|
|
U.H.J,
Liber No. 35
March 24
|
his Excellency in whom they said the Sole Power of Granting
Licences was, to desire his Excellencys Pleasure if that house should
draw an Act that no Person in this Province should have a Licence
to keep Ordinary for the future but that he should give Bond to his
Excellency with good Sureties that he should Provide such a Num-
ber of Beds &c. and keep good Rules and Orders &c. and presented
the same to his Excellency accordingly and that his Excellency having
Considered the Message from the said Lower house did assure them
that for the future no Licences should be granted to any Person
within this Province to keep Ordinary But Care should be taken
that the Conditions and Restrictions desired by that house in their
said Message should be inserted in each Recognizance to be given
by each respective Ordinary keeper upon taking his Licence &c. From
these Instances Gentlemen and many other which for Brevity Sake
we omitt to insert, We Say that it appears to Us that this Preroga-
tive was insisted upon and exercised by the then Lord Proprietor,
acknowledged to be his Right by the Lower house of Assembly and
acquiessed in by the People near a hundred years ago. If the then
Lord Proprietor had such a Prerogative it is not amiss to Consider
whether any Act has been done or could be done Since to divest
the Present Lord Proprietor of the same Prerogative and this Leads
us to observe that in order to Shew that his Lordships Prerogative
is not in the least Degree infringed by your appropriating the fines
arising upon Ordinary Licences you Refer us to the Acts of As-
sembly made in the year 1717 where the late Lord Proprietary you
say accepted of the Fines arising upon Ordinary Licences as a
Grant from the People and that with Expressions Strongly Insisting
that such Application cannot be made without the Assent of the
Representatives of the People in a Law, to which we Answer that
if the late Lord Proprietor out of his great Condescension to the
Importunities of the People thought proper to Pass such an Act
he did not thereby part with his Prerogative neither can his Passing
that act be construed so as to divest him of his Prerogative but
rather a suspension of the Exercise of it, and we insist that if the
Present Lord Proprietors Ancestors had passed or assented to
Twenty Acts of the same kind such assent cannot divest him of
the Right he has in Virtues of his Prerogative here as Lord and
Proprietor of the Province and which is devolved upon him by
Inheritance under the Royal Charter Granted to his Noble Ancestors,
|
|
|
|
p. 32
|
and that this Prerogative Remains in the same Plight and Condition
as it would have been in, if such Act or Acts had not been assented
to and is not in the least weakened and infringed thereby
We readily agree with you that there is not the least Occasion for
Entering into Disputes upon Matters which are so very obvious,
and we must confess We are at a loss to find any good Reason why
his Lordship should at this or any other time give up his Prerogative
|
|
