MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. 157 precisely what Captain Wilkes has done. If Great Britain shall now protest against the act, and demands their release, we must give them up, apologize for the act as a violation of our doctrines, and thus forever bind her over to keep the peace in relation to neutrals, and so acknowledge that she has been wrong for sixty years." That demand speedily came. When intelligence of the affair on board the Trent reached England, and details were given by "Captain Williams, R. N.," in a public communication dated at sea, November 9th (and also in his after-dinner speech already mentioned), in which he so highly colored a few facts that the courteous acts of Lieutenant Fairfax were made to appear 1 For more than a hundred years Great Britain had denied the sanctity of a neutral ship, when her interests seemed to require its violation. That Power had acquired full supremacy of the seas at the middle of the last century, and Thompson had written that offering to British pride, the song of "Rule Britannia," boastingly asserting that When Britain first, at Heaven's command, Arose from out the azure main, This was the charter of the land, And guardian angels sung the strain Rule Britannia! Britannia rules the waves! Conscious of its might, Great Britain made a new law of nations, for its own benefit, in 1756. Frederick the Great of Prussia had declared that the goods of an enemy cannot be taken from on board the ships of a friend. A British order in Council was immediately issued, declaring the reverse of this to be "the law of nations," and forbidding neutral vessels to carry merchandise belonging to those with whom she might be at war. So violative of the golden rule was this order, that the publicists of Great Britain found it necessary, out of respect for the opinions of mankind, to put forth specious sophistries to prove that England was not ambitious! Under what was called "The Rule of 1756," the British navy began to depredate upon the commerce of the world. The solemn treaty made by Great Britain with Holland, eighty-two years before, in which it was expressly stipulated that free ships should make free goods-that a neutral flag should protect a neutral bottom -that the contraband of war should be strictly limited "to arms, artillery, and horses, and to include naval materials," was wantonly violated by the possession of might. The vessels of Holland were not only prohibited from carrying naval stores, but were seized, and their cargoes used for the benefit of the English war-marine. From that time until the present, Great Britain has steadily adhered to "The Rule of 1756," excepting in a few instances, when it suited her interests to make a temporary change in her policy. So injuriously did this "Rule," practically enforced, operate upon the commerce of the world for England's benefit, that in 1780 the northern powers of Europe-Russia, Sweden, Denmark, and Holland-formed a treaty of alliance, called the "Armed Neutrality," to resist the pretensions and evil practices of Great Britain. The doctrine of the league was that of Frederick, but much enlarged. Armaments were prepared to sustain the doctrine, but Great Britain's naval strength was too great, and the effort failed. In 1798, when Great Britain was at war with France, "The Rule of 1756" was again put into active operation. By an order in Council, it was directed that "all vessels laden with goods, the produce of any colony of France, or carrying provisions or supplies for such colony, should be seized and brought in for adjudication." This was aimed at American commerce, which was then exciting the envy of the British. To that commerce France had then opened all her West India ports. The order was secretly circulated among the British cruisers, and captures were made under it before its existence was known in London! For that treachery, English statesmen and publicists offered the selfish excuse that it was "British policy to maintain for that power the supremacy of the seas," that its children might continue to sing "Rule Britannia! Britannia rules the waves." These aggressions were soon followed by more serious outrages against the rights of friends, or neutrals. Great Britain declared its right to search any vessel on the high seas, and take therefrom any subject of hers found there. This was a "new law of nations," promulgated by Great Britain to suit her necessities. Her cruisers roamed the seas, and held no flag to be an absolute protection of what was beneath it. Seamen were continually dragged from American vessels and placed in the British navy. The British cruisers were not very particular when they wanted seamen, and under the pretext of claiming the subjects of His Majesty, about 14,000 American citizens were forced into the British service in the course of twelve or fifteen years. This practice was one of the chief causes of the war declared against Great Britain by the United States in 1812. In the midst of that war, when overtures for peace on righteous terms were offered by the Americans, the right of search and impressment was insisted upon by a carefully prepared manifesto of the acting head of the British Government, in which it was declared that "if America, by demanding this preliminary concession, intends to deny the validity of that right, in that denial Great Britain cannot acquiesce, nor will she give countenance to such pretensions by acceding to its suspension, much less to its abandonment, as a basis on which to treat." The war went on, and when it was ended Great Britain yet maintained the doctrine laid down in "The Rule of 1756," and continued to insist, until 1861, upon the right of a nation at war to enter the ship of a neutral power in search and for the seizure of its subjects, or articles contraband of war, or things intended to be injuri ous to the British nation. In doctrine and practice, Great Britain justified the act of Captain Wilkes. 