while Uraga should overpower Marquez at Morelia, and thence march rapidly to the capital. Early on the morning of December 17th, Uraga, with about 8,000 men, fell suddenly upon the Franco-Mexican force under Marquez, who, however, having received secret intelligence of the proposed attack, was fully prepared. A sanguinary battle of several hours' duration followed. The national forces at one time penetrated into the plaza of the town, but after severe fighting were driven out and forced to retreat with heavy loss, the French claiming to have taken 1,000 prisoners and eleven pieces of artillery. A few days later the remnant of Uraga's army was attacked by Col. Saint, and sustained another defeat, with which active hostilities terminated for the month in the State of Michoacan. The invading columns thenceforth pursued their march without interruption toward the north, and by the close of the year Gen. Bazaine was within a short distance of Guadalajara.

Meanwhile the column under Douai and Mejia pressed rapidly forward from Guanajuato to San Luis Potosi, whence Juarez retired on December 18th, to Monterey, accompanied only by a few armed attendants. On the 24th, Mejia occupied the town, where three days later he was attacked by Negrete, who was repulsed, losing some artillery, baggage, and prisoners. The close of the year left Negrete in the neighborhood of San Luis Potosi, awaiting the arrival of Doblado and Ortega, in conjunction with whom he proposed to make another attempt to eject Mejia.

In addition to the operations above detailed, there was an attempt by Gen. Cobos, at a revolution in favor of the interventionists at Matamoras, in the early part of November, which was quickly repressed by the Juarist governor, Don Manuel Ruiz, who caused Cobos to be shot. Ruiz, however, was almost immediately driven out of the city, and Serna, also a liberal, appointed governor in his place. The last movement, however, seems to have been a local quarrel, having little or no connection with the question of intervention. Though north of the capital the prospects of the national party seemed gloomy enough, in the south Gen. Diaz was reported to be active between Vera Cruz and Mexico, threatening Orizaba and other places; and in the States of Oajaca and Puebla, a body of several thousand men were organizing to cooperate with him. While from the mountain fastnesses of Guerrero the old chief Alvarez, who had hitherto taken no active part in the war, issued an address to the Pinto Indians of the south, over whom his influence has for many years been predominant, urging them to oppose the French, who were about to strip them of their privileges. The southern States of the republic had, in fact, been scarcely invaded, still less subdued, and notwithstanding numerous reports of the defection of Doblado and Vidaurri, the resignation or removal of

Juarez, and dissensions of all kinds among the national leaders, they remained at the close of the year loyal to the country, and still controlled a military organization which favorable circumstances might develop into a formidable power.

On January 1st, 1864, the districts in the interior of Mexico occupied by the forces of the French intervention formed a triangle, of which the apex was at Mexico and the sides extended north to San Luis Potosi, and west as far as Guadalajara. In an easterly direction, the situation of the country subject to the intervention was nearly the same, resembling an irregular trapèze, formed of two unequal triangles; the greater one having its apex at Mexico, and the two sides almost equal, each almost 180 miles in length, and about 50 miles apart; while the smaller one had its apex at Vera Cruz, and formed a triangle with equal angles, each 50 miles long. To complete this description the total superficies of the country over which the Franco-Mexican intervention is more or less dominant, may be stated as a length of about 600 miles, by a breadth of from 130 to 150 miles.

Insignificant as this territory may seem in comparison with the whole national domain, it nevertheless comprises some of the most rich and populous States and cities, although the total population included in it falls far below a majority of the nation. “After the coup d'état of December 17th, 1857," says an English writer, reviewing the incidents of the year, "all the towns occupied at this moment by the Franco-Mexican troops, including even the important city of Guadalajara, were in the power of the reactionary government; and yet that did not prevent the chiefs of that governmentafter a three years' struggle, sustained by the gold of the clergy, and backed by foreign jobbers-from succumbing at last, and going ignominiously to beg for foreign intervention."

