different meaning can be drawn from the adoption of this title; on the contrary, we might conclude, that by their affixing to it a term ſynonimous with ordinance or ſtatute. But of what conſequence is their meaning, where their power is denied? If they mean to do more than they had power to do, did this give them power? it is not the name, but the authority that renders an act obligatory. Lord Coke ſays, ‘an article of the ſtatute 11. R. 2. c. 5. that no perſon ſhould attempt to revoke any ordinance then made, is repealed, for that ſuch reſtraint is againſt the juriſdiction and power of the parliament,’ 4. inſt. 42. and again, ‘though divers parliaments have attempted to reſtrain ſubſequent parliaments, yet could they never effect it; for the latter parliament hath ever power, to abrogate, ſuſpend, qualify, explain, or make void the former in the whole or in any part thereof, notwithſtanding any words of reſtraint, prohibition, or penalty, in the former: for it is a maxim in the laws of the parliament, quad leges poſteriores priores contrarias abrogant.’ 4. Inſt 43.—To get rid of the magic ſuppoſed to be in the word conſtitution, let us tranſlate it into its definition as given by thoſe who think it above the power of the law; and let us ſuppoſe the convention inſtead of ſaying, ‘we the ordinary legiſlature eſtabliſh a conſtitution’ had ſaid, ‘we the ordinary legiſlature eſtabliſh an act above the power of the ordinary legiſlature.’ Does not this expoſe the abſurdity of the attempt? 3. But, ſay they, the people have acquieſced, and this has given it an authority ſuperior to the laws. It is true, that the people did not rebel againſt it: and was that a time for the people to riſe in rebel-
