Note 19 — [pg 049]No. IV.

The nominal distinction of Convention and Legislature was probably copied from the English; but the American distinction goes farther, it implies, in common acceptation, a difference of power. This difference does not exist in G. Britain. The assembly of Lords and Commons which restored Charles II, and that which raised the Prince of Orange to the throne, were called Conventions, or parliamentary Conventions. But the difference between these Conventions and an ordinary Parliament, is merely a difference in the manner of assembling; a Convention being an assembly or meeting of Lords and Commons, on an emergency, without the King's writ, which is the regular constitutional mode of summoning them, and by custom necessary to render the meeting a Parliament. But the powers of this assembly, whether denominated a Convention or a Parliament, have ever been considered as coextensive and supreme. I would just remark further, that the impossibility of establishing perpetual, or even permanent forms of government, is proved already by the experience of two States in America. Pensylvania and Georgia, have suffered under bad Constitutions, till they are glad to go thro the process of calling a new Convention. After the new forms of government have been tried some time, the people will discover new defects, and must either call a third Convention, or let the governments go on without amendment, because their Legislatures, which ought to have supreme power, cannot make altertations.——[1789.]