in the greatest silence. Senor Iturbide asked, a moment before his execution, for a glass of water, and as soon as he had drank it, falling on his knees before the troops, he recom

mended to them obedience to their chiefs and the fulfilment of their military duties: and besought them to consider his punishment, if ignominious, as extending only to himself, and terminated by his death, without reaching his family; manifesting a desire that his death might be useful to the nation. When he had concluded this address, the officer gave the troops the terrible signal, and Iturbide instantly fell to the earth a lifeless corpse, which was carried soon after to a building near the parish church, followed by the troops. On the following day he was interred with all the decency which the smallness of the population would allow.

The state of slavery in which part of the population of South America still remains sunk, has unavoidably rendered more complicated the question of its independence. It would, however, be an error to suppose this obstacle insurmountable. Slavery, as it now exists in some parts of the world, is, without doubt, a serious evil, a heavy burthen bequeathed to the present generation by those which have preceded; but it would be wrong to consider this fact alone as an irrefragable argument against the emancipation of the South American States.

We will not assert on the authority of history, that a free and independent state can subsist, whilst a part of its inhabitants are doomed to slavery. Heaven forbid that the deceptive illusions of antiquity should induce us to consider as free, under whatever name they were known, states which contained Helots, and which sanctioned the slavery of a part of their population, as one of the organical principles of their social existence. Liberty, such as we imagine it, such as it appeared to Montesquieu, such as it is represented by Christianity, and such as it is acknowledged by humanity, was no more the portion of the Greek and Roman states, than it has since been that of Poland, or than it is, at the present day, that of Russia; but the fact of the existence of slavery, among these different nations, proves that it opposes no absolute ob

stacle to national independence, and that it may, even for a considerable period, co-exist with civil liberty; freedom is indeed more likely to rest on a solid basis, where a state of things unquestionably iniquitous, but which has unhappily endured for many ages, is gradually destroyed, than where it is suddenly uprooted. Far be it from us to justify or to palliate a state of things repugnant to humanity, reason and religion : our only intention is to prove that it is not a serious ob stacle to the cause of South American independence. But this question is decided by the example of the United States of North America. There, as we shall subsequently shew, slavery exists under a hideous, form, is very unlike that which it exhibits in South America. The United States have nevertheless triumphed over formidable obstacles, though of a very different nature from those which have been, and still are, opposed to the triumph of South American independence.

It cannot, however, be denied that, generally speaking, slavery is an evil which must be put an end to, a wound which must eventually be healed. But here arises a question of great delicacy and of the highest importance. What are the preparatory means for accomplishing the definitive abolition of slavery in South America? Ought this abolition to be sudden or gradual * Although Chili and Mexico have decided for an immediate and complete emancipation, we hesitate not to express our belief that a slow, gradual and

*See under the head Documents, the decree of the government of Mexico, which abolishes slavery throughout the territories of the federation.

continued enfranchisement is more consonant to prudence, more favourable to the well-being of its objects, and perhaps more likely to be crowned with complete success. The subject of the abolition of slavery has been discussed by the British Parliament: and the important debates to which this great question gave rise during the last session are known to the whole world. It enters not into the plan of this essay to take any decided part in the bitter and hostile discussion between the planters and the abolitionists. The English Ministry have taken a middle course; and repelling, with equal force, the idea of a sudden abolition and that of the perpetuation of a state of slavery, not less repugnant to sound policy, than to the progress of civilization, they have decided upon measures which, however wise, have given satisfaction to no one. The abolitionists reproach them with having done too little, the planters with having done too much. This discrepancy of opinion is, to the Ministry, a tribute of praise.

But it must be observed that there is a difference between the free states of South America and the European colonies. The condition of slaves in the latter is so dissimilar from what it is found to be on the continent, that we shall be excused if we take for our model neither the measures adopted by the British Ministry, nor those recommended by the English abolitionists; the principle, however, being the same in both cases, it is obvious that some of the measures which we shall point out, are equally applicable to South America. But neither shall we propose to ourselves the example of the United States. It is universally admitted that, in reference to the matter in

question, this nation is not to be considered as a model of imitation. The laws relating to slaves are generally, in that part of the American continent extremely severe. Georgia, the two Carolinas and Virginia, the states which contain the greatest number of slaves, are remarkable for the rigour of their legislative enactments, in respect to these unhappy beings. The Spa'nish laws, on the contrary, are of a much milder character. The code which relates to slaves breathes a humane and paternal spirit. The English philanthropists are so impressed with this conviction that one of the things which they are most solicitous to recommend, is the adoption of some of the clauses of this code.

Every one knows what is understood in the United States, by the kidnapping of slaves, It is simply to seize every free black or man of colour, and to reduce him to slavery, if he has not about him the documents which authenticate his state of freedom. These unhappy men are afterwards sent into remote provinces, where, in consequence of the distance from their native home, the voice of complaint cannot be heard, and where it would be impossible for their friends or relatives to claim them.

' It is also known that in some of the Southern United States, it is forbidden under severe penalties, to affranchise a slave; and when, for the sake of emancipating a slave, the master chooses to subject himself to these penalties, the unhappy object of his generosity is compelled to quit the state, and to seek refuge in the northern states; all the southern states invariably refuse to receive him.

But it is not in the laws alone that inhumanity