THE CONNEXION OF THE CANADAS WITH GREAT BRITAIN.
When the American war began troops were sent out to Canada, and when
I was in the Provinces more troops were then expected. The matter was
much talked of, as a matter of course, in Canada; and it had been
discussed in England before I left. I had seen much said about it
in the English papers since, and it also had become the subject of
very hot question among the politicians of the Northern States.
The measure had at that time given more umbrage to the North than
anything else done or said by England from the beginning of the war
up to that time, except the declaration made by Lord John Russell in
the House of Commons as to the neutrality to be preserved by England
between the two belligerents. The argument used by the Northern
States was this. If France collects men and material of war in the
neighbourhood of England, England considers herself injured, calls
for an explanation, and talks of invasion. Therefore as England is
now collecting men and material of war in our neighbourhood, we
will consider ourselves injured. It does not suit us to ask for an
explanation, because it is not our habit to interfere with other
nations. We will not pretend to say that we think we are to be
invaded. But as we clearly are injured, we will express our anger at
that injury, and when the opportunity shall come will take advantage
of having that new grievance.
As we all know, a very large increase of force was sent when we
were still in doubt as to the termination of the Trent affair, and
imagined that war was imminent. But the sending of that large force
did not anger the Americans, as the first despatch of troops to
Canada had angered them. Things had so turned out that measures of
military precaution were acknowledged by them to be necessary. I
cannot, however, but think that Mr. Seward might have spared that
offer to send British troops across Maine; and so, also, have all his
countrymen thought by whom I have heard the matter discussed.
As to any attempt at invasion of Canada by the Americans, or idea
of punishing the alleged injuries suffered by the States from Great
Britain by the annexation of those provinces, I do not believe that
any sane-minded citizens of the States believe in the possibility of
such retaliation. Some years since the Americans thought that Canada
might shine in the Union firmament as a new star, but that delusion
is, I think, over. Such annexation if ever made, must have been made
not only against the arms of England but must also have been made
in accordance with the wishes of the people so annexed. It was then
believed that the Canadians were not averse to such a change, and
there may possibly have then been among them the remnant of such a
wish. There is certainly no such desire now, not even a remnant of
such a desire; and the truth on this matter is, I think, generally
acknowledged. The feeling in Canada is one of strong aversion to the
United States Government, and of predilection for self-government
under the English Crown. A fainéant Governor and the prestige of
British power is now the political aspiration of the Canadians in
general; and I think that this is understood in the States. Moreover
the States have a job of work on hand which, as they themselves
are well aware, is taxing all their energies. Such being the case
I do not think that England needs to fear any invasion of Canada,
authorized by the States Government.
This feeling of a grievance on the part of the States was a manifest
absurdity. The new reinforcement of the garrisons in Canada did not,
when I was in Canada, amount as I believe to more than 2,000 men. But
had it amounted to 20,000 the States would have had no just ground
for complaint. Of all nationalities that in modern days have risen
to power, they above all others have shown that they would do what
they liked with their own, indifferent to foreign councils, and
deaf to foreign remonstrance. "Do you go your way, and let us go
ours. We will trouble you with no question, nor do you trouble us."
Such has been their national policy, and it has obtained for them
great respect. They have resisted the temptation of putting their
fingers into the caldron of foreign policy; and foreign politicians,
acknowledging their reserve in this respect, have not been offended
at the bristles with which their Noli me tangere has been proclaimed.
Their intelligence has been appreciated, and their conduct has been
respected. But if this has been their line of policy, they must be
entirely out of court in raising any question as to the position of
British troops on British soil.
"It shows us that you doubt us," an American says, with an air of
injured honour--or did say, before that Trent affair. "And it is done
to express sympathy with the South. The Southerners understand it,
and we understand it also. We know where your hearts are--nay, your
very souls. They are among the slave-begotten cotton bales of the
rebel South." Then comes the whole of the long argument, in which it
seems so easy to an Englishman to prove that England in the whole of
this sad matter has been true and loyal to her friend. She could not
interfere when the husband and wife would quarrel. She could only
grieve, and wish that things might come right and smooth for both
parties. But the argument though so easy is never effectual.
