proceedings in rem has been to restore prizes, never to punish privateering; and the effect of the bonds which the Act provides may be taken, that the owners of a vessel shall not themselves employ her in a belligerent service, and which has, it is believed, never been practically enforced, is, as Mr. Bemis, of Boston, points out in his volume on American neutrality, to add so much to the price of the vessel.

6

"With regard to the claims for 'vast national injuries,' it may be as well to observe that Professor Wolsey, the eminent American jurist, has repudiated them as untenable, while the strongest arguments in favour of the recognition of Confederate belligerency are to be found in the notes to Mr. Dana's eighth edition of Wheaton; and Mr. Lawrence (the editor of the second annotated edition of Wheaton), in a recent speech at Bristol, stated that as far as respects the complaint founded on the recognition of the belligerent rights of the Confederates, I cannot use too strong language in pronouncing its utter baseless character. No tyro in international law is ignorant that belligerency is a simple question of fact. With the late Sir Cornewall Lewis, we may ask, if the array of a million of men on each side does not constitute belligerency, what is belligerency? But what was the proclamation of the President, followed up by the condemnation of your ships and cargoes for a violation of the blockade which is established, but a recognition of a state of war? At this moment the United States, in claiming the property of the late Confederate Government, place before your tribunals their title on the fact of their being the successors of a de facto Government. I repeat that, however valid our claims may be against you on other grounds, there is not the slightest pretext for any claim against you based on the public admission of a notorious fact, the existence of which has been recognized by every department of the Federal Government.'"

In his despatch, Mr. Fish had said, "Least of all could the Government of the United States anticipate hostility towards it, and special friendship for the insurgents of the seceding States, in view of the inducements and objects of that insurrection, which avowedly, and as every statesman, whether in Europe or America, well knew, and as the very earliest mention of the insurrection in the House of Commons indicated, were the secure establishment of a perpetual and exclusive slave-holding republic. In such a contest, the Government of the United States was entitled to expect the earnest good-will, sympathy, and moral support of Great Britain."

But in answer to this, we ask how stand the actual facts? The war waged by the North against the South was not a war against slavery, but a war to maintain the Union. If the abolition of slavery had been its object, the Border States would have infallibly sided with the South, and the issue of the contest would probably have been very different. In his inaugural message in March 1861, President Lincoln said, "I have no purpose directly

or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

And in a letter written and published by him in the second year of the civil war, the same President said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the coloured race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

The emancipation of the slave was the result indeed of the war, but never its object. It was adopted at the last moment as a military measure, and as a punishment of those who remained disloyal. It is therefore trifling with truth to assert that the Northern States were entitled to expect "the earnest good will, sympathy, and moral support of Great Britain" in the contest, so far as the question of slavery was concerned. We believe that the sympathies of the great mass of the people of this country were with the North, as was evinced by the conduct of the operatives during the pressure of the famine in Lancashire; but there was also, undoubtedly, amongst the higher classes, a strong current of feeling in favour of the South, and the Americans have been disposed too much to forget the first fact, and remember the second. If the question of the "Alabama" claims is again revived, it is certain that the dignity and honour of Great Britain will require, before the subject is again approached by our Government, a distinct and categorical statement of the terms and mode of "reparation" demanded by the Government of the United States. We have already made large concessions, and gone to the utmost limits in agreeing to leave the whole question to arbitration, in accordance with the view taken by the Americans themselves. But after a solemn Convention had been executed by the accredited Ministers of both countries, it was unceremoniously annulled by the Senate, and treated as so much waste paper. It is not likely that we shall allow ourselves again to be placed in such a false position; and no Ministry in England would be able to remain in power a week which should be suspected of yielding to threat, or menace, or fear, in conducting whatever negotiations may take place on this question in the future.

CHAPTER VI.

UNITED STATES (continued).

Insurrection in Cuba and attitude of the United States-Speech of Mr. Senator Sumner at a Meeting of the Republican Convention of Massachusetts-Meeting of Congress-Message of the President.

THE revolution that broke out in Spain last year was followed by an insurrection in Cuba, the largest and most important of the Spanish colonies, and called in America "The Pearl of the Antilles." General Dulce was at the head of the forces there; but in the middle of the present year he was forced, by a tumultuous manifestation on the part of the troops, to resign the command, and General Caballero de Rodas was despatched from Spain as his successor. The insurgents were very anxious to have the independence of Cuba recognized by the United States, and there was a strong feeling in that country in favour of the measure. But the Government felt that it would be too gross an inconsistency to take such a step at the very time when it was making a grave complaint against Great Britain for merely proclaiming neutrality, and allowing the status of belligerency to the Confederate States at the outbreak of the civil war. It therefore determined not to interfere further than by tendering its good offices to the Spanish Government to arrange the terms on which Spain should voluntarily give up the island of Cuba. The offer, however, was declined, and the United States Government steadily maintained an attitude of neutrality. The insurrection still continued to the close of the year, but with every prospect of being finally suppressed.

