The Embassy At Washington Was Now The Most Important
Of Our Diplomatic Establishments Abroad.
We ought to place there the
ablest man we could find, regardless of all party or personal
considerations.
The people of the United States knew our own estimate
of our own officials well, and they took it as a slight if we did not
send to Washington a man of the first rank as a diplomatist. He would
appeal to the noble lord at the head of the Government to consider the
suggestion he had ventured to make, and not to allow the country to
embark, without any attempt at negociation, in an expenditure of which
this was but the first beginning if the policy of it should be forced
upon the House. Our fellow-subjects in Canada ought to be assured that,
if an unjust war broke out, this country would stand by them at all
hazards; but that assurance was quite consistent with the attempt
which, he hoped, would be made after all, to neutralize the frontier
and the lakes and to re-establish the Reciprocity Treaty. The House
would, he felt assured, do nothing to raise up bitter feelings between
the British Provinces and the United States, nor to alienate still
further two peoples of common origin, who, for the sake of civilization
itself, ought, as far as possible, to be one and united in the
interests of commerce and of peace."
"Lord PALMERSTON: Sir, this is not a Canadian question, it is not a
local question, it is an Imperial question. It is a question which
affects the position and character, the honour, the interests, and the
duties of this great country; and I hold it to be of the utmost
importance to the character of the nation in a case like this, and when
the great majority of the House seem to be of the same opinion, that it
should not go forth to the world that there has been a difference of
opinion on this motion; but that it should be seen to have been
accepted by a unanimous House of Commons. Sir, there are one or two
points with regard to which I think it right to express my dissent from
some doctrines which have been laid down. Many gentlemen have argued
this question as if there was a general impression and belief that war
with the United States was imminent, and that this proposal of ours was
for the purpose of meeting a sudden danger which we apprehended to be
hanging over us. Now, I think there is no danger of war with America.
Nothing that has recently passed indicates any hostile disposition on
the part of the United States towards us; and, therefore, I do not base
this motion on the ground that we expect war to take place between this
country and America. But is it necessary that when you propose to put a
country in a state of defence you should show that war with some
powerful neighbour is imminent and likely soon to take place? Why, the
whole practice of mankind is founded on an entirely different
assumption. Every country which is able to do so fortifies its frontier
if its neighbour is a powerful state, which might, if it thought fit,
attack it. But it is said that you cannot defend Canada. Now, I utterly
deny that proposition. I think that is assuming a conclusion which no
man is entitled to assume. Does the example even of the war now going
on tend to justify that conclusion? The territory of the Confederates
is vast and extensive; have they attempted to defend every portion of
that territory? They have fortified certain important points, and those
important points, although the rest of the country may have been
overrun, have resisted attack - some of them even to this day and others
for three or four years of the contest. Look at Richmond; is Richmond
taken? Has not Richmond been attacked for a great length of time? And
what are its defences? Why, chiefly earthworks, with a force behind
them; and, though that force is inferior in numbers to the force which
threatens it, it has hitherto remained in Confederate hands. The mere
occupation of territory by an army that traverses through it without
reducing its fortresses is no conquest. The conquest is limited to the
ground that the invading army occupies, and when that army passes to
another part of the country its conquest passes away with it. But all
countries fortify particular points, and when those points are secure
they trust that the general bulk of the territory is safe from any
permanent occupation or conquest by any enemy who may attack it. It is
urged that Canada has an extended frontier; but are no other States
similarly placed in that respect? What country has the largest
frontier? What is the extent of our own frontier? Why, the whole coast
of the United Kingdom; and we might as well say that it would be
necessary for the security of this country that we should line our
whole coast with defensive works because we may be attacked at any
point of that great and extensive frontier. I maintain, therefore, that
there is nothing that has passed - nothing that is now passing - between
the Government of the United States and our Government which justifies
any man in saying that the relations between the two countries are
likely, as far as present circumstances go, to assume a character of
hostility leading to war. But, then, the hon. member for Birmingham
says that any danger which might threaten Canada and our North American
Provinces must arise from political disputes between England and the
United States. And, therefore, the hon. gentleman says the Canadians
will find that their best security is, not in fortifications or in
British support, but in separating themselves from Great Britain. Now,
in the first place, that happens not to be the wish or inclination of
the Canadians.
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 113 of 133
Words from 115569 to 116570
of 136421