It seems to me foolish in an American to quarrel with England for
sending soldiers to Canada; but I cannot say that I thought it was
well done to send them at the beginning of the war. The English
Government did not, I presume, take this step with reference to any
possible invasion of Canada by the Government of the States. We are
fortifying Portsmouth, and Portland, and Plymouth, because we would
fain be safe against the French army acting under a French Emperor.
But we sent 2,000 troops to Canada, if I understand the matter
rightly, to guard our provinces against the filibustering energies of
a mass of unemployed American soldiers, when those soldiers should
come to be disbanded. When this war shall be over--a war during which
not much, if any, under a million of American citizens will have been
under arms--it will not be easy for all who survive to return to
their old homes and old occupations. Nor does a disbanded soldier
always make a good husbandman, notwithstanding the great examples of
Cincinnatus and Bird-o'-freedom Sawin. It may be that a considerable
amount of filibustering energy will be afloat, and that the then
Government of those who neighbour us in Canada will have other
matters in hand more important to them than the controlling of these
unruly spirits. That, as I take it, was the evil against which we of
Great Britain and of Canada desired to guard ourselves.
But I doubt whether 2,000 or 10,000 British soldiers would be any
effective guard against such inroads, and I doubt more strongly
whether any such external guarding will be necessary. If the
Canadians were prepared to fraternize with filibusters from the
States, neither three nor ten thousand soldiers would avail against
such a feeling over a frontier stretching from the State of Maine to
the shores of Lake Huron and Lake Erie. If such a feeling did exist,
if the Canadians wished the change, in God's name let them go. It is
for their sakes and not for our own that we would have them bound to
us. But the Canadians are averse to such a change with a degree of
feeling that amounts to national intensity. Their sympathies are with
the Southern States, not because they care for cotton, not because
they are anti-abolitionists, not because they admire the hearty
pluck of those who are endeavouring to work out for themselves a new
revolution. They sympathize with the South from strong dislike to the
aggression, the braggadocio, and the insolence they have felt upon
their own borders. They dislike Mr. Seward's weak and vulgar joke
with the Duke of Newcastle. They dislike Mr. Everett's flattering
hints to his countrymen as to the one nation that is to occupy the
whole continent. They dislike the Monroe doctrine. They wonder at the
meekness with which England has endured the vauntings of the Northern
States, and are endued with no such meekness of their own. They
would, I believe, be well prepared to meet and give an account of any
filibusters who might visit them; and I am not sure that it is wisely
done on our part to show any intention of taking the work out of
their hands.
But I am led to this opinion in no degree by a feeling that Great
Britain ought to grudge the cost of the soldiers. If Canada will be
safer with them, in heaven's name let her have them. It has been
argued in many places, not only with regard to Canada, but as to all
our self-governed colonies, that military service should not be given
at British expense and with British men to any colony which has its
own representative government, and which levies its own taxes. "While
Great Britain absolutely held the reins of government, and did as it
pleased with the affairs of its dependencies," such politicians say,
"it was just and right that she should pay the bill. As long as her
government of a colony was paternal, so long was it right that the
mother country should put herself in the place of a father, and
enjoy a father's undoubted prerogative of putting his hand into
his breeches pocket to provide for all the wants of his child. But
when the adult son set up for himself in business, having received
education from the parent, and having had his apprentice fees duly
paid, then that son should settle his own bills, and look no longer
to the paternal pocket." Such is the law of the world all over, from
little birds whose young fly away when fledged, upwards to men and
nations. Let the father work for the child while he is a child,
but when the child has become a man let him lean no longer on his
father's staff.
