[54] 14 E. 3, stat. 1, c. 21. This statute is remarkable for a promise of the Lords not to assent in future to any charge beyond the old custom, without assent of the Commons in full parliament. Stat. 2, same year; the king promises to lay on no charge but by assent of the Lords and Commons. 18 E. 3, stat. 2, c. 1; the Commons grant two-fifteenths of the commonalty, and two-tenths of the cities and boroughs. "Et en cas que notre signeur le roi passe la mer, de paier a mesmes les tems les quinzisme et disme del second an, et nemy en autre maniere. Issint que les deniers de ce levez soient despendus, en les besoignes a eux monstez a cest parlement, par avis des grauntz a ce assignez, et que les aides de la Trent soient mys en defense de north." This is a remarkable precedent for the usage of appropriation, which had escaped me, though I have elsewhere quoted that in 5 Rich. 2, stat. 2, c. 2 and 3. In two or three instances, we find grants of tenths and fifteenths in the statutes, without any other matter, as 14 E. 3, stat. 1, c. 20; 27 E. 3, stat. 1, c. 4. [55] 7 H. 7, c. 11; 12 H. 7, c. 12. [56] I find only one exception, 5 H. 8, c. 17, which was in the now common form: Be it enacted by the king our sovereign lord, and by the assent, etc. [57] In 37 H. 8, c. 25, both Lords and Commons are said to grant, and they pray that their grant "may be ratified and confirmed by his majesty's royal assent, so to be enacted and authorised by virtue of this present parliament as in such cases heretofore has been accustomed." [58] Commons' Journals, 24, 29 July; Lords' Journals, 30 July. [59] They expressed this with strange latitude in a resolution some years after, that all aids and supplies to his majesty in parliament are _the sole gift of the Commons_. _Parl. Hist._ 1005. As they did not mean to deny that the Lords must concur in the bill, much less that they must pay their quota, this language seems indefensible. [60] Lords' and Commons' Journals, April 17th and 22nd, 1679; _Parl. Hist._ iv. 480; Hatsell's _Precedents_, iii. 109, 368, 409. In a pamphlet by Lord Anglesea, if I mistake not, entitled, "Case stated of the Jurisdiction of the House of Lords in point of Impositions," 1696, a vigorous and learned defence of the right of the Lords to make alterations in money-bills, it is admitted that they cannot increase the rates; since that would be to originate a charge on the people, which they cannot do. But it is even said in the year-book (33 H. 6) that if the Commons grant tonnage for four years, and the Lords reduce the terms to two years, they need not send the bill down again. This of course could not be supported in modern times. [61] _Parl. Hist._ ii. 563.