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.

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.

One of the many pamphlets in response to Johnson’s Taxation no Tyranny, Resistance no Rebellion praises the good sense and dignity of the Americans while noting the ways in which they have been insulted by the British. The author is particularly incensed by Johnson’s claims of absolute authority for the King and Parliament, writing that “Their love of power has betrayed them into an absurdity.”

This 1775 pamphlet was published as an anonymous response to Samuel Johnson’s Taxation No Tyranny. Johnson’s towering reputation as a man of letters appears to enrage rather than intimidate this anonymous author, who takes Johnson to task for cloaking poor logic and argumentation in his famous linguistic splendor. The anonymous pamphleteer argues that, rather than the absolute power that Johnson argued for, “English power will stand upon the firmest ground, when it is least abused by tyranny” and emphasizes the mutual dependence of Great Britain and the colonies.

The Pamphlet Debate on the American Question in Great Britain, 1764-1776 selected by Jack Greene, makes available in modern digitized form a trove of eighteenth-century books and pamphlets that directly addressed what became known in metropolitan Britain as the American Question. This pamphlet is a part of that collection.

Written in response to Samuel Johnson’s Taxation no Tyranny, this pamphlet dismisses Johnson’s arguments as unworthy of response, except for the fact that they are “irritating to Englishmen.” The author makes much of Johnson’s receipt of a government pension, calling him a “slave of state…hired by his stipend to obey his master in all things.” His most telling blow is to quote from Johnson’s poem ”London,” an earlier work in defense of liberty, as an argument against Johnson’s later pamphlet.