106 
Indiana University Studies 
that they should be exposed to the risk of all the inconveni- 
ences which a sudden interruption of that supply might bring 
upon them.®^ Canning and Huskisson believed, in fact, that 
the British colonies were not thus dependent upon the United 
States for their prosperity; and they considered that ques- 
tion ought to be decided by an early experiment, in order that 
the struggle might not be forced upon them later at a more 
unfavorable time.®^ Events which transpired on the Amer- 
ican continent between 1822 and 1825 afforded Great Britain 
a favorable opportunity for this experiment. During these 
years the independence of the Spanish American republics was 
recognized by both the United States and Great Britain, and 
this change in the condition of the American continent pro- 
vided a chance to discover whether the British West Indies 
could not be supplied from these new states, thus relieving 
them of dependence upon the United States. That this came 
to be the view of the British Ministry is borne out by Can- 
ning’s statement that Great Britain, by her act of 1822, did not 
preclude herself from extending like privileges to other na- 
tions “whenever the course of events should create a favorable 
occasion for doing so”, and that “events which intervened be- 
tween 1822 and 1825 created such an occasion”.®® The Brit- 
ish Government, therefore, at length came to favor the 
passage of a measure which should give a wider opening to 
the trade of other countries with the British colonies, and 
should thus show the United States that, if they did not choose 
to trade with those colonies upon equal terms with other coun- 
tries, the colonies could do without their trade altogether.®^ 
Finally, Canning was determined that the United States 
should not secure the political and commercial leadership of 
the New World, if he could prevent it. Monroe’s message 
to Congress in December, 1823, had been far from satisfactory 
to Canning. Not only was he displeased with the independent 
action of the United States; he strongly disapproved of that 
part of Monroe’s Doctrine which announced that the continent 
of America would in the future be closed to colonization by 
European powers.®^ He felt “that Monroe’s message was but 
Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates (2d series), XVII, 647. 
Stapleton, Political Life of Canning, III, 68, 69. 
Am. State Papers, For. Rel., VI, 251. 
Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates (2d series), XII, 1107. 
Temperley, “The Later American Policy of George Canning’’ (Am. Hist. Rev., XI, 
779 ). 
