tions, in which he asserted that the American colonists were entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities possessed by the people of Great Britain; that the right of the people to tax themselves or to be taxed by persons chosen by themselves was the distinguishing characteristic of British freedom; and, finally, "that the general assembly of this

colony have the only and sole exclusive right and power to lay taxes and impositions upon the inhabitants of this colony, and that every attempt to vest such power in any person or persons whatsoever, other than the general assembly aforesaid, has a manifest tendency to destroy British as well as American freedom."

On the fifth resolution which embodied the words just quoted, an angry debate ensued and Patrick Henry delivered

a memorable speech, at the conclusion of which, after denouncing the tyranny of the Stamp Act, he exclaimed:

The debate on the resolutions in

"Cæsar had his Brutus, Charles the first his Cromwell, and George the third -" "Treason!" shouted the Speaker, and "Treason, treason," echoed from every part of the house. Fixing his flashing eye firmly on the Speaker, Henry added, "may profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it."

the Virginia Assembly

The vote on the resolutions is not recorded, but they were carried by the support of the members from the upper or western counties with the aid of six members from Mr. Henry's immediate section of the state. "By these resolutions," said Jefferson, "and his manner of supporting them, Mr. Henry took the lead out of the hands of those who had theretofore guided the proceedings of the house; that is to say, of Pendleton, Wythe, Bland and Randolph." It was indeed a great personal triumph for Henry. He was the first leader to organize the men of the Piedmont section and of the Valley against the more aristocratic planters of Tidewater.

Henry's

Henry's resolutions, coming from Virginia, the oldest and most loyal of the colonies, created intense excitement. The effect of Many people who were utterly opposed to the Stamp Act thought that the resolutions went resolutions too far. Even James Otis pronounced them treasonable and Governor Hutchinson of Massachusetts declared that "nothing extravagant appeared in the papers till an account was received of the Virginia resolves." Patrick Henry's leadership in organizing resistance to British taxation was recognized on both sides of the Atlantic. Edmund Burke in his great speech on American taxation, April 19, 1774, declared on the floor of the House of Commons that the Virginia resolutions were the cause of the insurrections in Massachusetts and the other colonies.

When the names of the stamp distributors were announced

in Boston serious riots occurred. A brother-in-law of Governor Hutchinson, who had accepted one of the appointments, was burned in effigy and forced to resign. In August a mob burned the records of the vice admiralty court at Boston, sacked the house of the collector of customs, and destroyed the private dwelling of Hutchinson. Similar outrages took place at Newport, Rhode Island, and popular indignation against those who had accepted the post of stamp distributors burst forth into acts of violence in most of the colonies. This form of opposition was carried on by irregular associations known as Sons of Liberty which sprang up in all parts of the colonies. Meanwhile at the suggestion of the Massachusetts Assembly, nine of the colonies had chosen delegates to meet in New York for the purpose of petitioning the crown for relief. By the time this congress met every stamp distributor on the continent had resigned his position and the act had been practically nullified.

Resolutions

Congress

The resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress which met in October were couched in loyal and respectful language, but they asserted for the colonists the full rights and liberties of natural-born subjects; they of the Stamp denied that taxes could be imposed on them except Act with their own consent or by their representatives; they claimed that as the colonies could not be represented in the House of Commons, no taxes could be constitutionally imposed on them except by their respective legislatures; that the duties imposed by several late acts of Parliament were burdensome and grievous; that, as the profits of the trade of the colonies ultimately centered in Great Britain to pay for the manufactures which they bought there, the colonists eventually contributed to all supplies granted to the crown; in conclusion, they petitioned the king and both houses of Parliament for the repeal of the Stamp Act and of the late acts for the restriction of American

commerce.

Repeal of the Stamp

These resolutions were read in the House of Commons and precipitated a short debate, but no action was taken. Meanwhile a crisis had come in the affairs of the British ministry over the Regency Bill, and Act, March, the Marquis of Rockingham, leader of the old Whig aristocracy, had been called upon to form a new ministry, July 10, 1765. It was some time before the new government seemed to realize that the Stamp Act had brought the colonies to the verge of rebellion.

1766

Opposition to the measure was not confined to America. English merchants and manufacturers were suffering from the failure of the colonists to pay for the goods they had already bought and to give orders for more. Petitions for repeal were therefore coming in from the merchants of many of the cities and towns of England. George III seemed moreover to be greatly disturbed at the accounts of the riots in America, and in January, 1766, he laid the whole matter before Parliament. After one of the most memorable debates that ever took place in that body, the Stamp Act was finally repealed in March, 1766, and the Sugar Act was a little later modified by placing the very low duty of one penny a gallon on all molasses imported into the colonies. Along with the repeal of the Stamp Act was passed the socalled Declaratory Act, which asserted the unlimited right of Parliament to legislate for the colonies. The news of the repeal of the Stamp Act was received with great rejoicing in America, but the rejoicing was short-lived. Many persons were displeased at the Declaratory Act and some talked of united opposition. But the main trouble arose over the act of 1765 requiring the colonial assemblies to make provision for quartering the king's troops in America. The New York Assembly was the first to refuse compliance.

In July, 1766, the Rockingham ministry resigned and the Duke of Grafton became the nominal head of the gov

The Town

ernment, but it was understood that Pitt was to be the real head. He, however, shortly entered the House of Lords as Earl of Chatham and the loss of popularity which this act entailed together with bad health pre- shend Acts vented him from taking a very active part in the of 1767 affairs of the ministry. Charles Townshend, Chancellor of the Exchequer, now became leader of the cabinet and greatly to the surprise of everybody introduced three measures relating to America which were passed in May, 1767: (1) the New York Assembly was suspended until it should comply with the quartering act; (2) a new board of Commissioners of Customs was established in America with full powers to enforce the acts of trade; (3) an import duty was laid on glass, red and white lead, paper, and tea. As so much emphasis had been laid by the opponents of the Stamp Act on the difference between external and internal taxes, Townshend thought that the Americans would have to submit to the new revenue law because it established only external taxes on imports.

As a matter of fact there is no one consistent theory on which the action of the American colonies can be explained, for in each dispute with the home government Theoretical they assumed a more advanced position. In the basis of the first stage of the controversy they denied the Revolution right of Parliament to impose internal taxes. In opposition to the Townshend Acts they denied the right of Parliament to impose external taxes as well, and raised the cry of no taxation without representation. As representation in the British Parliament was, in view of the circumstances, an impossibility, the natural and logical conclusion was that the crown was the only connecting link between the colonies and Great Britain.

In searching for a theoretical basis for the Revolution we are naturally led to inquire what was the nature of the law by which the powers of Great Britain over the colonies were