into Spain, and were received and succored by the Spanish authorities on the frontiers. Under these circumstances, the British government received an application from the regency of Portugal, United States and Great Britain hereby declare, that neither one nor the other will ever occupy or fortify or colonize, or assume or exercise any dominion over, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America; nor will either make use of any protection which either affords or may afford, or any alliance which either has or may have to or with any State or people, for the purpose of erecting or maintaining any such fortifications, or of occupying, fortifying, or colonizing Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America, or of assuming or exercising dominion over the same.' The British Government took the position that this clause related only to future acts, and did not embrace places in their possession at the time the treaty was made. This construction was rejected by the United States. The words "fortify or colonize, or assume . . . dominion over," doubtless look solely to the future. The word "occupy" may be ambiguous. It has, in the Law of Nations, a technical sense, derived from the Roman law, signifying the taking original possession of any thing not at the time in possession, and therefore open to appropriation, — as of animals feræ naturæ, or of things derelict, &c.; and, when applied to territory, signifying the acquisition of sovereign title by original occupation of a place not at the time within the occupation and jurisdiction of a recognized sovereignty. But, in its general and popular sense, it signifies merely the act or condition of possessing: as successive tenants are said to occupy a house, or a military force a town. In the former sense, the word would be limited to future acts; while, in the latter sense, it would not. But the American argument did not rest on the character of one word, but on the sense of the entire clause, especially as colored by the words "exercise dominion.”

We now proceed to examine that distinct branch of the Monroe Doctrine which relates to European intervention in American affairs.

The result of the congresses at Laybach and Verona was an alliance of Russia, Prussia, Austria, and France; the ostensible object of which was to preserve the peace of Europe, and to put down conspiracies against established power, consecrated rights, and social order: but, as the allies acknowledged no legitimate basis of right and order except the existing hereditary sovereign houses of Europe, the practical result was a combination of forces against all changes in the direction of liberal institutions not voluntarily made by the sovereigns. In accordance with the spirit of this alliance, the movements for free constitutions in 1821 in Spain, Naples, and Piedmont, were put down by armed intervention, and absolutism re-instated. At this time, the Spanish colonies in America, after years of warfare, had substantially secured their independence, which had been recognized by the United States; but Spain still asserted her claim; and the independence of the provinces had not been acknowledged by Great Britain diplomatically, though she had sent consuls to their principal ports. In 1823, to carry out the purposes of the Holy Alliance, France invaded Spain, to suppress the constitutional government of the Cortes established there, and restore absolutism in the person of Ferdinand VII. As the success of the French invasion became certain, there were signs that the parties to the Holy Alliance intended to go further, and lend their aid to Ferdinand VII. to restore his dominion over the Spanish-American provinces. The fears of this course were justified by the previous language of the Holy Alliance. In the Laybach circular of May 12, 1821, they distinctly declared that they regarded "as equally null, and disallowed by the public law of Europe, any pretended reform effected by revolt and open force; and in their circular of Dec. 5, 1822, respecting the constitutional government in

claiming, in virtue of the ancient treaties of alliance and friendship subsisting between the two crowns, the military aid of Great Britain against the hostile aggression of Spain. In acceding to Spain, they declared their resolution "to repel the maxim of rebellion, in whatever place or under whatever form it might show itself;" thus repeating their claim made at Troppau, "that the European powers have an undoubted right to take a hostile attitude in regard to those States in which the overthrow of the government might operate as an example." England professed, also, to see indications that France intended to be compensated for her effective intervention, by a cession of some American province, and Cuba was the suspected reward.