158 ABUSE BY THE ENGLISH PRESS. like rude outrages, a storm of indignation was raised. The most violent and coarse abuse of Americans was uttered by a portion of the British press; and the most absurd threats of vengeance on the offending nation were put forth. Of the courteous and accomplished gentleman, Captain Wilkes, the London Times, the accredited exponent of the opinions of the Government and the ruling class, said: "He is unfortunately but too faithful a type of the people in whose foul mission he is engaged. He is an ideal Yankee. Swagger and ferocity, built up on a foundation of vulgarity and cowardice-these are his characteristics, and these are the most prominent marks by which his countrymen, generally speaking, are known all over the world. To bully the weak, to triumph over the helpless, to trample on every law of country and custom, willfully to violate all the most sacred interests of human nature, to defy as long as danger does not appear, and, as soon as real peril shows itself, to sneak aside and run away-these are the virtues of the race which presumes to announce itself as the leader of civilization and the prophet of human progress in these latter days. By Captain Wilkes let the Yankee breed be judged." a 1861. a Other publications, of higher and lower character than the Times, used equally offensive language;' and the Government itself, without waiting to hear a word from the United States on the subject, at once assumed a belligerent position, and made energetic preparations for war. So urgent seemed the necessity, that not an hour of procrastination was permitted. All through Sunday, the 1st of December (immediately after the arrival of the passengers of the Trent), men were engaged in the Tower of London in packing twenty-five thousand muskets to be sent to Canada. On the December, 4th, a royal proclamation was issued, prohibiting the exportation of arms and munitions of war; and the shipment of saltpeter was stopped. A general panic prevailed in business circles. Visions of British privateers sweeping American commerce from the seas floated before the English mind, and no insurance on American vessels could be obtained. American securities dropped amazingly, and large fortunes were made by wise ones, under the shadow of high places, who purchased and held them for a "rise"! Orders were issued for a large increase in the naval squadrons on the North American and West India stations, and powerful transports were called for. The great steam-packet Persia was taken from the mailservice, to be employed in carrying troops to Canada. The immense ironclad Warrior, supposed to be invincible, was fitted out for service in haste. Armstrong and Whitworth cannon were purchased by the score; and preparations were made for sending various conspicuous batteries and regiments 1 The Saturday Review, conducted chiefly by members of the British aristocracy, said with a bitter sneer, "The American Government is in the position of the rude boor, conscious of infinite powers of annoyance, destitute alike of scruples and of shame, recognizing only the arbitration of the strong arm, which repudiates the appeal to codes, and presuming, not without reason, that more scrupulous States will avoid or defer such an arbitration as long as ever they can." The London Punch gave, in one of its cartoons, a picture representing the relative position of the two Governments at that crisis. America appeared as a diminutive blusterer, in the form of a slave-driver, and carrying an American flag. Before him is a huge English sailor, impersonating Great Britain, who says to the little American, "You do what's right, my son, or I'll blow you out of the water."-" Now, mind you, sir," says the Briton, to a most uncouth American Commodore-"no shuffling-an ample apology-or I will put the matter into the hands of my lawyers, Messrs. Whitworth and Armstrong." alluding to the popular cannon invented by men of that name, and then extensively manufactured in England, and afterward furnished in considerable numbers to the Confederates. THE WISDOM OF JOHN BRIGHT. 159 to the expected "seat of war." It seemed, from the action of the British Government, and the tone of the utterances of many of the British writers and speakers, that the time had come when the calamity of civil war that had overtaken the Republic of the West was considered England's opportunity to humble her rival. And it was with infinite delight that the conspirators at Richmond contemplated the probability of war between the two countries, for in that event they felt sure of achieving the independence of the Confederacy, and procuring its recognition as a nation by the powers of Europe. Yet all Englishmen were not so ungenerous and mad. The great mass of the people the governed class of Great Britain-continued to feel kindly toward the Americans,' and there were leading men, who, in the qualities of head and heart, towered above the common level of all society in England as Chimborazo rises above the common height of the Andes, who comprehended the character of our Government, the causes of the rebellion, and the war it was making upon the rights of man; and with a true catholic and Christian spirit they rebuked the selfishness of the ruling class. Among these, John Bright, the Quaker, and eminent British statesman, stood most conspicuous. In the midst of the tumultuous surges of popular excitement that rocked the British islands in December and January, his voice, in unison with that of Richard Cobden, was heard calmly speaking of righteousness and counseling peace. He appeared as the champion of the