But neither in one case nor in the other was there the smallest intimation of a desire to put in any caveat whatever of the kind proposed in his last declaration. That seems to have been an afterthought, sug gested when all other obstacles to the success of a negotiation had been removed. "That it originated with Lord Russell I cannot credit consistently with my great respect for his character. [82] "That it was suggested after his proposed consultation with his colleagues, and by some member who had in view the defeat of the nego tiation in the interests of the insurgents, I am strongly inclined to believe. The same influence may have been at work in the earlier stages of the business *as well as the latest, and have communicated that uncertain and indirect movement which I have commented on, not less inconsistent with all my notions of his lordship's character than with the general reputation of British policy." The partial purpose which was thus disclosed in the first official act of the Queen's Government, after the issue of the proclamaGreat tion of neutrality, appears often in the subsequent conduct United States, in the of that Government. Contrast between conduct of Britain toward the Trent athir, and toward violators of British neutrality in est. Thus, when, a few months later, an officer of the Navy of the insurgent inter- the United States had taken from the deck of a British vessel on the high seas four prominent agents traveling on an errand that, if successful, would result in disaster to the United States, against which they were in rebellion, the course of the British Cabinet indicated an unfriendliness so extreme as to approach to a desire for war. The news of this reached both countries at about the same time. In the United States, while there was some excitement and some manifestation of pleasure, Lord Lyons bears witness to the moderation of the tone of the press. Mr. Seward immediately wrote Mr. Adams to acquaint him that the act of Captain Wilkes was unauthorized, and Mr. Adams communicated this fact to Lord Russell.2 [83] *The excitement in England, on the contrary, was intense, and was fanned into animosity by the press. Although without information as to the purpose of the Government of the United States, peremptory instructions were immediately sent to Lord Lyons to demand the release of the four gentlemen, and to leave Washington with all the members of the legation, if the demand was not complied with in seven days.3 In In anticipation of a refusal, vessels of war were hurriedly fitted out at the naval stations, and troops were pressed forward to Canada. the midst of this preparation Lord Russell received from Mr. Adams official information that the act had not been authorized by the Government of the United States; but this intelligence was suppressed, and public opinion was encouraged to drift into a state of hostility toward the United States. The arming continued with ostentatious publicity; the warlike preparations went on, and the peremptory instructions to Lord Lyons were neither revoked nor in any sense modified. Contrast this conduct of Great Britain with reference to a violation of British sovereignty that had not been authorized or assumed by the Government of the United States, and that, to say the least, could be plausibly defended by reference to the decisions of Sir Wil- [84] Lord Lyons to Earl Russell, Nov. 25, 1861, Blue Book No. 5, North America, 1862, page 10. Earl Russell to Lord Lyons. Same, page 11. 3 Earl Russell to Lord Lyons. Blue Book No. 5, North America, 1862, page 3. [85] liam Scott, with its course concerning the open, undisguised, oft-repeated, flagrant, and indefensible violations of British sovereignty by the agents of the insurgents in Liverpool, in Glasgow, in London, in Nas sau, in Bermuda, it may almost be said wherever the British flag could give them shelter and protection. When the information as to the Florida was conveyed to Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, he interposed no objection to her sailing from Liverpool. When the overwhelming proof of the complicity of the Alabama was laid before him, he delayed to act until it was too late, and then, by his neglect to take notice of the notorious criminals, he encouraged the guilty Laird to construct the two rebel rams-the keel of one of them being laid on the same stocks from which the Alabama had just been launched." When the evidence of the character and destination of those rams was brought to his notice, he held it for almost two months, although they were then nearly ready to go to sea, and then at first refused to stop them. Wiser and more just counsels prevailed four days later. And when Mr. Adams, under instructions from his Government, transmitted to Earl Russell convincing proof of "a deliberate attempt to establish within the limits of this kingdom [Great Britain] a system of action in direct hostility to the Government of the United States," embracing "not only the building and fitting out of several ships of war under the direction of agents especially commissioned for the purpose, but the preparation of a series of measures under the same auspices for the obtaining from Her Majesty's subjects the pecuniary means essential to the execution of those hostile projects," Lord Russell refused to see in the inclosed papers [86] any evidence of those facts worthy of his attention, or of the action of Her Majesty's Government. It is not surprising that the consistent course of partiality toward the insurgents, which this Minister evinced throughout the struggle, should have drawn from Mr. Adams the despairing assertion that he was "permitting himself to be deluded by what I cannot help thinking the willful blindness and credulous partiality of the British authorities at Liverpool. From experience in the past I have little or no confidence in any application that may be maile of the kind." The prob The Atlanta, 6 Charles Robinson's Reports, page 440. On the receipt of the news in London, the Times of November 28, 1861, published a leading article which contained some statements worthy of note. Among other things it said: "Unwelcome as the truth may be, it is nevertheless a truth, that we have ourselves established a system of