The exasperation of the North by all these events rose higher and higher, so that, when Captain Wilkes boarded the English Steamer Trent and carried off two eminent traitors, a general jubilee arose; especially as America remembered (what most of us have forgotten) that England far six years together had harassed the Union by boarding its ships to look for Englishmen,—(which caused the War of 1812,)—had solemnly refused to renounce the “right” when she made peace, and even in 1856 did not renounce it. But President Lincoln was not so carried away. He and Mr. Seward knew that Captain Wilkes’s deed was indefensible on American principles, however justifiable by English practice. From Mr. Seward’s dispatch of Nov. 30th, 1861, we learn that the American ambassador had already warned Lord Palmerston that the two nations were drifting into war, and had obtained from him far more satisfactory assurances than before. In a very friendly spirit it states, that they have just heard of Captain Wilkes’s exploit and that he had acted without instructions. Mr. Seward guarantees that his Government will receive with the best dispositions any thing that the British Government has to say.—Of course Mr. Seward desired to elicit from Earl Russell a condemnation of the practices which had so aggrieved America in 1812. Mr. Adams read this letter to Earl Russell. Meanwhile the warlike excitement in England had become intense. Day and night without cessation preparation for war went on in the docks. Merchant shipowners could get no freights. American funds fell low in the market and great losses wore sustained by sellers. Suddenly the news transpired, that a friendly dispatch from America had been received, and for one day the funds were favourably affected by it. Next day the Morning Post officially denied that there had been any such dispatch. The agitation re-commenced; the Morning Star asserted and re-asserted that there had been such a dispatch; nevertheless, it was three weeks before Earl Russell was pleased to produce tranquillity by at last publishing it. Why was this? Was it thought politic to keep up the public exasperation,—on the hypothesis of the Times, that the “mob” in America would overrule the President and force a war? or was some one in England trying to exasperate that “mob” and the mob of the English gentry too, in hope that the exasperation must, somehow or other, at last bring us into a war?
When the excitement was at its worst, a deputation from the Peace Society waited on Earl Russell, recited the clause of the Congress of Paris, which declared, that in any future disagreements, the Great Powers will use arbitration before resorting to war. The Earl is said to have replied, that in the present case arbitration was impossible, because our honour was here concerned! We now know what letter he wrote in demand of redress; a letter as from one wholly unaware that England had boarded scores of American ships and violently taken many hundreds of men out of them, men alleged by us and denied by them to be English subjects. His words were smooth as a razor, and had as their comment, the ships of war on their way to Canada, and our furiously continued preparations. An American has thus moralized on these events. “The law you are applying to the case of the Trent is as like lynch-law as the act of a nation can possibly be. That you do not see it thus yourselves, does but show your excitement. The British government, a party in the cause, takes opinion of its own counsel on a case submitted by itself, and is proceeding to enforce their view of its own rights vi et armis, and without hearing the defendant.” It is only to weaker powers, like Burma, China, Athens, Brazil, that our Government thus acts. While the Union was unbroken, Earl Russell tamely bore the outrages on our coloured sailors from South Carolina and the Gulf.
No sooner had Mr. Seward frankly yielded every thing in the matter of the Trent, than Earl Russell proceeded as if to pick a new quarrel about the ships laden with stores sunk in Charleston harbour. Never was any thing more impertinent. The river of Savannah is to this day encumbered by a ship, which the English Government sunk there for its own military purposes in the first war. President Lincoln had as much right to block up the harbour of Charleston, as the Queen would have to block up the Avon, if Bristol were to revolt. To the commerce of the world he had already opened Port Royal, a neighbouring and far better harbour, which was always previously closed.
Before long followed a decisive event, which, though it caused a burst of impotent rage from Lord Palmerston against stout General Butler, has wonderfully improved the conduct, if not the temper, of the English Government The Northern fleet captured New Orleans! It is easy to see, that our ministers thoroughly appreciated the weight of the fact. Before, several of them stimulated the movement against the North; since then, their general policy has been far better than the London clubs have wished. Would that one could say more!
But in the course of last summer it was attested, that the Confederates had received large numbers of new Enfield rifles with the Queen’s symbol unobliterated. These must have been sold or given by connivance of the Queen’s servants; and subordinates in England never take such liberties, unless they fully believe that it will be acceptable to their superiors. The Alabama was manned by the Queen’s artillerymen, who had been trained for the Queen’s own service. After an affair so exasperating to the American merchants, contrition rather than self-laudation would be the tone suited to ministers who sincerely desire to avert war. In fact, the Alabama was suffered to escape, when a quarter of the energy which was used against Hale’s rockets or against the arms at Galatz would have stopped her. Are the Americans to be permitted to conclude, that connivance is now to do the work, for which open force is no longer thought prudent?
Earl Russell acknowledged that the Alabama is an unlawful ship; but excused himself to the American ambassador, on the ground that the law did not give him power to stop it; as if this could be any satisfaction to the foreigner! When he acknowledged the affair to be illegal, was it not his duty to ask or to take power to stop it, or else, to rescind the proclamation about “belligerence?” If the king of Burma had made such a reply, an English squadron would have been sent to do the work, to which the king avowed himself unequal.—And the Alabama which fraudulently carries the English flag,—which by burning one ship lures another to destruction, and hereby teaches sailors to leave others to perish unaided,—is still systematically sheltered in our harbours! What is this, but infamous?
The South and our Southern sympathisers are so delighted with the doings of the Alabama and with Earl Russell’s punctiliousness, that a fleet of 40 or 50 ships of war is said to be far advanced in English ports, and a Southern loan of three million sterling has been contracted in London to pay for them. Earl Russell gave lately a most cold reply to a remonstrance against them. Let Englishmen meditate what will follow, if these ships also get out.
Since the above was written, a telegram from New York gives words of the New York Times as follows: “It is certain, that war will come, sooner or later, unless these wrongs are stopped by England.” “Before many years, some bold party-leader will utter the watchword, Indemnity from England, or War.” The conduct of our Ministers might seem Satanically guided to ensure that the enemies of England shall get the upper-hand in the next American elections, to the horrible calamity of both nations and of the civilized world.
Once more ministers have spoken in each house. Earl Russell in reply to Lord Stratheden, has declared that he would not like to see England interfere on the side which is not that of freedom; yet adds, that circumstances at any moment may arise which would justify Her Majesty’s Government in departing from their neutral position. Are we to rejoice that the Earl has at length discovered that the South is not fighting for freedom? or to feel disgust, that no one understands “departure from neutrality” to mean (by any possibility) aid to the cause of Right and Freedom? While many were meditating how much comfort could be extracted from Earl Russell’s words, the debate in the Commons on Mr. Forster’s motion against pirate-ships, has elicited from the Solicitor-General and from the Prime Minister speeches which glorify their own good conduct, attack Mr. Lincoln’s Government for alleged misconduct of the Slave-Power in past Presidencies, and indicate a resolution to persist in giving to the pirate-ships all legal advantage.
Palmerston and Russell may be in their graves before retribution comes on us. Do Englishmen mean tamely to accept from them a legacy of curses? America is scourged for the sin of allowing the slaveowners to work their wicked will in the last 50 years. If the blood of Canada, and Afghanistan, and China, and Scinde, and Burma, and Oude, and Persia, guiltily shed by Britain, has not yet come down upon us in curse; all their blood may be exacted in one payment of that generation which connives at burning American ships for the benefit of the Slave Power. How much longer shall we be able without shame to call ourselves Englishmen?