The argument is, I think, very good; but it proves, not that we are
relieved from the necessity of assisting our colonies with payments
made out of British taxes, but that we are still bound to give such
assistance; and that we shall continue to be so bound as long as we
allow these colonies to adhere to us, or as they allow us to adhere
to them. In fact the young bird is not yet fully fledged. That
illustration of the father and the child is a just one, but in order
to make it just it should be followed throughout. When the son is
in fact established on his own bottom, then the father expects that
he will live without assistance. But when the son does so live he
is freed from all paternal control. The father, while he expects to
be obeyed, continues to fill the paternal office of paymaster,--of
paymaster, at any rate, to some extent. And so, I think, it must be
with our colonies. The Canadas at present are not independent, and
have not political power of their own apart from the political power
of Great Britain. England has declared herself neutral as regards the
Northern and Southern States, and by that neutrality the Canadas are
bound; and yet the Canadas were not consulted in the matter. Should
England go to war with France, Canada must close her ports against
French vessels. If England chooses to send her troops to Canadian
barracks, Canada cannot refuse to accept them. If England should send
to Canada an unpopular Governor, Canada has no power to reject his
services. As long as Canada is a colony, so called, she cannot be
independent, and should not be expected to walk alone. It is exactly
the same with the colonies of Australia, with New Zealand, with
the Cape of Good Hope, and with Jamaica. While England enjoys the
prestige of her colonies, while she boasts that such large and now
populous territories are her dependencies, she must and should be
content to pay some portion of the bill. Surely it is absurd
on our part to quarrel with Caffre warfare, with New Zealand
fighting, and the rest of it. Such complaints remind one of an
ancient paterfamilias, who insists on having his children and his
grandchildren under the old paternal roof, and then grumbles because
the butcher's bill is high. Those who will keep large households and
bountiful tables should not be afraid of facing the butcher's bill,
or unhappy at the tonnage of the coal. It is a grand thing, that
power of keeping a large table; but it ceases to be grand when the
items heaped upon it cause inward groans and outward moodiness.
Why should the colonies remain true to us as children are true to
their parents, if we grudge them the assistance which is due to a
child? They raise their own taxes, it is said, and administer them.
True; and it is well that the growing son should do something for
himself. While the father does all for him the son's labour belongs
to the father. Then comes a middle state in which the son does
much for himself, but not all. In that middle state now stand our
prosperous colonies. Then comes the time when the son shall stand
alone by his own strength; and to that period of manly self-respected
strength let us all hope that those colonies are advancing. It is
very hard for a mother country to know when such a time has come;
and hard also for the child-colony to recognize justly the period of
its own maturity. Whether or no such severance may ever take place
without a quarrel, without weakness on one side and pride on the
other, is a problem in the world's history yet to be solved. The most
successful child that ever yet has gone off from a successful parent
and taken its own path into the world, is without doubt the nation
of the United States. Their present troubles are the result and
the proofs of their success. The people that were too great to be
dependent on any nation have now spread till they are themselves too
great for a single nationality. No one now thinks that that daughter
should have remained longer subject to her mother. But the severance
was not made in amity, and the shrill notes of the old family quarrel
are still sometimes heard across the waters.
From all this the question arises whether that problem may ever be
solved with reference to the Canadas. That it will never be their
destiny to join themselves to the States of the Union, I feel fully
convinced. In the first place it is becoming evident from the present
circumstances of the Union,--if it had never been made evident by
history before,--that different people with different habits living
at long distances from each other cannot well be brought together
on equal terms under one Government. That noble ambition of the
Americans that all the continent north of the isthmus should be
united under one flag, has already been thrown from its saddle. The
North and South are virtually separated, and the day will come in
which the West also will secede. As population increases and trades
arise peculiar to those different climates, the interests of the
people will differ, and a new secession will take place beneficial
alike to both parties. If this be so, if even there be any tendency
this way, it affords the strongest argument against the probability
of any future annexation of the Canadas. And then, in the second
place, the feeling of Canada is not American, but British. If ever
she be separated from Great Britain, she will be separated as the
States were separated. She will desire to stand alone, and to enter
herself as one among the nations of the earth.
She will desire to stand alone;--alone, that is without dependence
either on England or on the States. But she is so circumstanced
geographically that she can never stand alone without amalgamation
with our other North American provinces. She has an outlet to the
sea at the Gulf of St. Lawrence, but it is only a summer outlet. Her
winter outlet is by railway through the States, and no other winter
outlet is possible for her except through the sister provinces.
Before Canada can be nationally great, the line of railway which now
runs for some hundred miles below Quebec to Rivière du Loup, must be
continued on through New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to the port of
Halifax.
When I was in Canada I heard the question discussed of a Federal
Government between the provinces of the two Canadas, New Brunswick
and Nova Scotia. To these were added, or not added, according to
the opinion of those who spoke, the smaller outlying colonies of
Newfoundland and Prince Edward's Island. If a scheme for such a
Government were projected in Downing Street, all would no doubt be
included, and a clean sweep would be made without difficulty. But
the project as made in the colonies appears in different guises as
it comes either from Canada or from one of the other provinces. The
Canadian idea would be that the two Canadas should form two States
of such a confederation, and the other provinces a third State. But
this slight participation in power would hardly suit the views of New
Brunswick and Nova Scotia. In speaking of such a Federal Government
as this, I shall of course be understood as meaning a confederation
acting in connection with a British Governor, and dependent upon
Great Britain as far as the different colonies are now dependent.
