1
10
4
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/6dc56683a420ad4f7248a6fa16b74b97.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=I57-dkGKA30bshNjLTI-2uJT-52XA%7EevxODjjI7G2TRMmQtYwcT1CsL9RpCkUPd-C8VkwM3c77-xrNacPGqV1QRk%7Ex7zbSzZbPCPeoicoI4rDsV1hlravXC4EGVFNLrKuyZ6w-jrSV8l9-TfFKfLJwaPWs-buG7PU3SQAG4lJGyapHxdDG7hSDH7U-nRw80VgmR9sl9lVoxqk7GiNV85VAlUpFHb8pVuTzDoCKUmI3Br1n3jtIknGMEbRh%7E9QxYmMfH3T5cxYUdmGOw3z4Zsc0%7ESajv6RB7fQg40N7LPJCwrNzAWOYek-5KGTHDOJrSv3NOscsCGt3I4HJWGm29Nbg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e9ecfe3439733cc1923d5819b03198cc
PDF Text
Text
APPEAL OF A PROTESTANT
TO THE POPE
TO RESTORE THE
LAW OF NATIONS.
REPLY TO SIX QUESTIONS
ON THE
BUSINESS FOR THE ANNOUNCED
SIXTH LATERAN COUNCIL.
BY
DAVID URQUHART.
“ When the true notion of Justice becomes obscured, material force
takes the place of Right.”—Pius IX.
LONDON:'
DIPLOMATIC REVIEW OFFICE,
24, EAST TEMPLE CHAMBERS,
1868.
�This exposition arose out of an application to the
writer to put down concisely the substance of several
conversations.
The heads were given as follows:
“ 1st. The former universal observance of Interna
tional Law.
“ 2nd. Its present total disuse.
“ 3rd. The absolute necessity if Society is to be saved,
of a general reacknowledgment of International Law.
“ 4th. The Catholic Church, with the Pope at its head,
the only power capable of enforcing this.
“ 5th. The approaching General Council the occasion
for doing so.
“ 6 th. The means to the end being (in part) the for
mation of a Diplomatic College at Rome.”
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL, &c.
The Priory, January 18, 1868.
If it were possible to be concise it would be superfluous to
write. What I have to say every one formerly knew. They
do not know to-day, because of the fallacious terms and erring
propositions, which form the sum of every man’s intellectual
being.
The removal of these—the unteaching—is the work. It can
only be done by conversation. If made in writing, the attempt
must consist in more than statement or indication. The case
itself would be all contained in these words : “ Do what is right,
“ you who have no interest in doing what is wrong.”
1st
and
2nd.
PASSAGE FROM LAW TO LAWLESSNESS.
The two first questions resolve themselves into one. It cannot
be said that the Law of Nations was formerly universally ob
served; nor that at the present time it has fallen into total
disuse. Both questions are directed to obtaining a definition
as to that portion of the public Law which has been disregarded,
and to fixing the limit of time at which such change has
taken place. It is in this manner, therefore, that I shall give
my answer.
The Law of Nations is a Code which regulates the intercourse
of communities, as if they were individuals. The difference be
tween an individual and a Nation consists only in number,
leaving rights, duties, and obligations precisely the same. In
a 2
�4
PASSAGE FROM
the one and the other case, all Law is founded on the Ten Com
mandments, and specially on the four:
Thou SHALT NOT kill.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou SHALT NOT bear false witness.
Thou shalt not covet.
All which Commandments are broken collectively when a Nation
makes war upon another, without necessity, without just cause,
and without due form. That is to say, when it makes war with
a deliberate purpose of doing wrong, that wrong consisting in an
invasion or attack, which cannot be made without killing inno
cent individuals, without robbing and destroying their property.
Then these acts must of necessity be accompanied by alleging
falsely against the innocent guilty acts, and coveting that which
belongs to them.
The purpose to commit those things must exist somewhere
when they are committed. That purpose need not co-exist nu
merically with the community; it may be confined to a few, or
even to a single individual; it will be found in the brain of the
community, wherever that brain happens to be. Nevertheless,
the guilt is common to all, because it is the result of their acts,
whether perpetrated by their hands, or accomplished through
the taxes they contribute, and the assent which they give.
And as this co-operation and assent, in so far as it is blind, can
result only from the resignation of judgment in regard to
matters affecting religious conscience and political duties, the
guilt becomes twofold. Such a people is at once a felon and a
slave.
No war is made except in so far as one of the parties to it has
been reduced to this condition. When such an event has oc
curred, some one people has been thus guilty: whilst some other
people, resisting the crime, has become the protector of public
and private innocence and liberty throughout the World.
That the Law shall cease to be appealed to by the State that is
attacked, is the lowest condition to which humanity can be re
duced; it is the destruction of all human Society. It is our
present condition.
No nation can proceed honestly against another, save for acts.
It must suffer from these acts. Otherwise it cannot come into
court. It cannot proceed to pass sentence on such acts, and to
carry that sentence into execution by levying wrar, until it has
exhausted every means for obtaining redress or security, and has
thus put beyond the possibility of doubt or even cavil, the
existence on the earth of a Power resolved and prepared to dis
turb the repose of the human race. Such must be the course,
without any enactment, of an honourable or a wise nation. This
�LAW TO LAWLESSNESS.
5
also is what the law prescribes. This is the law and rule which
each people has to enforce the observance of, on its own Govern
ment. In this consists and is shown its domestic liberty. In
this resides the means, and the only means, of preventing wars
and preserving peace; that is to say, of preserving it when not
broken by a real necessity, such as the incursion of barbarous
tribes or the outburst of some military genius at the head of a
great martial people, itself alone superior to all its neighbours.
These are the rare but sole contingencies on which the know
ledge of the law by the various communities, and the enforce
ment of it on their sovereigns and his servants, would not suffice
for the preservation of peace. All the recent wars of Europe
have arisen solely from the cessation of this restraint; in other
words, from the absence of integrity in the men composing these
communities.
It may be useful to quote an instance :
A country (Hanover) can be invaded in full peace without
declaration of war, without ground or pretext of any kind on
which to found such declaration, there having been no act what
ever done by it. It can be, thereupon, conquered (through a
succession of military treacheries) and incorporated with an
other, while the rest of Europe remain unmoved witnesses of
the crime. The victim makes no appeal to the Law !
This can only be because the law is dead. The other nations
have not remained silent; they have applauded. They are led,
having lost the standing ground of integrity, by mercenary
writers of daily comments. This can be done, because the assault
of one body on another, having ceased to be judged of on its
own grounds, is judged of on other grounds which have no
connexion with the case itself. These grounds consist in the
emotions of each man’s mind, and may be resolved into and
classed as speculations on ethnography, on philology, on geography,
on forms of government, on dogmas of religion, out of which he
draws conclusions and says, “ This people shall be united to or
“ dissevered from that people ; this king shall reign in that
“ country! such country shall expel its king, and have a re“ public; that country shall abrogate its republic, and have
“ a monarchy. This being my desire, whoever achieves it is
“ an estimable person, and whatever means he adopts are good
il means.” Thus it is that at any and every moment the occasion
is open for the employment of the last resort of man—blood
shed. For bloodshed no reason whatever need now be offered;
no wrong need have been done, attempted, or so much as
dreamt of.
Here is the test by which to separate the base from the
Upright. Every man who, being himself upright would stop
�PASSAGE FROM
evil ancl reclaim his fellow-man, must discipline himself so as
to be able to convince and convict, by showing each man with
whom he converses that, in so far as he pursues a speculation
and indulges in desires in reference to the affairs of other people
with whom he has no business, he lives without law and without
faith in the world; and lends his aid, so far as it can go,
to that universal trouble, out of which will, in due course, be
brought the domination over all of one grinding political and
religious despotism. So true is it that the Law is the foundation
of States and the only security for peace and goodwill among
men, that when it becomes obliterated, as it is to-day, nothing
can be held permanent or secure, not even their own opinions.
This deplorable condition springs from the perversion of lan
guage through the use of false and ambiguous terms; thence
the unbridled passion for destruction. Whatever is not ourselves
is hateful to us, from overweening vanity and presumption in
regard to what we imagine ourselves to be.
It is not only that the truth is hateful to them; it is con
temptible. They despise it quite conscientiously, when by the
rarest of chances, any of them hears it. Thus you say to a man,
“ Bloodshed without cause is murder, no less on the battle-field
“ than in a dark alley.” He answers, “ Oh, you must be a
“ Quaker, and will have peace at any price.” You answer him,
“ I did not speak of peace, which is a consequence; but of
“ crime, which is the cause, and of justice, which is the remedy.”
He replies, “ Oh! all wars are unjust.” He does not see that he
is confounding the commission and the punishment of crime,
and substituting felon for judge, and judge for felon. If, by
management, you at last succeed in showing him his error,
instead of being rejoiced at being emancipated from it, instead
of earnestly and hopefully entering on the new field thus opened
to him, he is only angry because proved to have been wrong,
and has no thought save that of afterwards misrepresenting to
himself that which has passed, and of reviling to others the
person from whom he has heard it. Thus it is that the truth
cannot be known. Unless shame and repentance come with
sight, blindness is not removed. This period of compunction
and of shame has passed for our age, save for very powerful
minds, very young persons, or exceptional cases of remarkable
conscientiousness, which suffice to conquer the universal passion
of self-love.
Those who are the depositaries of this truth have, therefore,
to undergo a life of trial; suffering in the sight of the uncon
sciousness around them, pain in every attempt to remove it, selfreproach in every possible occasion unemployed, persecution as
soon as the nature of their thoughts and character is appre
hended.
�LAW TO LAWLESSNESS.
7
Physical truth (discovery) is gratifying to the investigator,
and is accepted with gratitude by the rest. Moral truth is the
discovery of error in all, and is hateful to those to whom it is
presented.
What the desire of food is for animal nature so is for the in
tellectual being the desire of being right. That is, it is the main
spring on which all depends. Each virtue has its corresponding
vice : this, which is not a virtue, but the source of all virtue,
must, therefore, have in its counterpart the source of all evil.
That counterpart is the fear of being found out to be wrong; in
other words, the desire to appear to be right. This condition is
expressed by the word self-love. To say, then, that this is the
character of an age, is to express the very worst condition to
which a people can be reduced. The sign of it is offence at
being told that they are wrong. It is conscience, the stay of
integrity, perverted so as to become its enemy. This is the
evil of our times, and it must be boldly looked in the face and
known to be the real enemy we have to combat, concealed
behind all the disguises it puts on of political opinion, philoso
phical maxim, and religious pretence.
When an individual murder is committed, the heart of every
man is moved; human indignation is at work to trace, detect,
and punish. The extensive organisations of police, criminal and
legal functionaries, pursue the guilty as a business and a trade.
The conscience of the guilty is itself at work, paralysing his pro
ceedings, betraying his steps, pursuing him during his defence,
and finally overtaking him on the scaffold or the death-bed.
What prevents these safeguards from exerting their power in
the case of multiple murder ? It is only that it is not seen to
be so. It is not so seen from the progressive servility of decay
ing nations before power; whilst neither secular nor religious
instruction has applied itself to inform them in childhood as to
the nature of crime and sin in this respect, and so brought them
up as just, virtuous, or even conscious men.
That association in India known by the name of Thugs pre
sent a striking and instructive analogy. Amongst these persons
the same sense existed as to individual murder that in modern
Christendom exists as to aggregate murder. A Thug, reverting
to the sense of crime in such acts and endeavouring to convict
his fellows of guilt, would have stood in reference to that com
munity in exactly the same position as an inhabitant of
modern Europe in making the same attempt in reference to his
contemporaries. Such a person will in vain appeal to the com
mon religion of the land, any more than to the common instincts
of humanity.
The picture is, however, entirely reversed if such words are
spoken by the highest religious authority, recognised already by
�8
PASSAGE FROM
millions as the vice-regent of God upon earth. The offence ceases
for them, at least, and all will exclaim, as at the Council of
Clermont “ Died le veut !” It is the will of God that there
be peace on earth and goodwill among men, which can be onlythrough justice. St. Paul preached the kingdom to come, but
he first preached of <( judgment and justice.”
The first step backwards and out of this labyrinth of darkness
consists in regaining a clear and distinct perception of the various
acts which we include to-day under the general term War, and
of those other acts to which the term no ways applies, but which
we equally include under it.
Wars have to be classed under three heads. First, necessary;
second, just; and third, lawful.
An unnecessary war may be one to which the character of
just also applies—that is, when the Declaration has been had
recourse to, without the other preliminary steps which might
have forced the adverse party to do justice, or when the requi
site business-like capacity has not been employed, to bring the
negotiation to a fortunate issue. Thus, when Mr. Disraeli
called the Russian war of 1854, “ This most just and most un
necessary war,” the idea was presented of a war that might have
been just had the means been adopted which should have ren
dered it unnecessary; implying, that though just by occasion
being given for it by guilty acts on the other side, it wTas so no
longer, when on our side the available means had not been taken,
either to prevent the acts of which we complained, or to force the
satisfaction which we demanded.
An unjust war is one in which that is demanded which we
have no right to claim, and the adverse party is under no obli
gation to concede. Such, for instance, as the war against
France in 1806, which was made after the adjustment of all
matters respectively affecting England and France; and when,
thereafter, England made further demands, unjust in them
selves, and put forward by a third Power (Russia). The re
course in such a case is to the constituted authorities of the
State against the Ministers ; but the formalities being observed,
such as the statement of the case (Rerum Repetition, the announce
ment of the Penalty (ultimatum), the Record in Chancery, the
Proclamation to the Subjects, the Denunciation to the Enemy,
and the Commission to “ kill, burn, and destroy,”—the military
oath of the soldier is saved, and weapons can be drawn and used
lawfully.
The third case is that which, being unnecessary and unjust,
has further been made without the due and above-stated forms;
and where, therefore, there is no warrant for the use of weapons.
Any man so using them exposes himself to the last of penalties,
�LAW TO LAWLESSNESS.
9
not only as regards the State assailed, but also as regards the
criminal and martial laws of his own country.
