that time should be granted, that it might be known if the colonial
assemblies would take upon them to do what that House was pleased to
declare should be done. The present address could not be misunderstood.
It told the colonial assemblies, You are safe for the present from the
interference of the British Parliament, on the belief, and on the
promise made for you, that left to yourselves you will do what is
required of you. To hold this language was sufficient. The Assemblies
might be left to infer the consequences of a refusal, and Parliament
might rest satisfied with the consciousness, that they held in their
hands the means of accomplishing that which they had proposed." In a
subsequent discussion of the subject in the House of Lords, Lord Holland
remarked, that "in his opinion there had been more prejudice against
this Bill than the nature of the thing justified; but, whatever might be
the objection felt against it in the Colonies, it might be well for them
to consider, that it would be _impossible for them to resist_, and that,
if the thing was not done by them, _it would be done for them_." But on
this subject, that is, on the subject of colonial rights, I shall say
more in another place. It will be proper, however, to repeat here, and
to insist upon it too, that there is no _effectual way_ of remedying the
evil complained of, but by subjecting the colonial laws to the _revision
of the Legislature of the mother country_; and perhaps I shall disarm
some of the opponents to this measure, and at any rate free myself from
the charge of a novel and wild proposition, when I inform them that Mr.
Long, the celebrated historian and planter of Jamaica, and to whose
authority all West Indians look up, adopted the same idea. Writing on
the affairs of Jamaica, he says: "The system[2] of Colonial government,
and the imperfection of their several laws, are subjects, which never
were, but _which ought to be_, strictly canvassed, examined, and amended
by the British Parliament."