arrangements with Greece, and recognized her independence formally in 1832. The independence of Belgium was recognized at once, in 1830, without the consent of Holland. (But these cases of Greece and Belgium are both instances of forcible intervention and not of mere recognition.)

The independence of the South American republics was recognized first by the United States, and tardily by England, but by both upon the ground that after long-recognized belligerency and the practically unobstructed exercise by them of sovereign powers, Spain, separated by an ocean, had abandoned actual efforts for their reduction and only clung to a nominal right. Canning's speech, February 4, 1825; Hansard, XII, 78; Mackintosh's speech, June 15, 1824; Mackintosh's "Works," III, 749; President Jackson's message, December 21, 1836. In 1818, Mr. Clay proposed in Congress a mission to the South American provinces to express the sympathy of the United States and with a view to enter into friendly relations with them at a future day. The proposition was rejected by a vote of 115 to 45, on the ground of the still unsettled state of the provinces and the continuance of actual war. At the next session of Congress, in November, 1818, President Monroe, in his annual message, referred to the condition of those provinces; to the probable mediation of the allied powers; and expressed his hope and belief that they would not intervene by force and his satisfaction with the course of neutrality adopted by the United States. In his message of December, 1819, he says that Buenos Ayres "still maintains unshaken the independence which it declared in 1816 and has enjoyed since 1810. Like success has attended Chile and the provinces north of La Plata, and likewise Venezuela." He speaks of the situation and resources of the provinces as giving them advantages very difficult for Spain, so distant a power, to overcome and adds: "The steadiness, consistency, and success with which they have pursued their object, as evinced more particularly by the undisputed sovereignty which Buenos Ayres has so long enjoyed, evidently give them a strong claim to the favorable consideration of other nations. These sentiments on the part of the United States have not been withheld from other powers with whom it is desirable to act in concert. Should it become manifest to the world that the efforts of Spain to subdue these provinces will be fruitless, it may be presumed that the Spanish Government itself will give up the contest. In producing such a determination, it cannot be doubted that the opinions of friendly powers who have taken no part in the controversy will have their merited influence." At the same time, the President recommended a revision of the laws for the preservation of neutrality, so as to give them greater effect. In his message of December, 1820, he refers to the continued success of the revolutionists, while "in no part of South America has Spain made any impression on the colonies"; and, expressing the hope that the change in the government of Spain will lead to the recognition of their independence by that power, adds: "To promote that result by friendly counsels with other powers, including Spain herself, has been the uniform policy of this gov

ernment." In February, 1821, Mr. Clay again brought forward a resolution for acknowledging the independence of the provinces, which passed the House of Representatives but did not pass the Senate. In his second inaugural address, in March, 1821, Mr. Monroe renews expressions of hope that the change in the government of Spain will lead to a recognition but still advises neutrality. In his message of December, 1821, he says: "It has long been manifest that it would be impossible for Spain to reduce these colonies by force and, equally so, that no conditions short of their independence would be satisfactory to them." In January, 1822, in accordance with a recommendation of the President, a resolution for the acknowledgment of the independence of Mexico and the Spanish provinces of South America was adopted by Congress by a nearly unanimous vote, and diplomatic missions established, to which the President soon afterward made appointments. It was many years after this that their independence was acknowledged by Spain.