International Law which now tells against us. In high-handed and almost despotic manner we have, in former days, claimed privileges over neutrals which have at different times banded all the maritime powers of the world against us. We have insisted even upon stopping the ships of war of neutral nations, and taking British subjects out of them; and an instance is given by Jefferson in his Memoirs in which two nephews of Washington were impressed by our cruisers as they were returning from Europe, and placed as common seamen under the discipline of ships of war. We have always been the strenuous asserters of the rights of belligerents over neutrals, and the decisions of our courts of law, as they must now be cited by our law officers. have been in confirmation of these unreasonable claims, which have called into being confederations and armed neutralities against us, and which have always been modified in practice when we were not supreme in our dominion at sea. Owing to these facts the authorities which may be cited on this question are too numerous and too uniform as to the right of search by belligerent ships of war over neutral merchant vessels to be disputed. # * "It is, and it always has been, vain to appeal to old folios and bygone authorities in justification of acts which every Englishman and every Frenchman cannot but feel to be injurious and insulting." See also the case of Henry Laurens, Dip. Cor. of RevoIntion, Vol. I, page 708, et seq. Mr. Dudley to Mr. Seward, Vol. II, page 315. 4 Vol. I, page 562. 5 Vol. I, page 562. 3 Vol. II, page 365. 6 Vol. I, page 578. 7 Vol. I, page 529. able explanation of Lord Russell's course is to be found in his own declaration in the House of Lords: "There may be one end of the war that would prove a calamity to the United States and to the world, and especially calamitous to the negro race in those countries, and that would be the subjugation of the South by the North." He did not desire that the United States should succeed in their efforts to obtain that result. The policy of Great Britain, under his guidance, but for the exertions and sacrifices of the people of the United States, might have prevented it. Mr. Rolin-Jacque neutrality. The insincere neutrality which induced the Cabinet of London to hasten to issue the Queen's Proclamation upon the myns on the British eve of the day that Mr. *Adams was to arrive in Lon- [87] don, and which prompted the counselings with France, and the tortuous courses as to the Declaration of the Congress of Paris which have just been unraveled, has been well described by Mr. RolinJacquemyns: "L'idéal du personage neutrarum partium, c'est le juge qui, dans l'apologue de l'huitre et les plaideurs, avale le contenu du mollusque, et adjuge les écailles aux deux belligérents. Il n'est d'aucun parti, mais il s'engraisse scrupuleusement aux dépens de tous deux. Une teile conduite de la part d'un grand peuple peut être aussi conforme aux précédents que celle du vénérable magistrat dont parle la fable. Mais quand elle se fonde sur une loi positive, sur une règle admise, c'est une preuve que cette règle est mauvaise, comme contraire à la science, à la dignité et à la solidarité humaine.”2 This feeling of personal unfriendliness toward the United States in the leading members of the British Government continued during a long portion or the whole of the time of the commission or omission of acts hereinafter complained of. ly feeling of mem Cabinet. 3 Thus, on the 14th day of October, in the year 1861, Earl Russell 3 Proof of unfriend said, in a public speech made at Newcastle: "We bers of the British now see the two parties (in the *United States) con- [88] tending together, not upon the question of slavery, though that I believe was probably the original cause of the quarrel, not contending with respect to free trade and protection, but contending, as so many States in the Old World have contended, the one side for empire and the other for independence. [Cheers.] Far be it from us to set ourselves up as judges in such a contest. But I cannot help asking myself frequently, as I trace the progress of the contest, to what good end can it tend? [Hear! Hear!] Supposing the contest to end in the reunion of the different States; supposing that the South should agree to enter again the Federal Union with all the rights guaranteed to her by the Constitution; should we not then have debated over again the fatal question of slavery, again provoking discord between North and South? But, on the other hand, supposing that the Federal Government completely conquer and subdue the Southern States; supposing that be the result of a long military conflict and some years of civil war; would not the national prosperity of that country, to a great degree, be destroyed? * If such are the unhappy results which alone can be looked forward to from the reunion of these different parts of the North American States, is it not then our duty, though our voice, and, indeed, the voice of any one in this [89] country, may be little listened to-is it not the duty of men who * Vol. IV, page 535. * 2 De la néntralité de la Grande-Bretagne pendant la guerre civile américaine, d'aprés M. Montague Bernard, par. G. Rolin-Jacquemyus, page 13. 3 London Times, October 16, 1861. were so lately fellow-citizens-is it not the duty of men who profess a regard for the principles of Christianity-is it not the duty of men who wish to preserve in perpetuity the sacred inheritance of liberty, to endeavor to see whether this sanguinary conflict cannot be put an end to ?" Mr. Gladstone also spoke at Newcastle on the 7th day of October, 1862. It is scarcely too much to say that his language, as well as much of the other language of members of Her Majesty's Government herein. quoted, might well have been taken as offensive by the United States. He said: "We may have our own opinions about slavery; we may be for or against the South; but there is no doubt that Jefferson Davis and other leaders of the South have made an army, They are making, it appears, a navy; and they have made what is more than either-they have made a nation. [Loud cheers.] * * We may anticipate with certainty the success of the Southern States so far as regards their separation from