Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

the immortal founder of Pennsylvania, (that of amicable contract with the wandering natives, and a conduct towards them becoming the professors of a religion of peace,) realized upon many a desert shore. Let it not be said, that such projects are wild and impracticable. If a colony in the remotest part of the world, peopled by the very refuse and moral dregs of our country, has made, in less than forty years, some progress towards prosperity, what might not be expected from the efforts of honest and industrious settlers, whose emigration should be aided by Government, instead of being checked by making the country to which they might resort, a receptacle for abandoned criminals? It is matter of surprise, that, with far too little labour, and perhaps too little sustenance, for our growing numbers, greater facilities and encouragements are not given by the administration of this country to the right class of emigrants. Many difficulties, dangers, and disadvantages, may be, no doubt, suggested in this as in every other good design; but I cannot conceive them to have any just weight, when compared with those which attend a suffering and discontented population. It is, however, foreign to my subject, to dwell on this suggestion; I trust it may already be occupying the attention of those who can give to any practical

opinion abundantly more influence and effect.* My direct purpose has been, to show that neither commerce nor colonization must necessarily have been less extensive, although our great colonial conquests had never been achieved, and that room enough might have been found for the adventurous energy of the nation, without the extended exploits of our armies in the East.

*Since this passage was written, the measure of assisting emigration to the Cape of Good Hope has been taken by the British Government, and it very much corresponds to the suggestion here offered.

108

LETTER VII.

The second objection, (relating to the preservation of our colonies,) and a branch of the third, (i. e. the naval means of defence supposed to depend on this,) considered. -Specific service may defend the colonies; and is not to be scrupled, if they are well governed.-No essential dependence of trade on colonies.-Power of augmenting fisheries.

THE second of the objections enumerated at the beginning of my last Letter, was this, that, without a regular army, our nation could not have retained its foreign acquisitions; and it is naturally connected with that already discussed. I think it likely that the third of them (which you may remember related to national defence) will also be brought into connexion with it, in some such form of argument as the following. It will be said, "The prevalence of your principles would not only have prevented the acquisition or extension of the colonies we have conquered, but also the defence of all our colonies, in whatever way acquired; since they cannot be defended without a regular disposable force from the mother country. The want of military garrisons and succours would occasion their

speedy loss; and this, besides essentially impairing our national power and wealth, would diminish, together with our commerce, that supply of seamen, which forms, in your own judgment, an invaluable means of national security. You have, probably, overlooked, (being as young in warlike affairs as the defenders to whom you would intrust your country's safety,) that not our prosperity alone, but our naval strength, has arisen from the acquisition, and depends on the preservation, of our colonies." On this reasoning I would, first, remark, that, although (in my judgment) it would certainly have been a Christian's duty not to join in the enterprises by which some of our colonies have been acquired, it does not follow, that he is bound to take no part in the defence even of those; still less of any colonies possessed by his country. His scruples with regard to this, or any other defensive service, must not be of a retrospective kind; for, such scruples, carried to their fullest extent, might even include a refusal to defend his country itself, as having been conquered from its aboriginal, and reconquered from its colonizing, inhabitants. The retrospective view of national changes is, indeed, a grand. argument against unlimited military service, since it is, in fact, one continued exhibition of the multiplied injustice which such service has

[ocr errors]

caused; but it is not an argument against the lawfulness of a specific auxiliary or defensive service. The conquest of Ireland by Henry II. was unjust; (unless a papal sanction could jus-' tify it;*) yet the British Christian, who thinks it lawful to bear arms at all, supposing he could not view Ireland, even politically considered, as a part of his country, would not scruple to join in its defence, on account of that original, or of any past injustice. The conquest of Indostan, in the judgment of many, was also unjust; but it follows no more in this than in the former case, that those who entertain this opinion, are obliged to decline taking part in its defence. Secondly, I answer, The defence of colonies may be (and I believe sometimes is) a specific service. If I am not misinformed, troops have been raised, in this country, expressly to serve in the East Indies, and, in the same way, for some other colonial destinations. It may be, that those troops are liable to general service, on their return from such stations; but, be this as it may, the specific object for which they are first levied, shows that, as far as the defence of colonies is concerned, there is nothing impracticable or inefficient in the nature of such a force. Nor have I affirmed, supposing the ad

* See Hume's History, vol. i. p. 426.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »