|
|
U. H. J.
Liber No. 36
Dec. 19
|
for the Support of Government, a Circumstance, which, without
Doubt, will have particular Weight with you, who appear to be so
well satisfied, that Glorious Prince would not have suffered any
Misapplication of Public Monies. The Queries which you have been
pleased to put are answered by what we have observed.
We urged it as a conclusive Argument that the Clerk of the
Council never was intended to be paid out of the Monies granted
for the support of Government because from the first Settlement
of this Province to the last Journal that passed, he had always been
provided for in another Manner and in order to elude the force of
this Proof, you alledge that the several Revenue Bills which passed
between the Year 1704, and Lord Baltimore receiving the 12d p
Hogshead prove the Expiration of the Act of 1704 as properly as
the constant Allowance of the Clerks Salary in the Journal doth,
that it was not intended to provide for him out of the Monies granted
for the support of Government. We perceive Nothing like a Con-
clusion in this Part of your Message, but lest we should have over-
looked what might be discovered on a closer Examination, it may
be proper to observe, that in Consideration that the Temporary
Revenue Laws from 1715 to 1733, you allude to provided an higher
Revenue than the Act of 1704 in Consequence of the Enlargement
of Tobacco Hogsheads the Act of 1704 was during that Period
suspended; but these Temporary Acts having expired the Suspension
of the perpetual Act of 1704 ceased, and therefore since the Re-
moval of the Suspension the Act resuming its original Operation,
the Duty hath been always received under it to this Time.
A regular Deduction & Detail from the first Settlement of this
Province of the Revenues supccessively granted for support of
Government and the Application of them the present Occasion will
not admit of, but if the Dispute of the 12d p Hogshead should
hereafter be revived, We shall be ready to lay before you what
occurred to us on that Enquiry. Why you should insist that the
Tonnage should be deemed Public Money Subject to Account we
cannot Conceive.
|
|
|
|
p. 288
|
The Tonnage is expressly granted "to Lord Baltimore and his
Heirs or Person by them impowered to receive it" and not a Syllable
said about the Support of Government or any other Use and this
Matter having been expressly decided in his Lordships Favor before
his Majesty in Council in the year 1692, If that Determination will
not give you Satisfaction, it would be to little Purpose to refer
any Dispute to the same Authority. Before that Determination there
was an express Order of his Majesties Council in 1690, That the
Tonnage should be answered to Lord Baltimore as Proprietary of
the Province & an Instruction to Governor Copely, the Kings
Governor here, to permit Lord Baltimore or his Agents to receive
it without any Interruption, and in Consequence of the above De-
|
|
