Treatise Some Observations On Liberty
| Author | John Wesley |
|---|---|
| Type | treatise |
| Year | None |
| Passage ID | jw-treatise-some-observations-on-liberty-023 |
| Words | 365 |
It is evident from the Acts of Parlia
ment now in being, that this was never granted, and never
claimed till now : On the contrary, the English Government
has ever claimed the right of taxing them, even in virtue of
those very charters. But you ask, “Can there be an English
man who would not sooner lose his heart’s blood, than yield to
such claims?” (Page 47.) A decent question for a subject of
England to ask Just of a piece with your assertions, that
“our constitution is almost lost;” that the claims of the Crown
have “stabbed our liberty;” and that “a free Government
loses its nature, the moment it becomes liable to be commanded
by any superior power.” (Page 49.) From the moment it
Becomes liable / This is not the case with the colonies; they
do not become liable to be commanded by the King and
Parliament; they always were so, from their first institution. 43. “The fundamental principle of our Government is, the
right of the people to grant their own money.” No.; if you
understand the word people, according to your own definition,
for all the individuals that compose the state, this is not the
fundamental principle of our Government, nor any principle
of it at all. It is not the principle even of the Government
of Holland, nor of any Government in Europe. “It was an
attempt to encroach upon this right in a trifling instance, that
produced the civil war in the reign of King Charles the First.”
Ono' it was the actual encroaching, not on this right only, but
on the feligious as well as civil rights of the subject; and that,
not in one trifling instance only, but in a thousand instances of
the highest importance. “Therefore, this is a war undertaken,
not only against our own constitution, but on purpose to destroy
other similar constitutions in America, and to substitute in their
room a military force.” (Page 50.) Is it possible that a man
of sense should believe this? Did the King and Parliament
undertake this war, on purpose to overturn a castle in the air,
to destroy a constitution that never existed ?