These newspapers and reviews are the great oracles of our commer cial cities, as previously observed. Nine times in ten, the first news we get from Europe is copied from the London Times, the great Choryphæus of the civilized world, whose editor, if not a jesuit, is certainly a disciple of Ignatius Loyola. He is a perfect Mrs. Candour in politics, and, more than any avowed and open enemy of the United States, has injured their reputation, by occasionally pretending to excuse or defend them. Now and then, indeed, he gives them a good word, and affects a marked civility, but it is only to give the more effect to his sarcasms and inuendoes, and more venom and point to his sly malignity. Yet the opinions and statements of this paper, being tacitly adopted by our commercial city organs, or at least copied without contradiction and without comment, are disseminated through every vein and artery of the country. They ascend our rivers; they fly on our steamers and railroads; they penetrate the deep forests of the West, and everywhere propagate British opinions and British politics, both which are equally at war with the principles of liberty and the interests of our country. These organs of British opinions and British interests, we firmly believe, have at this moment far more influence over what is called the most enlightened class in the United States, and especially over our doughty whig statesmen, than the lessons of wisdom and experience coming from a Jefferson, a Madison, or a Franklin. Under this influence, the present whig administration has displayed a freezing indifference, if not hostility, to any movement in behalf of the independence of Cuba, and that too before the conduct of the degenerate creoles afforded grounds for the belief that they were content under their present colonial degradation, and did not aspire to become independent. But however appearances may justify this conclusion, we are not prepared to acquiesce in it implicitly.

In the first place, it is believed there is no American citizen, imbued with the great principles of liberty and equality, and who is acquainted with Cuba, who will pretend to deny that the system of government inflicted on the people of that island, is not, at least according to their ideas, oppressive, insulting, and tyrannical, inasmuch as it entails civil disabilities and degradation on them in almost every form. It is the despotism of a monarch, distant thousands of miles, administered through the instrumentality of dependent governors, the tenure of whose office is implicit obedience to the behests of the sovereign. In the choice of his officers, and of all those exercising authority under him, the people have no more voice or influence than those of the moon. On the contrary, there is one instance, at least, of a captain-general being recalled, for seeking to make himself popular, by consulting the wishes of the people. This, if we don't mistake, was at least the case with General Tacon. Be this as it may: the captain-general of Cuba is entirely independent of the people. If he oppresses them, or if he outrages the laws of humanity, and becomes another Haynau, by butchering his prisoners in cold blood, and without trial, it is enough that he acts by command of his sovereign, whose authority is pleaded as a full justification, and whose will is law.

Now we would ask our countrymen, at least those who hold that all lawful authority emanates from the people, and should be exercised for their benefit, whether they believe, whether they can conceive the possibility of a people thus circumstanced, being so insensible to the common feelings of our nature, so besotted with a devotion to arbitrary power, so

enamored of degradation and chains, as not to wish to be relieved from the pressure of such a leaden despotism? Is it, we ask, is it not in direct opposition to our own experience of our own feelings, as well as the universal feeling of all mankind, to presume, that those who suffer will not ardently wish for relief? Does not the very worm turn, when trod upon, unless crushed to death? Is not human nature everywhere the same, and is not its common object the pursuit of happiness, so large a portion of which depends on being well governed? Does the Gulf Stream separate man from his fellow-man, and cause the Spaniard of Cuba to be totally insensible to those grievances which make the blood of an American boil? No! the native of Cuba is not more insensible than the worm; and we firmly believe, that when the period arrives which offers a fair and reasonable prospect of success in the attempt to acquire freedom and independence, they will rise and vindicate themselves from the charge of abject, willing submission to the tyranny of the mother country, in spite of English newspapers, and their disciples, our whig statesmen.*

There can be no doubt, however, that the great body of the Creoles of Cuba are not only depressed in spirit by a long course of misgovernment, and, what is still more unfavorable to the anticipation of their rising, in a great degree under the influence of the priests of a Church, which everywhere, and at all times, in the old world and in the new, has been an inflexible foe to the progress of Иberal principles, and the establishment of civil and religious liberty. A long habit of submission to wrong or indignity, coupled with long-continued abject subserviency to the despotism of a Church which inculcates implicit obedience, is very apt to degenerate at last into a sort of imbecile dullness not easily excited to action; an insensibility hard to awaken into any powerful excitement, except under the spur of bigotry. The people of Cuba may, for aught we know, be under the influence of this species of suspended animation ; but for our part, we believe that other causes contributed not only to prevent their co-operation with Lopez, but prompted them to take sides against him, as is asserted in the late letter of Mr. Van Vechten, whose view of the subject is, we cannot help suspecting, not a little influenced by a feeling of gratitude for the very singular, not to say unaccountable clemency displayed by Don Jose de la Concha in his behalf.

