|
|
Convicts, tho' that Report treats of nothing else, as to presume,
contrary to the Report upon which that Address is founded, and
with which that House had concurred, that they (the Officers) had
Entered them under the Title of Convicts, tho' they were simple
Servants for Seven Years; " we shall only in Answer to this, recite
the Part of that Address which your Excellency here remarks upon,
as it will be sufficient to shew, that Exactness is not so inherent in
your Excellency, as to be Proof against all Examination; for we
shall not presume that your Excellency could possibly be wanting in
the strictest Regard to Truth and Candour. The Words of the Ad-
dress are these: "Who (the Naval-Officers) notwithstanding they
have received the Duty on Servants for Seven Years and upwards,
from many Masters of Vessels, have nevertheless omitted to receive
it from others, because (as we presume) they (the Masters of
|
L. H. J.
Liber No. 50
April 19
|
|
|
|
Vessels) have Entered them under the Title of Convicts." Before
we leave this Part of your Message, we must trouble your Excellency
with an Extract of your Message of the I7th of May, 1757, in
Answer to the Address here mentioned, in these Words: " I am
advised that the Refusal of any Masters of Vessels to pay a Duty
on Convicts by them imported into this Province, would not justify
the Naval-Officer in refusing to Enter them." By this Act it clearly
appears, that whatever may have since happened to alter your Opin-
ion, that at the Time that Address was presented, your Excellency
considered it in the Light we do, as including Convicts under the
general Name of Servants for Seven Years. And now give us Leave
to ask, What could induce your Excellency, upon a View of these
Papers, so clear in themselves, and so consistent with each other,
either to believe the Representations of that House unjust, or our
Complaints in Consequence of them, unreasonable ?
We shall now, without the least Difficulty, give your Excellency a
full and direct Answer to your plain Question, viz. " Do you insist
upon the Naval-Officers Collecting, under the Act of Assembly
made in 1754, for his Majesty's Service, the Duty of 20 s. p Head
upon Convicts Transported by Virtue of the Statute, or, Do you
not? " We do insist (and shall till better Reasons than any hitherto
offered induce us to alter our Opinion) that the Naval-Officers
Collect, under the Act of Assembly made in 1754, for his Majesty's
Service, the Duty of 20 s. per Head upon all Servants imported into
this Province to serve for Seven Years or upwards (except as therein
excepted) be they Convicts or Servants of any other Denomination:
Conscious as we are of the warmest Affection and Zeal for the Con-
stitution, and Reverence for the Laws of our Mother Country, and
moreover possessed with the strongest and moot ardent Dcoirc to be
more immediately under their benign Influence, which we take this
public Occasion to avow to your Excellency, and the World; we see
not the Imprudence, nor do we apprehend we shall be liable to the
|
p. 73
|
|
