The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-14 00:00:00

AFFAIRS IN MEXICO.

On Saturday about 40 pages of correspondence
relating to Mexican affairs were issued from the
Parliamentary printing-office. This correspondence
includes letters from the British Minister at Madrid,
respecting the proceedings of the Spanish Cabinet;
communications from our representatives, diploma-
tic and naval, in Mexico, concerning the proceedings
of the French ; a copy of the convention of Puebla,
concluded but not ratified; and letters from Lord
Cowley, reporting the comments of the French
Foreign Minister. M. Thouvenel acknowledged the
right of England to conclude the convention, but
expressed regret at the probable exercise of that
right; and, on the ground of objections to some of
its provisions, the British Government declined to
ratify the convention, Earl Russell expressing his
pleasure that circumstances enabled us with honour
to avoid that which would appear to widen the po-
litical separation between England and France with
regard to Mexican affairs. The French Government
manifested great satisfaction at this determination,
and asked permission to announce it to the legisla-
tive body. Earl Russell replies that there is no
objection to this, as doubtless the reason would at
the same time be stated. What those reasons in
detail are, and the present aspect of the question,
will be gathered from the following despatch from
the Foreign Minister to Sir Charles Wyke, with
which the correspondence concludes :
" Foreign-office, June 27, 1862.—5ir,--Her Ma-
jesty's Government have considered with great at-
tention your despatch of April 29, and the conven-
tion signed by you at Puebla on April 28, of which
a copy was enclosed in your despatch. They have
also received a copy of the additional convention
signed by you, by Commodore Dunlop, and General
Doblado, at Mexico, on May 12, and enclosed in
your despatch of the 11th ult. Her Majesty's Govern-
ment have no doubt that you and Commodore Dunlop
were quite right in separating yourselves from the
French after the declared intention of the French
commanders to move their troops on Mexico, with
a view to overthrow the government of the Presi-
dent of the Mexican republic. Had you consented
to join in that movement, you would, in the opinion
of her Majesty's Government, have acted in direct
violation of the convention of London, and in con-
travention of those principles of non-interference in
the internal affairs of other countries upon which
the foreign policy of her Majesty's Government is
based. Her Majesty's Government are rejoiced to
think that you have made it clear to the world that
her Majesty's Government will not swerve from a
policy which is so conducive to the maintenance of
the principle of national independence. Nor can
anyone deny that when you had thus regained your
freedom of acting you were at liberty to negotiate
a convention with the Mexican Government. There
can be no doubt, indeed, that it is not only strictly
the right, but it is also strictly the duty of the
British Government to obtain for British subjects in
Mexico reparation for the wrongs they have suffered,
and compensation for the frauds and the robberies
of which they have been the victims. But in seek-
ing to obtain this redress, the British Government
are determined to abide by the principles they pro-
fess, the obligations they have contracted, and the
great rules of policy by which the nation is guided.
Viewed in this light, her Majesty's Government do
not find that the convention of Puebla contravenes
either the principle of non-intervention or the gene-
ral engagement contained in the convention of
October 31, 1861, that the contracting parties
should not by their action in Mexico seek any terri-
torial dominion or separate advantage for them-
selves. It only proposes to do that which England,
France, and Spain desired to do jointly, and which,
since the rupture of Orizaba we must all do
separately, namely, to obtain redress for just com-
plaints. But when the convention is examined with
a view to ascertain its conformity to the great rules
of policy by which the British nation is guided, her
Majesty's Government are not satisfied with some
of its provisions. For instance, this convention
recognises in a most inconvenient manner the
probable conclusion of a treaty between Mexico and
the United States, by which Mexico would o
a loan from the United States, and the
Unite
a security for that loan in the vast waste
owill not be
ratified, nor even be submitte d tldanSdteatensf
Mexico. It has since appeared that thisexic treaty be-
tween the United States and M
President of the
purpose of ratification by the
o the ?nate for the
Government under-
United States. Her Majesty's
stand that the ground upon which the Government
to the determination
on fo
not to
ht eo Unitedratifyt
this
itsa
treaty
re
es
ahtayvie comes ,
that
by
advancing money
need parties. The sam
i,, e
apply to Great Britain,e
to a power at war with .France the United States
would. aid one of the
convention were ratified we should
beoaobjectionus because
d if
the
es
cn not,
n
withdraw money from Mexico instead of advancing
money to Mexico. But the objection felt by her
Majesty's Government to the convention of Puebla
is that this convention with Mexico is interwoven
with another treaty the provisions of which are not
fully known to her Majesty's Government, and
which, if brought into operation, might possibly
affect the independence of Mexico. The conven-
tion which you have signed proceeds to provide
that, in case the treaty with the United States
should not be ratified, an interest in the same pro-
perty in the Waste lands 'should be vested in the