ance of the prince, as to the hindrance ' of their fubjects, &c. But, molt gracious fovereign, fearing that fome go· vernors hereafter, fhould hap not to make antwer unto the expectation of your Majesty, or your highnefs's heirs and fucceffors, by whom he fhould be appointed governor, and not following the example of your highness's deputy at thofe prefents, will, upon affection or fome other refpect, abuse the like liberty given him." "Are thofe the words of people who thought their right over their own money was abridged by Poynings's law? No! And it afterwards enacts, That every thing which fhall be for the good of 'the common-wealth, fhall be certified "Are they the words of people who ' under the great seal of Ireland, and rethought that law vested a power in a go-turned under the great feal of England, vernor and council to give their money a- ' and when proclaimed as therein mentiway, and frame a bill to tax them, with- oned, fhall be effectual, notwithstanding out their confent first obtained? Impofi-Poynings's or any other act, &c.' ble ! "They confidered it as it really was, a fecurity to them and their pofterity, against bad governors under the crown. "The act of the 3d and 4th of Philip and Mary, puríues, in every respect, the defign and intention of Poynings's law, and is explanatory thereof. "It explains, that the chief governor, lord justice, lords juftices, or any of thein, may certify as well as the lieutenant (who only is mentioned in Poynings's law,) but the restriction upon them not to give the royal affent to any bill but fuch as fhall be returned under the great feal of England, is more strong than in Poynings's law, the words are, for the paffing fuch a&t, and no other, as shall be so returned under the great feal of England. "It clears any doubt which might a rife about tranfmitting money bills, and that in favour of the rights of the people, for it directs the lord lieutenant, and council, to tranfmit bills, during the fitting of parliament, it being proper that the King fhould fee money bills as well as other bills, before the royal affent fhould be given to them, the words are, fhall and may certify, which are in fome refpect compulfory, and are generally fo conftrued in acis of parliament. "That the 3d and 4th of Philip and Mary, is only explanatory in respect to bills to be certified before the meeting of parliament, and gives no new right to the lord lieutenant and council, and that it in no fort trenches upon the conftitutional right of the subject, to give money and "It is remarkable, that this act is filent as to the 3d and 4th of Philip and Mary, but makes the fame provifions for tranfmitting bills, which fhould take their rife during the fitting of parliament, as the act of Philip and Mary did, and thereby fully explains it, and fhews that the former part of Philip and Mary's act was only explanatory as aforesaid, and gave no new power." Our author next makes the following judicious remark, on the before-recited acts. "Thus the true intent and meaning of thofe two laws of Poynings, and Philip and Mary, the misconstruction of which, has caufed them to be improperly abused, and at different periods has caused distress to this kingdom, feems to be fully explained, from the laws themselves, from hiftory, and from the concurrent fenle of the whole legislative body, in different reigns, fubfequent to the paffing of those laws. "What other prerogative relative to the paffing of our laws, or fecurity for the connection of this kingdom to the crown of Great-Britain, would any wife miniter defire for his Sovereign ? "And what good fubject would repine at a restriction, equally neceffary, for the safety of the crown and the people. "Let the King then enjoy his real prerogative, in its full extent, and at the fame time the affections of his people. "And, let the people be enabled to gain, and to preferve the good will of their fovereign, in the enjoyment of their con conftitutional right of freely giving their money, when he shall have occafion to call upon them. He next examines whether ufuage can give a right to the lord lieutenant and council, or lords juftices and council, to tranfmit a bill for the granting money, and levying taxes, before the meeting of parliament. And on this fubje&t he lays down the following poftulata and draws his inferences. "Uninterupted ufuage from time immemorial, gives a right in law, because prefumption is in its favour, that it had originally a lawful foundation, though now not known. "But where any particular law is mentioned, to be the ground upon which any ufuage ftands, and upon a ftrict examination of fuch law, it is found, that it does not fupport the ufuage, fuch ufuage can have no weight, however long or uninterrupted it flood, especially if fuch ufuage be contrary to any constitutional or lawful right. "From what has been offered it appears that neither Poynings' law, nor the act of Philip and Mary, authorife the deputy and council to tranfmit a money bill, previous to the meeting of parliament; therefare ufuage from the time of paffing thofe laws does not authorise them, unless they thew fome other law upon which they ground fuch ufuage. from the printed fatutes to have been paffed, and yet parliaments were held in the 7th, 13th, 25th, 28th, 33d and 34th years of his reign. "In the reign of Philip and Mary, one act of fubfidy paffed, but feveral acts paffed in that