Other causes may be adduced to account for the total inaction of the Cubans in behalf of Lopez in the first instance, and their reported hostility in the second. First: the bloody, barbarous threat of letting loose their slaves against them. Second: the fear of exemplary punishment in case of co-operation, and the certainty that it would be inflicted with all the inflexible severity of Spanish vengeance. Third, and most weighty of all: the hopelessness of efficient aid from the United States, after the proclamation of our President, outlawing every American citizen enlisted in their cause, and placing him at the mercy of any body who chose to hunt him down as a beast of prey. We do not hesitate to say, that the President of the United States stands at this moment responsible, not only for the butchery of his countrymen, but for the failure of the attempt to give liberty to Cuba. He has, for the present, preserved his neutrality with Spain, only at the sacrifice of the first duty of every govern

For a Memorial, addressed by the Cubans to the throne of Madrid on the subject of grievances, see vol. xv. of this Review.

ment, that of protection to its citizens. Had Lopez landed with a suffi cient force, and sufficient supplies to justify the anticipation of success, the people of Cuba would, in all human probability, have set these menaces at nought, and joined him. But he came with a mere handful of men, without an adequate supply of arms and ammunition, of both which the inhabitants were destitute, and there was nothing to inspire a reasonable hope of success. That the Cubans did not join him under these circumstances, is not to be wondered at. It was natural, when all circumstances are considered; although we cannot forbear observing, that those who are governed by such motives and such fears, will never, while they cherish them, achieve their liberty. They must risk all, to save all. This inaction, and alleged subsequent hostility on the part of the Cubans, was, however, fatal to Lopez and his followers. Had they joined him in any considerable numbers, and furnished him with provisions, the result would have been very different. Revolutions are often miracles, which are believed to be impossible until their accomplishment. Even the storm of rain, which rendered their arms and ammunition useless, may have been decisive of the fate of Lopez and his followers.

Let us do a little more justice to both, than has been meted out to them by the strenuous admirers of legitimate government. Many of them were Poles, without home, without country, and without any government on earth to which they owed allegiance. Their own government had been overthrown, their rights trampled under foot, and their property confiscated by a combination of hungry despots, leagued together in the unholy cause of plunder and devastation. They had become citizens of the world; exiles and wanderers, who, finding no resting place in the old, had sought refuge in the new. Is it a matter of surprise, that persons thus cut loose from the rest of mankind, and set adrift by the exercise of an arbitrary usurped power, should join the standard of liberty wherever it was unfurled, and make eternal warfare against despotism wherever it existed? Others of these adventurers were Hungarians, companions of Kossuth, and, like him, victims to arbitrary power. But by far the larger portion were Americans, our countrymen, a majority of whom were men of education, connected with families of the first respectability, and imbued with high heroic feelings and principles. Who gave us the right to say that these men were exclusively influenced by a love of plunder and a passion for blood? and what feeling or principle justifies us Americans in joining the hue and ery of pirates, robbers, cut-throats, and outlaws, raised against them by the organs of British policy and Spanish despotism, and echoed by those of our whig administration. The common feelings of humanity might lead us to lament the fate of hecatombs of our brave countrymen, belonging to that class which gathered such green laurels in Mexico, and were hunted by bloodhounds, manacled like felons, and shot down like dogs, by scores at a time, in cold blood; and buried like dogs, after their remains were outraged and mutilated by the rabble of Havana. But with these we are forbidden to sympathize, and nothing remains for us but to rejoice that Spanish despotism is established in Cuba, and the "Fillibusters" offered up at its bloody shrines. Be it so. Time will decide whether they were pirates and cut-throats, or heroes and patriots; and, for the present, to time we leave them. Whatever may have been their lives, the mode of their death, and the manner in which they met it, one would think might at least call forth the sympathies, if

not the applause of their countrymen. If they committed a crime in going forth to succor what they undoubtedly believed to be an oppressed people about to assert their freedom, they have paid the forfeit. Let their ashes rest in peace. If we cannot approve their actions, we may at least be permitted to lament their fate.

On General Lopez we will bestow a few parting words. He has been called a fool or a madman, and what is of more consequence, accused of having wilfully deceived his followers by false representations of the disposition of the Cubans, coupled with exaggerations of the number of his adherents in the United States. He must indeed have been a fool or a madman to have done this. Embarked in the same vessel, exposed to the same dangers, and certain of the same fate if the expedition was unsuccessful, what possible motive could he have had for deception? If deception was practised, it came from another quarter. It was either a device of Spanish policy to lure him into premature action, or of heartless speculators for their own private purposes. Unquestionably Lopez was himself deceived in relying on the co-operation of the Cubans, who in turn were probably deceived as to the amount of aid they would receive from the United States. Until new facts are brought to light, we must be content to remain in doubt and darkness on the subject.