I cannot but think that such a confederation might be formed with
great advantage to all the colonies and to Great Britain. At present
the Canadas are in effect almost more distant from Nova Scotia and
New Brunswick than they are from England. The intercourse between
them is very slight--so slight that it may almost be said that there
is no intercourse. A few men of science or of political importance
may from time to time make their way from one colony into the other,
but even this is not common. Beyond that they seldom see each other.
Though New Brunswick borders both with Lower Canada and with Nova
Scotia, thus making one whole of the three colonies, there is neither
railroad nor stage conveyance running from one to the other. And yet
their interests should be similar. From geographical position their
modes of life must be alike, and a close conjunction between them is
essentially necessary to give British North America any political
importance in the world. There can be no such conjunction, no
amalgamation of interests, until a railway shall have been made
joining the Canada Grand Trunk Line with the two outlying colonies.
Upper Canada can feed all England with wheat, and could do so without
any aid of railway through the States, if a railway were made from
Quebec to Halifax. But then comes the question of the cost. The
Canada Grand Trunk is at the present moment at the lowest ebb of
commercial misfortune, and with such a fact patent to the world what
company will come forward with funds for making four or five hundred
miles of railway, through a district of which one half is not
yet prepared for population? It would be, I imagine, out of the
question that such a speculation should for many years give any fair
commercial interest on the money to be expended. But nevertheless
to the colonies,--that is, to the enormous regions of British
North America,--such a railroad would be invaluable. Under such
circumstances it is for the Home Government and the colonies between
them to see how such a measure may be carried out. As a national
expenditure to be defrayed in the course of years by the territories
interested, the sum of money required would be very small.
But how would this affect England? And how would England be affected
by a union of the British North American colonies under one Federal
Government? Before this question can be answered, he who prepares to
answer it must consider what interest England has in her colonies,
and for what purpose she holds them. Does she hold them for profit,
or for glory, or for power; or does she hold them in order that she
may carry out the duty which has devolved upon her of extending
civilization, freedom, and well-being through the new uprising
nations of the world? Does she hold them, in fact, for her own
benefit, or does she hold them for theirs? I know nothing of the
ethics of the Colonial Office, and not much perhaps of those of the
House of Commons; but looking at what Great Britain has hitherto done
in the way of colonization, I cannot but think that the national
ambition looks to the welfare of the colonists, and not to home
aggrandisement. That the two may run together is most probable.
Indeed there can be no glory to a people so great or so readily
recognized by mankind at large as that of spreading civilization from
East to West, and from North to South. But the one object should be
the prosperity of the colonists; and not profit, nor glory, nor even
power to the parent country.
There is no virtue of which more has been said and sung than
patriotism, and none which when pure and true has led to finer
results. Dulce et decorum est pro patriâ mori. To live for one's
country also is a very beautiful and proper thing. But if we examine
closely much patriotism, that is so called, we shall find it going
hand in hand with a good deal that is selfish, and with not a little
that is devilish. It was some fine fury of patriotic feeling which
enabled the national poet to put into the mouth of every Englishman
that horrible prayer with regard to our enemies, which we sing when
we wish to do honour to our sovereign. It did not seem to him that it
might be well to pray that their hearts should be softened, and our
own hearts softened also. National success was all that a patriotic
poet could desire, and therefore in our national hymn have we gone
on imploring the Lord to arise and scatter our enemies; to confound
their politics, whether they be good or ill; and to expose their
knavish tricks,--such knavish tricks being taken for granted. And
then with a steady confidence we used to declare how certain we
were that we should achieve all that was desirable, not exactly by
trusting to our prayer to heaven, but by relying almost exclusively
on George the Third or George the Fourth. Now I have always thought
that that was rather a poor patriotism. Luckily for us our national
conduct has not squared itself with our national anthem. Any
patriotism must be poor which desires glory or even profit for a few
at the expense of many, even though the few be brothers and the many
aliens. As a rule patriotism is a virtue only because man's aptitude
for good is so finite, that he cannot see and comprehend a wider
humanity. He can hardly bring himself to understand that salvation
should be extended to Jew and Gentile alike. The word philanthropy
has become odious, and I would fain not use it; but the thing itself
is as much higher than patriotism, as heaven is above the earth.
