore, the correct response to the question aligns most closely with option D: No, taxation without representation was unjust and against their rights.