xxxviii Introduction.

people Two dogs to be kept Tax free," and further recites that the tax of one
shilling imposed in the original act on dogs over this allowance is not large
enough to prevent the "multiplicity of useless or supernumerary dogs." The
act provided that heads of families if living in the country may keep two dogs
tax free (but those in towns only one), and that dogs above this number are
to be taxed at five shillings each, as are all dogs owned by a single individual
not a freeholder; and that a freeholder who is single may keep only one dog
tax free. A very interesting exception, however, is to be noted as follows:
"whereas it is represented that the keeping of Fox Hounds for destroying of
Foxes is use full and Necessary—therefore they should be Allowed to be kept
Tax free, Provided the Owners will keep them either Coupled or kennelled
and not suffer them to go loose and at Large—unless when the Owner or some
other person by his permission is hunting with them." (pp. 241-242). Was
this act passed primarily to protect the hen house or for the benefit and pleasure
of the foxhunting delegates ?

Only one act, which was classed by the Assembly as a private law, and as
such had clerks' fees imposed upon it, was that relating to the name of John
Beale Bordley, as already noted.

Bills rejected at the November-December, 1766, session. The conflict of
interests as well as honest differences of opinion between the two houses are
often best revealed by the fate of bills originating in one house and rejected
in the other, or by amendments made to them in the house in which they did not
originate. In the Maryland Assembly nearly all, but not all, legislation had its
origin in the Lower House, so rejection or amendment nearly always first
occurred in the upper chamber. The usual cause for disagreement between the
houses on proposed legislation was the fear on the part of the Upper House
that the Lord Proprietary's prerogative was being invaded, or because the Pro-
prietary wished to prevent the extension of the powers of the county courts at
the expense of the provincial courts at Annapolis, or because the Lower House
resented any amendments by the Upper House to bills carrying money appro-
priations, or "money bills" as they were called.

Bills not passed. Although at the November-December, 1766, session, twenty-
seven bills actually became laws, there were seventeen bills which originated in
the Lower House that failed of enactment. Three of these sought to license and
regulate innkeepers and the retail selling of liquors, and the licensing of hawkers
and peddlers; two bills attempted unsuccessfully either to effect the death of, or
to prevent the discontinuance of, laws expiring by time limitation; four new
bills generally considered desirable, but with features objectionable to one of
the houses; one meritorious bill but with a gesture having political significance;
and one a bill affecting conflicting local interests; six bills involved changes
in legal procedure. In nearly all these instances Lower House bills were either
rejected outright in the Upper House, or so amended as to make them unac-
ceptable to the lower chamber. These various rejected bills will now be briefly
noted.

An unsuccessful attempt was made to repeal in its entirety the law enacted
in 1765, with the misleading title, "an act for the benefit of the poor and encour-
agement of industry", but which was really an act providing for the payment of