Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

the Confederate Generals Lee and Stonewall | advancing with his army. Grant still threatJackson to frustrate their movements, and the latter took Harper Ferry, where the garrison of 12,000 men surrendered, giving up an enormous quantity of artillery and stores. M'Clellan was removed from the command and was succeeded by General Burnside, who sustained a severe defeat at Fredericksburg. General Hooker then took his place as commander of what was called the army of the Potomac, and he also was defeated. The Confederates gained some minor advantages until General Grant, who had displayed far greater military talent than his colleagues, laid siege to Vicksburg on the land side, and, with the assistance of the flotilla of Admiral Farragut, reduced the garrison to such extremities that it capitulated, and General Meade, who had succeeded General Hooker, took up a position at Gettysburg, from which the Confederates vainly endeavoured to dislodge him.

It is unnecessary to follow the changing fortunes of the combatants, "the vulgar and unscientific and senseless butchery" as Cobden had called it. The skill and daring of General Sherman, the calm pertinacity and determination of General Grant, began to tell on the side of the North. The Federal forces were concentrated against their opponents, and Grant was made lieutenant-general with the entire command of the forces. He appointed Sherman to the command of the western army, and himself kept the direction of the Virginian campaign with a determination to take Richmond at any odds. It became a struggle to the death, in which numbers added to improved generalship ultimately gave the victory to the North after another year of movements and counter-movements, and of battles, in which the number of the slain was appalling.

[blocks in formation]

ened Richmond. On the 14th of January, 1865, Wilmington was taken, and the last communication of the Confederates with the sea was cut off. No more vessels could run the blockade, and Sherman had turned his victorious march northward, wasting the country as he went as one of the means of forcing the South to submission by depriving it of resources. The end was near. On the 1st of April, Petersburg and Richmond both capitulated to Grant. Lee was defeated in his last battle, and was allowed to surrender. The officers were placed on parole, and the troops were permitted to return to their homes on condition of submitting to the Federal authority. General Johnstone entered into similar conditions with Sherman, who had carried the war successfully through Georgia and North and South Carolina. There were no longer any Confederate forces in the Atlantic States, and the Southern commanders on either side of the Mississippi gave in their submission. Jefferson Davis, who had left Richmond when it capitulated, was arrested and placed in confinement in Fortress Monroe, from which he was allowed to depart when the war was at an end. The commanders of the Confederate armies were permitted to remain at liberty, and a few civilians who were for a short time imprisoned were soon released. Mr. Lincoln had prosecuted the war to the end for the purpose of restoring the constitution of the United States, and had effected it at enormous cost; but he had more than once endeavoured to negotiate a peace, and it was well known that the conclusion of hostilities would be followed by an amnesty if he had his will. Now that the war was really over there was no display of animosity. Not a single execution took place for political offences; not one victim was claimed for the purpose of satisfying vengeance against those whose crime had been that of secession, though secession had been designated treason to the state. The humanity and generosity of the American nation again asserted itself, and was displayed even after the perpetration of a horrible crime might have been made an excuse for measures of retaliation. For the man who throughout that long national

ASSASSINATION OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

143

died at about twenty minutes past seven the next morning.

crisis had kept in view what he believed to be | regularly and afterwards interruptedly, he his duty without animosity and without presumption; the man who had grieved over the rebellion, even while he set himself to suppress it; the man who had abstained from invective against England, and had understood better than his colleagues how little the noisy declamations of a violent and ignorant multitude really represent genuine national convictions, was not spared to see the complete restoration of the Union. On the 14th of April, 1865, Abraham Lincoln fell by the hand of an assassin while he was witnessing a dramatic performance at Lord's theatre in Washing

ton.

