Conquest of Mexico
Page 308 (1).—For an illustration of the above remark the reader is referred to the closing pages of chap. 7, part ii. of the "History of Ferdinand and Isabella," where I have taken some pains to show how deep settled were those convictions in Spain, at the period with which we are now occupied. The world had gained little in liberality since the age of Dante, who could coolly dispose of the great and good of Antiquity in one of the circles of Hell, because—no fault of theirs, certainly—they had come into the world too soon. The memorable lines, like many others of the immortal bard, are a proof at once of the strength and weakness of the human understanding. They may be cited as a fair exponent of the popular feeling at the beginning of the sixteenth century. "They have not sinned; and though they have good works to their account, it sufficeth not, for they knew not baptism, which is the gateway of the faith the which thou dost believe. And as they were before Christ's coming, they failed to worship God aright; and of their number am I myself. For shortcomings such as these, and for no other fault, are we lost: and this our only punishment, that without hope we live in yearning."—Inferno, canto iv.
Page 308 (2).—It is in the same spirit that the laws of Oleron, the maritime code of so high authority in the Middle Ages, abandon the property-of the infidel, in common with that of pirates, as fair spoil to the true believer! "If they be pirates, robbers or sea-rovers, or Turks or other renegades and enemies of our Catholic Faith, all men may regard such folk in the light of dogs, may despoil and deprive them of their goods with impunity. Such is the law."—Jugemens d'Oleron, Art. 45, ap. Collection de Lois Maritimes par J. M. Pardessus (ed. Paris, 1828), tom. i. P-351
Page 308 (3).—The famous bull of partition became the basis of the treaty of Tordesillas, by which the Castilian and Portuguese governments determined the boundary line of their respective discoveries; a line that secured the vast empire of Brazil to the latter, which from priority of occupation should have belonged to their rivals.—See the History of Ferdinand and Isabella, vol. ii. part i. chap. 7; part ii. chap. 9.—the closing pages of each.
Page 308 (4).—It is the condition, unequivocally expressed and reiterated, on which Alexander VI., in his famous bulls of May 3rd and 4th, 1493, conveys to Ferdinand and Isabella full and absolute right over all such territories in the Western World as may not have been previously occupied by Christian princes.—See these precious documents, in extenso, apud Navarrete, Colleccion de los Viages y Descubrimientos (Madrid, 1825), tom. ii. Nos. 17, 18.
Page 308 (5).—The ground on which Protestant nations assert a natural right to the fruits of their discoveries in the New World is very different. They consider that the earth was intended for cultivation; and that Providence never designed that hordes of wandering savages should hold a territory far more than necessary for their own maintenance, to the exclusion of civilised man. Yet it may be thought, as far as improvement of the soil is concerned, that this argument would afford us but an indifferent tenure for much of our own unoccupied and uncultivated territory, far exceeding what is demanded for our present or prospective support. As to a right founded on difference of civilisation, this is obviously a still more uncertain criterion. It is to the credit of our puritan ancestors, that they did not avail themselves of any such interpretation of the law of nature, and still less rely on the powers conceded by King James's patent, asserting rights as absolute, nearly, as those claimed by the Roman See. On the contrary, they established their title to the soil by fair purchase of the aborigines; thus forming an honourable contrast to the policy pursued by too many of the settlers on the American continents. It should be remarked, that, whatever difference of opinion may have subsisted between the Roman Catholic, —or rather the Spanish and Portuguese nations,—and the rest of Europe, in regard to the true foundation of their titles in a moral view, they have always been content, in their controversies with one another, to rest them exclusively on priority of discovery. For a brief view of the discussion, see Vattel (Droit des Gens, sec. 209), and especially Kent (Commentaries on American Law, vol. iii. Lee. 51), where it is handled with much perspicuity and eloquence. The argument as founded on the law of nations, may be found in the celebrated case of Johnson v. M'Intosh. Wheaton, Reports of Cases in the Supreme Court of the United States, vol. viii. pp. 543 et seq.)
470