The progress of the Franco-Mexican armies, and the number of cities and towns that had declared their adherence to intervention, were conspicuously noticed in official French papers, the object evidently being to show, that although the resistance of Juarez was not entirely subdued at the close of the year, the position of affairs was satisfactory enough to justify the Archduke Maximilian in taking possession of the throne won for him by Napoleon III. The Mexican deputation had returned home, immediately after their interview with the Archduke, ostensibly to obtain a ratification of the empire by a popular vote. Bat, as if to show how hollow was this whole proceeding, it was subsequently submitted to him that any nearer approximation to a popular vote among so scattered a population as the Mexicans than such as was to be obtained from a more or less general submission to the French arms, was altogether impracticable. The Archduke lent no unwilling ear to statements of this nature, and prepared from the outset to take advantage

of any pretext offered to him, was ready to accept the progress of the French arms as an indication of the submission of the Mexicans to his rule. As a matter of form, however, he awaited at Miramar the return of the Mexican deputation.

The difficulty of taking a vote of the whole people, in accordance with "the institutions and local customs of the country," as required by M. Drouyn de l'Huys, is shown by M. Malespine in the pamphlet above referred to. "Shall the poll be declared open," he asks, "only in the localities occupied by the French troops, or in all Mexico? If in the former manner, the vote would not be the largest manifestation of the popular will, because the whole people would not be consulted; in the latter the appeal could not be made known to them, and would consequently fall to the ground." And he proceeds to show that the French occupation was effective in only a comparatively small portion of the Mexican territory, and that even this was overrun by numerous bands of guerillas, whence he concludes that an expression of Mexican opinion at the time of the return of the deputation from Europe was impossible, stating as an additional reason the fact that hostilities had recently been resumed. Of the efficacy or sincerity of an election, which depends upon the accession of territory by the triumphant progress of an army, no opinion need be expressed.

But although a uniform and remarkable success had attended the French arms during the year, and the question of the establishment of the empire seemed practically settled, a series of events took place in the city of Mexice, in November and December, which indicated that the "regeneration" of the country would prove a less easy task than had been anticipated, even should intervention succeed in tranquillizing it. The clerical party, who had brought about intervention, hoped, with some show of reason, that when the French army should occupy the city of Mexico, the Imperial Government would annul the laws of reform issued by the Liberal Government in 1860, and hasten to restore to the clergy the property which had been taken from them, nationalized and sold. Among the largest purchasers of ecclesiastical property, however, were a number of French subjects, who would be seriously injured, if not ruined, by its restitution; and as the French Government had intervened partly in favor of the claims of this class of persons, it could not, without stultifying itself before the world, abrogate the reform laws of 1860, and still less permit the regency to do so. Whether Napoleon at length appreciated the true means of regenerating the country, and was preparing to throw off his alliance with the Church party, and, in imitation of Juarez and the liberals, to destroy its power by distributing its wealth; or whether he was unscrupulously working out a policy of his own, it is at present difficult to say. The fact only remains, that at the close

of the year, by the acts of their generals, the French found themselves committed to that policy of Juarez, which had induced the reactionists to seek intervention, and at the same time engaged in compassing the overthrow of the liberals.

On the 24th of October Gen. Bazaine caused notices to be published in the official papers of the city of Mexico, that the proceedings pending in the courts relative to the sale of ecclesiastical property, and involving the validity of titles therein, should take their due course, without regard to the events of the last few months; and on November 7th, certain judges having abstained from taking cognizance of these causes, he requested the Regency to expedite them by an official decree. At the request of the Archbishop of Mexico, one of the regents, who had opposed the publication of these notices, and who thought the subject was too important to be hastily decided, further time for consideration was granted; and on the afternoon of the 8th he laid before Bazaine various reasons, which, in his opinion, rendered it expedient to postpone a decision in the matter until the arrival of the Archduke Maximilian. Almonte, one of his colleagues, was present, and sustained his views on several important points. Bazaine appearing unconvinced by the representations of the archbishop, the latter promised to send him the next day his, views in writing at length, and took his departure. His surprise may be conceived, when, having just completed an elaborate communication to Gen. Bazaine, he received a notice from the under Secretary of State and of Justice (the latter being his own special department) that the Regency had issued a decree, in conformity with the request of Gen. Bazaine, to expedite the ecclesiastical property suits. This decree had been issued by two members of the Regency only, Almonte and Salas, without consulting him, and to add to his mortification, he subsequently ascertained that it had been signed and was in operation on November 8th, several hours before his interview with Bazaine. The latter, inflexibly determined to carry out his purpose, had detected from the outset the temporizing policy of the archbishop, and finding in the two other members of the Regency ready instruments, determined to dispense in this matter with the services of their coadjutor.

