again with all the rights of the Constitution, should we not again have that fatal subject of Slavery brought in along with them? That subject of Slavery which caused, no doubt, the disruption, we all agree, must, sooner or later, cease from the face of the earth. Well, then, gentlemen, as you will see, if this quarrel could be made up, should we not have those who differed from Mr. Lincoln at the last election carried back into the Union, and, thus, sooner or later, the quarrel would recommence, and, perhaps, a long civil war follow? On the other hand, supposing the United States completely to conquer and subdue the Southern States, supposing that should be the result of a long military conflict, Rome, nor the Monarchy of Charlemagne that the South should agree to enter could compare in extent and resources with the continent of America; and you will remember that the United States claimed a right to the whole of that continent, and the ultimate fate of America under one feeble Executive -the feeblest Executive perhaps ever known in a civilized community-would have been no exception to the truths of history and the laws of nature. But in proportion as America shall become subdivided into different States, each of which is large enough for greatness larger than a European Kingdom-her ambition will be less formidable to the rest of the world, and I do not doubt that the action of emulation and rivalry between one free State and another, speaking the same language and enjoy- supposing that should be the result of ing that educated culture which inspires an affection for all that enlightens and exalts humanity, will produce the same effects upon art and commerce, and the improvements in practical government which the same kind of competition produced in the old commonwealths of Greece.' ,, some years of civil war, should we not have the material prosperity of that country in a great degree destroyed should we see that respect for liberty which has so long distinguished our North American brethren, and should we not see those Southern men yielding to force, and would not the North be necessitated to keep in subjection those who had been conquered, and would not that very materially interfere with the freedom of nations? And, if that should be the unhappy result to which we at present look forward, if by means such as these the reunion of the States should be brought about, is it not the duty of those men who have embraced the precepts of Christianity to see whether this conflict cannot be avoided?" Earl Russell, the head of the Foreign office, in a speech at a dinner given to him at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in October, said of the elements of the American question, that while he believed slavery to be the original cause of the conflict, yet that the two parties were not now contending upon that question; nor yet with respect to Free Trade and Protection, of which much had been said in England, "but contending as so many States of the old world have con- The Earl of Shrewsbury, in a speech tended, the one side for empire, the before the City of Worcester Conservaother for power." His views of the tive Association, October 30th, regardprobable nature or result of the conflict ing the question from the point of view were expressed in these reflections of his order, saw "in America democFar be it from us to set ourselves up racy on its trial and how it failed. He as judges in this matter, but I cannot was afraid that the result would show help asking myself, as affairs progress in that the separation of the two great secthe contest, to what good end can it tions of that country was inevitable, and lead? Supposing this contest ended, by those who lived long enough would, in the reunion of its different parts, and his opinion, see an aristocracy established :-- LORD STANLEY'S ADDRESS. 155 in America." On the same occasion, without a discontented South. If it Sir John Pakington, a member of Par- choose to tax itself by monstrous and liament and ex-minister, declared his unfriendly tariffs, and to repudiate the belief that from President Lincoln doctrines of free trade, so gloriously tridownwards there was not a man in umphant elsewhere, so be it, but let it America who would venture to tell not blame the South for throwing off the them that he really thought it possible fetters. We want you to be strong, your that by the force of circumstances the policy makes you feeble; rich, you are North could hope to compel the South doing your best to impoverish yourto again join them in constituting the selves; brotherly, and you are engaged United States." in Cain-like slaughtering; happy, and what woes are in all your households; peaceful, and you are busied in wide, wasting war. I write very friendly tc you. My heart is full. I love America too well, too many dear and valued friends, not to desire her progress and prosperity. I have no interest to bias my judgment, and all my prejudices have been on your side of the Atlantic."