The Sun.
London, England, 1865-03-24 00:00:00

of our power. The right hon. gentleman, nevertheless,
intimated his determination to support the vote.
Mr. DISRAELI—Si; I cannot say that I entirely and
heartily approve of the form in which this vote is presented
to us. I myself disapprove of the manner in which it was
introduced to us by placing a despatch of a confidential
character on the table of the house from an individual
employed by the Government, the general result of
which has created much alarm, perplexity, and confusion,
not only in England, and has attracted a degree of attention
to what is after all merely a common duty of the Govern-
ment. I know there have been cases in which reports of a
confidential character from officers of a Government have
been placed on the table to prepare the public mind to
consent to some large measure ; but, generally speaking, I
think it is a course which the house ought not to
sanction, for all legal questions and all questions in which
principles of international law are concerned the Govern-
ment very wisely and properly, when asked the opinion of
the law advisers of the Crown, always urge the prerogative
they justly possess of refusing to place on the table the rea-
sons which the professional advisers have arrived at, and
the conclusions which have regulated the conduct of the
Government. Now that rule is highly salutary, though it
is sometimes disappointing and annoying to the House of
Commons. But certainly I think that rule ought peculiarly
to be followed in the case of our advisers of the Crown,
when their reports refer to important questions of the de-
fence of the empire, and which naturally lead to the dis-
cussion of questions with reference to other powers and
governments, and which are necessarily of a very delicate
character. Yet on the present occasion that document of
Colonel Jervois's had been thrown on the table, and if it
had not, in my opinion none of these discussions need have
taken place, but we should have voted the money, if neces-
sary, on the responsibility of her Majesty's Government—
(hear, hear)—and it is the duty of her Majesty's Ministers,
when they are supplied with information of an important
character, to amply investigate the question, and ascertain
the course that ought to be adopted, and expound their po-
licy, and not make an official paper of a confidential cha-
racter indicate their policy and explain their conduct. But
whatever objection I might have to that particular propo-
sition of her Majesty's Government as to the form in which
it is brought forward, or to the amount proposed, or what-
ever objection I may have to the manner in which it has
been introduced to the house, I have no hesitation as to
the course I ought to follow, which is to support her Ma-
jesty's Government in this instance—(hear)—becauselfeel
persuaded that if there be any hesitation in the housenow,
it will discourage the conduct of the Canadians at a most
critical moment of their history. (Hear, hear.) I am per-
fectly willing to admit that no sentimental feeling of any
kind—if the motive partake of mere sentiment—ought to
justify us in entering into a policy of which we disapprove,
and which may be ultimately disastrous to that country.
In that I entirely agree with the right honourable gen-
tleman who has just addressed us, but I cannot agree
with the rest of his arguments. He says that no one has
proved that Canada can be invaded. These are opinions
which we must form as best we can from powers of thought
and the series of facts before us, and I am bound to say
that though I have listened to the right hon. gentleman
twice with considerable attention, I am not inclined at all
to admit that the balance of argument is on his side—that
Canada cannot be defended. (Hear, hear.) It is matter of
opinion. Bnt this I observe throughout his argument--
and there are some few who may sympathise with him—
that it is pervaded by 'one great fallacy, because they
always argue this case as if there were no other alterna-
tive, as if we were unhappily at war with America, which
I think most improbable, but which the right hon. gentle-
man assumes is immediate, which is the whole basis of his
argument, as I will show hereafter. His whole speech in-
volves this fallacy, founded on this alternative, that if un-
fortunately we have war with America it must be carried
on either in Canada or in some other particular place. But
I maintain that if we have war with America it will be
carried on everywhere—in every place where we can carry
it on, not only in one ocean, but in both oceans—wherever
we can annoy and weaken our enemy. (Cheers.) Well, then,
are we to admit as a sort of strategical corollary the proposi-
tion of the right hon. gentleman that we are to permit
America, to invade our provinces with the utmost facility
and therefore with the least cost of money, men, and
material. (Hear, hear.) I should have thought that the
common experience of men would teach us that the more
I difficult we make the invasion of Canada by the Americans
the greater the demand is upon their resources, upon
their soldiers, upon their military materials, so proportion-
ately we diminish the amount of their military material in
every point at which they could contend with us. It seems
to be most preposterous that the right hon. gentleman
should lay down this principle, that if we go to war with
America we shall permit the Americans, without any re-
striction, to attain a considerable end, when if resistance
were offered, although it was not completely or ultimately
successful, that resistance you know must diminish the
power of the enemy in those quarters in which they are
assailable. (Hear, hear.) Sir, the right hon. gentleman
has argued this case in the same spirit in which the case of
the Peninsular war was argued by the Whig party some
50 years ago. (Cheers and laughter.) " It is useless to
resist the power of Napoleon, because no ono can stand
against it." (Hear, hear.) This great assumption entirely
pervaded the whole of the argument of the right hon. gen-
tleman. "The military power of America is the power of
a great nation—you cannot resist it." The right hon.