*
As regards the
world, this is piracy; as regards the country, it is the levying of
private war. When any case arises under it in our courts of
law, it will be disallowed, as carrying no legal consequences, as
was shown in the first Chinese war.}
Unlawful Wars have happened in the history of mankind; but
they have been of the rarest occurrence. Consisting chiefly of the
outbreak of hordes who have devastated extensive portions of
the Earth, they may be considered rather as convulsions of nature
than as operations of man. These cases have been indeed con
sidered by jurists, but only to dispose of them in a phrase to the
effect that they do not constitute war, but consist simply in
robbery and piracy.
Every man engaged in such enterprises is liable to be dealt
with, and ought to be dealt with, as a pirate; that is to say, hung
without trial if taken with arms in his hands. Thus it was that,
when Geneva, in 1602, was attacked without Declaration of
War by the Duke of Savoy, the inhabitants of that town
hung upon its walls every Savoyard they had captured. Stress
is laid upon The act by the Jurists, specially by Vattel, as a
precedent of authority. It is particularly noted that no attempt
at reprisals was made by the Duke of Savoy, and that a general
assent on the part of all Nations followed this display of vigour
and of justice, by which has been preserved the independence
of that small State.
.Unlawful Wars, when they did occur otherwise than as the
migrations of hordes were treated exactly as piracy on the high
seas, or the enterprises of Bandits in a forest; or as murders and
robberies in Town or Country.
It is to the latter category that belong the operations of fleets
and armies in this age. It may, therefore, be designated as that
of lawlessness. Those who receive and execute the commission
to murder and to rob are not aware that they are doing aught
* “ At the table of the Commander-in-Chief, not many years since, a young officer
entered into a dispute with Lieutenant-Colonel------ upon the point to which military
obedience ought to be carried. 4 If the Commander-in-Chief,’ said the young officer
like a second Scid, 4 should command me to do a thing which I knew to be civilly
illegal, I should not scruple to obey him, and consider myself as relieved from all
responsibility by the commands of my military superior.’ 4 So would not I,’ returned
the gallant and intelligent officer, who maintained the opposite side of the question.
I should rather prefer the risk of being shot for disobedience by my commanding
officer than hanged for transgressing the laws and violating the liberties of my
comtry. 4 You have answered like yourself,’ said His Royal Highness, whose attention
had been attracted by the vivacity of the debate ; ‘ and the officer would deserve both
to be shot and hanged that should act otherwise. I trust all British officers would
be as unwilling to execute an illegal command as I trust the Commander-in-Chief
would be incapable of issuing one.’ ”—Sir Walter Scott's Memoir of the Duke of York.
I See case of Evans v. Hutton.
�10
PASSAGE FEOM
amiss, and those who suffer are not aware that they can protect
themselves by inflicting on the criminals their due punishment.
It is by the abstaining of the sufferers, through the loss of the
sense of law in their own breasts, from hanging the pirates who
assail them; and, on the contrary, treating them when captured
as innocent and honourable men, that is, as prisoners of war,
that that judicial blindness has fallen on the eyes of all. As
violence is not summed up in its particular performance, but
assumes to establish a despotic authority over the human race, so
is innocence when assailed invested with supreme attributes, if it
duly performs its duty of protest, resistance, and punishment. It
is in this sense that the maxim of Roman law — Justice is in
the keeping of the injured — receives its counter-application in
the present day.
Each of these crimes does not spring from the active pre
sence of so many millions of individual passions hurrying them
on. It springs solely from two causes: 1. Blind obedience to
the Executive; 2. Absence of penalty from the injured.
Having thus circumscribed the field, a very encouraging con
sideration presents itself. It is that of its simplicity. To ap
prehend it, neither legal, constitutional, diplomatic, nor historical
studies are requisite. The simple instincts of the most illiterate
of men suffice to embrace it and apply it. It only requires to be
stated to be accepted by all. There may arise difficulties in
reference to the means of rectification; but there can be none
as to the consequences to the human race, unless the remedy be
found.
As to the period of this momentous change, it cannot be fixed
to a year and by an event; it being in the course of nature that
change should be progressive. Unnecessary and unjust Wars
had long to be made and often repeated, before the new course
of ferocity became easy or possible. It may be needful severally
to trace these steps: and the more so, as the people of this
country is entirely ignorant of the acts done by itself.
As regards England, the first great disturbance took place
under the influence of polemical hatreds, and in connexion with
a Revolution, a change in the Succession of the Crown, and the
establishment on the throne of a Foreign Prince. This was the
war of the Spanish Succession. It arose out of a treaty in
which, for the first time, the legal and constitutional element
in an International proceeding, though not openly set aside, was
virtually extinguished. The signature of the Lord Chancellor
was appended to the blank parchment, which so transmitted to
William III., then in Holland, was filled in at his arbitrary
pleasure. To have protected this Empire, and with it Em-ope,
from the consequences of this crime, it would have been
�LAW TO LAWLESSNESS.
11
requisite to have put Lord Somers on his trial for his life. This
course not having been adopted, this first step was followed by
others in the same direction. All legal and all constitu
tional checks were successively withdrawn, whether as to the
making of wars, whether as to the negotiating and signing of
compacts with foreign States, out of which war arises. Simul
taneously the Royal functions were withdrawn from the super
vision of the body through which alone “ they could be exer
cised” and remitted to the disposal of an illegal body, to which
the designation of “ King’s Cabinet” was affixed. It is now
most falsely and most fatally held that the signing of treaties
and the making of war belong to the Royal Prerogative; whilst
such Royal Prerogative is held to be duly exercised, not by the
King in Privy Council, but by the accidental body brought
into power by a parliamentary majority, and which is called the
Cabinet.”
The wars, from that of the Spanish Succession, have been,
like it, unnecessary and unjust without exception, whilst, in carry
ing them on, the real power of England, in her naval means,
has been restrained rather than employed, by the successive
holders of office. But down to the close of the great wars of
the French revolution, a remnant of respect and of decency had
so far prevailed, that such forms as were of absolute necessity
to guard the consciences of soldiers and sailors were observed.
The warrant for destruction accompanied hostilities, and the
orders to kill, burn, and destroy were duly issued.
It is, then, since the European wars ceased, that commences
the era of uncloaked brigandage. The first incident (Navarino)
took place in 1827, which, though originating in a lawless treaty,
was not followed up by other operations (at least by England),
and was explained as the result of a mistake.
We have to come down eleven years nearer our own day for
the first positive and complete case of a buccaneering expedi
tion, undertaken and carried through by a constituted Govern
ment. This was the invasion of Affghanistan. The year
1838 may therefore be fixed upon as the period when war
ceased, and when the mere killing of men by the orders of
Governments commenced.
The Affghan war was made on the allegation that a certain
ruler was “ unfriendly” to England. This allegation, in itself
no ground for war, was supported by various sets of documents
presented to Parliament. These documents, being received by
the Envoy employed, they were declared by him to be a “ tissue
of falsehoods.” He consequently sent home for publication true
copies of his despatches. After many years and repeated motions
in Parliament, the original despatches were produced. The truth
�12
PASSAGE FROM
of the statement of Sir A. Burnes was then established; and it
was proved that the allegation against Dost Mahomed, and on
which the war to upset him had been explained and accepted, had
been made out, through an elaborate falsification of the official
despatches of the British Envoy.
The war therefore was unnecessary; it was unjust, for it was
not just to attack or upset a foreign Prince ; and being neither
necessary or just, it could not be, by any “ formality” rendered
legal, nor was there so much as the attempt to do so. The
document which appeared, though entitled a “Declaration,”
declared no war, but was restricted to observations in reference
to “ the service of troops across (beyond) the Indus.”
No ground was taken in Parhament on the law for resistance
to, or punishment of, this crime. After the whole of the ex
pedition had perished, a motion for mere inquiry was defeated,
and a second invasion was planned for the purpose of naked
vengeance.
But before this positive and hot-handed revolt against all laws
of God and man, preparations had been made for screening those
guilty in this respect from punishment. The English Government
negotiated with Spain a treaty (Elliot convention), according
to which they should no longer shoot the foreigners taking part
in the Civil contest then raging, and who were, and could only
be treated as pirates. The matter was managed with art.
There is no mention made of these foreigners. The English
Minister is only moved by the interests of humanity. It was
in the name of that great Moloch that both parties were called
upon not to shoot men after the battle was over.
*
In the Affghan war commencing the new era for mankind,
is found combined every order of guilt together with loss and
injury. It was to be expected that the licence thus obtained
should soon produce corresponding effects, and so it has proved.
Thirty years have now elapsed. During that time no Conqueror
has arisen: there has existed no necessity for war; yet wars, or
the operations to which the name has been affixed, have followed
uninterruptedly from that hour to the present; first in Asia,
then in Europe, after that in America, and now at last in Africa ;
all resulting either from the direct act of England, her indirect
encouragement, or through the operation of the general law
lessness which her practice has introduced or her authority
established.
This proceeding on the part of England awakened no atten
tion on the Continent of Europe. The sense of law was already
so far obliterated that the character of the new crime was not
• In the collection of Treaties published by the English Government this Conven
tion is wanting.
�LAW TO LAWLESSNESS.
13
perceived; the people against whom the blow was levelled wTas
remote ; they were looked upon as cc infidels” and (i uncivilised,”
and in respect to whom no Laws had to be observed. They did
not perceive that the reaction would afterwards fall upon Europe
herself. Indeed, France had herself a few years before com
menced the same lawless course in Africa, and had afterwards
continued it in Mexico and South America.
The invasion of Affghanistan was immediately followed by the
first Chinese War; a war, so far as the Chinese were concerned,
but piracy only on the part of Grreat Britain, as was formally
established.by the English Courts. Then came the destruction
of the British army in Affghanistan, and the second invasion for
the sake of vengeance. This was followed by the second and
third Chinese wars with their revolting incidents of atrocity
and barbarity. Then came the two Persian Wars, the two
attacks on Japan, the Bombardment of Jeddah, and now the
Invasion of Abyssinia. All these wars are of the same cha
racter, that is to say, unnecessary, unjust, profitless, and unac
companied by the forms requisite to make a just and necessary
War a lawful one.
It has to be remarked that whilst there was no gain to be
obtained by these operations, so was there no passion of an
internal kind to be gratified. The British Nation was on every
occasion surprised into them. Falsification of documents to the
extent of forgery, and every kind of misrepresentation were em
ployed to bring them about. These artifices were directed not
only against the public and the Parliament, but also against the
Colleagues of the Minister, and the Sovereign. And the im
punity, success, and pre-eminence of the sole Minister who
managed them, was secured by the idea that the honour of Eng
land was compromised and had to be maintained. Whilst, in
the universal sense of mental weakness and public insecurity,
confidence was given to the one man, in whom the rest recog
nised resolution and capacity.
Amongst the incidents of this order of which Asia has been
the field, we have to enumerate the Sepoy Rebellion of 1857,
it having been produced by the transmission from England to
India, in defiance of the standing orders of the department, of
cartridges prepared in a manner which inflicted pollution on our
Eastern subjects. The design in this case was the same as
in all the others ; and it was practicable and successful like the
others, only through the extinction of all the restraints hitherto
imposed on evil doers.
Thus from the year 1838 down to the year 1868 there has
been a scarcely uninterrupted series of piratical expeditions on
the vastest scale, the effects of which have been to shake the
�14
PASSAGE FROM
power of England in the East, to sap the basis of society and
the means of Government throughout these vast Regions, by
imposing heavy pecuniary obligations, and breaking down Con
stitutional restraints. Whilst, not there only, but throughout the
World, has the sense of law been obliterated from the minds of
men.
We have now to review the occurrences in our own quarter
of the globe.
The settlement of 1815 was one which, not restoring the con
ditions that had been disturbed and the rights that had been
infringed, prepared the way for what was to follow. It was
almost immediately followed by the Treaty called the Holy Alliance, which, pretending to establish a common right of Govern
ments to lend mutual aid to each other against their subjects,
had for effect that which was the object of its original proposer
—to generalise Revolution. All Governments were to lend
their troops against all subjects; all subjects were consequently
to combine against any Government. The distinction of alien
and subject was effaced, everybody could interfere with every
body and everywhere, and the right was established for every
man to fly at every other man’s throat. This heinous and sacriligious Treaty—for it pretended to act in the name of Christ—
introduced the unlawful system of Congresses. These generated
unlawful Wars; thus from it came the invasion of Naples by
Austria, and of Spain by France, and that general confusion
of opinions and affairs which has prevailed unto the present day.
Concurrently with these operations there was the intervention
in the East for the so-called “ Pacification of the Levant,” but
which was directed to the overthrow of the Ottoman Empire. The
Greeks had been insurrectionised by Russia. England, whom
it was found impossible to draw into the Holy Alliance, on the
withdrawal of the Russian Minister, made herself the organ of
Russia at Constantinople. The Turks resisting, a Treaty was
signed between England, France, and Russia, to constrain the
Turks. It stipulated that the means of action should be left
at the disposal of their representatives. This treaty was, there
fore, not a beneficent compact, but an outrage and an infamy.
It was, moreover, the surrender by each of the three Govern
ments of all control over their own actions, and placed their
respective forces at the conjoint disposal of their agents; that is,
of the one of these agents who happened to be more dexterous
than the others. Out of this came the butchery of Navarino,
and the destruction of the naval power of Turkey, followed im
mediately by the Russian invasion of Turkey, and the with
drawal of the representatives of England and France; so that it
was a common war of the three Powers against an Empire which
�LAW TO LAWLESSNESS.
15
two of them had entered into the negotiation with the avowed
purpose of protectingI
Meanwhile the Ruler of Egypt, secretly invited to revolt, first
by England and afterwards by France, twice rebelled, imperil
ling all Europe. After ten years of confusion, the result of
these negotiations and acts, a rupture was effected between Eng
land and France in reference to Egypt. A treaty sent from St.
Petersburg, and signed by England, Austria, and Prussia,
behind the back of France, all but produced a general European
war, and left everything in utter confusion, with an immense
increase of the warlike charges of France, and the fortifications
around Paris.
