|
|
L. H. J.
Liber No. 50
April 19
p. 74
|
Imputation of Want of Respect to those Laws in Imposing a Duty
on Convicts, in which we cannot think her Government to be at all
concerned. Private Persons, Merchants, contract with the Govern-
ment for the Transportation of these Felons, and are amply rewarded
for it by the great Gain they make by the Sale of them here, which
very well enables them to pay this Duty. Our Neighbours of Penn-
sylvania have imposed the Duty of £5 p Poll on Convicts for many
Years, and yet without giving the least Offence that we ever heard
of; Why then are we to apprehend giving Offence, by the Imposition
of so small a Duty? Indeed, in a Message from your Excellency of
the 7th of May, 1757, we are told, that his Majesty's late Attorney-
General, the present Lord Mansfield, has given it as his Opinion,
that no such Duty can be levied here; but as we have understood
this Opinion was obtained by Persons nearly interested in the Event,
we are inclined to think it was not founded on a very fair and im-
partial State of the Case; and therefore, until some regular and
authoritative Inhibition from the Government of our Mother Coun-
try, shall circumscribe and confine the Effect of our Law, Imposing
a Duty on all Servants to serve for Seven Years or upwards, among
which Convicts undoubtedly are included, it will and ought to have
it's full Operation and Force: Precarious and Contemptible indeed
would the State and Condition of our Laws be, if the bare Opinion of
any Man, however, distinguished in his Dignity and Office, yet
acting, as in the present Instance, in the Capacity of a private Lawyer
or Council, should be sufficient to shake their Authority, and destroy
their Force.
But, that the Merits of this Dispute may be still better understood,
we must in our Turn, have Recourse to that Address of the Lower
House, containing, what you call, the Charge against the Naval
Officers which we think may more fairly be thus stated :
The Duty on such Servants is required to be paid at the Time of
their Entry.
It was the Duty of those Officers to have refused to have entered
such Vessels, until the Duty was paid down :
And not to have taken any Impost Bonds for it, which if they did,
is an Indulgence unknown to the Law, and for which, as we appre-
hend, the Naval Officers ought to be answerable. From hence it is
plain (though your Excellency in stating this Charge, by leaving
out a few Words of that Address, seems desirous to have it believed
that the late Lower House had asserted the Taking of Impost Bonds
was an Indulgence unknown to the Law in general) that nothing
more is said, or could be intended, but that the Naval Officers ought
to have collected the Duty imposed on all Servants by the Act in 1754,
at the Time of Entry, and not to have taken any Impost Bond for
it, which, if they did, was an Indulgence they had no Authority
by that Law to give, and were therefore answerable for: That the
|
|