gentleman counts the immense legions, with whose exploits
we are familiar. He tells us that America has hundreds
and hundreds of thousands of men in arms who are veteran
troops ; that they are commanded—which no one denies—
by some generals of signal ability and success : and howl
he asks, aro we to resist such a power in Canada ? Well,
if war were to take place with America, to-morrow, there
might be some foundation for the views taken by the right
hon. gentleman, but they are utterly inconsistent with his
repeated declaration that he believes the war will not take
place to-morrow—that he does not think it imminent—
that he does not think it even probable. Are we to under-
stand from the right hon. gentleman, who is a man of great
acuteness, great historical knowledge, and considerable
public experience—that he thinks that it will bo the nor-
mal state of the United States to maintain these armies
like the hosts of Xerxes ; are we to suppose that if peace is
to be maintained for four or five years America will still
have at its command an army of 600,000 or 700,000 men ?.
If that is his opinion it is one I cannot share, and it appears
to me to be utterly impossible for him to maintain it.. I
need only refer for a moment to the financial condition of
snti
hdswbeyneintentionoi
tgthhtetoyrb accordingaettehe
aato:
no_ff
America as it has been put very tersely by one hon. mem-
ber. No doubt America, has incurred an immense debt by
the present struggle. I do not want to investigate its real
nt,
eni
ttplhAepperi Am
ys,eaes
,rami tseihonshaunapt
nsrtt Gohb
been
aefvbdne
money,
r nybs
said,
nnn,
doewe,
buteci hset
amount. I take it even according to the financial acknow-
t
tleehudalgtamtleewsdestnnhbwt;oyunwhtlfiehdctlhehlsn,
inoutrero
America to keep faith with her public creditor ? I believe
it is the intention of America to pay her public creditor. I
imagine that that sagacious people will feel that if she does
not keep faith with the public creditor her future will be
ruinous. Well, if she does keep faith with the public cre-
ditor she will not keep up an army of 700,000 men, which
she only maintains this year by a loan of £120,000,000 ster-
ling, and therefore unless we go to war with America to-
morrow, I am not aware that this innumerable host, which
is always at the command of the right hon. gentleman in
his speeches on the part of the United States, could be
forthcoming. (Hear, hear.) Let us look a little at the
position of Canada as to its means of defence. I speak with
diffidence on this subject. An hon. member said the other
night that England had not a general, a statement which I
own alarmed me immensely. (Laughter.) But the result
of the debate on military affairs, showed a considerable
knowledge of military matters, and I trust that if anything
happens a general will not be wanting to this country.
(Hear, hear.) I think it is pretty well admitted that the
population of Canada could, under ordinary circumstances,
bring, when necessary, 100,000 fighting men into the field.
Well, the population of Canada is a very high-spirited
population, and under extraordinary circumstances it would
do something more than bring 100,000 men into the field.
