The house of Commons claim the privilege of forming all money-bills, and will not suffer either of the other branches of the legislature to add to or alter them; contending that their power, simply extends to an acceptance or rejection of them. This privilege appears to be just; but under pretence of this just privilege, the house of Commons has claimed a licence of tacking to money bills, clauses relating to many things of a totally different kind, and have thus forced them, in a manner, on the crown and lords. This seems to be an abuse of that privilege, and it may be vastly more abused. Suppose a future house; influenced by some displaced discontented demagogues, in a time of danger, should tack to a money bill something so injurious to the king and peers, that they would not assent to it and yet the Commons should obstinately insist on it; the whole kingdom would be exposed to ruin, under the appearance of maintaining a valuable privilege.
In these cases it might be difficult for a while to determine, whether the King intended to exercise his prerogative in a constitutional manner or not; or whether the Commons insisted on the demand factitiously, or for the public good: But surely the conduct of the crown, or of the house, would in time sufficiently explain itself.
Ought not the people therefore to watch to observe facts? to search into causes? to investigate designs? and have they not a right of judging from the evidence before them, on no slighter points than their liberty and happiness? It would be less than trifling, wherever a British government is established, to make use of any other arguments to prove such a right. It is sufficient to remind the reader of the day on which King William landed at Torbay.[30]
I will now apply what has been said to the present question. The nature of any impositions laid by parliament on the colonies, must determine the design in laying them. It may not be easy in every instance to discover that design. Whenever it is doubtful, I think submission cannot be dangerous; nay, it must be right: for, in my opinion, there is no privilege the colonies claim, which they ought, in duty and prudence, more earnestly to maintain and defend, than the authority of the British parliament to regulate the trade of all her dominions. Without this authority, the benefits she enjoys from our commerce, must be lost to her: The blessings we enjoy from our dependance upon her, must be lost to us; her strength must decay; her glory vanish; and she cannot suffer, without our partaking in her misfortune.——"Let us therefore cherish her interest as our own, and give her every thing that it becomes FREEMEN to give or to receive."
The nature of any impositions she may lay upon us, may in general be known, considering how far they relate to the preserving, in due order, the connexion between the several parts of the British empire. One thing we may be assured of, which is this; whenever a statute imposes duties on commodities, to be paid only upon their exportation from Great-Britain to these colonies, it is not a regulation of trade, but a design to raise a revenue upon us. Other instances may happen, which it may not be necessary to dwell on. I hope these colonies will never, to their latest existence, want understanding sufficient to discover the intentions of those who rule over them, nor the resolution necessary for asserting their interests. They will always have the same right that all free states have, of judging when their privileges are invaded, and of using all prudent measures for preserving them.
"Quocirca vivite fortes"
"Fortiaque adversis opponite pectora rebus,"
Wherefore keep up your spirits, and gallantly oppose this adverse course of affairs.
A FARMER.