* Sir John Bowring, the eminent scholar and ambassador, a writer on public affairs of reputation, in a letter written to a friend, which was printed in the papers of the day, evidently regarded the separation of the two portions of the Union as a probable if not desirable result. "Your American fratricidal war," he said, "is the most dreadful event of modern history. No doubt it will be controlled and directed for good, but that it should end in any thing but a separation of the North from the South seems to me quite improbable if not impossible. I do not think the Federal Government has shown any disposition to put down slavery, or is entitled to sympathy on that account. It does not appear to me that you are justified in calling the Southerners 'rebels.' Our statesmen of the time of George III. called Washington and Franklin by that name. I do not believe the cotton lords have had any thing to do with the opinion which you believe to be unfriendly to the United States, but which assuredly it is not. I never knew a question in which there was so much unanimity of views among our wise and good men as this. We want you as freemen, as philosophers, as statesmen, as Christians, to settle in peace what war will never settle. As you are now unfortunately engaged in a policy which compels-or, at all events employs-acts of despotism which would seem incredible, and are taking measures against British subjects, which we should tolerate from no other government, I think your North would be stronger Lord Stanley, in an address at Lynn in November, handled the American question, if not with sympathy for the North, at least with discrimination and respect for its motives in accepting the conflict. He had travelled in the United States in the summer of 1848, he said, at the time of the disturbances in Ireland, and had been amused to find well informed persons attach serious importance to those movements, and even recommend the immediate recognition of the independence claimed by the rebel agitators. There were intelligent people in America, he thought, who might be equally amused with English criticism on their affairs. He himself He himself "did not think it reasonable to blame the Federal Government for declining to give up half their territory without striking a blow in its defence. They have met with an armed insurrection, and they have opposed it by an armed resistance." How long it was wise to continue that resistance appeared to him as a matter of policy, the great difficulty of the question; for he held the opinion which, as he asserted, generally prevailed in England, *Sir John Bowring to Dr. Macgowan, Larksbear, Exe ter, November 7, 1861. "who classes in this country," he said, by their habits, education, social and political position, are naturally disposed to judge unfavorably any thing relating to Republican power: and there are also many persons who have watched with a feeling of uneasiness and anxiety the growth of a power whose increasing wealth and population have been more rapid than that of any European state, who were in point of population, almost the equal of the United Kingdom, and who have shown some disposition to use their power in an arrogant and hostile spirit." as true, that sooner or later a Southern Confederacy would be established. "I do not come to that conclusion," he said, 'so much because I doubt the power of the North to subjugate the South, though the Southern States are unfavorable for an aggressive, and favorable for a defensive war; but the real difficulty seems to be this, supposing the Federal Government to succeed in its object and to reconquer the Southern States, what will they do with them when they have got them? If their rights are not to be restored after the conquest, a powerful military government must be established, and those principles of independence and self-government which are the very basis of American institutions, must for a time at least be in abeyance. At present the position of the rival States is very like the case of a husband instituting legal proceedings in order to bring back his wife to live with him. He may attain his object, but the question is, whether, when he has attained it, he has done much to contribute to his own domestic happiness." Accepting the success of the Southern States as a probable conclusion of the struggle, it was idle, he said, "to talk as some people do, of its leading to an utter breakdown of the American power. The North would still retain eighteen millions of the most intelligent and intellectual population in the world, a territory as large as all Europe, excluding Russia, and unlimited political resources. They would also possess a political Union which they have not had for thirty years, and unless this war was protracted for a series of years, whatever burdens it might impose, they would still continue more lightly taxed than any powerful nation upon carth." In conclusion, he recommended great caution in judging of the affairs of America, and candidly pointed out the causes which tended to bias the judgment of his countrymen, giving in a single sentence the key to the prevailing British opinions. "There are many Mr. Layard, the eminent Eastern traveller, now a member of the House of Commons, representing the liberal party, in an address to his constituents at Southwark, on the 21st of November, while he defended the neutrality policy of the country, claimed that the conduct of Parliament showed no lack of sympathy with the national cause in America. The subject had been resolutely kept out of the House of Commons. Nobody at the last session had ventured to bring it forward. "Everybody felt as if it was a domestic calamity, and spoke of it with bated breath." England, he said, sympathized with the American people because Slavery was at the bottom of the struggle, and had led to it. "Let the Americans," he said, "settle their own quarrels. All we can hope is, that when this terrible contest has an end, whatever that end may be, the liberty, happiness and freedom of these magnificent States may not be impaired." "The people of the North," admitted Mr. Kinglake, the eminent member of Parliament, in a speech to his constituents at Bridgewater, in one of the last days of December, pending the Trent negotiation, "had some ground for supposing that the strong feeling which this country entertained on the subject of slavery might affect the course which we should take when the Southern States became separated from the North. They MR. GLADSTONE'S ADDRESS. seemed to think that on that ground we Mr. Gladstone, the Chancellor of the * London Times, January 1, 1862. 