Page:Cambridge Modern History Volume 7.djvu/228

 196 Loyalist view of the charters. [i776 was a situation in which people accustomed to liberty, especially Ameri- cans, could not easily acquiesce. To the suggestion that the Parliament might grant the colonies representation if request were properly made, the answer on both sides of the Atlantic uniformly was, that the situation of the colonies made the idea impracticable; with a play upon the favourite Whig phrase, Leonard of Boston, a loyalist, said that by "the immutable laws of nature" we cannot enjoy it. And history has made good the answer. Representation was out of the question, and therefore the colonies were not to be subject to the general authority of Parliament such was the Whig or American position. (c) The Charters. The Whigs generally held that the charters confirmed their view that the colonies were exempt from the general authority of Parliament. Most loyalists, but (as will be seen) not all, held with the ministry the contrary view. Howard had been content with making the statement that the charters had not taken away Parliamentary jurisdiction a statement which, coming from a lawyer of high standing, might under other circumstances have been accepted by laymen. But this was not a time for bare assertion on such a question ; and other loyalists proceeded to call attention to the very language of the charters. Seabury pub- lished extracts from them hi one of his pamphlets, and summing up said : " These extracts abundantly prove that the colonial charters by no means imply an independence of the supreme legislative authority of Great Britain." Leonard, an able lawyer of Boston, put the case of the Massachusetts charters, which were thought by Galloway to go to the furthest length of them all, in this way : to interpret the clause about liberties and immunities of free and natural born subjects as exempting the colony from Parliament, they must throw away all the rest of the charter, for every other part indicated the contrary. The meaning of the clause in question was this : if a person born in England removed to Ireland, he and his posterity were still subject to Parliament ; and so if he removed to any other part of the British dominions. " So that the inhabitants of the American colonies do in fact enjoy all the liberties and immunities of natural born subjects. We are entitled to no greater privileges than those that are born within the realm; and they can enjoy no other than we do when they reside out of it." The clause amounted only to a royal assurance that the colonies were part of the British empire. That the powers of legislation were subject to Parlia- ment was shown by the words relating to them, "So as the same be not repugnant or contrary to the laws of this our realm of England." Our patriots had made many nice distinctions to evade the force of these