Colonial protests.—When it became known in the colonies that the Ministry intended to enforce a more rigid policy which included the levying of internal taxes by parliamentary enactment, vigorous protests were made. Memorials, resolutions, and addresses poured in upon the king, lords, commons, and Board of Trade, and numerous pamphlets appeared which presented the economic and constitutional viewpoint of the colonists.
The Massachusetts protest.—The Boston town meeting urged the assembly to use its influence to protect the rights of the colonies and in its instructions to the Boston representatives the principles were stated that there should be no taxation without representation and that colonials were entitled to full rights of Englishmen. It was also suggested that other injured colonies should be asked to coöperate in seeking redress. A committee of the assembly presented a memorial drafted by Otis which contained the additional principle that parliament had no right to alter the constitution. The memorial was sent to the Massachusetts agent in England with instructions to urge the repeal of the Sugar Act and to protest against the proposed Stamp Act. A committee of correspondence headed by Otis was authorized to inform the other colonies of the action of Massachusetts and to seek their coöperation. As the action had been taken by the assembly without the consent of the council, the governor was soon petitioned to call the general court. He complied and a petition was drawn which temperately protested.
The Rhode Island protest.—Before the Sugar Act was passed a remonstrance was prepared in Rhode Island, which was to be presented to the Board of Trade if three other colonial agents would coöperate. Committees of correspondence were also formed in various towns. After the passage of the act the committee of correspondence of which Governor Hopkins was a member sent out a circular letter protesting against the Sugar Act and the proposed Stamp Act, In November, 1764, the assembly sent a petition to the king in which the principle was stated that an essential privilege of Englishmen was that they should be governed by laws made by their own consent.
Connecticut protest.—In Connecticut Governor Fitch, at the suggestion of the assembly, prepared an address to parliament which protested against the proposed Stamp Act or any other bill for internal taxes. This and the governor's book of Reasons Why the British Colonies in America should not be Charged with Internal Taxes by Authority of Parliament were sent.
New York protest—In March, 1764, the New York merchants presented to the council a memorial against the renewal of the Molasses Act. In October the assembly appointed a committee of correspondence and sent statements of grievances to the king and the lords, and a petition to the commons. In the petition the significant statement was made that the loss of colonial rights was likely to shake the power of Great Britain.
Pennsylvania's protest.—The Pennsylvania assembly considered that parliament had no right to tax the colony. Jackson, the colonial agent, was instructed to remonstrate against the proposed Stamp Act and to endeavor to secure the repeal or modification of the Sugar Act. Franklin was sent over to assist Jackson.
Maryland and Virginia.—In Maryland the governor prevented the meeting of the assembly, but the Virginia council and burgesses prepared an address to the king, a memorial to the lords, and a remonstrance to the commons. The Virginians claimed the rights and privileges that their ancestors had had in England and laid down the fundamental principle of no taxation without representation.
The Carolinas.—North Carolina protested strongly and in South Carolina the assembly appointed a committee which instructed the colonial agent to complain of the laws of trade. The instructions also declared that a Stamp Act would violate the inherent right of every British subject to be taxed only by his own consent or by his representatives. The governor prorogued the assembly before a vote could be taken upon the committee's action, but the instructions, nevertheless, were sent.
The Stamp Act.—In spite of colonial protests Grenville pursued his policy, the appeals of the colonies being rejected under the rule that petitions against money bills should not be received, and in March, 1765, parliament passed the Stamp Act. By its provisions stamps were to be placed on commercial and legal documents, pamphlets, newspapers, almanacs, playing cards, and dice. The enforcement of the act was placed under the management of English commissioners who were empowered to appoint persons to attend in every court or public office in the colonies to see that the law was enforced. For infringements of the law there were heavy penalties which might be collected through the admiralty courts if the informer or prosecutor so elected. Certain cases of forging and counterfeiting were punishable by death. The revenue derived from the Stamp Act was to be paid into the exchequer to be used for colonial defence.
Quartering Act.—The ministry intended to establish an army of 10,000 men in the colonies and the annual Mutiny Act of 1765 authorized the sending of such troops as might be deemed necessary. This was followed by the Quartering Act As "the publick houses and barracks, in his Majesty's dominions in America, may not be sufficient to supply quarters for such forces: and whereas it is expedient and necessary that carriages and other conveniences, upon the march of troops ... should be supplied for that purpose," it was enacted that, if colonial barracks were insufficient, officers and troops were to be quartered in public hostelries. If more room were needed, vacant buildings were to be rented. Troops were to be supplied with fire, candles, vinegar, salt, bedding, cooking utensils, and small quantities of beer, cider, or rum. Persons giving houses for troops and furnishing supplies were to be reimbursed by the province. The colonies were to furnish conveyances at rates fixed by the act, but if the expense exceeded the rate, the province had to make up the deficit.