"We deeply regret it that the Parliament has seen fit to pass such an act as the Stamp Act; we flatter ourselves that the hardships of it will shortly appear to them in such a point of light as shall induce them, in their wisdom, to repeal it; _in the mean time we must beg your Excellency to excuse us from doing anything to assist in the execution of it_."[69] [68] Hutchinson, History of Massachusetts, Vol. III. p. 119. [69] Journal of the House of Representatives of Massachusetts Bay, October 24, 1765, p. 135. Hutchinson, Vol. III., Appendix, p. 474. The Stamp Act was welcomed in the Colonies by the Tories of that day, precisely as the unconstitutional Slave Act has been welcomed by an imperious class among us. Hutchinson, at that time Lieutenant-Governor and Judge in Massachusetts, wrote to Ministers in England:-- "The Stamp Act is received among us with as much decency as could be expected. It leaves no room for evasion, and will execute itself."[70] [70] Bancroft, History of the United States, Vol. V. p. 272. Like Judges of our day, in charges to Grand Juries, he resolutely vindicated the Act, and admonished "the jurors and people" to obey.[71] Like Governors of our day, Bernard, in his speech to the Legislature of Massachusetts, demanded unreasoning submission. "I shall not," says this British Governor, "enter into any disquisition of the policy of the Act. I have only to say that it is an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain."[72] The elaborate answer of Massachusetts--the work of Samuel Adams, one of the pillars of our history--was pronounced "the ravings of a parcel of wild enthusiasts,"[73] even as recent proceedings in Boston, resulting in the memorial before you, have been characterized on this floor. Am I not right in this parallel? [71] Ibid. [72] Journal of the House of Representatives, September 25, 1765, p. 119. Hutchinson, Vol. III. p. 467. [73] Bancroft, History of the United States, Vol. V. p. 349. The country was aroused against the execution of the Act. And here Boston took the lead. In formal instructions to her Representatives, adopted unanimously in town meeting at Faneuil Hall, the following rule of conduct was prescribed:-- "We therefore think it our indispensable duty, in justice to ourselves and posterity, as it is our undoubted privilege, in the most open and unreserved, but decent and respectful terms, to declare our greatest dissatisfaction with this law: _and we think it incumbent upon you by no means to join in any public measures for countenancing and assisting in the execution of the same_, but to use your best endeavors in the General Assembly to have the inherent, unalienable rights of the people of this Province asserted and vindicated, and left upon the public records, that posterity may never have reason to charge the present times with the guilt of tamely given them away."[74]