Not one of these steps could have been taken had there existed
in the Minister of any State “ respect for the laws or fears
“ for his person.”* They could not have taken place had the
Executives not usurped the power of making war without the
assent of the Estates of the Realm. They could not have taken
place had the Privy Council not been displaced from within the
Executive. They could not have taken place had the habit not
arisen of permanent Embassies, by which the internal condition
was invariably subjected to external considerations and influence.
Finally, they could not have taken place had the churches of
Christendom taught that murder in the aggregate was not less,
but the same sin, as murder in the individual. For then war
would no longer have been possible on the mere motion of the
Minister; letters and despatches would have remained without
effect to produce convulsion; and that maleficent power desig
nated “ moral influence ” would have been lifted off the human
race.
The pressure of taxation, the disturbance of every basis of
judgment; the absence of all authoritative exposition of what is
right in maxim, or profitable in practice; the periodical convul
sions arising from a fictitious monetary system; and the expen
diture of large sums of money and endless activity on the part
of one Government to organise secret and revolutionary societies,
had now prepared Europe for the repetition on a larger scale, in
1848, of the convulsion of 1830.
This event, to which our present state more immediately
belongs, was led and managed for Russia by England. It began
in Switzerland by double-dealing with the parties in the Civil
War. This was followed by the celebrated despatch of October,
1847, announcing designs of Austria on Italy, and threatening her
on the part of England. Then came the mission of Lord Minto
to all the Governments of Italy openly to impose on them in* Words used in the House of Commons, February, 1848, as applied to the English
Minister.
�16
PASSAGE FROM
ternal measures, and openly to invite the various populations to
revolt. No point of Europe was neglected. The ground was
everywhere mined by Russian revolutionary agents, whilst
England openly invoked rebellion. Thus, on a given day, in the
beginning of 1848, from Copenhagen and Bucharest, to the
Mediterranean and the Atlantic, every people was convulsed
and every throne upset.
When after a time the re-establishment came, there was,
in all respects, a difference. The Governments were more sub
servient, the people more discontented. The military organisa
tions were augmented, the debt and taxes were increased.
Hitherto the north of Europe had been spared; one people
in Europe was tranquil, had no factions, and was attached alike
to its institutions and to its Prince. It was now to be drawn
into the European vortex, and whilst made the victim of its order
and ‘loyalty, was to be converted into a more terrible lever of
convulsion than any other of the fragments of the confederacy
of European States, which had severally been used as dupes and
instruments. This people were the inhabitants of the Duchies
of the Eyder. The King of Denmark had been induced, on
perfidious councils from Paris, to infringe the rights of the
Duchies on the plea of including them in a general representative
constitution, which would make the “ United Danish Monarchy”
a barrier against Russia. Being thus prepared to be acted on
by the convulsion of 1848, a civil war with Denmark broke out,
which, by the management of England, was kept on for three
years. She interfered each Autumn by mediation, and prolonged
the situation till the warlike operations could be resumed in the
Spring, which were then allowed to take their course. Prussia
lent her aid to the same work by pushing on the Duchies,
getting the command of the conjoint forces, and then betraying
them in the field. After four years of this bloodshed and perfidy,
matters were brought to a head, and an arrangement took place
at Warsaw between the Russian Czar, as head of the House of
Oldenburg, and the King of Denmark, by which the succession
of the crown was altered, so that almost the whole of the inter
vening and numerous heirs were cut off; a successor named
to the Royal line, at the option of the Emperor of Russia, and
his own title as heir-general established, both to the Kingdom
and the Duchies.
Such a compact, unlawful as all the rest, was also offensive in
the last degree to Denmark, and alarming to all Europe. It was
impossible for the Danish Government to present to the Diet of
Copenhagen a law to carry it into effect. The Compact or Pro
tocol had been kept secret. To impose it on Denmark, and to
impose it on Europe, it was taken up by England. A Treaty,
�LAW TO LAWLESSNESS.
17
embodying the Warsaw Protocol, was signed in London, May
Sth, 1852, rehearsing that the arrangement had already been
made, and that the Treaty was only to give to it a “ European
sanction.” On this it was proposed to the. Danish Diet, as a
“ European necessity.” After repeated dissolutions, the constitu
tion was changed, and so the Treaty became law for Denmark.
These points are given, as out of this transaction—certainly
the most monstrous and insane, that the world has ever witnessed
—has come directly the phase of convulsion around us.
Whilst the Danish incident had been running its internal course
of five years, from the letters patent of 1846 to the Warsaw
Protocol of 1851, and its European course of fifteen years,
from that Protocol to the battle of Sadowa in 1866—in the
Italian Peninsula the harvest from the seed sown by the de
spatch of 1847 and the mission of Lord Minto was being
gathered in. Whatever the attractions for Russia of the Penin
sula itself, whatever the necessity of stopping a productiveness
which interfered with several, and endangered one of her own
staple products—whatever the occasion which it presented now,
as in all time, by the extended and exposed structure of the
*
land and the debased character of the people for exciting the
rivalries of neighbouring powers and bringing the fall of Dy
nasties—Italy, for Russia, meant the Pope. He was in Italy the
only real thing. He from Italy could restore law, order, and
peace in Christendom. He was head of the Western Church,
which the Czar works to destroy and pretends to incorporate.
The East was involved in Italy, no less than the West, and
Poland and Russia herself, no less than Europe and the East. To
revolutionize Italy was the means to reach the Pope. By that
process he could reach the sovereignty of the Bishop of Rome,
and so upset his spiritual power; that "is, that spiritual power not
exerted at present, but, as she well knew, capable of exercise in a
judicial fashion, and for which the first condition was that he
should be subject neither to a foreign Prince nor be protected
by foreign bayonets. That these must have been her desires
and her objects it is facile to perceive, and it is in evidence that
towards them, events have marched. But what is not so easy to
perceive, and might have appeared impossible to accomplish, is
what really did take place, and of which we possess the evidence.
It is that in bringing about this convulsion (1848) she concealed
from the Papal Government her part therein—concealed from
its eyes alike her secret connexion with revolution and with the
English Government, and made it believe that she was doing
her best to protect the Pope against both. She made the largest
* “ Divided by the Apennines ; surrounded by the sea.”
B
�18
PASSAGE FROM
offers in money ancl troops, and accepted the grateful acknow
ledgments of the Pope for having, by her influence, obtained
for his protection the presence of French troops at Pome.
*
It was not that the Pope had forgotten Poland, or the substi
tution by the Czar of himself for Patriarch, or his pressure in
the East on his spiritual subjects; but all were then powerless
to comprehend that Russia made use of revolution. They all
believed her to be its opponent. However, the anomaly of the
goodwill thus shown by the Russian Cabinet had to be explained.
The explanation offered and accepted was that St. Petersburg
and Rome were on “ the same line,” that being the “ line of
order.” It is curious that the Revolutionists at the very same
moment were attributing the pecuniary support they received
from her to the same cause, that of being “ on the same line
with her.” They understood that line to be “ disorder.”
The historian of the Revolutions of Europe remarks that,
from the commencement of the eighteenth century, history had
become difficult to write, in consequence of the non-observance
of public law. Now that the very idea of law has disappeared, or,
which is even worse, its name only used to misapply it and to
affix it to some monstrous deed, the affairs of mankind have be
come one mass of incalculable confusion. They now pretend
to substitute for the law they have abrogated, what they
call an “ International Law,” which is to consist of Treaties.
Strange as it may appear, it is not the less true that there has
not been a single treaty signed during this period, that of Vienna
inclusive, that has not been violated, till at last treaties are
looked upon as some miasma pervading the air.f The idea
of any value as resulting from a positive compact having disap
peared, they now propose to substitute them for the Law of
God and of Nations.^
* “So early as the mouth of February, 1848, the Cabinet of St. Petersburg thus
addressed itself to the Court of Rome :—
“ ‘It is beyond doubt that the Holy Father will find in His Majesty the Emperor
a loyal supporter in effecting the restitution to him of temporal and spiritualpower, and
that the Russian Government will apply itself to all the measures that may contribute
to this end, seeing that it nourishes in respect to the Court of Rome no sentiment of
rivalry and no religious animosity.’”—Farina Stato Romano,vol. Hi. p. 215.”—From
“ The East and the West,” by the Hon. H. Stanley.
f “ The Treaty of Gastein was now losing its vitality.”—M. Rouher.
j “ The most manifest and repulsive indication of that aspiration for Omnipotence
which popular sovereignty affects is the contempt of that elementary right which the
public honour and good sense have called the faith of treaties.”—M. A. Re Broglie,
in the Li Revue des Deux Mondes.” Thus the perception of the evil is powerless in
this age to lead to the perception of the cure. The first proposal of substituting
Treaties for Law and calling them Law was made by Russia, in 1806, as one of the
conditions on which she would have accepted the peace then on the point of settlement
between England and France. As a step towards this result, at the Treaty of Vienna
no anterior Treaty was restored, so that the peace became a generality.
�LAW TO LAWLESSNESS»
19
In former periods of anarchy and violence a remedy was pos
sible. The idea of it spontaneously arose. It was that of Law. At
that time—-that is to say, in all previous times, crimes only were
committed. The hearts of men were corrupted, but their under
standings were left to them; and speech, the instrument of
reason, was under each man’s hand to use if prompted thereto.
To-day the disturbance does not come from hordes lusting for
territory, or conquerors for battle-fields. Those who commit the
crimes suffer from them. It is the understanding that is per
verted; it is speech that is falsified; and therefore is the restora
tion at once most easy and most difficult—most easy, because all
would be on the side of right, did it find an interpreter; most
difficult, for where is the interpreter to be found in an age which
has fallen into this chaos by reason of false speech in use, and
true speech forgotten ?
When such terms as “ Public Opinion,” “ Civilisation,”
“ Progress,” can be uttered, who can speak of Law, of Justice 2
and how, therefore, can there be peace on earth and goodwill
among men 2
All these terms have been already condemned by the Pope ;
but in condemning them he has not analysed them to show their
vacuity. Let us take an instance. To say that the word
“ progress ” should not be used, is of the greatest service to any
human being who will obey the injunction ; because it will save
him from a large amount of distracting volubility, evil habits of
mind, and erroneous conclusions. But only abstaining from it
because it is forbidden, and not knowing it to be unmeaning, he
will not be freed from its effects when it falls from the lips of
others ; noi' will he be able to show to others why it is objection
able. Being incapable of giving a reason for his objection to its
use he will sink in the estimation of his interlocutor, and in his
own. The benefit of discipline is not secured to him. Instead
of the regenerating effect of discarding a false term, his obedience
only justifies the contempt of the “ man of the age,” who holds
religion to be superstition, and its professors to be weak-minded.
Let us suppose this Catholic to be instructed by his priest,
himself instructed by the Head of the Church, and so enabled
to deal logically, and not religiously or authoritatively, with a
logical perversion. How differently wrnuld he stand! He
■would then proceed to call his opponent to account, even as
Christ did in the time of the Pharisees, or as Socrates did in
the time of the Sophists. He would question him as to his
meaning; he would ask him to explain the relation between a
substantive of motion and a method of reasoning. He would
call for a definition of the geographic field over which motion is
predicated, and for the contents of the entity represented as
b 2
�20
PASSAGE FROM
marching over it. He would persist in drawing forth the forms
of the unknown future towards which the progress is to be made.
He would force him to declare whether his “ progress ” was
towards or away from knowledge of cases, the correct definition
of laws, the due regulation of constitutional checks, the restraints
on the exercise of political power, the control over the public
expenditure, the supervision of transactions between States, and
the inhibition of public acts not beneficial, not just, not lawful.
He would have always in reserve to show, and by questions to
bring out the avowal, that on all these heads, since the word in
question came into use, there had been a progressive deterioration
of the human species. Thus would he confound and confute
his antagonist, and show that to employ amphibologies is not the
perfection but the extinction of the human faculties.
Men can go on, with the pen in their hand, making phrases—
the weakest as well as the strongest. They are at once pulled
up by a question, and will equally be baffled by it—the strongest
as well as the weakest.
It is impossible to separate man and speech. There may be
base men using language correctly, but there can be no people
upright whose speech is debased. No branch of human science
can be followed, or even so much as exist, if the terms be not
defined. No legal act is binding into which terms not legal are
introduced. An article of faith consists entirely in the definition
of the terms.
What is here in evidence before us in the introduction of new
terms into all the languages of Europe, and that all these have a
double meaning: concurrently therewith, there has been a dis
turbance of all settled convictions.
The connexion is therefore established by two distinct pro
cesses. Ambiguous terms must bring, we say, malversation in
affairs and infidelity in belief. They have been introduced, and
have been accompanied by these results.
It follows, therefore, that the rectification must commence by
the exclusion of such terms ; and the Pope ha's put his hand to
this work, condemning as unchristian and uncatholic those
very terms which had already, on philological grounds, been
shown to be unmeaning and deceptive.
For doing this Catholics have a great advantage in the Sacred
Writings, having to study them, in the first instance, in the
natural sense. This is a preparation for confounding fallacy
by throwing men back on themselves, and for calling men to
Repentance without reference to dogma. These are among the
latent intellectual powers of the Catholic Church, which it knows
not itself, and which will be known either to itself or others only
when exerted.
�LAW TO LAWLESSNESS.
21
Concurrently with the obliteratiou of the common instincts of
man as regards the taking of life, there has arisen in Europe a
parallel change in the conduct of affairs, by which one subordinate
branch of government has been rendered supreme in each. The
department of Foreign Affairs dealing extra-nationally, has got
this mastery, and out of it has come an enthralling secresy. This
revolution has been worked out of the “ Intervention in the
“East.” That operation has converted international business
into a labyrinth. The very existence of which is unknown save
to those who had been connected therewith, before the Greek
episode commenced. Each Foreign Department uncontrolled,
unquestioned, can bring about wars, can, consequently, exert
“ moral influence ” on other states; and so can disturb internal
affairs, overthrow internal liberty, augment military establish
ments, increase charges, impose taxes, augment debt, produce,
indirectly, disloyalty and unbelief; and whilst directly foment
ing revolution in particularly selected countries, prepares for it
in all; tending in a direction, which at some point must render
all government impossible: and so preparing for the general
domination throughout Europe of some power or people whose
understanding and speech has not been similarly vitiated.
