answering for the conduct of the communities of which it was com posed? So soon as it was known that a consolidation had taken place, the treaty with Buenos Ayres was signed. Next, as to Colombia. As late as 1822 the last of the Spanish forces were sent away from Porto Cabello, which was up till that time held for the King of Spain. It was only since that time that Colombia would have been admitted as a state having a separate existence. Some time after that, however, Colombia chose to risk her whole force, and a great part of her treasure, in a distant war with Spain in Peru. Had that enterprise proved disastrous, the expedition would have returned with the troops to re-establish the royal authority. The danger was now at an end. The case of Mexico was still more striking. Not nine months ago, an adventurer who had wielded the sceptre of Mexico, left these shores to return thither, and re possess his abdicated throne. Was that a moment at which this country ought to have interfered to decide, by recognition, the government of Mexico? The failure of the attempt of that adventurer afforded the opportunity for recognition; and, the instant the failure was known, the decision of the British Cabinet was taken. Therefore, so far from the time being ill-chosen, or the measures tardily adopted, it was not physically or morally possible to have anticipated them even by a few weeks."

Coming then to deal with the mode of recognition, and the objections respecting it, Mr. Canning says—

"Was this mode of proceeding unsatisfactory, because there did not exist in the archives of the Foreign Office, a single document relative to this question, which Spain had not seen, and of which the powers in alliance with this country had not been supplied with copies? Was this transaction deemed unsatisfactory, because Spain was told, that if she would take precedence in recognising the independence of the Colonies, this country would be content to follow her steps, and to allow to her a priority in the markets of those Colonies? Was the arrangement unsatisfactory, because proceeding alone, England disdained to take any unfair advantages of a friendly State? Was it unsatisfactory, because we saw, that whoever might follow us in recognising the independence of those States, would be placed by our side, and would enjoy equal advantages with ourselves."

In the treaty proposed by Great Britain to Mexico, there was the clause of the most favoured nation, but that clause was restricted, allowing under certain restrictions, preferences to be given to Spain and to the South American States. Moreover, there was no article containing a recognition of the independence of Mexico. The Committee of the Mexican Congress, to which it was referred, urged the Congress to reject it, and the Congress itself expressed the wish that it should contain "an express recognition of independence." This the British Government would not admit.

In the very same message in which is announced the ratification of the treaty with Great Britain, is also announced by the President to the Mexican Republic, that "the frontier on the west and the north has been fortified with particular care to the side of the Texas." This was a period of great financial embarrassments, and this was one of the first applications made by Mexico of the sums borrowed from England.

The proposed Congress of Panama was to be assembled, not merely for the purpose of maintaining the conjoint independence of the South American States against “the common enemy" (Spain); but also for the purpose of adjusting common principles of international law and internal practice, to bring about "good harmony amongst themselves, and free them from all European influence or domination," and further to extend that harmony "throughout the world." In these propositions we may find the interpretation of the "candid and confidential communication" between the United States and the Russian Government, respecting "the affairs of Southern America.”

"The general Congress which the South American Republics proposed to hold at Panama held out to the United States," says the Annual Register, " an opportunity of forming with themselves a connection exclusive of all European influence, which would make North America, in some measure, a member of their own body, and

secure to it preferences and a preponderance to which European powers, who took no part in the deliberations of the assembled representatives, could not hope to aspire."

The Union would rather have made the Southern States dependencies of the Northern, and that not by the exclusion of "all European influence," but through a European influence, and one equally interested in gaining an ascendancy over the United States, and in convulsing the Southern Republics, if only to prevent their produce from coming into competition with her own. With strange inconsistency, the same authority which argues that the United States sought to exclude European influence, represents Russia as supporting their views "warmly at Madrid." At the very moment that these philanthropic objects were put forward by the United States, they were making the same insidious preparation for breaking down the authority of Mexico that they had so recently been applying to Spain.

In 1825 the fortification of the Texas frontier had been provided for. How necessary the precaution appeared in the subsequent year, when a revolt broke out in the Texas. The insurgents on the 16th December, 1826, declared their independence, assumed the title of the Republic of Fredonia, and entered into treaties of alliance with the neighbouring Indian tribes. "This event was believed to have taken place, if not at the instigation yet with the knowledge and connivance of the United States. The Mexican Congress appropriated £500,000. for the expedition for the repression of the insurrection; but the rebellion was put down without assistance from Mexico, by the troops in the country and its inhabitants; the dispersed insurgents took refuge amongst the Indians and in the territory of the United States.' This is the interpretation of those principles of general harmony and benevolence which Russia assisted the United States to urge at Madrid, and which the United States, through the Congress of Panama, and subsequently * Annual Register, 1827.

of Tacubaya, endeavoured to establish throughout the "American Continent," and which were thence to be extended "throughout the world!"

At the close of the year 1827, the President says: "Since the accession of the Emperor Nicholas to the Imperial throne of all the Russias, the friendly dispositions towards the United States, so constantly maintained by his predecessor, continue unabated, and have recently been. testified by the appointment of a Minister Plenipotentiary to reside at this place." Thus then had the harmony indured throughout, full and complete at its close as promising at its commencement.

At the opening of the Drama, the parts are distributed as they now appear at the close of the first act. The United, States preying on the Southern Republics and secretly; prompted by Russia, while France stands hanging between, urged and used by both. There is this difference, however, that England is changed from protector to betrayer.

It seems impossible to imagine that the same nation, and within the same generation, should present examples of characters so opposite, and of conduct so contradictory. Her conduct in the first instance was not the result of caprice, but in obedience to the laws; in the second, our acts are in rebellion against those very laws, in opposition to interests the most clear, in sacrifice of the most distinctly established rights, and in defiance of the most strongly pronounced opinions and sympathies.

We conclude this reference to our past conduct in respect to the Spanish Colonies, by repeating what we have already noticed, that in the treaties ratified in 1826, betweenEngland and the former Colonies of Spain, the condition was established, that slavery should be extirpated from their soil. In taking part with the American freebooters that have robbed Texas, we have supported them against the mother state and our Treaties in the establishment of slavery!

Is that lawful, where many innocent have bled, which is not lawful in a solitary murder?-St. Ambrose to Theodosius.

England, cured, herself, of the lust of conquest, seeks to maintain justice between nations. It is her office to keep its balance true.-Vattel.

We owe it to our ancestors to preserve entire these rights, which they have delivered to our care: we owe it to our posterity not to suffer their dearest inheritance to be destroyed. But if it were possible for us to be insensible of these sacred claims, there is yet an obligation binding upon ourselves from which nothing can acquit us. A personal interest which we cannot surrender. To alienate even our rights would be a crime as much more enormous than suicide, as a life of civil security and freedom is superior to a base existence. And if life be the bounty of heaven, we scornfully reject the noblest part of that gift if we consent to surrender that certain rule of living, without which the condition of human nature is not only miserable but contemptible.-Junius.

Either when an ancient pillar of the common law is taken out of it, or when new remedies are added to it; by the first arise dangers and difficulties, and by the second the common law, rightly understood, is not bettered, but in many cases so fettered that it is very much weakened.-Sir Edward Coke on Statute Law.

(David Hume expresses surprise at the precision and