Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House. Esteemed colleagues.

Good morning.

We are met here today to fix our gaze on the great question of Liberty. And though we have chosen the situation of the American Colonies as the lens, we still peer through the glass but darkly at a hazy present with a glowering horizon. We raise that glass to our eye and it is necessarily clouded with conflicting ideals:  What it means to be free. The natural value of self-determination. The ethical exercise of power.

I will present for you today the argument of what ought to be. What must be if we may make any claim to a just and righteous society.

My opponent, the Honorable Lord Winter, will argue the prosaic… the economic and military benefits of perpetual Union. As though the gun might overawe justice… or the coin may purchase righteousness. Perhaps he will appeal to notions of honor and loyalty. It is possible I may even agree with him on certain points… after all, he is a man of high caliber.

Yet he will miss his mark because he aims too short. His gaze is fixed close-to… his target merely a mirage. A near phantasm of the true quarry that lies, obfuscated, in the distance. His volleys will be admirable, but it is I who will strike true as the argument today is not of the gun, but of the quill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the floor that my honorable opponent may make clear his aim. 

Thank you Mr. Speaker and to the honourable gentleman on providing his opening statement,

I sincerely apologise to the house for the delay however I have been attending several duties requiring attention,

As my esteemed opponent explained we are indeed here today to fix our gaze on something great indeed! the question of liberty is not absolute as he would have you believe.

This is not a petty border dispute this is about real change and positivity, cohesion and co-operation, peace and unity for a better purpose.

I will present for you over the debate the argument of what could be.  Not what a single soul believes what “ought” to be.

My opponent, the honourable  Lord Heptarch argues that separation is inevitable, certain even!! Without a second thought. Using justice as a buzz word and history and present circumstances to blur our vision from anything other.

This is a time we can truly change the standing in this world with our combined economics and strength we would truly be unstoppable, one banner working to the same targets, not petty self interests, we can be bigger than individuals, stronger together.

I am aware concerns will probably be raised by my opponent which I shall rebuff, about Justice and liberty, governance without representation.. who says we can’t learn from past mistakes and make this a joint venture as one unified force and make this an equal opportunity for all?..

I want a unified world, what do you want?

Mr speaker I finalise this opening statement and concede the floor.

Thank you,

Lord Winters

Order! Order in the House! (the Lords quiet down a bit) Now let the honourable gentlemen speak! The House recognizes Lord Heptarch.

Mr. Speaker, it appears that I have a future as a seer if practical politics proves too inscrutable. 

As I have predicted, my opponent argues for the primacy of the gun and the coin. He says that our nations are better served through unity of military might. Unity of economy. Unity of purpose. 

It has come to pass, as well, that I agree with him… but for a very important distinction.

He desires this glorious unity… under British hegemony. 

He wants unity… I do not doubt it… but only so long as all are subordinate to the august leadership of this Chamber. A Chamber in which my countrymen have no membership. A Chamber that, even with the best goodwill, must necessarily decide on occasion differently than we would if allowed to govern ourselves.

That, my esteemed colleagues, is not unity, it is abject supplication. It is Union in the same sense that a rich landlord and his tenant are in Union. The two are inextricably linked, it is true, but they are not equal and never will be. The tenant lives on sufferance, even under an enlightened and generous patron.

I do not arrogate for myself the title of Speaker for the American Colonies but I believe I can, in good faith, represent my people so far as to say we will not be content to live as supplicants forever. We have a proud history of self-reliance and self-government. How could we not, taming the rugged wilderness of our homeland so distant from these shores? Liberty is not simply desirable for Americans, it is a natural, inevitable state occasioned both by geography and temperament.

Mr. Speaker… ladies and gentlemen of the House… you have before you an opportunity rarely granted by Providence. We can accomplish magnificent things together. We can build armies that make the ground tremble under their tread. Navies that move like a great storm upon the face of the deep, their cannons a thunder that echoes into the hearts of our enemies. An economy so rich that it would make Croesus blush. Art and culture so exquisite that we could rightfully claim the legacy of Athens.

