|
|
in making this Charge. You have been pleased to recur to the Act of
1715 and argue your Construction of that Act too in your flavour.
We on the contrary have given our Construction and still think it
the right One. We by no Means admit that the Tables of ffees of
1747 or 1753 warranted this Charge; but on the contrary observe,
that in most of the Tables there are Allowances for many Services
without any Addition to the Article, if done by the particular Officer
in whose Table such Article stands; on the whole of which the
Construction must most clearly be that the Allowance is to be to such
Officer for his doing such Service. And we have opposed too against
you the evident Injustice of compelling any Man to pay twice for
a Service performed but once, and have mentioned the Provision
in a Bill passed both Houses in 1745 preventing this Abuse. You
have brought to your Aid likewise the solemn Sanction of the late
expired Regulation so deliberately enacted, reenacted and continued
by several Assemblies at five different Times to strengthen you, not
only with Regards to the Commissary's double Charge but also to
evince the old Table, so loosely expressed, that not a few of the
Officers themselves palliate their excessive Charges from the Doubt-
fulness of the Expressions, and from whence Bills of Costs in dif-
ferent Offices, in like Suits, and under similar Circumstances often
materially differ, is well adapted to the Purposes of it, and is proved
to be so by long Experience. We have asserted "the fifact is too
notorious to be denied that the Table of ffees under the first Inspec-
tion Law was then adopted and hath been since continued not so
much from the Impressions of the Propriety and just Proportion of
the Reward to the Service, as from the Utility of that Bill in other
Respects and the Necessity of agreeing to an imperfect Table of
ffees, or losing a Regulation of the Staple allowed on all Hands to
be very beneficial to the people."
As your Reasoning was not forcible enough to convince the Judg-
ment of the Lower House of the Legality or Propriety of the Com-
missary General's double Charges, so they could not alter their
Determination with regard to them, and unhappily the Commissary
General's Reward for doing nothing must be left to be decided by
those who may happen to be charged something by him for his
doing Nothing for them, on whose Fears possibly the Administra-
tion or Testamentary Bond taken according to your Remark with
a very extensive Condition, how legal need not now be considered,
may forcibly operate, or by legal Determination in which a Jury of
the Country may possibly be of different Sentiments from your
Honours.
Your Honours having enquired whether we choose that the Regu-
lation of ffees proposed by the Bill of 1745, which you have been
pleased to allege, has been mentioned by Us, in Terms of so much
Approbation, should now be established, and after desiring our ex-
|
L. H. J.
Liber No. 54
Nov. 22
|
|
