Page images
PDF
EPUB

Thus it is more than probable that her wisdom and good will towards the United States saved the two countries from a state of open hostilities, if not actual war. It is well known that the Prince Consort was in accord with her, and it is sad to think that the memorandum referred to was the last political writing from his pen. He was then seriously indisposed, and when he handed the paper to the Queen," he told her that he could scarcely hold the pen while writing it." He died on the 14th of December, 1861.

At a public dinner given to Commander Williams in London, 12th December, he made what appears to have been not inaptly characterized as "a braggadocio speech," in which he gave his account of the action of himself, Lieutenant Fairfax, and others on board the Trent. He said he and Lieutenant Fairfax asked each other's pardon for anything which might have been said or done offensive on either side, so far as they themselves were concerned. He declared that one of Mr. Slidell's daughters branded an officer of the San Jacinto "to his face with his infamy, having been her father's guest not ten days before." He likewise averred, with an appeal to Heaven, that “the marines made a rush towards Miss Slidell with fixed bayonets." He said, "she did strike Mr. Fairfax, but not with the vulgarity of gesture attributed to her. Miss Slidell [he continues] was in the cabin with her arms encircling his neck, and she wished to be taken to prison with her father. Mr. Fairfax attempted to get into the cabin-I do not say forcibly, for I do not say a word against Mr. Fairfax so far as his manner is concerned-he attempted to get her away by inducements. In her agony, then, she did strike him in the face three times." He said that "when the marines made a rush for Miss Slidell, she screamed, for her father snatched himself away from her to break the window of his cabin, through which he thrust his body out. But the hole was so small that I hardly thought it would admit the

circumference of his waist. It was then the lady screamed. When the marines rushed on with the point of the bayonet, I had just time to put my body between their bayonets and Miss Slidell, and I said to them, 'Back, you

[merged small][ocr errors]

cowardly

The excitement in England, instead of abating, continued to increase, although there was a conservative undercurrent there not unfavorable to the United States. For instance, Mr. John Bright counselled moderation, and the Sheffield Foreign Affairs Committee petitioned the Queen to punish Captain Moir and Commander Williams of the Trent for disobeying her proclamation of 13th of May, by carrying "officers" of the Confederate States and their "despatches."

The New York Tribune of 3d December said: "England is almost beside herself, is the tenor of the latest and most trustworthy private letters. They say that passion has swept away reason in a manner to an extent unknown since 1831, and that the national sympathy with the South developed by recent events is startling." Some now thought the President might propose to submit the matter to arbitration; but the New York Journal of Commerce suggested that, "if the British Government wanted only an adjudication by a Court of Admiralty, they could be easily accommodated by a return of the prisoners on board of the Trent at the point of capture, and then Captain Wilkes could fire a gun across her bow and bring her into port according to law."

There appeared to be no thought on the part of the people or press of the United States that the prisoners would be given up. Secretary Welles, in his annual report, had referred to "the prompt and decisive action of Captain Wilkes," as having "merited and received the emphatic approbation of the Department;" and a resolution of thanks to him had been passed by the House of Representatives immediately on coming together. Nevertheless, near the close of December, to the amazement of many, it began

to be whispered about that our Government, considering discretion the better part of valor, had concluded to yield to the demands of Great Britain. The New York Herald, referring to this "silly rumor," said there "was not the slightest truth in the report."

