Answer:
'Taxation without representation' phrase is the practice the colonists couldn't deal with. They created boycotts to fight some of this.
See more below.
Step-by-step explanation:
Mythbreaker—Authority, Not Representation
Before George III, a new king, came to power in 1760, the British empire appeared to treat its colonies in North America with benign indifference. However, under the current system, Anglo-Americans had mostly succeeded in governing and taxing themselves for many centuries. The colonies all possessed active, though occasionally overbearing, representative assemblies that shared authority with an appointed governor who oversaw an unelected council or upper chamber of some kind. Boston, the center of the pre-revolutionary storm, was controlled by the archetypal New England town meeting.
However, the youthful King—who was just 22 years old—aligned himself with parliamentary political parties who were openly opposed to the colonial administrations in America. In exchange for the gains obtained by its supporters among the London investors in the East India Company, Parliament appeared, through the Board of Trade, eager to sacrifice the rights, the property, and the freedoms of the colonists. A clear violation of the English Bill of Rights (1688) was made by the new Royal government and the majority of its ministers when they suggested that Parliament had the authority to legislate for the colonies on any issue at all. This was especially true for a government that claimed the right to tell people how to pray. Both sides of the Atlantic were startled by the legislative proposal for America's hypocrisy.
The Patriot Party in America was undoubtedly portrayed by British propaganda as petty, frugal, and reluctant to shoulder their due share of the burden of maintaining the empire. This accusation particularly outraged the people of Massachusetts because they and their government had promptly responded to every request from the Crown to attack the French and their Native American allies. The Boston Gazette published a complaint on June 9, 1755, regarding an increase in local taxes brought on by Britain's battle to expand her American dominion.
Taxation without representation is a favored teaching tool for middle school history teachers because to its rhythmic cadence, but it oversimplifies a very complicated and continuing topic. The majority of colonists took their notion that being taxed without their permission violated their constitutional rights as Englishmen very seriously. Prime Minister William Pitt concurred that the Parliament lacked the authority to impose a tax on America during the Stamp crisis of 1766. It was deemed contrary to the principles of liberty and the spirit of the British constitution for the representatives of the people living in Great Britain to give away the property of the colonists in America who had no representation because all taxes submitted to the Crown "being free gifts of the people."
The Empire has a long-standing issue with equal representation. Rev. Cotton Mather wrote a statement that was read from the balcony of Boston's Town House on the day of the uprising in 1689 when the colonists rebelled against the imposition of the Dominion of New England. It claimed that Magna Carta, "the privileges of which we laid claim thereto," was violated by Governor Edmund Andros. "Persons who did but peacefully complain against the increasing of taxes without an Assembly, have been for it punished, some twenty, some thirty, and some fifty Pounds," it stated in relation to protests against taxation without representation.
The majority of the inhabitants of Britain's greatest cities did not have direct representation in Parliament throughout the 18th century, and various taxes were frequently levied even in the colonies without direct representation. The supporters of the American cause were thought to be the colonies' equivalent of representation in the House of Commons, but, like the representatives of England's infamous "rotten boroughs," the colonists had no authority to elect, see, or recall these individuals. The rotting component of the British constitution, according to William Pitt, is this system of representation. The British standing government was initially intended to not include the House of Commons. It was to be summoned into and out of session by the monarch to generate income to the Crown, but after 1688 it was seen as a control mechanism, arising directly from popular agreement, not to be a brake on the people but to provide them a restriction on government.
Thanks,
Eddie