Before closing this branch it is desirable to revert to the act
of Geneva in 1602. It is not only a great lesson, but also a
prominent landmark. It is such a limit between two order's
of existence, such as that traced by Tacitus in summing up the
history of Rome, where he says, Hie finis cequi Juris. It explains
how small states have been in later times absorbed, and how
they remained up to these times, to be absorbed. When a crime
against which human nature revolts does not receive its due
penalty, of course it spreads, and, spreading, changes its cha
racter. So it has happened. Bandits being normally sent forth
by established governments, come at last to constitute themselves
on their own account, and to combine to assail this country or
that. The penalties having ceased to be applied to the first, are
then no longer applied to the second, so that a trade in piracy is
established, and the inducement of impunity, which would apply
to a band of false coiners, applies to the enterprises carried on
against the Sultan or the Pope. The Sovereigns so attacked,
not exercising the functions of sovereignty in this respect, be
come themselves in reality accomplices in this breaking down of
all things. They have, moreover, no passions to mislead them,
and no real or supposed advantage to gain. It is therefore the
result of weakness only—the greatest of all sins in the holder
of delegated authority. Firmness in some would at any moment
of past time have stopped the course of evil. Firmness would
stop it even to-day.
�22
SOCIETY TO BE SAVED ONLY BY THE LAW.
It is not, however, correct to designate these adventurers
as . Bandits or Pirates. The latter have a positive object of
gain in view. They may be driven to guilty deeds by ne
cessity. They have the excuse of degrading associations. They
incur positive danger; and, lastly, they are conscious of thenown acts. Far different is the man who imbrues his hands in
the blood of his fellow-creatures without such inducements,
such risks, or such consciousness, and who is moved by the
passions of the understanding—the most ferocious and' most
hopeless that can take possession of the human heart—the more
hopeless and base, the loftier and the holier the pretensions which
he puts forward to himself or others. The passions of the heart
are the passions of the animal or the wild beast which lie down
when satisfied. The passions of the understanding are those of
the human being perverted from the image of God to the pur
poses of the Devil. It is before this outburst that the execu
tioner gives way !
Had the hired assassins of the King of Sardinia met the
fate of those of the Duke of Savoy—had there been in 1862 a
township in Sicily with hearts of the men who lived in 1602,
Italy would have been spared, the “ making” she has had, and
the unmaking she will presently have to undergo.
3rd.
SOCIETY TO BE SAVED ONLY BY THE LAW.
The third question is already answered. It is more than an
swered, for the method to be adopted has also been shown. It
consists in the extrication of the mind from a few fallacies, all
which disappear of themselves, from the moment that a man
sees that to kill, to rob, to covet, to bear false witness, is no less
a crime when committed by many against many, than when
committed by one against one, or a few against a few. Not to
know this is to be under judicial blindness. Whilst that blind
ness endures, the case, as regards the conduct, conscience, busi
ness, and existence of a people is exactly such as, in regard to
material objects, it would be, if natural and artificial light were
suspended, and the human race were left to grope their way in
the dark. Efforts, if made, would avail nothing, resources un
bounded within his reach would satisfy neither hunger nor
thirst, and he would perish miserably in the midst of the stench
of his already putrifying fellow-creatures, despite all that Pro
vidence might have otherwise supplied for his comfort, and
fortune assorted for his pre-eminence.
�SOCIETY TO BE SAVED ONLY BY THE LAW.
23
The expression “International Law” has, however, to be put
aside. The epithet alone reveals this hopeless and abject con
dition. It reveals the intellectual debasement out of which that
condition has sprung; it reveals the loss of respect for the rule
of right, without which neither would the understanding have
been debased, nor circumstances disordered. The Law is
supreme, the Law rules, the Law is from on high. It is above
all. Thus the Law of Nations is a holy law; but the sacred
character vanishes before the preposition “ between.” In English
you could not say it. If you did, you would know that it was
nonsensical and feel that it wTas vile—“the between-NationsLaw.”
The Law of Nations is otherwise termed the “Law of
Nature,” and, again, the “ Law of God ”—of Nature and of
God because of its essence; of Nations, because ruling all and
accepted by all. It is the Ten Commandments as applicable to
communities. By observing these a people preserves its faith,
its honour, its liberty, its power, and, if capable in other respects,
will live for ever. When a people causelessly assails another,
it has lost innocence, honour, liberty, and faith. It contains no
longer one citizen, one Christian, or one gentleman, save amongst
the protestors, if there be any.
Finally, it is peculiarly the Law of Nations because it, and it
alone, deals with and adjudicates on their aggregate acts. It is
the civil and criminal municipal law applied to the whole com
munity. An eminent English judge has thus defined it:—
“ The Law of Nations,” says Lord Mansfield—“ that uni“ versal Law, which will be carried as far in England as any“ where—which is here adopted in its full extent by the Common
“ Law, and is held to be a part of the Law of England ; which
a Acts of Parliament cannot alter : which is to be collected, toge“ ther, together with the rules of decision concerning it, not from
“ Acts of Parliament, but from the practice of different nations
“ and the authority of writers; of which from time to time Acts
“ of Parliament have been made to enforce, or decisions to facili“ tate, the execution, and are, therefore, considered not as intro“ ductive of any new law, but merely as declaratory of the old
“ fundamental constitutions of the kingdom; and finally, without
“which the kingdom must cease to be a part of the civilised
“ world.”
This Law is, moreover, emphatically that of Nations, because
the Nations have themselves to enforce it. It is against their
Governments that they have to enforce it. It is by
taking care that their rulers “ shall do that only which is law
ful,” that peace can be possessed or preserved on earth. The
contrary must happen if that Law of Nations is remitted to the
�24
SOCIETY TO BE SAVED ONLY BY THE LAW.
agents, that is. the Governments, to apply, to interpret, and to
change at. their pleasure. It is thus that a people falls into the
last condition of<£ taking for law that which their rulers do.” To
recover them from it, some must arise different from the rest, to
reprove and to teach them.
There remains behind a still graver consideration for the
future. If the Law of Nations is not observed, it will neces
sarily come to be perverted, and its name, forms, and authority
will remain as a blight on the world. The Law transformed
into a mask and cloak for the designing will thus become the
most fruitful of all sources of war and discord.
A small chink lets in light. It is not willingly that nations
err, sin, slay, and suffer. Therefore is it that those who among
such a generation do see, are filled with zeal, 'are incessant in
toil, and endued with power. Few and insignificant, as in them
selves they may be, their work may bear fruits.
Operations depending on thought are independent of numbers.
This present condition of the human race has been brought
about by a single man.
n
It is not bloodshed alone that we suffer from, and that has to
be put a stop to, but lawless acts of all kinds; whether these
consist in commission or in omission : of wrongs perpetrated or
wrongs endured. Had there been a body of upright men in
England, there would have been no waiver of the means of co
ercing her enemy in 1854, no giving away of her maritime power
in 1856, no fitting out of Piratical vessels in 1863, no refusal of
reparation for their depredations in 1864-7, no endurance of the
transfer by sale of territorial possessions amongst our neighbours,
or any foreign Powers, no submission to Blockades where war
of no kind had been made, no interference in the internal juris
diction of Eastern States by our Consuls, no proposals to shake
the very bases of all society in destroying the indefeasible alle
giance of the subject;—none, in fact, of these novelties, which
come upon us to-day in overwhelming and inextricable shoals,
and which were unknown in the world among all its previous
generations. All these and all that are to follow are the neces
sary effects of dispensing ourselves from the observance of any
rule of conduct. Surely a remedy so simple and so comprehen
sive ought to have attractions, if only from its novelty. We do
run after new things and strange things; one more new or more
strange is not to be found than Justice.
�DUTY OF THE POPE TO RESTORE THE LAW.
25
4th.
DUTY OF THE POPE TO RESTORE THE LAW.
Whether the Catholic Church is capable of this restoration
must depend on the qualities of the men it possesses at this
hour. It is placed under the necessity of making the attempt,
both because of the new characters which crime has recently
put on, and because of the assumption of authority over the con
sciences of its flock.
The words spoken by the Pope, while containing a promise,
also suggest a fear. By them the Church steps out of its poli
tical disability, asserting its appellate jurisdiction. Four years
have elapsed since the pretension was advanced, but it has re
mained unexerted. No preparatory steps have been taken for its
exercise. The question therefore arises as to the sense attached
to the words themselves. In any case the position of affairs is
no longer the same after they have been spoken; for from that
hour the sanction of the Church must be assumed to have been
given in all cases where it has not rebuked and condemned.
It did not, however, require the assertion of this claim in this
authoritative manner to convey a religious sanction to political
crimes. It may be put in this very self-evident and simple
fashion : Granted that the Church of England or of Prussia is
not called upon to determine the lawfulness of a war made by
the respective Governments of these countries, it does not there
upon follow that the Church of Rome can dispense itself from
this duty, seeing that its pretension is to be universal, and that
its flock will be engaged on both sides; so that there is for it
no possibility of not sanctioning crime, as there is an impossi
bility of both sides being innocent.
The case has been stated by a distinguished Prelate (the
Bishop of Mayence) in the following terms :—
u In the last centuries, after abandoning the commandments
“ of God, an inert form has been substituted for them, derived
from the scales in which merchandise is weighed. . . . This
“ separation of the Rights of Nations and the Law of God—
“ this fiction that the end and means of Policy stand in a horizon
“ superior to those of vulgar morals and justice, brings an im“ mense peril for the peace of the world. This is war in perma“ nency, or a simple armistice—the prelude of a war of all
“ against all.
“ It is thus that we have to deplore bitterly that Religion has
“ been rendered the accomplice of this policy. They have been
“ very ill inspired who in these latter times, have suggested to
“ Religion and its ministers, to give a sort of religious consecration
�26
DUTY OF THE POPE TO RESTORE THE LAW.
“ to all these violences. For how many victories have TeDeums
“ been chanted that have no ways been for the glory of God,
“ but which were cursed by God from heaven ! ”
It is thus that the Bishop of Mayence—without having
perceived the distinction between wars that are unjust and those
that are unlawful, and taking the first ground alone, and sup
posing that to be the guilt and danger of our times—still with
grief and indignation, and also with horror, points to the
desecration of religion, in the blessing by it of opposing arms.
Here speaks a disturbed conscience and a grieving heart; but
how unavailing those emotions, even when combined with high
intellectual powers, to find and apply the remedy, when the re
quisite knowledge of circumstances is wanting, is singularly illus
trated in the veiy work from which the above extract is taken.
It is entitled “ Germany after the War of 1866,” and necessarily
deals with the causes which brought about that war. The
author sees none of them. He makes statements as to Denmark
which are not correct. He then speculates thereon. Finally,
he reverts to that terrible and sacrilegious compact, the Holy
Alliance, through which Europe has been convulsed, as a great,
and good, and beneficial operation, attributing to its non-iulfilment the present condition of things I
Although, therefore, the instances of Gregory the Great,
Gregory VII., and Innocent III. must necessarily present
themselves to any hopeful mind, whatever its religious pro
fession, and whether or not it admits of any faith or belief at all,
yet Popes are required nowadays for far graver purposes than
to interdict uncanonical marriages, to excommunicate Royal
assassins, to restrain unlawful taxes, or even to condemn unjust
wars.
At the present time it is no active interference that is called
for in the State; it is simply adjudication on criminal matters
that is required. The povrer so to be exercised will be appre
hended only after it has been exerted; and it can be exerted
only by the possession of those eminent qualities, that perfect
knowledge, and that unbounded self-sacrifice and devotion
which, in the person of Gregory, created that wonderful
system which we designate the Church of Rome; and which,
in the person of the present Pope, if it please Providence
to grant him time and aids in men, may restore that Church,
and with it retrieve and preserve human society—that society
which, in his own words, is “ crumbling to pieces.”
A French philosopher (unbeliever) says :—
“ Do not tell me that Gregory, Leo, Urban, Innocent,
“ and so many others were Saints a thousand years ago. . I want
�DUTY OF THE POPE TO RESTORE THE LAW.
27
“ you to-day to be one yourself, in order that all the moral world
“ may, without dispute, fall down at your feet.”*
A Protestant clergyman and the actual Dean of St. Paul’s, in
writing of the past, shows what is practicable in the present:—
“In the person of Gregory, the Bishop of Rome first
“ became, in act and influence, if not in avowed authority, a
“ temporal Sovereign. Nor were his acts the ambitious encroach“ ments of ecclesiastical usurpation on the civil power. They
“ were forced upon him by the purest motives, if not by actual
“ necessity. The virtual Sovereignty fell to him as abdicated by
“ the neglect or powerlessness of its rightful owners; he must
“ assume it or leave the people and the city to anarchy. His
“ authority rested on the universal feeling of its beneficence.”!
But the Pope is also a crowned head. He is one of the com
munity of Sovereigns; yet he has not taken part in those
proceedings which have reduced Europe to a chaos of mind and
affairs. He has never recognised the Treaty of Vienna which
is the fountain of these evils; he has unceasingly protested
against it. He has also specially and vehemently protested
against some of the crimes (in Poland and Italy) perpetrated
under the conjoint influence of the extra-national management
to which Europe is now subject.
It is, therefore, no less the duty of the Pope, as a king, to
protest against crimes in which he has no part, and of which he
is the victim, than for the Pope, as head of the Roman Catholic
church, to teach every adult as every child belonging to his
flock, that bloodshed without cause is murder; and to refuse
the offices of religion (as he does to the conspirators in England
known as Fenians) to any man directly engaged therein,
by planning or executing them, or indirectly by approving of
them, and contributing money towards them in the shape of
taxes. His kingdom is indeed small, but in the eye of the Law,
as of human reason, all sovereignties are equal. So also in our
circumstances, the smallest State in Europe can equal the
greatest. The affairs of all nations are interwoven. They are
all conducted in secret. The entire European community is
thus at the mercy of the most dexterous ; and being all destitute
of the requisite qualifications by which to detect what is being
done with them, the web is gradually woven round their eyes, as
the snares are prepared for their feet. There is no extrication
for them save integrity and capacity in some one government,
and such a Government however minute its territories, could
render them this service.
