178 Assembly Proceedings, October 6-November 4, 1724.

L. H. J.

Comercing in or to this province. Now if you allege that
by this Clause in the Bill as it Orriginally stood, all persons
as well merchants as Inhabitants were oblig'd to receive such
payments, then your amendment is a plain Contradiction to it
Self for you seem to Except some persons, and yet Exclude
all persons before menconed in that Clause, and this plainly
shews that your House had the same understanding of the
paragraph in the Bill that our House had, and therefore we
again Conclude that the Interlineation of the words (persons
Except) is introductive of a new provision in the Bill which
before that Interlineation obliged only merchants and other
Trading persons to receive flax and hemp, but as now altered
by your House Excludes merchants and other Trading per-
sons & obliges all other persons to receive flax & hemp in pay-
ment of Debts.
Thus we have plainly shewed the Truth of what we asserted
in our former message relating to this Bill, but to Convince
you that we have no Aversion to the thing, but to the manner
of doing it, and that we are willing to Conclude this Sessions
by doing any thing that may be thought necessary for the
Good of the people we propose that the price of fflax in that
Bill be made five pounds of Tobacco p pound and the price
of Hemp three pounds of Tobacco p pound with which
amendment we Consent to pass it
Sign'd p order Sam^ll Skippon Cl Up Ho.

Thereupon the Q^t was put whether any alteracon shall be
made in the price of hemp & Flax or not? It pass'd in the
Negative.

Thereon the following message is prepar'd Viz.

By the Lower House of Assembly Nov^r 3^d 1724.
May it please Your Honours
In Answer to your Honours message this Evening by Col.
Ward we desire you will be pleas'd to read the Bill and take
notice of the words of the provisoe which Extend further
than the parts of the Bill your Hon^rs mencon in your message
and provide that the Act shall not in any wise affect the pub-
lick or County Levy or forty p poll due to the Clergy which
plainly shews that all the Inhabitants were intended to be
affected by that Law, or that Proviso was useless.
And if you please to Compare this part of the Bill with
that part of the Tobacco Law relating to the same you will
there find it was the sense of the whole Legislature that by the

p. 188

like words in the Enacting part all persons were affected