Assembly Proceedings, April — May 1666. 29

an House merely to hold Courts of Assemblys in apart from
any victualling House whatsoever And this House do think
that all Ordinary Keepers are as well secured already as in
Justice or reason can be required

Which Answer being sent to the Lower House they returned
the paper Endorsed viz.

Monday 20^th April 1 666

This House do concur with the Upper House as to the repeal
of the Act concerning Building a Stadt House & as touching
the lease of the Land for 51 Years, but that the Clause for
Smiths keeping Ordinary for Seven Years in this old House &
for repairing the same remain of force & that 15556^lb tob^o Col-
lected by the several Sherriffs this Year for building the State
House for the use of the s^d Smith be discounted with him this
year upon the Assemblys Expences
Will^m Bretton Clk.

Then was returned from the Lower house the Act against
Hogstealers and Endorsed viz.
Upon the reading of this Act against Hogstealers this House
observes there is not in the Paragraphs expressing the first &
second Offence of Hogstealers the Satisfaction Provided to the
Owner to the Owner of such Hogs so stoln as was by this
house intended to be provided which if it should so pass would
prove very injurious to the Owners of such Hogs & not reach
the main End for which that Act was intended, & therefore do

U. H.
Journal
1659-98

desire the Upper House's further debate thereon & would
signify their Reasons why those Fines in the Act drawn up in
this House & sent to the Upper House may not be imposed

To which It was answered

Let there be added a Clause of payment of double damage
to the Owner of the hogs for every hog stol'n for the first &
second Offence only & this house will Concur & assent to it,
the other Fines they think too great to be added to so infamous
punishment

Then was returned from the Lower House the Act prohibit-
ing the employing of Indians Endorsed viz?

Thursday 19^th April 1666

This House requests that the Upper House will please to re-
assume their debate concerning this Act prohibiting the Em-
ploying of Indians &c. they thinking it very needful that that
Act should pass
W^m Bretton Clk

p. 97