Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up freeThe Virginia Gazette
Richmond, Williamsburg, Richmond County, Virginia
What is this article about?
Edwin Conway, a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses, writes to oppose the continuation of the Tobacco Inspection Law. He argues it violates his oath and constituents' instructions to repeal it, and unjustly burdens honest planters with extra costs and risks without improving trade value in Britain.
Merged-components note: These two components form a single continuous letter to the editor from Edwin Conway opposing the tobacco inspection law; the second was relabeled from editorial to letter_to_editor as it is part of the same reader submission.
OCR Quality
Full Text
A Member of the House of Burgesses having been so good as to read the Oath of a Burgess, in the House, as a Caution to such as should be against Continuing the Tobacco Law, I desire you to publish, in your Gazette, a Reason or two, for my being against it.
I am,
SIR,
Your humble Servant,
EDWIN CONWAY.
1st. The express Instructions of my Constituents are to do my Endeavour to Repeal the Law for Inspecting Tobacco: Therefore I should be neither Honest, nor Faithful, in giving Their Affairs to the Continuance of it; but I should be guilty of a manifest Breach of the solemn Oath of a Burgess.
2dly. I should be guilty of a Breach of another Part of the Burgesses Oath; which requires me to do Justly: For, how can it be Just, to deprive the honest Planter, that lives convenient to a Landing, and has his Tobacco neatly prized and nail'd up in the Hogshead, of the Privilege of Shipping the same, in the Manner as hath been usual, ever since the first planting of Tobacco in this Colony, 'til the Commencement of this Inspecting Law; (the Time of the Agent Law excepted, which began in November, 1714, and was repealed within three Years;) and oblige him to be at the great Trouble and risque of carrying his Tobacco many Miles to a Warehouse, to have it cased, and broke, and defaced, and made subject to greater Damage, by the Sweat in the Ship, the Joints of the Hogshead being left more open, and must pay three Shillings to the Inspectors, and find Nails to renail it, for the Injury done to his Tobacco? And when all this is done, it will not pass, on the Credit of this Inspection, in any Part of Great-Britain; but must again be cased and inspected, when it arrives there. I have seen an Account of Sales from England, wherein Twenty Hogsheads of Tobacco inspected here, at several Warehouses, sold at One Penny Three Farthings per Pound; and in the Same Account of Sales, several Hogsheads of the Same Sort of Tobacco, and from the same Warehouses, and sent in the Same Ship, sold at Two Pence Half Penny per Pound: What Advantage then, has the Trader by this Inspection? Could his Receiver do worse, that would incur his Displeasure, and be turn'd out of his Office, without the Formality and Charge of a Prosecution?
Are not the Laws against false Packing and Taring, &c. sufficient to detect the Roguish Planters? If not, is it impossible to provide against Knavery, without imposing on the Honest and Just?
If, by Misfortune, I can't make my Tobacco as good as my Neighbour's Tobacco, is it reasonable and just to burn it, and I to go Naked, when a Merchant would willingly give me Goods for it? There is no Standard for Tobacco; it depends altogether upon Humour and Fancy.
What sub-type of article is it?
What themes does it cover?
What keywords are associated?
What entities or persons were involved?
Letter to Editor Details
Author
Edwin Conway
Recipient
Mr. Parks
Main Argument
opposes continuing the tobacco inspection law as it breaches constituents' instructions to repeal it and violates the burgess oath by unjustly burdening honest planters with unnecessary inspection, costs, and risks without benefiting trade in britain.
Notable Details