Some of the hon. gentleman who have spoken on this
subject seem to have no idea of the inspiration and
excitement of patriotism. If their blood was up it would
be more likely that they would bring 200,000 men into
the field. Now, suppose that you had 200,000 fighting
men, qualified by their habits and constitution to attain a
military excellence. If you have 200,000 fighting men,
supported by a series of strong places, I do not give it as
my opinion—that would be absurd—but I have it on the
highest authority in these matters, that a series of strong
places supporting an army is equal to one-third of the
whole force, so that you will have in effect 300,000 fight-
ing men. (Cheers, and a laugh.) I say that 300,000 fight-
ing men, or a force equivalent to that, acting purely de-
fensively, is equal to those hosts which the right hon. gen-
tleman has brought into the field. The right hon. gentle-
man has settled the campaign, I confess, with the utmost
facility. If campaigns could be settlev by chopping logic
the right hon. gentleman would be the greatest general
that ever existed. (Cheers and laughter.) I remember hear-
ing the Duke of Wellington say that there were very few
men who could see the end of a campaign ; and we know
from our own knowledge of what has happened in the
world how doubtful have been the issue of campaigns.
What has made them so? The resistance of fortresses,
the extraordinary character and conduct of individuals,
risen up and battled the advance of conquering armies,
as we saw in the case of Sebastopol, who have suddenly
and thrown back the fate of war for a year or two.
These are the 'circumstances which occur in a state of
war, which has always been admitted to- be proverbially
doubtful, and I cannot but believe that from the num-
ber of the population and their spirit what we know
they can do what I think under circumstances
of excitement they would—l cannot but believe that
so long as their connection with England is maintained,
and that they are encouraged by the presence of the
trained warriors of our country, the resistance of the Cana-
dians would be very considerable, and that the result would
not be that which is foreseen by the right hon. gentleman.
(Cheers.) The right hon.gentleman has also held out to us
the prospect that maintaining the connexion with Canada
must be according to his views, disgraceful in its
results, and calamitous to England. He has treated the
views we have of maintaining the connection with this

I country as merely sentimental. I think I have shown to
the committee that there are considerations which may
induce us to believe that he has been too precipitate in that
conclusion. The right. hon. gentleman maintains that it is
impossible to defend the frontier of Canada. Does he mean
to say that for the future it is to be laid down as a principle
to be acted upon that that extensive frontier is not to be de-
fended ? If he does, it contradicts all the principles of
modern military affairs, and confounds all those principles
of policy which have ever regulated the conduct of nations.
I amasure he does not mean that. But why should he, as
a matter of course, conclude that disgrace must fall upon
the English arms in Canada, and oppose the present reso-
lution because that is the inevitable consequence of our
interference in Canadian affairs? Why, after all, what is
the present proposition of the Government ? We may find
fault with the amount, with the manner in which it is in-
troduced, with the mode in which it is proposed to dispose
of it ; and after all the proposition is to take the precautions
that our troops should be placed in a position from which
they must retire with precipitation. It is to secure them
from that that the present proposition is made, and there-
fore if there be any serious conclusions to be drawn from
the general views of the right hon. gentleman it is this,
that we ought to refrain altogether from attempting to
maintain the public duties which devolve upon us. Now,
I cannot agree with him that the assertion that England has
a duty to fulfil in maintaining the independence of Canada
ought to be treated as an idle or sentimental boast. (Cheers.)
The right hon. gentleman regards Canada as already a re-
public. Sir, Ido not grudge Canada her independence. I
can anticipate that those who follow us may view that
country as independent and powerful, but I do not neces-
sarily see that the form of government should be that of a
republic. (Hear.) The traditions of Canada are very much
,opposed to such a form of government, and the recent
experience of Canada would not, I think, make it particu-
larly enamoured of it. (Hear, hear.) What is the moment
at which the right hon.gentleman calls upon us practically
to desert Canada ? It is at a moment when North America
is in a state of revolution, when no one can foresee what
may be the result of the vast changes and the mighty vicis-
situdes which have occurred during the last four years,
and are still rapidly occurring, not confined to the United
States, not confined to the Confederate States, but in Eng-
lish America itself, and, most remarkably also, in Mexico.
We know that the British American provinces contain the
elements of a great nation. They have now no inconsider-
able population; they have immense resources. The right
hon. gentleman has described in his happy language, pic-
turesque and true, the condition of the upper provinces of
Canada. Those provinces, and the lands contiguous to them
contain the means of sustaining not only millions, but tens
of millions of population ; and why are we to doom Canada
to the fate of being absorbed into the United States or of
becoming a mere dependency of some American republic.