A wish that British North America should ever be severed from
England, or that the Australian colonies should ever be so severed,
will by many Englishmen be deemed unpatriotic. But I think that
such severance is to be wished if it be the case that the colonies
standing alone would become more prosperous than they are under
British rule. We have before us an example in the United States of
the prosperity which has attended such a rupture of old ties. I will
not now contest the point with those who say that the present moment
of an American civil war is ill chosen for vaunting that prosperity.
There stand the cities which the people have built, and their power
is attested by the world-wide importance of their present contest.
And if the States have so risen since they left their parent's
apron-string, why should not British North America rise as high? That
the time has as yet come for such rising I do not think; but that it
will soon come I do most heartily hope. The making of the railway
of which I have spoken, and the amalgamation of the provinces would
greatly tend to such an event. If, therefore, England desires to keep
these colonies in a state of dependency; if it be more essential to
her to maintain her own power with regard to them than to increase
their influence; if her main object be to keep the colonies and not
to improve the colonies, then I should say that an amalgamation of
the Canadas with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick should not be regarded
with favour by statesmen in Downing Street. But if, as I would fain
hope, and do partly believe, such ideas of national power as these
are now out of vogue with British statesmen, then I think that such
an amalgamation should receive all the support which Downing Street
can give it.
The United States severed themselves from Great Britain with a great
struggle and after heartburnings and bloodshed. Whether Great Britain
will ever allow any colony of hers to depart from out of her nest, to
secede and start for herself, without any struggle or heartburnings,
with all furtherance for such purpose which an old and powerful
country can give to a new nationality then first taking its own place
in the world's arena, is a problem yet to be solved. There is, I
think, no more beautiful sight than that of a mother, still in all
the glory of womanhood, preparing the wedding trousseau for her
daughter. The child hitherto has been obedient and submissive. She
has been one of a household in which she has held no command. She has
sat at table as a child, fitting herself in all things to the behests
of others. But the day of her power and her glory, and also of her
cares and solicitude is at hand. She is to go forth, and do as she
best may in the world under that teaching which her old home has
given her. The hour of separation has come; and the mother, smiling
through her tears, sends her forth decked with a bounteous hand and
furnished with full stores, so that all may be well with her as she
enters on her new duties. So is it that England should send forth her
daughters. They should not escape from her arms with shrill screams
and bleeding wounds, with ill-omened words which live so long, though
the speakers of them lie cold in their graves.
But this sending forth of a child-nation to take its own political
status in the world has never yet been done by Great Britain. I
cannot remember that such has ever been done by any great power with
reference to its dependency;--by any power that was powerful enough
to keep such dependency within its grasp. But a man thinking on these
matters cannot but hope that a time will come when such amicable
severance may be effected. Great Britain cannot think that through
all coming ages she is to be the mistress of the vast continent of
Australia, lying on the other side of the globe's surface; that she
is to be the mistress of all South Africa, as civilization shall
extend northward; that the enormous territories of British North
America are to be subject for ever to a veto from Downing Street.
If the history of past empires does not teach her that this may not
be so, at least the history of the United States might so teach her.
"But we have learned a lesson from those United States," the patriot
will argue who dares to hope that the glory and extent of the British
Empire may remain unimpaired _in sæcula sæculorum_. "Since that day
we have given political rights to our colonies, and have satisfied
the political longings of their inhabitants. We do not tax their
tea and stamps, but leave it to them to tax themselves as they may
please." True. But in political aspirations the giving of an inch
has ever created the desire for an ell. If the Australian colonies,
even now,--with their scanty population and still young civilization,
chafe against imperial interference, will they submit to it when they
feel within their veins all the full blood of political manhood? What
is the cry even of the Canadians--of the Canadians who are thoroughly
loyal to England? Send us a fainéant Governor, a King Log, who will
not presume to interfere with us; a Governor who will spend his money
and live like a gentleman and care little or nothing for politics.
That is the Canadian _beau idéal_ of a Governor. They are to govern
themselves; and he who comes to them from England is to sit among
them as the silent representative of England's protection. If that
be true--and I do not think that any who know the Canadas will
deny it--must it not be presumed that they will soon also desire a
fainéant minister in Downing Street? Of course they will so desire.
