Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1862, by CROSBY AND NICHOLS, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. UNIVERSITY PRESS: CAMBRIDGE. CONTENTS 1. Correspondence relative to the Case of Messrs. Ma- 2. Papers relating to Foreign Affairs, accompanying the President's Message to Congress at the Opening of its Session in December, 1861. 3. Speech of SENATOR SUMNER, delivered in the Sen- 4. The Trent Affair. The remaining Despatches. 5. Additional Despatches on the Trent Case. 1. History of Western Massachusetts; the Counties of Hampden, Hampshire, Franklin, and Berkshire; embra- cing an Outline, or General History, of the Section, an Account of its Scientific Aspects and Leading Interests, and Separate Histories of its One Hundred Towns. 2. The Bay-Path: a Tale of New England Colonial VII. LEADING THEORIES ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. 163 Outlines of the Philosophy of Universal History. By CHRISTIAN CHARLES JOSIAS BUNSEN, D. C. L. 1. Voyage au Pays des Mormons. Relation Géo- graphie Histoire Naturelle Histoire-Théologie- Mœurs et Coutumes. Par JULES REMY. 2. The City of the Saints, and across the Rocky Moun- tains to California. By RICHARD F. BURTON. 3. Journal of Discourses. By BRIGHAM YOUNG, Pres- ident of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, his Two Counsellors, the Twelve Apostles, and others. 4. Catechism for Children. Exhibiting the Prominent NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW. No. CXCVI. JULY, 1862. ART. I. 1. Correspondence relative to the Case of Messrs. Mason and Slidell. Pub. Doc. 2. Papers relating to Foreign Affairs, accompanying the President's Message to Congress at the Opening of its Session in December, 1861. Pub. Doc. 3. Speech of SENATOR SUMNER, delivered in the Senate, January 9, 1862. Washington, D. C.: Scammell & Co. 4. The Trent Affair. The remaining Despatches. Boston Daily Journal, January, 1862. 5. Additional Despatches on the Trent Case. Boston Daily Journal, February 12, 1862. 6. Opinion of M. D'HAUTEFEUILLE. New York Times, January 4, 1862. THE affair of the Trent is settled so far as immediate results are involved. Messrs. Mason and Slidell have been delivered up to Lord Lyons, and have reached their destination by the way of St. Thomas and Southampton. There has been no war with Great Britain, no humiliating surrender, no apology, no ovation, nor any great manifestations of rejoicing among the people of England. The most unkind cut of all is the declaration of the London Times that Great Britain would have done as much for two negroes; as she might have done with much more propriety if the United States had made a seizure on board the Trent of that description. In the mean time no principles of international law have NO. 196. VOL. XCV. 1 been settled in relation to the rights of belligerents and neutrals. The demand is couched in the most general terms, ignoring all the particular circumstances upon which the seizure was made, and which were supposed by Captain Wilkes to justify it. It is acceded to with a substantial declaration that the act was justifiable but for the neglect to bring the vessel in for adjudication; and the surrender is made on account of this omission, or because the United States long ago contended for certain doctrines in relation to neutral rights, which Great Britain strenuously resisted, but which she is supposed to sustain by this demand; it does not appear to be quite certain upon which ground it is placed. At the same time it is declared, that, if the safety of the Union required the detention of the captured persons, it would be the right and duty of the government to detain them; but the effectual check and waning proportions of the existing insurrection, as well as the comparative unimportance of the captured persons themselves, happily forbid a resort to that defence. Earl Russell replies to this, that the neglect to send in the Trent was by no means the sole ground of the demand; he does not admit that Great Britain has abandoned any of her ancient doctrines, and he informs Mr. Seward "that Great Britain could not have submitted to the perpetration of that wrong, however flourishing might have been the insurrection in the South, and however important the persons captured might have been." How far this assertion of the Secretary of State may be considered as an admission that Great Britain was justifiable or excusable in her claim of a right to impress her seamen when found on board of our vessels, a claim which it was attempted to sustain by the plea of necessity, and which, however shaken, has never been formally abandoned; and a further admission that the adoption of the act of McNab, in invading our territory and burning the steamer Caroline, (which also it was attempted to justify by this same necessity, and which has never been atoned for,) has a like justification or excuse; and how far, on the other hand, Earl Russell's reply, that Great Britain would not have admitted the safety of the Union to be an excuse for the capture and detention, however |