Introduction. xxxi

lished under the act did not reach £40,000 by the year 1760, any deficiency
was then to be met by the imposition of an additional land tax. As there was
a large deficiency and this meant an increased tax burden on all landowners, the
Assembly sought to take measures to avoid imposition of the additional land
tax by continuing for a further period of time the imposition of the various
other taxes imposed under the act, in the hope of thus wiping out or decreasing
the deficiency in the sinking fund. The Lower House appointed a committee
to determine the amount in the sinking fund and the additional land tax which
would be required to meet the deficiency (pp. 245-247). It then passed a
bill extending the period for the continued imposition of the various other
taxes and duties before the onerous land tax should be imposed, which the
Upper House refused to approve. A second bill with this end in view was
then passed by the Lower House, which, after it was amended in the upper
chamber, the Lower House refused to pass (pp. 257, 263, 214-215, 262-263,
254-256, 309-313, 220, 221). These bills are discussed in detail elsewhere in
this introduction (pp. ixii-lxiii). Relief from the additional land tax was
extended to landholders at the next session.

Three other bills passed by the Lower House were so amended in the
Upper House that when they were returned to the lower chamber they were
promptly rejected, but as copies of the bills are not recorded in the proceedings,
the merits of the objections cited against them cannot now be determined. One
of these bills, entitled "An Act for Reducing the Interest upon Tobacco and
Money", was objected to on the grounds that the fines to be paid for its viola-
tion under the Lower House bill were to be divided between the public schools
and the informer; it was so amended in the Upper House as to provide that
the fines should go to the Lord Proprietary, the bill being obviously considered
by the Upper House as a slap at the prerogative of the Proprietary (pp. 306-
307, 313-314, 218-219). Other bills passed by the Lower House and rejected
in the upper chamber, were opposed because they were thought to weaken the
Proprietary's prerogative or to lessen the authority of the provincial or county
courts. Two such were bills "for the trial of all matters of fact in the several
counties" (pp. 237-240), and "for the speedy recovery of small debts out of
court before one justice (p. 218).

Among the many petitions presented at this session were four which con-
cern parochial or church affairs. The vestry of Port Tobacco Parish, Charles
County, requested the passage of a bill which would validate the proceedings
of an irregular vestry meeting held on Easter Monday in 1759 for the elec-
tion of a new vestry (pp. 208, 210-211). From the preamble of the act which
was passed it is revealed that "last Easter-Monday happening to be an excessive
Rainy Day, it prevented a sufficient Number of the Vestrymen of the said
Parish from meeting to proceed to the Election of Vestrymen and Church-
wardens, by which Means the Parish aforesaid hath not been since fully Repre-
sented". The act validated any actions that might have been taken by the hold-
ever vestry, such as taxing bachelors, choosing tobacco warehouse inspectors,
and the election of vestrymen and churchwardens (pp. 208, 323-325). Several
of the inhabitants of Prince George's Parish, Frederick County, petitioned the