The author of “America Vindicated” presented arguments and word choices very similar to an essay written by the American New York jurist William Smith (1728-1793). This piece presents a strong refutation of Parliamentary Supremacy and virtual representation on the grounds that actual representation must be considered a fundamental part of the British constitution: The text calls for reform by creating a general colonial parliament.

This essay makes the case for the unitary nature of the authority of the King-in-Parliament as representative of all domains under British authority, disputing the American claim, with specific reference to Benjamin Franklin, that the colonies were outside “the realm.” Thus, Gray argues, “All the sovereignty the king has over the colonies he has as being sovereign of the British nation.” As such, the colonies were to be considered as subject to the “supreme legislative body” of Parliament.

The essay argues against Parliament’s taxation of America, contending that “subordinate states,” whether Wales or the “palatinates of Chester and Durham” or the colonies, can only be taxed by representatives of their own choosing because “it is just, equal and agreeable to the constitution,” and the colonists have “inherited this franchise of raising money upon themselves from their ancestors.” The text is informed by English and American sources, citing Locke, James Otis, and Benjamin Franklin.

This essay presents one of the strongest responses to the claim of Parliamentary supremacy over the colonies. It is indicative of a robust revival of Old Whig ideas in England on the question of limited government, a revival that began with the Stamp Act in the 1760s and reached a highpoint in 1775. In this text the author draws from a long legal history to assert that all powers of government receive “their binding force from the sufferance, consent, and acquiescence of the people at large.”

This essay defends Parliament’s authority over America “when considered as a collective Body of Colonies,” because only it could consider “the general good of the whole.” While certainly consistent with an idea of virtual representation, the essay’s focus on an intercolonial perspective and the general interests of the empire, marks a distinctive alternative case for the supremacy of Parliament.

Bancroft’s pamphlet is directed against Grenville, Minister of the Treasury. In it, Bancroft takes issue with the suggestion that the American colonists simultaneously claim the privileges of British subjects and reject the authority of Parliament. From there, he outlines the ways in which Parliament, and Grenville in particular, have overstepped their bounds in their policies toward the colonies, and suggests a plan for reconciliation that involves sacrifices from both sides.

Some scholars have suggested Gervaise Parker Bush as the author of this anonymous pamphlet that argues that the American colonists are even more disenfranchised and unrepresented than Englishmen without suffrage. The anonymous author also compares the treatment of the colonists with the treatment of Catholics and slaves, and outlines legal precedents for some contested issues between Britain and America.

Some scholars have suggested Gervaise Parker Bush as the author of this anonymous pamphlet that argues that the American colonists are even more disenfranchised and unrepresented than Englishmen without suffrage. The anonymous author also compares the treatment of the colonists with the treatment of Catholics and slaves, and outlines legal precedents for some contested issues between Britain and America.

Some scholars have suggested Gervaise Parker Bush as the author of this anonymous pamphlet that argues that the American colonists are even more disenfranchised and unrepresented than Englishmen without suffrage. The anonymous author also compares the treatment of the colonists with the treatment of Catholics and slaves, and outlines legal precedents for some contested issues between Britain and America.

Some scholars propose Hugh Williamson as a possible author for this pamphlet that argues that the British government has pushed the Americans “ into the very bowels of a civil war.” The author further suggests that peace requires a change of the governing party in Britain rather than complete submission from the Americans. The pamphlet’s lively contemporary description of the Boston Tea Party and other famous precursors of the Revolution are of particular interest even to casual readers.