and Lena do not facilitate the communication half so well by their course, nor are they half so practicable as the American rivers. To this I shall only add the observation of Machiavel, in his "Prince"; that a government seldom long preserves its dominion over those who are foreigners to it; who, on the other hand, fall with great ease, and continue inseparably annexed to the government of their own nation; which he proves by the fate of the English conquests in France. Yet with all these disadvantages, so difficult is it to overturn an established government, that it was not without the assistance of France and England, that the United Provinces supported themselves; which teaches us, that,

6. The French remaining in Canada, an Encouragement to Disaffections in the British Colonies. If they prove a Check, that Check of the most barbarous Nature.

If the visionary danger of independence in our colonies is to be feared, nothing is more likely to render it substantial, than the neighbourhood of foreigners at enmity with the sovereign governments, capable of giving either aid,* or an asylum, as the event shall require.

*The aid Dr. Franklin alludes to must probably have consisted in early and full supplies of arms, officers, intelligence, and trade of export and of import, through the River St. Lawrence, on risks both public and private; in the encouragement of splendid promises and a great ally; in the passage from Canada to the back settlements being shut to the British forces; in the quiet of the great body of Indians; in the support of emissaries and discontented citizens; in loans and subsidies to Congress, in ways profitable to France; in a refuge to be granted them in case of defeat, in vacant lands, as settlers; in the probability of war commencing earlier between England and France, at the Gulf of St. Lawrence (when the shipping taken were rightfully addressed to Frenchmen) than in the present case. All this might have happened, as soon as America's distaste of England had exceeded the fear of the foreign nation; a circumstance frequently seen possible in history, and which the British ministers took care should not be wanting.

This explanation would have been superfluous, had not the opinion

Yet against even these disadvantages, did Spain preserve almost ten provinces, merely through their want of union; which, indeed, could never have taken place among the others, but for causes, some of which are in `our case impossible, and others it is impious to suppose possible.

The Romans well understood that policy, which teaches the security arising to the chief government from separate states among the governed; when they restored the liberties of the States of Greece (oppressed but united under Macedon) by an edict, that every State should live under its own laws.* They did not even name a governor. Independence of each other and separate interests (though among a people united by common manners, language, and I may say religion; inferior neither in wisdom, bravery, nor their love of liberty, to the Romans themselves;) were all the security the sovereigns wished for their sovereignty. It is true, they did not call themselves sovereigns; they set no value on the title; they were contented with possessing the thing. And possess it they did, even without a standing army. What can be a stronger proof of the security of their possession? And yet, by a policy similar to this throughout, was the Roman world subdued and held; a world composed of above a hundred languages and sets of man

been very general in England, that, had not the French been removed from Canada, the revolt of America never would have taken place. Why, then, were the French not left in Canada at the peace of 1763? Or, since they were not left there, why was the American dispute begun? Yet, in one sense, perhaps this opinion is true; for had the French been left in Canada, the English ministers would not only have sooner felt, but sooner have seen, the strange fatality of their plans. — B. V.

* "Omnes Græcorum civitates, quæ in Europâ, quæque in Asiâ essent, libertatem ac suas leges haberent," &c. - Liv. lib. xxxiii. cap. 30.

ners, different from those of their masters.* Yet this dominion was unshakable, till the loss of liberty and corruption of manners in the sovereign State overturned it.

But what is the prudent policy inculcated by the Remarker to obtain this end, security of dominion over our colonies? It is, to leave the French in Canada to "check" their growth; for otherwise, our people may "increase infinitely from all causes."† We have already seen in what manner the French and their Indians check the growth of our colonies. It is a modest word, this check, for massacring men, women, and children! The writer would, if he could, hide from himself, as well as from the public, the horror arising from such a proposal, by couching it in general terms. It is no wonder he thought it a "subject not fit for discussion" in his letter; though he recommends it as "a point, that should be the constant object of the minister's attention!"

But, if Canada is restored on this principle, will not Britain be guilty of all the blood to be shed, all the

* When the Romans had subdued Macedon and Illyricum, they were both formed into republics by a decree of the Senate, and Macedon was thought safe from the danger of a revolution, by being divided into a division common among the Romans, as we learn from the tetrarchs in Scripture. "Omnium primum liberos esse placebat Macedonas atque Illyrios; ut omnibus gentibus appareret, arma populi Romani non liberis servitutem, sed contra servientibus libertatem afferre; ut et in libertate gentes quæ essent, tutam eam sibi perpetuamque sub tutelâ populi Ro-. mani esse; et, quæ sub regibus viverent, et in presens tempus mitiores eos justioresque respectu populi Romani habere se, et, si quando bellum cum populo Romano regibus fuisset suis, exitum ejus victoriam Romanis, sibi libertatem, allaturum crederent. In quatuor regiones describi Macedoniam, ut suum quæque concilium haberet, placuit; et dimidium tributi, quàm quod regibus ferre soliti erant, populo Romano pendere. Similia his et in Illyricum mandata."-Liv. lib. xlv. cap. 18. † Remarks, pp. 50, 51.

murders to be committed, in order to check this dreaded growth of our own people? Will not this be telling the French in plain terms, that the horrid barbarities they perpetrate with Indians on our colonists are agreeable to us; and that they need not apprehend the resentment of a government, with whose views they so happily concur? Will not the colonies view it in this light? Will they have reason to consider themselves any longer as subjects and children, when they find their cruel enemies hallooed upon them by the country from whence they sprung; the government that owes them protection, as it requires their obedience? Is not this the most likely means of driving them into the arms of the French, who can invite them by an offer of security, their own government chooses not to afford them? I would not be thought to insinuate, that the Remarker wants humanity. I know how little many good-natured persons are affected by the distresses of people at a distance, and whom they do not know. There are even those, who, being present, can sympathize sincerely with the grief of a lady on the sudden death of a favorite bird; and yet can read of the sinking of a city in Syria with very little concern.

If it be, after all, thought necessary to check the growth of our colonies, give me leave to propose a method less cruel. It is a method of which we have an example in Scripture. The murder of husbands, of wives, of brothers, sisters, and children, whose pleasing society has been for some time enjoyed, affects deeply the respective surviving relations; but grief for the death of a child just born is short and easily supported. The method I mean is that, which was dictated by the Egyptian policy, when the "infinite increase" of the children of Israel was apprehended as dangerous to

*

the State. Let an act of Parliament then be made, enjoining the colony midwives to stifle in the birth every third or fourth child. By this means you may keep the colonies to their present size. And if they were under the hard alternative of submitting to one or the other of these schemes for checking their growth, I dare answer for them, they would prefer the latter.

But all this debate about the propriety or impropriety of keeping or restoring Canada is possibly too early. We have taken the capital indeed, but the country is yet far from being in our possession; and perhaps never will be; for, if our ministers are persuaded by such counsellors as the Remarker, that the French there are "not the worst of neighbours," and that, if we had conquered Canada, we ought, for our own sakes, to restore it, as a check to the growth of our colonies, I am then afraid we shall never take it. For there are many ways of avoiding the completion of the conquest, that will be less exceptionable and less odious than the giving it up;

7. Canada easily peopled without draining Great Britain of any of its Inhabitants.

The objection I have often heard, that, if we had Canada, we could not people it without draining Britain of its inhabitants, is founded on ignorance of the nature of population in new countries. When we first began to colonize in America, it was necessary to send

*«And Pharaoh said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we; come on, let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land. And the king spake to the Hebrew midwives," &c. Exodus, ch. i.