Appendix. 443

tion, which he knows nothing of. — The dismission of a Privy-
Counsellor is the undeniable prerogative of the Crown; but then there
is no necessity such Member of the Privy-Council should also be a
Member of the Upper House of Parliament of England, and granted,
that such Member of the Privy-Council be also a Member of the
Upper House here, his Majesty's dismissing him from the Council
does no way affect his seat in the Upper House of Parliament.
The comparison between the two dismissions you see, Sir, can
no way hold, is needless, and far from the point the writer argues
for. Why does he not keep to the Rights and Prerogative exercised

Contempo-
rary Printed
Pamphlet
Md.Hist.Soc.

by his Majesty, relative to the Counsellors and Members of the
Upper Houses in the colonies, immediately under the authority of
his Majesty, and those exercised by the Proprietor delegated to him
by the King's Royal Charter; because there he will find no difference,
The dismission is undeniably of the same force and validity under
the delegated, as the immediate power of the King's supreme
authority.
As to the similarity between the two authorities, I refer the
Pamphleteer back to my Answer to the Querist, No. 2. which with
what I have said above, will clearly obviate the following, and all
other his absurd remarks on this head.

He says, "It is a vulgar notion, that the Proprietor has a right
to displace a Counsellor, but that he cannot remove him from his
seat in the Upper House, or annihilate his legislative capacity. —
The above case is a solemn determination to the contrary, nor do I
know it has ever been contravened by any subsequent proceeding,
so that the precedent remains in full force to this day." Yes, and
will remain a prescriptive right granted by regal authority to the

p. 124

Lord-Proprietor, and will for ever be a bar against the unjust at-
tempts of the Pamphleteer and all his adherents, to subvert or molest,
the power or property of the Proprietor in possession; 'tis too
strongly fix'd for him to pretend to meddle with it. — Respecting the
establishment of the Upper House of Assembly, I conceive no doubt
of the rectitude of their actions, conjunctively in the legislature with
the Lower House.

The writers says, (page 55,) [p. 400] "The Upper and Lower
Houses, say their Honours, are coeval." This, says he, "is nothing
but a play upon the words Upper and Lower, which being relative
terms, and mutually implying each other, can neither of them exist
independently of the other. For let it be supposed that the legislature,
according to the plan of the Charter, had consisted only of two
branches, to wit, the Proprietor or his deputy, and the delegates of the
people, from the first settlement of the Province till yesterday, when
his Lordship's Council were admitted a branch of the legislature, and
the necessary distinction of the Upper and Lower Houses was intro-
duced; the proposition to-day that the Upper and Lower Houses

p. 125