We can do this. We ought to do this. But we must do it shoulder to shoulder, as Allies, not as a parent dictating to a child. 

We are family. We must always be family. But in every family there comes a time where the young must move beyond the benevolent tyranny of their elders and make manifest their own destiny. That time is coming. I implore you to choose an amicable parting that we may, as equals, forge a path together that will dazzle the world.

Order! Order! The House recognizes Lord Winters! Lord Winters, you have the floor! Lord Winters? (the Lords start whispering) Has anybody seen Lord Winters? Surely he is still in the House?

Lord Winters? (the Lords remain silent) Lord Winters, do I see Lord Winters? (the Lords whisper as one of them comes up to the Speaker's chair and whispers in his ear) Apparently Lord Winters has left the chamber, overwhelmed by the arguments of Lord Heptarch, I presume! (the Lords laugh heartily) Surely, does a member of the House wish to take up argument against Lord Heptarch?  

Allow me, mr. Speaker, to stand in for Lord Winters, as he is currently indisposed.

It is a sad day when a man of the stature of my dear friend, the honourable Lord Heptarch, has forgotten his heritage! It is as if I see the Judgement of King Solomon before me. There cannot be two Mothers of one child, and if we were to cleave the child in half, all we would be left with is one bereaved Mother and a dead child.

The Mother is England. The other Mother is of the identity Lord Heptarch has claimed, but she is not a Mother, I tell you, it is a Sister, my Lords! Then let the true Mother stand up and be recognized by saying: “O my lord, give her the living child, and by no means kill him!”. Mother England would be that great! We all know this my Lords, there is only the wellfare of our child that matters to England.  

So there it is! Do we see Lord Heptach and his, stand up in this house and say the same? Do they choose for the child? No, they do not! They choose for their own interests, those of the Sister, be damned the child!

There is your Solomons judgement, my Lords, and you, the House, are King Solomon himself! Judge for yourself the true Mother!

But let us not lose ourselves in the emotion of grief and regret. The 13 Colonies are our Sisters, Lord Heptarch our Brother, he is us and we are him. We are a family. Lord Heptach, Sir, dear friend, you are British, like me! Our blood colours the same English red! Do we not bleed together on the battlefield, Sir? Would we not both lay down our lives for King and country? Tell me I'm wrong, Lord Heptarch, I know your heart, you are no traitor!

I apologize, mr. Speaker, I let emotions get the better of me. All I want is for us to be one, not as a Landlord and a tenant, as Lord Heptarch puts it, but united in the brotherhood of England. There is no need for separate Houses, as this House is mine aswell as his. If we split Houses, we split our sacred bond, united since William the First, no, since Alfred the Great! United for more than nine-hundred years! Surely my honourable friend Lord Heptarch will see that we are a divine and blessed union of men, here to spread our greatness of Anglo-Saxon culture and heritage around the world! Do we not owe the world this, sir?

A House divided against itself cannot stand, Sir! Consider, my honourable friend, that never yet has the power of our Empire reached as far and wide as it has today! Together, as one family, in our divine brotherhood of blood, we will rule the waves and rule the world. Let Lord Heptarch rule the colonies, in the name of the King and this House, as one of us, and make us all great! Come back to our bosom, Sir, and let us leave the quarrel for our enemies, of which we have enough!

(Standing ramrod straight as the Speaker issues his call… hoping quite openly that another Gentleman as respectable and genteel as Lord Winter takes up his mantle. In the space of moments, the floor has recognized just such a one and a smile blooms. He sketches a respectful bow to George.)

My Lord, our departed colleague could not have hoped for a better man to pick up his banner. It will be a pleasure to cross words with you that we may avoid crossed swords.

Your emotions do you credit. Indeed, there was a time where I might have risen to applaud you.

(Turns to the Speaker and gestures to the House)

Yet Mr. Speaker, esteemed colleagues, this is not that time.

My adversary strives for the wisdom of Solomon while I must content myself with the patience of Job. For just as my opponent does, I, too, know the Bible. Indeed, the very first book of God’s word offers such wisdom to us as “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife.” 

