Ancestors which Act was dissented to by the Crown for the manifest
Unjustness & unreasonableness of it
As I am inclined to Believe you are not acquainted with all that
passed at home relating to this Affair I shall here Insert for your
satisfaction the Report of the Sollicitor or Attorney General and the
Kings order of Council thereupon
At a Court at Whitehall the 23d of February 1692
Present
The Kings Most Excellent Majesty
Lord Arch Bishop of Canterbury Lord Chamberlain
Lord President Earl of Bedford
Lord Great Chamberlain Earl of Bridgwater &ca
As to the second demand of fourteen Pence p Ton for all Tobacco
exported out of that Province I find by an Act of Assembly of that
province in 1661 it was enacted that all Vessels whatsoever not
properly belonging to that Province having a Deck Flush Fore and
Aft coming in and trading within that province should pay for Port
duties and Anchorage A Pound of Powder and three Pound of
Shott or so much in Value for every Tun of Burthen to the said
proprietor and his heirs which duty hath by Usage been turned into
Money viz. I4d p Ton and so answered to the Lord Baltimore and
constantly applied to his own use and not to the support of the Gov-
ernment as the Lord Baltimore affirms to me and by Order of Coun-
cil of the 26th of February 1690 this duty of I4d p Ton was directed
to be answered to the Lord Baltimore as Proprietor of the Province
and likewise Instructions given Colo Copley Governor of Maryland
to Permit the Lord Baltimore or his Agents to receive the same
without any disturbance or Interruption and I conceive that upon
the Words of the Act this duty doth belong to my Lord Baltimore
as proprietor to be received by him to his own use and it would be
a thing of Dangerous consequence to Admit of Parole Proof of an
Intention in the law makers different from the Words of the Law
|