As for Narcisso Lopez, we affirm that he was neither pirate nor cutthroat, madman nor fool. We are neither afraid nor ashamed to say, that as earnest well-wishers to the freedom of mankind, we have watched his motions with the deepest interest, wished him success most sincerely, and as sincerely now lament his fate. And why should we not? Shall we Americans, whose ancestors gained immortal glory by success in precisely the same cause in which he perished, be called on at this day to stigmatize his name and his memory as a leader of pirates and freebooters? Shall we, while holding the names of La Fayette, Kosciusko, Pulaski, De Kalb, Steuben, and Montgomery, in honored and grateful remembrance, and who, in coming to our aid, committed the same violation of Messrs. Fillmore and Webster's great principle of neutrality, triumph in the fate of Crittenden, Kerr, and the rest of their countrymen, alike volunteers in the cause of freedom? We assert that such is the requisition of our own government, echoed by the sentiments of Americans. If we do not mistake, the time is not very distant when, instead of being derided as rash fools, or slandered as outlaws and pirates, they will be classed with those illustrious martyrs to liberty, who, though they perished themselves, prepared the way for the apotheosis of the goddess.

Narcisso Lopez fought bravely, and died bravely. At first we were inclined to blame him for suffering himself to be taken alive, when, in our opinion, he should have died like a Roman. But it since appears that he was scented by bloodhounds, and captured almost in the sleep of death, occasioned by long-continued fatigue and hunger. His last words, the instant the iron-collar was about to be placed about his neck, were, "I die for Cuba." If the people of the United States hope to preserve their freedom, they must refrain from trampling on the ashes of its martyrs; and if those of Cuba ever become free, or deserving of freedom, they will erect statues to Narcisso Lopez.

PRACTICAL ANNEXATION OF ENGLAND."

In our number of July, 1846, we, under this title, discussed the tendency of affairs to an absolute subversion of all commercial restrictions between the United States and Great Britain, as completely as now exists between the states of this Union or between the distinct sovereignties which compose the German Customs Union, or "Zoll Verein." The barbarous policy of self-imposed restraints upon individual action, under the supposition that national benefits result, is falling into disuse before the growing intelligence of the age. The evils flowing from such a policy are becoming recognized as national misfortunes, to be remedied only by the prompt adoption of a new system. The following memorial from a distinguished source, was recently laid before high official authority in Great Britain, and was approvingly and cordially entertained in that quarter.

LONDON, August 2, 1851.

SIR,-Reflection has increased the importance of the subject which I had the honor to present for your consideration the other day; I have, therefore, written out my views, which I now present for your consideration."

I would propose the abolition of all restrictions, and of all customs dues on the commerce between England and the United States, their possessions, colonies, and dependencies, so that an English vessel might enter and discharge a part or the entire of her cargo at any port in the United States or within its possessions, and reload and proceed to any other port within the United States, or to any foreign port, precisely as if belonging to, or under the flag of the United States; and the same to be granted by England to any and all vessels under the flag of the United States, entering English ports, or those of her colonies or dependencies; and the cargoes of all such vessels, when being of the produce, the growth or manufacture of either of the two nations, to be free from customs or import duties; but should their cargoes, or any part thereof, be of the produce, the growth or manufacture of any nation or country which shall not have entered into and adopted the same reciprocity, it shall be subject to such import duties as may be fixed upon, by the legislation of England and the United States separately.

The great importance to England of such reciprocity with the United States must, I think, be easily seen and readily admitted.

First: The amount of revenue from imports of American produce is comparatively small; on the principal article, cotton, none at all.

Second: England produces no staples, except iron and coal, and no food for export; but on the contrary, imports largely of staples for manufacture and of food. England desires to, and must, exchange her mechanic products for food and staples.

Third: The United States produce the principal staples (some almost exclusively) required by England, and food also, at less cost and in greater abundance, and at the same time consume a greater amount of English mechanic products than any other nation or country, which consumption is daily and yearly increasing in amount, in the same ratio with the increase of the population of the United States, which will double in the next 22 years; besides, the geographical position of the two countries is such, as to afford to each a better and cheaper means of transport from their exchanges with each other, than with any other part of the globe.

Fourth: The United States, the greatest agricultural country of the world, as a whole, would be vastly benefited by such a reciprocity, because it would, beyond any doubt, immensely augment the demand for her agricultural products, which