The reasonableness of uniting to a money bill one of a different nature, which is usually called _tacking_ hath been likewise much debated, and will admit of argument enough. In ancient times, when a Parliament was held, the Commons first proposed their grievances to be redressed, and then gave their aids; so that it was a perfect bargain between the king and the subject. This fully answered the ends of tacking. Aids were then demanded upon occasions which would hardly pass at present; such, for instance, as those for making the king's son a knight, marrying his eldest daughter, and some others of the like sort. Most of the money went into the king's coffers for his private use; neither was he accountable for any part of it. Hence arose the form of the king's thanking his subjects for their benevolence, when any subsidies, tenths, or fifteenths were given him: but the supplies now granted are of another nature, and cannot be properly called a particular benefit to the crown, because they are all appropriated to their several uses: so that when the House of Commons tack to a money bill what is foreign and hard to be digested, if it be not passed, they put themselves and their country in as great difficulties as the prince. On the other side, there have been several regulations made, through the course of time, in parliamentary proceedings; among which it is grown a rule, that a Bill once rejected shall not be brought up again the same session; whereby the Commons seem to have lost the advantage of purchasing a redress of their grievances, by granting supplies, which, upon some emergencies, hath put them upon this expedient of tacking: so that there is more to be said on each side of the case, than is convenient for me to trouble the reader or myself in deducing.