The Lower House. 411

the forbearance of Assembly since the year 1733 to fall upon this
law, does not proceed from a Belief of its being in Force, as I had
Observed, but only from the silence and Meekness of the said As-
sembly, which of us is in the Right in this must be left to the publick
to Judge.
As to the next Point, I assure you that I am very far from
charging or even suspecting your House or any Gentlemen in it to
have new light in Religion, and I hope my Words can imply no such
thing, but as to Politicks which you say, you conceive the Undoubted
Birth Right of every British Freeborn Subject, you have certainly
Advanced many things which you your selves must allow to be alto-
gether new, however just and Reasonable you may think them to be
To what you say of submitting the affair of the twelve pence p
hh^d to our most Gracious Sovereign from whom we may expect an
Impartial Determination, in this or any other Point on an equal
Application, and a fair and clear State of the case I readily Agree :
But the great difference betwixt us is, that you think the Report of
your Committee is a true State of the Case, and I think I have
shewn to A Demonstration, in my Answer to it, that it is so far
from being so, that the very Contrary to what is there set forth is the
real Truth.
Whoever will be at the pains to read the same Report will find
that a point greatly Laboured and for which many Acts of Assembly
are Recited is that laws given to the crown for the support of Gov-
ernment for the time being have not been looked upon by the legis-
lators that enacted them as perpetual, but only to have a duration
with such Governor or Government
To this purpose the Report sets forth " That when their late
Majestys King William and Queen Mary of Glorious Immortal and
pious memory assumed the Government of this province, and took
the same under their protection An Act passed in the year 1692
Entituled An Act for the settlement of An Annual Revenue upon
their Majestys Governor within this province for the time being,
which Act it is Argued was not deemed by the Legislators to be
perpetual for that it was continued by another Act passed in the
year 1699 which Act of 1699 continued until the year 1704 when
Another Act passed Entituled An Act for settlement of an Annual
Revenue upon her Majestys Governor within this province for the
time being
In answer to this I set forth that the said Act of 1692 appeared
to a Demonstration to have been looked upon as a perpetual law,
that it continued in force without any Reenacting till the year 1704
when a Repealing Law that then passed might make the Government
think it necessary to have the said Act of 1692 reenacted or another
perpetual Law made to the same purpose which was done accord-
ingly and the Law made by which the Government is at present
supported.

L. H. J.
Lib. No. 45