Discursory thoughts, &c : disputing the constructions of His Majesty's hon. commissioners and crown lawyers, relative to the medicine and horse acts : to which are added, the opinions and resolutions of the farmers in Scotland ... with remarks on the late trials concerning the Medicine Act / by Francis Spilsbury.

  • Spilsbury, Francis
Date:
1785
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Discursory thoughts, &c : disputing the constructions of His Majesty's hon. commissioners and crown lawyers, relative to the medicine and horse acts : to which are added, the opinions and resolutions of the farmers in Scotland ... with remarks on the late trials concerning the Medicine Act / by Francis Spilsbury. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Glasgow Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Glasgow Library.

    41/60 (page 37)
    mers think thernfelves aggrieved by the con- ftruclion of the act, they may requeft the She- riff of the county to call a meeting, and petition to the King, through their refpective reprefenta- tives, for fuch relief as his Majefty's mod graci- ous, wifdom (hall dictate. THE following Advertifement 1 have extracledfrom the Glas- gow Mercury, March 17,1785 ; which is infertedto Jhoiv how neceffary it is fame revifed Plan Jhould be fettled to pacify Perfons ivho may fuppofe thernfelves injured by the late Conjlruclions of the Crown Lawyers of Great Britain ; alfo that the Far-, mers in England may be acquainted with the Sentiments of tht Farmers in Scotland. Paisley, March 3, 1785. THE different Committees of the Farmers refiding in the county of Renfrew met here this day, and took under their confideration the explanation given by the Crown Lawyers of the Act of the laft Seffion of Parliament, laying a duty of ten millings per annum upon each SADDLE HORSE ufed for the fole purpofe of riding ; and, with all due deference to the fuperior judgment of thefe Gentlemen, we beg leave to fignify to the public, that we are unani- moufly of opinion, THAT faid air, does not extend to horfes chiefly ufed in the carrying trade and for the purpofes of agri- culture, though occafionally rode upon by the farmer or his fervants. And our reafons for being ifill of the fame opinion are the following: 1. When the Minifter firft propofed this Tax to Parlia- ment, he made an exprefs exception of horfes employed in the carrying trade and agriculture. But if the explication given by the Crown Lawyers be juft, there was no occafion for fuch an exception; for, according to their explication, all horfes employed in the bufinefs of farming, if occafionally rode by the farmer or his fervants, are as much liable to the tax as if they were kept for the fole purpofe of riding upon j which renders the act abfurd, and altogether unintelligible,] 2. The calculation made by the Minifter, of the number of horfes that would be liable to the tax, plainly fhows that the acl does not comprehend thofe horfes principally ufed in agriculture,