596 Assembly Proceedings, Mar. 28-May 13, 1758.

L. H. J.
Liber No. 50
April 19

and their earnest Requests to your Excellency, have not yet had the
desired Effect, and to fear their ill Success is to be attributed rather
to a total Disregard of the reasonable Complaints of the Representa-
tives of the People, than to any other Cause.
If, by forming a Judgment, and coming to a final Determination,
upon our Representations, your Excellency means, as it would seem
from your Application of that Right to the Case in Hand, a Right of
expounding the Laws of this Province; we must express our Opinion
to the contrary; for we presume that final Determinations upon the
Sense and Meaning of the Laws ought not to be made by any but
those, who, agreeable to our Constitution are appointed, for that
Purpose, the proper Judges in the Courts of Law: But since your
Excellency has thought fit to lay before us your Reasons for not
ordering the Bonds of the Naval-Officers of Port Annapolis and
Patowmack, and the Bonds of the Commissioners of the Paper-
Currency-Office, to be put in Suit, we shall consider them, and en-
deavour to shew, they are by no Means sufficient to acquit those
Officers of Neglect of Duty, and consequently that we are right in
our Application to your Excellency, to do Justice to the Country, by
prosecuting them for that Neglect; and we must assure your Excel-
lency, that tho' in your Opinion our Representations may, at any
Time, injuriously affect the Life, Liberty or Property of any Indi-
vidual in this Province, yet, as long as they appear just and reasonable
to us, we shall think it our indispensible Duty to repeat our Appli-
cations for Redress.

p. 72

Your Excellency, after inserting an Extract of the Report of the
late Lower House, and their Address in Consequence thereof, is
pleased to say, " tho' several Remarks might be made both on the
Report and Address, I shall nevertheless, for Brevity Sake, content
myself with one upon the Difference between them, viz. that tho'
the Report treats only of Convicts and Convicts to serve for Seven
Years, yet that House, in their Address in Consequence of that
Report, seem fond of considering all the Importations, mentioned in
the Report, as Servants for Seven Years, in Contradistinction to
Convicts." This is indeed a curious Discovery; you allow all Trans-
ported Convicts are by Statute to serve for Seven Years at least;
Are they not then Servants for Seven Years and upwards? If they
are, where is the Difference between the Report and the Address?
Surely it can only be in Terms; for if the Report mentions only Con-
victs, and all Convicts are Servants for Seven Years and upwards,
How is it possible that by the Address that House should seem fond
of considering all the Importations mentioned in the Report, as
Servants for Seven Years, in Contradistinction to Convicts, when
they expressly refer to the Report, which treats only of Convicts ?
Your Excellency remarking still on that Address, again says, " and
at the same Time seems so averse to having any Thing to say to