Introduction. xxxi
demned the attitude of the Upper House. In these "Resolves," which were

ordered published in the Maryland Gazette, not only was the position taken by

the Councillors characterized as manifesting "an unreasonable Attachment
to the Emoluments of Office," but instances were given of "illegal and op-
pressive" charges of fees (pp. 429-431; Maryland Gazette, Dec. 6, 1770).

Soon after this Elie Vallette, Register of the Commissary General's Office,
published a statement defending as legal the fees charged in his office (Mary-
land Gazette, Nov. 29, 1770). Reverdy Ghiselin, Clerk of the Provincial Court
and Secretary's Office, issued a similar statement about the legality of fees
charged in the Secretary's Office (ibid. Dec. 6, 1770).

Despite the condemnatory resolutions of the Lower House and his own
dispute with that chamber in regard to the arrest of William Steuart, Governor
Eden went ahead, and, five days later, as we have seen, issued a proclamation
fixing officers' fees according to the provisions of the expired Act of 1763.

Another bill which was the subject of much dispute between the Upper and
Lower Houses was entitled "An Act for Issuing Writs of Replevin Out of the
County Courts of this Province." The reason for its being an issue is explained
and a copy of the proposed bill itself can be found in the Archives of Maryland,
Vol. LXI, xxxviii, xl, cvi, 503-504, which contains the Proceedings and Acts
of the General Assembly for 1766-1768. Even before this the bill had come up
for consideration (Arch. Md. LVI, xxvii, xl-xli; ibid. LVIII, xxxviii; ibid.
LIX, xxxvii). As the preamble to the bill recited, it was introduced to remedy
the inconvenience caused people living at a distance from Annapolis who had
to come there to the Chancery Office in order to obtain writs of replevin.

When the General Assembly convened during November, 1769, the same bill
was introduced (p. 11). The Upper House proposed amendments to the bill
to which the Lower House would not agree. The Delegates said that they
could not imagine that the Governor, as Chancellor, would mind the trifling
loss in fees that would result from the passage of this bill long desired by the
colonists (pp. 15, 17-18, 31, 55, 66, 67, 68-69, 72-73). The Councillors did not
think the Governor was so much concerned about the loss in fees as he was
afraid if the Lower House were successful in having the bill passed as drawn
up it would be a precedent for other similar attacks upon the proprietary
(pp. 26-28, 86).

The bill in regard to issuing writs of replevin was again introduced during
the sessions of the Assembly which met from September 25 to November 2,
1770, and from November 5 to November 21 of the same year (pp. 191, 348).
As the two Houses could not agree it once more failed of passage (pp. 201,

363, 377, 415).

On another bill the Upper and Lower Houses could come to no agreement
and that was one entitled "An Act to enable the Commissioners for Emitting
Bills of Credit to Pay to John Duckett, William Mills and John Peacock the
Sums of Money therein mentioned." The Delegates on November 16, 1770,
returned this bill to the Upper House with the comment that as they claimed
the exclusive right to originate financial bills, the proposal of the Councillors
to make Duckett an allowance in the Journal of Accounts was an infringement