God did not say “Mothers cleave to your children that they may never leave your side”. Nor did he say “Fathers, make a servant of your son in all things.” He said that a child must one day make his own way… create a family of his own… all while respecting and loving his parents.

Solomon, in all his wisdom, would never argue that a child must stay a child forever. 

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, such folly can be illuminated with the simple expedient of adding another King of England to my colleague’s litany: Canute the Great who reminded his courtiers that no man, however great, could stop the tides.

Perhaps I am being unjust to my opponent. Perhaps he does not advocate for the permanent subjugation of an entire continent of people as if they were children who cannot know their own mind. I do hope it is so.

But how must we who live across the ocean believe this? What evidence do we have to the contrary? As clearly as I speak here before you today, I am not allowed a voice in this chamber. Would a reasonable person not conclude that one of two statements must necessarily follow: That I am not an Englishman at all… or that American Englishmen are incapable of the fair-mindedness and sober dedication to duty that this House possesses? Indeed, that we are incapable of governing ourselves?

I am told that I am British… that we Americans are all British… and to the extent that we owe loyalty to King and Country I am honor-bound to agree. Yet does that mean we must remain forever silenced? Forever subordinate to a distant parent who, despite their love, cannot conceive of allowing their children to grow beyond them? 

My opponent has said that we are family. I heartily agree with him. Yet I stand before to say that my love of my family is not predicated on whether they subordinate themselves to me. When the time comes to show my love for a child grown by bidding they part with smiles and eternal goodwill, the house will not immediately immolate upon their departure.

Indeed, the eternal goodwill generated by such an amicable parting ensures the strength of two houses, united in affection and purpose as well as heritage, rather than their destruction.

Mr speaker, Lords and ladies,

I apologise to the house for my absence, although abrupt this was unplanned for and shall remain so in the near future due to a calamity of personal nature within my own family.

I wish to have it known to the house that I did not concede to the argument my honourable friend Heptarch Perseus however was unable to continue with such pressing matters at home, I beg forgiveness of the house and am honoured that the mantle has been lifted with the right honourable George to take my place with his zeal and honour I know he will represent not just myself but our union well.

I now excuse myself from the house Mr Speaker, and shall eagerly anticipate my return.

Regards,

Lord Winters.

(Lord George rises, wiping the tears from his eyes after the moving speech of Lord Winters)

Ladies, Lords, mr. Speaker, even though we have the utmost confidence Lord Winters will return to us soon and he is by no means lost to us, he will be bitterly missed. I certainly have no hopes for filling his shoes, as he rises above us all in eloquence and style, we merely scratch in the mud while he never fails to find the pearls. It is great fortune to the opposition Lord Winters has to take a brief spell away from the House, but bewarned! He will return, and we will keep the line steady in his absence.

Mr. Speaker, I must now turn my attention to Lord Heptarch with equal dismay, as I see a most unfortunate misunderstanding grow in which he demeans himself. Undeservedly so, I must add! He likens himself and his to children! In my biblical parable I certainly did not intend to portray him as such! He is most certainly not our child that needs to be set free, God forbid! He is our kin, our sister, our brother, he is us! The child is America, and all those bounties we found within it. It is the child of us all.

We cannot give you, Lord Heptarch, what you already have! You are British, and as equal in all things as we are!

But I understand that Lord Heptarch wishes to craft a new identity. What is this identity, Lord Heptarch? An 'Americano'? A 'Thirteener'? A 'Colonist'? An 'Indian'? We speak the same language, Sir! We have ancestors in the same lands! We read the same books, attend the same education! We have the same names for Mother! We have the same King!

Lord Heptarch, the British Empire is enormous. We have territory all over the globe. Many of our territories are considered subdivisions of our Empire. Scotland! Ireland! Newfoundland! Nova Scotia! Hanover! Rupert's Land! And the very largest of our Empire, the Bombay and Madras Presidencies! Surely you are not arguing that all these parts of the Empire should be cut loose, be seen as children that should "go their own way" and "make a family of their own"? I quote your own words, Sir!

