or comity between states, we would have the right to demand explanations. Nor do I think that France would have felt disposed to contest such right. The explanations, however, such as they are, have been volunteered by them, not demanded by us."

The whole correspondence, as far as published, between our government and those of England, France, and Spain, makes upon us the impression of a most manifest desire on our part not to see anything objectionable in the proceedings of those Powers, and a very friendly willingness on their part to make general disclaimers of any improper designs. There appears an extreme readiness on our part to accept such ambiguous disclaimers for a great deal more than they expressed, and a careful avoidance of what was our obvious course if we were in earnest, which was, to ask the allied Powers what were their objects, and what they intended to do to attain them. This direct request was what we had a just right to make, and to insist upon a frank and full explanation. The treaty of London, for the invasion of Mexico, was signed on the 31st of October, and the ratifications were exchanged November 15th, 1861. The coalition agreed to send a combined naval and military force sufficient to seize and occupy the fortresses of Mexico, and for other operations suitable to the object; and they engage "not to exercise in the internal affairs of Mexico any influence of a nature to prejudice the right of the Mexican nation to choose and to constitute freely the form of its government." This carefully studied phraseology is to be interpreted by the results now passing before our eyes.

It would lead us over too much ground for the present purpose, to show by sample citations, that the coalition against Mexico had for its object the extinction of the Monroe Doctrine, by the actual establishment of the "political system of Europe" on this continent by military force, and that it was a matter of mutual expectation and calculation, that the effect of the invasion should certainly be the establishment of a government in Mexico, different from that in existence under President Juarez, and so far conformed to European models as to constitute, according to their ideas," a stable government." M. Billaut's speech in the French Chamber, on the 26th of June, 1862, after expressing the determination not to treat with Juarez, exclaimed,-"Let this

Mexican government disappear before the force of France, or let it take a more serious form, which may offer some security for the future." And the Emperor, July 3d, 1862, in his personal instructions to General Forey, on the line of conduct which he was to follow in Mexico, directs him to "declare that everything is provisional," meaning that the existing government is to be considered only informal and temporary, and without permanent authority. And when he should have reached Mexico, he was to take measures "with the principal persons who have embraced our cause," "with the view of organizing a provisional government," composed, of course, of such parties only; the pretext being to "aid" the Mexicans in establishing "a government which might have some chance of stability;" and the assumption being, that it is not competent for a people to create such a government by their own will alone, unless it is granted to them by the emperor, or in some other way imposed and supported by military force. In the same letter, the Emperor gives the information of the ulterior object of the invasion; to head off the United States, and curtail the growing power of this republic, so that we may not "seize possession of all the Mexican Gulf, dominate from thence the Antilles, as well as South America, and be the sole dispenser of the products of the New World." And he anticipates that, "if a stable government is constituted with the assistance of France, we shall" have restored to the "Latin race on the other side of the ocean its strength and prestige," and "we shall have established our beneficent influence in the center of America." Coupled with all this is a special injunction as to the interests of religion;-by religion meaning the Church of Rome, which is the principal thing to be regarded in this whole programme of deceit and wrong.

There is not in all history a more shameless disregard of professions made and pledges accepted, than the manner in which the Emperor of France has trampled on all that our administration credulously assumed as his promises of respect to the wishes of the people of Mexico, in any changes of government which he should promote. His general in command, in connection with the corrupt Saligny, the French minister resident, proceeded to create a new government of three persons by his own sole author

ity and will; these summon an assembly of notables, chosen and designated only by themselves, without the shadow of a form of consulting the will of the Mexican people; and this assembly forthwith establishes a hereditary monarchy, designating Prince Maximilian as Emperor, who accepts the appointment, relying on the French army to support him in the throne. And this is now said by the Court Journal of Vienna, Memorial Diplomatique, to be the carrying out of a proposal which was made by the French Emperor, so long ago as October, 1861, in the dark days of this republic which followed the first defeat at Bull Run. The eagerness of most of the European governments to congratulate that of France upon the success of the invasion, attests the importance of the movement, and is a general recognition of its real object, the overthrow of the Monroe Doctrine, and the extension of the political system of Europe to this continent. As the case now stands, all Europe, except Russia, is virtually enlisted in this scheme. And thus far, the apparent success is complete. The republican government, instituted by the people, is overthrown, and in its place is a hereditary monarchy, imposed from without, and maintained by military force, dictated by the powers of Europe, and above all sanctioned by the Pope, and devoted to the interests of the Church of Rome. Says the London Times of August 22:

"Strictly speaking, the French army, though composed exclusively of French soldiers, did but represent what are called "troops of execution" in the administration of confederate Germany. The sentence of Europe had gone forth against Mexico, and she was put under the ban of Christendom. As regarded the actual judgment on her offenses, England and Spain were not only of one mind with France, but were originally engaged even in the execution of the sentence. It is not conceivable that under any government whatever the Mexican should fail of being better ruled than before, and if France and Austria can make Mexico a state in which life and property are secure, and public obligations respected, they will certainly leave Europe and Mexico their debtors.

