OCR Text |
Show 14.8 CANADAPAMPHLET. [A: B.T.] this iuft war may put it in our power to retain fome of our conqueits at the making of a peace ; Offlmritierfir peace, 'e. 149 no more. Advantages gained in the courfe of this war, may inereafe the extent of our rights. Our claims before the war contained/gaze fecurity; but that is no reafon why we [hould neglect acquiring let Us confider, 1. [The fecurity of a dominion, ajzflfiaé/aana' more, when the demand of more is become rea- prudent ground upon wait/J to demand cefilons from an enemy.] fonable.-It may be reafonable in the cafe of America to afk for the fecurity recommended by If'lvrz‘lwr rwe are to confine ourfelves to thofe polleflions only that were " the o/vjt'flr for rte/Jic/J " we Inga}: f/Je war 9*." This theRemarker feems to think right, when the queftion relates to ‘ Ca-Y the author of the Letter", though it would be prepofterous to do it in many other cafes. His propofed demand is founded on the little value of ‘ nada, properly fl; cal/ed;' it having never been and the power we may have to infif'c on an inclem- ‘ mentioned as one of thofe objects, in any ofour ‘ memorials or declarations, or in any national or French themfelves will be under of reflraining Canada to the French; the right we have to ark, nification for our expences; the difliculty the ‘ public act whatfoever.' But the gentleman him- their reftlefs ftlbjeéts 'in America from encroach- {elf will probably agree, that if the Ceflion ofCa- ing on our limits and diflurbing our trade; and the difliculty on our parts of preventing encroach- nada would be a real advantage to us; we may demand it under his fecond head, as an " indem" nficatz'on for the charges incurred" in recovering our juft rights; otherwife, according to his own principles, the demand of Guadaloupe can have no foundation.--That " our claims before " the war were large enough for pofl‘eflion and " for fecurity too 13" though it feems a clear point with the ingenious Remarker, is, I own, not fo with me. I am rather of the contrary opinion, and {hall prefently give my reafons.-- But firft let me obferve, that we did not make thofe claims becaufe they were large enough for fecurity, but becaufe we could rightfully claim ments, that may poflibly exif't many years without coming to our knowledge. But the Remarker " does not fee why the (G arguments employed concerning a fecurity for 1‘ a peaceable behaviour in Canada, would not t be equally cogent for calling for the fame fe" curity in Enrape +." On a little farther reflection, he muftI think he fenfible, that the circumftances of the two cafes are widely difl'e- rent-Here we are feparated by the heft and cleareft of boundaries, the ocean, and we have people in or near every part of our territory. Any II Page 30. ofthe Letter, and p. 21. ofthe Remarks. 1 Remarks, p. 24. 3‘ Remarks, p- :9. + Ibid.‘ 110 attempt |