parliament before it; and, if a judgment is to be framed from that act, it was the free gift of the commons; the words are, Faithful, loving and obe'dient fubjects, the commons in this prefent parliament affembled, do for themfelves and the hole boddie of this realem whom thei doo prefent, freely, liberallie, most lovinglie, and benevolentlie, give and graunt unto the King and 'Queen, &c.' "In the fecond year of Queen Elizabeth's reign, a parliament was held, and yet no money bill, nor act of fubfidy appear to have paffed. "In the eleventh year of her reign a parliament was held under Sir Henry Sidney, and a fubfidy was granted, or rather renewed, for the act recites, the subsidy granted to Philip and Mary, that Sir Henry Sidney had put in fufpenfe the grievous exaction of coyne and livery, and had fubdued Shane O'Neil, in confideration thereof, We your majesty's loveing, faithfull, and obedient fubjects, do molt loveingly, and freely offer unto your majefty, not only the said fubfidie now expired, but also lowly, and hearti proffer to you our bodies, &c. to the end of ten years.' "But fuppofe it fhould be allowed,ly (which is not intended) that uninterrupted dfuage, from the 20th of Henry VII. and "Thefe words prove from whence the 3d and 4th of Philip and Mary, would war- granting part of this act took its rife, and rant them to tranfinit fuch bill, previous the fame is proved more fully from a reto the meeting of parliament; they again cord now in the rolls office, wherein it fail in the very ufuage, for from 1494, appears, that in the 11th year of Queen the time of paffing Poynings' law to the Elizabeth, the following claufe is in the year 1613, which are one hundred and second tranfmifs, ・ All which several acts nineteen years, there is no publick evi-were fent hither from you, unto us, bedence of the lieutenant and council tak-fore the beginning of our faid parliaing upon them to transmit such a bill before the meeting of parliament, except in the one inftance hereafter mentioned, in the 11th of Queen Elizabeth, and in that inftance the crown waved the prerogative⚫ claimed, and admitted the right of the commons. "The first money bill fubfequent to Poynings, is the aforefaid act of 15 of Henry VII. which appears to have been paffed at the request of the Commons, as has been before observed. In the reign of Henry VIII. no money bills appear ment, under our great feal, of our said realm of Ireland, and were after returned to you again under our great feal of England, as bills we did then allow of. Nevertheless, in the perufing and confideration of them fince we latt received them from you, we perceive and find, that our faid court of parliament, hath upon the treating and debating of the faid bills, thought meet and convenient by their wisdom, to make some alteration or change of fome part of them, and likewife to fome other of the faid bills, • foine ⚫ fome good and neceffary addition, which their doings, we do not mistake, but take in very good part.' The author then afks, if it is a claim of the prerogative now contended for? And defies the advocates for fuch claim to prove their right either from juftice or uninterrupted uiuage; and fhews that the very contrary to fuch ufuage appears again upon record, in the fame rolls office, for he obferves that the original tranfimifs returned from England, of the fubfidy bill, the 10th of Charles I. 1634, has a blank left in it, for the number of fubfidies to be inferted by parliament. "This, and the former record, he says, are plain admiffions from the crown of the right of the commons over their own money; and it must be allowed, that both Queen Elizabeth and King Charles I. were tenacious of the prerogatives of the crown. He obferves alfo, that a parliament was held in the 27th and 28th years of Eliza beth, and no fubfidy or money bill appear to have pafied, nor do any tublidy or money bill appear to have passed, from that year, until the 12th of James I. He then deduces from the foregoing premifes thele ftriking and important obfervations. "From what has been offered it appears, that it is not neceflary in order to hold a parliament in this kingdom, that a money bili should be first certified by the lieutenant and council, fo many parliaments having been held, in which no money bill or fubfidy bill appear to have pafled, confequently, if any money bills had been tranimitted previous to the meeting of fuch parliaments, fuch money bills muft have either dropped or been reject ed. "The proceedings of the crown, of the lieutenant and council, for the first century and a half after the laws of Poynings, and Philip and Mary, beft explain the intention of thofe laws, especially as in the fift century, until the latter end of Queen Elizabeth's reign, this kingdom for the most part enjoyed a peace. "From the beginning of king James I. reign, it appears by our parliamentary journals, that the commons conftantly claimed their right, and in several initances afferted it. "In the parliament held in 1615, we find the commons debating upon an act of fubfidy before it was read. "And debating it again upon the fecond reading, and a division whether it fhould be engroffed, it was carried in the affirmative. "In the parliament held in 1634, immediately after the fpeaker was approved of, a bill for confirmation of letters patent was firft read, and before any other bill was read, in two days after it was