Introduction. xlix

Henry Fox, Secretary of State, urged the Assembly to renew the embargo, and
the act of June 1755 which had expired, was reenacted to be in force for the
limited period from March 1 to May 10, 1757 (Arch. Md., I, 590-591, 663).
Under date of February 23, 1757, Sharpe acknowledged receipt of a letter
from the Lords of Trade and Plantations, dated October 9, 1756, directing
him to restrict the export of provisions to British possessions to ships which
had given ample bond. Sharpe wrote that exports by this act of the Assembly
were now limited to British ports, and to the two neutral Portugese ports
of Lisbon and Madeira, but that he now would extend the prohibition to both
these latter ports as well (Arch. Md., vi, 529-530).

The Lower House seems to have been very loath to reenact embargo legisla-
tion which so greatly curtailed the trade of the Province, especially the export
of grain. As land had become worn out by long continued tobacco culture,
grain had been found to be a profitable substitute crop, and much of it found
its way to the West Indies and to Portugal and its possessions. At the April-
May, 1757, session, however, upon the urgent request of the Governor and of
the Lords of Trade and Plantations, an embargo act more stringent than the
former act limiting exports to British ports alone, was passed by the Assembly
on May 7, just before the close of the session. This act was limited in its
operation to a period of less than two months (pp. 41, 111, 143-145). On
the same day, however, an offensive resolution was introduced in the Lower
House, but failed of passage by the close vote of 15 to 16, unjustly reflecting
upon the good faith of the Governor in not communicating earlier certain
information about the embargo supposed to have been in his possession. This
resolution also asked the Governor by what powers the embargo was laid upon
some vessels in the Province and not upon others, and by what indulgence a
certain sloop had recently been allowed to sail from Baltimore Town (p. 109).
This query was the result of a petition, May 7, 1757, of a certain Joseph
Ensor, a Baltimore merchant, who had complained to the Lower House that
his schooner Anson, ready to sail to the Barbados with provisions, had been
held up for nearly two months, while another vessel similarly loaded had been
permitted to depart (pp. 107-108). Sharpe wrote to Loudoun on June 4, 1757,
that as the embargo had not been considered applicable to vessels loaded after
May 8 in Virginia and in some other colonies, he had released Maryland ves-
sels sailing after May 6 under transport (Arch. Md., ix, 18-19). When the
Assembly next met in September, 1757, an act of Parliament had recently
been passed prohibiting the export of grain from all the American colonies except
under severe restrictions, so that further extensions of the Maryland Embargo
Act became unnecessary. It will be noted that complaint was made later that
in certain cases where cargoes of produce under bond were shipped from
Maryland to British ports and captured by enemy ships en route, that the bonds-
men had been unjustly sued by Stephen Bordley, the naval officer at Annapolis
and Attorney-General of Maryland (Arch. Md., ix, 128-129).

Under date of December 14, 1757, the Lower House and the Upper House
joined in a petition to the King and to the Lords of Trade and Plantations
requesting that the severity of the acts of Parliament be relaxed. An address