* “ Christianity,” by Quinet, p. 59.
f Milman’s “ Latin Christianity,” vol. ii., p, 130.
�28
TIIE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
But with these qualifications the Court of Rome becomes, at
a bound, the most powerful on earth; and it has already
taken its stand against that Government which manages all the
others, and is leading them on to their mutual destruction.
The acquisition of these intellectual means is, therefore, the
question. For this,. individual powers, the most rare in the
history of mankind, are requisite. An eminent ecclesiastic
has put it in a form which cannot be improved upon. “ For
this,” he said, “ giants are required; and there are no giants
“ to be found either within the Church or without it.”
Has the attempt, therefore, to be abandoned in despair ? By
no means. The first and greatest step is made when some have
recognised its difficulty.
5th.
THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
No Council is required for this work. There is nothing new
to be discovered or enacted, no new tribunal to be instituted. In
the Council there is danger only, and it is thus that it may
be counted gain.
These propositions are of the highest quality by their nature,
and of the vastest bearing in their application, now and in all
future time. If to any design the word great can be applied, it
applies to this one. Therefore can it be worked out only by
individual minds. A public assembly, however constituted, is
unfitted for the task.
The bases, metaphysical and legal, have been already laid
down by the Pope. The superstructure is wanting.
As respects terms, he has condemned them as erring; they
have to be shown to be unmeaning, to give intellectual life to his
flock, and enable them to make wai' on the fallacies in which all
error is enveloped and contained.
Among the vast resources available for this purpose is that
portion of education which in England is termed “ classical,” and
in France “ profane.” The literature so studied is that of States
(Greece and Rome) which, in their corruption and decay, are to
us at once warnings and models—warnings by their fall, models
by their thoughts. Homer is a code of the Law of Nations. In
Demosthenes we possess a remonstrance against our actual
habits, on which the seal of value has been impressed by the fall
of Athens, as a result of its neglect. Socrates has been held
by Fathers of the Church to have been the harbinger of Chris
tianity. His teaching consisted in unravelling the errors con
tained in false terms. During the flourishing, and therefore
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
29
corrupt, period of Rome, we have the two dangers constantly pre
sented, which threaten the communities of Europe to-day—false
terms and injustice—and the two are linked together. It is not
only moralists, but statesmen, favourites, and popular poets who
thus speak. I cite some of them, for these are the words which
meet our need.
Cato told his fellow-countrymen that they had lost true
speech by adopting false speech (“nos vera rerum vocabula
amisimus”). Seneca tells them that they no longer had law,
since they took for law “ whatever their rulers did.” Cicero,
in the sublime description of what a community ought to be,
which he places in the mouth of Africanus, has'these words :
“ The State (res publica) is not only synonymous with justice,
“ but exists only by and in the highest justice.” Virgil makes
the shades of Hades echo with the great voice of Theseus :—
“ Discite justitiam moniti et non temnere Divos.”
The lyric of the Augustan age presents Virtue unteaching men
their false terms, and thus securing a safe condition of life:—•
. Virtus populumque falsis
dedocet uti
Vocibus.”
“.
.
How is it that such things are known to the school-boys, and
are forgotten by the men of Europe ? How is it that there are
none to be found to take advantage of such teachings in the
past, to turn them to profit for the present, and so bring up the
Youth, knowing what is wrong, and loving what is right ? But
what did the fallacious terms of the Greeks or Romans amount
to? For the first, it was but meshes woven out of their own tongue.
For the second, it was but a very slight importation of Greek
terms. With us, it is a vast influx of both Greek and Latin
terms, and these jumbled up together and used in senses that
would be utterly unintelligible to Greeks or Romans; while
always displacing the simple and appropriate words of our own
tongue. The mass of these will astound when it is considered
that every word ending in ty, in ence, in ion, in ite, ism, and ze
belong to this category, when used in the second intention. The
effect on the human being placed in the hopeless condition of
having to learn these, and to believe that they mean something,
may be apprehended, when it is stated that every such term is
unmeaning in itself, illogical in its construction, and perverting
in its use. These terms may be used—have to be used—for
others. The danger lies in being used by them; that is, tbinking in them and through them, and imagining that there is
meaning in them.
It was the duty of the teacher to prevent the use by the child
�30
THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
of vague or unmeaning terms ; so would he have put a stop to
erroneous ideas which came in as the explanation of these
terms. The teacher has not done so. It is now for the Church
to render this service to the adult.
The task may be difficult, but the obligation is imperious. If
difficult, it is not impossible. If it -were so, there could be no
safety and no hope. If men arrive at false totals because they
are working with false figures, you may hope to put them right;
and strive to do so. But if you accept the figures as correct,
then there remains nothing to do. If the evil that is done arose
from a purpose in their hearts, again the task would be hope
less, and words would be without power. It is only because
they are deceived by their terms, and thereby cheated into doing
what they do not desire, that human speech can avail for human
good.
But for this there must be the perfect and absolute conviction
of the nothingness of all that is held to be, in this age, intellectual
power and philosophical culture. Any one can arrive at this
certainty for himself, who will take any sentence of any modern
writer, whoever he may be, and strike out of it the Greek and
Latin terms, and then read it over. He will then see that these
terms were all superfluous; that the sense, if sense there was,
comes out free, or that the fallacy remains naked and exposed.
It has to be made apparent that those speculations in which
modern society is engaged are not only politically futile, and re
ligiously and morally heinous, but also that intellectually, they
are contemptible.
This branch, then, the metaphysical, is the first which has
to be undertaken for the Council.
As regards crimes, the basis was equally laid when the Pope
asserted his “ power over the consciences,” not of individuals
only, but also “ of communities, nations, and their Sovereigns.”
This power he has never exerted, nor can he till he specifies the
Law. That has to be done not only in reference to wars, but
also in reference to Congresses, Treaties, and Protocols. For
besides the modern practice of making wars without form, has
come that of holding Conferences without cause; of making
compacts (Treaties) vicious in matter of form, and lawless in
substance; of substituting Protocols for Treaties; of violating
Treaties when made; and of superimposing on all this a new
invention, which they term “ Declaration,” and by means of
which the internal condition of each State can be reached and
upset. There has, therefore, a rule to be laid down according
to which, in all these respects, Catholics may be able to dis
tinguish what is lawful from what is criminal. Then, and then
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
31
only, can and will the Pope exercise “power”—judicial power
“ over communities, nations, and their sovereigns.”
It can only be attributed to the indistinctness that prevails in
regard to these matters being common to all, that the Pope,
being recently called upon to act magisterially by a most
heinous attempt of foreign bandits on his State, his subjects,
and himself; did not in his own courts vindicate the Law, and
use “ the power of the magistrate” for the repression of evil
doers and the protection of the innocent. Had he done so, he
would by his own act have commenced the restoration of
human society, and would have gained for the promulgator of
this new order (himself) the respect and confidence of mankind.
Crime leaves no option. It must be either pursued or accepted.
To condone crime, is to be criminal. It is so in the private man,
how much more so hi the magistrate ? How strange that these
things have to be said; how much more so to know that, speak
ing them, they are not understood.
This Code of “ Christian Legislation” having been enacted,
then no grander spectacle could be witnessed, and no holier
work conceived, than the assembling of the body of the Church
to accept it, ancl to take counsel together for its application.
The danger consists in the work being left to be done by a
Council composed of men who are ecclesiastics only, and neither
lawyers, metaphysicians, nor diplomatists; at a time when the
Church has ceased to be what it was in the middle ages, the
fountain of Law; in an age when the common talk is fallacy,
and when the affairs of nations are enveloped in a secret and
mysterious web of deception.
The superior minds who have somewhat approached the
subject have felt this danger. One of the most eminent has
used the words “ The Council will kill or cure.” In this__in
the perception of this danger—lies that hope which has been
above expressed, namely, that some will thereby be induced to
make the effort necessary to have the work for the Council done
and well done, beforehand.
It has to be considered that the whole field of public morals
has been left untouched by modern speculation. It remains to
be trodden by the Church. Among all the subjects submitted
to investigation, the stopping of wars has been omitted. In all
our speculations for the improvement of the human race, no
plan has been suggested for arresting the progress of public ex
penditure. In all our associations for protecting the injured and
the weak, not one has appeared for the protection of public
honour, morals, and interests. In all our projects of reform,
there has not been one for the restraining of the Executive, and
�32
THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
preventing it from disposing at its arbitrary pleasure of the
money and blood of the subject.
As this Council is not for the settlement of dogma or disci
pline, at least as primary objects, but to devise means for arrest
ing general disorder, it is not for Catholics only, but for
mankind. If the results obtained are for the good of any, they
must be also for the good of all. Those who are thus con
cerned should be admitted. At the Council of Trent, the
Protestant States were invited to attend by their represen
tatives. Such an invitation, it is true, would be accepted, if
accepted by the European Governments, only with the view of
preventing any just solution, and to produce confusion. But
the domain of Law, belongs not to Executives, nor even to socalled Legislative Assemblies, but to legists. An appeal, there
fore, to men whose studies have been so directed would natu
rally fall into, as it would be a necessary part of, such a design.
The Law of Nations, which overrules all Municipal Law, and
which, as regards England, is still part and parcel of the law of
the land, has never been enacted by parliamentary statute, nor
promulgated by royal authority. Its expounders have been, in
modern times, private individuals. The chief of these have
been Protestants (Grotius and Vattel). Their compilations
include the laws and practice of pagan times and people; and
especially of Ancient Rome, where the jus gentium was the
common law, but which had for its external application a
special judicatory. Processes with foreign States were referred
exclusively to that judicatory, and withdrawn from the civil
power. Neither King nor Consul, neither Senate nor People,
could so much as interfere in such matters, or could declare war
or make peace. The “ Government,” in such cases, "was con
sidered as a “party” merely in the dispute, and its acts were
inquired into. It was the Fecial College, a body having no
political character or functions, and which was invested with a
legal and religious character, into whose hands the case was
remitted so soon as a difference arose between the Roman Ex
ecutive and that of any other people.
It is therefore on the example of this gieat people that those
few private individuals whose minds have been turned to this
branch of human science, have chiefly relied in expounding
those principles which have obtained for them pre-eminent
authority in the courts of all modern kingdoms, and which
have, in so far as they have been maintained, secured order
and peace in the world. If private men, endowed with publicmindedness, have become the lawgivers and benefactors of
their species, what might not be effected by the Church of
Rome, if it entered on the task in a similar spirit, having no
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
33
longer laboriously to work out, but simply to employ and
apply the materials ready to its hand?
But Europe is not entirely Christian. A great Mahomedan
Power dwells on its soil, and holds possession of the point not
only of greatest geographical and political importance in Europe,
but in the world. This system, so far from being opposed to
the great design of the Pope, is associated therewith, and is
the only Government not directly and essentially opposed to it.
It is so not only as being, in common with the Pope, exposed to
the direct assault of bandits or to the insidious combinations of the
other Powers, but it is so also as having preserved in its constitu
tion the same laws and practices that prevailed in Pagan Rome.
The effects of this original constitution are still evidenced in this,
that it has alone abstained from forming designs against its neigh
bours, or combining to subvert their independence by interfering
in their affairs. The Sultan and Divan of Turkey can, no more
than could the Consuls and Senate of Rome, decree or levy war.
The Ulema in the one country, as the Fecials in the other, have
first to render their sentence (Fetva). Were a Sultan without
such warrant to declare war, he would find no one to obey him.
*
The common Mussulman soldier would make no distinction be
tween the individual murder of a fellow-citizen and the aggregate
murder of a foreign regiment. Without the Fetva of the Sheik
ul Islam, he would hold himself no more bound to obey his officer
in firing on such regiment, than an English soldier would do, in
firing on a mob without the reading of the Riot Act.
It will be, of course, supposed by Europeans, judging by their
own habits, that Turkey is not herself aggressive or intriguing, like
the other Governments, solely because she is the object of attack on
the part of others; but it is not so. Had it not been from her own
maxims and character, she would have been the most dangerous
Power in Europe, if, possessed, as she is, of the positions the
most important, she had yielded to the combined inducements
of unjust profits to make, and legitimate animosities to gratify.
Take as instance the year 1812, when, after suffering from the
several violences of England and France, an offensive alliance
was proposed to her by Russia, under which their naval and
land forces were to be combined, their joint fleets to issue into
the Mediterranean, and their armies to invade Lombardy. The
dream of Mahmoud H. was paraded before her eyes, and not
Italy only, but the Southern Provinces of France, offered
* In the only case of such usurpation presented by the annals of Turkey, the
Sultan (Mahmoud IV.) was put to death. He had recommenced war with Austria
before the expiration of a truce. Even under the new order commenced in this gene
ration, the most eloquent and popular preacher at Constantinople denounced the
surrender of Belgrade as an act of infidelity, as well as usurpation, no fetva having
been obtained for it.
�34
THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
to her ambition. The good sense of certain men might, in
deed, have sufficed to overrule the suggestions of the tempter;
but even if there had been found in the Divan a Kaunitz, a
Beust, or a Bismarck, still the craft and corruption of such
men must have failed in face of institutions which required
the plans of a Minister, before execution, to be submitted to a
public Divan and approved of by a legal Fetva. The Grand
Vizier at the Treaty of Belgrade said to the Ministers of Austria
and France, “You do not understand our Government. One or
“ two men cannot decide at Constantinople, as they do at Paris
“ and Vienna.”