The archbishop, however, was not to be thus silenced. On the 10th he sent to Almonte and Salas, and to the president of the Supreme Tribunal, protests against the decree of November 8th, which he declared to be null and of no binding effect. On the 14th he declared that he would not again meet at the sessions of the Regency until the decree should be repealed, and on the 17th he was notified by his colleagues that, having arrayed himself in open opposition to the Regency, he thenceforth ceased to form part of it, General Bazaine concurring. this he replied, that, being a part of the Re

To

gency, he could not be in opposition to it; that he had not specifically declared his unwillingness to meet with his colleagues; and that the Assembly of Notables was alone competent to remove him from office. He also requested that his protest might be sent to General Bazaine.

Subsequently he received from the latter the following communication:

EXPEDITIONARY CORPS OF MEXICO, HEADQUARTERS
OF THE GENERAL-IN-CHIEF,

MEXICO, Nov. 20th, 1863. YOUR GRACE-I have received the protest which his Excellency General Almonte has caused to reach me, with reference to the measures which have been adopted by the Regency to remove your Grace from the Provisional Government. I must make known to your Grace that this measure was rendered necessary by the attitude of your Grace, and it was taken with my approbation, persuaded, as I ain, that this was the only means of avoiding the interruption of the march of

events.

questions, except in accord with the Holy Apostolic See," they observe:

All these acts manifest with the most weighty evidence that the Holy Catholic Church in Mexico suffers to-day, at the hands of the Government which actually exists in the capital, a compulsion in its most holy rights and in its canonical liberties entirely equal to that which it suffered when the authorities emanating from the plan of Ayutla* were in power, because such compulsion consists, not in the form of Government nor in the persons of those who compose it, but in the character and importance of its acts; and those of your Excellencies tend to expedite the consummation of the work which those authorities began, for you declare in full force the rights and actions which spring from the sacrilegious and illegal laws and from the acts committed against the immunity of the Church by said authorities, and even in the same language, for the same odious expression is now used which was then employed to designate the ecclesiastical property.

Your Grace will please receive the expression of my high and respectful consideration.

BAZAINE.

General Commanding-in-Chief.

To his Grace the ARCHBISHOP OF MEXICO.

In reply, the archbishop argued that his removal would delay rather than facilitate the "march of events," and denied the authority of the general in the premises. "This Government," he observed, "was terminated on the day of my removal. That which exists today may be whatever you wish, but it will not be the Government announced by General Forey to the Mexican people, to France, to the world," whence he concluded that the act of General Bazaine was null and void.

On December 15th, at the instigation of General Bazaine, a further order was issued by the Regency, removing all obstacles and legal impediments to the exercise of rights of action respecting church property, which were in existence at the time of the arrival of the French in the country. This seemed to indicate a policy on the vexed question of sequestration too plain to be misunderstood; but for the purpose of putting on record their opinions, and with some lingering hope, perhaps, that they might be able to avert the impending calamity, the Church party, represented by the archbishops of Mexico, Michoacan, and Guadalajara, and the bishops of San Luis Potosi and Oajaca, united, on December 26th, in a protest to the Regency, which, in some respects, is the most remarkable paper produced during the war.

After reciting the various illegal acts of the Regency, who, they allege, bound themselves under solemn obligations to the Church and the nation, "not to decide any ecclesiastical

