Conceding the fact of virtual representation in England, this pamphlet takes the view that it actually undermines Parliament’s authority to tax the colonies because none of the representatives in Parliament could ever feel the effects of their taxes, as they would from one levied in their own country. Here, the author contends, both the actually and virtually represented must be taxed the same, lest the injustice of “taxation without representation would then be evident and manifest.”

This text argues along lines similar to Burke’s speech on Reconciliation, noting the differences among colonial regions. Americans prize personal liberty from different but reinforcing ways of life. Aristocratic Virginians are bred to genteel pursuits, chief among which is the law, giving them a heightened sense of their legal rights. Among New Englanders, nonconformism in religion makes them especially jealous of local government. To coerce is imprudent, risking all the benefits of their trade.

In this speech, Burke argued that Americans were Englishmen who had carried with them the most ardent sentiments in favor of liberty, and, however contradictory, even those who held slaves, were among the most ardent of all. He made the startling observation that the “chaos” that was assumed would follow the withdrawal of royal government was having the opposite effect than expected. Repeal the Coercive Acts and restore “salutary neglect” because Americans were finding independence tolerable!

One copy of this text contains a note naming a certain “Dr. Sutcliffe” as the author. This text rebuts the idea that legislation is inseparable from taxation, asserting that practices affirmed by general understanding can sustain all such distinctions “for the powers of governors are just so much as, and can be no more than such compact gives them.” Citing the 40 shilling minimum to vote in England, and Locke on the social contract, the writer denies the authority to tax without representation.”

This essay was among the most rhetorically colorful of the responses to the writers in the pay of the British government, Samuel Johnson, John Shabbeare, and John Wesley. Taking a strong moral stance against taxation without representation, the text excoriates those who “prostitute their abilities and belie their consciences for HIRE.” The American colonies were simply resorting to the only means left to them when “kings and governors degenerate into tyrants.”

George Turnbull belongs with a group of early Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, including Francis Hutcheson, who found their native Calvinism too repressive. They sought to relocate religion within a context of reason and science and to establish a tolerant and humane ethic upon values rooted in classical ideals.

This text is notable for its reading of the Declaratory Act and the specific phrase, “in all cases whatsoever.” contending that such could only refer to constitutional means. It made the point that not every act of government constituted a precedent in law, observing “however successful” certain errors “may have proved for a time when men’s passions were heated,” nevertheless, “when reason resumed her empire” such mistakes “were rectified, and the constitution gathered still more strength.”

This essay countered the July 6, 1775, statement by the Congress in Philadelphia declaring “The Causes and Necessity of Their Taking up Arms.” Like other ministerial writings of that year, it based its case on the “universally admitted” need for “a supreme and uncontroullable power” to exist “somewhere in every State.” The pamphlet is notable in its denunciation of William Pitt, and the inconsistency of Americans who continued to “flatter” him, despite his party’s support of the Declaratory Act.

In this essay, points are drawn from Irish experience to contend that the necessities claimed for taxing the colonies cannot be well founded, but “it is evident that this is not the harvest-time there for a rapacious minister.” Understanding the implicit claim looming over his own realm, the writer hoped that the English Parliament in “her wisdom” would let Americans remain “dependent in every external relation, but let them experience internal liberty, and a security in their acquisitions.”

This piece argues against taxing the colonies, not on grounds of mere expediency but a prudential recognition that tensions always exist between lived experience and higher ideals. Not a denial of higher law, Burke critiques those who think they can execute policy even in the most delicate circumstances where principles seem to be in opposition: Parliament’s authority versus colonial rights. Such issues, he noted “can never be moved without shaking the foundations of the best governments.”