"Consuls are, indeed, received by the government of the United States from acknowledged sovereign powers, with whom they have no treaty. But the exequatur for a consul general can obviously not be granted without recognising the authority from whom his appointment proceeds as sovereign. The consul,' says Vattel (book ii. chap. 2. § 34) is not a public minister; but as he is charged with a commission from his sovereign, and received in that quality by him, where he resides, he should, to a certain extent, enjoy the protection of the law of nations.'

"If from this state of things, the inhabitants of Buenos Ayres cannot enjoy the advantage of being officially represented before the courts of the United States by a consul, while the subjects of Spain are entitled to that privilege, it is an inequality, resulting from the nature of the contest, in which they are engaged, and not from any denial of their rights, as parties to a civil war. The recognition of them as such, and the consequent admission of their vessels into the ports of the United States operates with an inequality against the other party to that contest and in their favour."

An application, made the same year from Venezuela, was speedily disposed of. We shall present a relation of this transaction in the words of the parties:

"Most Excellent Sir,-Having been appointed by the government of the republic of Venezuela its representative near the United States of North America, I have the honor to inform you of my arrival in this city, for the purpose of discharging the trust committed to me: To effect this I have to request, that you will be pleased to inform me, at what time it will be convenient for you to afford me an opportunity of presenting my respects to you personally, and of communicating to you the object of my arrival in the federal city. I have, &c.

"LINO DE CLEMENTE. "Washington, 11th December, 8th year of the Republic, A. D. 1818. "The Secretary of State of the U. S. North America."

Reply of the Secretary of State.

Sir, Your note of the 11th inst. has been laid before the President of the United States, by whose directions I have to inform you, that your name having been avowedly affixed to a paper, drawn up within the United States, purporting to be a commission to a foreign officer for undertaking and executing an expedition, in violation of the laws of the United States, and, also, to another paper avowing that act, and otherwise insulting to this government, which papers have been transmitted to Congress by the message of the President of the 25th of March last, I am not authorised to confer with you, and that no further communication will be received from you at this department.

"I am, sir, with due consideration, &c."

Without travelling through a historical detail of events, it will be sufficient to observe, that in Chili as in Buenos Ayres, the moving causes of the revolution were not the oppressions of the Spanish Monarchy. The people of Chili were not first awakened by persecutions and sufferings to a sense of their power and their rights, they had always been quiet for more than two centuries and a half. The united vigilance and cares of church and state had tamed every restless spirit and checked every wayward thought. The rulers and the pastors of the

people had diligently removed every hope of liberty, and passive obedience had become a habit. When the wars, arising out of the French revolution, involving and disturbing all the nations of Europe, overwhelmed the peninsula of Spain, drove the ancient dynasty from the throne, produced a struggle for the sceptre and broke loose at once those carious bonds of mere prejudice and superstition, which held the various parts of that great monarchy together, such was the state of the mother country, that it was manifest the colonies could no longer be governed as as formerly. Each one consequently began calmly to think of self-government, not as a matter, to which he had been excited and persecuted, nor in a spirit of rebellion, but as a deplorable act of necessity in obedience to a melancholy fatality, which had rent asunder the several parts of a great empire, that had been, until then so quietly and happily united.

Not satisfied with the representations of the colonial agents, but convinced, that some progress towards independence had been made, and desirous to secure for this country their full and just share of any commercial advantages, that might be offered, the government determined in 1817, to despatch three special commissions to South America for the single purpose of obtaining some just and precise notions of the real situation of affairs there. Messrs. Theodoric Bland, Cæsar A. Rodney and George Graham were selected and sailed in a frigate in December 1817, for the River La Plata, with instructions to examine into the condition of Buenos Ayres and Chili. The latter business was undertaken by the first named individual. Nothing, we believe, contained in the reports, transmitted by these gentlemen, inspired regret at the delay of the government in the recognition of the new States.

