|
xxxviii Introduction.
Nine Lower House bills which involved changes in Maryland legal pro-
cedure were considered, but not favorably acted upon at the 1763 session.
As no copies of these bills are known to have been preserved, one cannot be
absolutely certain in every case why they failed uf passage in the Upper House,
but from their general tenor, or where amendments were added in the Upper
House, the cause of their rejection or postponement seems evident. In its
general purposes the legislation proposed seems in itself meritorious, so there
can be little question that most of these bills met opposition in the Upper House
either because they tended to increase the jurisdiction of the county courts at
the expense of the provincial courts at Annapolis which were more directly
under the thumb of the Proprietary government, or because they were looked
upon as threats to, or encroachments upon, the prerogative of the Proprietary
by diverting to public purposes fees or fines claimed by him personally, or
because Roman Catholics were unfairly discriminated against. In four instances
the bills were rejected in the Upper House, in two instances action was deferred
upon them by the Upper House to a later Assembly; in one instance the
Lower House itself delayed action; and in the remaining instance the Lower
House rejected the bill after it had been amended in the upper chamber. The
following is a list of the nine bills just referred to which are enumerated with
abbreviated titles: (i) For the better regulating of proceedings upon attach-
ments (pp. 261, 374, 375); (2) to oblige garnishers to give bail and to
discover goods and effects attached in their hands (p. 304); (3) for the
security of purchasers and others being protestants claimed by, or from, aliens
(PP- 3o5. 359. 375. 259) ! (4) for quieting possessions, and enrolling convey-
ances and securing the estates of purchasers" (pp. 305, 357, 374, 375, 250,
259) ! (5) for the trial of all matters of fact in the several counties where
they have arisen (pp. 305, 340, 375, 236, 256); (6) for issuing writs of re-
plevin out of the county courts (pp. 305); (7) for the more easy fore-
closure of mortgages (pp. 322, 374, 376); (8) to restrain the evil practice of
continuing suits of law on suggestions of want of witnesses, etc. (pp. 384,
385, 389); (9) for equitable payment of money debts (pp. 380, 384, 389, 266).
Governor Sharpe prorogued the Assembly on November 26, 1763, to meet
again the first Tuesday in May, 1764. No session was held in 1764, however,
and it was not until after another election for delegates had taken place that
an Assembly met again in September, 1765. At the 1763 session the Tobacco
Inspection act was the only very important law that was passed, nor with
the passing of the 1763 session was anything more to be heard in a future
Assembly of the Proprietary's claim to the licenses from ordinaries—a subject
of strife between the two houses for nearly three-quarters of a century. But
when the next Assembly did meet the detested Stamp Act had been passed by
Parliament, and the minds of the people, inflamed by this, were to be directed
into new channels of political thought.
THE SUPPLY OR ASSESSMENT BILL
The anti-Proprietary leaders in the Lower House determined for political rea-
sons to force the Supply bill or Assessment bill through that house for the ninth
|
 |