Great Britain, who had never been party to this alliance, and protested against the intervention of 1821, took special umbrage at the French invasion of Spain, her late ally, from whose borders she had, only ten years before, expelled the French armies. There was a strong popular inclination in England to make this invasion a cause of war; but this was not seconded by the ministry, who betook themselves to diplomatic efforts to defeat the schemes of the continental powers. The French Government, on its part, had its suggestion that the British Cabinet was determined to send a squadron, and take possession of Cuba. The people of Cuba, already divided between the parties of the king and the Cortes, and terrified by symptoms of slave insurrections, had among them large numbers who, dissatisfied with Spanish rule, looked to other powers for protection, some to Great Britain, but far the larger part to the United States. About September, 1822, the latter party: sent a secret agent to confer with President Monroe. They declared, that, if the United States Government would promise them protection, and ultimate admission; into the Union, a revolution would be made to throw off the Spanish authority, of the success of which they had no doubt. While this proposition was before Mr. Monroe's Cabinet, he received an unofficial and circuitous communication from the French Minister, asserting that his government had positive information of the design of Great Britain to take possession of Cuba. The American Government replied to the Cuban deputation, that the friendly relations of the United States with Spain did not permit us to promise countenance or protection to insurrectional movements, and advised the people of Cuba to adhere to their Spanish allegiance; at the same time informing them that an attempt upon Cuba, by either Great Britain or France, would place the relations of Cuba with the United States in a very different position. Mr. Rush was instructed to inform Mr. Canning that the United States could not see with indifference the possession of Cuba by any European power other than Spain, and to inform him of the rumors that had reached the Cabinet. Mr. Canning disavowed emphatically all intention on the part of Great Britain to take possession of Cuba, but avowed her determination not to see with indifference its occupation by either France or the United States; and proposed an understanding between the British, French, and American governments, without any formal convention, that Cuba should be left in the quiet possession of Spain. This was assented to by Mr. Monroe, but he had no communication with France on the subject, leaving that to the management of Great Britain.

As respects the Spanish colonies which had been at war with Spain for their independence, the United States were naturally anxious about the movements of the allies; and Mr. Adams had communicated to Mr. Rush at London, in general terms, the strong feeling of the government, and the earnest popular opinion on that subject. The British Government was also very solicitous to prevent all intervention against those provinces by the continental powers, and to leave them free to

that application, and sending a corps of British troops for the defence of Portugal, it was stated by the British minister that the Portuguese Constitution was admitted to have proceeded from a complete their independence. This would not only, with the arrangement respect-. ing Cuba, defeat the Transatlantic schemes of France, if she had any, and, in the famous words of Mr. Canning, "call the new world into existence to redress the balance of the old," but would repress generally the absolutist powers on the continent, avenge the affront to Great Britain by the invasion of Spain, and procure for England the benefit of an unrestricted commerce with Spanish America. Mr. Canning feared that a formal recognition of the independence of those colonies might involve England in a war with the continental powers; but was confident that their independence would be secured, if all intervention or hope of intervention in aid of Spain, could be effectually precluded. With this view, Mr. Canning, in August and September, 1823, urged upon Mr. Rush a combined declaration by Great Britain and the United States to the effect, that, while they aimed at the possession of no portion of the Spanish colonies for themselves, and would not obstruct any amicable negotiations between the colonies and the mother country, they could not see with indifference the intervention of any foreign power, or the transfer to such power of any of the colonies. In support of his request, Mr. Canning stated that a proposal would be made for a European Congress, to settle the affairs of Spanish America; and said that Great Britain would take no part in it, except upon the terms that the United States should be represented. Mr. Rush replied, as to the Congress, that it was the traditional policy of the United States to take no part in European politics; and, having no instructions from his government, said he would still take the responsibility of joining in the declaration, if Great Britain would first acknowledge the independence of the colonies. Mr. Canning not being ready to take this decisive step, the proposed joint declaration was never made; but Mr. Rush communicated the proposal to his government; the result of which was the celebrated declaration against European intervention in Mr. Monroe's annual message of Dec. 2, 1823.

In Mr. Monroe's Cabinet at that time, John Quincy Adams was Secretary of State, and Mr. Calhoun Secretary of War; and, beside the advice derived from them, Mr. Monroe laid the subject of Mr. Canning's proposal before Mr. Jefferson, then in retirement, and asked his opinion. Mr. Jefferson replied by an elaborate letter, of 24 October, 1823. (Jefferson's Life, iii. 491.) He says: "Our first maxim should be, never to entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe; our second, never to suffer Europe to intermeddle with Cisatlantic affairs." Referring to the great power Great Britain could wield for good or evil in these controversies, and expressing his gratification at the stand she was then taking, and recognizing the fact that we could not join in the declaration if we had any designs upon Cuba or any American State ourselves, he advised Mr. Monroe to join in the declaration, which Mr. Jefferson worded thus: "That we aim not at the acquisition of any of those possessions; that we will not stand in the way of any amicable arrangement between the colonies and their mother country; that we will oppose with all our means the forcible interposition of any other power as auxiliary, stipendiary, or under any other form or pretext, and most especially their transfer to any power by conquest, cession, or acquisition in any other way."

