Page:Cambridge Modern History Volume 7.djvu/181

 1765] Resistance to the Stamp Act. 149 received in America with an outburst of indignation, for which the government was wholly unprepared. Resistance was immediate and general. The official stamp-distributors were in some cases burnt in effigy, in others forced to resign. At Boston the mob, regardless of the long public services of Hutchinson and of his opposition to the Stamp Act, and only remembering that he was now endeavouring to check their violence, sacked and destroyed his house and with it an invaluable collection of historical books and papers. This outrage was perpetrated under the eyes of a number of magistrates. Similar outbreaks took place elsewhere. In Rhode Island three chief supporters of government had their houses sacked, and the revenue officers went in danger of their lives. Disturbances also took place in New York, in Connecticut, and in Philadelphia. The general line, however, taken by responsible men in the colonies was that the measure, though unwise and injurious, was not unconstitutional. Such was the view expressed by Otis, who was regarded as the leader of the popular party in Massachusetts. Franklin consented to assist the British government in its choice of a stamp-collector for Pennsylvania. The first sign of constitutional opposition came from Virginia. In the Assembly of that colony, Patrick Henry, already noted for his attack on the clergy, brought forward and carried a series of resolutions hostile to the Act. The vital resolution, in which the whole force of his position lay, was the last, which affirmed "that the General Assembly of this colony have the only sole and exclusive right and power to lay taxes and impositions upon the inhabitants of this colony." But the most important feature of the whole struggle was the fact that it threw the colonies into an attitude of united opposition. In all previous disputes each colony had fought its own battle. Now delegates from nine out of the thirteen colonies met in congress at New York to protest against the Stamp Act (October 7, 1765). Only New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia were unrepresented. A declaration of grievances was drafted, and memorials were sent to the King and to the two Houses of Parliament, claiming the right of self- taxation. Next session the Ministry to which Grenville belonged were forced to leave office, not in any way on account of their colonial policy but because their attitude on the question of a possible regency was dis- tasteful to the King. The incoming Prime Minister was Lord Rockingham. There can be no doubt that neither the Ministry which introduced the Stamp Act nor the Parliament which passed it, and still less the country at large, had in the least foreseen the storm of indigna- tion with which that measure was received in America. To undo the mischief was the task which the new Ministry set themselves. Rocking- ham himself was a man of no originality or eloquence, but he was sensible, disinterested and courageous. His policy and that of his party was largely inspired by his private secretary, Edmund Burke. The en. v.