occasionally had discussions of the most good-humored character with some of the English gentlemen in Mexico upon the subject of the different battles between the troops of our respective countries, this had been communicated to General Miller, and I saw that he was disposed to draw me into a discussion. He asked me if I regarded the battle of New Orleans as one of our greatest victories? I replied that I certainly considered the battle of the 8th of January as somewhat of a victory. He admitted that it was, but said, that the American troops were protected by a breastwork. I replied, that they had no breastworks on the night of the 23d of December, that this battle was fought in a clear field, and that the number of the British forces was twice that of the American. He said that I was mistaken, that he was there himself, and that the American army numbered nearly two thousand men, and that not more than fifteen hundred of the British army had then landed or took any part in the engagement; he admitted, however, that he was not one of those who had landed, and that he could not speak as of his own personal knowledge. He added, that there was nothing more natural than that the victorious party should exaggerate the number of the enemy; I thought, and so said to him that there was at least one thing more natural which was that the vanquished army should state their numbers at less than they really were. I remembered that a few days after this battle, General Jackson had issued a general order in which he stated the force of the enemy as more than double his own; I happened to have in the legation a copy of Niles' Register which contained this general order.-General Miller called the next day to read it, and in the end admitted that he might have been mistaken. He frequently visited me, and I parted with him with sincere regret, and shall always remember him with a respect not unmixed with admiration; he was kind enough to give me an extract of a letter which he had written to Colonel O'Leary, who also had been one of the aides-de-camp of Bolivar. The reader will be, in some degree, able from this extract to judge whether I have overrated the character of General Miller.

Extract from a letter written by General Miller, dated 18th March, 1833, to Colonel O'Leary, respecting a parallel by the latter, between Washington and Bolivar, published in a Chilian newspaper.

"Do not, my dear O'Leary, run away like our fiery friend, with the wrong notion, that I am inimical to the Liberator, because I happen to dif fer widely from you in the general view I take of that celebrated man.

Let us rather discuss the matter fairly and coolly, for by so doing we may be of mutual assistance to each other. My prejudices, if prejudices they be, may be made to vanish, and your excessive enthusiasm on some points, by being moderated, may be displayed with better effect.

"In this spirit I will frankly confess that I do not think the parallel you have so eloquently drawn between Washington and Bolivar, quite accurate, much less that it would be advisable to give a similar one to the public; at all events, there would be no harm in your consulting persons capable of judging of the merits of the case, who, unentangled with South American affairs, may lay claim to impartiality.

"Washington's pure patriotism, his steadiness of purpose, his admirable consistency of character and conduct, his stern undeviating principles, his aversion to everything flimsy and bombastic, in short, his elevated, noble ambition of meriting the approbation of a good, as well as a great, man, place him higher in the admiration and respect of the moral world, than any other hero, ancient or modern; at least so I have always understood it to be. It is true that Washington had not large patrimonial domains to offer in support of the cause he espoused, but he was frugal, and did not squander any public money on himself or others; and his being born in the middle class of life, and in humble circumstances, whilst Bolivar was by birth the noblest of his native country,' was an accident that a republican would hardly advance to prove superiority in any way.

"There is, indeed, little similarity of character between Washington and Bolivar. The first stands so high amongst all civilized people, that it is necessary to guard against saying anything bordering on disparagement of him, in order, by comparison, to raise the fame of another, whose character and reputation have not yet been so satisfactorily established. Washington not only aspired at achieving the independence of his country, but he labored incessantly, and he was gifted with the right sort of sterling genius to establish the finest frame-work of a government that ever existed; at all events, one generally acknowledged to be the best adapted to a people, capable of being, and deserving to be free. He was not a violent republican one day, a Vitalicio the next, and alternately both, as suited his caprice or his opinion of circumstances. His merit did not consist in highflown, flowery writings, but in productions abounding in plain good sense, and of practical utility. He never broke a solemn pledge; had he done so, whatever and how sincere soever might have been his motives, he never would have obtained the high character awarded him. Washington, rather than break his word, would have lost his life. Neither Napoleon nor Bolivar seemed to have understood-certainly did not always act upon-this grand moral principle, without which society must be very imperfect.

"Warriors and heroes, I believe, are going out of fashion, and I am glad of it. Franklin, Bentham, and great men of their stamp will, as the march of intellect advances, possess more the admiration of future generations. This, however, is getting out of my depth; I will, therefore, drop a subject Ifeel incapable of handling—and recollect, what I have said is merely as a hint in the rough, for your perusal."

V.

DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE.

SHORTLY after my arrival in Mexico, Mr. Bocanegra, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, addressed a circular to the Members of the Diplomatic Corps, in relation to the conduct of our government in the war between Mexico and Texas. An object very near my heart was the release of the Texian prisoners, and as that matter was in a favorable train I was unwilling if I could have avoided it to have done anything to defeat it, but the circular to the diplomatic corps was of a character so offensive that I felt it to be my duty to reply to it. My reply bears date the 6th June, 1842, and Mr. Webster's reply to the same in a despatch to me is dated on the 8th July, 1842.

