378 Appendix.

Contempo-
rary Printed
Pamphlet

Md.Hist.Soc.

must be common to the House of Commons in England, and to the
Lower House here, and consequently, according to their Honours
own Argument, the Foundations being the same, the Privilege must
be the same.

The Rights of the Lower House, say their Honours, "are founded
only on the Royal Charter, their particular Usages, and the common
Law of England." — I should be glad to know what their Honours
Rights are founded on. Not on the Royal Charter I am very confi-
dent; not I conceive on the common Law of England, nor can they
support their present Pretensions, I mean as to the Case of Money
Bills, by Usage; for the Usage has been both Ways, and therefore
decides nothing, but leaves the Right upon its original Principle.

p. 13

But let it be supposed, for Argument's Sake, that Usage is to de-
termine the Right, then it will follow, that the most recent Precedents
ought to prevail; for although the Upper House may be able to
produce some antient Precedents in Favour of their Claims, when
the Representatives of the People were not so wary in maintaining
their Privileges as could be wished, yet I believe, upon a View of the
Journals for many Years back, they will find, that when the Lower
House have, upon particular Exigences, suffered any Amendment
to Supply Bills, it has been generally, if not in every Instance, with
a Reservation of their Rights, which can only amount to an occasional
Waver, and not to a Cession of such Rights. But if the People of
Maryland, as free British Subjects, ever had any Title to this Privi-
lege, and there has been no uninterrupted Usage to the contrary,
they need not rest upon the Authority of Precedents, since their
Claim stands as good and valid to this Day as it was at the first
Settlement of the Province, notwithstanding any Concessions which
the Arts of Government, or particular Emergences, may at Times
have drawn from them.

It is contended by the Upper House, that the Representatives of
the People, although they should call themselves the House of Com-
mons of Maryland, would have no Right to deduce their Privileges
from the Lex Parliament! of the House of Commons of England,
because, as they very shrewdly and profoundly observe, the two Bodies
would still be distinct, that is, not the same, notwithstanding such

p. 14

an Appellation. I shall not take upon me to controvert this Proposi-
tion, that there is not such a Charm in Words as to make two
Things, distinct in their Nature, one and the same; but I think the
Consequence is by no Means to be supported, that because there is a
Distinction between two Bodies, the same Rights cannot be common
to both, where they may be exercised without clashing or interfering
with one another. If the Lower House have no Right to the Lex
Parliamenti of the House of Commons, because they are a distinct
Body, I apprehend it will just as well follow, that the Courts in this
Province ought not to judge according to the Laws of England,