|
|
has been the object, Disputes have arisen; but Experience has proved
too, that from the Year 1747 to 1770 the Difficulties on this Subject
have not been so great, but means have been found to obviate them.
We presume the two Houses in the Year 1745 bestowed due
Attention on the Business they undertook; but we cant imagine
that afterwards in the Year 1747, the Legislature well acquainted as
they must necessarily have been with the Merits of the Bill of 1745
bestowed less Attention, and had less discernment, or experience
than their predecessors, or that the Legislators who at several periods
Continued the Act of 1747 and were fully apprized of its Effects,
|
U. H. J.
Liber No. 36
Nov. 26
|
|
|
|
were negligent of the Publick Welfare, and inattentive to their Duty.
Why a Bill agreed upon by the two Houses in 1745, and Dis-
sented to by a Governor, whatever might be the Motive of his
Conduct, should be esteemed of higher Authority than a Subse-
quent Law repeatedly continued, as we have not hinted so it is not
our Province to explain. No Detail, how Minute soever, can invali-
date the Fact, that the Old Table of Fees received the frequent
Sanctions we have referred to, and we must think that no Argu-
ment or Illustration, after the Repetition of so many Solemn Sanc-
tions, can be necessary, or proper to evince the Opinion of the Legis-
lature to have long been, that the Old Table of Fees as it stood when
the late Inspection Act fell was well adapted to its Purposes. By
what other Criterion can we so safely judge of the Opinion and
Sentiments of Lawmakers as by the Laws they themselves have
ordained.
What might be the Intention of the Lower House in 1769 when
they continued the Inspection Act, we were not informed: for no
such Intention as you have intimated was declared or notifyed to
us; and diffusive as you may suppose the proof to have been of your
Intention to reform Abuses, or reduce Exorbitancy, we suspected
none other than what was inferred from the Supplemental Bill to
the Inspection Act sent to us in the same Session, by which accord-
ing to our Recollection the Alternative was proposed.
By the Scheme of the Bill of 1745 the Commissary General
was to Charge no Fees when the Services should be performed by
the Deputies; but it was no part of it, that there should be an En-
largement of the Jurisdiction of the Deputies from £50 to £150.
The Inspection Act made no Provision against the Charge of the
|
p. 599
|
|
|
|
Commissary General, in the above Instance but enlarged the Juris-
diction of the Deputies to the Extent of £150; no Argument can
be drawn from the Rejected Bill to prove a Charge under the Act
of 1747 to be an Abuse; but the Rejected Bill may be material in
another view. It shews what was the Construction of, and the usage
under the Act of 1715, and the Provision being omitted in the
Inspection Act shews what the Legislature in 1747 intended should
|
p. 600
|
|