Not discouraged by the unsatisfactory result of the first commission, the government appointed, in the summer of 1820, Messrs T. B. Prevost and John M. Forbes, agents for commerce and seamen for Chili and Buenos Ayres. The reader will observe, that these individuals were not furnished with powers or instructions in any sense called diplomatic, though directed to make representations (as will be seen in the paragraph we are about to recite from a letter from the department of state) on subjects of obvious interests to this country:

"The commercial intercourse between the United States and those countries, though not very considerable, is deserving of particular attention. Whatever accurate information you can obtain, relating to it, as well as to the commerce of those countries with other nations and to their internal trade, will be particularly acceptable. The condition of our seamen there will, also, deserve your notice. The performance of these duties will involve also the political relations between those countries and the United States. In the progress of their revolution Buenos Ayres and Chili have, to the extent of their powers, and, indeed, far beyond their natural means, combined maritime operations with those of their war by land. Having no ships or seamen of their own, they have countenanced and encouraged foreigners to enter their service, without always considering how far it might affect either the rights or the duties of the nations, to which those foreigners belonged. The privateers, which, with the commissions and under the flag of Buenos Ayres, have committed so many and such atrocious acts of piracy, were all either fitted out, manned and officered by foreigners at Buenos Ayres, or even in foreign countries, not ex

cepting our own, to which blank commissions both for the ships and officers were transmitted. In the instructions to the late Commodore Perry, which his lamented decease prevented from being executed by him, and a copy of which is now furnished to you, certain articles of the Buenos Ayrean privateering ordinance were pointed out, particularly liable to the production of these abuses, and which, being contrary to the established usages among civilized nations, it was hoped, would have been revoked or made to disappear from their otherwise unexceptionable code. These instructions were renewed to Commodore Morris, but the time of his stay at Buenos Ayres was so short, and he was there at a moment of so great a change in the ruling power of the state, that although he communicated to then existing Direc tor, the substance of the representations which Commodore Perry had been instructed to make, we know not that it was attended with any favourable result. You will consider the parts of Commodore Perry's instructions, which may be still applicable on your arrival in South America, as directed to yourself, and should you proceed to Chili, will execute them there, no communication upon the subject having yet been made there. Among the inconveniences, consequent upon this system of carrying on maritime warfare by means of foreigners, has been occasionally and to a considerable extent, the enticement of seamen, belonging to merchant vessels in the ports of Buenos Ayres and Chili from their engagements, to enlist them in privateers or other armed vessels of those countrics. In attending to the numerous trials and convictions for piracy, which have recently afflicted our country, and cast an unusual gloom over our annals, you will remark that a great proportion of the guilty persons have been seamen thus engaged-foreigners at Buenos Ayres, or enlisted in our own ports in violation of our laws."

The exertions of Mr Forbes were so far successful, as to procure a decree, issued by the government of Buenos Ayres on the 6th of October 1821, forbidding the granting of privateer commissions.

- We have, hitherto, not had occasion to mention Peru, where, before 1819, 20, no revolutionary movement took place. This backwardness is, we believe, fully explained in the following paragraph from a letter of an intelligent gentleman, well acquainted with the situation of the Spanish Provinces:

"The landed estates are in the hands of large proprietors and are cultivated by slaves. They are fearful that an attempt to change the form of government would be attended by a loss of their property, and from the great number of blacks and mulattoes in this viceroyalty, the contest would probably terminate in the same manner as the contest of St. Domingo."

ment.

So far from taking any part in the republican movements of Chili, Peru even in 1813, sent an army into that vice-royalty and re-established the royalist governBut in 1817, 18, the Peruvians were expelled by General St. Martin with an army from Buenos Ayres, who succeeded in the summer of 1821, after defeating Canterac, La Serna and other Royalist officers, in taking Lima and finally Calloa, the only place remaining in possession of the King's forces. The independence of the Province was declared July 15, 1821.

In Mr Rush's Memoranda, of the 31st July, 1818, he discloses the following official interview, with the British Secretary of State, for Foreign Affairs:

Had an interview with Lord Castlereagh, by appointment, at the French ambassador's, yesterday. He informed me that the court of Madrid had made propositions to Great Britain to mediate between Spain and her colonies, and invited the European Alliance to join. The invitation was given in a note from the Spanish ambassador in London, written early this month. He had not known of it at the time of our interview on the sixteenth, having then just got back from Ireland, and a convenient opportunity of noticing it had not offered when we were together afterwards. He had therefore sought this interview. He could not better unfold the subject than by putting into my hands the notes that had passed; first, the one from the Spanish ambassador; next, the answer of the British government, drawn up a few days ago; thirdly, as coupling itself with the subject, a note of the British government of the twenty-eighth of August 1817, addressed to the allied powers and made known to Spain, containing the sentiments of Great Britain as to a mediation at that time.

