Nor could there be any concession on the part of such earnest and determined men as the patriots who had shed their blood and risked their lives in the struggle for American independence. That having been won finally and definitely accomplished, and the democracy of America firmly rooted in the soil, there could be no submission of the national will,-the will of the people themselves.

Their experience as well as their judgment derived from the movements of other nations and from what was then going on in the world, led them to the conviction that monarchical principles would always be a menace to democratic ideas and institutions, that the increasing power of the one must certainly lead to the restraint, if not the actual downfall, of the other.

It was evident, however, that no immediately threatening danger was to be anticipated from the old and long established monarchical countries of Europe, from which they were so widely separated by the Atlantic lying between. But the national mind was exceedingly sensitive lest some of the European governments should undertake to extend their influences to this side of the ocean. The young and vigorous nation, conscious of its growing strength, determined that this must not be. It declared to the world that no extension of influence to this continent by any European government, and no acquisition of territory, either in North or South America, could be tolerated by the United States. This was the Monroe Doctrine.

It was the worthy part of a free and enlightened nation, General Washington said, to give mankind the example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Though he earnestly besought them to beware of the dangers that surrounded his fellowcountrymen; declaring that a free people ought constantly to be awake, since experience as well as history have proved that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. What Washington said to them by way of advice in taking leave of the country in his Farewell Address is an evidence of the unerring judgment with which he and his colleagues weighed and considered the political questions of their day; throwing into the balance the elements of human character the world over, and the weight of those qualities of men which never change. His voice as it comes to us

through that Address is almost prophetic in solemn admonition as to dangers to the country that beset it even now.

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations," said he, "is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled in perfect good faith. Here let us stop."

"Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."

Apprehension began to be felt at Washington soon after the opening of the new century in regard to the situation of the Island of Cuba, which, it was understood through late reports from Europe, had become the object of aggressive intentions upon the part of Great Britain, either with the object of taking possession of it herself for her own advantage, or in order to prevent it from falling into the hands of the French who were also believed to have cast a jealous eye in that direction. It was even asserted that the British Government had been for a long time in secret negotiation with Spain for the cession of the island, and that both France and Great Britain had political agents there observing the course of events and endeavoring to shape their direction.1

But the events which caused serious alarm to the statesmen of this country arose a little later out of the political troubles between. Spain and her colonies, in the course of a revolutionary movement spreading itself rapidly throughout Central and South America upon which followed the separation from the mother country, in quick succession, of Mexico, Venezuela, Peru, Chile and the Republic of Buenos Aires, a revolt at the same time against the sovereignty of

1 Mr. Adams, Secretary of State, to Mr. Forsyth, Minister to Spain, 17 December, 1822.

the Spanish King and a refusal by the people of these American countries to submit, then or in the future, to European control.

A great disturbance was caused in consequence also upon the continent of Europe by the breaking away of so large a number of Spanish subjects from their natural allegiance to their sovereign; which, to many conservative minds appeared to be not only a flagrant. disregard of right, but a total destruction of order and of law. The refusal to obey was looked upon, of course, as an act of rebellion that should not be tolerated; for if persisted in and allowed to strengthen the avowed purpose of maintaining their independence and of governing themselves, the example of these Spanish colonies would threaten the existence of monarchy itself, and cause also the very serious loss that must naturally follow the abolishment of the regulation and control then enjoyed by the central government over the commerce and trade of the colonies.

It was found upon inquiry through diplomatic channels that there was a conviction amongst the political leaders on the Continent, that steps should be taken immediately for mutual protection. The Emperors of Austria and Russia and the King of Prussia sent their delegates accordingly to a convention at Paris, in the year 1815, at which a treaty was concluded between these sovereigns, which was adhered to subsequently by the King of France, the object of which was declared to be the administration of government, in both foreign. and domestic affairs, according to the precepts of justice, charity and peace. They declared that they looked upon themselves as delegated by Providence to rule over their respective peoples, and they agreed to lend one another, on every occasion and in every place, assistance, aid and support. This league is what has become famous in the history of the nineteenth century as the Holy Alliance. Its purpose became, shortly after its establishment, the maintenance of the principle of legitimacy, the divine right of kings as opposed to the rights of the people against the growing ideas of political independence and the extension of liberal thought.

Taking into consideration the resources of wealth and power that this league controlled and disposed of amongst the enlightened nations of Europe at that time, it was unquestionably the most formid

able attempt made in modern days by united action to stem the tide of advancing political development. But it sought to bolster up foundations that were no longer secure, to invigorate a system already weakened by repeated assaults, and to refresh ancient institutions from which their vitality was fast slipping away. It does not concern us now to inquire what likelihood there was that this object could have been attained, even momentarily, if the plan had been fully carried out, or whether the colonists of Spain could then have been held for a considerable time even if the allied monarchs had succeeded for the moment in reducing them to their former subjection.

An immense impulse had been given to independent thought throughout Europe by the establishment of liberty in the United States, and its effect was beginning to show itself in the national feeling both in Great Britain and on the Continent. Besides this, the public mind of England had long been opening the way for that brilliant advance which characterized the Victorian era; whilst in France the influence of Voltaire and Rousseau, Montesquieu and d'Alembert had extended itself for a generation amongst intellectual people and been at work breaking down the barriers of old restraints and ancient prejudices. Inevitably, the world would have advanced over every obstacle and followed its course, in the long run, no matter what had been done at that time to hinder or delay it.

At all events, the Holy Alliance declared formally that they had "an undoubted right to take a hostile attitude toward those states in which the overthrow of the government might serve as an example to others; that revolt is crime, and that any pretended reform effected by revolt and open force was null and void and forbidden by the public laws of Europe.'

They issued a proclamation also in which they announced their determination to suppress the spirit of rebellion wherever it might show itself, and declared by treaty amongst themselves that they would put an end to representative government and destroy the liberty of the press. Although this procedure was not primarily intended to affect the people of North America in their domestic affairs, nor did our interests become involved in it until later, and then indirectly through the quarrels of Spain, yet, so open and general

a declaration of war upon the claims of liberty and free government was in principle a direct challenge to the United States. It made in the end a lasting impression upon the sentiment of this country which has long outlived the political causes that gave rise to it; and in fixing forever their national determination to resist the encroachments of autocratic government upon this side of the ocean, it did more to strengthen the national feeling of the American people than any incident in public life up to the time of the Civil War.

In the meantime, however, a step was made in the direction of the enforcement of the purposes of the allies, who had now become known as "The League of Peace," by the Government of France which sent a military expedition into Spain, in the early part of the year 1823, to restore the absolute Spanish King, Ferdinand VII, to his throne, from which he had been displaced by an insurrectionary outbreak in that country; and the French had been so successful in their undertaking during the course of that summer that they gave notice officially to the British Government that as soon as they had completed the campaign which they then had in hand, they intended to consider the subject of putting an end to the revolutionary movements in South America and of restoring the revolted colonies to Spain.

Great Britain had not joined with the Continental governments in the formation of the Holy Alliance and the League of Peace, because, in the first place, her own established monarchy was founded upon a revolution, and the sentiment of her people would certainly not approve of the attitude which the British Cabinet must necessarily assume if it united with the Continental ministries in maintaining that revolt is crime; and, in the second place, British commercial interests were seriously involved, because, since the rupture of Spanish control through the independence of the colonies, British trade had very greatly increased with South America, as had also the trade and commerce of the United States. This new and flourishing trade relation Great Britain was naturally desirous to retain. She had not recognized the South Americans as the United States had done, and her position was this: that she did not wish to see the colonies returned to their former allegiance to Spain, for in that case British