I

avoid its censure. Its true policy was to study to please its friends rather than to avoid displeasing its enemies. Nevertheless, I like the government. It is an honest, patriotic, and able government. say this though I did not vote for it, and though I never voted the Republican ticket. I say it, too, though I had the same cause for rebelling against the government which the South had. She rebelled because Lincoln was elected. But Lincoln was no more my candidate than he was hers. If she might rebel simply because an election went against her, so might I when one went against me. There is this difference between the South and myself; I stand by the country, however an election may go; and she trys to destroy it if an election does not go to suit her. I add here in connection with what I said a little way back, that it is not for Democrats to denounce the draft. Their party was opposed to letting negroes come into the army, and so white men had to be drafted into it. It is the policy of his own party that compels the drafted Democrat to serve in the place of the negro. The negro stood ready to serve in the place of the white man; but the Democratic party would not consent to it.

I go on to say that the late mobs are amongst the sad fruits of keeping up party in time of war. These mobs were an open joining of Northern traitors with Southern traitors. Shouts for the Southern traitors were often heard in them. None but enemies of the Government and friends of the rebels were in them. In a word, none but Democrats. Can the Democratic party live under so damning a fact? I think not. Had it disbanded when the war broke out, there would have been none of these mobs to disgrace and damn it. There would then have been no demagogues to get them up; no Vallandighams and Woods to talk and write treason; and no newspapers to print it, and urge the Governor Seymours to practice it.

I need mention no more of the workings and fruits of this maintenance of party in time of war. Said I not well that such maintenance is the greatest of all perils and curses? As soon as war begins party should be dropped. The demagogue, who after that keeps on juggling with party names and party words, is the most dangerous enemy of his country. For in this wise he is able to lead against his country in time of war the many who, with comparative harmlessness, had been accustomed to follow him in time of peace. No men at the South-not even the Davis's and Stephens's--are so dangerous to us as these Northern demagogues who in time of war slander and embarrass the Government; poison and pervert the public mind; get up mobs; and succeed in electing to office men who are in sympathy with the South. Our motto should be, "No party in war."

Again, I say that our common work now is to put down the Rebellion. Come what will of the putting of it down to the Democratic or Republican or Abolition party, it must be put down. Come what will of it to Slavery or Anti-Slavery, it must be put down. Slavery may be incidentally helped or harmed by it. But

neither the helping nor harming of it is an object of this one common work.

By all, then, that is precious in our country, which they are so fearfully imperiling by continuing in the Democratic party, would I exhort the honest masses of that party to quit it. And I would have them join no other until the Rebellion is crushed. I do not exhort them to quit it because it is the Democratic party, but simply because it keeps up its organization in time of war. When peace shall return to bless our blood-soaked land, they can again, if they please, become members of the Democratic party. I say nothing against either a Democratic or a Republican party, only that neither should be kept up in time of war.

By all, too, that is precious in a good name-a good name to be enjoyed by ourselves and to be transmitted to our childrenwould I exhort the honest masses of the Democratic party to quit it. The boldest and most unprincipled portion of its leaders will stamp its character; and necessarily, therefore, it will be a very black one-so black as to reflect not a little disgrace upon every man who belongs to the party. Why will the memory of the Vallandighams and Woods rot-or if it live, live but to be loathed? Because they were guilty of the crime, ay, of the treason, of clinging to party in war, and of using party against their country. And why will the Dickinsons and Butlers be ever bright and beautiful upon the page of history? Because when war came they gave up party for country.

By all, too, that is mortifying in a signal and utter failure, would I exhort the honest masses of the Democratic party to quit it. The Rebellion will go down. It will go down into the lowest depths of infamy, destruction, and despair. And the Democratic party, because its leaders have identified it with the Rebellion, will go down with the Rebellion. Yes, it will go down as disgraced, as deep and as dead as the Rebellion. The Federal party had to die immediately after our last war with England, because it had placed itself in the way of our Government's prosecution of that war. The Democratic party is opposing the Government's putting down of the guiltiest enemies a nation ever had; and therefore the Democratic party must also die.

Let me, in closing, say, that not only traitorous Democrats will find their damnation in this war; but that every other man, be he Republican or Abolitionist, will find it, if he traitorously refuses to identify himself with the endeavors of our honest and earnest Government, and of our brave and immortalized army and navy to put down this infernal Rebellion. No one of them all-if, indeed, any moral sensibility can survive in him-but will feel, under the outpourings upon him of the world's scorn and disgust, that it were better for him had he never been born.

THE REBELLION.

SPEECH IN MONTREAL, DEC. 19TH, 1863.

I CHOSE this time for visiting Montreal because I saw in the newspapers that a case involving the reputation of one of my old and dear friends (Hon. J. R. Giddings) was to be tried in your courts at this time. Being in your city, I was not only willing but glad to consent to make a speech on the state of my country,

I love Canada. My own mother was born on the banks of your Sorel. It has ever been my desire that my country and yours should be peaceable and pleasant neighbors. I was a member of the American Congress when, nine years ago, it sanctioned the Reciprocity Treaty between us. Other members may have worked for that sanction more influentially and efficiently, but none worked harder for it than I did. It is extensively believed in my country that the treaty is more advantageous to you than to us; and I notice a present movement in Congress for discontinuing it. I hope that it and every other movement to this end may fail. I love the treaty. I love it, because it tends to promote friendly intercourse and to multiply ties between us. This is, in my judgment, far more important than to make money out of it. I am, myself, in favor of an absolutely free trade. I would not have a custom-house on the earth. I believe that the great and good Father of us all would have his children left free to buy and sell in all the markets. I would, of course, have the exchanges between nations include merchandise and manufactures. But if there are nations that refuse to include them, I, nevertheless, would not have my nation refuse to exchange natural productions with such nations.

