“The very act of taxing, exercised over those who are not represented, appears to me to be depriving them of one of their most essential rights as freemen, and, _if continued, seems to be, in effect, an entire disfranchisement of every civil right_. For what one civil right is worth a rush, after a man’s property is subject to be taken from him at pleasure, without his consent? If a man is not _his own assessor_, in person or by deputy, his liberty is gone, or lays entirely at the mercy of others.”[233] Stronger words for universal suffrage could not be employed. His argument is, that, if men are taxed without being represented, they are deprived of essential rights, and the continuance of this deprivation despoils them of every civil right,--thus making the latter depend upon the right of suffrage, which by curious neologism is known as political instead of civil. Then, giving point to his argument, the patriot insists, that, in determining taxation, “a man must be his own _assessor_, in person or by deputy,” without which his liberty is entirely at the mercy of others. Here, again, in different form, is the original thunderbolt; and the claim is made not merely for communities, but for “a man.” Such a principle naturally encountered opposition at that time, even as now in this Chamber; but Otis was ready at all points. To the argument, that Manchester, Birmingham, and Sheffield, like America, returned no members to Parliament, he flashed forth in reply:-- “If they are not represented, they ought to be. _Every man of a sound mind should have his vote._” And then again, taking up the reply, he exclaimed:-- “Lord Coke declares that it is against Magna Charta, and against the franchises of the land, for freemen to be taxed but by their own consent.”[234] Thus does he interpret again the flaming words, “Taxation without representation is tyranny.”