discharge of the said principal sums in such manner as is therein directed," which had been certified by us, the Lord Lieutenant of this kingdom, and by the council of this kingdom, unto the King's Majesty, under the great seal of this kingdom; and by his Majes ty approved of, and returned into this kingdom, under the great seal of Great Britain, and by us sent to the House of Commons to be considered of in this present Parliament; the said Commons, having the said bill before them, did read the said bill the first time on the 21st day of November last; and on the same 21st day of November, a motion being made in the said House, and the question put, "That the same bill be read a second time on the morrow morning" it passed in the negative. And afterwards, on the same 21st day of November, another motion was made in the said House of Commons, and the question put, "That the same bill be rejected:" it passed in the affirmative. And afterwards, on the same 21st day of November, a motion was made in the said House of Commons, and the question put, "That the said bill is rejected because it did not take its rise in that House:" it was carried in the affirmative. And the said House of Commons thereupon, the same day, resolved, that the said bill was rejected, because it did not take its rise in that House. All which motions, questions, votes, resolutions and proceedings, appear to us in the Journals or Votes of the said House of Commons, printed and published by and under their order and authority; and which vote and resolution of the said House of Commons, declaring, that the said bill was rejected, because it did not take its rise in that House, do tend to exclude his Majesty and the crown of Great Britain from the right of transmitting any bills for granting to his Majesty and his successors, money or other aids, and are not consistent with, but contrary to the said recited acts of Parliament, and the usage and practice ever since the making thereof; and do, in effect, intrench upon his majesty's royal power and authority, and the just and undoubted rights of the crown of Great Britain.

We therefore the said Lord Lieutenant, as well to assert the just rights of his Majesty and the crown of Great Britain (whereof we are, and ever will be most tender) in transmitting such bills under the great seal of Great Britain, to be considered of in Parliament, as to discharge the trust reposed in us, and prevent the inconveniencies which may hereafter happen by the said vote and resolution of the House of Commons, declaring, that the said bill was reject ed for the cause therein mentioned, being made public and remaining in their journals, without any contradiction or animadversion, have thought it necessary this day, in full Parliament to protest, and we do accordingly protest against the aforesaid vote and resolution of the said House of Commons, made and passed, declaring that the said bill was rejected, because it did not take its rise in that House, and appearing in their journals or votes. And we do

assert, protest and declare, that it is the just and undoubted right of his Majesty and of the crown of Great Britain, observing the forms in the said several acts prescribed, to transmit bills under the great seal of Great Britain, for granting of aids to his Majesty, his heirs and successors; which said bill so transmitted, ought to be read and considered of by the House of Commons in this kingdom, without being rejected by the said House, on account only of their not taking their rise in that House; and therefore the rejecting of the said bill because it did not take its rise in that House, and the said recited vote and resolutions of the said House of Commons, declaring, that the said bill was rejected, because it did not take its rise in that House, are not consistent with, but contrary to, the acts of parliament herein before mentioned, and the prac tice and usage in all parliaments since the making thereof; and also highly derogatory to his Majesty's royal authority and the rights of the crown Great of Britain.

After which the lord chancellor, by his excellency's further command, said:

My Lords and Gentlemen,

It is his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant's pleasure, that this Parliament be prorogued to Tuesday the 20th day of March next, to be then here held; and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued. to Tuesday the 20th day of March next.

No. LXI. a.

PROTEST OF FIVE LORDS AGAINST THE LORD LIEUTENANT's RIGHT OF PROTESTING.......PAGE 125.

MOTION being made, that the speaker of this house be desired to direct that no protest of any person whomsoever, who is not a lord of parliament, and a member of this house, and which doth not respect a matter which had been previously in question before this house, and wherein the lord protesting had taken part with the minority either in person or by proxy, be entered in the journals of this house.

And a debate arising thereupon, the question was put, and the house divided:

The Earl of Drogheda reported, that the contents below the bar were 5; and the non-contents in the house were 30.

It passed in the negative.

Dissentient :

1. Because we conceive, that it is the sole and exclusive right and privilege of a lord of parliament and member of this house, to have his protest entered on the journals of this house: and that even a lord of parliament and member of this house cannot have his protest so entered, except upon a matter previously in question before this house, wherein the lord protesting took part with the minority, either in person or by proxy.

2. Because we conceive, that this regulation of the privilege of protesting, stands upon the same principle; in consequence of which, this privilege hath obtained among the lords, and not among the representatives of the people, the latter, we apprehend, are considered by the constitution, as actuated and justified by the sentiments of those whom they represent: whereas the lords, who act, not as deputies, but in their own right, are more personally responsible for their conduct to posterity. The practice of a permanent justification, also seems to have deemed a more necessary guard upon a body, whose power was permanent. Hence we conceive the privilege of protesting arose, that a lord against whom the majority had declared, might have an opportunity of vindicating himself to future times, which the original custom of inserting the name of each lord on the journals, with the part he had taken in the question. rendered more unnecessary: and we therefore apprehend, as it would be absurd for a lord to justify his conduct where he had not acted, that the privilege of protesting had been by reason as well as by practice confined to cases, in which the lord protesting had taken a part, and in which, upon question, the majority had been on a different opinion.

