Introduction. xxix

Delegates maintained, the Lord Proprietary through his officials had no right
to regulate the fees of the officers of the Land Office (p. 431).

Fearful, no doubt, lest the Lower House would again imprison William
Steuart, Governor Eden, on November 21, once more prorogued the General
Assembly (p. 432).

Five days later, on November 26, 1770, Eden issued a proclamation directing
that no officer or officers, "the Judges of the Land-Office excepted, who are
subject to other Regulations to them given in Charge," should demand or
receive any greater fees than provided for in "An Act for amending the Staple
of Tobacco, for preventing Frauds in his Majesty's Customs, and for the
Limitation of Officers Fees," passed in 1763. Two days prior to this an order
had been issued in the name of the Lord Proprietary regulating the fees that
could be charged by the Judges and Registers of the Land Office. When the
General Assembly met again in October, 1771, the proclamation and order were
condemned as "illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and oppressive." No agree-
ment about the Act of 1763 could be reached, however, until the session of the
Assembly which met in November and December, 1773 (Green's Votes and
Proceedings of the Lower House of Assembly, October-November, 1771,
pp. 18, 19, 20-21, 84; Green's Laws of Maryland, November-December, 1773,
Chaps. I, XXI; Maryland Gazette Dec. 13, 1770).

RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UPPER AND LOWER HOUSES, 1769-1770

The act for amending or regulating the staple of tobacco, mentioned in the
previous paragraph, was one of the most controversial laws ever passed by a
Maryland Assembly. Since its enactment in 1763, it had always been the subject
of much debate. For the original act and acts supplementary thereto and a
discussion of the same, see Archives of Maryland, LVIII, xxix, xxxi, xxxv,
xxxvii, lvii, lix-lx, 433-497; ibid. LIX, 294-296; ibid. LXI, xxxvii, 222,
243-247.

A committee, appointed by the Lower House on November 18, 1769, to
determine what laws would expire that session unless continued, reported a
few days later that this much debated tobacco law was one of them (pp. 40,
44-45). After a discussion of the act, it was continued until October 1, 1770
(pp. 59-60, 61, 62-63, 78, 82-83, 123).

Naturally, when the next session of the Assembly opened on September 25,
1770, the act for amending or regulating tobacco, etc., was again listed as a
law which would soon expire (p. 212). On September 29 the act was con-
tinued until October 22 (pp. 175, 213-216, 308).

As the Assembly was still in session when this law expired on October 22,
the bill again came before both Houses. On the day the law became a dead
letter, the Upper House informed the Delegates that if they would consent to
some amendments to the bill, the Councillors would be willing to pass the act.
The suggested amendments dealt with a number of subjects including, among
others, the time tobacco inspectors should spend in performing their duties,
what should constitute a lawful tender of tobacco and when money could be
paid instead of tobacco (pp. 187-188, 272).