or. dered by question with an unanimous confent of the house, That six subsidies shall be granted to his majesty, to be levied in parliamentary manner, in four years, viz. two fubfidies the first year, two sub⚫fidies the fecond year, one the third year, and one the fourth and last year.' The author quotes many other paffages from hiftory to the fame purpose, and gives us the following account of the proceedings of the houfe of commons relative to the excife and corn bills. "Two bills being fent to the commons in 1692, lord Sidney being then lord lieutenant, tranfmitted under the great feal of England, one for an additional excife, and the other for a tax upon corn lands, they ordered them to lie upon the table until they could folve a difficulty, that as it was their original right that money bills fhould take their rife in their houfe, and that as well the quantum, as the method of raifing it fhould be determined by them; fo the houfe was apprehenfive that as their majesties occafions required an immediate fupply, there might not be time during the feffions for bills of their own preparing to be returned from England, for upon Saturday the 22d of October, the day on which the two money bills were fent to them, they received a message fromı the lord lieutenant, that the feffions would not continue above a fortnight longer, and recommending their speedy proceeding upon the bills before them. To folve the above difficulty, they found an expedient to pass the excife bill as it was, by voting firft an additional duty exactly correfponding with the said bill, and thofe heads fo prepared, being tendered to the lord lieutenant and council to be drawn into a bill, and transmitted, the houfe might receive the bill already fent as tranfinitted from England, and framed on thofe heads, and accordingly they paffed the said vote for fuch additional excife, and afterwards paffed the bill for the fame; but they rejected the corn bill, at the fame time agreeing to to a poll bill in its ftead, to make up any "That it is the undoubted right of the Commons of Ireland in Parliament affembled, to prepare and refolve the ways and means of raising money. "That it was, and is the fole and undoubted right of the Commons to prepare heads of bills for the raising money." Our author then oblerves, that whoever reads the hiftory of that feffion of the commons over the money of the nation; but the fentiments of lord Strafford (who was the greatest advocate for prerogative) ought first to be remarked; for in one of his letters, giving an account to the lord treasurer of his deliberations with the council relative to the certifying caufes, confiderations, and bills previous to the calling of a new parliament, he exproffes himself thus: "That as for the subfidy, I was altogether against their fetting down of a certain number, or that they should feem to put any conftraint upon the free and chearful hearts of the people, it not be Parliament, will find that a ftri&t enquirying fit that any hand fhould gather mean made by a committee of the Houfe into forfeited lands improperly disposed of, and the embezzlement of forfeited goods which were seized, and the refolutions of that Committee thereupon; which affe&ted fome of the Commiffioners of the revenue, favourites of the lord lieutenant, were the true caufes of the difpleasure of the chief governor, and of the prorogation, and not the affertion which the commons made of their own rights. "The proteftation feems to be the lord lieutenant's own act, (probably to screen what he had done) and that he did it without any directions from the crown for the purpose. between a king and his fubjects, but thofe intelligencies of love and obfervance, which are to pafs between them, fhould immediately defcend to the one, afcend and be returned back again to the other, as mutual obligations of favour, and obedience, which each were inceffantly the one to preferve for, and pay to the other.' "The duke of Shrewsbury in 1713, feems to make an apology to the commons for the bill tranfmitted before the meeting of parliament; his words are. "As the feveral additional duties will expire at Christmas, her majefty to prevent their lapfing has fent over a bill to be offered to your confideration to continue will have an opportunity further to provide for the credit of her government, and your own fafety, by fuch ways and means as you fhall think proper." "For the corn bill was rejected by the commons upon Friday the 28th of Octo-them for three months, whereby you ber, and the protest was entered, and the Parliament prorogued on Thursday the third day of November following, to that there was not time fufficient for the crown to be informed of the refolutions and vote of the commons relative to the corn bill, and to return inftructions to the lieutenant to protest in the manner he did, "We must therefore conclude, that his proteft was the arbitrary act of a lord lieutenant, who was apprehenfive that the cenfure of the commons would pafs against his favourites, which leffens the weight the proteft might otherwife have. "The proteft which lord Strafford made during his administration, was a gainst the proceedings of the houfe of lords, and was no precedent upon which Lord Sidney could found his proteft. "Obferve the applications made by the feveral viceroys to the commons, upon the opening of every new parliament, and you may judge whether their manner