aught as truth upon mere assertion, however positively and hardily made.

The book of Don Onis is divided into chapters, but the natural division of his work is made in the title; and we will examine it as consisting only of two parts-first, the negotiation which led to the treaty of February 22, 1819.

In the midst of the war with France, in June 1809, M. Onis was appointed by the supreme central junta, minister to the United States. He arrived, after a dangerous voyage of 45 days, and hastened to Washington to present his credentials. He was not received as minister. The reasons assigned for it, are stated explicitly by himself. "It was promptly announced to me, that the American government, although it applauded the exertions of the Spaniards in their glorious struggle, and wished to be upon terms of perfect harmony and friendship with them, could not receive or acknowledge any minister from the provisional government of Spain, as the crown was in dispute, and the nation divided into two parties; and that, until the decision of the struggle, the United States would remain neutral, or as simple spectators, without taking any part in favour either of one or the other. The cabinet of Washington remained firm in the plan it had proposed, and would neither acknowledge nor treat with me officially, until it saw the prospects, that had flattered its hopes, completely dissipated by the fall and extermination of Napoleon, and the restoration of Ferdinand VII. to the throne of his august predecessors." This refusal is the foundation for two insinuations against the American government: 1st. That it did not pursue a conduct uniting with its true interests the principles of justice, humanity, and honour; and, 2dly, That it had prospects which flattered its hopes in the success of Napoleon. With what colour of reason, is easily seen. The facts upon which the determination of the American President was taken, were notorious. The crown of Spain was in dispute the nation was divided into two parties; the resolution that the United States should remain neutral spectators of the contest, was the result of prudent precaution and political foresight; their wishes were freely expressed, applauding the glorious struggle of the Spanish nation, and they treated Don Onis with the most attentive and decorous consideration. Must it not occur forcibly to every Spaniard, that this was the only course the United States could consistently pursue? What interest had they in the dispute concerning the crown of Spain? Of what import was it to them, who was kingor whether there was, or was not, a king of Spain? They had feelings and wishes, and these were enlisted in favour of a nation asserting the right to retain its ancient monarch; in favour of a people, claiming the inherent right of every people, that of choosing their own government and their own governors. Beyond this, no Spaniard could expect the American government to go, the more especially, when the contest, on the part of the people of Spain, was considered desperate, as a glorious effort which could only bring ruin

upon their heads. The rank injustice of the insinuations of Don Onis, will appear more strikingly, by comparing the conduct of the United States with that of other nations. What nation, besides England, showed the same kindness and sympathy towards the struggling Spaniards? England, at war with France, seized the dispute for the crown of Spain, as the means of weakening or distressing her enemy. But how was it with the rest of Europe? What power failed to send a representative to Joseph Bonaparte, or refused to receive one from him? Yet how gently Don Onis touches this subject :-" La Europa "entera veía con asombro su empresa y sus esfuerzos; pero gemía "toda, á excepcion de la Inglaterra, bajo el despotismo altanera de 66 Napoleon ó sometido á su influjo dominador :"* No reflections upon the disregard of the principles of honour, humanity, and justice, exhibited by the powers of Europe; no insinuations to their injury, for such conduct, proceeding from apathy or apprehension. Why is this difference? Can the distance of the United States from Spain and France, make their neutrality criminal, while the decided course of nearer and more powerful nations, is excusable in the eyes of M. Onis. One is tempted to believe, that this harsh judgment is pronounced, in consequence of his personal resentment for not being immediately permitted, on his arrival, to perform the part of a minister plenipotentiary. Although separated by an immense ocean, and not immediately connected with the European politics, the interests of the new, must always be affected by the changes in the old world. All that the government of the United States has endeavoured to effect, has been, not to mix itself in the vicissitudes and transactions of Europe; and this was the motive for its refusal to exchange representatives with either of the parties claiming the Spanish crown. What its wishes were, is to be inferred from its language to M. Onis, in terms not equivocal, and the conduct of its representative remaining in Spain. The Chargé d'Affaires of the United States, followed the provisional government, and remained with it until hope itself of the success of the struggle against Joseph Bonaparte, was almost extinguished. His house was broken open in Madrid; the public and his private property were plundered, in consequence of this step, by the French and the friends of France; and persons attached to the American consulate and legation, were imprisoned and insulted by the same authority. It is easily foretold what would have been the consequence of the acknowledgment of Don Onis by the United States, and an arrangement with him concerning limits, and for the payment of well known claims and injuries, had Joseph unhappily succeeded in retaining the throne of Spain. Such an arrangement would not only have been nugatory, but have produced additional difficulties in the settlement of their differences with Spain. Even as the affairs of the Peninsula have terminated, what proofs are there that

