Correspondence of Gov. Horatio Sharpe, 1754-1765. 509

or to Retain I^s out of every 20^s Rent to be Estimated upon a
Presumption on the sum w^th the ffee simple wo^d sell, to
be determined by the Assessors imaginary Annual Value
Obj^t to a Tax upon ready Money in hand not just or reas-
onable & subject Even to Domestick Serv^ts to Rapine " Agree
to the Tax of the Proprietors Manors & Reserved Lands
But Obj^t to the Tax upon his Quit Rents as ag^t an Express
Law of Maryland in 1651. Enacted.

That all Charges Arising from time to time by defence of
the Province or the Goverm^t Established herein & under the
Lord Proprietary & his Heirs Lords Proprietaries of this
Province shall be defray'd by this Province by an Assess-
ment upon the Persons & Estates of the Inhabitants thereof
which Method of Assessm^t is further Explain'd by an Act
in 1661 to be an Assessm^t p Poll according to the Usual
Custom of this Province observe that the Men on Service
ought to be left to the Comand^r in Chief. Obj^f to the Proviso
as absurd to Subject the Effects of the Supreme Magistrate
to Distress & Sale & his Person to Imprisonment the Objec-
tions of the Up^r House to the Bill are too numerous & Exten-
sive to set by Let^r The Stability of their Objections are
support'd & defin'd by Cogent Reasons in Law & Equity, so
realy undeniable as admits no Contradictⁿ The whole Bill
from the Lo: H: is unessay'd & repugnant to the Usage of
the Province, Multiplying offices, an attempt to strip L^d Balti-
more of his Right of appointm^t of Officers ag^t the Origin
Constitution and Corresp^dt usage of the Province & to Vest
such Power in the Lo: House, an Attempt fruitless as the
Upper House observes, & wo^d be unjust & co^d tend only to
an Unsettled & turbulent state of things, the Baneful Con-
sequences of Disunion. It is too vexatious to Enumerate the
Reply of the Lo: House in Gen^l & then to Comment. How-
ever, touching the Laws mention'd in 1651. & the Poll Tax
in 1661. they say The Laws w^ch you mention being long since
repeal'd, we shall not at present take any notice of them.
Why did not they? why, because that in 1651 to the Pro-
prietors is a Noli me tangere, a Law Exempting from Tax
Lord Baltimore's Quit Rents, Now in force Even in the
Repealing Act of 1704 there is an Express saving of all
claims under the former Acts. No act to effect the Act of
1651, if there were, they wo^d have noted it. Again their
Stretch of Compl^t to Tax his Quit Rents, they say, because
the Proprietor has alter'd his Conditions in Value of taking
up Land pro rata why not Tax Quit Rents they have Grafted
& advanced on Lands they sell, they had of the Prop^rs? prove
Quit Rent tax'd in England & Defeat the Law & Equity his