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.

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.