This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1828 Excerpt: ...if you refer to that usage, and leave out the most material part, which was the ground of the quarrel, and upon which all turns. I shall not state the question, negative, or no negative, by law. It is certain it is upon conscience to confirm those good and wholesome laws that shall be tendered him by the people. Queen Elizabeth refused to confirm a law for establishing Popery, for that was not good nor wholesome; so no breach of her oath by refusal. All the blood that has been spent has been about this, and wherein his Highness himself engaged, viz. and to confirm these good and wholesome laws that the people in Parliament shall present unto him. This I would have added. Mr. Vincent. I stand up to second those two motions that were now made you. 1. To secure the privileges of Parliament: unless those be kept entire, it is an error in the first concoction, scarce remediable. 2. To put this long controverted point out of question, the negative voice. To me, I profess, I look upon it that the legislature is, where the negative voice is. I know not what a Parliament signifies else. It will be said that monies were always the chief consideration. Now you have parted with that by settling a perpetual revenue; and unless you insert this in your oath, I See tupra, p. 67, note. know not how you shall come to your consideration. Late experience tells us how, for a circumstance, the Chief Magistrate may reject any law. Lord Chief-Justice Glynn moved, that this was debated when the Petition and Advice was debated. This was never the quarrel stated nor determined. It will be hard to prove that the Long Parliament ever denied the King the negative voice. As to that of the privilege of Parliament, it is comprehended under the word laws. Resolved, the oath so amended. Reso...