Let us not abide by double standards in this House! Lord Heptarch, let me call you out on this! Is this what you are arguing, to disassemble the British Empire? Even the Indian Presidencies, which make up more than half of the Empire? Are you saying they should all be cut off and left adrift, and should we return to the size of a medieval England?

If this is not what you are arguing, Sir, what is it? Are the 'Indians' or 'Americanos', or whatever you wish to be, more special than the people from Madras or Bombay? More special than the people from Scotland or Ireland? Should you get a special treatment? Why?

Surely you see Sir, that if we go down this path, the other parts of the Empire will fail to see and understand why you are special and they are not! They will demand what you have! Dreams of splitting off parts of the Empire will become rampant! They will all give themselves special identities, like you have, above being British!

Next, Sir, we will all be collections of small countries. With a joint token King perhaps, but divided in every possible way, all looking after our own interests first. I don't know when Lord Heptarch has last taken a look around in the world. It seems like he is unfamiliar with the Empires around us. He is proposing we break up into parts that are smaller than the United Provinces, smaller than the French Empire, smaller than the Spanish Empire, smaller than the Habsburg Monarchy, smaller than Prussia, smaller than Russia, smaller than the Ottoman Empire. Smaller even than many Asian Empires, Sir!

I do not think I need to remind Lord Heptarch of history, he has an excellent British education. All the nations I just mentioned, and many more, are hostile against anything English speaking, Sir! We will be dogfood! Dogfood, Sir!

The British Empire has not been grown out of some pleasant mission of exploration, Sir! We have been forged by the steel of our opponents. We exist because they exist. Our defense is our strength. And we are bloody good at it, Sir!

If, Lord Heptarch, you are not happy with how the Empire is being run, then join the government! Make sure your party is represented in London, and show us how the reigns should be held. But for God's sake Sir, do not start demolishing a Fortress because you want us all to live in the woods, without asking yourself why we have built this Fortress! There are wolves in the woods, Sir!

As I told Lord Heptarch before, mr. Speaker, he is not the child in this tale. He is us and we are him. So let us not debate as children, out of some wish for playtime, without considering any consequences. As adults we cannot always get everything in the way we want, that is for our children. But as adults, with grave responsibilities, we keep our children safe and we work hard for a better future. Work with us, Lord Heptarch. Rise to power from within.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the floor.

    Mr. Speaker, I have been laboring under a misapprehension. My opponents have made it very clear that they consider me, and my American kin, not to be children at all. Indeed, they assert that we are equals. British in all ways in their eyes and under the law. I have done them an injustice by observing the contrary.

    I beg your indulgence, then, as I invite all of my American compatriots… all of those members of this august body who make their home on American shores… to stand with me here and now to offer a bow and our apologies that we should have misjudged them so.

    (Waits, patiently, as silence descends and not a soul aside from him stands. He looks around with a perfect facsimile of stunned solemnity.)

    Mr. Speaker… how can this be? I am assured… repeatedly… that I am British. That I am considered an equal. How is it that when our discussion here is finished and I remove from these halls that there will not be a single American voice in this Chamber? Indeed, that should I choose to return on any day but today, I will require an invitation to do so?

    (A pregnant pause. It stretches long enough to be slightly uncomfortable. At length he sighs, resigned.)

    My opponent has expressed a desire for plain speech and an end to dissimulation. So be it. The American Colonist has little to fear from plain speech. Indeed, a century and more of rustic living leaves little time for frippery. 

    I say, plainly, that I look about me at the faces gathered here. Intelligent faces. Kind. Generous. Yet there is one thing they share to the last: They are all English. Mine is the only American face. No Scots. No Irish. No Indians. Is the composition of this Chamber, then, an adequate metaphor for what it is to be “British”? That is to say, a designation egalitarian in theory but not in practice? One that is a mere obfuscation… a flimsy veil which, when brushed aside, reveals “British” rule must, necessarily, mean “English”?