Then the Government frankly manifested its principles. It appeared to the view of all this Catholic people in the character of an opposition armed with power against religion and the Church; and the latter, as a victim immolated by the Government, defended itself heroically, suffering the consequences of a terrible persecution and perishing nobly for the holy cause of justice. To-day a Government inaugurates itself with professions eminently religious and moral, after the French army has destroyed, in the capital, that of Juarez, and it presents itself before the Mexican people as the protector of its faith, of its religion, of the Church, and of the priesthood. Then we were ban ished; to-day we are invited and received with expressions of consideration; creating by this means among the people a feeling of confidence as regards their tenderest affections, their dearest interests. Then the prelates leaving our country carried with them the hope that the first political change which should take place would bring with it a complete moral and religious restoration. To-day, returning after such a change to be present at the immolation of all our principles, received a blow such as is only received at the death the consummation of the ruin of the Church, we have of all human hope. Then the Church had only one enemy-the Government that persecuted it. To-day it has two: that same Government which still lives in

the country, which still has resources of its own, an army that contends hand to hand for every foot of ground, and that counts upon the aid of its principles and interests in the enemy's camp; and in the capital an enemy whose first business it is to carry into effect the destructive plans of its opponent in religious and hand of an open enemy: to-day we are attacked by those moral affairs. Then we received the blow from the who call themselves friends of the Church and pro

tectors of its liberties. Then the attack and the defence

did not pass beyond strictly national bounds: to-day we have to lament the character which intervention has given to these attacks, and that from it have arisen the exigencies which have obliged your Excellencies to adopt your present course. Then we verified our episcopal acts simply as bishops; to-day we have to make our defence passive and legal, because we cannot ing the restrictions imposed by the laws of the press, pass that limit also as Mexicans. Then, notwithstandwe could publish our protests and our pastorals to the people, because there existed no other restraints than such as would result from the incon

veniences of a trial. To-day the press is bound in such a manner that it is open only to those who favor the intervention. The publication of a Pontifical allocution, of an edifying and moral retraction, and of any paragraph copied from abroad in which allusion is made to the authority of the Holy Father with respect to the ecclesiastical questions of this country, are the subjects of formal admonitions to the press, and of prohibitions to insert in the future this class of articles, at the same time that anti-ecclesiastical, and sometimes even scandalous doctrines pass unnoticed. It is for these reasons that, speaking of the situation in which circumstances have now placed us, we consider it worse than before.

Then follow several passages of denunciation against the "sacrilegious laws of spoliation which the Regency are attempting to reenforce, and which, notwithstanding their "illegal, ruinous, unpopular, and sacrilegious character,' they complain, are " pompously called laws of reform." Alluding to the surprise and confusion which the course of the Regency has caused them, and to the absence of any justifiable motive, founded on public convenience, for adopting such a course at this time, they add:

That Senor Juarez with his party should enact such laws, and should work unceasingly to carry them into effect, this we can well conceive, as well as the energetic opposition of the prelates and the conscientious resistance of all true Catholics; but that a Government under the protection of France (not as a conqueror, not as attempting to overthrow our independence, but as respecting it and offering to save it, and instructing its commander-in-chief not to interfere with the freedom of its acts), which has just been established as the Government of a nation in virtue of the vote of a Council of Notables, and in opposition to the Government of Senor Juarez, that such a Government should work for the laws which this latter has dictated, these being, as they are, the essential and sole cause of the division among the Mexicans and of the civil war, this we cannot understand. *

*

*

We well know that to present such proceedings in a favorable light a thousand plausible excuses are invented, principally to win over by surprise the Court of France, which lacks the data indispensable to judge of the state of society here. But the truth will not be long in appearing in its true light, and to the scandal of the world it will be known that the immense majority of the Mexicans are essentially Catholic, that they respect the laws of God and of their Church, that they bewail the attacks received from the Government of Ayutla, and that if they manifested themselves in favor of the intervention, it was because it presented itself as their protector, not against the persons-for that would be but a childish jest-but against the acts of the Government of Senor Juarez. But the attitude that the intervention to-day takes by such dispositions has transformed its triumphs to victories over the party oppressed, for it gives force and vigor to the claims and rights emanating from such acts.

The bishops then examine the conduct of Gen. Bazaine and the Regency by the light of the instructions given to the former by M. Drouyn de l'Huys in August, and find that these instructions have been obeyed neither in letter nor in spirit. The motive for this disobedience they allege to be a trivial one:

And what has been the cause. What powerful motive has precipitated this crisis? Perhaps the supreme interests of society? Perhaps an extreme necessity, a sudden emergency, a tempest which could not be assuaged by any other means? No! it was the most VOL. III.-41 A

trifling cause, the most insignificant in regard to the effect.