In Texas the declaration of independence was made in December, 1835, after a year of fighting. The decisive battle of San Jacinto was in April, 1836, which practically ended the war, and Mexico did not again invade Texas, though she still refused to acknowledge its independence. During the summer of 1836, Congress passed a resolution to the following effect: "That the independence of Texas ought to be acknowledged by the United States whenever satisfactory information should be received that it had in successful operation a civil government capable of performing the duties and fulfilling the obligations of an independent power." In December, 1836, President Jackson sent a special message, recommending delay in the recognition. He says: "The acknowledgments of a new state as independent and entitled to a place in the family of nations is at all times an act of great delicacy and responsibility; but more especially so when such state has forcibly separated itself from another, of which it had formed an integral part and which still claims dominion over it. A premature recognition under these circumstances, if not looked upon as a justifiable cause of war, is always liable to be regarded as a proof of an unfriendly spirit to one of the contending parties. All questions relative to the government of foreign nations have been treated by the United States as questions of fact only; and our predecessors have cautiously abstained from deciding upon them, until the clearest evidence was in their possession to enable them not only to decide correctly but to shield their decisions from every unworthy imputation. . . . In the contest between Spain and her revolted colonies we stood aloof and waited not only until the ability of the new states to protect themselves was fully established but until the danger of their being again subjugated had entirely passed away. Then, and not until then, they were recognized. Such was our course in regard to Mexico herself. The same policy was observed in all disputes arising out of the separation into distinct governments of those Spanish-American States which began or carried on the contest with the parent country, united under one form of government.

We acknowledged the separate independence of New Granada, of Venezuela, and of Ecuador only after their independent existence was no longer a subject of dispute or was actually acquiesced in by those with whom they had been previously united. It is true that, with regard to Texas, the civil authority of Mexico has been expelled, its invading army defeated, the chief of the republic himself captured, and all present power to control the newly organized government of Texas annihilated within its confines. But, on the other hand, there is, in appearance at least, an immense disparity of physical force on the side of Texas. The Mexican Republic, under another executive, is rallying its forces under a new leader and menacing a fresh invasion to recover its lost dominion. Upon the issue of this threatened invasion the independence of Texas may be considered as suspended; and, were there nothing peculiar in the relative situation of the United States and Texas, our acknowledgment of its independence at such a crisis could hardly be regarded as consistent with the prudent reserve with which we have heretofore held ourselves bound to treat all similar questions. . . . Prudence, therefore, seems to dictate that we should still stand aloof and maintain our present attitude, if not until Mexico itself or one of the great foreign powers shall recognize the independence of the new government, at least until the lapse of time or the course of events shall have proved, beyond cavil or dispute, the ability of the people of that country to maintain their separate sovereignty and to uphold the government established by them."

The attempt to invade Texas having been abandoned by Mexico, her independence was acknowledged by the United States in March, 1837, and by England and France, 1840.

Of this history Mr. Webster said in 1842, in his official letter to Mr. Thompson in answer to the complaints of Mexico: "It is true that the independence of Texas has not been recognized by Mexico. It is equally true that the independence of Mexico has only been recently recognized by Spain; but the United States, having acknowledged both the independence of Mexico, before Spain acknowledged it, and the independence of Texas, although Mexico has not yet acknowledged it, stands in the same relation toward both these governments. . . . No effort for the subjugation of Texas has been made by Mexico from the time of the battle of San Jacinto on the 4th April, 1836, to the commencement of the present year; and, during all this period, Texas has maintained an independent government, carried on commerce, made treaties with nations in both hemispheres, and kept aloof all attempts at invading her territory."

The action of the United States with reference to Hungary in 1849 has been a subject of some discussion. Hungary, although long a component part of the Austrian Empire, had been, for centuries before, an independent kingdom with its distinct history; and the Hungarians had still strong national feeling and a different language and very different institutions from those of Austria. In the general disturbance of 1848 the Hungarians established a government completely organized in all its

parts, with a large army, and successfully resisted the Austrian attempts to subjugate it. A civil war of such an origin presents a very different case from one originating in an insurrection of a portion of a single nation, where the insurgents act together for the first time and make an original experiment at forming themselves into a nationality. Such a movement as that of Hungary more rapidly and naturally takes form and consistency, or, rather, gives an independent direction to its ancient and never-abandoned form and consistency, and its chances for success are better. In the autumn of 1848, M. Kossuth, the chief of the insurrectionary movement, applied to Mr. Stiles, the United States chargé d'affaires at Vienna, to use his good offices with the Imperial Government, with a view to a cessation of hostilities. Mr. Stiles, without instructions from home, opened communication with the imperial government and was received by the imperial ministers, Princes Schwarzenberg and Windischgrätz, with respect and expressions of thanks for his friendly purpose. Some Hungarian agents came to the United States and urged upon the government the recognition of their independence and the making of a treaty of commerce. President Taylor declined all immediate action in that direction but sent Mr. Dudley Mann to Europe, with secret instructions "to obtain minute and reliable information in regard to Hungary in connection with the affairs of adjoining countries, the probable issue of the present revolutionary movements, and the chances he may have of forming commercial arrangements with that power favorable to the United States"; and in another sentence: "The object of the President is to obtain information in regard to Hungary and her resources and prospects, with a view to an early recognition of her independence and the formation of commercial relations with her."