This rule of the Boman State was that of all human society in
the origin (the Romans only copied those who were before them,
and specially the Etruscans). It is also that which we still hold
to in common practice. The “ Government,” and even the
“ Crown,” comes into the British courts exactly as a private indi
vidual, when it has a civil case to urge. So also it is itself brought
into court by private individuals when they are plaintiffs, and
the judge deals with it simply as a party in a suit, examining
its acts, and pronouncing sentence for it or against it, according
to the merits of the case and the law which determines it. So,in like manner, in regard to external operations of the nature,
now improperly termed, of war, when they affect the subjects,
not of Great Britain only, but of foreign States, and are of a
nature to be brought into court.
In the first Chinese war a case arose between shippers and
insurers in consequence of losses incurred through the operations
then being carried on. It came for trial, on the plea that the
loss was incurred through the effects of war. The judges unani
mously decided that there was no war.
Lord Mansfield, in trying a case in which Danish subjects
had been injured by acts of the British Government, when the
orders of that Government were quoted, said (case of the Diana},
“ The word ‘ Government ’ is not one that can be used in this
“ place, being nonsensical (without meaning). If the orders were
“ lawful, the law gave them their value; if unlawful, they could
“ not be rendered lawful, by the source from which they
“ emanated.”
In like manner, had a charge of murder of a Chinaman been
brought before the Central Criminal Court against any soldier,
private or officer, or sailor employed in China, that court must
have passed sentence of death on such soldier or officer. The law
is still there, only there are no men to enforce it.
It is true that in modern Turkey, these restraints on human
passions, these safeguards of the innocence and life of com
munities, preserved there from ancient times for our instruc
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
35
tion, are fading away before the pressure of European diplo
macy and the contamination of European ideas; but, never
theless, such ideas are not there, as in Europe, strange ; are
not incomprehensible nor offensive. The Government, after
all, is itself still composed of Mussulmans; it may and does ap
preciate the injury resulting from its own unwilling usurpations ;
it does feel the danger resulting from the pressure upon it of the
lawlessness of European Governments. It is therefore unques
tionable that the Sublime Porte would hail with joy the .proposi
tion of the Pope, would aid it to the best of its ability (and that
ability, in such a case, would not be small), and might thereby be
led to a wholesome return to the past, and a respectful considera
tion of the profound and beneficent maxims, lying neglected and
obscured in the foundations of its own institutions.
*
In the time of Christ Christians lived under the dispositions
of Moses. The “Church,” then in its most perfect form,
obeyed rules for the conduct of men in all essential matters of
life, viz. low taxation, cleanliness, charity, and politeness. Islam,
in common with all primitive religions, followed the same rule,
and prescribed how wars can be lawfully made; what taxes can
be lawfully levied; how and when the body is to be washed;
what proportion of a man’s income shall be given in alms; and
how a man is to salute his fellow-creatures. By rules on these
points society can alone be considered as duly constituted, or
capable of durability. The absence of these may make up, in
deed, a condition of “ civilisation,” but, clearly, a community
destitute of such restraints is not one that can be either reli
gious, virtuous, cleanly, charitable, happy, or durable.
These restraints being imposed by Religion, Religion became
sanctified to man by its benefits; and, consequently, that dis
belief which we now see spreading over Europe was unknown.
In the origin Religion was everything to man. It was Govern
ment as well as Faith. Secular Government arose from its
decay. Finally, Government having at last come “ to consist
“ of those practices which it was instituted to put down,”f re
pudiate Religion, as a guide for its acts, while it makes use
of its authority to sanction its crimes. Thus it is that Re
volution and Atheism prevail and spread. They have not yet
however made way among those nations that still hold to Law
as a part of Religion, and who have not drawn the distinction
now established in Christendom between the Law as applied to
the acts of the individual and to those of the community.
To judge of the view which the European Governments will
Not in the Mahomedan only, but in all the Asiatic systems. Law has always
been held a part of religion.”-—Thomson's Akklak-i-Nasiri^ p. 121.
f Lord Lyttleton.
c 2
�36
THE CECUMENIC COUNCIL.
take of the matter, we must consider what the consequences
will be to them of his success—consequences which they will
perceive at a glance.
The Pope will be successful when nations commence to
question acts in reference to their lawfulness. This will present
a new obstacle to despotic power. It will endanger that “ pre
rogative of peace and war” which has been usurped by Execu
tives from both Sovereigns and Representative bodies, or, as in
France, by the Sovereign from the Representative body.
*
Executives, no longer able to plunge their country in foreign
wars, will have to surrender ambitious schemes of conquest
and annexation.
Executives no longer able to kill men at pleasure on the
battle-field, words of menace will no longer be capable of
disturbing the world, whether spoken on a New Year’s Day
presentation, or written in despatches, or secret instructions, or
“ private” letters. Diplomacy will disappear. Danger and
alarm ceasing, military establishments will be reduced.
For the same reason taxes will be cut down.
Permanent embassies will be looked on with suspicion and
alarm.
On all points the tendency will be the reverse of that at pre
sent pursued ; it will be to escape from despotic executives, extra
national combinations, ruinous military establishments, and an
unbearable accumulation of taxes—all which constitute the
power of office and its attractions.
. But the appreciation of these effects will not be confined to
diplomatic, men, but extend also to the active and managing
spirits among the class of infidels and revolutionists. They, in
like manner, will perceive that it is a blow struck at their im
portance, and at their occupation. The food and fuel of infi
delity and revolution are public crime and national suffering—in
other words, . Wars and Taxes. Governments and clubs, the
ambitious Minister, the aspiring demagogue, the spirit of rest
lessness, on whatever side it breaks out, the powerful interests
of the press, which lives by news—that is, crimes and agitations
—are all smitten by this proposal of the Pope.
Indistinct and problematical as the benefits may appear to the
vast mass of well-disposed and indifferent men who are to reap
the profit, to the moving, acting, and ruling—though in numbers most insignificant—portion of the community, the loss is
very distinct and very positive. They clearly understand that
to attempt to restore the supremacy of the Law is to attempt to
supersede their calling.
* The Revolution of 1848 had withdrawn this power from the President (except,
in case of defence); it was regained by the Coup d’Etat.
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
37
The consequence of this judicial blindness has been, in an
other sense, fatal to the peace and well-being of communities,
and to the judgment and integrity of the individuals comprising
them. This consists in the putting away the idea of punishment
in regard to persons filling ministerial offices. The arm of the
soldier is placed at the mercy of the political adviser. He is
expected to slay when ordered to do so by the Minister, and the
law is not to reach him when, acting on the oath to obey “ lawful
orders,” he obeys unlawful ones. Then it was to be expected
that the acts of the political agent should be looked into with
peculiar severity, so as to bring the full responsibility of the
measures themselves on those who had acquired the facility of
causing their subordinates to overleap the law. But this is not
the case. The reverse has happened. First, these advisers are
suffered to give such orders without prior sanction or even know
ledge of so much as their intention on the part (in England) of
the body constituted to advise the Crown in its exercise of the
prerogative of Peace and War.
In the second place, they are not held responsible for their
acts after the event, however blamable or however disastrous; so
that at once every check has been removed from human frailty,
purpose or passion, whilst every possible encouragement is
heaped upon those persons to yield to such tendencies, in the
vastness of the uncontrolled power placed in their hands, in the
enormous sums of money afforded by modern taxation, and its
concession into military materials and troops.
It is not merely that the idea has vanished of punishing
Ministers for any act, but that the neglecting to clo so has
become a maxim, and a maxim which the present generation
pronounces with much self-satisfaction, as honourably distin
guishing them from, and placing them above all former times
and people. That maxim is, “ The days of Impeachment are
gone by.” To say that there should be a class of men who shall
not be punished when they do amiss—they not acting for or by
themselves, but by the power confided to them—is what could
not enter into the imagination of men, where such had not
become the practice: so is it impossible to cause the contrary
idea to enter into the imagination of men, where such has be
come the practice.
Nor is it that this class is held to be by nature free from
human imperfection. They are by no means considered sinless
and wise: while their acts are taken for law, their word is not
taken for truth. They are periodically expelled from office because
they are condemned or despised; and any one of them who
should put his own hand in the pocket of another, or knock off
his hat, would be taken up by the police. Nevertheless, un
�38
THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
questioned and unopposed, one of them can send hundreds of
thousands of his fellow-creatures to death, and cause myriads
of arms to be plunged in the pockets of hundreds of millions
of men, subjects of the Crown he serves, or aliens.
*
There have, during the last thirty years, been found some
individuals throughout Europe who have perceived, if but for a
moment, that unlawful battle was assassination, but no one
whatever has perceived that the present normal bloodshed and
convulsions are results of the maxim—that Ministers shall never
be exposed to punishment. But if the real nature of this practice
were understood, and human indignation were thereby evoked,
and directed itself to suppressing it, then would men naturally
turn upon those who, quietly and unendangered, in their closets,
ordered such crimes ; and the cry would be, “ The days of im“ peachment are not gone by.” All this the men of this class
feel and know, and instinctively connect with the general pro
position of applying the law to the conduct of States. Those
who propose to move in this matter have anxiously to ponder
and clearly to comprehend, what is the depth and intensity of
the opposition they will meet, and the vastness and variety of
the disturbing and corrupting influences that will be brought
to bear against them, in order to stop or frustrate their pro
ceedings.
No such dangers would assail, or pitfalls surround, the
attempt, were it made by any other Church save that of
Rome, as on the other hand, no corresponding benefits would
accrue. Had it been the Church of England which proposed
to restore the law, that restoration would only be, quoad
its own members. The purpose settled in its own mind,
it would only have to deal with its own Government. If so
minded, there could be no struggle and no difficulty; the
English Government could not make lawless wars in face of a
hostile Bench of Bishops, to say nothing of lay Peers, of
Members of the House of Commons, and the whole Anglican
community, resolved that wars should not be unlawfully and un
justly made. Neither France, nor Austria, nor Prussia, nor
Italy, nor any, nor all Foreign Powers, could in the slightest
degree, or for a moment, disturb or influence the decision of
such Church, nor would they, save indirectly, be affected
thereby.
The Anglican Church, like the Fecial College of Pagan
Rome, would have in view one side only: namely, its own
government. In a proposed war with Austria, it would be com* Since these operations commenced, dating them from the introduction of Lord
Palmerston into the Foreign Office and the sacrifice of Poland, the charges of Europe
for military purposes have increased threefold.
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
39
promised only in regard to the English Crown ; it is free, if our
side is just. Not so the Church of Rome. It would have to
bear on its conscience crime equally on both sides. It is not
free, if one side is just. Both must be in the right for it to be
blameless; and this is impossible. There is no possible escape
for it save by adjudication. 1st. It has to judge in reference
to the war; 2ndly. It has to excommunicate the side that is
in the wrong. No Community, great or small, can be called
just that does not exclude from its breast dishonourable men—
that is, excommunicate them. To fear to use the weapon of
excommunication is, above all things, to mistake the age in
which we live; which, more than any that has preceded it,
affords a field, and has in readiness a crown, for capable
daring.
Excommunication is a power which every individual possesses,
by which and which alone he retains, or can retain, his integrity.
We know a gentleman by this, that he will not know a dis
honourable person. This power is the safeguard of public as of
private morals. The real restraint over Ministers is this, that
public crime being also private guilt, honourable men will not
associate with them.
With Rome it is widely different. That Church is co-existent
with no State. Its decision has no reference to its own particular
State—not making itself unjust wars, or any wars; having never
used its power for the extension of its limits, when even that
power was the greatest in Europe; and not having engaged in
any of those diplomatic operations which are to-day directed
against the independence, not of the small States only, but of
the greatest also.
Its action, therefore, is without, and not within ; and with
out, it reaches them all and all equally. This action would in
effect be greatest on the States not publicly united to its faith ;
for the aggressive States which endanger the world are, with
one exception, not Catholic; and that one, Catholic in name,
is in essentials the reverse of Catholic, whether we term it
Gallican in its religion, or heathen in its Government. It is
therefore more logical to say that none of the dangerous Powers
are Catholic. These are four: England, Russia, Prussia, and
France. Of these, the three which are nominally not Catholic,
are those on which the action of the Court of Rome, under
our hypothesis, would be the greatest. The case can be only
stated here, not elaborated. Enough, perhaps, has been said
to show that the body of Catholics in England, or rather a
minute fraction of them, would suffice to stop nefarious and
injurious proceeding in the Government. Take from Russia
the active co-operation of England, and not only hei’ power
�40
THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
expires, but the process commences of restoring the power of
England herself. But, in like manner, Rome has spiritual sub
jects in Russia and in Prussia. The method of proceeding is
one for all. Rome has also a few subjects left in France.
All the political influence of these Governments will be
brought to bear on Rome, directly on the Pope and his Go
vernment, indirectly through the Prelates and Ecclesiastics
connected with each State; and here Austria, too, comes in,
and will prove of all the most dangerous. Finally, the
common talk of diplomatic and political circles will be directed
to the crushing out of whatever idea may arise that is just,
wise, and beneficial. The Church of Rome knowing what it
is about, the fallacies of argument and the shafts of ridicule
would fall harmless. But the bare threat of such an intention
will cause measures to be hastened for crushing the Roman
State. During the interval it will be agitated with troubles
and tortured with alarms. In the Council the Pope has
raised up a stone; a great, a desperate, and a saving effort is
required to prevent it from falling back, and to cause it to fall
on and crush the reproved of mankind.
“ When religion is banished from civil society, and Divine
“ Revelation rejected, the true notion even of justice be“ comes obscured and is lost, material force takes the place of
“ justice and right, and certain men dare to proclaim that the
“ will of the people, manifested by what they call public
“ opinion, constitutes the supreme law, independent of all right,
“ human or divine; and that, in politics, acts consummated, and
by the fact that they have become consummated, have the
“ force of right. (Facta consummata, eo ipso, quod consumu mata sunt, vim juris habere.)”
Such is, perhaps, the leading idea of the Allocution of 1864.
This is the flag wrhich is raised. It has to be observed to
those who would object, because not adhering to the Church
of Rome, or because adhering to no church whatever, that
this proposition is not a religious dogma, but an assertion
which every man can examine, and of which he must recog
nise the truth. For no one can deny that what they call
“ Public Opinion” exists only in substituting something else in
the place of right, and that the people of Europe do accept
whatever is done on no other grounds than that it has been done.
