Thomas Lynch (c. 1720-1776), Christopher Gadsden (1724-1805), and John Rutledge (1739-1800) attended the Stamp Act Congress of 1765, an intercolonial committee of correspondence was appointed in 1773, and delegates were sent to the Continental Congress in 1774 and 1775.
Because he, too, thought so, and because he recommended John Hughes, a merchant of Philadelphia, for the office of distributor of stamps, Franklin himself was denounced - he was even accused of having planned the Stamp Act - and his family in Philadelphia was in danger of being mobbed.
Though he recognized the legality of the Stamp Act of 1765, he considered the measure inexpedient and impolitic and urged its repeal, but his attitude was misunderstood; he was considered by many to have instigated the passage of the Act, and in August 1765 a mob sacked his Boston residence and destroyed many valuable manuscripts and documents.
Through the vigilance of Governor Tryon, however, the Assembly was prevented from sending delegates to the Stamp Act Congress.
He was a member of the New York Assembly in 1759-1769, a delegate to the Stamp Act Congress of 1765, a member of the Continental Congress from 1774 until his death and as such a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and in1777-1778was a member of the first state senate.
The beginning of the active opposition to the crown may be placed in the resistance, led by James Otis, to the issuing of writs (after 1 75 2, Otis's famous argument against them being made in 1760-1761) to compel citizens to assist the revenue officers; followed later by the outburst of feeling at the imposition of the Stamp Act (1765), when Massachusetts took the lead in confronting the royal power.
Samuel Adams first came into wider prominence at the beginning of the Stamp Act episode, in 1764, when as author of Boston's instructions to its representatives in the general court of Massachusetts he urged strenuous opposition to taxation by act of parliament.
But the passage of the Stamp Act hastened the catastrophe and gave the leaders of the new combination, notably Henry, an opportunity to humiliate the British ministry, whom not even the tide-water party could defend.
Of the powers vested in the county authority under the Highway Act 1878, the most important are those relating to main roads, which are specially noticed hereafter; (ix.) the tables of fees to be taken by and the costs to be allowed to any inspector, analyst or person holding any office in the county other than the clerk of the peace and the clerks of the justices; (x.) the appointment, removal and determination of salaries of the county treasurer, the county surveyor, the public analysts, any officer under the Explosives Act 1875, and any officers whose remuneration is paid out of the county rate, other than the clerk of the peace and the clerks of the justices; (xi.) the salary of any coroner whose salary is payable out of the county rate, the fees, allowances and disbursements allowed to be paid by any such coroner, and the division of the county into coroners' districts and the assignments of such districts; (xii.) the division of the county into polling districts for the purposes of parliamentary elections, the appointment of the places of election, the places of holding courts for the revision of the lists of voters, and the costs of, and other matters to be done for the registration of parliamentary voters; (xiii.) the execution as local authority of the acts relating to contagious diseases of animals, to destructive insects, to fish conservancy, to wild birds, to weights and measures, and to gas meters, and of the Local Stamp Act i 869; (xiv.) any matters arising under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886.
In that year he drafted the instructions which were sent by the town of Braintree to its representatives in the Massachusetts legislature, and which served as a model for other towns in drawing up instructions to their representatives; in August 1765 he contributed anonymously four notable articles to the Boston Gazette (republished separately in London in 1768 as A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law), in which he argued that the opposition of the colonies to the Stamp Act was a part of the never-ending struggle between individualism and corporate authority; and in December 1765 he delivered a speech before the governor and council in which he pronounced the Stamp Act invalid on the ground that Massachusetts being without representation in parliament, had not assented to it.