Introduction. xxiii

presented at this session which were not then acted upon but did receive favor-
able action at later sessions. One of these was from the inhabitants of Baltimore
Town asking relief from a miry marsh (Harrison's Marsh) which was a
serious nuisance to the town (pp. 6, 28, 55, 62). At the session held later in
1766 legislation was secured which resulted in the filling in of the marsh and
making the reclaimed land an addition to the town (pp. xc-xci). The other peti-
tion was from the merchants of Baltimore, upon which no action was taken at
this session nor at the session held later in the year, but which did result in
the passage in 1768 of a law for the inspection of flour and various other
commodities sold in Baltimore or shipped from it (pp. xxxix, lii, 445-453).

The Journal of Accounts providing for payment of the Provincial debt,
which had been accumulating for ten years, came up again at this session but
action upon it was not taken until the November-December Assembly (pp. 11,
12, 26, 55, 58). It is discussed fully in a later section of this Introduction
(pp. lxiii-lxvi). A resolve of the Lower House at this session which came to
have the effect of a standing rule, was that "for the future this House will not
take into Consideration any Petition from Inhabitants of any County or Parish
relative to the imposing any kind of Taxes or erecting any publick Buildings
or other matter any way respecting the general interest", unless the petition
be advertised at all churches, chapels and at the Court house of the county
for at least two months before presentation (pp. 63-64).

Stamp Act echoes. On May 21, 1766, Edward Tilghman moved, and it was so
ordered, that the Lower House take under consideration "the Noble, generous,
and Spirited Conduct of the friends of Liberty in Great Britain in Support
of the Interests of America", but after discussion, consideration of the question
was postponed until the next session, when it was expected that the house
would have further information for its guidance (pp. 46, 6o). The journals
of the next session reveal that the Lower House wished to express its appre-
ciation and gratitude to Pitt and Camden and other "Friends of Liberty" in
the Parliament of Great Britain for their help in bringing about the repeal
of the Stamp Act (pp. lviii-lix). At this session the perennial bill for the support
of a provincial agent in Great Britain was again passed by the Lower House
and rejected by the upper chamber (pp. 52, 12, 58). Another bill in con-
troversy between the two houses, that for licensing hawkers and peddlers,
already mentioned in a preceding paragraph, was passed in the Lower House
by a vote of 27 to 10, but was rejected in this house after the upper chamber
had amended it in several particulars, one amendment providing that the
license money should be used as the Assembly might direct, instead of being
used for the public schools as the Lower House wished (pp. 25, 32, 8, 53).

Another echo of the Stamp Act excitement is to be found in the action of
the Lower House on May 20, 1766, when a letter addressed to Murdock, Tilgh-
man, and Ringgold, the Maryland representatives at the Stamp Act Congress
held in New York in October, 1765, from James Otis of Massachusetts, asking
their help in having "an Allowance made to the Clerk of the late Congress at
New York by this Province", was referred to the General Assembly, but the
house resolved that it would make no further allowances than those already