(Hear, hear.) Canada has, I believe, its future. We have a
right to assume this, for it has all the elements which make
a nation. It has at this moment a strong development of
nationality. It is influenced by those feelings which we
ought to recognise, and of which we ought to be proud.
And it is not for us now critically to consider the mere pro-
position of the Government. We are not to consider now
whether it is ample enough, or whether it has been intro-
duced to us in the happiest manner. (Hear, hear.) We are
to consider whether practically it is not on the part of the
Government an appeal to the Parliament of England, whe-
ther they will cherish the connection with Canada, with
the North American provinces, which at present exists—
(hear, hear)—whether they do not believe it a point of ho-
nour, and that in our interest we are bound to do that—
whether they do not believe that unaided by us those pro-
vinces have not the means of establishing their indepen-
dence of any foreign foe; with the full conviction on our
part that if ultimately those provinces can become an inde-
pendent country we shall not find in such a circumstance
a source of mortification, but rather a source of pride.
(Loud cheers.)

Mr. CARD WELL said that since he had come into the
house he had received a despatch from the Governor-
General of Canada., confirming the agreeable reports con-
tained in the morning papers to the effect that a telegraphic
message had reached him from Mr. Burnley, our chargé
d'affaires at Washington, stating that "that the Secretary
of State (Mr. Seward) had informed him that his Govern-
ment intended to withdraw its notice for the abrogation of
the treaty of 1817, and that the passport system would
cease immediately." This announcement was hailed with
a general burst of cheering.
Mr. BRIGHT asked the attention of the house but for a
very few minutes. If the hon. member for Norfolk divided
the house, he should go into the lobby with him.
(Laughter and cheers.) He was aware that in making that
statement he might alarm the mind of that hon. gentleman,
but he should not go into the lobby with him agreeing
with him in many of the statements which he made upon
the question a few nights ago. The right hon. gentleman
the member for Buckinghamshire approached the military
part of the question as a subject of the greatest difficulty.
He (Mr. Bright) was very glad to see any sense of diffi-
dence from that quarter. (Laughter.) But with that ex-
pression he asked the house with a triumphant air—as if
he felt certain no one there could contradict him—whether
there could be any difficulty in defending a frontier of 1,000
or 1,500 miles, as if it were a new doctrine in warfare. Now,
1,000 or 1,500 miles from the centre of your power was one
thing, but 1,000 or 1,500 miles at a considerable distance
from that centre was a very different thing—(hear, hear)—
and he ventured to think that no man in that house, nor any
sensible man out of it, believed that the people of this coun-
try could undertake a successful defence of Canada against
the whole power of the United States if they were at war
with this country. (Hear.) He said the other night that he
hoped they would not talk folly, nor that they would there-
after, with an endeavour to be consistent, act folly. They
knew that it would be folly on the part of the Government
to send out men and ships to defend Canada against the
United States. He was not a believer in a war, but he
would discuss the question at that moment as if he thought
war was possible. He supposed that there were some men
in that house who thought it probable, but whether it was
possible or probable they ought to look this difficulty in
the face, and as if there were any extrication from it other-
wise than in the neutrality or independence of Canada.
He agreed with those in that house who said that it was
the duty of a Government of a great empire to defend
every portion of the empire. That was a general proposi-
tion. But hon. gentlemen opposite, and upon his own side
of the house did not believe that that rule applied to the
United States. (Hear, hear.) But he admitted the rule.
Now, suppose the catastrophe of war should happen, and
that this country should be unprepared for it. That wasa
reason, then, why they should look ahead and endeavour
to escape from it. (A VOICE—" Run away?") No ; he
would not run away, though he had heard of brave men
endeavouring to escape from difficulties without running
away from them, and they might wish to run away from
these difficulties about Canada. Now, he would not assert
that this expenditure of £50,000 was to be taken as a
menace by the United States. He did not think that the
construction of fortifications at Quebec would enable this
country to overrun New York. (Laughter.) He did not
think that the Government of the United States would
complain of this expenditure, and the most they would
say was that perhaps the Government and some persons
in this country showed a distrust of them, and so far
some injury might be caused. But he (Mr. Bright) com-
plained of this expenditure, and of the policy announced
by the right hon. gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies,
and by the noble lord the member for Wick (Lord Bury),
who was a sort of half Canadian, and who had told the
house some things which perhaps they did not know
before. But if he (Mr. Bright) had been connected with
Canada as the noble lord was he would have addressed
the house from the Canadian point of view. The right hon.
gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) said that the defences of Canada
were to be borne by this country and a portion by Canada.