Men do not become milder in their aspirations for political power,
the more that political power is extended to them. Nor would it be
well that they should be so humble in their desires. Nations devoid
of political power have never risen high in the world's esteem. Even
when they have been commercially successful, commerce has not brought
to them the greatness which it has always given when joined with a
strong political existence. The Greeks are commercially rich and
active; but "Greece" and "Greek" are bye-words now for all that is
mean. Cuba is a colony, and putting aside the cities of the States,
the Havana is the richest town on the other side of the Atlantic and
commercially the greatest; but the political villainy of Cuba, her
daily importation of slaves, her breaches of treaty, and the bribery
of her all but royal Governor are known to all men. But Canada is not
dishonest; Canada is no bye-word for anything evil; Canada eats her
own bread in the sweat of her brow, and fears a bad word from no
man. True. But why does New York with its suburbs boast a million of
inhabitants, while Montreal has 85,000? Why has that babe in years,
Chicago, 120,000, while Toronto has not half the number? I do not say
that Montreal and Toronto should have gone ahead abreast with New
York and Chicago. In such races one must be first, and one last. But
I do say that the Canadian towns will have no equal chance, till
they are actuated by that feeling of political independence which has
created the growth of the towns in the United States.
I do not think that the time has yet come in which Great Britain
should desire the Canadians to start for themselves. There is the
making of that railroad to be effected, and something done towards
the union of those provinces. Canada could no more stand alone
without New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, than could those latter
colonies without Canada. But I think it would be well to be prepared
for such a coming day; and that it would at any rate be well to bring
home to ourselves and realize the idea of such secession on the
part of our colonies, when the time shall have come at which such
secession may be carried out with profit and security to them. Great
Britain, should she ever send forth her child alone into the world,
must of course guarantee her security. Such guarantees are given
by treaties; and in the wording of them it is presumed that such
treaties will last for ever. It will be argued that in starting
British North America as a political power on its own bottom, we
should bind ourself to all the expense of its defence, while we
should give up all right to any interference in its concerns; and
that from a state of things so unprofitable as this there would be no
prospect of deliverance. But such treaties, let them be worded how
they will, do not last for ever. For a time, no doubt, Great Britain
would be so hampered--if indeed she would feel herself hampered by
extending her name and prestige to a country bound to her by ties
such as those which would then exist between her and this new nation.
Such treaties are not everlasting, nor can they be made to last even
for ages. Those who word them seem to think that powers and dynasties
will never pass away. But they do pass away, and the balance of power
will not keep itself fixed for ever on the same pivot. The time may
come--that it may not come soon we will all desire--but the time may
come when the name and prestige of what we call British North America
will be as serviceable to Great Britain as those of Great Britain are
now serviceable to her colonies.
But what shall be the new form of government for the new kingdom?
That is a speculation very interesting to a politician; though one
which to follow out at great length in these early days would be
rather premature. That it should be a kingdom--that the political
arrangement should be one of which a crowned hereditary king
should form a part, nineteen out of every twenty Englishmen would
desire; and, as I fancy, so would also nineteen out of every twenty
Canadians. A king for the United States when they first established
themselves was impossible. A total rupture from the Old World and all
its habits was necessary for them. The name of a king, or monarch, or
sovereign had become horrible to their ears. Even to this day they
have not learned the difference between arbitrary power retained in
the hand of one man, such as that now held by the Emperor over the
French, and such hereditary headship in the State as that which
belongs to the Crown in Great Britain. And this was necessary, seeing
that their division from us was effected by strife, and carried out
with war and bitter animosities. In those days also there was a
remnant, though but a small remnant, of the power of tyranny left
within the scope of the British Crown. That small remnant has been
removed; and to me it seems that no form of existing government--no
form of government that ever did exist, gives or has given so large
a measure of individual freedom to all who live under it as a
constitutional monarchy in which the Crown is divested of direct
political power.
I will venture then to suggest a king for this new nation; and seeing
that we are rich in princes there need be no difficulty in the
selection. Would it not be beautiful to see a new nation established
under such auspices, and to establish a people to whom their
independence had been given,--to whom it had been freely surrendered
as soon as they were capable of holding the position assigned to
them?