426 Assembly Proceedings, May 14-June 6, 1719.

L. H. J.

on the Act for better Supporting the Magistrates in the
Administration of Justice within this province and for disab-
ling Tho^s Macnemara Esq^r to practice the Law therein which
was read and ordered to be Entered as follows Viz:

By the Committee of Laws
May the 22^d 1719

In pursuance of an Order of the 19^th Instant We have con-
sidered the opinion of the lawyers in Great Britain in Respect
to the Act for the better Supporting the Magistrates in the
Administration of Justice within this Province and for the
disabling Tho^s Macnemara Esq^r to practice the law therein
But find it Necessary to make some remarks on the Manner of

p. 103

the Stating the case in relation to the Act of Assembly on
which their opinions were required.
And ffirst We observe Tho^s Macnemara Esq^r is Suggested
to be a Barrister at Law without taking the Least Notice of his
practiceing in the Courts here as an Attorney, then he insinu-
ates that he was never Call'd upon or Summoned to Appear
before the Assembly to answer any charge against him, but
that the Act was carried on with so much Secrecy that he
had not Opportunity of Justifying himself.
We observe that the facts he Stands charged with in the
Preamble of that Law were so notorious that they need
not inquiring into, And as to the Secrecy he mentions with
which the Act was carried on, It is well known to the Prov-
ince it is not Only Impracticable but almost Impossible.
And in pursuing this State of the case he Ownes it was
not such but that he had Notice thereof, and Petition'd
to be heard ag^t the Bill. He further proceeds to insinuate
that no order was made upon his Petition but after the As-
sembly was prorogued the Clerk returned it without any
Answer, Where we note he twice mentions (the Assembly)
seeming willing to be Understood (the General Assembly)
whereas it was to the Lower House only that he Applyed
and not to them till after it had been some days before them

p. 104

and the Engrost bill had past that house, so that it would
have been Unparliamentary for the lower House then to have
Entred upon a debate of that Matter ; But it Sufficiently Ap-
pears he had early notice Enough to have Applyed himself to
the Upper House who could have relieved him if he had
shown any cause for so doing or to his Excy the Governour
who had a Negative Voice in the passing thereof his omitting
to do which Argues either his Sense of Guilt or his resolute
obstinancy. In the second paragraph thereof he alledges the
Generall Insinuations contained in the preamble are in them-