nd one only, was made by a Boston mob. There is
here suggested an unwritten, perhaps never to be written, chapter of the
history of this time. By what means did the Boston leaders, Samuel Adams
chief among them, manage to control the Boston workmen? However it was
done, by what conferences and through what reasoning, it is safe to say
that the loose organizations of the Sons of Liberty, and still another
set of clubs, the caucuses which met in various parts of the town, were
utilized to control the lower classes. We know the names of a few of the
leaders of the workmen: Edes the printer, Crafts the painter, and, most
noted of them all, Paul Revere the silversmith. These sturdy men, and
others in different trades, were the means of transmitting to the
artisans of Boston the thoughts and desires of the upper-class Whigs.
The organization was looser than that of a political party of to-day,
but as soon as it was completed, it produced a subordination, secrecy,
and self-control which cannot be paralleled in modern times.

The opposition to the Stamp Act continued. More formidable than mobs
were the actions of the town meetings and legislatures. Protests and
declarations were solemnly drawn up; for the first time was heard the
threat of disaffection. Representatives from nine provinces met in the
Stamp Act Congress, and passed resolutions against the new taxation.

It was impossible for England to ignore the situation. Reluctantly--it
was an act which the king never forgot nor forgave--more than a year
after its passage, when it was proved that its enforcement was
impossible, the Stamp Act was repealed.

This was the time for England to change her whole policy. Not Boston
alone, but all America, had declared against American taxation. The
principles of liberty had again and again been clearly pointed out.
Further, there would have been no disgrace in admitting a mistake. The
whole colonial question was new in human history, for Roman practice was
inadmissible. "The best writers on public law," reasoned Otis, "contain
nothing that is satisfactory on the natural rights of colonies.... Their
researches are often but the history of ancient abuses."[15] The natural
rights of man should have been allowed to rule, as in the course of
time, with England's other colonies, they came to do.

But, for better or for worse, sides had been taken. Few thought of
turning back. In England there were no breaks in the ranks of the king's
sup