|
|
Title to whilst the old Terms subsisted — The Act of Assembly we
cited seems very material when duly considered tho' it is not now in
Force — We don't think that Lord Baltimore ought to be exempted
from contributing with the Rest of the Kings Subjects to the com-
mon Cause of Liberty, all that we have said is that in Respect of his
Quit Rents we are not satisfied for the Reasons we have mentioned,
that he ought to be taxed in that Contribution which may be expected
from the Property of this Province and in the Application whereof
we hope to be defended
He pays without Doubt his Proportion of the Taxes imposed in
England. However clear you may be that the Proprietary if he
thought himself unjustly taxed would not dissent to the Bill from a
Tenderness to those by whom he might think himself injured we
|
U. H. J.
Liber No. 35
May 4
|
|
|
|
think the Probability of it's happening an unanswerable Objection.
We can't guess what you mean by the Words " had he Power "
surely you don't mean that his Power to dessent to Bills is doubtful,
if you do, we wish that you speak out, and not involve in the Dark-
ness of Ambiguity what is directly assented and fairly brought to
Light might be easily confuted.
The Distinction you have taken to justify your intended Imposi-
tion of a Tax upon the Governor in respect of his personal Estate
and his Offices of Chancellor and Surveyor General must have ap-
peared as immaterial to you as it does to us if you had any Reason
for exempting him at all. To make Laws without Sanctions to
enforce them Observance of them would be to little Purpose, and
it would be as ineffectual to insert Sanctions to compel, which can't.
We don't presume that the Governor would refuse to pay the Tax
if it was imposed upon him, nor that the Collector upon his Excel-
lency's Refusal or Omission to pay it would put him in Prison, or
that he would be charged with the Lower House with a Failure of
Duty if he declined to put your Sanctions in Force but we think
that the Governor would have more Reason than either House ought
to give him to resent the Indignity offered to him by such an absurd
Imposition.
Your Promise to make good any Deficiencies however it might be
relied upon by the good People of this Province we are afraid would
not be sufficient to support the Credit of our Mony with Strangers,
and as a longer provincial Continuancy of the Bill might be easily
inserted it ought not to be neglected.
It would be to no Purpose to propose a Conferrence whilst you
adhere to such Points as we cannot agree to.
The three Bills you have sent up to us you would seem to think
have not met with the De f err ence and Respect which in your Appre-
hension they merited, why when we rejected the first, a second and a
third Bill with very immaterial Alterations /as you say/ have been
sent up to us, it would be difficult to assign any other Cause than the
|
p. 328
|
|