of applying does not acknowledge a right in Jan. 1770. "In May 1716, It was refolved by the commons, nem. con. that no money bill be read in this houfe, untill the report from the committee of accounts be first made. "And this was declared a standing order of the house. "And has been fo obferved ever fince the acceffion of King George I. that the fupply thall follow an examination of our circumstances, the application of former grants, and a view of our ability, by which the quantum of the supply may be regulated. "From that year, no fpeech from the throne has mentioned any money bill, or other bill, certified, but have laid eftimates of the whole expence before the commons, and have defined the commons to make provifion for the whole. G "The "The Commons in the year 1760, and for fome time before, began to give more attention to the improvement of the kingdom, and to the conftitution thereof, than their predeceffors had done, and upon the opening of the new Parliament, which was called after His Majefty's acceffion to the throne, they firft voted a supply, and when a Bill to continue part of the duties which had been granted in the former Parliament, and which took its rife in the Privy Council, was moved to be read, they debated it that day and the next day, and altho' it was carried, upon a question, in favour of the Bill, yet there were a confiderable number in the minority. "In the late feffions, the Commons firft voted a supply, and when a bill of the like nature which took its rife in the Privy Council to continue only part of the duties for three months, was offered to their confideration, they firft read it, then after debate, upon a question, rejected it, and affigned the reason, because it did not take its rife in their Houfe, intending at that very time, and fo they expreffed their intention, to give much more ample fupplies for two years, which intention they foon fulfilled, by paffing the Money Bills, and received the thanks of the crown for the fame, when the Royal Affent was given to them. "What other steps could they take, as faithful guardians of their own and the peoples rights, over their money?---They wifely apprehended the danger which might one day arife from the frequent repetition of paffing a Money Bill, framed by men, who reprefented no one whomfoever, not even themselves, but who were reprefented by that very Parliament, on whom they thus obtruded a bill for the raifing of money.---The apprehenfion of danger from fuch precedents, very justly increased fince the law for octennial parliaments paffed in this kingdom.---When a parliament continued for a length of time, as the one before the laft did, for above thirty years, a precedent of the kind feemed to be almoft forgot, but the repetition of fuch a precedent, every eight years, became an alarming fubject, and the more fo, as the Commons obferved that it had been ftrenuously infifted upon, by a Chief Governor in the year 1760, although no poffible advantage appeared to them to arife to government from it; the protest in the year 1692, pointed to them the danger of permitting precedents to be repeated against their constitutional right. "It may not be improper to ask, what advantage has the crown received, for above feventy years paft, by an adherence to, (with refpect to prerogative) a meer matter of form ?---That the minds of the people, tho' thoroughly attached to government, and most willing to answer the neceffities of it, have been fretted by this adherence, not foreseeing to what end it might tend, is too plain..--The plea of neceffity cannot be urged; the Commons have all along given, in a constitutional manner, more, abundantly more, than has been asked for by thofe unconftitutional bills.---How then are such bills expedient for the crown? where was the neceffity of protesting against the Commons, for rejecting a bill, acknowledged to be ufeleis, to be nugatory, if not at the moment, in a few days after it should pafs ?--Can we fuppofe, the proteft to be entered for rejecting the bill? No! that would bear too hard. For to tell the Commons that they have not a right to give a negative, upon any question propofed to them from the chair, more especially relating to their money, would in effect be, to tell them, ye are all flaves. "Whether their affigning, as a reason for rejecting, that the bill did not take its rife in their House, was a foundation for the protest, the arguments herein offered are intended to point out ---Let them be weighed in the impartial fcale of reason, and let every man's judgment direct him to give an anfwer.---Do not the thanks given to the Commons (immediately before the proteft) for the fupplies granted, for the provifions made, for the prefent establishment, the public credit, and the fafety of this kingdom, acknowledge that they had a right to give? Could their giving be called, with propriety, a benevolence from them, or be accepted as fuch, (the ftile used by the crown upon paffing every Money Bill) if others could give for them?-- Benevolence, farely implies a free gift, and they only can be benevolent in a gift, who have the full power of giving it... Which mode of proceeding will moft difpofe the people to be liberal?...Which mode will molt effectually conciliate the minds of the people to their King, will most incline them to liften to his call, to confider his neceffities, to be ready to relieve them, to fup port |