Introduction. xxxiii

A bill embodying this plan was introduced in the Upper House on December
4th. On the following day other inhabitants of Baltimore County petitioned
the Councillors against the passage of such a law. This petition was rejected,
however, and the bill introduced on December 4th was passed with an amend-
ment making Bush Town, on the Bush River, instead of Joppa, the alternate
place of holding the election in Baltimore County (pp. 12, 14, 16, 126-127).

Not long after the Assembly reconvened on September 25, 1770, the Lower
House sent a message to the Upper House which referred to the petition of
those inhabitants of Baltimore County who had protested against the passage
of the law as enacted. The Delegates contended that the petition reflected upon
the proceedings in the Lower House, and asked that it should be given to them
in order that they take such steps as were necessary to maintain their rights
and privileges. Severe weather had compelled the Lower House to postpone the
consideration of this matter to the present session (pp. 117, 177, 221, 222-223).

In their reply to this message, the Councillors said that as the petition to
which reference had been made had been rejected by them it had been withdrawn
by the parties who had presented it. Under these circumstances and also as no
copy had been made, it was impossible to comply with the request of the Lower
House (pp. 178, 223).

This discouraging reply did not deter the Delegates from going ahead with
their plan to uphold their dignity as a legislative body. On October 13 there
was introduced in the House what purported to be a copy of the petition
which had been presented by some of the inhabitants of Baltimore County
to the Upper House. In this petition it was claimed that the bill providing for
holding an election in Joppa, as well as in Baltimore Town, because of the
prevalence of smallpox in the latter place, was introduced to please a few indi-
viduals and was of no benefit to the public. The petitioners further maintained
that the bill was repugnant to the laws and customs of the colony, that it pro-
vided for a new mode of election based upon the assertions of a few individuals,
not supported by, but "devoid of Truth."

After considering this petition, the Delegates ordered the serjeant-at-arms
to take into his custody the men who had signed it to answer before them for
their false and scandalous petition which reflected on "the Honour, Justice and
Impartiality of this House, and highly derogatory of it's Rights and Privileges"
(Pp. 251-253).

Several days later, John Smith, John Purviance and James Sterrett, appeared
before the Lower House. As all three testified that they had never signed the
petition in question, all three were discharged.

Some of those who were signers of the petition wrote a letter of apology
to Edward Tilghman, Speaker of the Lower House. They said that they hoped
that the Delegates would accept this written apology and excuse their personal
appearance before the House because of the inconvenience it would cause them.

Far from accepting this kind of apology, the members of the Lower House

resolved that all who signed the letter of apology were guilty of contempt of the

order of the House by not appearing in person. According to the testimony

of Philip Meroney, deputed by the serjeant-at-arms to serve the order of the

3