Which was not at all? Come on, Manchester having no representation because of ancient electoral laws was bad, adding the colonies into that just cranks up the badness. I've never understood why you always defend policies that were practically universally agreed to be bad and wrongheaded.
Because when people claim that the Americans were being gypped
of the rights of Englishmen, what rights Englishmen actually enjoyed is relevant.
If someone proposed that we reform the entire system for the sake of "Average men and women", I'd break a leg jumping on that bandwagon. But if it becomes the
colonists being denied something as if it was a matter of anti-American rather than anti-common man, I will argue what I do.
And as you already know, I'm not fond of the argument that unrepresentative government is illegitimate by definition.
I will say though that the existing system was inherently messed up, though. Even if Parliament made a compromise that worked on this issue, it's not enough to solve the fact that the Americans are going to get tired of being common men in a system rigged for the squirearchy, whether their specific grievances as colonists are addressed or no.
And there, I can't blame 'em.
But that wasn't what spawned the Stamp Act or the
Gaspee, so I will regard Sam Adams and the people who turned this from a question of taxation to a question of control as deserving to hung from the same branch of the same sour apple tree.
Also, sloppy enforcement of mercantile restrictions was very much part of the political game that earlier British ministries were playing. Enact mercantile laws, that keeps domestic manufacturers happy. Fail to devote enough funds to fully enforce them, that keeps colonial traders happy....sure, it's slimy, but it's not like it wasn't deliberate.
You've spent more time on British politics than I have, so I'm going to take your word for it. But the fact remains that those duties are on the books, and a vigilant and honest customs agent could still collect them.
Of course, find such a man when the position is used for purposes of patronage rather than revenue.
But that takes us back to the entrenched interests.
Interestingly enough, Chatham was an exact proponent of the sort of mercantalist-based policies you're arguing against. He was a direhard mercantalist who famously didn't want the Colonies producing one horseshoe, but by the same token considered taxing them to be unacceptable and even said that doing so had "broken the contract" Britain had with them. Burke also had the same opinion on taxes.
There's a reason I admire Burke but have turned very sour on Chatham. That is it. (underlined).
What I don't understand - or I do but find myself headdesking over - is why Parliament was so strongly in favor of maintaining its "authority" that the issues involved with that (which Burke brought up eloquently) were overlooked.
This should not have become a matter of accepting "control of all matters whatsoever", which only those who felt rebellion was worse than tyranny would defend (which is why I spend more energy on the Stamp Act than the Port Bill).