434 Appendix.

Contempo-
rary Printed
Pamphlet
Md.Hist.Soc.
p. 95

You will be pleased to observe, that not one word is to be found,
either in the foregoing messages of the Lower House, or in the
answers of the Upper House, of what the Remarker mentions about
an agent's bill in page 29 [p. 386], where he says, "The Upper House
have rejected it, because they think it unjust and oppressive. Say the
Lower House, we will appeal to his Majesty, and let him decide
between us. No, say the Upper House, we will submit to no such
appeal."

I leave to the impartial reader to determine, what must be the
religious principles of the Remarker, who could so wantonly and
wrongfully asperse the untainted integrity and duty of the Upper
House, by the above-cited injurious assertion.
The Remarker says, page 37, to 39. [pp. 390-391] "If the objects
of the bill (i. e. the supply bill) had been a total subversion of the con-
stitution, the destruction of his Majesty's prerogatives, and an usurpa-
tion of all powers of Government, I dare say, they would not have
escaped the animadversions of the penman of the objections in 1758,
who would have been as quick-sighted in spying such exceptionable

p. 96

passages, and as ready in pointing them out precisely, and exposing
their fatal tendency, by apposite remarks and arguments, as the
authors of the present message, have been hardy in imputing them
without the least colour of evidence, to the Lower House; there is,
I will venture to assert, nothing in the bill, which can give any
countenance to the charge of encroaching upon prerogative, or claim-
ing any share of the executive powers of Government, unless it be
the nomination of commissioners, and what does that much boasted
opinion of the late attorney-general declare upon this point? Why
[sic] That the sole nomination of these commissioners, who are new
officers appointed by this bill, belongs neither to the Proprietor nor
the Lower House stricto jure; but, like all other new regulations,
must be assented to by both, but can be claimed by neither. The
Proprietor's charter intitles him to nominate all constitutional officers,
and all others, which by the laws are not otherwise provided for.
But I do not conceive my Lord has any original right to nominate

p. 97

new officers, appointed for the execution of a new law, without
the consent of the two Houses; nor, on the other hand, have the
Lower House any such independent authority, and therefore I think,
the Upper House are right, notwithstanding this claim, in which
they ought to be supported by the Proprietor; because it is un-
reasonable for one branch of the legislature to assume a power of
taxing the other, by officers of their single appointment."

The Remarker says, "Here it is explicitly declared, that the ap-
pointment of commissioners is not comprehended among the pre-
rogatives of the Proprietor, but should be made by the concurrence
of the several branches of the legislature. If this be the case, how
was there, in this instance, any attempt to invade his Majesty's pre-