The same paper had said on the 11th

"The good or ill that may accrue to the Emperor Napoleon from his success must depend upon the motives which have guided him, and the manner in which he may use it, but it would be vain to deny that the feeling of the merchants of London is that on the whole, so far as the affair has proceeded, he has done a great service, both political and commercial, to the world—political, in confirming the previous action of Spain in extinguishing the Monroe Doctrine; and

commercial, in restoring the intercourse of nations with a territory which, from its geographical position and mineral wealth, can claim a general and almost exceptional importance."

It is not to be expected that the pages of a quarterly review should keep pace with the daily developments of a movement still in the height of its progress. Enough has already appeared to convince every intelligent American, and to determine the future judgment of impartial history, that the whole belongs to one scheme, that its design was hostile to the honor and safety of the United States, that its objects reached far beyond the security of the Mexican bonds, that it was a conspiracy of European powers to force the political system of Europe upon the American states, and establish here the same right of interference, dictation, and coercion over the feebler nations which has so long been maintained in Europe. Whether it shall yet be proved or not, that the original plot embraced and brought on the rebellion; there cannot remain a doubt that the coalition of England, France, and Spain, was determined on, and carried into effect, solely in consequence of the supposed inability of the United States at the moment to insist on the Monroe Doctrine. It is equally evident that the final success of the whole programmę hinges upon the result of the first step, the breaking up of the American Union. If that fails, the whole fails. The apprehension of possible failure may explain the change in the policy of the Palmerston administration, in withdrawing the British forces from the actual invasion of Mexico, and allowing it to be extensively believed that the coalition is at an end, when in truth the treaty of London is still unbroken and in full force. Louis Napoleon, and Forey, and Almonte are but the agents of the coalition, in carrying out the "other operations" authorised and provided for in the treaty.* Both the English and American people ought to understand that the British government has with

"The commanders of the allied forces shall be, moreover, authorized to execute the other operations which may be considered, on the spot, most suitable to effect the object specified in the preamble of the present convention.

"All the measures contemplated in this article shall be taken in the name, and on the account of the high contracting parties, without reference to the particular nationality of the forces employed to execute them." Treaty, Art. I., Sec. 2 and 3.

drawn from the "execution" of the treaty, but not from the treaty as the head burglar who forces the door may leave his agents to gather the plunder, while he retreats from the scene in order to plead an alibi hereafter, but still claiming his share of the spoils. If our prospects, as seen in Europe, should continue to brighten as they have for the past three months, we shall expect to see a still more manifest change in the tone of Earl Russell's letters. Already, instead of pushing directly for war, as in the Trent case, he contents himself with trying how far he can go in bullying and worrying without running into actual war. We may yet have to review his cordial compliments on the full re establishment of the Union, with the most friendly assurances that this was what he always most wished to see, and what in fact he always confidently expected would be accomplished.

There are two dangers, lying back of those already considered, and therefore less obvious to the view, which we now only allude to, although each is well worthy of consideration in an article by itself. The first is the engrafting of a new principle upon the recognized laws of nations, in the right assumed by the Great Powers, of invading and occupying the territories of the feebler nations for the purpose of enforcing the of enforcing the payment of governmental bonds given to individual bankers, subjects or otherwise of the invading Powers. And this without reference to the equity of the case, as whether the bonds were given for a just consideration, or by a regularly constituted and responsible government. For the Jecker bonds, amounting to more than $50,000,000, on which alone the French claim to interfere was grounded, were given by Zuloaga and Miramon, both usurpers, soon expelled by the people; they were sold at sumns "varying from one-half of one per cent. to four or five per cent.” of their nominal amount; and the Jeckers were not French subjects at the time the bonds were given, but were naturalized during the subsequent negotiation, and for its purposes. If this is received as the law among nations, that the Great Powers may constitute themselves at once party, judge, and executioner, to enforce by arms the payment of bonds given to financiers, and without regard to the justice of the debt itself, then the smaller powers

*See Mr. Corwin's letter of June 29, 1861.