He quoted him, he thought, exactly and correctly. But he
ventured to tell the right hon. gentleman that if there should
be any occasion to defend Canada at all it would not be for
what the Canadians had done, but for what England did;
and he therefore protested against the doctrine that the
cabinet in London might get into a war without the cabinet
in Canada knowing of it, and that she should be called upon
to expend money. It would be a war which might affect
Canada alone, because she would be the battle-field of the
war between the United States and the United Kingdom.
Now they were asked to expend this money; and a much
larger sum would be expected to follow, though a future
Parliament might be indisposed to grant it. But what was
the proportion which Canada would have to bear ? It was
said that for this £50,000 to be expended at Quebec, Canada
would have to expend £lOO,OOO at Montreal. Now if Canada
was to be called upon to expend double what this country
agreed to expend on her defences, would not every Cana-
dian ask what was the use of their connection with this
country ? (Hear.) In this country everybody knew that
there was no more probability of a war between Canada and
the United States than there was between France and the
Isle of Man. (Hear, and laughter.) If there shouldbe cause
for war it would arise betiveen England and the United States,
Now there were gentleman in that house who well knew
the position of the Canadian finance; and they all knew
that Canada at present levied higher duties upon some
articles of the manufactures of this country than France and
other countries did. When a complaint was made to Canada
of that which was thought to lie improper conduct towards
this country, the answer was—" Our debt is so large and
our expenditure so great that we are obliged to levy higher
duties." But if the finances of Canada were in that state,
and her credit not first-rate in this country—if those were
her difficulties in a time of perfect peace, what would be the
course of her finances in time of war, and carried on in a way
in which she would have to bear her part of the expendi-
true ? It must strike every man at once. And the Govern-
ment of Canada might say : there is a great nation 3,000
miles away; there are litigious people there and in the
United States; they may get up a war : we are a peaceful
people ; we have no foreign policies ; we may be involved,
and while the cites of Great Britain will not be touched by
a single shell our fields may be ravaged, and there is not a
town which may not be ravaged by our powerful neigh-
bours." And the Canadians may go on to say that the doc-
trines of the right hon. gentleman the Secretary for the
Colonies were not very sound, and they might wish to be-
come the citizens of an independent state. (Hear, hear.)
He had heard it stated by a member of the present Govern-
ment, that the Government would have no objection to the
independence of Canada if rho wished it. lie (Mir. bright)

was glad to hear that Statement, because he thought it
showed an extraordinary progress in sound opinions in this
country. He recollected the noble lord the Foreign Secre-
tary being very angry, and saying that he would not like
to see a great empire become less. But the territory of a
nation might become less without its authority or power
being at all lessened in the world, and he believed that if
the Canadas became an independent state—whether they
adopted the government of a monarchy or of a republic—
that they would be as friendly towards this country as they
were now, and there would be no cause of war between
them. He thought, however, that the Government of this
country would be more likely to secure that friendship if
they did not commence a system of fortifications of which
the Canadians would have to pay so large a proportion of
the cost. - Now he (Mr. Bright) did not object to their
throwing away this £so,ooo—though that would be a
sufficient reason ; he would not object to the vote on
the ground that it would create distrust in America,
though that would be a sufficient reason ; but he did
object to the vote because it was the commencement of a
policy to which Canada would not submit, for it would
bring upon Canada a heavy burden in regard to this ex-
penditure, which would make the Canadians very dissatis-
fied, and perhaps anxious to separate from this country.
