were heard on the floor of the House, 400 and the declaratory clause was deleted 401 Finally, the altered bill was allowed to die in committee. 402 A parlia- South Carolina and New York see ibid., 818- 19. Cf. the Maryland petition in 44 Md. Archives, 700. Agent Charles wrote that "this bill especially in the four last clauses of it has greatly alarmed all those who wish well to America as an extension of the power of the crown utterly inconsistent with the rights and liberties of the people. The agents of most of the colonies have had divers meetings on this occasion and we have agreed on a thorough opposition to the bill as it now stands which under the appearance of a regulation of paper money, and seemingly calculated for commercial purposes, only, was at first but little attended to both within and without doors, but the endeavors which have since been used have had so good an effect that the matter is now pretty well understood, and I have the satisfaction to find, that the advocates for the bill disavow the intention ascribed to it and have promised to alter it in those essential parts complained of" (Charles to Jones, March 21, 1748/9 [Wm. Smith MSS]). The New York agent wrote further that "many though not all the advocates for it seemed inclinable rather to give up than support those parts of it, yet this inclination was not fully declared till it found that the opposition became general" (Charles to Jones, April 14, 1749 [ibid.]). Thomas Penn wrote that he drew up a short state of the Pennsylvania money to which was subjoined some observations on that part of the bill concerning royal orders and instructions. Copies were delivered "to Mr. Pelham and many leading members on whom it had a very good effect, and induced several to alter their opinions of this matter" (2 MS Penn Letter Booty, 1742-50, 268- 69). Cf. 287 MS Mass. Archives {Letters, 1663-1760), 48. 400 Agent Charles wrote that on May 1 the House heard counsel for Connecticut and the next day went through the hearing in behalf of all the other colonies. Counsel were directed by the speaker to confine themselves to the first parts of the bill in consequence of a declaration made by some of its advocates that the parts following would be dropped. However, in opening the bill the speaker went through the whole of it (Charles to the Speaker of the New York Assembly, May 31, 1749 [Wm. Smith MSS]). Thomas Penn wrote that Mr. Barclay, Mr. Hyam, and Mr. White, the only witnesses examined, fully proved the contentions of the Penns to the satisfaction of the House (2 MS Penn Letter Books, 1742-50, 268-69). 401 3 Law Papers, 15 Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., 297. Agent Bollan of Massachusetts wrote that on April 6 Lord Dupplin spoke to him concerning the bill "and said that it was very near, not quite determined to drop for the present (those were his words) the latter clauses for enforcing all the King's instructions in general" (Bollan to Secretary Willard, April 6, 1749 [20 MS Mass. Archives {Foreign Relations, 1658-1751), 507]). In an April 7 postscript Bollan adds, "I have seen Lord Dupplin who says that they shall for the present drop the last two clauses in the bill and reserve them" {ibid.). Writing later in 1764 Bollan stated that "within an hour or two after my petition against this bill was read in the House a noble Lord then a member of the House and of the Board of Trade and who was particularly concerned in proving and conducting this bill come to me and said they should drop the clauses. . . . Some short time before, but after the bill was brought in, I observed to this same noble Lord, that this was laying the ax to the root. Whereupon he answered, 'If you think so, do what you think fit.' This proceeding with the circumstances attending it fully convinced me, that a resolute design was formed for governing the colonies in a manner inconsistent with their rights and liberties, and that the same was only postponed instead of being wholly given up" (22 MS Mass. Archives [Foreign Cones., 1758-75], 380). Thomas Penn wrote that "we had represented so strongly against the orders and instructions, especially Lord Baltimore . . . and myself, that the bringers in of the bill, agreed before the council were heard, to strike out all the clauses relating to it, and only went on the first part of the bill" (2 MS Penn Letter Books, 1742-50, 269). Richard Penn wrote that the dropping of the last two clauses "might be occasioned by their being sensible of the unreasonableness thereof from what was alleged in our several petitions to the House" (5 Pem.berton MSS, 1748-49, 81). 402 14 Pari. Hist. England, 563-64. Agent Charles wrote that "in a committee of the whole house (though a very thin one for discussing a matter of such importance) after a great many firings thrown out about the unfair practices in issuing large and unnecessary sums of paper money and about the undue preference given to members of Assembly to