The Upper House. 103

support the Clerks Claim, then the Lower House came to the general
Resolution which they communicated to the Upper, importing in
the clearest and most general Terms "that they would allow the Clerk
of the Council for all the public Services he should perform, upon
their appearing by the Exhibition of an Account" tho your Con-
struction is extremely far fetched & indefensible on any rational
Principle, yet are we not surprized that the Success of it should be
hazarded, for in Reality, you have nothing but that Pretence, weak
as it is, to excuse or palliate your Conduct in Violating the Faith
of a former Lower House, M^r Ross hath always been paid a salary
by the Public, and when the Allowance was brought to a Determina-
tion in 1756, a Compliance in future with the Resolve of the Lower
House "that an Account should be exhibited" was by them made
the Terms on which he was afterwards to be entitled to a Recom-
pence, & it was natural for him to expect that he should certainly be
paid if his Account of Public Services whether required of him
by any particular Law or in the Course of his Duty as a Constitu-
tional Officer, would shew him to be reasonably entitled to his usual
Allowance, and therefore if there were Reasons for not allowing a
Salary to the present Clerk, hereafter, much more conclusive than
any you have offered, considering what was the Conduct of the

U. H. J.
Liber No. 36
Dec. 19

Lower House in 1756 and their honourable Obligation arising from
it, we conceive that it is in no Respect justifiable to reject M..^r Ross's
Claim at this Time.
A Private Gentleman, who should refuse to allow an old Servant
a Claim founded as M^r Ross's is, would have very little Reason to
expect that the World should applaud him for his Prudence. And
we do not conceive, that in the Conduct of Public Business, Public
Credit may be supported without paying a due Regard to the Prin-
ciples of Equity and Honour by which every private Gentleman of
Reputation holds himself to be bound. But in your present Rage
against Precedents perhaps the Reason why we consider the Pro-
ceedings of 1756, to be Obligatory, may induce you to think they
ought to be slighted, for your general Argument on this Head is that
no Precedent ought to be regarded, and the Opinion you have ad-
vanced from the Encouragement of some supposed former Successes
attending perseverance is no less than this, that Perseverance may
accomplish every Purpose.

What may have been the Sentiments of the Writer you mention
on the subject of Precedents, or how he applied them to his Purpose,
is of very little Consequence. We do not contend that Precedents
urged in the Support of a plainly injurious Measure ought to be
relied upon
Our Words are "We conceive that no Variation from the numer-
ous Precedents, continued without Interruption for so many Years;
and established in so many successive Instances of Confirmation by

12

p. 283