Introduction. xlix

adopted a series of resolves as to the scope of the bill, which were almost
identical with those adopted at recent previous sessions, except that there was
a sharp reduction in the number of men to be levied, and the amount to be
raised was almost halved. The bounty money offered for enlistment was also
lowered from £12 to £6, doubtless because the prospect of fighting was greatly
lessened by the recent successes of the British arms on the Ohio and in Canada
(pp. 233-234, 364-365). At the same time, by a vote of 19 to 13, the House
deliberately destroyed all hope of the passage of any act to make effective
its resolves by adopting a motion, of course unanimously opposed by members
of the Proprietary party, that the required funds be raised by the already five
times rejected method of an assessment on all estates and an income tax on
those who enjoyed lucrative offices and employments (pp. 365-366). A com-
mittee headed by Edward Tilghman, with Matthew Tilghman, Carroll, Mur-
dock, and Hanson as members, were directed to bring in a Supply bill for
raising the necessary funds; and another committee headed by Michael Earle
of Cecil, with Gassoway, and Hanson as members, was directed to bring in
estimates of the amounts required to comply with the several resolves (p. 366).
The latter committee reported, with detailed estimates, that these resolves called
for an expenditure of £27,52$—10—o, of which £4,373—10—o was needed
for enlisting, paying, and clothing two hundred men for six months; and
£23,150 for repaying the advances made by Forbes, for the costs of winter
quartering the soldiers in Annapolis and in Kent and Cecil counties in 1756
and 1757, for the expenses of the "volunteers" (militia) sent by the Governor
to guard the frontiers, and for building a new road from Fort Frederick to
Fort Cumberland (pp. 368-369). The house thereupon fixed the total amount
to be raised under the proposed Supply or Assessment bill at £32,000 and
the number of men at two hundred (p. 370). When the bill was introduced
it was amended in the house by a vote of 23 to 10 to read that no import taxes
to be imposed under it on goods should be construed to extend to those im-
ported from Great Britain (p. 377). British goods were doubtless exempted
because of the warning contained in the opinion of the King's Attorney-General
Charles Pratt, that such levies would not be tolerated by the home government
(pp. 203-204). Thus amended it was passed on October n by the small vote
of 20 to 13, and sent to the Upper House (pp. 377-378). That only 33, out of a
total membership of 58, are recorded as voting indicates that nearly half the
members had returned to their homes. In the upper chamber it was immediately
rejected after a first reading (p. 346). Thus for the seventh time the Assess-
ment bill failed of passage. No messages passed between the two houses in
regard to the causes for its rejection. No copy of this bill is known to exist,

but it was unquestionably identical as to the methods of taxation employed

with the Supply bill rejected at the last session and printed in full in the journal
of the Lower House (pp. 263-306).

At the April-May 1761 session of the Assembly, which was the sixth and
last sitting of the Assembly that had been elected in September, 1758, the
Lower House went through exactly the same farcical proceedings that had been