xlvi Introduction.

sureties for not having refused to allow convict servants to be landed until
the import duty had been actually paid. It developed that in instances where
the collection of any import duty was disputed it had been the custom for many
years to permit a ship captain to enter the dutiable object upon giving well
secured bonds for its payment. The Naval Officers, in instances where the
captain had refused to pay duties on convict-servants on the ground that the
impost was contrary to the laws of England, had allowed them to be landed
upon the posting of sufficient bond by the captain. The Lower House, May 4,
1757, declared that there was no authority in law for such a procedure, and
demanded that the Naval Officers be at once sued on their bonds for all such
illegal entries. The house further sought to justify its position by calling
these unfortunate individuals servants rather than convicts, hoping thus to
evade the issue of the Crown's prerogative (pp. 89-90). The Governor replied
on May 5, 1758, that he was advised that the Naval Officers were not justi-
fied in refusing entrance to convicts after the ship captains had furnished
bond, and that Lord Mansfield, the King's late Attorney-General, had given
an opinion not long since that no duty could be legally laid on them (p. no).
This action on the part of the Lower House was of course a move to dis-
credit the Governor, who was making an earnest effort to get a legal opinion
from the Attorney-General of the Crown.

Soon after the April-May Assembly adjourned, Governor Sharpe wrote,
on May 27, 1757, to his brother, Joshua Sharpe, saying that at the next meet-
ing he expected to be again asked why he had not entered suit against the
bonds of the Naval Officers who had permitted the landing of convicts before
actual payment of the duties. He sent a statement of the case to his brother
and asked him to consult the King's Attorney-General and get from him an
opinion as to the legality of the impost called for under the Maryland law.
He added in this letter that all those who were engaged in shipping felons had
willingly paid the duties except Mr. Stewart of London, who, the Governor
thinks, should have made the disputed payment "without murmuring ", as
he transports a much greater number than any other ship owner, and also
because his profits are so exorbitant (Arch. Md., ix, 4-5). The Governor
was a good prophet as the matter did come up at the next session.

Before Sharpe's statement of the case could possibly have reached his
brother Joshua in England, and have been referred for an opinion to Sir
Robert Henley, the King's Attorney-General, Lord Baltimore himself, through
his secretary, Cecilius Calvert, had asked Henley for a legal opinion, and on
June 27, 1757, the Attorney-General rendered one based on a statement of
the case as it had been presented to him. This opinion seems to have been
asked, not because the question had been raised in the Lower House, but
because John Stewart, the London merchant, who was the principal con-
tractor shipping convicts to Maryland, had made a demand upon the Lord
Proprietary for a refund of the duties that had been collected from him before
Stewart refused to make further cash payments of duties. The Attorney-
General declined to give a definite opinion as to whether the impost tax was
repugnant to the laws of England without a further examination of the matter,