Surely then, colleagues, we can dispense with the fatuous notion that the American Colonists are considered equals to our cousins living here in Mother England. Perhaps I flatter myself to presume upon long acquaintance with many of you that your regard for me may be egalitarian, yet the evidence of your own eyes argues against the ubiquity of that opinion. We ought to be… indeed, have a natural right to be… yet we are not.

My opponent asks if I am arguing for the dissolution of the British Empire. No, Mr. Speaker, despite what it may seem, I am not. It is outside my purview to argue for the Independence of any people but mine. I cannot claim a breadth of knowledge for England’s relations with the myriad satellites of its Empire and would not dream to speak for them. The manner of their associations with England are their own affair.

My argument, however, is that such associations ought to be, in their beating hearts, willing ones. I propose just such an association. Two nations, alike in dignity, respect and affection, an alliance bound on earth and sea to ensure the pre-eminence of our people. My opponents have argued, instead, for perpetual hegemony for England and supplication for my American brethren. We are told to remain content to serve as England deigns, given that only England has a voice in these Halls. To work for England. Fight for England. Sail for England. Die for England. 

I ask you, Dear Colleagues, what would induce you to accept such a design if the circumstances were reversed?

I beg your leave to presume that as men and women of parts… men and women with strength of spirit and the courage of your convictions… no inducement would suffice. In the end if equality were not conferred by the quill you would seek to achieve it by the sword.

Let us seek the former path and spurn the latter. 

(Lord George shakes his head in desparation and frustration at the gentlermen's words as he rises, hands gripping the edges of the lectern with whitened knucles, waiting impatiently to speak until his opponent is finished and the Speaker gives him the floor).

No, no, no!

(the Speaker interrupts) Lord George, Sir, I know you as an honourable Lord, well educated in the rules of the House! Surely it is unneccesary to remind you that this is not a place for theatrics!

I humbly apologize, mr. Speaker, I intended no theatrics, I lost my composure. And my honourable friend Lord Heptarch just pulled some theatrics of his own!

(the Lords mumble in 'hear hear' and 'booos')

(the Speaker) True, fair warning to both of you, Gentlemen. This is not a circus, this is the House of Lords. Please behave as Lords and keep the debate on the level we all admire the two honourable gentlemen for!

Apologies mr. Speaker. The reason for my ill expressed frustration is my own failure. My failure to reach the honourable Lord Heptach with my arguments.

Lord Heptarch introduces something that troubles me greatly. He introduces a new designation of people, based on aspects of a colonist identity. He does this in such a random method that the means seem to fit the end. 

In our Indian territories I am sympathetic to the native people claiming to be a different people. They are not from Europe, they are from a different origin, a different race, a different religion, they are indeed foreign to us. If Lord Heptarch would stand here and make the case for the original inhabitants of the America's, the native Indians, I would be more symphathetic. I think there is indeed a case for discussing the recognition of a measure of independence for peoples of a truly different identity. As far as the native nations of the America's are concerned, I do feel that we should be sensitive to their independence.

But Lord Heptarch seems to have little concern for arguing the independence and self government of native peoples, instead he seems to have conveniently adopted their identity and now labels himself as a native American. He usurps the identity of another, with seemingly little concern for the people he replaces, and now an Englishman is an American.

There are so many reasons, mr. Speaker, to think about the implications of the presumption of Lord Heptarch.

Imagine me, as an Englishman, going to Bombay and proclaiming myself an Indian! Not a single Englishman does this. Not even those that are born in Bombay. We are clearly not Indians, not in appearance, not in race, not in religion. It would be an undesirable claim to an identity that simply is not ours. We might very well bring a different civilization to Bombay, and bring them the opportunity to be part of a great Empire, but most certainly we do not aim to replace and usurp their very culture!

But Lord Heptarch imagines himself to be in an empty land with no culture than his. Not true, sir. You call yourself a Colonist. A Colony is a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties with the parent state. With proclaiming to be American, Lord Heptarch will be a Colonist no more, instead, he will claim to be native to a different land. This constitutes in a permanent claim of land.

