"The cement of this Union is in the heart-blood of every American. I do not believe there is on earth a government established on so immovable a basis. Let them in any State, even in Massachusetts itself, raise the standard of separation, and its citizens will rise in mass and do justice themselves on their own incendiaries.'

"1

Unhappily the Rebellion shows that he counted too much on the patriotism of the States against "their own incendiaries." In the same hopeful spirit he wrote to Edward Livingston, the eminent jurist, 4th April, 1824:

"You have many years yet to come of vigorous activity, and I confidently trust they will be employed in cherishing every measure which may foster our brotherly union and perpetuate a constitution of government destined to be the primitive and precious model of what is to change the condition of man over the globe." 2

In these latter words he takes his place on the platform of John Adams, and sees the world changed by our example. But again he is anxious about the Union. In another letter to Livingston, 25th March, 1825, after saying of the National Constitution, that “it is a compact of many independent powers, every single one of which claims an equal right to understand it and to require its observance," he prophesies:

"However strong the cord of compact may be, there is a point of tension at which it will break."

Thus, in venerable years, while watching with anxiety the fortunes of the Union, the patriarch did not fail to see the new order of ages instituted by the American Government.

1 Writings, Vol. VI. p. 426.

2 Ibid., Vol. VII. p. 344. 8 Ibid., p. 404.

GEORGE CANNING, 1826.

GEORGE CANNING was a successor of Fox, in the House of Commons, as statesman, minister, and orator. He was born 11th April, 1770, and died 8th August, 1827, in the beautiful villa of the Duke of Devonshire, at Chiswick, where Fox had died before. Unlike Fox in sentiment for our country, he is nevertheless associated with a leading event of our history, and is the author of prophetic words.

The Monroe Doctrine, as now familiarly called, proceeded from Canning. He was its inventor, promoter, and champion, at least so far as it bears against European intervention in American affairs. Earnestly engaged in counteracting the designs of the Holy Alliance for the restoration of the Spanish colonies to Spain, he sought to enlist the United States in the same policy; and when Mr. Rush, our minister at London, replied, that any interference with European politics was contrary to the traditions of the American Government, he argued, that, however just such a policy might have been formerly, it was no longer applicable, - that the question was new and complicated, that it was "full as much American as European, to say no more," that "it concerned the United States under aspects and interests as immediate and commanding as it did or could any of the States of Europe," that "they were the first power established on that continent, and now confessedly the leading power"; and he then asked:

-

Was it possible that they could see with indifference their fate decided upon by Europe? . . . . Had not a new epoch arrived in the relative position of the United States towards Europe, which Europe must acknowl

edge? Were the great political and commercial interests which hung upon the destinies of the new continent to be canvassed and adjusted in this hemisphere, without the coöperation, or even knowledge, of the United States?" With mingled ardor and importunity the British Minister pressed his case. At last, after much discussion in the Cabinet at Washington, President Monroe, accepting the lead of Mr. Canning, and with the counsel of John Quincy Adams, put forth his famous declaration, where, after referring to the radical difference between the political systems of Europe and America, he says, that "we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety," and that, where governments have been recognized by us as independent, "we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power, in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States." 2

The message of President Monroe was received in England with enthusiastic congratulations. It was upon all tongues; the press was full of it; the securities of Spanish America rose in the market; the agents of Spanish America were happy. Brougham exclaimed in Parliament, that "no event had ever dispersed greater joy, exultation, and gratitude over all the freemen in

1 Rush, Residence at the Court of London from 1819 to 1825, 2d Series, (London, 1845,) Vol. II. pp. 44, 45.

2 Annual Message, December 2, 1823: State Papers, 18th Cong. 1st Sess., Doc. No. 2, p. 14.

8 Rush, Residence at the Court of London, 2d Series, Vol. II. p. 73. Wheaton's Elements of International Law, ed. Dana, pp. 97–112, note.

Europe."1 Mackintosh rejoiced in the coincidence of England and the United States, "the two great English commonwealths,- for so he delighted to call them; and he heartily prayed that they might be forever united in the cause of justice and liberty."2 The Holy Alliance abandoned their purposes on this continent, and the independence of Spanish America was established. Some time afterwards, on the occasion of assistance to Portugal, when Mr. Canning felt called to review and vindicate his foreign policy, he assumed the following lofty strain this was in the House of Commons, 12th December, 1826:

"It would be disingenuous not to admit that the entry of the French army into Spain was, in a certain sense, a disparagement, an affront to the pride, a blow to the feelings. of England. . . . . But I deny, that, questionable or censurable as the act might be, it was one which necessarily called for our direct and hostile opposition. Was nothing, then, to be done? . . . . If France occupied Spain, was it necessary, in order to avoid the consequences of that occupation, that we should blockade Cadiz? No. I looked another way. I sought materials of compensation in another hemisphere. Contemplating Spain, such as our ancestors had known her, I resolved, that, if France had Spain, it should not be Spain with the Indies.' I called the New World into existence, to redress the balance of the Old."3

If the republics of Spanish America, thus summoned into independent existence, have not contributed the weight thus vaunted, the growing power of the United

1 Speech, February 3, 1824: Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, N. S., Vol. X. col. 68.

2 Speech, June 15, 1824: Ibid., Vol. XI. col. 1361.

3 Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, N. S., Vol. XVI. col. 397.

States is ample to compensate deficiencies on this contiThere is no balance of power it cannot redress.

nent.

ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE, 1835.

WITH De Tocqueville we come among contemporaries removed by death. He was born at Paris, 29th July, 1805, and died at Cannes, 16th April, 1859. Having known him personally, and seen him at his castlehome in Normandy, I cannot fail to recognize the man in his writings, which on this account have a double charm.

He was the younger son of noble parents, his father being of ancient Norman descent, and his mother granddaughter of Malesherbes, the venerated defender of Louis. the Sixteenth; but his aristocratic birth had no influence to check the generous sympathies with which his heart always palpitated. In 1831 he came to America as a commissioner from the French Government to examine our prisons, but with a larger commission from his own soul to study republican institutions. His conscientious application, rare probity, penetrating thought, and refinement of style all appeared in his work, “De la Démocratie en Amérique," first published in 1835, whose peculiar success is marked by the fourteenth French edition now before me, and the translations into other languages. At once he was famous, and his work classical. The Academy opened its gates. Since Montesquieu there had been no equal success in the same department, and he was constantly likened to the illustrious author of "The Spirit of Laws." Less epigrammatic, less artful, and less French than his prototype, he was more simple, truthful, and prophetic. A second