It will be seen that the administration did not accept Mr. Canning's proposal for a joint declaration, but spoke for the United States alone; and, in doing so, did not adopt the declaration proposed by Mr. Canning and recommended by Mr. Jefferson, but a very different one. After treating of various other matters, foreign and domestic, as

legitimate source, and it was recommended to Englishmen by the ready acceptance which it had met with from all orders of the Portuguese people. But it would not be for the British nation to

usual in the annual message, Mr. Monroe passes, towards its close, to speak of the efforts in Spain and Portugal to improve the condition of the people, and of the general disappointment of the expectations of the American people in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow-men on that side of the Atlantic, and says: "In the wars of

the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparation for our defence. With the movements in this hemisphere we are, of necessity, more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective governments. And to the defence of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of our most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed an unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare, that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power, we have not interfered, and shall not interfere. But with the governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power, in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new governments and Spain, we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition; and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgment of the competent authorities of this government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security." Then, speaking of the recent forcible interposition by the allies in the internal concerns of Spain, he says: "To what extent such interposition may be carried, on the same principle, is a question in which all independent powers whose governments differ from theirs are interested, and even those most remote, and surely none more so than the United States. Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same; which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it; and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But, in regard to these continents, circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different. It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can any one believe that our Southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference. If we look to the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those new governments, and their distance from each other, it must be obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the

force it on the people of Portugal, if they were unwilling to receive it; or if any schism should exist among the Portuguese themselves, as to its fitness and congeniality to the wants and wishes

true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in the hope that the other powers will pursue the same course."

This message of President Monroe reached England while the correspondence between Mr. Canning and the Prince Polignac was in progress; and it was received not only with satisfaction, but with enthusiasm. Mr. Brougham said: "The question with regard to Spanish America is now, I believe, disposed of, or nearly so; for an event has recently happened than which none has ever dispersed greater joy, exultation, and gratitude over all the free men of Europe: that event, which is decisive on the subject, is the language held with respect to Spanish America in the message of the President of the United States." Sir James Mackintosh said: "This coincidence of the two great English commonwealths (for so I delight to call them; and I heartily pray that they may be for ever united in the cause of justice and liberty) cannot be contemplated without the utmost pleasure by every enlightened citizen of the earth." This attitude of the American government gave a decisive support to that of Great Britain, and effectually put an end to the designs of the absolutist powers of the continent to interfere with the affairs of Spanish America. Those dynasties had no disposition to hazard a war with such a power, moral and material, as Great Britain and the United States would have presented, when united in the defence of independent constitutional governments.

It is to be borne in mind that the declarations known as the Monroe Doctrine have never received the sanction of an act or resolution of Congress; nor have they any of that authority which European governments attach to a royal ordinance. They are, in fact, only the declarations of an existing administration of what its own policy would be, and what it thinks should ever be the policy of the country, on a subject of paramount and permanent interest. Thus, at the same session in which the message was delivered, Mr. Clay introduced the following resolution: That the people of these States would not see, without serious inquietude, any forcible interposition by the allied powers of Europe, in behalf of Spain, to reduce to their former subjection those parts of the continent of America which have proclaimed and established for themselves, respectively, independent governments, and which have been solemnly recognized by the United States." But this resolution was never brought up for action or discussion. It is seen also, by the debates on the Panama mission and the Yucatan intervention, that Congress has never been willing to commit the nation to any compact or pledge on this subject, or to any specific declaration of purpose or methods, beyond the general language of the message.

In the debates on the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, in 1855-56, above referred to, all the speakers seemed to agree to this position of the subject. Mr. Clayton said: “In reference to this particular territory, I would not hesitate at all, as one Senator, to assert the Monroe Doctrine and maintain it by my vote; but I do not expect to be sustained in such a vote by both branches of Congress. Whenever the attempt has been made to assert the Monroe Doctrine in either branch of Congress, it has failed. The present Democratic party came into power, after the debate on the Panama mission, on the utter abnegation of the whole doctrine, and stood upon Washington's doctrine of nonintervention. You cannot prevail on a majority, and I will venture to say that you cannot prevail on one-third, of either house of Congress to sustain it." Mr. Cass said: "Whenever the Monroe Doctrine has been urged, either one or the other house of Congress, or both houses, did not stand up to it." Mr. Seward said: "It is true that