At the time that the reply of Mr. Webster was written, he had not received mine, but he received it five days afterwards, when his second communication to me bears date. My reply to Mr. Bocanegra has not been published in the newspapers of this country; I hope, therefore, that I may be pardoned for inserting it in this volume. It will be seen that Mr. Webster pursues the same train of argument which I had before done, and instructs me to say almost exactly what I had already said in reply to Mr. Bocanegra, but of which it seems Mr. Webster was ignorant at the time; my arguments are all found in Mr. Webster's reply, with an additional argument on the right of expatriation, a right which Mexico has never denied, and a review of the Texian revolution. The reply of Mr. Webster, is doubtless,better written, for the reason that he wrote the one and I the other. But the coincidence is certainly a striking one.

"[Translation.]

"NATIONAL PALACE, MEXICO,

"May 12, 1842.

"The undersigned, Secretary of State and Foreign Relations, enjoys the satisfaction of addressing the honorable Secretary of State of the United States of America, in the name and by the express order of his excellency the President of the Mexican Republic. The relations of amity and good harmony which have happily subsisted between this and your great nation might have been disturbed, in a lamentable manner, since the year 1835, when the revolution of Texas broke out, if the Mexican government had not given so many evidences of its forbearance, and had not made so many and so great sacrifices for the sake of peace, in order that the world might not, with pain and amazement, see the two nations which appear to be destined to establish the policy and the interests of the American continent divided and ravaged by the evils of war.

"But, from that truly unfortunate period, the Mexican Republic has received nothing but severe injuries and inflictions from the citizens of the United States. The Mexican government speaks only of the citizens of the United States, as it still flatters itself with the belief that it is not the government of that country which has promoted the insurrection in Texas, which has favored the usurpation of its territory, and has supplied the rebels with ammunition, arms, vessels, money and recruits-but that these aggressions have proceeded from private individuals, who have not respected the solemn engagements which bind together the two nations, nor the treaties concluded between them, nor the conduct, ostensibly frank, of the Cabinet of Washington.

"It is, however, notorious, that the insurgent colonists of that integral part of the territory of the Mexican Republic would have been unable to maintain their prolonged rebellion, without the aid and efficient sympathies of citizens of the United States, who have publicly raised forces in their cities and towns; have fitted out vessels in their ports, and laden them with munitions of war; and have marched to commit hostilities against a friendly nation, under the eyes and with the knowledge of the authorities to whom are intrusted the fulfilment of the law.

"The Mexican government entertains so high an opinion of the force of the government of the United States, and of its power to restrain those its subjects from violating the religious faith of treaties, solemnly concluded between it and other nations, and from committing hostilities against such nations in time of peace, that it cannot easily comprehend how those persons have been able to evade the punishment decreed against them by the

laws of the United States themselves, and to obtain that quiet impunity which incessantly encourages them to continue their attacks. It is well worthy of remark, that, no sooner does the Mexican government, in the exercise of its rights, which it cannot and does not desire to renounce, prepare means to recover a possession usurped from it, than the whole population of the United States, especially in the southern States, is in commotion; and, in the most public manner, a large portion of them is turned upon Texas, in order to prevent the rebels from being subjected by the Mexican arms, and brought back to proper obedience.

"Could proceedings more hostile, on the part of the United States, have taken place, had that country been at war with the Mexican Republic? Could the insurgents of Texas have obtained a co-operation more effective or more favorable to their interests? Certainly not. The civilized world looks on with amazement, and the Mexican government is filled with unspeakable regret, as it did hope, and had a right to hope, that, living in peace with the United States, your government would preserve our territory from the invasions of your own subjects. The vicinity of a friend is an advantage rather than an inconvenience; but if one neighbor oversteps the sacred limits imposed by treaties, and disturbs and harasses another, it cannot be maintained that the friendship of the former is real, and that much confidence should be placed in it

"The government of the Mexican Republic, therefore, which regards the faithful fulfilment of treaties as its highest obligation, which anxiously desires to preserve and increase its friendly relations with the people and the government of the United States, finds itself under the necessity of protesting solemnly against the aggressions which the citizens of those States are constantly repeating upon the Mexican territory, and of declaring, in a positive manner, that it considers as a violation of the treaty of amity the toleration of a course of conduct which produces an incomprehensible state of things—a state neither of peace nor war-but inflicting upon the Mexican Republic the same injuries and inconveniences as if war had been declared between the two nations, which are called by Providence to form with each other relations and bonds of extreme and cordial friendship.

And the undersigned, in complying with this order from the most excellent Provisional President of the Republic of Mexico, assures you, sir, of the high consideration with which he remains your obedient servant, "J. M. DE BOCANEGRA.

"Hon. DANIEL WEBSTER,

66

Secretary of State

"of the United States of America."