00000077 |
Previous | 77 of 684 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
52 HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
an excessive irritation. What the people thought of the last Lord Baltimore
may be gathered from the terse sentence. in which the Annapolis Gazette
announces the fact that he had certainly been indicted and tried for rape, but
had escaped conviction; and later when it coldly announced his death at
Naples. In fact, there was no further question about his lordship. The
County Palatine was virtually at an end. Both Eden and Sharpe were recognized to be the agents, not of Baltimore, but the crown. And as, in 1637, the
earliest recorded Act of the Burgesses is the rejection of a code of laws sent
over for its government by the Lord Proprietary, so now, as soon as the issue
was joined between the colony and the mother-country in the question of local
home government, the colony responded—February 23, 1764—to the claim
of the empire to impose duties without representation, by offering bounties
as offsets. This Act, passed just at the time of the Stamp Act—which the
colony meant to resist, and did resist until it was repealed—is one of the most
significant in our history. It was not defiance, it was not retaliation, it was
independence. It asserted the right of the people of Maryland to legislate
for themselves, as the first step toward denying the right of others to legislate
for them.
Eddis, who was a good superficial observer, and careful in his statements,
took early note of the hollow truce between government and people. He was
an appointee, not of the proprietary, but of the home government, and desired
to retain his seat in the place of the customs, if he could. But he apparently
lost all hope in a very short time. In his second letter, October 1, 1769,
written when he had been in the colony no more than a month, he says r
" The colonists, if the information I have received may be relied on, attend
with a jealous eye to the conduct of their respective governors; and to
every regulation in the parent State, which relates to their external or
internal interests." He adds, "they are perhaps too ready in taking the
alarm, whenever they conceive any measure in agitation which may lessen
their importance, embarrass their trade, or render them more dependent on the
mother-country." " I am persuaded," he says finally, " whenever they become
populous in proportion to the extent of their territory, they cannot be retained
as British subjects, otherwise than by inclination and interest."1 Eddis
appears at first to have been convinced by the keen lawyers of Annapolis
with whom he conversed, that taxation without representation was not only
unconstitutional, but that persistence in it would result in rebellion. " There
are," he says,3 " many restless spirits, who are evidently industrious in fermenting divisions and exciting jealousies; and unless wise and constitutional measures are immediately adopted, there is too much reason to-
apprehend consequences of a serious and alarming nature." Again, he
says,3 speaking of the Tax Acts, " that he hopes his correspondent will soon
acquaint him of the total repeal, at the next session of parliament, of Acts
1 Eddis' Letters, p. 16. 3 Ibid., p. 61.
2 Ibid., p. 56.
| Title | History of Maryland - 2 |
| Creator | Scharf, J. Thomas (John Thomas) |
| Publisher | J. B. Piet |
| Place of Publication | Baltimore |
| Date | 1879 |
| Language | eng |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Title | 00000077 |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Transcript | 52 HISTORY OF MARYLAND. an excessive irritation. What the people thought of the last Lord Baltimore may be gathered from the terse sentence. in which the Annapolis Gazette announces the fact that he had certainly been indicted and tried for rape, but had escaped conviction; and later when it coldly announced his death at Naples. In fact, there was no further question about his lordship. The County Palatine was virtually at an end. Both Eden and Sharpe were recognized to be the agents, not of Baltimore, but the crown. And as, in 1637, the earliest recorded Act of the Burgesses is the rejection of a code of laws sent over for its government by the Lord Proprietary, so now, as soon as the issue was joined between the colony and the mother-country in the question of local home government, the colony responded—February 23, 1764—to the claim of the empire to impose duties without representation, by offering bounties as offsets. This Act, passed just at the time of the Stamp Act—which the colony meant to resist, and did resist until it was repealed—is one of the most significant in our history. It was not defiance, it was not retaliation, it was independence. It asserted the right of the people of Maryland to legislate for themselves, as the first step toward denying the right of others to legislate for them. Eddis, who was a good superficial observer, and careful in his statements, took early note of the hollow truce between government and people. He was an appointee, not of the proprietary, but of the home government, and desired to retain his seat in the place of the customs, if he could. But he apparently lost all hope in a very short time. In his second letter, October 1, 1769, written when he had been in the colony no more than a month, he says r " The colonists, if the information I have received may be relied on, attend with a jealous eye to the conduct of their respective governors; and to every regulation in the parent State, which relates to their external or internal interests." He adds, "they are perhaps too ready in taking the alarm, whenever they conceive any measure in agitation which may lessen their importance, embarrass their trade, or render them more dependent on the mother-country." " I am persuaded," he says finally, " whenever they become populous in proportion to the extent of their territory, they cannot be retained as British subjects, otherwise than by inclination and interest."1 Eddis appears at first to have been convinced by the keen lawyers of Annapolis with whom he conversed, that taxation without representation was not only unconstitutional, but that persistence in it would result in rebellion. " There are," he says,3 " many restless spirits, who are evidently industrious in fermenting divisions and exciting jealousies; and unless wise and constitutional measures are immediately adopted, there is too much reason to- apprehend consequences of a serious and alarming nature." Again, he says,3 speaking of the Tax Acts, " that he hopes his correspondent will soon acquaint him of the total repeal, at the next session of parliament, of Acts 1 Eddis' Letters, p. 16. 3 Ibid., p. 61. 2 Ibid., p. 56. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| B |
|
| C |
|
| G |
|
| H |
|
| M |
|
| T |
|
| U |
|