On this duty Mr. Mann went to the neighborhood of the contending parties in 1849 but did not enter Hungary or hold any direct communication with her leaders and reported that he found the prospects of the revolution less promising than they had been, or had been believed to be, and advised against the recognition of independence. The intervention of Russia, with her vast military force, had overborne the until then successful movement. Mr. Mann, in compliance with his instructions, forbore to give publicity to his mission, and the nature of his instructions first became known by the communication made by President Taylor to the Senate of the United States, 28th March, 1850, after the Hungarian War was ended. M. Hülsemann, the Austrian chargé d'affaires at Washington, inquiring of Mr. Clayton, secretary of state, was told that "Mr. Mann's mission had no other object in view than to obtain reliable information as to the true state of affairs in Hungary by personal observation."

This was all that was done by the United States. The state of things in Hungary in 1849 would doubtless have justified any nation in recognizing the belligerency of Hungary, if her own relations with the parties to the contest had been such as to require such a declaration as a guide to her own official and private citizens and as a notice to both parties.

But as the United States had no such complication and no immediate cause to apprehend it, the government did no act in the nature of such a recognition; and the mission of Mr. Mann was secret and confidential and did not become known so as to have influenced the result.

M. Hülsemann, in a letter to Mr. Webster, secretary of state, of September 30, 1850, reopens the subject and complains of the mission as a past transaction, on the ground that it was a violation of the law of nations and unfriendly to Austria. He objects to the language used in the instructions, especially the characterizing of "the rebel chief Kossuth as an illustrious man," and of the terms in which the Austrian system and the intervention of Russia, the ally of Austria, are spoken of, as offensive to Austria; and adds that the publicity given to the instructions by the communication to the Senate requires the Austrian Government to make a formal protest against them.

Mr. Webster replied, by letter of December 21, 1850, that the United States regards a communication from one department of its government to another, as from the President to the Senate, as a domestic communication, of which ordinarily no foreign state has cognizance, and that great inconvenience would result from making such communications matter of diplomatic correspondence and discussion. Mr. Webster says: "The undersigned reasserts to M. Hülsemann and to the cabinet of Vienna, and in the presence of the world, that the steps taken by President Taylor, now protested against by the Austrian Government, were warranted by the law of nations and agreeable to the usages of civilized states." As to the language in which the confidential instructions to Mr. Mann were couched, Mr. Webster says they were confidential between the President and his agent, "in reference to which the United States cannot admit the slightest responsibility to the government of His Imperial Majesty. No state deserving the appellation of independent can permit the language in which it may instruct its own officers, in the discharge of their duties to itself, to be called in question, under any pretext, by a foreign power." He reminds M. Hülsemann that they were communicated to the Senate after the war was over and that Austria obtained its first knowledge of the instructions from that communication.

It would seem that the only objection to the course of the United States was that it showed a desire to be prompt in recognizing Hungary. This Mr. Webster admits. He says that the people of the United States have a deep interest in the movements made by a nation to regain its independence with institutions like our own, which we deem to be real blessings to a people, against the force of governments which are not only hostile to those institutions but affect to consider them as never having a lawful origin, not being derived from the consent of those holding thrones by divine right. Mr. Webster's position is that, in such a contest, governments hostile to popular institutions must expect to see demonstrations of sympathy and feeling by the people of a free country, and expressions of it may appear in confidential domestic communications of the govern