But now came the unexpected dénouement. Having taken several days to digest Earl Russell's despatch, a copy of which had been left with him by Lord Lyons, Mr. Seward proceeded, December 26, to reply to it. He commenced by reciting its principal points, and, saying it had been submitted to the President, added: "The British Government has rightly conjectured, what is my duty now to state, that Captain Wilkes acted upon his own suggestions of duty without any direction or instruction, or even foreknowledge of it on the part of the Government." He corrects some of Earl Russell's statements to the effect that the round shot was fired in a direction obviously so divergent from the course of the Trent as to be "quite as harmless as a blank shot, while it should be regarded as a signal." So, also, we learn that the Trent was not approaching the San Jacinto slowly when the shell was fired across her bow, but, "on the contrary, the Trent was, or seemed to be, moving under a full head of steam, as if with a purpose to pass the San Jacinto." Also, that Lieutenant Fairfax "did not board the Trent with a large armed guard,' but left the marines in his boat when he entered the Trent;" that "the captain of the Trent was not at any time or in any way to go on board the San Jacinto," as Earl Russell had stated. Mr. Seward described the character of the prisoners, saying their despatches were carried to emissaries of the rebel government in England. He said, "The question before us is, whether this proceeding was authorized and conducted according to the law of nations. It involves the following inquiries:

"1st. Were the persons named and their supposed despatches contraband of war?

"2d. Might Captain Wilkes lawfully stop and search the Trent for these contraband persons and despatches?

"3d. Did he exercise that right in a lawful and proper manner?

"4th. Having found the contraband persons on board and in presumed possession of the contraband despatches, had he a right to capture the persons?

"5th. Did he exercise that right of capture in the manner allowed and recognized by the law of nations?

"If all these inquiries shall be resolved in the affirmative, the British Government will have no claim to reparation."

Addressing himself to these inquiries, he disposes of the first four in the affirmative. Taking up the fifth, he says: "It is just here that the difficulties of the case begin. In the present case, Captain Wilkes, after capturing the contraband persons and making prize of the Trent in what seems to us a perfectly lawful manner, instead of sending her into port, released her from capture, and permitted her to proceed with her whole cargo upon her voyage."

Captain Wilkes (quoted by Mr. Seward) says he "forbore to seize her (the Trent) in consequence of his being reduced in officers and crew, and the derangement it would cause innocent persons" on board. These reasons, Mr. Seward declared, were satisfactory to the Government, so far as Captain Wilkes was concerned. Finally, Mr. Seward rested on the old American rule that in case of capture from search, the question must "be carried before a legal tribunal, where a regular trial may be had, and where the captor himself is liable to damage for an abuse of his power." "If I decide this case," continued Mr. Seward, "in favor of my own Government, I must disavow its most cherished principles and reverse and forever abandon its essential policy. The country cannot afford the sacrifice. If I maintain those principles and adhere to that policy, I must surrender the case itself. It will be seen, therefore, that this Government

would not deny the justice of the claim presented to us in this respect upon its merits. We are asked to do to the British nation just what we have always insisted all nations ought to do to us. . . . I prefer to express my satisfaction that, by the adjustment of the present case upon principles confessedly American, and yet, as I trust, mutually satisfactory to both of the nations concerned, a question is finally and rightly settled between them, which heretofore exhausted not only all forms of peaceful discussion, but also the arbitrament of war itself; for more than half a century alienated the two countries from each other, and perplexed with fears and apprehensions all other nations. The four persons in question are now held in military custody at Fort Warren, in the State of Massachusetts. They will be cheerfully liberated. Your Lordship will please indicate a time and place for receiving them."

Lord Lyons replied to Mr. Seward on the 27th December, saying he would, without delay, send a copy of his "important communication" to Earl Russell, and would confer with him (Mr. Seward) on the arrangements for the delivery of the "four gentlemen" to him (Lord Lyons). The rest is soon told. On December 30, Lord Lyons wrote to Commander Hewett of the Rinaldo, an English sloop-ofwar, to proceed with his vessel to Provincetown, Massachusetts, and receive the released prisoners, adding: "It is hardly necessary that I should remind you that these gentlemen have no official character. It will be right for you to receive them with all courtesy and respect as gentlemen of distinction; but it would be improper to pay them any of those honors which are paid to official persons;" and their transfer should be "effected unostentatiously."

Being conveyed from Fort Warren to Provincetown by the tugboat Starlight, the "four gentlemen," with their luggage, were quietly transferred to the Rinaldo on the evening of January 1, 1862, remarking that their "only wish was to proceed to Europe;" and that vessel at once set sail for St.

« PreviousContinue »