is supposed to be vested in Martha Lenoir, by virtue of its having been granted to her, and her heirs, lawfully begotten. My objection to this act is, that it is impertinent, for without the assistance of this act, she hath an estate in fee simple already.

The fourth is an act intitled, "an act to dock the entail limited on certain lands, &c." in the parish of Saint Philip, and to invest the fee thereof in John Jones, gentleman. My objection to this act is, that though there is in it a reservation of the right of the crown, yet it is not proper to be confirmed upon the account, that a clause is wanting to save the rights of all bodies politic, and all other persons whatsoever, not mentioned in the act. RICH. WEST. (8.) Mr. Fane's objections to an act of the same act, as unfit.

Aug. 3, 1719.

To the right hon. the lords commissioners for trade and plantations.

My lords.

In obedience to your lordships' commands, sig nified to me by Mr. Popple's letter, referring to me an act passed in Barbadoes, in 1722-3, intitled

6.6

an act for supporting the honor and dignity of the government;" and also a copy of a petition from Mr. Worsley, late governor of Barbadoes, praying his majesty's directions, for the recovery of the arrears due upon the said act, and desiring my opinion, whether any, and what method, by law, can be taken for recovering the same, I have

considered of the said act, and petition, and humbly observe to your lordships, that I apprehend the following questions may arise upon the construction of this act, as to the method of proceeding, for the recovery of the arrears, and which I beg leave to state to your lordships, with my opi

nion thereon.

By the act, certain duties were laid on negroes, &c. and granted to his majesty, his heirs, and successors, for the uses therein specified, the first whereof was for the payment of the governor's salary, which was settled on him, during the whole time of his government, and directions are therein given for the collecting and levying the said duties.

By the tenth clause in the act, if any person charged or chargeable, by virtue of the act, neglect to give in the number of his negroes, &c. or who having given in the number of his negroes, &c. neglect to pay at the time prescribed, he shall forfeit double. A question seems to arise upon this clause, whether, although the representatives should not return a list of defaulters, according to the directions of the eighth clause, whether the treasurer may issue executions upon the defaulters, or in what other method he may proceed?

The act of assembly is not so clearly penned upon this point as it ought to be, but, upon considering the several clauses, I think if the persons chargeable neglect to give in their number of negroes, or neglect to pay, having given in as is

directed, otwithstanding the representatives should not return a list of the defaulters, according to the eighth clause, they will forfeit double; and the treasurer may levy the forfeiture according to the directions of the twelfth clause, and in order to proceed thereto, he is to receive any legal evidence that shall be given, but he cannot examine the party himself, because it may tend to subject him to a penalty: this method of proceeding may, perhaps, be the most expeditious, but the most certain will be, by filing an English bill in the proper court in the attorney-general's name, on his majesty's behalf, for the recovery of the single duty, waiving the penalty.

By the fourth and sixth clauses in the act, lawyers and patent officers are charged with a sum certain, respectively, but the non-payment of it is omitted to be made a forfeiture. A question may, therefore, arise, whether the treasurer may issue executions for the single duty? I think there is no authority given for the treasurer to proceed in the summary way he is empowered to do upon a penalty, and, therefore, the proper way of proceeding. in this case, will be, by English bill, in the attorneygeneral's name, on his majesty's behalf.

The committee for settling the public accounts (and who, by the fourteenth clause of this act, are vested with power to proceed against the treasurer for any neglect, in the same manner as he ought to have done against the owners themselves), are by

a former law made up of four members of the council, and six of the assembly. Now it happens, that all these last are defaulters themselves, and have incurred penalties, for not pursuing the act, and, therefore, it is apprehended, they will either avoid making a committee to settle the treasurer's accounts, in order to screen him or themselves (who, it is said, have given him security to indemnify him), or else if they do meet, they will adjust his accounts, without proceeding against him, for his neglect, by which means there will be, as there has been already for two years past, a great deficiency in the collection, and, consequently, great arrears due to his majesty. A question may arise upon this: if it appears that the treasurer has neglected his duty, whereby a deficiency in the collection has been occasioned, what method will be proper. to be taken against the treasurer, for what is due to the governor, although the committee of public ac counts should do as above-mentioned? I think, by the fourteenth clause, the party charged with the duty, who was the original debtor, is expressly discharged, and the treasurer, by reason of his ne glect, is put in his place, and, therefore, in cases where the treasurer might clearly by law have levied the penalties, and has wilfully neglected to do it, he will be liable to answer the single duty, and a bill may be brought against him, in the attorney-general's name, for the recovery thereof.

The treasurer, who is chosen annually, is obliged, by the annual excise act, to enter into a recognizance to his majesty's governor, with such good and sufficient securities as the said governor and council shall approve of, in the sum of 10,000l. for the faithful discharge of the said office. A question may arise upon this, if the treasurer has, in any instance, neglected the duty required of him, by the act now in consideration, whether the recognizance, for the faithful discharge of his office, can be put in suit by a scire facias, unless such neglect should appear by the proceedings of the committee, and in what manner; if judgment should be obtained upon this recognizance, will the money levied thereon be applied? I think it is not necessary that the accounts should be first adjusted by the committee, or that they should determine the neglect before the treasurer's recognizance is put in suit. I think the wilful neglect of the duty required of him by the act will be such a breach of the condition, as may be assigned upon a scire facias, because, I observe, the recognizance was entered into after the passing of the act, whereby the several matters mentioned in the act are made part of his duty.

I have now stated to your lordships the several questions, that I apprehend, may arise upon the consideration of this act, as to the method of recovering the several duties granted, and have given your lordships my thoughts upon them. I beg