will be sure to decide in favour of themselves, talk much of inherent right; they will nourish up a dormant power, and reserve privileges in petto, to exert upon occasions, to serve expedients, and to urge upon necessities; they will make large demands, and scanty concessions, ever coming off considerable gainers: thus at length the balance is broke, and tyranny let in; from which door of the three it matters not.
To pretend to a declarative right upon any occasion whatsoever, is little less than to make use of the whole power; that is, to declare an opinion to be law, which has always been contested, or perhaps never started at all before such an incident brought it on the stage. Not to consent to the enacting of such a law, which has no view beside the general good, unless another law shall at the same time pass, with no other view but that of advancing the power of one party alone; what is this but to claim a positive voice, as well as a negative[1]? To pretend that great changes and alienations of property have created new and great dependencies, and consequently new additions of power, as some reasoners have done, is a most dangerous tenet. If dominion must follow property, let it follow in the same pace; for, change in property through the bulk of a nation makes slow marches, and its due power always attends it. To conclude that whatever at-
- ↑ This seems to allude to a practice of the House of Commons called Tacking; when they suspected that a favourite bill would be rejected, they tacked it to a money-bill; and as it was not possible to proceed without the supply, and as it became necessary to reject or receive both the bills thus tacked together, this expedient perfectly answered its purpose.
