( 16 )
ARTICLE II.
ANSWER.
Two heads of complaint contained in this article; viz. 1ſt, the giving of inſtructions relating to a ſuſpeding clauſe; 2dly, Neglect of laws paſt with this clauſe.This article contains two diſtinct charges. The one, that his Majeſty has inſtructed his Governors, not to paſs certain laws, unleſs their operation be ſuſpended till his Majeſty's pleafure be known. The other, that to laws paſſed with this clauſe of ſuſpenſion, his Majeſty has utterly neglected to attend.
Falſehood implied in the firſt charge; viz. that in giving theſe inſtructions, his Majeſty had aſſumed a new power, and introduced a new practice.Like the preceding one, this article is couched in terms that miſlead, that imply a falſehood. For would not any one conclude, that in giving ſuch inſtructions, his Majeſty had aſſumed a new power, unexerciſed by any of his predeceſſors; introduced a practice unknown in former reigns? To what purpoſe are theſe facts alleged? Is it not to characteriſe the government of his preſent Majeſty, to diſtinguiſh his conduct from that of his predeceſſors; to eſtabliſh the charge of uſurpation?
This practice prevailed before the acceſſion of the houſe of Hanover.Nothing, however, can be farther from the truth. For upon enquiry it will appear, that this practice of inſtructing the Governor, not to give his aſſent to laws of a particular and extraordinary nature—and it is to ſuch only that the caſe applies—until his Majeſty could judge of the fitneſs and propriety of them, is ſo far from being novel, that it was eſtabliſhied, and uniformly prevailed, before the acceſſion, not of his preſent Majeſty, but even of his Majeſty's family, to the throne[1]. So far then as this article is brought to eſtabliſh the charge of uſurpation in his preſent Majeſty, it is abſolutely falſe.
- ↑ The practice was begun by Queen Anne in the year 1708, and has ever ſince been retained.
