xxx Introduction.

the then Attorney-General of the King, confirming to the Proprietary the sole
right to appoint all officers. Strenuous objection was made by the Upper House
to the injustice of the imposition of a double tax upon the real and personal
estates of non-jurors, a measure of course directed solely against the Roman
Catholics.

Other objections by the Upper House to the bill were to taxes imposed upon
property belonging to, and debts due to, non-residents; to taxes on incomes or
salaries of public officers even when less than £100 annually, while others were
only taxed upon incomes in excess of this amount. It also protested against the
provision of the bill requiring the publication of itemized schedules enumerat-
ing all plate and other personal belongings of the inhabitants as an encourage-
ment to theft and robbery. Although Governor Sharpe had received the reluc-
tant assent of the Proprietary to the imposition of a tax upon his manors and
reserved lands, he strenuously objected to the proposed tax upon his quit
rents and ungranted lands open to patent. It was also felt that the restrictions
placed upon the Governor in the expenditure of money for military purposes
completely tied his hands, and that the requirement of the bill that at least
two hundred men be always left at Fort Frederick would seriously hamper
his actions as commander-in-chief. There was an obnoxious clause in the
bill which failed to exempt specifically the Governor from certain penalties
under the act, which the Upper House declared might actually result, if
enforced, in his imprisonment! General objections were also made on the
ground that the act would not only strip the Proprietary of many of his
established charter rights, but that certain of the new methods of taxation
proposed were " a Mode inexperienced " in the Province, and the amount of
revenue to be derived under them was problematical, an obvious reference to
the income tax features of the bill. Numerous other minor objections were
also made to the bill (pp. 480-491).

To all these objections of the Upper House, the Lower House under date of
April 26, replied at even greater length (pp. 621-633). Space does not permit
even a resume of this rejoinder. The student of the period should consult the
message itself. It is sufficient to say that nearly every argument of the Upper
House was disputed, and no disposition was shown by the Lower House to
compromise on the features of the bill which the upper chamber most
opposed—the appointment of the agents by the Lower House, the double taxa-
tion of Catholics, the tax upon the Proprietary's quit rents, and the taxes upon
incomes. One is left with the feeling that the Lower House did not really
want a supply bill of any kind enacted, and would only have passed one reluc-
tantly and with a wry face, as a means of gaining political advantages so much
wished for.

Again on May 3, the Upper House came back with an even more lengthy
message, one filling twenty printed pages of these proceedings (pp. 499-519),
which is really an admirable presentation from the Proprietary standpoint of the
main points at issue. The reasons for its objections to the imposition of a
double tax on Catholics, discussed at some length, is fully dealt with elsewhere
in this introduction and need not be repeated here (pp. xlii-xliii). The result of