CHAP mode of proceeding has been explained in a former part of this work.

III.

1642.

On the 13th of December the following extraordinary entry proves that in this, as well as in the preceding feffion, the house of commons had decided caufes upon petitions ; "That those who had petitioned the houfe, might commence their fuits in "other courts.”

On the 20th of April one thousand fix hundred and forty-three, to which day the house had been prorogued *, a meffage came from the lords to inform them, that the earl of Kildare had petitioned the lords against two commoners, fir George Wentworth and George Carr efq. for arrears of rent; that they could not proceed on account of privilege, and defiring that the earl might be left to the ordinary course of law. The answer was very extraordinary: "that they had entered into the merits of the

*The entry of the prorogation is as follows: "Memorandum, That the parliament is prorogued un"til the 20th day of April next, which will be in the "year 1643." ❝cause,

"caufe, and found that the earl's intereft CHAP. "was but in truft."

The house farther defired that the fcruple. in the said petition, viz. (given to the said earl by act of parliament in England) might be amended; fuppofing that it might be a precedent that English acts of parliament are binding in Ireland. (Probably this alluded to fome eftate in truft to lord Kildare by a private act in England.)

Though orders had been made against the multiplicity of protections, I find this curious question the 18th of December one thousand fix hundred and forty-three.

Upon reading the petition of John Carlton, it was put to the queftion, whether Henry King, protected by colonel Audley Mervyn, may be fued: which was carried in the negative by twenty-five befides the teller, to twenty-two befides the teller. This circumftance proves the paucity of the attendance at this time; and the circum

ftance

III.

1643.

CHAP. ftance of there being but two instead of four III. tellers is extraordinary. In the house of 1643. lords the tellers always reckon themselves

firft; fo that if one member fhould divide against the whole houfe, it would be entered, the contents were one, the not contents forty; whereas in the commons it would be entered nought, which has sometimes a whimsical appearance on the journals, and is an arithmetical absurdity *.

The

* The mode of dividing the house of commons is fo well known, that it would be fuperfluous to dwell upon that fubject; but queftions arife, upon who are to go into the lobby? which are prevented in the house of lords, by the general rule, that the contents in all cafes must go below the bar.

In Ireland this rule is observed only in the house: when the lords are in a committee, the prefent prac tice is, to divide to the right and the left as in the com

mons.

The method in counting the lords upon a divifion is, that the teller reckons himself in the first instance, and then the lords are told, beginning at the front row of the earl's bench, and afterwards the bishops; and thus all the lords in the house are counted. The tel

lers

III.

The house was then prorogued, in the CHAP. fame form as was before mentioned, to the 17th of February one thousand fix hundred 1643. and forty-four; on which day a strong

remon

lers ask the prefident which way he chooses to be told; if with the not contents, he is numbered with the last of them; if with the contents below the bar, he is told first on that fide; and the teller, after counting himself, reckons the lords as they go through the bar. This matter has been thus minutely detailed, because it is plain that there can be no cafting voice, as in the house of commons; where the speaker never votes except where the voices are equal. Hence the order in putting the question in appeals and writs of error is derived, "that this decree or judgment be re"versed;" for if the votes fhould be equal, the fentence of the court below ftands good, and it can only be reversed by a majority.

In the French national affembly, who probably have derived all their orders and cuftoms, and the greater part of their conftitution, from the Congress and the United States of America, the method of putting the question is, "Que ceux qui font pour ce decret, veu"lent bien s'elever; que ceux qui font contraires, &c. ❝ veulent bien s'elever." After which the prefident announces, "that the national affembly decrees ac"cording as the majority has decided."

VOL. II.

G

If

CHAP. remonftrance was made to the lord lieuteIII. nant, the marquis of Ormond, on the im1644 propriety of the speaker's being counsel in the Castle Chamber against fir Arthur Lof

tus, a member of parliament, and defiring the council to dispense with their order for his attendance.

On the 9th of April one thousand fix hundred and forty-four Philip Lord Lifle

If there fhould be a doubt, which feldom happens, as majorities there in general are very decifive, if the affembly do not agree in their prefident's declaration, any member has a right to insist upon the appel nominal; of which the following is the ceremony: -One of the four fecretaries (who are all members appointed by a ballot once a fortnight with the prefident) reads the lift of the members, and every one present gives his fuffrage viva voce; and the clerk having inferted them in lifts pro and con, declares the majority; which proceeding generally occupies above two hours, and it has been found to be very inconvenient.

The appel nominal feldom happens; and the author recollects to have feen only two inftances during a clofe attendance of near seven months, in 1791, upon the national affembly.

and