« ForrigeFortsett »
some well-equipped university or public library should take up the task of collecting, listing, and critically valuing the books and periodicals on English local history which contain in them bona-fide English local records referring to the period of American settlement.
Turning from documents published in full to printed abstracts of manuscripts, we are immediately brought face to face with the publications of the Public Record Office in London. The splendid body of national records preserved there, more voluminous, more continuous, more accessible, probably, than those of any other European nation, are for the most part now classified by subject and date. The authorities have been engaged for many years in printing calendars or analytical lists of certain classes of these papers in such a degree of fullness as will often preclude the necessity of the student's seeing the manuscript itself. These are the well-known Calendars of State Papers, of which there are now about three hundred volumes in print.
Unfortunately for the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, some other periods have been recently receiving a disproportionately large share of attention. About four volumes for the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries are being published to every one for the sixteenth and seventeenth. Curiously enough, there are at present many more people desirous of studying the patent-rolls and close rolls of the fourteenth century than the records of later periods, and it is they whom the Keeper of the Records is trying to satisfy. This must be amended by pressure from this side of the sea. The authorities of the Record Office, like all other authorities, are amenable to pressure; and if there is a steady, strong demand they will eventually recognize that American and English students want access to the papers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and turn their attention toward satisfying them. However, both the Domestic papers and the Colonial records are already calendared well down beyond the dates chosen for this paper; and Foreign, Admiralty, Treasury, and other classes of papers are for our purpose less important. These printed calendars can be found in every large library in America and Europe, and an astonishingly large amount of useful investigation can be made from them alone, or from them in conjunction with other printed documents.
Nevertheless, the desire to do thorough and detailed work will in most cases sooner or later draw the investigator to London and make him for a while what is technically called a " searcher" in the Record Office. It is no hard fate. The conditions of study there are pleasant, the rules few and reasonable, the officials courteous and
helpful. If handwriting is illegible and the reading of manuscripts slow work, it is in most cases made as light as possible by their careful preparation and their accessibility. Some of the manuscripts, it is true, are still crumpled, stained, dusty, and strung like fish on a string, but those yet in this raw state are few and are being steadily reduced in number. The officials are usually ready to put those of any special bundle quickly in order. The dust of ages is sometimes not metaphorical—but wash-stands are handy. Most explorers like to meet an occasional bit of jungle or desert, if only to give variety to the journey, and something to boast about afterward. Plans are being discussed for the organization of American historical work in London which will make it more pleasant and more profitable. In the study or exploitation of any such mass of material as that deposited in the Record Office and the British Museum there is always a plenteous harvest of new information to be garnered. The manuscript records of any great national collection contain just as much unknown material and of quite as much human interest as do the graves and mounds of Egypt or Babylonia, and there is much of the same fascination in the work of excavating it.
This being the condition of the sources, it is evident that there is no lack of material for study of the period 1580 to 1660. This paper is intended, then, simply to plead for a more minute, careful, methodical, scholarly study of English conditions and English events at the time of the first American migration, and to point out the practicability of such an investigation. What is needed is not so much a study of the great men of the period as of the typical men; not so much an account of the casual occurrences of the time as of its wide-spread institutions; not so much a narrative of the temporary conflicts of the English people as of their normal development. There is room for many laborers. The young historian, looking for work worthy of his enthusiasm; the worried professor, at a loss where to advise his young charge to go in search of a thesis-subject : the old, hardened investigator, looking for some new world to conquer; the student of American colonial history who follows his subject backward till it brings him tantalizingly to the very edge of the Atlantic—all these may find occupation and interest and enlightenment for themselves and for others in the field of investigation here pointed out.
And it is no uninteresting or repellent task. It takes us back, wandering children that we are, to our mother-country; it places us in the midst of the life, the variety, the excitement of Elizabethan and early Stuart England; in the study of local institutions, indeed
AM. HIST. REV., VOL. XI.-51.
in the study of almost any of the phases of the time, we are brought into contact with the rural and civic gentry of England, that great homogeneous, patriotic, and gifted body which was the real governing class of England, and from whose ranks came so many of the leaders at court and in Parliament, on land and at sea, in England and in America; it makes us onlookers at one scene in the development of English history, that longest, most continuous, and most momentous historical drama that the world has yet known.
EDWARD P. CHEYNEY.