Do we know for a fact that the original inhabitants of the America's want us to call their ancestral lands our permanent home? The very definition of a Colony is that we are, in fact, visitors, as we maintain the ties with our parent nation. The fact that the 13 Colonies are British soil has a profound diplomatic and judicial meaning. To sever the tie and no longer be British, and assuming a new identity that is not connected to any parent state, is at the very least a giant assumption, and forcing one's will on people that are the original inhabitants of a land.

So where is the historical presedence that a group of British citizens have suddenly declared themselves non-British? Is a hundred years of living in a British Colony justification for declaring to be no longer British? And if that were to be so, does it matter how far these colonies are? Are all our colonies now going to gain their own national identity? And if the new American identity is going to lead to a Capital city from which the extensive lands of the Americans are to be administered, what if a few provinces of such a land declare themselves to be independent people too? Is that going to be equally acceptable? Or are we going to measure that by a different yardstick?

Where do these identity politcs Lord Heptarch proposes begin, and where do they end? It would seem to me that some sort of legislation, equal to all men, would have to be created. It is easy for Lord Heptarch to proclaim to feel no responsibility for the other people withing the Empire with different identities, or even those within his continent. That is the very problem of his arguments, that he refuses to see all men as equal and take the responsibility of all men's fates at heart.

If the Americans that Lord Heptarch proposes should exist, consist of the exclusive groups of Eglish colonists, claiming the name for an entire continent, what then of the French ahd the Spanish living there? What of the native people living there? Does Lord Heptarch even have the beginning of a solution to this questions of identity? Or is it just an ill-concieved desire, born out of a need for lower taxation and matters like that?

I hope Lord Heptarch sees the moral direction the Empire is moving towards. No Empire is more progressive in arguing for the equality and freedom of all men. The only way to unify the world in this common goal, and not split off and usurp the lands of other men, is to continue down this path, together. If we lose ourselves in this identity politics, a unity of all men will be a dream ever further removed. Colonies are great means of spreading civilization and wealth, but isolated and insular colonies are a great way to create isolation and holding on to antiquated values.

Lord Heptarch was kind enough to spend no words on the weaker position all of us will be in if we follow through with his identity politics, but I presume that is because he has nothing much to say on it.

It seems to me Lord Heptarch has a burning desire to have his own cultural designation, but has no insights on how to solve any of the myriad of problems that will arise from it. Usurpation of lands. Exclusion of people. Increased international threaths. Economic harm. Vague boundaries of independence. The very concept of just stepping out of succesful unions without any long term plans I find un-British at the core.

If the problem is, Lord heptarch, that the Colonies desire more say in their local administration, then I, for one, would be willing to bend a symphathetic ear. We could appoint Colony leaders to key positions and make agreements to allow for wide leeway of the colonies. It is only healthy to give local rule the room to thrive. And there is also nothing to bar you from joining the House.

I just fear that your arguments lack such rationality that no solutions I can possibly raise will convince you to talk about the real issues that are at hand, and you will persist in applying identity politics as the solution to everything. Populism against common sense, I say. I hope to reach a state of reason with you, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the floor.

(He remains stolid and firm at his lectern during his opponent’s diatribe, his only reaction pursed lips at some of the more distasteful implications. When he once more has the floor, silence descends. A long, heavy silence wherein he considers how best to proceed. He ponders the great injustice of his opponent citing a litany of England’s historical sins and laying them, with wide-eyed, disingenuous horror, at the feet of Americans clothed in righteous concern for future generations. He considers illuminating for his opponent the unique cultures of each satellite of the British Empire and how they diverge from the English. For a moment he even considers meeting the rising heat in the room with South Carolinian heat… for one cannot live in such climes and fail to absorb them.

But no. This conversation must not turn vitriolic. It would serve neither side for the question of American Independence to become too fraught... too prone to indignation and fault-finding. He takes a deep, even breath and addresses the Speaker.)

