The Lower House. 177

Province which has always been as our Resolves Express
it According to the Common Law & such Statutes as are not
restrained by words of local Limitation in them

And if yo^r Hon^rs insist on the alteracon you Propose we
must declare it to o^r Countrey as an essentiall Deviation from
the Indenture always hitherto used, and such an Innovation
as is intirely inconsistent with the preservation of our Rights
& Liberties and tending to the Subversion of our Constitution.
We therefore pray yo^r Hon^rs not to Continue this Argum^t
Longer but to Conclude this Sessions in such manner as you
intend it shall appear to posterity.
Signd p order M. Jenifer Cl Lo. Ho.

Which was Sent to the Upper House by M^r Tyler & Coll^o
Ward

L. H. J.

They return and Say they delivered it.
Coll^o Ward from the Upper House delivers M^r Speaker
the following Message Viz.

By the Upper House of Assembly Nov^r 3^d 1724
Gent.
In Answer to your message of yesterday by M^r Tyler &
M^r Taylor and to convince you that you are mistaken in your
Construction of that paragraph in the Bill for reviving the
Act for officers ffees, We take leave to Represent to you a
State of the Case in the manner following. The Sentence
from whence the dispute arises Stood orriginally in that para-
graph of the Bill in these words viz. (Be it Enacted that any
person or persons residing and inhabiting in this province,
being indebted in Tobacco to any merchant or other person
trading or Commercing in or to this province) and then pro-
vides that such Inhabitants shall have a Liberty to pay such
merchants or Traders in Hemp & Flax from whence we
observe that the persons here intended to have the benefit of
making paym^t in flax and Hemp are described to be Inhab-
itants or Residents, and the persons obliged to receive such
paym^ts are distinguished from them by the Characters of mer-
chants or Traders in or to this province A plain Demonstra-
tion to every man's understanding that no other persons could
be affected by that Clause but Merchants or Traders: now
to this our House objected by the Endorsment on the Bill
that it would be a prejudice to Trade, and desired that what
related to merchants might be omitted and to this in your
Message in answer thereto you Consented but in the Bill when
it came up Engrossed, we find the Amendment made thus,
to any persons Except merchants or other persons Trading or

12

p. 187