THE LATER AMERICAN POLICY OF GEORGE
The figure of Canning has hardly yet emerged from the mists of contemporary eulogy or depreciation. The policy of the man, of whom Lord Acton said " that no English Foreign Secretary equalled Canning ”, has not yet been fully understood even in its broad outlines. In America the greatness of the man is recognized, but the actual details of his policy are still somewhat obscure. His exact relations and concern with the Monroe doctrine are still not absolutely clear; and if this is the case with regard to that important phase of policy, it is still more the case with regard to his later diplomatic work. The old idea about Canning, expressed and championed by Stapleton, was that he was practically the author and suggester of the Monroe doctrine. The brilliant deductions of Mr. Reddaway, combined with the later research of Mr. W. C. Ford, have done much to define the limits and extent of his contribution to that memorable stroke of policy. It is at least clear that the Monroe doctrine had, in many important respects, been already formulated by American statesmen. Canning admitted the United States to be the leading power in America. Further, he rendered her an essential service in forcing Polignac, by a threat of war on October 9, 1823, to disclaim any idea of French aggression or influence to restore the revolted colonies to Spain. The publication of the presidential message on December 2, 1823, aided Canning materially in his European policy, because the European powers took that message in the sense of an unqualified support of British policy by the United States. But it is now known that Canning disapproved of that part of the presidential message which contained the first statement of the Monroe doctrine, when it announced that the continent of America would in future be closed to colonization by European powers. What is not known is how strong were his feelings on this point, and the means and policy by which he designed to render inoperative this part of the Monroe doctrine.
The object of the present article is to show that the later American policy of George Canning was intended to defeat certain claims and pretensions of the Monroe doctrine. These were the principle which forba de future colonization in America to European powers,
and the principle which tended to make America a separate world from Europe. The motives which led Canning to recognize the Spanish-American republics, to send an envoy to the congress of Panama, and to take up a firm attitude on the Oregon question were all influenced and indeed conditioned by this idea. Adams, in formulating the presidential message, had denied the right of any European power to intervene in Spanish America, expressly on the ground of the withdrawal of Americans from European interests. Canning himself asserted the doctrine of non-intervention in the internal affairs of states, and was the great foe of the Holy Alliance, which desired so to intervene. His great fear was that the world would be divided into a league of worn-out governments in Europe and new and vigorous republics in America. He was resolved therefore that England should maintain active political relations between one continent and the other, and thereby be enabled to enact England's favorite political role of arbiter between conflicting claims or pretensions. Hence he was prepared to introduce America into Europe and Europe into America, to deny the exclusive pretensions of the Holy Alliance to intervene in Spanish America, and check the exclusive pretensions of Adams to place his continent in a water-tight compartment and reserve America for the Americans.
Canning's famous boast that he had " called the New World into existence to redress the balance of the Old” has often been misunderstood. A recent writer, Colonel E. M. Lloyd, even professes to doubt whether this was really the cause of recognition. There can however be no question of this, for several memoranda on the subject exist. In them are detailed the inconvenience of the French continuing to occupy Spain:
1 Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, N. S., XVIII. 93 et seqq.
Some historians, for example Colonel Lloyd and E. J. Stapleton (Some Official Correspondence of George Canning, 2 vols., 1887, I. 213-214), have been misled by the fact that there were three memoranda : (1) A memorandum, apparently written by Canning, but perhaps corrected by Liverpool, indorsed with his approval, and circulated to the Cabinet (about November 30); see Wellington's Despatches, N. S., II. 354–358, and Charles D. Yonge, Life and Administration of Liverpool (3 vols., 1868), III. 297–304. (2) A memorandum-supplementary and qualifying-circulated in consequence of information received from Granville. It is undated, but must be about December 1-6. (3) A minute, embodying the collective opinion of the Cabinet, laid before the King by Canning on December 14, 1824, together with No. 1. This is in A. G. Stapleton, George Canning and his Times (1859), 407-411.
No. 2 is the most interesting, characteristic, and important. It is the memorandum ' which enabled us to carry Columbia too [as well as Mexico) at the Cabinet". Canning to Granville, December 17, 1824. It is to be found in Vansittart's papers at the British Museum, Ad. MSS. 31, 237, f. 258. So far as I know, its existence, as well as its substance, have hitherto been unknown and