"
"This is quite new," said Sir George, "and I confess some curiosity to see
how it can be made out."
John Effingham did not hesitate about stating his case.
"In the first place you are to forget professions and names," he said,
"and to look only at facts and things. When America was settled, a compact
was made, either in the way of charters or of organic laws, by which all
the colonies had distinct rights, while, on the other hand, they confessed
allegiance to the king. But in that age the English monarch _was_ a king.
He used his veto on the laws, for instance, and otherwise exercised his
prerogatives. Of the two, he influenced parliament more than parliament
influenced him. In such a state of things, countries separated by an
ocean might be supposed to be governed equitably, the common monarch
feeling a common parental regard for all his subjects. Perhaps distance
might render him even more tender of the interest of those who were not
present to protect themselves."
"This is putting the case loyally, at least," said Sir George, as the
other paused for a moment.
"It is precisely in that light that I wish to present it. The degree of
power that parliament possessed over the colonies was a disputed point;
but I am willing to allow that parliament had all power.
Pages:
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617