The complaint of a French subject, and the request of the General-in-Chief made to your Excellencies by virtue of this complaint. This is the cause of all; this is what Mexico has to hope from the impartiality that was promised, and from the non-interference of that chief in order to leave the Government free in its acts; this is the melancholy synopsis of the situation in which the Mexican Church to-day finds itself.

They therefore hope that all the proceedings instituted by the Regency may be suspended; but if this hope should prove fallacious, they desire to utter their solemn protest against every act affecting injuriously the property of the Church, declaring all such acts utterly null and void; and conclude with the following

declarations:

First-That it is not lawful to obey the communications of the 24th October, the circulars of the 8th of November and the 15th instant, nor any orders tending to aid the execution of the said decrees of Senor Jua

rez, nor to cooperate therewith.

Second-That neither that Government nor any Government, whatever it may be, has any authority to take possession of the property of the Church; that, therefore, both the decrees of that Government and the notices and circulars issued by order of your Excellen cies, involve an illegal and tyrannical disposition of the most sacred property, and are subject to the censures of the holy Church, and especially to the excommunication fulminated by the Holy Council of Trent, in chapter 11 of session 22 de reformatione. In conse quence there are comprehended in this canonical penalty not only the authors and executors of the decrees, notices and circulars aforesaid, but also all those who in any way cooperate or have cooperated toward their fulfilment.

Third-That the political change which has taken place in Mexico in consequence of intervention has not altered or lessened in any respect the obligations and moral and canonical responsibilities to which those of whom we have just spoken are subject, and that therefore all of our protests, circulars and diocesan orders, issued by reason of the so-called constitution and laws of reform, remain in all their force and vigor, and are applicable to the notices and circulars of your Excellencies already mentioned, and to whatever other dispositions of your Excellencies that tend to place in execution the laws, decrees and acts to which our canonical protests, said manifestation, circular and diocesan orders refer.

Those incurring the censure of the said canon, in virtue either of the law of the 25th of July, 1856, of the decrees published in Vera Cruz by Senor Juarez in July, 1859, or afterward in Mexico, of the communications and circulars issued by order of your Excellencies, or of the disposition or orders of whatever authority or person, public or private-that is to say, the authors, executors or cooperators in the despoliation of the Church in its property, lands, rents, possessions, claims, rights, temples, objects contained therein destined to public worship, &c., are strictly obliged to make restitution and reparation for the scandalous crime; and they cannot be absolved, not even at the point of death, if they do not comply with the conditions established by the Church and set forth in our circulars and diocesan decrees aforesaid.

So frank an acknowledgment that the sequestration policy of Juarez was "the essential and sole cause" of the present complications, and that there has never been any question at issue in Mexico but that of the Church property, was unexpected by the liberals, and seemed to justify the charges so freely made against the Church party. The protest, however, except

as a confession extorted from incensed and disappointed men, attracted little notice, the arguments contained in it having been often stated before; and the Regency pursued with unruffled complacency the course marked out for them by Gen. Bazaine. The judges of the Supreme Tribunal, who were all members of the Church party, having, in defiance of the decree of December 15th, refused to expedite the ecclesiastical property cases, were promptly removed from office by the Regency, who announced in a manifesto to the Mexican people that their "line of conduct was traced beforehand by gratitude to the intervention, and by the interests of the country, which it was necessary not to separate from the French policy." The following correspondence between Gen. Neigre, whom Bazaine had left in command of the city, and the Archbishop of Mexico, though occurring after the close of the year, is appended as forming an important and indispensable part of the proceedings above related:

MEXICO, Jan. 16th, 1864.

Your Grace: There has just been brought to my knowledge a matter of very grave import. Certain incendiary publications, which have been put under the doors of various houses and scattered clandestinely among the public have reached my hands.

The authors of these culpable publications magnify petty material interests which our holy religion repudiates, and appeal to the most detestable passions against the army of his Majesty the Emperor, which has come to rescue Mexico from anarchy, and to afford protection to the pastors of souls, in order to allow them the greatest liberty in their holy ministry. They forget that those prelates of whom they pretend to be the organ, and whom they make to appear as humiliated and despised, have never been surrounded with more respect and veneration.

