175 1 Essays 17 
properly so-called; it having never been mentioned 
as one of those objects, in any of our memorials or 
declarations, or in any national or public act what- 
soever.” But the gentleman himself will probably 
agree, that if the cession of Canada would be a real 
advantage to us, we may demand it under his second 
head, as an “indemnification for the charges in- 
curred” in recovering our just rights; otherwise, 
according to his own principles, the demand of 
Guadaloupe can have no foundation. That “our 
claims before the war were large enough for posses- 
sion and for security too,” * though it seems a clear 
point with the ingenious Remarker, is, I own, not so 
with me. I am rather of the contrary opinion, and 
shall presently give my reasons. 
But first let me observe that we did not make 
those claims because they were large enough for 
security, but because we could rightfully claim no 
more. Advantages gained in the course of this war 
may increase the extent of our rights. Our claims 
before the war contained some security; but that is 
no reason why we should neglect acquiring more 
when the demand of more is become reasonable. 
It may be reasonable in the case of America to ask 
for the security recommended by the author of the 
Letter,® though it would be preposterous to do it in 
many cases. His proposed demand is founded on 
the little value of Canada to the French; the right 
we have to ask, and the power we may have to insist 
on, an indemnification for our expenses; the diffi 
culty the French themselves will be under of re- 
* Remarks, p. 19. 2 Page 30 of the Letter, and p. 21 of the Remarks. 
30} 7