*Entire Europe saw, with amazement, her enterprise and her exertions; but groaned, with the exception of England, under the arrogant despotism of Napoleon, or submitted to his ruling influence.'

an arrangement made with M. Onis would have been more sacred than the constitution of 1812. It might, and probably would, have shared a similar fate.

But "when Napoleon was deposed and exterminated, and when "Ferdinand VII. was already restored to the throne of his august 66 predecessors, the cabinet of Washington saw entirely dissipated the prospects that had flattered their hopes," &c. Without stopping to criticise the term exterminado, as applied to a living man, it may be permitted to inquire, what is meant by "dissipated prospects that flattered hopes." If a meaning is to be conjectured, it may be supposed that the author believes the United States had hopes that could only be realized by the success of the plans of Napoleon, and by depriving Ferdinand VII. for ever of the crown of Spain. What were these hopes? The plans of Napoleon were the subjection of all the Spanish dominions, over which he had for years exercised an unlimited sway, to his immediate authority. Is there any man so senseless as to suppose the American government had hope of advantage from the success of this project? That it was gratified with the prospect of having a restless military despotism in its neighbourhood, in place of the torpid tyranny which previously bordered its territory. No one can be so senseless. The return of Ferdinand VII. was the annihilation of this plan, and therefore in so far gratifying, as it was for the interest of the American government. But another solution may be given to this enigmatical sentence. The success of Joseph would have been followed, by the separation of the Spanish American dominions from the crown, and therefore the Americans were interested in the success of Joseph. In case of the success of Joseph Bonaparte, at that time too probable, what fate could Mr. O. have wished for the transatlantic provinces (Ultramar) better than the realization of this idea? The simple wish of the United States was the success of the friends of Ferdinand against France; if France succeeded, the separation of the provinces from the Peninsula.

But this wish never tempted the government to any act calculated to produce its accomplishment. Schemes were formed, plans attempted to be executed by persons who passed from the United States, sometimes by citizens, but in every case contrary to the policy of the government. The persons concerned were prosecuted, in some cases punished, in almost every instance injured in fortune and credit, for engaging in these attempts. That none of them were patronized or tolerated by the American government, there is a conclusive proofno part even of Texas has been wrested from the Spanish power. Had the wishes and policy, so gratuitously given by Mr. Onis to the American government, directed its measures, not a foot of ground would now be possessed by Spain in North America. The attempts against Mexico never had a favourable issue, because the approbation, or connivance, of the American government was wanting. But how is it that Mr. O. reserves all his censure for the American government, without bestowing a portion of it upon other nations? For each Ameri

