ing and prayer kept, and an inventory of powder and ball taken. In
New York a bonfire was made of the stamps in the public square. The
bells in Charleston, S. C., were tolled, and the flags on the ships in
the harbor hung at half-mast. The colonists entered into agreements to
buy no goods from England until the act was repealed. Even mourning
clothes, since they must be imported, were not to be worn, and lamb's
flesh was abjured that more wool might be raised for home manufacture.
England's colonial trade fell off so alarmingly in consequence that
Manchester manufacturers petitioned Parliament to repeal the act,
asserting that nine-tenths of their workmen were idle. Besides these
popular demonstrations, delegates from nine colonies met in New York, in
October, 1765, often called the Stamp Act Congress, and adopted a
declaration of rights, asserting that England had no right to tax them
without their consent. During the days of the Stamp Act excitement, the
term "colonist" gave way to "American," and "English" to "British," a
term of the deeper opprobrium because Bute, the king's chief adviser,
was a Briton.

Startled by this unexpected resistance, Parliament, in January of the
next year, began to debate repeal. We must in fairness to England look
at both sides of the problem of colonial taxation. As general
administrator of colonial affairs, the English Government naturally
desired a fixed and certain revenue in America, both for frontier
defence against Indians and French and for the payment of colonial
governors. While each stood ready to defend its own territory, the
colonies were no doubt meanly slow about contributing to any common
fund. They were frequently at loggerheads, too, with their governors
over the question of salaries. On the other hand, the colonists made the
strong plea that self-taxation was their only safeguard against tyranny
of king, Parliament, or governor.

In the great debate which now ensued in Parliament over England's right
to tax America, Mansfield, the greatest constitutional lawyer of his
day, maintained--first, that America was represented in Parliament as
much as Manchester and several other large cities in England which
elected no members to the House of Commons, and yet were taxed; and,
second, that an internal tax, such as that on stamps, was identical in
principle with customs duties, which the colonies had never resisted. In
reply, Pitt, the great champion of the colonies, asserte