xxx Introduction.

When this message about amendments was read in the Lower House, it was
"unanimously disagreed to" (p. 272). No favorable action was taken by the
Delegates before the end of the session, in fact they did not even deign to reply
to the suggestions made by the Upper House (pp. 290, 299).

On November 8, 1770, three days after the Assembly had reconvened, the
members of the Upper House sent another message to the House of Delegates
in regard to the same bill. While the Councillors thought the bill exceptionable
in many respects, however, as the welfare of the colony depended upon the
regulation of their staple of tobacco and the fees of officers, they proposed a
conference with the Lower House for the purpose of discussing the provisions
of the act in question (pp. 349-350, 378).

In their reply to this message on the following day the Delegates said that
if the Upper House thought the bill exceptionable in many respects, then the
Councillors should point out the amendments they have to propose in order
that the Lower House could consider them. Then, if the Delegates decided
that it was expedient, they would agree to a conference with the Upper House

(pp.351, 383-384).

The Councillors sent back a message the very next day. They claimed that
there were several precedents for their suggesting a conference to discuss the bill.
To point out all the amendments, or exceptions, they made to the bill would
take much time, they added. However, the members of the Upper House then
proceeded to state a few general propositions regarding the bill, including sug-
gestions about the regulation of officers' and lawyers' fees, and the payment
of fees in money or tobacco (pp. 352-353, 390).

The Lower House answered the Upper House on November 12 giving their
opinion of the propositions submitted by the Councillors (pp. 356, 394-396).
The members of the Upper House continuing the discussion on the following
day protested against reductions in officers' fees (pp. 356-357, 397-398). In
their reply of November 15 the Lower House maintained that they had no
desire to reduce the fees of officers so low as not to be sufficient to support a
particular office. The Delegates suggested that all provisions in the bill under
discussion relating to officers' fees should be eliminated. Then with this under-
standing, a conference of the two Houses could be held for the purpose of
coming to an agreement in regard to the other less contested provisions of the
bill (pp. 359, 401-402). The Upper House, however, did not look with favor
on this suggestion (pp. 360-361, 406).

The inter-house debate was continued by the Lower House on November
17. Going into great detail they pointed out instances where, they considered,
excessive charges had been made under the provisions of the act in question
(Pp. 363, 411-415). In an equally lengthy reply, on November 20, the members
of the Upper House claimed that they had always been willing to remedy defects
in the provisions regarding the regulation of fees (pp. 366-369, 421).

As no agreement could be reached between the two legislative bodies before
the end of the session on November 21, 1770, the Act of 1763 regarding the
staple of tobacco and officers' fees failed of reenactment. On the closing day
of the session the Lower House unanimously adopted resolutions which con-