We

We have acknowledged the belligerent rights of the South, but this act has been strangely misconstrued, both in England and America. The Proclamation was an avowal of neutrality, and nothing more. would not help the North to hold the South, or assist the South to sever herself from the North. As far as we were concerned they should fight it out without foreign molestation.

If the North was not strong enough to keep the South without foreign aid, she ought, according to the only law nations practically respect-the law of force

-to lose it. If the South was not strong enough to win her independence, it was clear that she was not entitled to independence. We had to abide the issue of the contest. According to our principle of nonintervention, we maintain that all peoples have a right to change their dynasty, or form of Government, or dismember an empire, if they are strong enough to do So. All we have to do in such matters is to see fair play, not to interfere or permit interference. If Hungary revolted from Austria we should acknowledge the belligerent rights of the Hungarians, though we should regard Hungary as a part of the Austrian Empire until the separation was actually accomplished. This was all that was meant by recognising the belligerent rights of the Confederate States. Secession may be good or bad, but our policy was not influenced by a question of right or wrong on the part of the South. Many persons think it would have been

better for the North to have suffered the South to secede peaceably. But for Fort Sumter such probably would have been the course of the Federal Government; but whether the North is wise or unwise, we have no business to interfere. Grant, for argument's sake, that the cause of secession is pre-eminently noble; still at this moment the Confederates are rebels as far as the Federal Government is concerned. Are we to help the rebellion by bringing over the Confederate Commissioners to Europe to purchase warlike stores and to seek alliances?

Upon a fair review of the whole matter we are forced to the conclusion that Messrs. Slidell and Mason outraged the English flag. They could if they had chosen, have come to Europe in the Confederate ship Nashville. Why did they not? Their mission was all-important, and there was some danger of their being captured by the Federal cruisers. The Confederate naval forces are not strong enough to send out a convoy, or to defend their Commissioners from the forces of the enemy. Under these circumstances Messrs. Slidell and Mason determined to defy the Federal Government by sailing under the English flag. We ask those learned in the law of nations, whether such conduct is not illegal and punishable? We appeal to the judgment of our countrymen, and ask whether Messrs. Slidell and Mason were not abusing our hospitality, as Orsini and his comrades did? At all events, there can be no doubt that the Confederate Commissioners

were using the power of England to defeat the Federal Government; that they were contraband to war, and that we could not have refused to deliver them up without aiding and abetting the Secessionists. We repeat, England or the English flag is an asylum and protection for political refugees, but not for men actively and openly carrying on rebellion-much less were the Confederates justified in using the English flag as a counterpoise to the naval power of the North. Thus, the complaint of the English Government,though it is not an exposition of English feeling, is substantially correct. We cannot question the right of Federals to seize the Confederate Commissioners, though we may protest against the informality of the proceeding. Are we to go to war about a legal informality, and which the Federal Government will be willing to repair?

Another cause of illwill is American boasting. We have begun to feel ourselves insulted by it. Now, we confess this vanity, or braggadocia, is a grave national fault, but it really has done us no harm. We do not believe the Yankees could "whip us into a cocked hat," because they say so. The nations of Europe do not respect us less because the Yankees boast of their superior prowess. And though we cannot admire American vanity, we might forgive a portion of it. America is surely a wonderful country. She has won laurels in science and literature, and her commerce and internal development are without par

allel. We too have done much to foster this boastfulness by perpetually sneering at it. We have thus goaded on the Americans from exaggeration to exaggeration. And in the hour of her need how have we treated her? Have we not made a laughingstock of her misfortunes? Did we not describe the defeat at Bull's Run as "a screaming farce ?" Have we not been somewhat inconsistent in our conduct? Can we make no allowance for the wounded and bleeding man? Can we wonder that the American press should resent very strongly all our unkind comments? We have censured a great people for not quietly submitting to dismemberment. We have condemned the North for not considering the rebellion of the South a sufficient a sufficient excuse for confiscating Southern property in slaves; and simultaneously we have been warning capitalists not to trust the North with their money, for fear of repudiation. We have been dilating on the horrible wickedness of civil war, and the paramount duty of ending it at any sacrifice of territory and national greatness, and with the same breath we have anathe matised the North for not proclaiming the liberation of the slaves and inflicting on the South the inconceivable horrors of a servile insurrection. In this respect the proceedings of the North are worthy of all commendation. To preserve their nationality the Northerners have given up for a time their political and social privileges. They have submitted to a res

4

traint that must have been extremely galling to a free people. But the property of the South has been held inviolate. In the darkest hour there has been no talk of confiscating the slaves, or of infringing those laws which were passed by the national representatives when the South exercised a preponderating influence. Yet we have found nothing to admire in the conduct of the North. But surely braggadocia, however annoying, is not a reason for war! Yes, we have much to forgive in the Americans; but have we not a little to be forgiven?

Avoidable war is necessarily wicked and impolitic; but further we may just glance at the future effects of a war at this crisis between England and America. We might cripple the North; we might compel the Federal Government to acknowledge the Confederation. We should make a great and growing nation our bitter enemies. They would say it was our act that dismembered the Union. They would tell their children not to rest until they had been revenged. In vain should we reply that the cause of war came from America. What! in the time of civil strife, was it righteous to go to war on account of a legal informality, or because the tone of American orators was boastful and annoying?

Was it worthy of us to go to war because America, following our example, had granted to her press and people not only free thought, but the free expression of it? If we must fight, it would be better to have