Foreign Affairs, on the part of Great Britain, and M. de Turgot on the part of France, proposed to the Government of the United States, that they should "declare, severally and collectively, that they will not obtain, or maintain for themselves, or for any one of themselves, any exclusive control over the said island of Cuba, nor assume nor exercise any dominion over the same."

Such a convention would manifestly give every security to the United States, that Cuba would never fall into the hands of either of the only two powers ever likely to be "rivals with the United States for the possession of it."

But Mr. Everett, on the part of his Government, refused to enter into any such convention, on two grounds.

The first, by asserting "that Cuba is to the United States what an island at the mouth of the Thames or the Seine would be to England or France," seems to imply, in the words of Lord John Russell's despatch, "that Great Britain and France have no interest in the maintenance of the present status quo in

Cuba, and that the United States have alone a right to a voice in that matter."

Το any such implied argument there could be but one answer, which was given by Lord John Russell in language which it is impossible to mistake.

"Her Majesty's Government at once refuse to admit such a claim. Her Majesty's possessions in the West Indies alone, without insisting on the importance to Mexico and other friendly States, of the present distribution of power, give Her Majesty an interest in this question which she cannot forego. The possessions of France in the American seas give a similar interest to France, which no doubt will be put forward by her Government."

Mr. Everett's second ground for refusing to enter into the proposed convention was that above adverted to-namely, that by so doing, the Government of the United States would only strengthen the hands of the persons engaged in those violations of international law; that," instead of putting a stop to those lawless proceedings, this would give a new and powerful impulse to them."

Upon this, Lord John Russell very truly

remarks, that this is "a melancholy avowal for the chief of a great State."

The force of public opinion, which had compelled "the absorption or annexation of Louisiana in 1803, of Florida in 1819, of Texas in 1845, and of California in 1848," according to the enumeration of Mr. Everett, is now being brought to bear upon the acquisition of Cuba, by a powerful party in the United States, whose cry is, that it is the "manifest destiny" of their Government “to absorb the whole of that continent and the islands."

The weakness of the Executive in the United States has rendered nugatory the attempts of the Government to prevent those lawless attacks upon Cuba, which it disavows and stigmatises.

The Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Everett, while refusing on the part of his Government to take a step which would entirely deprive those lawless attempts of the principal argument on which they rely for their justification, assigns reasons for his refusal which

give direct support to the idea, that the annexation of Cuba is to be looked upon as only a portion of the progressive increase of the possessions of the United States, without reference to the rights and interests of other powers; and that any act done by the Government of the United States with the view of repressing the march of lawless aggression towards that object, would only accelerate it, and diminish in proportion the authority and means of the Government itself, in support of the law of nations, and the principles of justice and good neighbourhood.

If that be so, even the recommendation of Mr. Justice Story, that, in order to put a more effectual check upon the power of declaring war, the concurrence of two-thirds (instead of, as at present, a majority) of both Houses of Congress should be rendered necessary, would have but a slight chance of interposing an effectual barrier against views and expectations that make such little account of the rights of others. There can be but one effectual obstacle to such pretensions—namely,

K

the knowledge of the fact, that the powers interested in maintaining those rights have both the strength and the will to cause them to be respected; and that lawless aggression, however disguised, and however supported, will be met at once by a force capable of maintaining "the eternal laws of right and wrong,” and inflicting punishment on those who violate them.*

* Mr. Everett has, since he quitted office, taken the somewhat remarkable course of addressing to Lord John Russell, and publishing in the American papers, a letter in answer to Lord John Russell's despatch, addressed to him as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the United States.

a

Upon this private letter, thus made public property, public comment is justifiable.

Mr. Everett states that his reference to the absorption or annexation of Louisiana, Florida, Texas, and California “. was intended as an illustration of the proposition that the entire history of the United States shows it to be chimerical to attempt, in reference to specific measures, to bind up for all future time the discretion of a Government established in a part of the world of which so much is still lying in a state of nature."

It may be asked, "Is Cuba in a state of nature?" and can an argument of this kind, equivocal with regard to the other

a See also the Daily News of October 8, 1853, in which Mr. Everett's letter, occupying above two columns, is given entire.