The fixing of the rate of exchange quieted the merchants for the time being, even though they looked on uneasily as Fauquier assented to further emissions, for L57,000 in September, 1758; L52,000 in February, 1759; L10,000 in November, 1759; L20,000 in March, 1760; L32,000 in May, 1760; and L30,000 in March, 1762. The whole totalled nearly L413,000, and William Hunter's printing press at Williamsburg was kept busy stamping out notes of L10, L15, L3, 10 shillings, 3 shillings, etc. In the meanwhile, only L51,156.10.0. had been retired and burnt, leaving L362,000 in circulation.[24] Long before this figure had been reached, opposition to paper money had grown within the colony itself. The law which protected the British merchants did not apply to Virginia creditors, since their contracts usually had been made in the local currency. So, as the flood of paper continued to mount, the small farmer or shopkeeper who had borrowed from his wealthy neighbor, could pay him back in depreciated notes. And as they were legal tender, he had to accept them. "Debtors pursued their creditors relentlessly and paid them without mercy." In 1762, though a bill to issue L30,000 in paper money passed the House by a vote of 66 to 3, it hung fire in the Council. At the time there were only six members in attendance, three of whom opposed any further emissions, so Fauquier got the Speaker to hold back the bill while he sent out a hurry call for the others. In the end the bill passed by a vote of five to four. "On this occasion I have stretched my influence to the utmost pitch," the Governor wrote the Board.[25] The four dissenting Councillors--William Nelson, Thomas Nelson, Richard Corbin, and Philip Ludwell Lee--all of them rich men, made a vigorous protest, which was entered upon the Journal.[26] Not satisfied with this, Corbin took the step, unusual for a member of the Upper House, of complaining to the Board of Trade against an act of Assembly. He was astute enough to base his case, not on his personal losses, but on the losses to the revenue and to the merchants. Taxes had been paid in the depreciated currency. In turn this had made it impossible to meet the needs of the government and at the same time sink the outstanding notes. As for the merchants, though it was true that sterling contracts were to be paid at the current rate of exchange, and though the judges who determined it seemed to be impartial, the rate might rise from five to fifteen per cent between the date of their decision and the date of settlement, to their great loss.[27]