realme ne poit changer sa money ne iinpayre ne amender ne antre money faire que de or ou d'argent, sans assent de touts ses counties") in support of his opinion against the King's right to alter money in weight or alloy. Lord C. J. Hale[1] differs with Lord Coke, and relies 1st upon the 'case of mixt morues[2];{'}} 2dly, on the practice of enhancing the coin in point of value and denomination, which he observes has nearly the same effect as an embasement of the coin in the species ; and lastly, on the attempts which have been made to restrain the change of coin without consent of Parliament. In the case reported by Sir John Davis, it appears that Queen Elizabeth sent into Ireland some mixed money, and declared by proclamation that it should be current and lawful Irish money. This money was certainly held to be legal coin of Ireland ; but it is most probable that as the case was in Ireland, the statute of 25 Edw. 3. and the other Acts cited by Lord Coke, were not considered in discussing it; as it is clear from one of Poyning's laws[3] they might have been. And it is a fair presumption that those statutes were not brought before the Court, no mention being made of them, though Sir M. Hale himself admits that the statute of Edw. 3. is against his opinion. As to the practice mentioned by Lord Hale of enhancing the coin in point of value and denomination, that seems very distinguishable from altering the species or material of coin, by changing its weight or alloy. Even admitting the existence of a practice to imbase coin in the alloy, still little importance will be attached to it, when it is remembered how frequently some Kings have endeavoured to extend the limits of their prerogatives. The attempts which have been made to restrain the change of coin without consent of Parliament, prove but little in favor of Lord Hale's opinion ; for those attempts might have been so made in order to restrain the exercise of a prerogative which was denied, and it does not appear that they were made in order to overturn a prerogative, the legal existence of which was admitted. The authority of Sir Wm. Blackstone may perhaps turn the scale in favor of Lord Coke's opinion, if that opinion required it. He observes[4], " that the King's
prerogative
