xlvi Introduction.

which complied with the commands of the King as embodied in Egremont's
letter of December 12, 1761 (pp. 5-7). He also called attention to the fact
that because Egremont "had not in explicit Terms, censured the Proceedings of
either the Upper or the Lower House but only in general Words reprehended
the Province for not having granted Supplies they [the Lower House] did
not conceive the Censure expressed in Your Ldp's Letter as applicable to them-
selves" (Arch. Md. XIV; 47-48). Egremont, writing in reply, July 10, 1762,
said that his censure "was intended for any Part of the Legislature of Mary-
land that had failed shewing a due Obedience to His Majesty's Command",

as llic Lower House had done in offering a Supply bill which it had Imown

the Governor and Upper House had good reasons to reject. He declared that
the King was well satisfied with Sharpe's zeal in his service, but wished the
Governor to make known the King's sentiments on the conduct of the Assembly
"that They may not deceive Themselves by supposing that their Behaviour
is not seen in its true Light" (Arch. Md. XIV; 63.64).

In a lengthy reply to Sharpe's letters on Maryland affairs, Cecilius Calvert
as representing the Lord Proprietary, writing under date of March i, 1763,
discussed with bitterness the obstinate course of the Lower House in the matter
of the Assessment bill, and warmly approved Sharpe's actions in connection
with it. He also thanked the Governor for bringing out in his messages that
the dispute was not between the Proprietary and the people, as the Lower House
sought to have the public believe, but was between the two houses, or rather
between the people themselves who were divided in their own opinions, as the
journals of the Lower House showed. He also declared that the Proprietary
would cheerfully assent to paying taxes on his occupied lands on the same basis
as occupied land owned by individuals was taxed. It is of interest that in
this same letter Calvert told of rumors of a plan of the English ministry to
secure the passage by Parliament of an act to tax the American colonies for
the support of a military establishment, for which the several colonies them-
selves had failed to make sufficient appropriations. Nor had any other colonies
been more obdurate in this respect than had Maryland. Although the plan
of taxation outlined in the paragraph of Calvert's letter as quoted below was
not the one adopted by Parliament, there was substituted for it the notorious
Stamp Act that helped to lead to the Revolution: "I am by Authority inform'd,
that Scheme is forming for Establishing 10000 men to be British Americans
standing Force there, and paid by the Colonies, 'tis said to be Levyed by Poll
Tax through out the Colonies; the Parliament has Voted the force, and the
Eyes of the Crown and Parliament are on them from that purpose; if by Poll
Tax, will require knowledge of the number of inhabitants in each Province;
therefore I should be obliged to you to know as to numbers in Maryland"
(Arch. Md. XXXI; 529-531).

PROVINCIAL AGENT IN GREAT BRITAIN

As was to be expected the matter of the appointment of a Provincial Agent
at London to represent the people of Maryland before the King and the
Ministry, came up again at both the 1762 and 1763 sessions. In a message to