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, upward 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