It is, therefore, for all who see that this is so, and that it is
wrong, and must bring evil consequences, to apply themselves
to find the means of effecting a change.
It has further to be remarked that for them (the non-Catholics
and unbelievers) this is simply the assertion of a man. It is a
man, like each of us, who calls on his fellow-men to warn them,
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
41
and who, moreover, invokes their aid to stop nefarious proceed
ings, distracting and endangering, not one only, but all the
nations, first of Christendom, and then, by their example and
their acts, of the entire world.
The Pope speaks, in the first instance, to his own flock;
they differ in no respect in conduct and idea from those who
are not Catholics. That they do possess a religion no ways
changes their position from that of those who have none.
They neither protest against public crimes, nor denounce
“Public Opinion,” nor refuse to accept “consummated acts.”
In fact, the separation of religion and politics has had for
effect that there is no difference in practice and perception
between the believer and the infidel; and that condition of
slavish submission, arrived at by the latter through the throwing
off of all religious conviction or restraint, has been arrived at
equally by the former, notwithstanding his observance of the
ceremonial, and his profession of the symbol, of a belief.
What is here proposed is no more than what it is the duty of
each individual to do for himself; for it consists of the means to
be taken, so that in thought, word, and act he may not err.
Whilst each nation lived by and in itself, when the incidents of
conflict occurred at the interval of generations only, no such
duty was imposed on ordinary men. Not so when all these con
ditions are reversed, and when there is an incessant forming and
expressing of opinions. These opinions must be false, unless
they are true; and there is no possibility of their being true
save by taking the necessary steps to discard error, and that is
by ascertaining the law by which on each occasion we have to
be guided, and the history of the events to which it applies.
To commence this study a man must be possessed of the con
viction that it is his duty to be right, and consequently of the
knowledge that the idea prevalent among bis compatriots that
it is impossible to be right, and that it is human to err, is the
mere result of their not having taken the trouble to understand
the matters of which they speak. In this respect the doctrine
of infallibility of the Catholic Church comes greatly in aid.
To it, at least, we can boldly say, “ You recognise the duty of
“ being right, since you profess yourselves to be incapable of
“ error.”
There is, however, an objection which has been raised, viz.
that this is “extraneous work” and must interfere with the
regular work to come before the Council. The answer is, There
is no work before the Council.
The minds of men are, indeed, filled with vague and tumul
tuous notions as to a vast number of things that ought to be
done, and which they fancy the Council will in some way be
�42
THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
able to reach. All these vanish on close inspection. It is first
of all expected that some dogmatic sanction will be obtained
for the “ Temporal Power.” When you ask how and in what
terms such an article is to be framed, you will get no answer;
and when you go on to say, “ The Temporal Power is simply a
ci state of possession, which can be disturbed only by an act of
“ violence; security against such is only to be found in the Ten
“ Commandmentsyou will have put the case in a form to
convince any one, not only that an article of faith cannot be
framed so as to meet the case, but also that it is superfluous, and
that the desired end can be reached only by a return to the Law
itself. The various’propositions may be classed under the fol
lowing heads:—
1. Temporal Power;
2. Secular Intervention in nomination of Bishops ;
3. Religious Education;
4. The Eastern Catholics ;
5. Relation of the Church to Governments (“ entre l’Eglise
et la Politique”).
As to the interference of Kings in the nomination of Bishops,
all that can be done by a Council has been done already by the
1st Article of the Council of Trent.
As to Education, it is a matter which regards the internal
legislation of each country. That legislation, as it exists, does
not, at least, prevent the priest from teaching the child what sin
is, and what the particular sin from which wTe suffer; which the
priest does not teach the child at present, because he himself
does not know, and which to teach is to stop.
In regard to the settlement looked to in the East (meaning
Turkey), there is nothing to do. The Porte leaves the Catholic
body perfect freedom on all the points on which Rome has been
at variance with the- Christian Governments of Europe. It does
not persecute, it does not constrain conversion, it does not con
fiscate property, it does not interfere in education, in the election
of Bishops, in the appropriation of testamentary bequests, or in
the public ceremonies. As to the discipline of that Church,
the Pope himself, and proprio mota, has made a change the
most momentous—that of assuming the direct nomination of the
Bishops. He has done so without consulting either the com
munities of the East, or the Consistory, or the Academia Sacra
at Rome. If he has determined the major point by reversing
immemorial practice, he can determine the minor ones, if so
minded, without the aid or intervention of a Council.
On the 5th and last point, “ the relation of the Church to
Politics,” it is difficult to imagine what it can mean.. This is
certain, that when the question is put nothing definite can be
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
43
extracted. The conclusion therefore is, that there exists at pre
sent no work foi’ the Council to undertake in the view of
realising its avowed purpose of “ preventing human society from
crumbling to dust.”
At the time of the announcement, the phrase was current at
Rome : “The Pope looks to the Council; the Cardinals to the
^Temporal Power,” meaning that the Pope had objects in
view which were not those of the Cardinals. Doubtless those
views are to be found in germ in the Allocution and the Syllabus.
But these are not all. There must lie at the bottom apprehen
sion of a new danger impending over the Church.”
Those who have considered the dangers that threaten Europe
from the disturbance of hereditary succession and from the matri
monial alliances of royal and princely houses, especially since the
new dynastic arrangements in Denmark and Greece, have had
one ground of consolation—namely, that the Pope was neither
an. hereditary monarch, nor capable of contracting matrimonial
alliances.
If the election of a Pope depended exclusively on a Conclave
of Cardinals, there might be grounds for such confidence. But
it is far from being so determined. Conflicting influences
operating from without prevail, and it is possible to suppose a
case when these influences, hitherto balancing each other, might
be combined. In such case, that elective source of the Papal
sovereignty, instead of affording any guarantee, would, on the
contrary, present the greatest of perils.
When a Frencli Sovereign conferred temporal possession on
the Bishop of Rome, it was in reason that precautions should
have, been taken to prevent the election from falling on a person
inimical to France, or in alliance or confederacy with those other
Governments with which France was in conflict, and for whose
rivalry and competition, Italy and the Papacy afforded the chief
field. In succession of time and events, other Governments
extorted and secured a similar guarantee. This consisted in the
right to.veto the election of one candidate. Three nations have
up to this time acquired this veto. These are France, Austria,
and Spain.
The first of these countries is in the hands of the man who
sent French troops to the Crimea. The second is in the hands
of a Minister who owes his position to Russia, and who has
declared himself openly against the Pope. Of the third, it
may at least be said that there is in it no capacity to take a line
of its own, and. that a Russian Ambassador has ruled as abso
lutely in Madrid as formerly at Warsaw.
To veto three candidates is to decide the election. Three
candidates amount to the number of eligible persons. By com
�44
THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
bining the vetoes, the negative faculty of three, as hitherto pos
sessed, is converted into the active faculty of one. To the holder
or suspected holder of this influence, all candidates and all
electors would look.
That the Pope sees this danger is unquestionable. It does
not follow that he connects it with Russia; at all events, he
must connect it with the Ruler of France. Louis Napoleon
has sought consecration at the hands of the Pope. The Pope
has refused it. Threats and offers (money included) have been
unavailing to move him from his purpose. The Pope must,
therefore, foresee that every means will be used to obtain a more
pliant successor.
If a Council convened on the occasion can interpose so as to
bar the foreign vetoes, then some light may be thrown on the
motives to which the Pope has yielded, and some explanation
afforded, for a difference in this respect between himself and
the Consistory. It would also explain how there should be
mystery in the matter. At all events, it is clear that the fate
of the Catholic Church may turn on the election of the next
Pope, and that with that election this Council is immediately
connected. It more immediately explains the vagueness of the
terms of the instruction to the Sub-Commission as to deter
mining the relations of the Church to Politics.
Nor is this all that would be explained. The vehemence with
which Russia has denounced the Council, the monstrosity of the
pretensions she has put forward in respect to it, could hardly be
accounted for by any dread as to the effect it would have in
withdrawing Europe from her control, and the more so as the
language so used has given to the act of the Pope an importance
in the eyes of Catholics which it by no means had before. But
if she sees in it the indication of a design to frustrate the action
of foreign diplomacy in reference to the next election, the
vehemence of her words and their apparent indiscretion will
be alike explained.
But the power of applying these vetoes to candidates likely to
maintain the independence of the Roman See, is only a subsidiary
one. Doubtless the candidate has been long ago fixed upon.
The election will be made to turn in the Consistory, not
on French or Austrian influence, not on Cis or Transalpine
doctrines, not on liberal or anti-liberal tendencies, but on the
maintenance of the “ Temporal Power.” Louis Napoleon
is placed on the Temporal line; the Consistory is on the Tem
poral line. His candidate will be their candidate. That can
didate will be the Russian candidate. It matters not that Russia
has not now, and may not have even then, a representative at
Rome. It may be advantageous not to have one there, so as to
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
45
awaken no attention. It may be, that for this very reason the
rupture of intercourse was managed. Besides she has already
declared herself (1848) for “ the restoration of both the Spiritual
“ and the Temporal authority of the Pope.”
If there be a member of the Consistory who desires to know,
or rather who does not shrink from knowing, the truth, let him
render to himself an account of the operations of Louis Napo
leon since his accession, both externally and internally. Let
him inquire into the circumstances and agency which placed
him on the Imperial Throne. Is it France that has benefited
by his enterprises abroad ? Is it any Government which can
profit by what he is doing within ?
The “Temporal power of the Pope” is a word that has been
got up, just as the “ Integrity of the Danish Monarchy” and the
“Pacification of the Levant.” It will be used for a similar
purpose. This is the particular danger that threatens the world
at this moment, and that in conjunction with all the others;
for all are interwoven. There is no escape but in unravelling
the threads of the web of fallacy out of which it has sprung, and
in clearing away the false conclusions and the passions resulting
from the long series of measures by which Italy has been worked
up to her present state—measures which commenced in 1795, in
which the hand of Russia can be traced from the beginning,
and in which France, England, Austria, “ Italy,” and “ Revolu“ tion” have all been made successively, severally, and conjointly
to play their blind, servile, and suicidal parts.
Russia’s operations are secular. Her antagonists, who are but
dupes, revolve in the narrow limits of months and days. She
acts; they speculate. The horizon of their universe is made up
of the emotions of their own minds, for which she has furnished
the pasture out of the anterior acts which she has made them per
form ; and which acts they themselves, nevertheless, have for
gotten, never having known what it is they have done, because
haying no law in themselves, their eyes are without sight.
It is the “ Commandments of the Lord ” which “ enlighten the
the eyes.” Escape from this present terrible and hopeless danger
can only be by restoring the Law of God and man. Thus only
can the Consistory or the World be made to understand that to
speak of “ the Temporal power of the Pope” is to utter words
base and shameful, and is to weave a snare for their own feet.
.Why are the words “ Temporal power” substituted for Sove
reignty in the case of the Pope alone ? No one speaks of the
Temporal power of the Emperor of the French or of the Queen
of Spain. Yet there is no difference in regard to these Poten
tates as to the nature and quality of the supreme functions which
they exercise as rulers. It is true that the Pope superadds to
�46
THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
the prerogative of Justices of Peace ancl War another quality
or Prerogative which is spiritual. But so does the Emperor of
Russia and the Sultan of Turkey, and yet no one speaks
of the “Temporal Power” of either. So does the King of
Prussia and the Queen of England, who dispose of the “ Tem
poralities” of their respective churches.
If, then, the “ Sovereignty” of the Pope has received a special
designation which is not applied to other sovereignties, it is that
there lurks beneath an insidious intention. That intention is to
deprive him of that Sovereignty by making men believe it to be
something different from other Sovereignties. Thus a discussion
can be raised respecting it on grounds which exclude all received
notions of right. It will so come about that men who would
not admit for a moment a proposition to take the crown off the
head of the Queen of England or of Spain, and to give it to
Victor Emmanuel because it- is a “ Temporal Power,” would
accept, and urge on that ground, the same proposition as regards
the Pope.
They will then go a step further, and say, “ We propose to
“ give—we who have no business therewith—the lands, cities,
“ and fortresses belonging to the Pope to the descendants of the
“ Dukes of Savoy (for that is the end in view), in order that
“ we may confer a great benefit on the Roman Catholic Church.
“We wish to improve and purify it. We wish to wash it clean
“ from all secular taints we desire to see it entirely spiritual, and
“ in all this we are actuated by the spirit of justice and the love
“ of Religion.”
Thus will this class of simple and perhaps devout persons find
themselves engaged in a common cause with those who seek to
“ abrogate all laws,” to revolutionise every Government, and to
upset every belief—men who not only work for “ disorder,” but
who avow to themselves that they do so.
To these, others join themselves with another motive—that of
Proselytism. They will see in this operation the breaking
down of the Catholic Church, and in the hopes of gaining con
verts to Protestantism, will join in the same clamour for the
“ unity of Italy.” Thus it is that the whole of England has not
only in effect aided and wildly applauded the atrocious proceed
ings of which Italy has been the theatre, but bowed itself down
before the man who has been the instrument employed for that
end, although as a man he combines every disqualification capable
of excluding him from intercourse with respectable persons.
This combination established, those on the other side will
“ accept the language of their enemies.”* Instead of unravelWords of the Bishop of Orleans at Malines
�THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
47
ling the fallacy of their terms, instead of exposing the immo
rality of their proceeding, instead of unmasking the perfidy of
their design, and the fatal consequences it must bring, they will
simply accept the term—which is accepting all—-and their rally
ing point will be to maintain the “ Temporal Power.” Thus it is
that a candidate coming forward as in favour of the “ Temporal
power” may be accepted by a future Consistory on that word
alone, and yet be the very agent selected for the undoing of
that very knot which links together this great and wonderful
system, which, unless it did possess a sovereignty in the sense of
territorial possession, could only be the dependency of some one
the Governments of Europe.
