The Morning Post, in its print of September 24, announced that there would be “no territorial war on Mexico,” that the only point at issue was the monetary claims on the Mexican exchequer; that “it would be impossible to deal with Mexico as an organized and established Government,” and that, consequently, “the principal Mexican ports would be temporarily occupied and their customs revenues sequestered.” *

The Times of September 27 declared, on the contrary, that “to dishonesty, to repudiation, to the legal and irremediable plunder of our countrymen by the default of a bankrupt community, we were steeled by long endurance,” and that, consequently, “the private robbery of the English bondholders” lay not, as The Post had it,? at the bottom of the intervention. While remarking, en passant, that “the City of Mexico was sufficiently healthy, should it be necessary to penetrate so far,” The Times hoped, however, that “the mere presence of a combined squadron in the Gulf, and the seizure of certain ports, will urge the Mexican Government to new exertions in keeping the peace, and will convince the malcontents that they must confine themselves to some form of opposition more constitutional than brigandage.”

If, then, according to The Post, the expedition was to start because there “exists no Government in Mexico,” it was, according to The Times, only intended as encouraging and supporting the existing Mexican Government. To be sure! The oddest means ever hit upon for the consolidation of a Government consists in the seizure of its territory and the sequestration of its revenue.

The Times and The Morning Post having once given out the cue, John Bull was then handed over to the minor ministerial oracles, systematically belaboring him in the same contradictory style for four weeks, until public opinion had at last become sufficiently trained to the idea of a joint intervention in Mexico, although kept in deliberate ignorance of the aim and purpose of that interven- tion. At last, the transactions with France had drawn to an end; the Moniteur announced that the convention between the three interfering powers had been concluded on October 31;° and the Journal des Débats, one of whose coproprietors is appointed to the command of one of the vessels of the French squadron, informed the world that no permanent territorial conquest was intended;

Projected Intervention in Mexico”, The Free Press, No. 10, October 2, 1861.— Ed.

that Vera Cruz and other points on the coast were to be seized, an advance to the capital being agreed upon in case of non- compliance by the constituted authorities in Mexico with the demands of the intervention; that, moreover, a strong govern- ment was to be imported into the Republic.’

The Times, which ever since its first announcement on Sep- tember 27,” seemed to have forgotten the very existence of Mexico, had now again to step forward. Everybody ignorant of its connection with Palmerston, and the original introduction in its columns of his scheme, would be induced to consider the to-day’s leader of The Times as the most cutting and merciless satire on the whole adventure. It sets out by stating that “the expedition is a very remarkable one” [later on it says a curious one}.

“Three States are combining to coerce a fourth into good behavior, not so much by way of war as by authoritative interference in behalf of order.” ¢

Authoritative interference in behalf of order! This is literally the Holy Alliance” slang, and sounds very remarkable indeed on the part of England, glorying in the non-intervention principle! And why is “the way of war, and of declaration of war, and all other behests of international law,” supplanted by “an authoritative interference in behalf of order?” Because, says The Times, there “exists no Government in Mexico.” And what is the professed aim of the expedition? “To address demands to the constituted authorities at Mexico.”

The only grievances complained of by the intervening Powers, the only causes which might give to their hostile procedure the slightest shade of justification, are easily to be summed up. They are the monetary claims of the bondholders and a series of personal outrages said to have been committed upon subjects of England, France and Spain. These were also the reasons of the intervention as originally put forth by The Morning Post, and as some time ago officially indorsed by Lord John Russell in an interview with some representatives of the Mexican bondholders in England. The to-day’s Times states:

“England, France, and Spain have concerted an expedition to bring Mexico to

the performance of her specific engagements, and to give protection to the subjects of the respective crowns.”

September 27, 1861, leading article.— Ed.