|
|
U. H. J.
Liber No. 35
May 4
|
The Power you claim of nominating Commissioners which you
would support by the Land Tax Acts, we have disputed, and will
not suffer you to exercise.
In the Poll Bills which passed in England before 1.st W: & M:
the Comm.rs in Respect of the Estates of Peers were appointed by
their Lordships particularly in the 29.ih of Car : 2 :d the last Bill of that
Kind which happened before 1:st W : & M : Tis true that in the 1:st
W: & M: no such Power was given to, or reserved by the Peers
which as it appears from the parliamentary Proceedings of that
Time happened thro' their Inadvertency occasioned by the hasty
Passage they gave the Bill which the King was extremely sollicitous
about, and urged them to dispatch, but the Commissioners named in
this Act of Parliament were appointed by the Crown after the Royal
Assent had been given to this Statute and in the same Session an
additional Poll Bill was sent from the Commons to the Lords which
they returned with an Amendment to enable them to appoint Com-
missioners to rate themselves under the original Bill; but this Amend-
ment not being agreed to by the Commons became the Subject of
some Conferrences between the two Houses, the Peers asserted that
their Right was founded upon constant Usage which does not appear
to have been denied by the Commons whose principal Reasons for not
admitting the Amendment were that the additional Poll Bill taxed
none but Commoners, and that if no Commissioners had been named
they would have agreed to their Lordship's present Demand, rather
than their Lordships should not be taxed but that any Alteration
then would go a great Way to repeal the Act when the Commissioners
might be probably entered upon their Office, and were already taxing
their Lordships or at least would soon do it if the Amendment was
not admitted As the Commons would not admit the Lords to retrieve
their Right in the Manner they proposed the Lords in Resentment
rejected the additional Poll Bill
|
|
|
|
p. 308
|
The Commissioners we have said named in this Statute were
appointed by the King and the same Commissioners were by Refer-
rence appointed in subsequent Acts, but if the Commons have been
allowed to name Commissioners in the Manner you seem to imagine,
can it therefore be inferred with any Degree of Propriety that you
ought in Point of Right to demand the sole and exclusive Authority
to nominate Commissioners, when these Commissioners are to be
vested with so great Power over the Estates of the Proprietary and
the Members of the Upper House as well as of every other Subject,
and not one Instance from the first Settlement of this Province that
we know, or have heard of can be adduced to countenance your
Claim? or can it be said that when a free Grant of Money is made
to the King by his Subjects from a Principle of Affection to his
Person and Government, it would be of that Consequence to the
Crown /supposing the Commons have always nominated Comm."
|
|
