The Parliament, who in matters of this nature are the most able and
faithful counsellors, did represent this grant to be "destructive of
trade, and dangerous to the properties of the people," to which the only
answer is, that "the King hath a prerogative to make such a grant."

It is asserted that in the patent to Knox, his "halfpence, are made and
declared the current coin of the kingdom," whereas in this to Wood,
there is only a "power given to issue them to such as will receive
them." The authors of the Report, I think, do not affirm that the King
can by law declare _anything_ to be current money by his
letters-patents. I dare say they will not affirm it, and if Knox's
patent contained in it powers contrary to law, why is it mentioned as a
precedent in His Majesty's just and merciful reign:[10] But although
that clause be not in Wood's patent, yet possibly there are others, the
legality whereof may be equally doubted, and particularly that, whereby
"a power is given to William Wood to break into houses in search of any
coin made in imitation of his." This may perhaps be affirmed to be
illegal and dangerous to the liberty of the subject. Yet this is a
precedent taken from Knox's patent, where the same power is granted, and
is a strong instance what uses may be sometimes made of precedents.

[Footnote 10: Knox's patent, as Monck Mason points out, did not contain
the right to have his coins pass as the current coin of the realm; that
was permitted by a proclamation of the lord lieutenant, and could in the
same manner be withdrawn. Knox's patent differed materially from that
granted to Wood, since he was obliged to take back his coins and give
gold or silver for them, and no one was compelled to take more than five
shillings in the payment of each £100. See note, p. 66. [T.S.]]

But although before the passing of this patent, it was not thought