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

lous) that in all aids given to ths
King by the Commons, the rate o,
tax ought not to be any way alteree
by the Lords" which is supposed
to be the passage cited by the Sc.
nate as of the year 1871.
inat bills for applying forfeitures
IN aid Of the public revenue, arc not
amcndablc by the Lords, appears
by TIE proceedings of 100, on the
bill for applying Irish forleitures to
the use Of the public, to which the
Lords were not permitted to make
any amendments.
The right of levying money in
whatever way being thus exercised
by the Commons as their exclusive
cSce, it follows as necessary con-
sequence that they may also exclu-
sively direct its application /" Cy;us
cst dare ejus est disponere,'' is an e.
Elementary principle, both of law and
reason. That he who gives, may
direct the application of the gift, or
in other words, may dispose Of it;
that, If he may give absolutely, he.
may also carve cut the conditions,
limitations, purposes and measures
OF the gift, seems as evidently true,
aSthat the greater power contains
the lesser. Parliamentary usage has
accordingly approved this reason
ing. In July, 1878, the Commons
resolved, " That it's their undoubt-
ed and sole right to direct, limit
and appoint, in all aids and sup
plies granted tothc King, the ends,
PURPOSES, conditions, considerati-
chs, limitations aud qualifications OF
sucigfaIlts, which ought not 10 be
CHANGED loy the House Of Lords.''
IN December Of the ,me year, the
Commons having directed the paw
Inent Of money, and the Lords pro
posed sn amendment thereto, the
former declared, "That theirL,rd-
ships never before changed any
sucn disposition made on supply
granted by the Commons. In
170l, the Lords having amended a
bill for stating and examining the
public accounts, by inserting a
clause for allowing a particular debt,
the Commons disagreed to the a.
mendment, and declared for rca-
son, That the disposition as srsH as
granting of money by act of Par
lament, hath ever bcenin the House
OF Commons, and that the amend
ment relating to the dispose, of mo-
ney, docs intrench upon that right. %
And TO a bill Of the same nature
the year following. the Lords hav-
,m:g proposed anan1cndment, byad-
ding thenamcs ofsome commission
.crs, the Commons disagreed to the
amendment, and declared, "I'hat
their right in grating, limiting and
disposing public aids being the
main hinge OF the controversy, they
thought it O. the highest concern
thu. it should be cleared and set
ted" They then go on to prove
the usage, By precedents and decia-
rations, and from these conclude,
That the limitation, disposition
and manner ofaccount belongs only
TO them" In reply the Lords said
They declined all arguments con
corning the rights of the Commons
in,granting, limiting and disposing
public aids, and therefore forborc
to answer any arguments Of that
kind !" but proceeded to insist that
the business then depending was Of
quite another nature. Ard at some
subsequent conferences between the
two houses during the same sessi-
on, it was repeatedly declared
"Thst the lords could not supply
any deficiency, orapply any surplus
sage Of the public money in case a.
ny should be found''-And this de-
u. 4