Introduction. xxi

The Governor made no reference whatever to what was in the thoughts of
all—the Stamp Act; and concluded by saying that at this time he had nothing
to bring to their attention, assuming that their experience taught them what
new laws were necessary, although he presumed that their attention would be
given to the pressing financial affairs of the Loan Office and the payment of
the public debt; he also expressed the hope that the two houses would work
together in the greatest harmony for the public good (pp. 3-4, 16-17).

The Lower House at once turned its attention to the Stamp Act. Letters
and other communications from the Massachusetts House of Representatives
were presented requesting the Lower House to appoint representatives from
among its members to attend a conference to be held in New York to protest
against the Stamp Act. Nowhere in these Assembly proceedings, however,
do we find this meeting styled the Stamp Act Congress, as it later came to be
called. These communications were read and ordered to lie on the table (pp.
18-20). More detailed reference to them will be found in another section of
this introduction (pp. xl-xlix). On the day following their reading various
routine matters were disposed of by the house. The Speaker was ordered to
issue his warrant for the election of a delegate from Annapolis, Walter Dulany
having been declared to have forfeited his right to sit in the house, by his
acceptance, after his election, of an office under the Government. The Speaker
was also directed to issue a warrant for the election of a successor to John
Trueman Stoddert of Charles County who had died since his election the year
before (p. 21). Francis Ware was later elected to replace Stoddert (p. 132).

The house then returned to the consideration of the communications from
the Massachusetts House of Representatives relating to the Stamp Act Con-
gress to be held in New York. This will also be referred to at greater length
elsewhere. The house further resolved that it "will not at this meeting pro-
ceed to any Business other than such as may be dependent upon or relevant
to the Subject of these two Letters" (p. 21). An effort, made two days later,
to expunge this resolution from the journal, was defeated by a vote of 38 to
14, a vote not strictly on party lines, although most of those voting in the
affirmative were of the Proprietary party (pp. 26-27). The house then ordered
that the Petition of Right and the Bill of Rights be read (p. 121).

The Lower House selected three of its members, all uncompromising Popu-
lar leaders, Edward Tilghman of Queen Anne's, William Murdock of Prince
George's, and Thomas Ringgold of Kent, to be a "Committee to attend the
New York meeting", and a committee of seven members of the house was
appointed to draw up instructions for the guidance of these three representa-
tives (pp. 21-22). On this committee were James Hollyday of Queen Anne's,
Thomas Johnson Jr. of Anne Arundel, Edmund Key of St. Mary's, John
Goldsborough of Talbot, John Hammond of Anne Arundel, Daniel Wolsten-
holme of St. Mary's, and John Hanson of Charles. All of these were of the
Popular party except Key and Wolstenholme. The latter, although one of the
delegates from that stronghold of Proprietary influence, St. Mary's County,
and unquestionably of that party, seems to have been persona grata to the
Popular leaders, and to have been on most of the important committees. This