Appendix. 381

because forsooth no Bill without their Assent can pass. So that
what is fit and right should never be considered by the Lower House,
but what may suit the Palate, or meet with the Approbation of the
Upper House, should be the only Rule of their Measures, in the
Forming of Bills. But it is asked, why have the Lower House sent
up a Bill upon the same Plan which has been so often rejected by
the Upper House ? The Answer is obvious; because they thought it
a good Plan, and the only Mode by which a fair equitable Taxation
could be established, and while they entertain the same Opinion of
it, they will ever be justified in adhering to it. But suppose the
Question should be retorted, Why have the Gentlemen of the Upper
House rejected it so often? How does it comport with such repeated
Professions of Loyalty to his Majesty, to reject so frequently such
liberal Grants from the Representatives of the People? I'll give
their Answer from their own Message; because it is, say they, (with-
out attempting to give a single Reason for their Assertion) a con-
fused, absurd, unjust, unequal, and oppressive Assessment. But

Contempo-
rary Printed
Pamphlet
Md.Hist.Soc.

why did the Upper House, when invited by the Lower House to make
their Objections, if in the Course of their Consideration of that Bill
any should occur to them, when the Lower House acknowledged that
the Bill was intricate in its Nature, and therefore might possibly
be liable to Objections; why, instead * of misreciting this Passage,
and descending to the low Buffoonery of echoing it back, at every
Turn, with an Air of Triumph, did they not endeavour to point out
what to them appeared confused, absurd, unjust, unequal and
oppressive ?

And why did they content themselves with such general Objections
to the Bill, and avoid attempting to reform what to them appeared
exceptionable, merely because a bill upon the same Plan had been
adhered to by a former Lower House ? The Bill itself is considerably
different from that framed in 1758; the Foundations of some of the
Upper House's Objections to that Bill are confessedly avoided in
this, and in the present Lower House are a good many new Mem-
bers; all which are Incidents which might reasonably have induced

p. 19

the Upper House to have entered into particular Objections to the
Bill, had they not been determined, at all Events, to reject the
Assessment Plan.
Upon this State of the Matter, I think the Dispute might be
rested much to the Advantage of the Lower House; for whatever

* Message of the Lower House, April 9, 1762: "We have formed it on such a
Plan, as to us seems most suitable to the Circumstances of our Constituents, and
in such a Manner as we conceive the best adapted to the Nature of the Plan; but
as in a new System of such a Length, and of an intricate Nature, some Parts may
possibly be found liable to Objections, which may have escaped us; and as we, out
of a sincere Regard for his Majesty's Service, and an earnest Desire to effect a
Termination of that Difference of Sentiment, which has unhappily too long sub-
sisted," &c. [This appears as a footnote in the original.]
Message of the Upper House, April 24, 1762: This Plan you so lately as your
Message of the 9th Instant, call "a new System, intricate in its Nature, and liable
to Objections, which you suppose may escape your House." [This appears as a
footnote in the original.]

p. 20