442 Appendix.

Contempo-
rary Printed
Pamphlet
Md.Hist.Soc.

discharge a Counsellor is asserted by the Governor, and explicitly
acknowledged by the Council, and even by Mr. Bordley himself, the
party immediately affected, and who perhaps understood the con-
stitution of Maryland as well as any man now alive. It is a vulgar

p. 121

notion, that the Proprietor has a right to displace a Counsellor, but
that he cannot remove him from his seat in the Upper House, or
annihilate his legislative capacity; but the above case is a solemn
determination to the contrary, nor do I know it has ever been
contravened by any subsequent proceedings, so that the precedent
remains in full force to this day."

The Remarker cites no cause for the removal of Mr. Bordley
from the Council; a cause there must have been, and I suppose
known tho' not given. The Governor condescended, and puts the
question to the Upper House, as only affected about the dismission
of Mr. Bordley a Member. He says, "Which right I desire you will
enquire into, and inform me of your judgment therein, that justice
may be done ;" the Upper House answer, "That if he be legally dis-
charged from being a Member of his Lordship's Council, he is
thereby discharged and deprived of the priviledge of acting as a
Member of the Upper House. Mr. Bordley asked by his Honour,
whether he conceived and insisted on it, that by virtue of his letter

p. 122

of the 15th September last, he was discharged from being a Member
of the Council? answered, that when he received the said letter he
did think so, and that he was of the same opinion still."

The Governor expressed himself to the Upper House thus, "I am
of your opinion, that Mr. Bordley's being discharged from the
Council, of course discharges him from the Upper House of As-
sembly, and as to the legality of what is done, I have particular
instructions from his Lordship, relating to Mr. Bordley, with full
power of dismissing him."
The Upper House's Address says, "Your Honour's asserting his
Lordship's undoubted right of discharging any Members of his
Lordship's Council from acting as such, (of which we never in the
least doubted), together with your acquainting us, that you had
particular instructions from his Lordship in relation to Mr. Bordley,
and a full power to dismiss him, thereby to convince us of the
legality of his discharge, induces us to apprehend, that your Honour
resents our making it a question in our answer to your speech,
whether he was legally discharged or not? And therefore in the

p. 123

humblest manner, we think it our duty to represent to your Honour,
that we could not well answer the question proposed to us, without
reserve; for that being a Member of the Upper House of Assembly
depended upon that of his being at the same time of the Council. —
So that we hope you will not interpret that sentence, as questioning
his Lordship's power, &c." — The Remarker says above, "This case
is fully in point, &c." — and so it is, but with the following distinc-