"About the British in the Mexican Adventure..." Topic
5 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the 19th Century Discussion Message Board Back to the Mexican-American Wars Message Board
Action Log
18 Jun 2016 5:19 p.m. PST by Editor in Chief Bill
- Changed title from "Abour the British in the Mexican Adventure..." to "About the British in the Mexican Adventure..."
- Removed from 19th Century Media board
- Crossposted to 19th Century Discussion board
Areas of Interest19th Century World War One
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
|
Tango01 | 16 Jun 2016 10:30 p.m. PST |
"LORD ROBERT MONTAGU said, he was warned yesterday evening that both 352 front benches had agreed together to count out the House on this Motion. He did not suppose that the House could be so indifferent to a subject which affected it so nearly. The papers on the affairs of Mexico had an interest peculiar to themselves. The last of them was delivered on Saturday, and it would be unconstitutional not to submit that policy to discussion by the House. The usual objection could not be urged, that he was referring to events long past and gone; he had taken the earliest opportunity of bringing the papers before the House—namely, the first Motion night after the production of the papers. From those papers it appeared that Her Majesty's Government refused to conclude peace with Mexico, through undue subserviency to the French Emperor. The French, the House would remember, took up an independent line of action in Mexico, "frustrating the objects of the three Powers" (according to the language of our Minister) "breaking the Convention of London," and "violating the preliminaries of Soledad." We considered this "a slight" to England and Spain, and withdrew. Our Plenipotentiaries then concluded a peace which procured, as Lord Russell avowed, "the redress which had been so long sought;" and obtained the most ample guarantees in waste lands and church property. Before ratifying this Convention, Lord Russell wrote for the Emperor's sanction. The Emperor disapproved, and the treaty was therefore repudiated. This point he was prepared to prove, after rapidly sketching the previous occurrences, so as to show that the same influence had prevailed throughout. He thought that the two front benches could not venture to count out the House on a question of such vital importance to the country. The first paper on this subject contained the Dunlop and Aldham Conventions; not, however, the negotiations which led to them. From these Conventions it would appear that the grievances consisted merely in non-payment of creditors. Little enough was said about reparation for outrages. The satisfaction demanded and given was 51 per cent upon the imports. Captain Dunlop, in the despatch enclosing the Convention, dated February 2, 1859, said that Juarez "had at once acceded to all the demands for redress of the British."…" More here link Amicalement Armand |
79thPA | 17 Jun 2016 6:17 a.m. PST |
I can't even read the wall of text in the link. |
Tango01 | 17 Jun 2016 11:41 a.m. PST |
Sorry for that… Amicalement Armand |
Royal Marine | 19 Jun 2016 4:47 a.m. PST |
No pictures! Not good for Wargamers |
Tango01 | 19 Jun 2016 3:04 p.m. PST |
|
|