actually tarred and feathered ship captain William Smith, tied
him to a pony cart and dragged him through Norfolk streets to Market
House. Along the way by-standers, including Mayor Maximilian Calvert,
heaved rocks and rotten eggs at the hapless captain whose final
humiliation came when he was tossed into the harbor beside his
ship.[20] Small wonder ship captains did not sail to Virginia and
London merchants were quickly submitting petitions against the Stamp
Act.

[20] The resolution of the Westmoreland and Northumberland
courts, and Leadstown Association, and the Norfolk Sons of
Liberty are found in Van Schreeven and Scribner, Revolutionary
Virginia, I, 19-26, 25-48.

Repeal and the Declaratory Act, 1766

In July 1766 for reasons unrelated to the American crisis, George III
replaced the Grenville ministry with a new ministry, headed by the
Marquis of Rockingham, which included the Duke of Newcastle, Henry
Conway, and the Duke of Grafton. Missing was the Old Whigs principal
leader, William Pitt, who preferred to pursue his independent and
mercurial ways. The Rockingham ministry, most of whose members had
disliked the Stamp Act from the beginning, drew their greatest strength
from the merchant communities. By the time parliament opened in
December, Rockingham and his supporters were in agreement--the act must
be repealed. But how? The violence and riots in Boston and Newport had
raised cries against property destruction while the extreme
constitutional position attributed to Virginia and the Stamp Act
Congress challenged the very heart of parliament's sovereignty. Pitt
hardly helped Rockingham by excoriating Grenville and exclaiming, "I
rejoice that America resisted."

Pitt did, however, inadvertently propose the solution when he concluded
his denunciation by saying:

... the Stamp Act (must) be repealed absolutely, totally, and
immediately. That a reason be assigned, because it was founded on
an erroneous principle. At the same time, let the sovereign
authority of this country over the colonies be asserted in as
strong terms of legislation whatsoever. That we may bind their
trade, confine their manufactures, and exercise every power
whatsoever, except that of taking their money out of their pockets
without their consent.[21]

[21] Cited in Morgans, Stamp Act, 335. The discussion which
follows accepts as convincing the Morgan's contention, pgs