OCR Text |
Show mmmmmum [ 124 ] [125] r/j'énfim', cannot be known, in a [(371] been great and learned controverfies manner, but by the voice of their own parliamentary Reprefivfiaz‘éwr; {0 that between Molyneux and others, with regard to an Englith A61: of Parlia- the very reatbn why all Eng/177; Statutes " cximd 2‘0 "Giles, whet/Jar named or "at" ment binding in Ire/472d ; and Molyneux," (lays he,) " who contends it forbids the application of the like Doc- " fltould not, hath argued flrong/y from trine to Ireland : and, as the opinion of " an Engli/IJ Statute's not being {uppofed the Judges, in the 19th of Hen. VI. and " to extend to Ireland before Poyning's in the 2d of Rich. III. before cited, in favour of Ireland, was founded on this " Act in the reign of Henry the Se" venth," 69°C. - and a veryk/lrong argu- very rafm, (" quia non hic habent mili- ment it is! which, I hope, hath already " tes parliamenti,") I hope the fame will be thought fuflicicut to juftify my been fhewn. But the Hon. Mr. Barrington proceeds to cite, from the Parliament- ditTent, as well from Mr. Barrington as from the great Author Whom he feems to have followed in this matter, I mean Lord Coke himfelf, whole ailertion I propofe to examine {till more clofely, before I conclude this 2d part of my Declaration. Rolls of the 21ft of Edw. I. a memorandum of a ,ery unwarrantable exer- tion of Royal~Prerogative, by that monarch, viz. his fending acopy of {be Ordi- nance (35) (for I cannot properly call it a Statute) (35) The Hon. Mr. Barrington, in p. 41, veryjufily The Hon. Mr. Jufiice Barrington alfo obfcives, in p. 145, that ‘_‘ there have " been remarks, concerning the Statute of Merton, m the 20th year of Hen. III. that the‘faid " Statute, as well " as many others of this century, feems to be only " an Ordinance; the difference" (fays he) " between It an |