[158] The history of this provision shows clearly that a bill for appropriating money may originate in the Senate.
[159] August 9. Elliot, V. 398-401. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Maryland voted in the negative, and the vote of North Carolina was divided.
[160] May 31. Elliot, V. 133.
[161] Dickinson, Gerry, Mason.
[162] Sherman, Luther Martin, Ellsworth. On the naked proposition, moved by Ellsworth, July 2, to allow each State one vote in the Senate, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, ay, 5; Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, no, 5; Georgia divided.
[163] Maryland alone voted against it.
[164] This suggestion was made by Hamilton. Elliot, V. 517.
[165] Madison, Hamilton, Wilson, and Read. Elliot, V. 241-245. June 26.
[166] Ibid.
[167] In Horace Walpole's Memoirs of the Reign of George II., there is an amusing parallel—gravely drawn, however—between the mode in which his father, Sir Robert, "traded for members," and the manner in which Mr. Pelham carried on his corruption. Lord Mahon has called Sir Robert Walpole "the patron and parent of parliamentary corruption." (Hist. of England, I. 268.) But both Mr. Hallam and Mr. Macaulay say that it originated under Charles II., and both admit that it was practised down to the close of the American war. (Hallam's Const. Hist., III. 255, 256, 351-356. Macaulay's Hist. of England, III. 541-549.) The latter, in a very masterly analysis of its origin and history, treats it as a local disease, incident to the growth of the English constitution. It must be confessed, that it had become chronic.