Mr. Speaker, I observe that we have ranged far afield. The sun is high and the air has warmed considerably. I am inclined to find shade, but first I must beg an indulgence.

I wish to employ your good graces, that you might solicit a direct response from my opponent to two questions fundamental to the issue at hand. Questions which I note, with infinite regret, he has failed to address.

Question the first… If all citizens of the “British” Empire are equal, how does my honourable opponent justify that those outside England do not have the same rights as the native English? To wit,  that they are barred from participation in the ruling body that governs them.

Question the second… Does my opponent believe that the political associations of Empire ought to be willing ones? Or does he submit to this Chamber that England has the right to enforce its will upon the unwilling? 

I cede the floor to you, Mr. Speaker, and thereby to my honourable opponent.

(He observes his honorable friend, the American, as Lord Heptarch calls himself to his dismay, and observes his heated complexion. He marvels at his short speech, and wonders whether he might have pushed him too far in a corner, considering that especially the matters of state law and national rights are not addressed. How must he proceed? He rises.)

Mr. Speaker, let me address the questions of my honorable friend, in the hope that he is willing to honour me with returning the favor, and answering some questions of mine.

My honorable friend wishes to speak of equal rights. The problem with equal rights is that we need to approach those equally. So often these words are used by those that do not apply them themselves. Do I pretend that all British citizens have equal rights? No, I think it would be an insult to many people to do so. I would add to that, that even the citizens of England itself have no equal rights.

Do all citizens in the America's have equal rights? Do all nations in the North American lands have equal rights? I think not. So let us imagine a truly independent coalition of North American colonies, are they then going to be the unique advocates in the world for equal rights? Are they going to allow equality within their new nation. And if they have ambitions to add more nations to their coalition, are these too all going to be equal? Or would they too, perhaps, as all nations do, decide to include them against their will?

My view on this question is that this is only a valid argument if one is willing to apply it to itself. So perhaps my honorable friend would illuminate us as to how he would wish to proceed if his independence is gained? How will equality apply to all you intend to do, sir? What example do you wish to set, within your nations and towards your surrounding nation?

I think this is a vital question to answer, as the honorable gentleman has not addressed the issues of international law. They are not the only nations in North America. What, if we would grant such independence, would we unleash on thine neighbors, Sir? In the matter of equal rights, must not we, the British Empire, consider this before we would grant you such rights? As an Empire we have larger responsibilities. We must consider not only the fate of the nation you wish to be, but also of other nations in the world.

So help us, Sir, in painting this picture of independence. Think beyond the boundaries of just achieving this single state. What would you do with your independence, Sir? That is what the British Empire, and many other nations, would be most interested in. Do we let loose an Angel or a Devil? Equality or oppression? Inclusion or exclusion? Dominance or alliance? Peace or war? With independence comes statesmanship, which involves future vision. Let that be a departure for your arguments, Sir, and we will listen carefully for what commitments and ideals your new nation would commit itself to.

As to your second question, should political associations of Empire be willing ones? They should, Sir. Our association with the Electorate of Hanover is a willing one. Our association with the Thirteen Colonies might or might not be a willing one, depending on who you ask. But these are different entities. The Colonies are communities of people we have founded. We have not found you there, living in your own country. We have brought you there, we have supported the creation of your villages and cities there, we have defended you with our navy and army. In no way can we compare the Thirteen Colonies to Hanover. Your plight is to be considered as such, that I understand.

My question to you is this: the Thirteen Colonies are not one but three nations. Are they all to be independent? Will they all be equal? What if one of these nations wishes to separate, go their own way of the others, independently? Is that something that is going to be tolerated, or suppressed? And what if other nations you add to your collective want to be independent? Or colonies you create? Is that then also something you will encourage?

I do not wish to corner you, Sir, and I respect your sincerity. But I think we all want to see how you envision the future, and how the values you want to impose on us apply to yourself. We love dreams, Sir, but as the stuff of books. If we decide on the fates of nations, these decisions must be grounded in reality. So offer us your reality!

I yield the floor, mr. Speaker.