|
|
pauper Estates, and the Jurisdiction of the Deputies, if left to the
Act of 1715. Then followed our Proposition in these words Do you
chuse the Regulation of Fees proposed by the Bill of 1745, which
you have mentioned with so much Approbation, should now be estab-
lished? Be pleased to declare explicitly; We are willing to adopt
that Regulation; Or do you mean to contend for the "Reduction
in the Article of the double charge," on the Authority of the Bill
of 1745, and your Persuasion that the Framers of it were particu-
larly attentive to and careful of the Publick Convenience, and depart
from it in the other respects? If you do all Prospect of an Accomo-
dation is at an End; does a single Syllable occur, relative to the Sec-
retarys Office, or to any other than the Commissarys? Was not the
"Double Charge" the immediate Subject of Discussion? What is the
Antecedent, to which the relative Expressions are Applicable? Did
we not expressly mention our persuasion, that the Income of the
Commissary General would be reduced by the New Table below
the Regard of a Gentleman? What relation to, or Effect upon his
|
U. H. J.
Liber No. 36
Nov. 26
|
|
|
|
Income could an Extent of the proposed Regulation of 1745 to the
other Officers have? Can it be really imagined, when the general
Question on the Conference was, to what Degree Fees of Officers
should be reduced, and when we have only Contended for the Old
Table with the Allowance of the Alternative to the people and You
for a Reduction more Considerable, that we could mean to propose
an Addition of 25 p Cent to the Fees of the Officers Settled by the
Old Table? A general Expression occurring, that has been catch'd
at, and the certain Rule of Construction sacrifised to the Favourite
Purpose of venting Contumely in illiberal Language, and fixing an
unmerited Odium. The Conclusion of our Paper, if farther Argu-
ment were necessary, demonstrates that it could not be our meaning
to include the Secretary or County Clerks, whose names were not
mentioned, or Officers hinted at in any former part of it, had such
been our Meaning the Repet[it]ion of our willingness to prevent in
future, Charges for Recording under the Table of 1747 that should
appear to be Abuses, would have been extremely incongruous.
It cannot but be expected that under the Alternative extended to all
Persons, to Pay in Money or Tobacco very little if any Tobacco
would be paid, unless it should happen to fall to or below the value
of the Money. On this Supposition should the proposed Regulation
of 1745 be established, instead of that of 1747. We are well satisfied
the Income of the Commissary General under the former would be
so far from exceeding his Income under the latter Regulation 25 p
Centum, that it would rather fall Short of it in Consequence of the
great Reduction, in the Article of Services done by his Deputies.
It is most probable that the Business in the Offices will be aug-
mented with the increasing population of the Country; but with the
Business so will the Trouble and every Expense increase.
|
p. 618
|
|
