The first assembly convened under
this charter met in 1635. No record of
its proceedings exists. Two years later
the second session of the ratifying body,
called the General Assembly, was sum-
moned to advise and consult on such
matters as were brought before it. Lead-
ing citizens were summoned by special
writs addressed to them individually.
General writs went to the freemen of the
hundreds7 directing them to come in
person or to send "deputies or bur-
gesses." If a freeman chose not to go,
he was obligated to deputize another by
proxy to act in his stead. A fine was
imposed upon all freemen who did not
appear in . person or by proxy. Under
such an arrangement there was, of
course, no problem of public elections
or apportionment of elected delegates
among the hundreds. Nor, there being
only one house, was there any problem
of differing bases of representation for
the two chambers. It is not clear how
many proxy votes were represented in
this 1637 session,8 but in any event the
complaint arose that the governor con-
trolled the assembly through selective
summoning of persons to the assembly
and through the use of proxies held by
himself and the secretary of the colony.9
The session in 1638 attempted a first
step in dealing with these representa-
7 The "hundreds" were civil divisions of
the province and would correspond today
with subdivisions of a county.
8 Newton D. Mereness states nineteen per-
sons held sixty-nine proxy votes, N. mereness,
maryland as a proprietary province 195
(1901), while Elihu S. Riley states Captain
Thomas Cornwalley held fifty-six proxies with
the number held by other totalling far over
sixty-nine. E. riley, history of the gen-
eral assembly of maryland 1 (1905). The
official records show the number of proxies
varied from day to day. 1 archives of
maryland 3 (W. Brown ed. 1883) [herein-
after cited as 1 archives].
9 mereness, supra note 8, at 195.
132
|
tional problems by passing a require-
ment that whenever a general assembly
was called, all members of the governor's
council were to be summoned and all
hundreds were to be issued writs to elect
one, two, or more representatives as the
freemen should decide.10
The question of whether the freemen
should be personally present, present by
proxy, or represented by elected bur-
gesses proved a troublesome issue for
years. Whereas the writs for the 1637
assembly provided for all three methods
of representation, the general writs to
the freemen for the 1639 session directed
the freemen in each hundred to meet
and select two or more burgesses to rep-
resent them.11 This did not, however,
result in the ending of personal attend-
ance of freemen, for Cuthbert Fennick
of Saint Mary's appeared, claimed, and
gained admission to the assembly on the
grounds he had not assented to the elec-
tion of the Saint Mary's burgesses.12
A point will be noted here that many
persons today find almost incomprehen-
sible. The calls for the election of bur-
gesses did not specify the exact number
of burgesses to be elected by any hun-
dred, other, usually, than that the num-
ber should be two or more, leaving the
determination of the exact number to
the discretion of the freemen. Nor was
it ever consistently made clear whether
burgesses had only one vote apiece or
held as many votes as cast in their elec-
tions, or alternatively, as were cast in
their favor. This seemingly inexplicable
oversight probably can be attributed to
the view current in England at the time
that representatives in Parliament, and
by extension representatives generally,
spoke not for the citizens of the various
10 1 archives 74.
11 RILEY, supra note 8, at 8.
12 1 archives 32.
|