The president at about nine o'clock had accompanied Mrs. Lincoln to the theatre, and occupied a box in which another lady and gentleman were present. About half-past ten, during a pause in the performance, a man entered the box, the door of which was unguarded, and, hastily approaching the president from behind, discharged a pistol at his head. The bullet entered the back of the head and passed nearly through. The assassin then leaped from the box to the stage, brandishing a large knife or dagger, and exclaiming "Sic semper tyrannis!" and escaped at the back of the theatre. The screams of Mrs. Lincoln first disclosed the fact to the audience that the president had been shot. The report of the pistol, though it rang through the house, had not seemed to excite much attention; but when they knew what had happened the people rose, and numbers rushed towards the stage where the murderer was seen, and exclaimed, “Hang him! hang him!" There was a scene of wild excitement: the performance came to an end, and the "leading lady" of the piece, Miss Laura Keene, who stood at the side of the stage when the fatal shot had been fired, endeavoured in vain to restore the dying president to consciousness. He was removed to a private house opposite the theatre, and the surgeon-general of the army and other medical attendants were called, but death was inevitable. He had been shot through the head above and below the temporal bone, and though for several hours he continued to breathe, at first

The assassin had been recognized as one John Wilkes Booth (the son of an actor once well known in England as a rival of Edmund Kean), a man whose dramatic vanity, added to political fanaticism, led him to perpetrate. the crime in this manner. He had two accomplices, one of whom it was discovered had, at the time that Mr. Lincoln was assassinated in the theatre, made his way to the residence of Mr. Seward, who was lying ill in bed. Having obtained admission by representing that he brought some medicine from Mr. Seward's physician, which he was to see administered, he hurried to the sleepingroom on the third floor where his intended victim was lying. Meeting Mr. Frederick Seward there he attacked him, striking him over the head with such force as to fracture his skull. He then rushed into the room where the daughter of the patient and a male attendant were sitting, and after stabbing the latter struck at Mr. Seward with a knife or dagger twice in the throat and twice in the face, inflicting terrible wounds. By this time Major Seward, the eldest son of the secretary, and another attendant, entered the room, but the desperado wounded both and contrived to make his escape. The victims of the assault afterwards recovered, but were for a long time in great danger; and it was found that a knot of conspirators were associated with Booth and premeditated the assassination of several prominent members of the government. Booth, with an accomplice named Harrold, who had probably kept the way open for him to escape from the theatre, had horses waiting, and fled from the capital, but they were afterwards tracked to a barn near Port Royal in Maryland, where Booth was seen moving with the aid of crutches, as he had broken his ankle in his leap from the president's box to the stage, his spur, it was said, having caught in the folds of the Union flag. After some parley Harrold surrendered, but Booth, being armed, refused to do so, and the barn was fired by the troops, one of whom shot him dead as he was endeavouring to extinguish the flames.

Some of the other conspirators were afterwards arrested and executed.

The great conflict was at an end, and the now reunited States had to count the cost. The expenditure, according to the report presented to congress in the early part of 1864, had been raised from about £16,000,000 in 1860 to above £17,360,000 in 1861, £117,216,000' in 1862, and to nearly £184,000,000 in 1863, when 2,480,846 men had been called into military service on the Federal side. In the ensuing year (1864) an enormous addition was made to this already vast expenditure. Before the fall of Richmond it was computed that 252 battles had been fought, of which 17 were naval engagements. The whole country was suffering from the effects not only of the drain upon its resources, but of the terrible slaughter which had made so many homes desolate, and the devastation which had yet to be repaired. The fall of Richmond, after a siege which lasted for 1452 days, during which several desperate engagements took place, was itself less a triumph than an example of the relentless arbitration of the sword. When the Federal troops, under General Grant, entered the city it was a scene of utter wreck and wasteful destruction. The houses were deserted-furniture, merchandise, and the contents of shops and warehouses lay in promiscuous heaps in the streets, which were deep with mud; and at several points both the property that had thus been destroyed and the houses themselves had been set on fire, so that the flames spread, and but for prompt and strenuous exertions the whole place, or at any rate the larger portion of it, would have perished. Perhaps no other nation in the world could have sustained such a prolonged and destructive internal war; and it may be added that while none but a nation of immeasurable activity, vast extent of undeveloped territory, and superb reserves of material wealth, could so rapidly have recovered from exhausting calamities, history has presented no other example of the ready conciliation and generous forbearance which, within a brief period, reunited the hostile states under one owledged constitution.

As early as October, 1862, an announcement of the betrothal of the Prince of Wales to the Princess Alexandra of Denmark had aroused the popular interest, and on the 7th of March, 1863, the public reception given to the princess on her arrival in this country was the occasion of a display of national enthusiasm which had probably never been equalled, since it was associated with a genuine and tender interest that quickly developed into a lasting regard for her to whom the magnificent welcome was accorded.

