The Canadians Are Most Anxious To Maintain The
Connection With This Country.
They are proud of that connection; they
think it for their interest; they are willing to make every exertion
That their population and resources enable them to achieve, and, in
conjunction with the efforts of this country, to preserve that
connection, and prevent themselves from being absorbed by a
neighbouring power. Is it not, therefore, alike the duty and interest
of this country, for the sake of that reputation which is the power and
strength of a nation, when we find the Canadas and our other Provinces
desirous of maintaining the connection, to do that which we may have
the means of doing in assisting them to maintain that connection and
remain united with Great Britain? But, sir, is it true that the only
danger which a smaller colonial state runs from a more powerful and
larger neighbour arises from quarrels that may exist between the Mother
Country and the foreign state? I say that is a total fallacy. Suppose
these provinces separated from this country - suppose them erected into
a monarchy, a republic, or any other form, of Government, are there not
motives that might lead a stronger neighbour to pick a quarrel with
that smaller state with a view to its annexation? Is there nothing like
territorial ambition pervading the policy of great military states? The
example of the world should teach us that as far as the danger of
invasion and annexation is concerned, that danger would be increased to
Canada by a separation from Great Britain, and when she is deprived of
the protection that the military power and resources of this country
may afford. If these American Provinces should desire to separate, we
should not adopt the maxim that fell unconsciously from the hon. member
for Birmingham, who maintained that the North was right in suppressing
the rebellion of the South; we will not adopt his maxim, and think that
we have a right to suppress the rebellion of the North American
Provinces. We should take a different line, no doubt, and if these
Provinces felt themselves strong enough to stand upon their own ground,
and if they should desire no longer to maintain their connection with
us, we should say, 'God speed you and give you the means to maintain
yourselves as a nation!' That has not happened; but, on the contrary,
they much dislike the notion of annexation to their neighbours and
cling to their connection with this country. And I say that it will be
disgraceful to this country - it would lower us in the eyes of the
world - it would weaken our power and leave consequences injurious to
our position in the world if, while they desire to maintain their
connection with us, we did not do what we could to assist them in
maintaining their position. I think that the Government are perfectly
right in proposing this vote to the House. We are of opinion that all
those examples which my right hon. friend behind me (Mr. Lowe) has
adduced are not applicable. We all know that in winter the snow is so
deep in Canada that if an army should march it could only be in one
beaten track, and that it would be impossible to carry on siege
operations in winter. We know that warlike operations must be limited
to the summer months, and we think that we can, by the fortifications
now proposed - some to be made by the Canadians and some by this
country - put Canada into such a state of defence that, with the
exertions of her own population, and assisted by the military force of
this country, she will be able to defend herself from attack. My right
hon. friend the member for Calne argued in a manner somewhat
inconsistent with himself, for what did he say? He says that you cannot
defend Canada because the United States can bring a military force into
the field much superior to that which you can oppose to them. Yet the
right hon. gentleman says we ought to defend Canada. You ought not to
relinquish the connection, he says, but you should defend Canada
elsewhere. Where? Why, as you are not able to cope with the United
States in Canada, where you have a large army, and where you can join
your forces to those of the Canadians, you should send an expedition
and attack the people of the United States in their own homes and in
the centre of their own resources, where they can bring a larger force
to repel our invasion. If we are unable to defend Canada, we shall not
have much better prospects of success if we land an army to attack New
York or any other important city."
CHAPTER XX.
Intended Route for a Pacific Railway in 1863.
The result of mature consideration, reasoning carefully upon all the
facts I had collected, was, that, at that time, 1863, the best route
for a Railway to the Pacific was, to commence at Halifax, to strike
across to the Grand Trunk Railway at Riviere du Loup, 106 miles east of
Quebec, then to follow the Grand Trunk system to Sarnia; to extend that
system to Chicago; to use, under a treaty of neutralization, the United
States lines from Chicago to St. Paul; to build a line from St. Paul to
Fort Garry (Winnipeg) by English and American capital, and then to
extend the line to the Tete Jaune Pass, there to meet a Railway through
British Columbia starting from the Pacific. A large part of this route
has been completed. For instance, an "Intercolonial" Railway -
constructed so as to serve many local, but no grand through, purposes;
constructed to satisfy local interests, or, probably, local political
needs - has been built. The Grand Trunk extension from Detroit to
Chicago, an excellent Railway, has been completed, thanks to the
indomitable efforts of Mr. Hickson, the Managing Director of the Grand
Trunk. A line from St. Paul to Winnipeg has also been opened; but the
route of the line from Winnipeg to the Pacific has been deviated from,
and, to save distance, the Kicking Horse and Beaver River Passes have
been chosen.
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 114 of 133
Words from 116571 to 117609
of 136421
