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

i - II = ~ ~ " ~ ~ -
counted for from their particular ne
| ture, from the history Of the times
or from other causes; and though
the Delegates might produce, from
the Same records, proofs, much
more decisive, in their favor, We,
! they decline resting the matter on
that bottom: Because they are oil
opinion, that the present deterlni-
nation ought not to be. Influenced
by the practice of those, who have
themselves only copied from the
same original. Their practice, md
our opinions, must be proved BY
the same common rule, the law and
practice OF parliament. Their ac-
acknowledgements of the rule, proves
their submission to it, and that their
practice should be tried by the law,
not the law by their practice.
! How dangerous it is to appeal to O.
ther authorities from the Parliamen-
tary records, the true text of decisi-
on, will appear also by examining the
whole passage, of which a part ONLY
was cited from the Commentaries OF
Judge Blackstone a writer, celebrate
ed indeed but whether most for hi.
attachment to the prerogatives OF the
crown or to the rights of the people,
would be worthy of consideration,
where the question is ON one Of those
rights, which have been of the great
est value to the people, the right of
giving and disposing OF their own mo-
ney, that writer after the definition.
cited from his book by the senate,
goes On to quote a passage from fudge
tales $ treatise on the jurisdiction Of
rariiamens, which is to be found more
atlarge in Brookc's abridgmcnt. un-
der the tile Parliament pl. q. there
i appears TO be a saving OF Kerbie, a
clerk OF the Parliament, who laws
down II express terms, or by direct
implication, these following positions.
as CT the law OF Parliament. Isl. That
| the Lords may amend bill for f~ra-..-
ing aids. Cd, That ifthc amendment
be by shortening the duration ofthe
grant they need not return the bin 20
the commons for their concurrence.
Sd, J hat tho king may alter bill.
Brooke indeed, adds querc tn the
case but that judge Blackstone disap-
proved OF it, cannot be inferred from
his words. 1t is therefore submitted
TO the consideration of the Senate.
whether they would set up as am arbi-
ter of Parliamentary law, a writer who.
can cite or refer to such positions
without condemning them in decisive.
and unequIvocal terms, for that part
OF his book TOO, which the Senate
quote and rely on, he cites no autaori-
ty whatever are we then to take it
upon his affirmation, when contradict
ed by the uniform current of Parlia-
mentary usage But waving further
examination OF the legality of his OBI
Mon, it suftices to observe, as full an.
swer to it, that the judges of the COM
mon law can take no ecgnizancc of the
law of Parliament it can never come
judiciaily in question before them.
Their savings Or opinions OH the sub
Ject, must be ever extra-iudicial and
they have accordingly always disc,aim-
ed a right to give judgment or them !:
definitions therefore Of Parliamentary
law, by any other court, by member
OF court, or by a private individual,
must be rejected as inauthoritatiyc in
Parliamentary disquisition.
For these reasons, the DELEGATE.
still think that the Senate have no au-
thority 20 amend the vote in questi-
on but open to conviction, if il can
be shewn they are wrong, and actuat-
ed by strong desire to promote the
public service, as we'll as to preserve
the constitution entire, they propose
to the Senate, if they should still adj
here to their former opinions, that a
select committee may be appointed bv
each house to meet together in free
conference, and endeavor to define the
Office Of the two houses in bills, clausea
and votes relating to money, and that
such definition, if approved by both
houses, may be confirmed by act Of
Assembly.
The said report being read a second