Appendix. 391

versions of the Penmen of 1758, who would have been as quick-
sighted in spying such exceptionable Passages, and as ready in
pointing them out precisely, and exposing their fatal Tendency, by
apposite Remarks and Arguments, as the Authors of the present
Message have been hardy in imputing them, without the least Colour
of Evidence, to the Lower House. There is, I will venture to assert,
nothing in the Bill, which can give any Countenance to the Charge

Contempo-
rary Printed
Pamphlet
Md.Hist.Soc.

of encroaching upon Prerogative, or claiming any Share of the
executive Powers of Government, unless it be the Nomination of
Commissioners. And what does the much boasted Opinion of the
late Attorney General declare upon this Point? Why — "That the
sole Nomination of these Commissioners, who are new Officers
appointed by this Bill, belongs neither to the Proprietor nor the
Lower House, stricto Jure; but, like all other new Regulations,
must be assented to by both, but can be claimed by neither. The
Proprietor's Charter intitles him to nominate all constitutional Offi-
cers, and all others, which by the Laws are not otherwise provided
for. But I do not conceive my Lord has any original Right to
nominate new Officers, appointed for the Execution of a new
Law, without the consent of the two Houses; nor, on the other
hand, have the Lower House any such independent Authority,
and therefore I think the Upper House are right, notwithstand-
ing this Claim, in which they ought to be supported by the Pro-
prietor, because it is unreasonable for one Branch of the Legis-
lature to assume a Power of taxing the other, by Officers of their
single Appointment." Here it is explicitly declared, that the ap-
pointment of Commissioners is not comprehended among the Pre-
rogatives of the Proprietor, but should be made by the Concur-
rence of the several Branches of the Legislature. If this be the
Case, how was there, in this Instance, any Attempt to invade His
Majesty's Prerogatives? The utmost it can amount to is, that the

p. 38

Lower House, by their Bill, infringed the Parliamentary Rights of
the other Branches, in not admitting them to an equal Share in the
Nomination of Commissioners, because, says he, "it is unreasonble
for one Branch of the Legislature to assume a Power of taxing
the other, by Officers of their single Appointment." This, I say,
can have no Relation to any Thing but the Parliamentary Privilege,
in this Instance, reciprocally subsisting between the several Branches,
and can, by no Torture of Expression, be construed to extend to an
Invasion of the Prerogative, which is always exercised independently
of either Branch. — I cannot help making one Remark upon an Ex-
pression in the Opinion of the Attorney General, and that is the
Word unreasonable, applied to the Conduct of the Lower House.
One would have thought, that a Person who is so peculiarly obliged,
by the Duties of his Office, to guard the Prerogatives of His Maj-
esty, in animadverting upon a Passage, which the Upper House
30

p. 39