can citizen, who has entered into the Spanish territory, for the purpose of assisting the revolters, there have been more than one hundred Englishmen. How is it that this is not visited upon England as a crime? How is it that Mr. O. can censure none but the Americans, and draw unfavourable conclusions against no other power? That the wishes of the people and of the government of the United States (for those of the government and the people are the same) have been in favour of the revolters in all Spanish America, is certainly true; and it can be no longer a crime in the eyes of Spaniards. The contest between the revolutionists and the royal armies, like that between the army of the Isla de Leon and of General Freyre, was a contest between liberal, and despotic principles; for an oppressed people, against an oppressive government. The system of policy pursued towards America was unjust to its inhabitants, and fatal to their happiness and prosperity. This is no longer disguised in Spain. With a magnanimity, more glorious to him than his crown, the king has acknowledged it; his voice has proclaimed it; and the cortes of the nation have echoed it to the world. The tranquillity and the glory of Spain are now founded upon a thorough change of the former odious system. Spanish America is no longer a dependant and slave of the Peninsula, but an integral part of the Spanish empire, with equal rights, privileges, and powers, with its European relation. Those who hail the revolution of March as the dawn of glory to Spain, must justify the wishes and sentiments of the people and government of the United States in favour of the revolutionists of South America. But when Mr. O. charges the American government with any attempts to gratify these wishes, he sins against the light of his own knowledge. What are the proofs?" Expeditions have gone from the United States against the Spanish dominions. Vessels have been fitted out against the Spanish flag in the port of Baltimore, under commissions from South American governments, and many of the persons concerned in these acts have escaped punishment." These are his proofs. They give colour to the charge, only because the author conceals facts within his personal knowledge. The expeditions were secretly prepared; insufficient in their means to accomplish the objects intended; altogether unsuccessful; and the persons engaged, were prosecuted by the American government. Mr. O. knows that these prosecutions were numerous- -Mr. O. knows that the American congress altered their statutes, for the avowed purpose of effectually preventing these offences -Mr. Ó. knows that the first law officer of the American government was sent to assist in the prosecution of such offences-Mr. O. knows that persons accused, have been convicted and put to death, for being guilty of offences against the laws. Why were these facts concealed? let the friends of Mr. Onis, if they can, answer the question, without leaving him exposed to the charge of intending to betray the Spanish nation into prejudices against a free government.

If the government of the United States cherished the designs imputed to it, the expedition against Spanish America would have been

amply provided: ships of war would have been fitted out in all the ports of the United States, and would not have been prepared in Baltimore only no prosecutions would have been commenced against the parties concerned, at least no one would have been punished."But some guilty persons escaped punishment:" be it so. Those only who are grossly ignorant of the criminal law of the United States, will feel surprise at this circumstance. Their criminal law is based upon two broad axioms-" Every man is innocent until his guilt be proved by competent evidence;" and, " It is better that ten guilty persons should escape punishment, than that one who is innocent should suffer." The provisions of all criminal law should be regulated by these maxims: Guards and fences should be erected to protect innocence, rather than to insure the punishment of guilt. That guilt may thus escape, is certainly true; but this arises from the necessary imperfection of human institutions; a thing to be regretted, but to be suffered, as an infinitely smaller evil, than the possible suffering of innocence. The proofs produced against the individuals, have been insufficient; or it may be, that the prejudice of the juries has operated to produce their acquittal; in either case, the government is not accountable. But, how base and detestable this plan is, of making the government chargeable with the acts of particular persons, a few examples of this mode of logical deduction will show. There have been some Spaniards engaged in promoting the revolution of Portugal-therefore, the Spanish government fomented that revolution. The army of the king, at Cadiz, in March last, committed the most horrible atrocities upon the people; therefore, the king is guilty of plundering Cadiz, and assassinating its inhabitants. Who is not shocked at the folly of the first, and the senseless barbarity of the second deduction? Yet, these are similar to the deductions of M. Onis, to the injury of the American government and people.

The Americans, however, under peculiar circumstances, took possession of Mobile, and held it; and also Pensacola and St. Marks. To the first they claimed a right, and only seized, under circumstances which justified it, their own property. Mr. Onis is obliged to admit the claim, but wishes it to be believed that the justifying circumstances were produced by the artifices of the American government, to give merely a pretext for taking possession: a ridiculous supposition, unworthy of serious refutation. Pensacola was twice occupied by the American troops; first, because during the war between England and the United States the English troops had possession of it, and Gen. Jackson thought it prudent and necessary to dislodge them; the second time, because it was a refuge for Indians hostile to his country. It is not important to examine the peculiar character of these two events, both perfectly justifiable, and justified by the American government, according to the principles of justice and the laws of nations. They were seized and restored: the latter fact is not brought into view by Mr. Onis; a great parade is made of the seizure, but not one syllable, respecting the voluntary and unexpected restoration. VOL. I.

1