3. Because we conceive, that the Earl of Strafford, who first attempted, and that but in a single instance, to enter his protest, as chief governor, upon the journals of this house, was a person of such an arbitrary spirit, and the times, in which he lived, of so bad example, and his said protest so informal and faulty in itself, that such his proceeding ought not to be con-sidered as a precedent.

4. Because we apprehend, that the only subsequent instance, to wit, the protest of Lord Sydney, which was made in heat by that governor, whose conduct was disapproved on his recal to England, which soon followed, and founded upon the former example, which ought not to have been imitated, was still more irregular and improper, inasmuch as it related to a matter, which had never been before this house, and respected the privileges and proceedings of the other house of parliament.

5. Because we conceive it to be peculiarly necessary, at this time, to express our sentiments upon this subject, when we have

reason to apprehend, that it is intended, that a protest should be entered upon the journals of this house, relative to the proceedings and privileges of the other house of parliament in imitation of the last mentioned protest.

6. Because we apprehend, that we ought not to suffer this distinguished privilege of the lords to be invaded or assumed by any person, in whatever station. And that we ought particularly to resist any such attempt, when it may be to involve a breach of the privileges of the other house of parliament also, and may therefore be productive of dissension between the two houses.

PROTEST OF SIXTEEN LORDS AGAINST THE ENTRY OF THE LORD LIEUTENANT'S PROTEST ON THE JOURNALS....P. 135.

Dissentient,

1. BECAUSE we conceive, that by the entering of the lord lieutenant's protest upon the journals of this house, at the close of the last session, the privileges of this house, and the constitutional rights of the peerage, have been most flagrantly infringed and violated; and that therefore the earliest opportunity should be seized of vindicating the rights and privileges of the peerage, and of wiping away the affront, which this house has received therein, by expunging from its journals this matter of offence which has been unwarrantably and illegally obtruded upon them.

2. Because we conceive, that the above mentioned protest contains in it matter in the highest degree illegal and unconstitutional, inasmuch as it claims a right, and presumes to animadvert upon some proceedings of the lower house of parliament. Now we are bold to assert, that whenever any one branch of the legislature shall arrogate a right to animadvert upon either of the other two branches, the branch of the legislature so subject to animadversion would instantly cease to be part of the supreme power; the balance of the constitution would be overturned, and that branch in which this jurisdiction resided, would be completely sovereign; a supposition, which

is equally abhorrent to the spirit and to the letter of the constitution.

3. Because we conceive, that this house hath and ought to have the sole and exclusive dominion over its own journals, in like manner as the commons have over theirs; and that the lord lieutenant hath no more right to order an entry to be made upon our journals than he hath to order an entry to be made upon the journals of the commons; and we conceive, that as the crown, though a branch of the legislature, is no estate of parliament, therefore the crown or its representative, can have no jurisdiction over the journals of the estates of parliament, which are the records of the proceedings of the deliberative branches of the legislature, whereof the crown is not one. And we are the more confirmed in this opinion, by reflecting, that there is not a single instance even in the most arbitrary times, of such a power being claimed or exercised by the crown, in Great Britain, over the journals of the British peers. We apprehend also, that no matter can with propriety be entered upon the journals of this house, without the leave of this house previously had or implied, as is clearly evinced by the constant practice of reading the minutes by the clerk before the house is adjourned, in order that every peer may have an opportunity of preventing any thing improper from being entered upon the journals. Now on the last day of the last session, no such opportunity was given, the reading of the minutes having been prevented by the prorogation.

4. Because, though it hath been asserted, that the journals of this house, being public records, it is improper that any alteration should be made therein: we are of opinion, that this maxim extends only to the judicial proceedings of this house, not seeing that in other instances there is any reason to distinguish between the journals of this house and those of the other house of parliament, from which matters have frequently been expunged: As it is also notorious, that matters, not of a judicial nature, have frequently been expunged from the journals of the House of Lords of Great Britain. Indeed, were it otherwise, the speaker or even the clerk of this house, or any indifferent person, who might however irregularly get access to the journal book, might insert therein matter of the most criminal import, amounting even to the crime of treason; and it would be a strange solecism to say, that such insertion must for ever remain, to the disgrace of this house, without any power in us to expunge and purge away such obnoxious

matter.

5. Because it hath been declared to be a high breach of the privileges of parliament, that the crown should take notice of