A vague but prevailing sentiment had determined the public mind that an alliance of the heir to the English throne with the daughter of the royal house of Denmark was natural and appropriate, and every one was already prepared to give the princess a right royal reception. Such preparations as could be made to give to the streets of the metropolis a festal aspect were adopted, with the usual rather incongruous result. Banners, flags, wreaths, triumphal arches, festoons, mottoes, and more or less significant devices adorned the whole route through miles of tortuous thoroughfares; and as much as could be done by various unconnected local authorities was achieved for the purpose of making an extra display in the main roads and open spaces of the metropolis. But the real spectacle was the vast multitude of people. Every avenue in which a glimpse of the procession could be obtained was filled with an orderly but enthusiastic assembly. Every house and shop-front on the route was converted into tiers of private boxes, from which smiling faces shone with hospitable greeting. From the ridges of the roofs to the very basements, people clustered. Even on steeples and the cornices and parapets of great buildings determined sightseers seemed to cling for hours during that keen March morning; and at every available point platforms were erected, where school children sat and sometimes sang, or where ladies' gala dresses added colour and brightness to the scene. It needed only the presence of the princess for whom the vast population waited, to make the occasion historical-and from the first moment of her appearance the hearts of the people seemed to go out to her.

ELECTION OF KING OF GREECE-SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN.

The Prince of Wales had been to Gravesend to meet his affianced bride, and the train that brought them and their suite to Bricklayers' Arms Station travelled slowly, that the people who assembled at every point of the line where a glimpse of the princess could be obtained might not be utterly disappointed. From the Old Kent Road, over London Bridge, through the city, along the Strand, Pall Mall, Piccadilly, to Hyde Park, and to the railway station at Paddington, where they took the train to Windsor, one great triumphant shout of happy and appreciative greeting to the royal pair outrang the bells that pealed in every steeple.

On the 10th the marriage was solemnized at St. George's Chapel, Windsor, and the ceremony, with its brilliant surroundings, was exceedingly imposing, apart from the intense interest which was everywhere manifested on the occasion. Not in London only, but in every important town throughout the country the day was observed as a holiday. Official and social banquets were held, and the streets were illuminated. In London the illuminations were magnificent, and an enormous crowd of pedestrians and persons in vehicles filled all the great highways, the bridges, and the public squares, until the morning broke and the last lamps flickered in the dawn.

The injunction of the poet-laureate had been fully carried out by the nation. He had written an ode of welcome :

Sea-kings' daughter from over the sea,

Alexandra!

Saxon and Norman and Dane are we,
But all of us Danes in our welcome of thee,
Alexandra!
Welcome her, thunders of fort and of fleet!
Welcome her, thundering cheer of the street!
Welcome her, all things youthful and sweet,
Scatter the blossom under her feet!
Break, happy land, into earlier flowers!
Make music, O bird, in the new-budded bowers!
Welcome her, welcome her, all that is ours!
Warble, O bugle, and trumpet blare!
Flags, flutter out upon turrets and towers!
Flames, on the windy headland, flare!
Utter your jubilee, steeple and spire!
Clash, ye bells, in the merry March air!
Flash, ye cities, in rivers of fire!
Welcome her, welcome the land's desire,
Alexandra!

VOL. IV.

Sea-kings' daughter as happy as fair,
Blissful bride of a blissful heir,
Bride of the heir of the kings of the sea,
O joy to the people and joy to the Throne,
Come to us, love us, and make us your own:
For Saxon or Dane or Norman we,
Teuton or Celt, or whatever we be,
We are each all Dane in our welcome of thee,
Alexandra!

145

The Princess Alexandra Caroline Mary Charlotte Louisa Julia, eldest daughter of Christian, Duke of Glucksburg, and Louise, the daughter of the Landgrave William of Hesse-Cassel, was only nineteen years of age, and was declared to be one of the most charming princesses in Europe, an opinion which was completely endorsed by public opinion in England. Her elder brother, Frederick, was a general in the Danish army, her younger brother, Prince William, who came next in age to herself, was a midshipman in the Danish navy; and then followed her sisters, the Princesses Maria and Thyra, and her younger brother Prince Waldemar.

