Mr Wilson could see nothing like a concession here on the part of the smaller States. If both branches were to say yes or no, it was of little consequence which should say yes or no first, which last. If either was indiscriminately to have the right of originating, the reverse of the Report, would he thought be most proper; since it was a maxim that the least numerous body was the fittest for deliberation; the most numerous for decision. He observed that this discrimination had been transcribed from the British into several American constitutions. But he was persuaded that on examination of the American experiments it would be found to be a trifle light as air. Nor could he ever discover the advantage of it in the Parliamentary history of G. Britain. He hoped if there was any advantage in the privilege, that it would be pointed out.
Mr Williamson thought that if the privilege were not common to both branches it ought rather to be confined to the 2d as the bills in that case would be more narrowly watched, than if they originated with the branch having most of the popular confidence.
Mr Mason. The consideration which weighed with the Committee was that the 1st branch would be the immediate representatives of the people, the 2d would not. Should the latter have the power of giving away the people's money, they might soon forget the source from whence they received it. We might soon have an aristocracy. He had been much concerned at the principles which had been advanced by some gentlemen, but had the satisfaction to find they did not generally prevail. He was a friend to proportional representation in both branches; but supposed that some points must be yielded for the sake of accomodation.
Mr Wilson. If he had proposed that the 2d branch should have an independent disposal of public money, the observations of (Col. Mason) would have been a satisfactory answer. But nothing could be farther from what he had said. His question was how is the power of the 1st branch increased or that of the 2d diminished by giving the proposed privilege to the former? Where is the difference, in which branch it begins, if both must concur, in the end?
Mr Gerry would not say that the concession was a sufficient one on the part of the small States. But he could not but regard it in the light of a concession. It wd make it a constitutional principle that the 2d branch were not possessed of the Confidence of the people in money matters, which wd lessen their weight & influence. In the next place if the 2d branch were dispossessed of the privilege, they wd be deprived of the opportunity which their continuance in office 3 times as long as the 1st branch would give them of making three successive essays in favor of a particular point.
Mr Pinkney thought it evident that the Concession was wholly on one side, that of the large States, the privilege of originating money bills being of no account.
Mr Govr Morris had waited to hear the good effects of the restriction. As to the alarm sounded, of an aristocracy, his creed was that there never was, nor ever will be a civilized Society without an aristocracy. His endeavor was to keep it as much as possible from doing mischief. The restriction if it has any real operation, will deprive us of the services of the 2d branch in digesting & proposing money bills of which it will be more capable than the 1st branch. It will take away the responsibility of the 2d branch, the great security for good behavior. It will always leave a plea, as to an obnoxious money bill that it was disliked, but could not be constitutionally amended; nor safely rejected. It will be a dangerous source of disputes between the two Houses. We should either take the British Constitution altogether or make one for ourselves. The Executive there has dissolved two Houses as the only cure for such disputes. Will our Executive be able to apply such a remedy? Every law directly or indirectly takes money out of the pockets of the people. Again What use may be made of such a privilege in case of great emergency? Suppose an Enemy at the door, and money instantly & absolutely necessary for repelling him, may not the popular branch avail itself of this duress, to extort concessions from the Senate destructive of the Constitution itself. He illustrated this danger by the example of the Long Parliament's expedts for subverting the H. of Lords; concluding on the whole that the restriction would be either useless or pernicious.
Docr Franklin did not mean to go into a justification of the Report, but as it had been asked what would be the use of restraining the 2d branch from medling with money bills, he could not but remark that it was always of importance that the people should know who had disposed of their money, & how it had been disposed of. It was a maxim that those who feel, can best judge. This end would, he thought, be best attained, if money affairs were to be confined to the immediate representatives of the people. This was his inducement to concur in the report. As to the danger or difficulty that might arise from a Negative in the 2d where the people wd not be proportionately represented, it might easily be got over by declaring that there should be no such negative; or if that will not do, by declaring that there shall be no such branch at all.
Mr Martin said that it was understood in the Committee that the difficulties and disputes which had been apprehended, should be guarded agst in the detailing of the plan.
Mr Wilson. The difficulties & disputes will increase with the attempts to define & obviate them. Queen Anne was obliged to dissolve her Parliamt in order to terminate one of these obstinate disputes between the two Houses. Had it not been for the mediation of the Crown, no one can say what the result would have been. The point is still sub judice in England. He approved of the principles laid down by the Honble President (Doctr Franklin) his Colleague, as to the expediency of keeping the people informed of their money affairs. But thought they would know as much, and be as well satisfied, in one way as in the other.