(Hear, hear.) He did not object to a separation in the least,
but he believed it would be better to separate while on
friendly terms than after the colony was deeply involved in
debt—(hear, hear)—for of all their misfortunes that would
be the greatest, if they separated at a period of irritation and
estrangement. (Hear, hear.) He was sorry that the noble
lord and his Cabinet had taken this course. It appeared to
him that the Government was one of two parts, one pull-
ing one way and the other another way, and they were al-
ways doing something which did not please anybody—
(hear)—and which did not produce a good effect in any
direction. They now produce a scheme which will in some
degree be an injustice, and the Government did not propose
enough to enable them to accomplish all the objects which
they had in view. (Hear.) Somebody the other night asked
whether the Administration or the House of Commons was
to rule. He (Mr. Bright) expected that the Administration
would be allowed to rule in regard to this vote. They were
accustomed to hear that the Government did this and that
upon their responsibility, and therefore they were allowed
to do it; but the Government did not know any more than
any half a dozen other gentlemen in that house, and the Go-
vernment were not more competent to discuss these propo-
sitions than the house was. The Government asked tho
house to discuss this vote, and he should be glad if the
house would reject it. (Hear, hear.) He did not place much
reliance on the speech of the right hon. gentleman the
member for Bucks—not because he could not judge of this
question as well as any other hon. member, but because he
had noticed that the hon. gentlemen sitting on the leading
Opposition bench and on the Ministerial bench shook hands
on those questions. Hon. gentlemen opposite tell the house
that they have no connection with the house over the way,
but the connection is most intimate—(laughter)—and if the
right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks were sitting on
this side of the house and the noble lord on the leading Op-
position bench, he would give the right hon. gentleman the
same support which he is receiving to-night. (Hear, hear.)
That was a question so plain in itself, so Based on common
sense, and so full of great issues for the future, that he was
persuaded it was the duty of the House of Commons to take
the matter out of the hands of the Executive Government,
and to determine that they would not spend the money of
the English taxpayers, nor force upon the Canadians bur-
thens which they would not long consent to bear.
Lord PALMERS TON—I am sorry that we are not go-
ing to have the vote of the hon. member for Birmingham,
but I thank him very sincerely for the compliment he has
paid to us. The hon. gentleman said that the present pro-
posal was a specimen of the usual conduct of the Govern-
ment, that is to say, we have made a proposal which I think
will be accepted by the great majority of the house. I ac-
cept the compliment, which infers that we have so shaped
our course on this occasion as to receive the general con •
currence and cordial support of the house. (Loud cheers.)
I should hope that the hon. member who has proposed this
amendment will think, from the course which this debate
has taken, that it would not be well to ask the house to go
to a division on it. (Hear, hear.) If I did not misunderstand
him, he thought that we ought to defend Canada, and that
all he sought to do was to postpone the vote for further
information. But I think he will see that, with only two
exceptions, the vote has met the approval of every member
who has taken part in the debate. My right hon. friend
the member for Caine, has indeed taken that which, if I
were not afraid of being accused of playing upon words, I
should say was a very "Lowe" ground of opposition.
(Loud laughter.) But he and an hon. and gallant friend be-
hind him, and the hon. member for Birmingham were alone
those who seemed to entertain the same objections. Even
here, however, I must correct myself, for, although my
right hon. friend objected to vote for the motion, the gene-
ral tone of his argument was so much in favour of it that
I think it both undesirable and unnecessary that there
should be any difference of opinion. Remember this is
not a Canadian question, it is not a local queston, it is an
Imperial question. (Loud cheers.) It is one that afiects
the character and position, the honour and interests of this
great country, and I think it is of the utmost importance
that on an occasion of this sort, an occasion upon which
the great majority of the house seems to be of the
same opinion, it should not go forth to the world that there
had been a difference of opinion, but the vote should go
forth as the unanimous decision of the house. (Hear, hear.)
There are ono or two points upon which I must express my
dissent from the doctrines which have been laid down on
this subject. Many gentlemen seem to argue as if the
general impression and belief were that war with the United
States was imminent, and that this vote was proposed as a
means of averting the danger now hanging over us. Now,
I hope that there is no danger of a war with the United
States ; nothing that has passed recently between the two
Governments indicates warlike feelings on the part of the
United States, and therefore we do not propose this motion
on the grounds of expected war. But it is necessary when
you propose to place your oolony in a state of defence, that
war with some powerful neighbour is about to take place ?
