|
|
L. H. J.
Liber No. 46
|
Construction every Part of those Laws in 1715 and 1722 are con-
sistent with and reconcileable to each other; whereas by the Con-
struction contended for by your Excellency, that Law of 1722 must
be perpetual without any Words or Expressions, or necessary In-
ference, according to the Circumstances of this Case, to shew it to
be the Intention of the Legislature it should be so, and to that End,
must contrary to all Reason, be taken as an implied Repeal of that
continuing Clause in the Law of 1715, tho' that Clause appears to
have been thereby revived with the Law: Nor can we agree with
your Excellency, that the Addition of any more or other Words to
make that Law perpetual, would have been superfluous after reviv-
ing and continuing that Act " in full force," because we think the
Addition of the Words " for ever," to the Law of 1722, or Words
expressly repealing the continuing Clause in the Law of 1715, or
reviving all that Law except that Clause, would have shewn the
Intention of the Legislature to have made those Laws of a perpetual
Duration, which would have prevented this present Dispute between
us " nor can it be doubted, that if those who made the Law under
Consideration had intended it should have been " perpetual," but
they would have expressed such their Intention when they might
very easily have done it and in few Words." As to your Excellency's
Position, that " it is a dangerous Doctrine to set up Conjectures, or
even the strongest Parol Proof of any kind, that a Law was in-
tended to be different from what it really appear to be from the Terms
of it ": We shall give it no further Answer, than as we cannot agree
that those Laws taken together do appear from the Terms of them,
to have been intended by the Legislature to have been perpetual, we
have made no use of any such Methods, our Part of this Question,
we think, not needing any such, but have barely confined ourselves
to the Consideration of what appears upon the Face of the Laws
themselves, which are the Subject of this Dispute: And we must
observe, that it is the Practice of the Parliament of Great Britain,
upon the making temporary Laws perpetual, not only to recite in
the perpetuating Law, the great Benefits and Advantages arising
from the temporary one, but also to continue, or revive it " or to
" be and is hereby made perpetual," or some like Expression, to
shew their Intention, that it shall for the future cease to be tem-
porary; neither of which has been done in the Case now before us,
and wherein we apprehend some such Form of Expression ought the
rather, and certainly would have been used to have discovered such
Intention of our Legislature, if any such they had, as the Law of
1715 is in it's nature not only penal, but greatly affects the Liberties
and Properties of all the People of this Province, very few excepted.
We come now to the consideration of that Part of your Excel-
lency's Message relating to the Law of 1732, which did not escape
the notice either of this House, or as you are pleased to express
yourself, of those who penned our Address; but the true Reason
|
|
