xxviii Introduction.

with the assent of the Upper House. Therefore any attempt to collect such
fees because of instructions from proprietary officials, as William Steuart had
alleged, was arbitrary and unconstitutional. To answer for what the Delegates
considered actions not warranted by law, the serjeant-at-arms was ordered to
seize Steuart and bring him before the Lower House (pp. 300-301).

When brought before the House, Steuart defended his actions on the same
grounds which he had previously given. Thereupon, for his offences and con-
tempt of the House the Delegates committed Steuart to jail. On the following
day, which was Friday, November 2, 1770, Governor Eden prorogued the
General Assembly to meet on Monday, November 5th. As William Steuart was
then no longer under the authority or jurisdiction of the Lower House, this
brought about his release from prison (pp. 304-305, 307).

When the Delegates convened on Monday, nothing daunted, they again
ordered the Serjeant-at-Arms to bring Steuart before them. They justified
their action by citing the same reasons which they had given for the first arrest
(p. 374). Three days later, on November 8, the Delegates sent a "humble
Address" to Governor Eden. The language used, however, was far from being
of that description. They described the Governor's prorogation of the General
Assembly as "an undue and ill advised Exertion of Power." And the "true
Cause" of Eden's action, the Lower House claimed, was to secure the release
of Steuart from prison. The Delegates defended their action in having Steuart
committed to jail by referring to the report of the Committee of Grievances
and Courts of Justice and also to their own resolutions following that re-
port. The attempt of Benedict Calvert and George Steuart to regulate fees
"by Proclamation" was criticized by the members of the Lower House (pp. 379-380).

On November 20 Governor Eden replied to this address. After expressing
his disapproval of the spirit which prompted the message of the Lower House,
Eden maintained that his action in proroguing the General Assembly was not ill
advised. When, he said, a subject was illegally deprived of his liberty, it became
the duty of the executive to release him. In this particular instance, William
Steuart, after his commitment to jail, had petitioned him for relief against the
arbitrary action of the Lower House.

The Governor took the position that if Steuart had committed the offences,
described by the Delegates, then he should have been tried before a law court
and not by the Lower House. As he could not stand by and see the House of
Delegates assume such power, as they had claimed, he had felt it his duty to
prorogue them. After reading the letter which Benedict Calvert and George
Steuart had sent him defending their actions, the Governor said that he could
not see "any Irregularity in their Conduct" (pp. 421-427).

Despite the Governor's reasoning, the members of the Lower House stood
firm. On motion, they unanimously resolved that they were invested with the
power to commit to prison by way of punishment any person for contempt;
that they also had authority as "the grand Inquest of the Province" to hear
and enquire into all complaints and grievances, and, as incidental to that
authority, a power to commit any person to jail for crime. Furthermore, the