My country is sorely afflicted. A Rebellion, the most gigantic and also the most guilty the world ever saw, has broken out against her. Nevertheless, all Canadians do not sympathize with her. I do not infer this from the fact that persons within her borders have recently sought to make Canada a base of military operations against us. These persons, I doubt not, were nearly aÎl refugees from my own country. I am sure the Canadians did not countenance the crime. Nor did their Government. Nay, I am informed that it was some one in their Government (thanks to that some one!) who informed Lord Lyons of the plot. Thanks

to Lord Lyons also, who, as the story runs, left his bed at midnight to inform my Government of it! No, it is not from this that I infer the lack of Canadian sympathy. It is from other things, and especially from the spirit of many of the Canadian newspapers. There are Canadian newspapers, and some of them are in this city, that speak rightly of our Rebellion. I read the Toronto Globe: and I would that all your newspapers spoke of the Rebellion in the spirit in which that able and excellent newspaper speaks of it.

I said that I love Canada. I add that I love Great Britain also. Toward her as well as toward Canada I stand in filial relations. For my mother's mother was born in green Ireland: and if having a Livingston for a grandfather makes a Scotchman, then am I a Scotchman also. But more than this, all men of my advanced age, whose childhood's language was the English, are more or less educated by Great Britain. Our manners, habits, characters come in no small degree from the moulding influences of her statesmen, historians, poets, and novelists.

I referred to the lack in Canada of sympathy with my distressed country. There is the like lack in Great Britain also. I do not infer it from her acknowledgment of belligerent rights in the rebels. I justify that acknowledgment: and my country should feel herself estopped from complaining of it by the fact that she found herself obliged to accord these rights to the rebels. The simple truth is, that the rebels were too numerous to be treated as pirates and outlaws. Just here however let me say that burning captured ships at sea is not among belligerent rights. If the rebels have no ports into which to take the captured vessel for adjudication, then so far they have no belligerent rights. Nor do I infer this lack of British sympathy from the fact that British-built vessels have gone out from British ports to be used by the rebels in preying upon the commerce of my country. I am sure that the people of Great Britain do not approve this: and the British Government is giving honorable and satisfactory testimony that it also does not approve it. Moreover, not only the British conscience but the British interest is against it. For Great Britain to justify or to suffer this indirect war upon us would be to leave herself without cause of complaint when in turn we should treat her so. That we should be provoked to such retaliation is well-nigh certain. Nor do I argue this lack of sympathy in Great Britain from her treatment of us in the Trent affair-wrong as I think it to have been. A word about that treatment. I will, if you say so, admit that international law was on her side in that affair. I will, if you say so, admit that there was no impropriety, no indecency, no affectation in the firing up of her indignation at that in our one vessel the like of which we had suffered from many scores of her vessels. And I will too, if you say so, admit that her Government had the right to make no account of the certain knowledge it had seasonably come into possession of, that our Government had not indorsed the acts of Captain Wilkes. Never

theless, after making all these admissions, I must still hold that in the Trent affair your country did mine a great and a grievous wrong. For without giving a moment's time for negotiation she virtually declared war: loading her cannon and lighting the match, and giving us but time to fall down upon our knees and beg her pardon. And all this too when we had upon our hands a most fearful civil war. And all this too when she knew that Captain Wilkes did not only not intend any wrong to British interests, but did intend to preserve them all most carefully. And all this too when she knew that Captain Wilkes's not taking the Trent into port for adjudication was because of his deep desire to save her and the interests embarked in her from inconvenience and loss. But you will say that Captain Wilkes insulted the British flag. To this I answer that there is not the slightest evidence that he intended to. Nevertheless he did, will be your rejoiner. I know what is the British spirit-the British jealousy-in regard to the British flag, and especially when it floats over a ship-for Britain is even more of a water than land-fowl. I will not say aught in derogation or complaint of this spirit. But this much I will say that on the same wise and Christian principle that an individual should not return an insult with a blow, a nation should not. England regards herself, and I will not say unjustly, as the foremost nation in Christian civilization. But how sad that a nation thus advanced should be ready to go to war for a point of honor! Perhaps you will say that my own nation would do so. I fear she would. This, however, would only show that my nation, like yours, has not yet risen into obedience to all the laws of Christ.

No, it is not from the things I have mentioned that I argue Britain's lack of sympathy with my greatly afflicted country. I argue it from the tone of a large share of the British press; from a class of speeches made in many British meetings and the responses to them; and from the reports of many Americans, who, in their visits to England, frequently encounter, in both high places and low, expressions of very ill feeling toward my country.

I proceed to ask why it is that so many Britons on both sides of the Atlantic sympathize with the rebels.

First. Is it because of a jealousy of our vast and mighty Republic? It is, said one of your intelligent citizens to me, as I sat in the car by his side, the morning I entered your city: and this gentleman justified the jealousy. But I hope he was wrong in ascribing this British sympathy to so unworthy a cause. We certainly ought to accord to every people their choice of government. I am not myself for the "Monroe Doctrine" to the extent that most of my countrymen are. If Mexico prefers a monarchical government, I would let her have it. And I say this notwithstanding my life-long advocacy of the most ultra democratic theories of government. I would leave Europe free to persuade all republican America to adopt monarchy. On the other hand America should be left free to attempt the conversion of monarchical Europe. But in neither case compulsion.