resign, the stamps were in some cases destroyed, and in Boston the
houses of unpopular officials were mobbed and sacked. Before the
excitement, the governors stood utterly helpless. They could do
nothing to carry out the Act.

In October, delegates representing nearly all the colonies met at New
York, and drafted resolutions expressing their firm belief that no tax
could legally be levied upon them but by their own consent, given
through their legislatures. It was the right of Englishmen not to be
taxed without their consent. Petitions in respectful but determined
language were sent to the King and to Parliament, praying for the
repeal of the Stamp Act and the Sugar Act. For the first time in their
history, the colonies stood together in full harmony to denounce and
reject an Act passed by Parliament. As a social and political fact,
this unanimous demonstration of colonial feeling was of profound
significance. The ease and ability with which the lawyers, planters,
farmers, or merchants directed the popular excitement into effective
channels showed the widespread political education of the Americans. A
not dissimilar excitement in London in the same years found no other
means of expressing itself than bloody rioting. It was American {34}
republicanism showing its strongest aspect in political resistance.

The issue thus presented to the British government was one demanding
the most careful consideration and far-seeing wisdom in its treatment.
Grenville's measures, however admirable and reasonable in themselves,
had stirred the bitter opposition of all the colonists, and the
enforcement or modification of them called for steadiness and courage.
Were the English governing noblemen of the day ready to persist in the
new policy? If so, it meant violent controversy and possibly colonial
insurrection; but the exertion of British authority, if coupled with
strong naval pressure, ought to prevail. Angry as the colonists were,
their language indicates that revolution was not in their thoughts;
and, if there was one quality beyond all others in which the British
aristocracy excelled, it was an inflexible tenacity when once a policy
was definitely embraced. Unfortunately for both sides, the clear-cut
issue thus raised was obscured and distorted by the presence on the
throne of an ambitious young prince with a policy which threw British
domestic affairs into unexampled confusion.

George III, obstinate, narrow-minded,