THE MONROE DOCTRINE 439 



And again : 



Thus far in our history we have been spared the burdens and 

 evils of immense standing armies and all the other accessories of 

 huge warlike establishments ; and the exemption has highly con- 

 tributed to our national greatness and wealth, as well as to the 

 happiness of every citizen. But with the Powers of Europe per- 

 manently encamped on American soil, the ideal conditions we have 

 thus far enjoyed cannot be expected to continue. 



The necessary meaning of these words is that the union be- 

 tween Great Britain and Canada; between Great Britain and 

 Jamaica and Trinidad ; between Great Britain and British Hon- 

 duras or British Guiana are " inexpedient and unnatural.' 7 

 President Monroe disclaims any such inference from his doctrine; 

 but in this, as in other respects, Mr. Olney develops it. He lays 

 down that the inexpedient and unnatural character of the union 

 between a European and American State is so obvious that it 

 "will hardly be denied." Her Majesty's Government are pre- 

 pared emphatically to deny it on behalf of both the British and 

 American people who are subject to her Crown. They maintain 

 that the union between Great Britain and her territories in the 

 Western Hemisphere is both natural and expedient. They fully 

 concur with the view which President Monroe apparently enter- 

 tained, that any disturbance of the existing territorial distribution 

 in that hemisphere by any fresh acquisitions on the part of any 

 European State would be a highly inexpedient change. But they 

 are not prepared to admit that the recognition of that expediency 

 is clothed with the sanction which belongs to a doctrine of inter- 

 national law. They are not prepared to admit that the interests 

 of the United States are necessarily concerned in every frontier 

 dispute which may arise between any two of the States who pos- 

 sess dominion in the Western Hemisphere ; and still less can they 

 accept the doctrine that the United States are entitled to claim 

 that the process of arbitration shall be applied to any demand for 

 the surrender of territory which one of those States may make 

 against another. 



I have commented in the above remarks only upon the general 

 aspect of Mr. Olney 's doctrines, apart from the special considera- 

 tions which attach to the controversy between the United King- 

 dom and Venezuela in its present phase. This controversy has 

 undoubtedly been made more difficult by the inconsiderate action 

 of the Venezuelan Government in breaking off relations with Her 

 Majesty's Government, and its settlement has been correspond- 

 ingly delayed; but Her Majesty's Government have not surren- 