the North. [Hear! Hear!] I cannot but believe that that event is as certain as any event yet future and contingent can be." [Hear! Hear!] * [90] *In a debate in the House of Lords on the 5th of February, 1863, Lord Russell said:2 "There is one thing, however, which I think may be the result of the struggle, and which, to my mind, would be a great calamity. That is the subjugation of the South by the North. If it were possible that the Union could be re-formed; if the old feelings of affection and attachment toward it could be revived in the South, I, for one, would be glad to see the Union restored. If, on the other hand, the North were to feel that separation was finally decreed by the events of the war, I should be glad to see peace established upon those terms. But there may be, I say, one end of the war that would prove a calamity to the United States and to the world, and especially calamitous to the negro race in those countries, and that would be the subjugation of the South by the North." [91] In a spirited debate in the House of Commons on the 27th of March, 1863, Mr. Laird, the builder of the Alabama, and of the rams which were afterward seized, arose and attempted to justify his course in a speech which was received with prolonged cheering and satisfaction by a large portion of the House. Among other things which he then said, and which were received as *expressive of the views and sentiments of those who cheered him, was the following:3 "I will allude to a remark which was made elsewhere last night-a remark, I presume, applying to me, or to somebody else, which was utterly uncalled for. [Hear!] I have only to say that I would rather be handed down to posterity as the builder of a dozen Alabamas than as the man who applies himself deliberately to set class against class [loud cheers] and to cry up the institutions of another country, which, when they come to be tested, are of no value whatever, and which reduced liberty to an utter absurdity." [Cheers.] Two years later, on the 13th day of March, 1865, the course of this member of the British House of Commons, and this extraordinary scene, were thus noticed by Mr. Bright:4 "Then I come to the last thing I shall mention-to the question of the ships which have been preying upon the commerce of the United States. I shall contine myself to that one vessel, the Alabama. She was built in this country; all her munitions of war were from this country; almost every man on board her was a subject of Her Majesty. London Times, October 9, 1862. 3 London Times, March 28, 1863. 2 Vol. IV, page 535. [92] She sailed from one of our chief ports. She is reported to have been built by a *firm in whom a member of this House was, and, I presume is, interested. Now, sir, I do not complain. I know that once, when I referred to this question two years ago, when my honorable friend, the member for Bradford, brought it forward in this House, the honorable member for Birkenhead [Mr. Laird] was excessively angry. I did not complain that the member for Birkenhead had struck up a friendship with Captain Semmes, who may be described as another sailor once was of similar pursuits, as being the mildest mannered man that ever scuttled ship.' Therefore I do not complain of a man who has an acquaintance with that notorious person, and I do not complain, and did not then, that the member for Birkenhead looks admiringly upon the greatest example which men have ever seen of the greatest crime which men bave ever committed. I do not complain even that he should applaud that which is founded upon a gigantic traffic in living flesh and blood, which no subject of this realm can enter into without being deemed a felon in the eyes of our law and punished as such. But what I do complain of is this: that the honorable gentleman, the member for Birkenhead, a magistrate of a county, a deputy lieutenant-whatever that may be-a representative of a constituency, and having a seat in this ancient and honorable assembly-that *he should, as [93] I believe he did, if concerned in the building of this ship, break the law of his country, driving us into an infraction of International Law, and treating with undeserved disrespect the Proclamation of Neutrality of the Queen. I have another complaint to make, and in allusion to that honorable member. It is within your recollection that when on the former occasion he made that speech and defended his course, he declared that he would rather be the builder of a dozen Alabamas than do something which nobody had done. That language was received with repeated cheering from the opposition side of the House. Well, sir, I undertake to say that that was at least a very unfortunate circumstance, and I beg to tell the honorable gentleman that at the end of the last session, when the great debate took place on the question of Denmark, there were many men on this side of the House who had no objection whatever to see the present Government turned out of office, for they had many grounds of complaint against them; but they felt it impossible that they should take the responsibility of bringing into office the right honorable member for Buckinghamshire or the party who could utter such cheers on such a subject as that." On the 27th of March, 1863, in a debate in the *House of Com- [94] mons on the fitting out of these piratical cruisers, Lord Palmerston said: "There is no concealing the fact, and there is no use in disguising it, that whenever any political party, whether in or out of office, in the United States, finds itself in difficulties, it raises a cry against England as a means of creating what, in American language, is called 'political capital. That is a practice, of course, which we must deplore. As long as it is confined to their internal affairs we can only hope that, being rather a dangerous game, it will not be carried further than is intended. When a government or a large party excite the passions of oue nation against another, especially if there is no just cause, it is manifest that such a course has a great tendency to endanger friendly relations between the two countries. We understand, however, the object of these proceedings in the present instance, and therefore we do not feel that irri Vol. IV, page 530. |