" Now the Lords did argue
that it was an ill precedent, and that which will ever hereafter
be used as a way of preventing the King's dispensation with acts;
and therefore rather advise to pass the Bill without that word,
and let it go accompanied with a petition to the King that he
will not dispense with it; this being a more civil way to the
King. They answered well, that this do imply that the King
should pass their Bill, and yet with design to dispense with it;
which is to suppose the King guilty of abusing them. And more,
they produce precedents for it; namely, that against new
buildings, and about leather, where the word "Nusance" is used to
the purpose: and further, that they do not rob the King of any
right he ever had, for he never had a power to do hurt to his
people, nor would exercise it; and therefore there is no danger
in the passing this Bill of imposing on his prerogative; and
concluded that they think they ought to do this, so as the people
may really have the benefit of it when it is passed, for never
any people could expect so reasonably to be indulged something
from a King, they having already given him so much money and are
likely to give more.
Pages:
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043