At the time of the royal marriage the difficulties in Greece had nearly terminated. After the settlement of the cession of the Ionian Islands the Hellenic people became dissatisfied with a form of government which seemed destined to perpetuate confusion instead of securing a national constitution, and determined to elect a sovereign, and to follow the example of Great Britain and Belgium in establishing a limited monarchy. Several European princes were mentioned for the honour of acceding to the throne, but some hung back, and others were ineligible. Among them all the national choice seemed most firmly fixed on our own Prince Alfred, a nomination which her majesty and our government, while thanking the Greeks for the high compliment, felt compelled to decline, as it was contrary to the British constitution for an English prince to become sovereign of another independent nation. The election then ensued, and Prince William of Denmark, then about eighteen years of age, was unmistakably elected, and on the 31st of March, 1863, was made King of Greece by the Hellenic national assembly, under the title of George I.

73

In the following November Christian, Duke of Glucksburg, himself succeeded to the throne of Denmark on the death of King Frederick VII., on the extinction of whose dynasty (the house of Oldenburg) Prince Christian took the sovereignty, in accordance with a treaty made in 1852, by which the great powers provided for the integrity of the Danish monarchy by settling the succession on Prince Christian of "Schleswig-HolsteinGlucksburg," whose wife, by virtue of certain family renunciations, became heiress of the royal crown of Denmark.

These particulars will presently suggest that "Schleswig-Holstein" difficulty, to which a brief reference will be made in another page.

Events in the parliamentary history of the year 1863 were neither very interesting nor remarkably important. The financial statement made by Mr. Gladstone excited considerable attention, but there was little scope for originality in the scheme of the budget. The American war and its effects upon English trade and manufacturing industry had left little room for the further remission of taxation on articles of general consumption, though the distress that still prevailed in the cotton districts made such reductions desirable.

At the same time, it was now well understood that the budget for the year would be skilfully designed to afford relief in some directions. The time had arrived when the chancellor of the exchequer had not only reached to the height of a great financial reputation, but had achieved a position where even his opponents acknowledged his consummate ability, and for a time forbore to assail his main proposals. It may be said that at this period Mr. Gladstone was the support of the government of which he was a member, and that had he failed it would have crumbled, not in slow decay, but in immediate ruin. Yet there were two proposals in the budget of 1863 which the house rejected. One was that of charging clubs with a license duty for the wines and spirits sold to members, the same as that imposed on taverns; the other was to include the property of corporate trusts

and the endowments of charitable institutions in the assessments for income-tax.

It may be easily understood that in a house where the majority of the members probably belonged to more than one club, little regard was shown to the argument that the publichouse was the club of the working-man, and that if places where people met for refreshment and for society were to be taxed, no exceptions should be made. The "club tax" was negatived.

In reference to the "tax on charities," as it was called, Mr. Gladstone contended that it would practically be no tax upon charities at all. An influential deputation waited on him, in which the Duke of Cambridge, representing the governors of Christ's Hospital, declared that the proposed scheme would mulet that institution of £2000 a year. The Archbishop of Canterbury urged objections against applying the tax to the Corporation of the Sons of the Clergy and the Clergy Orphan Corporation; the Earl of Shaftesbury, several clergymen, and others interested in some of the larger charities, also strongly deprecated the intended application of the tax to the funds of those institutions.

Mr. Gladstone listened, received memorials, and heard what the deputation had to say, but would give them no reply, as the proposition was coming before the House of Commons the same evening. It was then that he entered into a long and closely argued defence of the scheme, which, though he made it no essential part of the budget, and was willing to leave it to the house to determine, he declared to be a just and politic measure. The question was not understood, and he desired to call attention to the nature of the exemptions it was proposed to remove. As to the character of the charities sought to be dealt with, nineteen-twentieths of them were death-bed bequests-a species of bequest which the law did not favour, and which were essentially different from charities, properly so called, which were subject to taxation. He objected to immunities which encouraged men to immortalize themselves as founders. The loss to the state of the exemptions in question was £216,000 a year, while there was a large and

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »