444 Appendix.

Contempo-
rary Printed
Pamphlet
Md.Hist.Soc.
p. 126

are coeval, would be just as true as it is in their Honours message."
— Is this fair or true reasoning ? What do the words of the Charter
say, about enacting laws, and the good and happy government of
that Province ? "We will that the said Lord Baltimore and his heirs,
shall assemble in such and such form as to them shall seem meet."
Wherefore, whether Lord Baltimore did establish the Upper House
or not, as part of the legislature, (which is not well to be supposed
but that he did, or at least gave his consent to) the Upper House
wants no act whatsoever to established its power coequal with the
Lower House. It is so by prescription [in law.] The right and
title to which is grounded upon a long and continued possession,
confirmed by the Proprietors, and having from time to time co-
operated together in the administration of the Government. I have
seen a copy of a money-act of the Maryland Assembly, enacted in
1650 viz. "Be it therefore enacted by the Lord-Proprietor, by the
advice and assent of the Upper and Lower Houses of the present
Assembly," William Stone, Governor. — This act is of 114 years

p. 127

standing — A length of time which renders the right of possession un-
controvertible, and should make the author of the words yesterday,
or to-day, page the 55th [p. 400] blush (if he has any shame) at his
being so openly convicted of such a notorious falsehood. As to his
saying, "Had the legislature consisted only of two branches, to wit,
the Proprietor or his Deputy, and the Delegates of the people :"
What then ? The Deputy would have had a power to dissent to any
acts he thought proper. The means for the redress would be the
same then as now. If the Delegates thought the Deputy wrong,
they might apply to the Proprietor in person; if unsatisfied by him,
they might appeal to the King himself for redress.
The Remarker says above, "The Upper and Lower Houses, say
their Honours (the Upper) are coeval, this is nothing but play upon
the words Upper and Lower, which being relative terms, and mutu-
ally implying each other, can neither of them exist independently of
the other." — The words Upper and Lower, without any equivocation
or play upon the sound, must bear this import, that as it is impossible

p. 128

for one to be before the other, so it necessarily and logically follows,
that they are coequal in all parts of legislative power, of which both
Houses are constitutionally possessed. See more in my answer to
the Querist, No. i, 2, 3.
He goes on (page 45 to 47.) [pp. 395-396] "If it be true then, that
the Upper House derive their existence from the Proprietary appoint-
ment, that their continuance in that capacity depends on his will
and pleasure, and that all, or a very great majority of them, hold
very lucrative employments under him, I think, without descending
to a particular recital of their conduct, it must follow, not that they
are the guardians of the people's rights, but that they are as de-
pendent upon the Proprietor, as the love of power, or the motive of