"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