Why, the whole practice of mankind is founded on diffe-
rent assumptions. Every country fortifies its frontier in
the presence of a powerful neighbour, even although the
slightest violation of peaceable relations be not apprehended.
But it is said also that you cannot defend Canada. Now, I
utterly deny that position. (Hear, hear.) I think it is as-
suming a conclusion which no man is entitled to assume.
Does the war which is now going on in that country justify
that conclusion? The territory of the Confederates is vast
and extensive—have they attempted to defend the whole
of that territory? No; they have •fortified certain impor-
tant points, and those have resisted all attacks, some of them
continue to do so up to the present day, and others have done
so for three or four years. Take Richmond, for example; has
Richmond been taken ? (Loud cheers.) Has not Richmond
been frequently attacked and successfully defended with
the earthworks, having a force behind them, and although
that force was inferior to the attacking army, the defence
has up to the present moment been successful. (Hear.)
The occupation of mere territory by an army which tra-
verses an undefended country is no conquest. The conquest
is merely of the ground which the army occupies, and when
it passes away the same ground may be occupied by the op-
posing army. But all countries fortify particular points,
and when these are secured they trust the general territory
is protected from permanent occupation. Again, it is said
that Canada has so extended a frontier. Is there no other
country which has an extended ftthatier ? Is not our own
frontier the whole sea coast of the United Kingdom ? And
it might be said that we should line our whole coast with
defensive works in order to defend our insular position.
We do not dreain of doing so, nor is it necessary. 1 main-
tain that nothing that has passed, nothing that is passing
between the United States Government and our own would
justify any man in saying that the relations between the
two countries have any asperity which might lead to war.
The hon. member for Birmingham says that any danger
that might threaten Canada and our other American colo-
nies must arise from the political situation between England
and the United States, and that, therefore, the Canadians
will find their best security not in fortifications or British
support, but in separation and independence. Now, in the
first place that happens not to be the wish of the Canadians,
(Hear.) The Canadians are most anxious to maintain their
connection with this country ; they are proud of that con-
nection. They think it is for their interest and they will
make every exertion to preserve that connection, and to
prevent their country being absorbed by a neighbouring
power. And is it not the duty as well as the interest of this
country, for the sake of that reputation which is the power
and strength of a nation, that we should do that which we
have the power and the means of doing for the purpose of
maintaining that connexion and keeping our colony allied to
Great Britain. But is it true that the only danger a small
state can run from a large neighbour arises from quarrels
with the parent state. I say it is a fallacy to suppose that
these provinces would be safer if separated from this coun-
try. Suppose them separated, are there not motives which
might lead a stronger neighbour to pick a quarrel with the
small state ? Is there nothing like territorial ambition
pervading great military states ? (Hear, hear.) 1 think
the example of the world might teach the hon. member
that there aro such things as invasion and annexation,
and that the danger for Canada would be much increased
by her being separated from Great Britain, and being thus
deprived of our assistance. If these American provinces
desired to separate, we should not adopt the maxim which
teaches that the North is right in suppressing the rebellion
of the South. We should not suppress the rebellion of
our North American colonies ; we should take a different
line, and if those provinces thought they could stand on
their own ground we should say, " God speed you." That,
however, has not happened in the case of the Canadians.
On the contrary, they much dislike the notion of annexa-
tion to their neighbour, and cling to their connection with
this country. I say, then, that it would be disgraceful to
this country, and would lower us in the eyes of the world,
weaken our power, and lead to consequences which would
be injurious to our national position, if, when these colonies
desire to maintain the connection, we should do nothing for
the purpose of assisting them. Sir, I think the Govern-
ment is perfectly right in proposing the vote which is now
submitted to the house. We are of opinion that all objec-
tions raised by my right hon. friend are not practical ; we
know that in winter the snow is deep in Canada, and that
an army could only march through in a single track. We
know that active operations are impossible in winter, and