England and France had for years
been running a race of competition of this kind.
If France raised a new
regiment, or added a new ship of war, or built an ironclad, or erected
a fortress, we must do the same. And thus it had been that the forces
still remained on a measure of some sort of equality, notwithstanding a
vast outlay, which had crippled the resources of both countries, and
here at home had delayed fiscal reform and retarded, nay even
prevented, the most obvious measures for the elevation and education of
our people. Were we to play the same game over again with the States?
Now, as regards the great lakes and water ways of America, possessing a
coast line of above 3,000 miles, we had since 1817 neutralized these
waters as regards armaments. Under that truly blessed arrangement, the
sound of a hostile shot, or even of a shot fired for practice, had
never been heard now for nearly half a century. Here was a precedent of
happy history and worthy of all gratitude and of all imitation. Now, if
they were to fortify, let it be done adequately, whatever the cost.
That cost would, he repeated, be great and also uncertain. Now he would
venture to make a suggestion to the Government. It was to try
negociation. Place before the minds of American statesmen the
neutralization of the lakes and ask if the frontiers could not be
neutralized also. Was it not possible that if Her Majesty's Government
took Brother Jonathan in a quiet mood, he might be disposed to save his
own pocket and thereby to save ours, and unite with us to set a bright
example to surrounding nations? The people of the United States had
their faults and we had ours; but they were distinguished by their
common sense. No people had more of it. This suggestion would, he
thought, come home to it; for they would argue, if we lay out millions
so will the British, and, after all, it is merely adding burdens to
both and not really strength or dignity to either. Let the Government
try. If they failed the trial would have shown them to be just and in
the right. If they succeeded how happy would it be for us. Reference
had been made by the right hon. gentleman to the fortifications at New
York, Boston, and Portland; but no one had mentioned a very strong work
within forty miles of Montreal itself. He had seen that work. It was
called 'Fort Montgomery,' and there was a railway all the way from it
to Montreal. It was now very strong. He believed it had embrasures for
some 200 guns. All the time this war had been going on, this work had
been going on also. Now this looked like menace. Our Government had
been informed about it, but he failed to find that they had made any
representation to Washington. Surely they might have said, and would
have been justified in saying to a friendly nation - 'If you must have
200 guns 40 miles from Montreal, we must have 250 at Montreal; and
whatever you do, we must imitate - therefore, why should either of us
lay out our money?' But Government had done nothing; and now, before
attempting any negociation, they asked the House to agree to make
fortifications. He had humbly offered a suggestion to the Government.
Let them take one of two decided courses. Let them deal firmly and
wisely with the question. Let them state, in no spirit of offence, to
the United States that, as Canada was part of the British Empire, we
would defend it at all cost; or let them endeavour to induce the
Government of Washington to distinguish itself for ever by adopting the
alternative - the neutralization of the lakes and the avoidance of
hostile fortifications on both sides of the frontier."
The second speech is reported as follows:
"Mr. WATKIN, member for Stockport, said, that he felt concerned to hear
the United States so often spoken of in the debate as 'the enemy;' and
if he thought that the vote before the committee would in any manner
increase international irritation, he should regret his vote in favour
of the proposition of the Government. As it was, he felt that he could
not quite agree with the policy the vote indicated. That policy was one
of armament against an enemy. The proposition, in his opinion, went
either too far or not far enough. It did not go far enough to inspire
undoubted confidence and to deter attack by providing for absolute
defence; and still it went far enough to raise suspicion and to excite
or to aggravate a frontier feeling. But he thought that our actual
relations with the United States were guiding considerations in
reference to the policy of this vote. Government ought, therefore, to
tell the House how far they could repeat the peaceful assurances of a
former debate. Did the despatches by the mail just arrived tend towards
peace or misunderstanding? Was it true, on one side, that formal notice
had a few days ago been given to our Government by the United States to
terminate the Reciprocity Treaty? and was it true that that notice had
been entirely unaccompanied by any overture or suggestion for a re-
discussion of the question? On the other and more friendly side, was it
true that the vexatious passport system had been abrogated? and, above
all, was it also true that the Government of Washington had expressed
to Her Majesty's Government their intention to revoke the notice to
terminate the arrangement of 1817, and to place gunboats on the great
American lakes? If this was true, and if it should also appear that the
notice to put an end to the Reciprocity Treaty had either not yet been
given or had been accompanied by some friendly declaration of a desire
to negociate anew, the House must receive the intelligence with
satisfaction; but should it, unfortunately, be the fact that non-
intercourse regulations were maintained, that the lakes were to be
covered by armaments, and that international trade was to be interfered
with, then he thought the House would consider the question as one
affecting a hostile neighbour, whose unfriendly designs had to be met
by preparation.
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 111 of 133
Words from 113492 to 114559
of 136421
