Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1805-02-06

have, desired this second conference
to shcw the insuEciency Of the said
reasons, and to propose that some ex-
pedient may be adopted by the two
houses for reconciiing their difference
of opinion.
The resemblance between the con-
stitucnt parts OF our Legislature and
that Of Great Britain is supposed by
the Senate so faint, that no ground re-
mains FOR those iealousies which have
prompted the Commons of Great Bril-
tain against their House of Lords.
This might have been, and doubtless
was, urged at the time our Constitute
on was formed, as reason why the
Senate and Delegates should have e
quail powers over money bills. But
the argument having been then over
ruled, and the powers OF the Senate,
as to this roin,, being fixed by the
Ccnssitu ion, on the same restricted
footin y, with those. o the J. ords In the
British Legislature, it IS conceived
not to &c the proper question OF this
day whether the resemblance between
them in general be faint or strong,
well or Ill grounded bus whether the
Constitution has net made them to re-
semb,e in this point
Had those who framed the constitu-
tor, as soon IS they had completed
that work, been asked, man by nan,
what money bill was, it is supposed
that, laan By man, they would have re.
ierred FOR answer to the well known
laws & usage OF Parliament, or would
have formed their answer on the Par.
liamentary idea Of tia, term. It's
import at this day must be the same it
was then: And it would be as unreal
sonal5lc now Co send us 10 seek It's de-
hnition In the subsequent proceedings
of that body, as itwould have been Tor
them, at that day, to have referred us
to such proceedings before they had
come into existence. The meaning
OF the term must be supposed COM
pletc at the time they used it, and to
pe sought for in those resources only
which existed at the time. Construc-
tons which do not result from the
words of the legislator, but lie hidden
in his breast, till called forth, ex post
facto, by subsequent occasions, are
dangerous and rot 10 be justified by
ordinary emergencies.
Nor DO we by this set up the Parli-
amenr of England, as the expositor of
our constitution, but the law of Parlia-
ment, rs it existed, and was evidenced
by usage, atthe time the term.in ques-
ton was inserted in our instrument of
government law co-eval with the
common law itself, and no more liza
bic, as adopted by us, to subsequent
change, from that body, than their
common or statute law, which we have
IN like manner adopted. To suppose
this branch Of law not existing in our
code, would shake the foundation Of
our whole legal system since every
Legislative proposition which has been
passed or rejected since the first esta-
biishment of Legislature in this conn
try54sas been determined to be law. or
not law, by the form OF parliamentary
proceeding. With as little justice nav
it be said, that this rs referring for the
deiipiiion of term to multiplied dis
Puses, which have for ages agitated the
parliament of England, and which no
time will decide that it is proving
what is clear b. whst is very obscure.
and unsettling what is fixed since
VIC conceive that researches into parli-
amentary history will decisively shew
that their practice in this matter has
been clear, fixed and ancient and
that for ages past, it has produced no
agitation, unless we cali by that name
some groundless assertions of the
Lords in the course Of tic last centu-
~. Yet these assertions they depart
cd from IN practice, at the very time
they advanced them, and at all times
afScr, they stand contradicted by the
declarations of the commons, and the
constant usage of both houses which
agreeing together, are supposed to
form the strongest evidence what the
law ofParliament is in this point. 70
prove this right as uniformly claimed
and exercised by the commons, and