REASONS Humbly offered for Passing the Bill for rendering the Laws more effectual for Prohibiting Foreign Bone-Lace, &c.  
THe Importers of foreign Lace not thinking it their Interest to appear openly against the Bill, have prevailed with some Shop-keepers to raise objections against some parts of it; to which an answer is here given.  
That the Retailer must prove the Goods seized to be English, and that tho himself swears he bought them for English, and others swear they believe them to be such, yet he shall be liable to the penalties if the Jury believe them to be Foreign.  

1. If a Jury believe them to be Foreign, it is true he is subject to the penalties but it is not reasonable to think that a Jury will believe those Laces to be Foreign, which the Retailer proves he bought for English, and others skilled in the Commodity shall swear they believe to be such.  
2. The greatest part of the Lace sold is easily distinguishable by the Eye, and it cannot be supposed, that a Seizer will be at the charge of a svit for Lace that there is not good reason to believe is foreign.  
3. The onus probandi has in many other Acts been put upon the person in whose custody the goods are found, and no inconvenience has been found thereby.  
4. Where goods are not distinguishable by view or taste, the Seizer cannot possibly prove them to be foreign, but the owner knowing how he came by them, may easily prove them to be English.  
5. If any Lace is sold to a Retailer for English which proves to be foreign, the Retailer has his remedy by Law against the Seller, and may recover all his damages; and no doubt, in that cafe the first Verdict that the goods are foreign will be a sufficient evidence to another Jury to give damages, because if the Seller can prove them to be English at a second trial, he may and will do so at the first, whatever the Paper against this Bill suggests to the contrary, and the Buyer no doubt for his own sake will give the Seller notice of any seizure.   
That if a malicious or beggarly Informer seize 500 l. worth of Goods he has 12 months time to prosecute, and the Goods must lie all the while.  
The writer of the Paper has clearly mistaken the Bill in this point, for 

1. The Goods seized( if foreign) must be presently carried to the next Custom-House, and must be prosecuted as soon as the course of the Exchequer Court will admit, or else they will be delivered back, and if any English Lace should by mistake be seized as foreign, no doubt but upon the owners making it appear they are such, they will immediately be delivered back, as the practise now is notwithstanding the prohibition, and as it may be continued notwithstanding any thing in this Bill.  
2. The Clause at the latter end of the Bill, that no offence against this Act shall be prosecuted after 12 months, is in favour of the persons offending, that they may not always be liable to Informations in the Attorney Generals name for importing prohibited Goods, but none of the penalties of this Act can be so recovered unless the Lace itself be seized.    
The persons that claim any Goods seized must be bound in 20 l. to pay the cost if the Goods are condemned.  
This is in other Acts of prohibition, and the reason is, that otherwise Goods may be claimed in the names of persons unknown and of no substance, on purpose to put the Seizer to charge and vexation, and when a recovery is had, the Seizer knows not where to look for his charges, and sometimes the whole value of the Goods seized will not pay the charges.  
If the Informer or Seizer will not prosecute the Goods seized, another may, and if none will, the owner shall have them again, making Oath he blieves them to be English, and giving an account of whom he bought them, and this the paper thinks not possible to do, at least for what is past.  

1. That another has liberty to prosecute if the Informer does not, is because otherwise theInformer or Seizer may be bought off for a small matter to desist prosecution.  
2. There is nothing more easy than for a Shopkeeper to keep an account of whom he Buys his Goods, and by marking them, to know they are the same, and for what is past, there is six months time given by this Act for disposing what they have, and if any persons have by them any Lace that theydoubt of whom it was bought, they may put that off in the mean time; but these are believed to be only pretences, because the Dealers and Sellers of Flanders Lace are all substantial persons.   
That the Promoters of this Bill have been concerned in Forerign Lace.  
Admitting it to be so, it cannot appear so very strange, for if there be not an effectual prohibition, Lace-men m be tempted rather to deal in foreign Lace, then be wholly deprived of the benefit of their Trade; but for the good of their Country, they are willing the prohibition be as strict as may be, and whatever ill convenience can be supposed thereby to others they will be the same to them, but they apprehended none.   

AN ANSWER To the Objections against the LACE-BILL.