I read each note. The introductory matter of the Spanish ambassador's spoke of the rebellious nature of the war in the colonies, of the past clemency of Spain, and her continued willingness to terminate the quarrel. It then laid down the following as the basis on which a mediation was asked. 1. An amnesty to the colonies on their being reduced. Lord Castlereagh explained this word, which was a translation from the Spanish, by saying that Spain did not mean conquered, but only that the colonies must desist from hostility. 2. The king of Spain to employ in his public service in America, qual fied Americans as well as European Spaniards. 3. The king to grant the colonies privileges of trade adapted to the existing posture of things. 4. The king to acquiesce in all measures the mediating powers might suggest to effect the above objects.

The British answer approved the propositions, as general ones, but called for explanations by which the meaning of some of them might be rendered more definite. It expressed an opinion that the dispute ought to be healed without taking away the political supremacy of the parent state. It declared that the trade of the colonies ought to be free to the rest of the world, the mother country being placed upon a footing of reasonable preference. Lastly it made known, that Great Britain would do no more than interpose friendly offices, using no compulsion should they fail.

The British note of August 1817, related chiefly to the commercial freedom of the colonies and the non-employment of force. It was very explicit on the first point, going the length the United States had done, of saying that Great Britain would accept no privileges of trade at the hands of the colonies not open to other nations; and on the second point, unequivocally disavowing all intention of forcing the colonies by arms, into any measures whatever. The proffered mediation at this period, went off on the question of the slave trade, Britain insisting on its abolition by Spain on terms to which the latter would not then assent.

When I had finished reading them, his lordship asked if I was in possession of the views of my own government as to a basis of settlement.

I replied in the affirmative; informing him that the desire of my government was, that the colonies should be completely emancipated from the parent state. It was also of opinion, that the contest never would, or could, be settled otherwise.

I added, that the United States would decline taking part, if they took part at all, in any plan of pacification, except on the basis of the independence of the colonies.

This was the determination to which my government had come, on much deliberation, and I was bound to communicate it in full candour. It had hoped that the views of Great Britain would have been the same."

His lordship appeared to receive the communication with regret. He admitted that the United States stood in different relations to the contest, from those which Great Britain held; as well by reason of the European engagements of the latter, as other causes. Still, he sincerely desired that our two governments should have acted in full harmony of opinion. He perceived the deep interest which the United States had in the whole question; on which account their concurrence with Europe on all the grounds of mediation, although they took no part in it, would not have been without an influence in rendering it effectual. The fundamental point of difference was further discussed between us; but I gave his lordship no reason to suppose that the determination of the United States would undergo a change. The conversation was conducted and terminated in a spirit altogether conciliatory.”

The conclusion of the year 1821, left little doubt of the ultimate fate of all the Spanish provinces. The deputies of Co ombia to the Cortes in Spain that year insisted at once on independence, and would not assent to any engagement upon any other basis, while those of Mexico were authorized to forego an acknowledg ment, and do not appear even to have aspired to it.

The time had now arrived, when this government determined to recognise some of the new states in South America. This memorable disposition was communicated to Congress in a message, March 8th, 1822, as follows:

146. Proposition to recognise the Independence of Mexico and the South American States communicated to Congress in a Message from President Monroe, dated Washington, March 8/h, 1822.

"The revolutionary movement in the Spanish provinces in this hemisphere, attracted the attention, and excited the sympathy of our fellow-citizens from its commencement. This feeling was natural and honorable to them, from causes which need not be communicated to you. It has been gratifying to all to see the general acquiescence which has been manifested, in the policy which the constituted authorites have deemed it proper to pursue in regard to this contest. As soon as the movement assumed such a steady and consistent form, as to make the success of the provinces probable, the rights to which they were entitled by the law of nations, as equal parties to a civil war, were extended to them. Each party was permitted to enter our ports with its public and private ships, and to take from them every article which was the subject of commerce with other nations. Our citizens, also, have carried on commerce with both parties, and the government has protected it with each, in articles not contraband of war. Through the whole of this contest the United States have remained neutral, and have fulfilled, with the utmost impartiality, all the obligations incident to that character.

This contest has now reached such a stage, and been attended with such decisive success on the part of the provinces, that it merits the most profound consideration, whether their right to the rank of independent nations, with all the advantages incident to it, in their iniercourse with the United States, is not complete. Buenos Ayres assumed the rank by a formal declaration in 1816, and has enjoyed it since