I desire to believe, your Grace, that you are ignorant of these criminal proceedings. I therefore have to denounce them to you, and to address to you an entreaty in the interest of public order and tranquillity; since, in the name of the Catholic religion, of which we Frenchmen are the eldest sons, and in the name of the prelates whom we cover with our respect, a degraded party is in movement to disturb the national repose. Tell that party, your Grace, that we are watching it, and know its machinations; that the French army, in accord with the lawful Government of the country, will maintain tranquillity; tell it that, although we are always reluctant to employ violent measures of repression, we shall know how, if circumstances put us under that painful obligation, to make them return again to the obscurity from which they are daring to put forth diatribes which prove them to be the real

enemies of Mexico.

Be pleased to tell them this, your Grace, and if they stop at your evangelical words, your Grace will have done a great service to humanity, and, failing their gratitude, you will have ours.

BARON NEIGRE, General in Command. To his Grace the ARCHBISHOP OF MEXICO.

REPLY OF THE ARCHBISHOP TO GEN. NEIGRE.

Your Excellency: In reply to the communication of your Excellency of the 16th instant, I have the honor to assure you, with respect to incendiary writings distributed through the city, that I have not had, nor even now have, any knowledge of them up to the present time. It would, therefore, have been necessary that I should have read them to be able to answer you, and I would thank you sincerely if you would have the kindness to send me a copy of them.

Here I would finish my letter if you did not make in yours certain assertions that, independently of the

writings referred to, you throw upon the Mexican clergy. It is, therefore, indispensable to rectify these assertions in case they are not exact. There is an acknowledged fact-one publicly notorious-which is, that we have all protested against the two individuals who assume to be a government, and against the circulars of the 9th of November and 15th of December last, and we declare categorically that the Church, in its immunities and rights, is at present the object of the same attacks that it had to suffer during the government of Juarez; that never was the Church so bitterly persecuted; and that we, the chief prelate, from the position in which we have been placed, find ourselves in a worse situation than at that period. Your Excellency tells me that in the exercise of their sacred ministry the pastors of souls enjoy the greatest protection and the most complete liberty, and that they have never been held in greater respect and veneration. Your Excellency, then, will perceive that the two documents quoted (our manifesto and your letter) represent, with respect to the position of the Church, two propositions entirely contradictory, and that of the two propositions one is necessarily true and the other consequently false.

In conformity with this statement of facts, and the deductions of logic, it results that we, a Mexican prelate, find ourselves, according to your assertion, in the alternative of denying those writings or of retracting our words.

We cannot retract, because we have spoken the truth, protested justly, and acted rightfully, and we feel in our conscience that we have been placed in the painful necessity of acting thus.

From what your Excellency tells me, I infer that you are ill informed with regard to the situation of the Mexican Church, and I am convinced that had you known the facts, the interests involved and the motives which have determined our conduct, you would have done us justice in the opinion which you would have formed of that conduct.

I have the honor to enclose to your Excellency a copy of my protest.

Your Excellency will be pleased to accept the expression of my consideration.

PELAGIO ANTONIO, Archbishop of Mexico. To his Excellency BARON NEIGRE,

General in Command.

The position of the United States during the year, in relation to the Mexican question, was a peculiar one. On the one hand, the Government was supposed, in accordance with the popular interpretation of the so-called "Monroe doctrine," to be pledged to oppose any interference by foreign Powers with the political affairs of the American continent; while, on the other, the exigencies of the existing civil war monopolized her military resources to an extent which would render protest or opposition to the schemes of France of little effect. The popular sympathy lent itself to the cause of the Mexican liberals, and, notwithstanding the hands of the Government were in a measure tied, there were not wanting many persons, friends as well as opponents of the administration, who thought that the traditional policy of the country should not be abandoned, and who believed that a protest, even though accompanied by no military demonstration, would have prevented the establishment of an empire in Mexico. This led to a discussion in the public prints respecting the history and object of the promulgation of the Monroe doctrine, with a view of ascertaining exactly what the Government pledged itself to do in