of "Nuisance," but the Commons stood to their
word, and gained their way. The Lords finally consented that
"Nuisance" should stand in the Bill.]

which the Commons would have, and the Lords will not, in the Irish Bill.
The Commons do it professedly to prevent the King's dispensing with it;
which Sir Robert Howard and others did expressly repeat often: viz.,
"the King nor any King ever could do any thing which was hurtful to
their people." 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,
wherein the word "Nuisance" 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. Thus they broke up, both adhering to their opinions; but
the Commons seemed much more full of judgment and reason than the Lords.
Then the Commons made their Report to the Lords of their vote, that
their Lordships' proceedings in the Bill for examining Accounts were
unparliamentary; they having, while a Bill was sent up to them from the
Commons about the business, petitioned his Majesty that he would do the
same thing by his Commission. They did give their reasons: viz., that
it had no precedent; that the King ought not to be informed of anything
passing in the Houses till it comes to a Bill; that it will wholly break
off all correspondence between the two Houses, and in the issue wholly
infringe the very use and being of Parliaments. Having left their
arguments with the Lords they all broke up, and I by co