Republic against all its enemies, and his persuasions and warnings were heard and heeded by thousands of his countrymen. All through the war, John Bright in JOHN BRIGHT. England, and Count de Gasparin in France, stood forth conspicuously as the representatives of the true democracy in America, and for their beneficent labors they now receive the benedictions of the good in all lands. There were other men in Great Britain who had an intelligent conception of the machinery of our Government, and who could not be deceived by the sophistries of the disciples of Calhoun into a belief that the armed enemies of the Republic were any less rebels against sovereign authority than would a like band of insurgents be in Lancashire, or any county of England, arrayed 1 In a speech in Parliament on the 17th of February, 1862, when appropriations for the army expenses in the contemplated war with the United States were under consideration, John Bright said: "A large portion of the people of this country see in it a Government, a real Government; not a Government ruled by a mob, and not a Government disregarding law. They believe it is a Government struggling for the integrity of a great country. They believe it is a country which is the home of every man who wants a home, and moreover they believe this-that the greatest of all crimes which any people in the history of the world has ever been connected with the keeping in slavery four millions of human beings-is, in the providence of a Power very much higher than that of the Prime Minister of England, or of the President of the United States, marching on, as I believe, to its entire abolition." * See note 4, page 569, volume I. 160 HASTE OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT. against the Crown. They well understood that if the American insurgents, whose fathers helped to form the Republic which they were trying to destroy, and who had perfect equality in public affairs with the whole nation, could be justified in rebelling against it, the Irish people-a conquered nation, and made a part of Great Britain against their will-had the fullest warrant for rebelling against their English conquerors at any and at all times. Among these men we find the names of John Stuart Mill, Professors Goldwin Smith and J. E. Cairnes, Rev. Baptist Noel, Henry Vincent, Layard, the eminent Eastern traveler, the eloquent young O'Donoughue,' and others less conspicuous; while Lord Brougham, who for sixty years was an opponent of slavery, and was known to be thoroughly conversant with the structure of our Government, and an admirer of its practical workings, following the lead of the spirit of his class, took sides with the slaveholders, and said most unkind words. Kinglake, the eminent author and member of Parliament, announced, as a principle which he "had always enforced," that "in the policy of states a sentiment never can govern;" that ideas of right, justice, philanthropy, or common humanity should have no influence in the dealings of one nation with another, "because they are almost always governed by their great interests," which he thought to be a sound principle; while Thomas Carlyle, the cold Gothicizer of the English language, dismissed the whole matter with an unintelligible sneer. 1861. 66 The British Government, acting upon ex parte and, as was afterward found to be, unreliable testimony in the person of Captain Williams, treated the proceedings on board of the Trent as an act of violence which was an affront to the British flag and a violation of international law;" and as soon as the law officers of the Crown had formally pronounced it so, Lord John Russell, the Foreign Secretary, sent a letter, by a special Queen's messenger (Captain Seymour), to Lord Lyons, the British Ambassador at Washington, authorizing his Lordship to demand from the Government of the United States the liberation of the captives and their restoration to the protection of the British flag, and "a suitable apology for the aggressions which had been committed," at the same time expressing a hope that that Government would, of its own accord, offer such redress, "which alone could satisfy the British nation.” ¿ Nov. 30. On the same day when Earl Russell dated his dispatch to Lord Lyons, Mr. Seward, the Secretary of State, in a confidential note to Mr. Adams, the American Minister in London,3 alluded to the affair, and 1 "The O'Donoughue," as he was called, was of one of the most ancient families in Ireland. He was less than thirty years of age at that time, of great beauty in form and feature, polished in manners, eloquent in speech, of proven courage, and a man of the people in his instincts. In the great Rotunda in Dublin, this man boldly declared to an audience of 5,000 persons, after the reception of the news of the Trent affair, that if war should come, Ireland would be found on the side of America. This declaration was received with the most vehement applause. 2 Lord John Russell sent with his dispatch the following private note to Lord Lyons: "Should Mr. Seward ask for delay, in order that this grave and painful matter should be deliberately considered, you will consent to a delay not exceeding seven days. If at the end of that time no answer is given, or if any other answer is given except that of a compliance with the demands of Her Majesty's Government, your lordship is instructed to leave Washington, with all the members of your legation, bringing with you the archives of the legation, and to repair immediately to London; if. however, you should be of opinion that the requirements of Her Majesty's Government are substantially complied with, you may report the facts to Her Majesty's Government for their consideration, and remain at your post till you receive further orders." See page 567, volume I. |