I conceive Texas no more bound to assume a portion of the public debt of Mexico, than the thirteen American colonies, after they achieved their independence, were bound to assume a share of the national debt of Great Britain. Your lordship, however, in our conferences, has never pressed this as a matter of right, although I have not failed to recognise the zealous attention and regard you have paid to the interests of a class of her Majesty's subjects, who have long suffered under the bad faith of Mexico, and whom, under a just equivalent to the citizens of Texas, I shall be gratified if they shall be instrumental in indemnifying.

"In conclusion, I have the honour to remain, with distinguished consideration and regard,

"Your Lordship's obedient Servant,

"J. HAMILTON."

"The Right Hon. Lord Viscount Palmerston."

This letter (which is quite Texan in the way of contradiction,) is dated the 5th November, 1840, eight days before the treaty was signed between England and Texas,* and Lord Palmerston accepted this letter as the basis of the subjoined convention which was signed the day after the treaty.

"CONVENTION.

"Whereas her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, being desirous of putting an end to the hostilities which still continue to be carried on between Mexico and Texas, has offered her mediation to the contending parties, with a view to bring about a pacification between them;

*The treaty between England and Texas was published in the United States' papers in June, 1841 the copy given in the Supplement is taken from an American paper.

and whereas the republic of Texas has accepted the mediation so offered the republic of Texas and her Britannic Majesty's government have determined to settle, by means of convention, certain arrangements which will become necessary in the event of such pacification being effected; and have for this purpose named as their plenipotentiaries, that is to say, the republic of Texas, General James Hamilton, &c., &c.; and her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom, the Right Honourable Henry John Viscount Palmerston, Baron Temple, a peer of Ireland, a member of parliament, Knight of the Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, and her Britannic Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; who, after having communicated to each other their respective full powers, found in good order and due form, have agreed upon and concluded the following articles :

"Art. 1. The republic of Texas agrees that if by the mediation of her Britannic Majesty an unlimited truce shall be established between Mexico and Texas within thirty days after this convention shall have been communicated to the Mexican government by her Britannic Majesty's mission at Mexico; and if within six months after that communication shall have been made, Mexico shall have concluded a treaty of peace with Texas, then, and in such case, the republic of Texas will take upon itself a portion, amounting to one million pounds sterling, of the capital of the foreign debt contracted by the republic of Mexico before the 1st of January, 1835.

"Art. 2. The manner in which the capital of one million pounds sterling of foreign debt, mentioned in the preceding article, shall be transferred from the republic of Mexico to the republic of Texas, shall be settled hereafter by a special agreement between the republic of Texas and the republic of Mexico, under mediation of her Britannic Majesty.

"Art. 3. The present convention shall be ratified, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at London as soon as possible within the space of nine months from this date.

"In witness whereof, the respective plenipotentiaries have signed, and have affixed thereunto the seals of their arms. Done at London the 14th day of November, in the year of our Lord, 1840.

66

(Signed) "PALMERSTON.
"HAMILTON."

General Hamilton, whilst absolutely craving the mediation of her Britannic Majesty on behalf of Texas with the mother country, for the suspension of hostilities, on the issue of which depends the independence of the republic of Texas, enters his protestando" against the inference that Texas is bound in any degree for any portion of the foreign debt of Mexico, on any principle of international law but the gallant Texan envoy must have forgotten that the debt contracted by Mexico with British subjects was for the express purpose of promoting the internal improvement of the Mexican states, and that the loan raised by Mexico in London was so applied by the Mexicans, and that a due portion fell to the lot of Texas. In order, however, to substantiate his " protestando" he states, "I conceive Texas no more bound to assume a portion of the public debt of Mexico, than the thirteen American colonies, after they had achieved their independence, were bound to assume a share of the national debt of Great Britain." Here it is necessary to remind the enlightened plenipotentiary that England had no foreign debt at the time to

which he alludes; and if she had, as is the case with Mexico, he may be sure that the foreign creditors of England would have applied to, and, in case of refusal, compelled the thirteen American colonies to assume a part of the foreign debt of the mother country.

There are a few other assertions contained in General Hamilton's despatch, that are worthy of a passing notice. He says, "Texas consummated her independence in 1836." If so, where was the necessity of his soliciting, in 1840, the mediation of the Queen of the United Kingdom with Mexico? And if the latter, as Gen. Hamilton has stated, lost "in 1837, all possession of, and all sovereignty over Texas," why call in a third power? Is it simply for the satisfaction of making a voluntary concession of £1,000,000 sterling to the benevolence and philanthropy of the British government? If Texas achieved her independence honourably and nobly, and was so prepared to maintain it, would she now offer to pay "precisely the sum the United States offered for the whole country in 1830," when she can console herself with the assertion put forth by the Texan envoy in his "protestando?" Certainly not.

When speaking of the violations of certain contracts between Mexico and the Texans, that "were accompanied by atrocities which rather belonged to the dark ages than the era in which we live," his Excellency, as a matter of course, alludes to the

following, which are historically recorded by several American writers:

The massacre, by the first Anglo-American settlers in Texas, of the Carancauha Indians, amounting to 350 families, men, women, and children, say 600 souls,

The massacre of a poor Indian woman, who was shot, and
"had both knees broken for stealing a handful of corn
from a crib."-(Texas in 1840.)
The poor wounded Indian, who was asked by a gallant
Texan officer, "where he would be shot, opened his
bosom, and pointed to the centre of his breast, which was
immediately pierced by a ball, and a rope being tied to his
legs, the body was dragged some distance, and finally
hung upon a tree, where it remained until eaten up piece-
meal by the wolves and vultures."-(Texas in 1840.)
The unprovoked massacre of Salcedo's officers by the Texans,
at San Antonio, amounting to

The assassination of General Long by his Texan soldiers
Ditto
Thompson, a planter on the

Brazos in 1828

The assassination of

in 1828

66

600

1

1

27 1

1

1

The assassination of Judge Fisher, Matagorder, 1839 The massacre of 14 Indian chiefs and two women at San Antonio, April, 1840; they having entered that settlement for the purpose of concluding treaties with the Texans . 16 The deliberate assassination of Vance and three of his associates on the Houston race-course in April, 1840, sence of two or three thousand persons. The duel between a Colonel of the Texan army and a subaltern officer at Austin, May, 1840, in which both were mortally wounded

in the pre