Hi Introduction.

eludes his opinion with the warning to the Proprietary, that he should resist
the disposition of the Lower House to assume the privileges of the House
of Commons, for it was certain that neither the Crown nor Parliament would
permit a branch of the colonial assemblies to entrench themselves with the
power and authority of the British House of Commons (pp. 202-204).

DISPUTED ELECTIONS.

The Lower House at the October-November 1758 session devoted most of
its attention to a consideration of the disputed or "controverted" election case
that had for its purpose the unseating of Dr. George Steuart, returned as a
delegate from the city of Annapolis, whose seat was again contested by Henry
Woodward as it had been at the March-May 1758 session. Dr. Steuart, that
staunch adherent to the Proprietary cause, was especially odious to the popular
majority in the Lower House, and an effort was now made to void his election
on the entirely untenable ground that no aldermen of the city of Annapolis had
a right under the city charter to vote at an election for delegates from that city
to the Assembly. There seems to have been no legal or constitutional basis
whatever for this claim. The October-November 1758 session met on October
23, and on the following day the Lower House began consideration of this
"controverted election" (p. 19). On November 2, by the close vote of 24 to
22 the House adopted a resolution that the aldermen of Annapolis under the
city charter did not have the right to vote in the election of delegates from
that city; and again on November 4 by a larger majority, 29 to 20, refused to
reconsider its previous action (pp. 32, 34-35). The qualifications of a certain
George Newman as a bona fide resident of Annapolis were voted upon (p. 33).
The attention of the Lower House was also called to certain technical defects
in the writs of election and the election returns from Charles, Cecil, and Fred-
erick counties. In the case of the two first named counties the house passed
a motion that these defects should not invalidate the election, and in the case
of Frederick, the error was rectified by the appearance before the bar of the
House of the sheriff of that county, who there altered certain errors in dates
(pp. 24-25).

Sharpe was so incensed at this attempt to unseat Dr. Steuart that, as a rebuke,
he suddenly prorogued the Assembly on November 4, before the Lower House
could take final action on the Steuart-Woodward contest. This house, however,
when it met again, decided on November 30 to reopen the contest and ordered
both parties to the controversy to submit lists of voters who had been "con-
troverted", or challenged, at the time of the election, and decided that evidence
of bribery or corruption might be introduced even if the voter had not been
challenged at that time (pp. 80, 85, 88). Woodward was ordered to appear at
the bar of the House with his poll and witnesses. After frequent postponements
the case finally came before the house, and a series of recorded votes seem to
indicate that the right of various individuals to vote was being questioned on
such grounds as bona fide residence, or the £20 property qualification, and
that the right of aldermen to vote appears to have been allowed to drop, as no
further reference to it occurs. The right of various individuals to have voted
in the election was decided by recorded partisan votes of the house. Eight