Gentleman
would give the House all the information at his command.
Had he been in
possession of all the facts, he should have been disposed to move as an
amendment that it was inexpedient to consider a vote of money for the
construction of fortifications adjoining the United States frontier
until negociations had been undertaken and had failed, with a view to
the suspension of such works under treaty obligation. He was strongly
in favour of negociation. There was an example and precedent in the
arrangement of 1817 for the neutralization of the lakes. That peaceful
compact had endured for fifty years, and had alike saved the expense
and obviated the dangers attending rival navies on the great internal
waters of America. It was self-evident that we must either fortify
efficiently or let it alone. The United States could not fail to see
that if they laid out large sums on permanent works of defence, we must
do the same; while if we voted money, they must follow us. And thus
while both countries made themselves poorer in the process, neither
became much stronger, because a sort of equilibrium of forces would
after all be maintained. The Government at Washington surely had no
present desire to enter upon a race of expenditure for military works
on both sides of the frontier. If they had, the sooner we knew it the
better, for then the House would only have one course, however they
might deplore it, to pursue. But here was a case where the common sense
of the American people could, he thought, be appealed to not in vain.
Instead of fortifying, let us neutralize the frontier - let us agree to
do away with the expenditure. [Mr. BRIGHT: On both sides the frontier?]
Yes, on both sides. If the American people were appealed to as the hon.
member for Rochdale appealed to the Emperor of the French in favour of
the French treaty, he believed that similar earnestness and tact could
bring about an arrangement. The Government at Washington would thereby
set an example to all countries having long frontier lines, and a
precedent would be established of inestimable value to the world. What
could be more deplorable than to substitute for neutrality and the
operation of the Reciprocity Treaty an armed frontier and practical
non-intercourse? He had before stated, from much personal observation
on the spot, that border feeling and jealousy had hardly an existence
as between the people of our possessions, and of the United States; but
so soon as rival fortresses, frowned at each other on both sides of the
line, and an armed truce were, so to speak, established, all the
feelings and prejudices of separate nationality would grow up in
abundance. The free exchanges of industry would, perhaps, be at the
same time arrested, and war itself might not be impossible. The
Reciprocity Treaty practically made the people of the United States and
of the British North American possessions, each living under a totally
different form of government, one for all purposes of trade and
intercourse. Why should they be separated? But unfortunately our
Government did not appreciate the value of, or they did not appear
disposed to undertake, negociations. Instead of endeavouring to come to
some friendly understanding first, they came down to the House and
asked for a vote of money, enough to change the aspect of discussion
with the United States, but not enough to effectually protect from
danger. They would spend money first, he supposed, and then negotiate;
they would allow some great evil to happen, and remonstrate afterwards.
The difficulties in Canada might have been avoided by previous
precaution. The threatened notice to put an end to the treaty, which
grew out of those difficulties, might have been avoided by a renewal of
the engagement two years ago. But the Government had done nothing. They
had been - how many months? - without a Minister at Washington at the
most critical period of our relations with the United States. Now it
was proposed to send out a gentleman of many attainments, but who
certainly was not of the first order of diplomatists. Was he gone? [Mr.
BRIGHT: They say he goes to-morrow.] His hon. friend the member for
Birmingham said he was to leave to-morrow. Hitherto all the interests
of this country had been left in the hands of Mr. Burnley, who, if only
from his position, was not able to meet on equal terms the able men of
whom Mr. Lincoln's Cabinet was composed. Ever since the 17th December a
vexatious system of passports and consular regulations as to
merchandize had been in force. These regulations were probably in force
now. They had seriously impeded trade, produced uncertainty and alarm,
and great losses to individuals. They had also created great
exasperation; yet during all this time we had no ambassador at
Washington. Since he entered the House, a letter, by the mail just in,
had been placed in his hands, and he would, with the permission of the
House, read an extract from it. The writer, under date Portland, March
11th, says: - 'Some eighteen passengers, per "Belgian," arrived here
without passports for Canada. The United States Government, by order of
General Dix, has detained them, and sent a squad of soldiers to guard
them on board the "Belgian." At this time of writing they are still in
custody, one of them being a clergyman. Only fancy, United States
soldiers taking charge of an English ship and English subjects! This is
carrying the matter with a high hand.' Now, he did not believe that the
Government of the United States had purposely and of malice
aforethought committed this outrage, nor did he speak of it to increase
irritation; but did it not show how wrong the Government had been in
leaving the interests of this country so long without representation?
What, in fact, was the use of an embassy at all if our ambassador was
not at his post?
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 112 of 133
Words from 114560 to 115568
of 136421