At a meeting of the Republican Convention of the State of Massachusetts, on the 22nd of September, Mr. Senator Sumner made a long speech on the foreign and domestic policy of the United States, which is worth reading, as an exposition of the views of an able American statesman, who is also one of the most unfriendly critics of the policy of Great Britain. He said that he wished to speak cautiously of foreign affairs; and in speaking at all he broke a vow with himself not to open his lips on these questions excepting in the Senate. He yielded to friendly pressure, and yet knew of no reason why he should not speak, and in speaking he should be frank. In their foreign relations there were with him two cardinal principles which he had no hesitation to avow at all times: first, peace with all the world, and, secondly, sympathy with all struggling for human rights. In neither of these would he fail, for each is essential. Peace was for them a universal conqueror; through peace the whole world would be theirs. Filled with the might of peace the sympathy extended would be next to an alliance. Following these plain principles, they should be open, and allow foreign nations to OW their sentiments, so that even when there was a difference there

should be no just cause for offence. In this spirit he would now approach Spain. Patron of the renowned navigator through whom she became the discoverer of this hemisphere, her original sway within it surpassed that of any other power. At last her extended possessions on the mainland loosed themselves from her grasp. Cuba and Porto Rico remained; and now Cuban insurgents demand independence as a nation. For months they have engaged in deadly conflict with the Spanish power. The beautiful island is fast becoming a desert, while the nation to which Columbus gave the New World is contending for its last possession there. On this statement two questions occur as to the duty of Spain, and as to the duty of the United States. Unwelcome as it may be to Castilian pride, Spain must not refuse to see the case in its true light, nor can she close her eyes to the lesson of history. She must recall how the thirteen American colonies achieved independence against all the power of England-How all her own colonies on the American main achieved independence against her own most strenuous efforts How at this moment England is preparing to release her Northern colonies from their condition of dependence; and recalling these examples it would be proper for her to consider if they do not illustrate a tendency in all colonies which was remarked by an illustrious Frenchman even before the independence of the United States. Turgot, in 1750, said, "Colonies are like fruits, which hold to the tree only until maturity-when sufficient for themselves doing what Carthage did, what some day will America do." Senator Sumner asked, Has not Cuba reached this condition of maturity? Is it not sufficient for itself? Is victory over a colony contending for independence worth the blood and treasure it will cost? These are serious questions which can be answered properly only by putting aside all passion and prejudice of empire, and calmly considering the actual condition of things. Nor must the case of Cuba be confounded for a moment with our wicked rebellion, having for its object the dismemberment of a Republic to found a new power, with slavery as its declared corner-stone. He could not doubt that, in the interest of both parties, Cuba and Spain, and in the interest of humanity also, the contest should be closed. Nor could the enlightened mind fail to see that Spanish power on this island was an anachronism. The day of European colonies had passed-at least in this hemisphere, where the rights of man were first proclaimed, and self-government was first organized. As the true course for Spain was clear, so to his mind was the true course for the United States equally clear. It was to avoid involving themselves in any way. Enough of war have they had without heedlessly assuming another; enough had their commerce been driven from the ocean without heedlessly arousing a new enemy. Two policies were open to them at the beginning of the insurrection. One was to unite their fortunes openly with the insurgents, assuming the responsibilities of such an alliance with the hazard of open war. The other policy was to make Spain feel that they wished her nothing

but good, and that especially since the expulsion of her royal dynasty they cherished for her a cordial sympathy. It is said that Republies are ungrateful, but he would not forget that at the beginning of their revolution their fathers were aided by her money, as afterwards by her arms, and that one of her great statesmen, Florinda Blanca, bent his energies to the organization of that armed neutrality in the North of Europe which turned the scale against England. He said nothing of the motives with which Spain was then governed. It was something that in their day of need she lent a helping hand. Adopting the first policy, it was evident they would be powerless, except as an enemy. The second policy might enable them to exercise an important influence. The more he reflected upon the actual condition of Spain the more he was satisfied that the true rule for the United States was non-intervention, except in the way of good offices. Spain is engaged in comedy and tragedy. The Spanish comedy is hunting a king; the tragedy sending armies against Cuba. He did not wish to take part in the comedy or the tragedy. If Spain were wise she would give up both. Meanwhile they had a duty which is prescribed by international law. To that venerable authority he repaired, and what it prescribed he followed. Nations were not left by it to any mere caprice; there was a rule they must follow, subject to just accountability when they departed from it. On ordinary occasions there was no question, for it was with nations as with individuals. It was only at a critical moment when the rule was obscure or precedents uncertain that doubt arose, as now, on the question of recognizing the belligerence of the Cuban insurgents. Here he wished to be explicit. Belligerence was a "fact" attested by evidence. If the "fact" did not exist there was nothing to recognize. The fact could not be invented or imagined, it must be proved. No matter what their sympathy or the extent of their desires, they must look to the fact. There might be insurrection without reaching this condition, which was at least the half-way house to independence. The Hungarians when they rose against Austria did not reach it, although they had large armies in the field. The Poles in repeated insurrections against Russia never reached it, although they made Europe vibrate. The sepoys and rajahs of India failed also, although for a time they held in check the whole English power. Nor in his opinion did the American rebels ever reach it so far as to justify their recognition on the ocean. If the Cuban insurgents had yet reached this point he had never seen the evidence. He knew they were in arms; but where were their cities, towns, provinces, Government, ports, tribunals for justice, and prize courts? To put these questions was to answer them. How, then, was the "fact" of belligerence? There was another question in their case, and with him it was final. Even if they came within the prerequisites of international law, he was unwilling to make any recognition of them, so long as they continued to hold human beings as slaves. A decree in May last, purporting to be signed by Cespedes, abolished slavery; but he was not sure of this decree, especially in