i

this principle; will not Britain be guilty of all the blood to be fhed, all the 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 their Indians on our colonists, are agreeable to us; and that they need not apprehend the refentment of a government, with whofe views they fo happily concur? Will not the colonies view it in this light? Will they have reafon to confider themfelves any longer as fubjects and children; when they find their cruel enemies halloo'd upon them by the country from whence they fprung; 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 that fecurity, their own government chufes not to afford them?I would not be thought to infinuate that the Remarker wants humanity. I know how little many good-natured perfons are affected by the diftreffes of people at a distance, and whom they do not know. There are even thole, who, being prefent, can fympathize fincerely with the grief of a lady on the fudden death of a favourite bird; and yet can read of the finking of a city in Syria with very little concern.-If it be, after all, thought neceffary to check the growth of our colonies; give me leave too propose a method less cruel. It is a method of which we have an example in fcripture. The murder of hufbands, of wives, of brothers, fifters, and children, whose pleasing fociety

L

fociety has been for fome time enjoyed, affects deeply the refpective furviving relations: but grief for the death of a child just born is fhort, and eafily fupported. The method I mean is that which was dictated by the Egyptian policy, when the "infinite increase" of the children of Ifrael 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 prefent fize. And if they were under the hard alternative of fubmitting to one or the other of thefe fchemes for checking their growth, I dare anfwer for them, they would fer the latter.

t

pre

But all this debate about the propriety or impropriety of keeping or restoring Canada, is poffibly too early. We have taken the capital indeed, but the country is yet far from being in our poffeffion; and perhaps never will be: for if our Mrs are perfuaded by fuch 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 fakes to reftore it, as a check to the growth of our colonies; I am then afraid we fhall never take it. For there Iam

And Pharoah faid unto his people, behold the people of the children of Ifrael are more and mightier than we; come on, let us deal wifely with them left they multiply; and it come to pass that when there falleth out any war, they join alfo unto our enemies and fight against us, and fo get them up out of the land. And the aking pake to the Hebrew midwives, &c. Exodus, chap. 1.

taij

are

are many ways of avoiding the completion of the conqueft, that will be less exceptionable and lefs odious than the giving it up.

7. [Canada eafily 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 neceffary to fend people, and to fend feed-corn; but it is not now neceffary that we fhould furnish, for a new colony, either one or the other. The annual increment alone of our present colonies, without diminishing their numbers, or requiring a man from hence; is fufficient in ten years to fill Canada with double the number of English that it now has of French inhabitants *.-Thofe who are proteftants among the French, will probably choose to remain under the English government; many will choofe to remove, if they can be allowed to fell their lands, improvements and effects the reft in that thin-settled country, will in lefs than half a century, from the crowds of English fettling round and among them, be blended and incorporated with our people both in language and manners.

* In fact, there has not gone from Britain [itfelf] to our colonies thefe 20 years paft, to fettle there, fo many as 10 families a year; the new fettlers are either the offspring of the old, or emigrants from Germany, or the north of Ireland. [N. B. Written in 1760 or 1761. E.1

8. [The

8. [The merits of Guadaloupe to Great Britain over-valued; yet likely to be paid much dearer for, than Canada.]

In Guadaloupe the cafe is fomewhat different; and though I am far from thinking we have fugar-land enough, I cannot think Guadaloupe is fo defirable an increase of it, as other objects the enemy would probably be infinitely more ready to part with.-A country fully inhabited by any nation, is no proper poffeffion for another of different language, manners and religion. It is hardly ever tenable at less expence than it is worth. -But the ifle of Cayenne, and its appendix, Equinoctial-France, having but very few inhabitants, and these therefore easily removed; would indeed be an acquifition every way fuitable to our fituation and defires. This would hold all that migrate from Barbadoes, the Leeward Iflands, or Jamaica. It would certainly recall into an English government (in which there would be room for millions) all who have before fettled or purchased in Martinico, Guadaloupe, Santa-Cruz or St. John's; except fuch as know not the value of an English go

1 Remarks, p. 30, 34.

+ It is often faid we have plenty of fugar-land ftill unemployed in Jamaica: but thofe who are well acquainted with that island, know, that the remaining vacant land in it is generally fituated among mountains, rocks and gullies, that make carriage impracticable, fo that no profitable ufe can be made of it; unless the price. of fugars fhould fo greatly increase, as to enable the planter to make very expenfive roads, by blowing up rocks, erecting bridges, &c. every 2 or 300 yards. [Our author was fomewhat mifinformed here. E.] vernment,

Dd

vernment, and fuch I am fure are not worth recalling.

But should we keep Guadaloupe, we are told it would enable us to export 300,000 l. in fugars. Admit it to be true, though perhaps the amazing increase of English confumption might stop most of it here, to whofe profit is this to redound? To the profit of the French inhabitants of the island:: except a small part that should fall to the share of the English purchasers, but whofe whole purchasemoney must first be added to the wealth and circulation of France. I grant, however, much of this 300,000l. would be expended in British manufactures. Perhaps, too, a few of the land-owners of Guadaloupe might dwell and spend their fortunes in Britain, (though probably much fewer than of the inhabitants of North America.) I admit the advantage arifing to us from thefe circumftances, (as far as they go) in the cafe of Guadaloupe, as well as in that of our other West India fettlements.-Yet even this confumption is little better than that of an allied nation would be, who should take our manufactures and supply us with fugar, and put us to no great expence in defending the place of growth.-But, though our own colonies expend among us almost the whole produce of our fugar*, can we or ought we to promife ourselves this will be the cafe of Guadaloupe? One 100,000l. will fupply them with British manufactures; and fuppofing we can effectually prevent the introduction of those of

Remarks, p. 47.

France,