157 sands, and by hundreds of thousands, trooped together from all parts to give him a welcome as enthusiastic and as obviously proceeding from the depths of the heart, as if those vast countries had still been a portion of the dominions of our Queen. Let us look to the fact that they are of necessity a people subject to quick and violent action of opinion, and liable to great public excitement-intensely agreed on the subject of the war in which they were engaged, until aroused to a high pitch of expectation by hearing that one of their vessels of war had laid hold on the Commissioners of the Southern States, whom they regarded simply as rebels. Let us look to the fact, that in the midst of that exultation, and in a country where the principles of popular government and democracy are carried to extremes-that even, however, in this struggle of life and death, as they think it to be--that even, while ebullitions were taking place all over the country of joy and exultation at this capture-that even there this popular and democratic Government has, under a demand of a foreign Power, written these words, for they are the closing words in the dispatch of Mr. Seward, The four Commissioners will be cheerfully liberated."" In conclusion, he deprecated any spirit of hostility which would lead to what "though not a civil war, would be next to a civil warany conflict between America and England."* The eminent political economist, Mr. John Stuart Mill, whose opinion we have already cited on the elements of the American Union, † took the first occasion upon the settlement of the right of search question on board of the Trent, to review the origin, history, and some of the probable consequences of the existing rebellion. Choosing for his medium of communication with the public the pages of Fraser's Magazine, a periodical widely read by the most culti * London Times, January 13, 1862. vated and intellectual classes, he there presented, with his accustomed strength of analysis, clearness of perception, and felicity of statement, a view of the struggle, strongly in favor of the position taken by the North. Looking at the rise of the insurrection, he found its open avowed cause in the determination to resist the limitation of Slavery, in other words, resolutely to support it, for, in consequence of the exhausting cultivation of the land, it was a well established conclusion, he maintained, that if the institution were kept within its existing limits it would die. "Confine it," said he, "to the present States and the owners of slave property will either be speedily ruined or will have to find means of reforming and renovating their agricultural system, which cannot be done without treating the slaves like human beings, nor without so large an employment of skilled-that is, of free-labor, as will widely displace the unskilled, and so depreciate the pecuniary value of the slave, that the immediate mitigation and ultimate extinction of Slavery would be a nearly inevitable and probably rapid consequence." He looked upon the Republicans, therefore, with their doctrines of restriction, not as an ultra abolition party, (who would interfere with the institution in the States,) but as essentially enlisted in the destruction of a hated evil, and, as such, worthy of respect by the lovers of human freedom in England. But if there were any doubt, he continued, about the position of the North, there could be none whatever about that of the South. "They," said he, "make no concealment of their principles. The moment a President was elected of whom it was inferred from his opinions, not that he would take any measures against Slavery where it exists, but that he would oppose its establishment where it exists not that moment they broke loose from what was, at least, a very solemn contract, and formed themselves into a Confederation, professing as its fundamental principle, not merely the perpetuation, but the indefinite extension of Slavery. And the doctrine is loudly preached through the new Republic, that Slavery, whether black or white, is a good in itself, and the proper condition of the working classes everywhere." He then drew this withering picture of "the peculiar institution." Let me in a few words," he said, "remind the reader what sort of a thing this is which the white oligarchy of the South have banded themselves together to propagate, and establish if they could, universally. When it is wished to describe any portion of the human race as in the lowest state of debasement and under the most cruel oppression, in which it is possible for human beings to live, they are compared to slaves. When words are sought by which to stigmatize the most odious despotism, exercised in the most odious manner and all other comparisons are found inadequate, the despots are said to be like slave masters or slave drivers. What, by a rhetorical license, the worst oppressors of the human race, by way of stamping on them the most hateful character possible, are said to be, these men, in very truth, are. I do not mean that all of them are hateful personally, any more than all the inquisitors, or all the buccaneers. But the position which they occupy, and the abstract excellence which they are in arms to vindicate, is that which the united voice of mankind habitually selects as the type of all hateful qualities. I will not bandy chicanery about the more or less of stripes or other torments which are daily requisite to keep the machine in working order, nor discuss whether the Legrees or the St. Clairs are more numerous among the slave owners of the Southern States. The broad facts of the case suffice. One fact is enough. There are, heaven knows, vicious and tyrannical institutions in ample abundance on the earth. But this institution is the only one of them all which requires, to keep it |