Ixxii Introduction.

is an ingenious man and well acquainted with the springs of our Political
Disputes" (The Calvert Papers Number Two 1894, p. 233). There seems
to be no valid reason to question Dulany's supposition as to the author. That
Cecilius Calvert also had a part in the preparation of "An Answer", apart from
the evidence afforded by the handwriting, is further supported by the state-
ment he made in a letter to Sharpe (?), dated January 16, 1765, in which writ-
ing of "An Answer", he declared: "My name must be unnoticed" (ibid p. 250).

The authorship of the "Remarks" and "An Answer" has long been a matter
of considerable speculation by writers on this period of Maryland history, and
this is the reason why it is discussed here in such detail. The interested reader
is referred to a scholarly discussion of the place of printing of the "Remarks"
and of "An Answer," to be found in Lawrence C. Wroth's A History of
Printing in Colonial Maryland, 1922, (pp. 220-222), who believes on typo-
graphical grounds that the "Remarks" were from Franklin's Philadelphia press
and that "An Answer" was printed in England. The extreme rarity of the
"Remarks" and "An Answer", there being only three known copies of each
pamphlet, and the fact that neither of them has ever before been reprinted, and
more especially because they deal almost entirely with Assembly affairs for this
period, make it advisable to reprint both of them in the Appendix (pp. 372-
457). The shorter of the two pamphlets, the "Remarks" is printed in full,
but in the case of the lengthier "An Answer", where long messages between the
two houses and legal opinions are quoted in full in the pamphlet, the editor,
to save space, reprints only the opening paragraph of the lengthier messages,
referring the reader to a recent volume of the Archives (LVI), where these
messages and legal opinions will be found printed in full. Cecilius Calvert
in the contemporary letter to his nephew Frederick, Lord Baltimore, dated
March 28, 1764, also printed in the Appendix, comments at length on the Public
Ledger "Queries", which were written, he says, by an "anonymous sophistical
upstart" (p. 364).

It will not be possible to give even a brief synopsis of all the controversial
political questions brought forward and discussed in the "Queries", "Remarks",
and "An Answer". Here we have brought together and quite ably presented
the arguments on both sides of such controversial questions as: the character
of the Provincial government, especially the relation and powers of the two
houses; the interpretation of the Maryland charter; the judiciary; the Council;
Proprietary prerogatives; relations with the Crown; support for a Provincial
Agent in London; the rejected Supply or Assessment Bill and its proposed
taxes on incomes; export tonnage duties on tobacco; the opinion of the
Attorney-General of the Crown on the Constitution of Maryland; the right of
the Proprietary to summarily remove councillors; the concentration of im-
portant offices in the hands of the members of the Council; double taxation of
Roman Catholics and the suspected Catholicism of Cecilus Calvert; the claims
of the Lower House to the powers and privileges of the House of Commons,
and its right to initiate all money bills; the right of appeal to the Crown; and
the attacks on John Ridout, the Governor's secretary, recently made a coun-
cillor. It may be said with certainty that the questions involving the rights of
the people as opposed to those of the Proprietary, which were brought forward