. It is in this sense that the case has been judged up to these
times by the Protestant Governments. They have always held
that the independence of the Pope was a vital point for them on
this ground : that the loss of his independence—which they saw
equally in external influence exerted at elections or in revolu
tionary movements affecting his authority—would be to the
benefit of some Catholic power and against themselves. It was
thus that England exerted herself, and at great expense, to secure
a free Consistory at Venice in 1799—Venice, which has now va
nished from the list of free states, and of which act she reaped so
signally the benefit a few years later, in being, by the aid of the
Pope, enabled to meet the effects of the Berlin and Milan De
crees. It was thus that she provided, at the settlement of 1814-5,
for the full restoration of the State and Possessions of the
Roman See.
Again, when the convulsions of Italy were beginning, and
the Revolutionists, expecting to be favourably looked on "by the
Protestant Governments, applied to the Representative of Prus
sia, they were told (by Mr. Bunsen) that they were “ greatly mis
taken if they thought that the Protestant Powers would favour
“ them because of religious differences with the Catholics.” The
above-stated reason .was then put in precise terms; the Prussian
Secretary of Legation explained why his Government could not
abet proceedings which, whatever the views and intentions of
those immediately engaged, could have no other result save that
of reducing the Pope to a condition of subserviency to some one
of the Catholic Governments, which then would turn his spiritual
supremacy over his flock, to its own advantage, against other
Powers.
The Pope has never sanctioned, or admitted, or employed,
the terms “Temporal power” as applied to his possessions. In
speaking of his sovereignty over the States of the Church, it is
always designated by him as the Civile Imperium, or the Principatus Civilis. (Syllabus, § ix. Errores de civile Romani Pontificis
4
�48
THE (ECUMENIC COUNCIL.
principati, Prop, lxxvi. et seq.) The word 44 Temporal Power,”
in Papal documents, refers to temporal judgments, and to the
effects attaching to excommunication. (Syllabus, § v. De Ecclesia ejusque Juribus Prop. xxiv. xxv. et al.) In fact it applies
to other Governments.
Those who desire to understand have got within their reach
the case of Denmark. There they may study Russia’s mode of
procedure in such matters. There 44 the Powers” combined to
impose a candidate. The internal laws were upset to let him
in. He was Russia’s nominee, yet she held aloof. She is now
mistress of Denmark, with all the advantages of not appearing to
be so. On that occasion the deceptive amphibology prepared for
men’s lips was “ The Integrity of Denmark.”
Who dreamt that there was anything in contemplation
against the Crown of Denmark, even on that morning (11th
May, 1852) when the Treaty was announced in the Times news
paper, although that profound and extensive conspiracy had
been in existence for eighty-five years ? Who has now compre
hended it, with the results before them1? If it be unquestionable
that those who do not anticipate events cannot counteract them,
so is it equally true that those who do not foresee them before
they happen, cannot understand them when they have taken
place. This is no reason for despair ; it is, on the contrary, an
inducement to strive, and in the first instance to study.
No doubt the Pope in the words he has spoken and in the
measures he proposes, offends the Catholic body This is his mis
*
fortune, not his fault. It is also his duty. He has the greatest of ex
amples to guide him, an example which is also a command. That
example is that of Christ. Our Saviour to the then 44 Church”
preached repentance. In the New Testament the words 44 con
vert” and 44 repentance ” are synonymous, so also 44 salvation.”
44 Saving the people from their sins,” is the expression used to
designate the object of the preaching of St. John, yet the sins
of that 44 Church” of Judea did not go to the extent of daily and
wholesale assassinations. St. Paul says of the 44 Christian”
after the crucifixion and ascension and the coming of the Holy
Ghost, 44 He that does not provide for his own household has
* The following words from the Monde show the schism introduced by the Syl
labus, “ Les divisions viennent de ceux qui refusent de comprendre les paroles de
Pie IX. dans le Syllabus : il y a injustice à mettre sur la même ligne avec eux les
Catholiques qui ne se sont pas départis des principes posés dans les Encycliques. Si
la voix du pasteur est écoutée, le camp des Catholiques se fortifiera, et leur action
peut devenir prépondérante. C’est à l’i/mon de VOuest et à la Gazette de France à en
prendre leur parti. Elles se bercent d’illusions si elles s’imaginent guider les Catho
liques, en restant dans leurs doctrines équivoques.
“ Elles croient servir la liberté; mais jusqu’ici elles n’ont servi que la liberté de
leurs adversaires. Ce métier de dupes ne vous va pas, quoique nous ne nous dissi
mulions pas que les Catholiques ne sont pas encore en mesure de faire prévaloir leur
volonté. L’inanité des doctrines modernes ramènera, après une longue expérience, et
s’il plaît à Dieu, les populations à uneyrnZ/i/yae chrétienne.-’
�DIPLOMATIC COLLEGE.
49
“ denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” Yet he
spoke of neglect only, and neglect in reference to things which
had they been done would only have proved useful. With what
feelings would the apostles to-day behold, and in what terms
denounce, that community calling itself Christian 1 A true
successor of those apostles will feel and speak in like manner.
Pius IX. combines qualifications at once so dissimilar and so
eminent, that he appears to have been Providentially raised for
the need of the World, being at once an Ecclesiastic who has
applied his mind to analytical inquiries, and a Sovereign who is
so not in name only, as the other Sovereigns of Europe, but in
power also.
But there is in him not only capacity and qualifications. He has
put his hand to the work ; and that work is rendered by his own
words better than by any Commentary. He has said, “The
“ World is lost in darkness; I have published the Syllabus to be
to it a light, and to lead it back to the road of Truth.” And
again :—“ When the Pope speaks in a solemn act, it is that his
“ words shall be taken in their literal sense ; and that which he
“ has said, he has intended to say.”
Were the Catholic World of the same mind as the Pope, the
work would be done, or rather, it would not require to be clone.
But unfortunately it is not so; his difficulties are with his
own flock, alike incapable of following the thought, and of com
prehending and admiring the courage, displayed on so many
occasions by the greatest Pontiff that has ever sat on the throne
of St. Peter.
6th.
diplomatic college.
The really important point, and on which all hinges, is the
knowledge of what is doing in the world.
The subject is so vast, that to travel over it volumes would be
required. But, fortunately, it is also so simple that it can be
taken in at a glance. It has been thus enunciated by a
Prelate :—“ It must be laid down as the very first point that the
“ Church is ignorant, and that that ignorance must cease.”
There is an immediate and a practical point pressing for
instant solution, and bearing specially on the Church of Rome,
as a Church.
Russia, assuming to be the Eastern Church, aims at the de
struction of the Western Church. It is now at last known
that she has employed revolution as her instrument. It is
D
�50
DIPLOMATIC COLLEGE.
now by her openly acknowledged that to this end of subverting
the spiritual authority of the Pope, she has thrown Italy into
the hands of the King of Sardinia.
* This (as all the other
troubles and convulsions of Europe and the world) has not been
brought about by the power of Russia acting on circumstances,
but by hei capacity acting on opinion. That capacity consists
in her drawing from without able men wherever they were to be
found, and causing her own men to pass through an elaborate
mid laborious, discipline, such as the nations of Europe them
selves do employ to obtain legists, surgeons, or engineers. If,
then, the Papal Government would defend itself against the
Russian, or even know whether defence be possible and easy, or
difficult and impossible, it must employ the process which Russia
employs, that is, educate men.
Twenty-four years ago this plan was under contemplation by
Gregory XVI., but time was not granted him for its execu
tion. Yet then the belief of universal peace prevailed. They
thought “ that there were to be no more wars.” j- Confidence
in general wisdom prevailed. The year 1848 was still at a
distance.
Nothing is done in the world, but because at some previous
moment day, month, or year—two or three Russian diploma
tists have sate down to devise it, and also because there have
been none to sit down to consider how it could be prevented.
Some private individuals, engaged on the other side, have
prevented much that was in progress. They have prevented
great wars. These things may come out hereafter, in posthumous
memoirs; but they may also be known now to any who will
study. They have delayed, at least, the march of events, so
far as to afford time for the Church of Rome, at last to act.
The Council may take years; and what years are before us !
It suffices for one man of authority in the Roman State to be
informed, for prevention and counteraction to commence. This
is easy beyond expression, for whoever knows what is doing, and
at the same time has access to the saloons of Ministers. It is out
of false measures in each State that Russia works her way.
These come either from delusions that are spread, perfidious
counsels that are offered, falsified news that is presented, or
traitors that are employed. A Papal Nuncio duly informed, or
say a Prelate or a Priest, or a simple Layman, in a position to
be listened to, can rectify such false conclusions, or unmask
The Moscow Gazette says:—“To Russia it is necessary that Italy should be
united; but united she cannot be except at Rome, her natural capital. Is not the
fall of the Temporal Powers the triumph of orthodoxy (the Greek Church) in Rome
itself? Yes, it is in a higher capacity than that of mere spectators that we watch
this culminating point of Italian history.”
t Mr. Stewart Mill.
�DIPLOMATIC COLLEGE.
51
such secret agent. Russia has only the vices of men to use
to the undoing of each particular State. We have the virtues
of men for our allies, and we work for the honour and interest
of each Sovereign and each people, and for the common good
of all.
The repugnance of the Governments of Europe to the forma
tion of Diplomatic men for themselves, has to be well considered,
and perfectly understood, to perceive, how the proposed measure
would affect the world.
No public man, in England, France, Germany, or Italy, will
refuse to admit, if pressed in conversation, the following propo
sitions :—
1. That Russia is more dexterous than any other State.
2. That it is dangerous to allow her to proceed unwatched,
seeing that the affairs of all countries are mixed up together, and
— are conducted in secret.
3. That she cannot be watched, unless by persons cognisant
of her purposes and methods.
4. That it would be very desirable to have a body of men,
chosen and trained, as she chooses and trains her Diplomatists.
If, on these admissions, it be proposed to him to introduce a
measure for the carrying out of such a design, he will decline,
and start back in fear or aversion. The cause of this repugnance
is, that each would consider the mere proposal an offence and an
insult to himself individually, for it implies not only that he had
been wrong, but also that he is ignorant, and unfit for the station
he holds, has held, or aspires to hold. Also that “ public opinion”
has been wrong, and is ignorant. Dread, aversion, and disgust
must therefore be excited by the proposition, proceeding from
a Sovereign who exercises a practical and social influence over a
large number of the subjects of every other State, many of
whom sit in the representative assemblies, in the Senates of those
States, and who approach the Sovereign and share his councils.
These Governments would stand towards such a body exactly
in the position of a society of criminals, or at least of persons
not hitherto under the restraint of police or fear of the law, to
wards a newly introduced court of justice.
.The Law of Nations is not the only law violated by a public
crime, but the municipal law also. In the preceding pages this
branch has not been referred to, but it must be noticed to com
plete the subject.
The Law of Nations requires that war shall be declared only
by the sovereign authority. The municipal law defines the
conditions under which such functions shall be exercised. In
this country the Prerogative of Peace and War, as all other
Prerogatives, can be “ exercised only through the Privy Coun
�52
DIPLOMATIC COLLEGE.
cil.” It .is, indeed, through the evading of this law, and by the
surreptitious substitution of another body, to which also the title
of council has been given (Cabinet Council), that the disorder
has crept in, and that causeless and lawless wars have been
made.
It may therefore so happen that a war may be lawful and
just and necessary as regards the enemy, and nevertheless cri
minal as regards the subjects and the servants of the Crown.
The Pope, in his endeavour to bring back public business to
a normal state, must take this matter into consideration, and lav
down the obligation in nations possessing such institutions,
though neglected now, to restore them.
In doing so he will, as regards England, point to a far more
practical means of prevention than any other, whilst it comes as
supplementary to the rest.
Further, in urging on the nations the adoption of legal and
constitutional means of controling the executives, and thereby
putting an end to the violences which have called for his inter
vention, he will, whilst pointing, out the most feasible means of
obtaining the desired end, prevent much of the hesitation, oppo
sition, or abuse which may be provoked by his act. He will
show that it is not power that he covets, but crime that he
.abhors.
Rome has a Diplomacy and a Diplomatic College already.
Objections and fears are therefore out of place. It is true that
it is not connected with treaties and ordinary transactions, but
with concordats, and confined to the religious aspect. The
basis, however, exists, and is capable of extension. The system
dates from the period which preceded permanent embassies, and
when, therefore, the intercourse of nations took place only when
there was something to do, not when a subsisting intercourse
was converted into the means of giving them something to do.
Diplomacy derives its origin from the Byzantines. The word
.signifies “ duplicate,” and the office was equivalent to what we
now term archivist. It was a record of contracts; it was not the
having of agents reciprocally located in the various courts to
interfere day by day in all affairs.
It is by no means the object of this proposal that the Court of
Rome should involve itself in this odious and maleficent system;
but, on the contrary, that, being cognisant of it, it should frus
trate the deceptions it produces, and counteract the false maxims
.which it propagates, and by which it is suffered to exist.
*
* Prince Adam Czatoryski, formerly Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, says, in his
work, “ La Diplomatie—■“ It passes belief that nations should allow themselves to be
disposed of by a body of men having another conscience and another God, and also
hat they should look thereon, not only without abhorrence and fear, but consider it
tust and proper.” This was written in 1826 !
�CONCLUSION.
53
The “Academia Ecclesiastica ” has a branch entitled “Diplomacia Sacra,” of the nature of the Byzantine College. It is
devoted to the record and study of concordats, and the jurispru
dence thereto belonging. Through it the Nuncios pass, to pre
pare them for their functions. A natural subdivision of this
body would be a college of Secular Diplomacy, the fundamental
and primordial studies of which would necessarily consist of
Jurisprudence and the Law of Nations. This would be the
most simple and natural course, but it is not the only one.
These studies are not special. It is requisite that every man
born into the world—far more every teacher of other men—
should be possessed of them. Duties have reference to circum
stances. Before the epoch of lawless wars, such studies were
not needed, being superfluous ; but they become of the last ne
cessity to every single conscience in an age, when no one knows
what constitutes a lawful war, and when, consequently, unlawful
ones can be made without hindrance or comment.
There is the whole Priesthood to be instructed. There are the
numerous regular Oommunities, with power, devotion, libraries,
and leisure, to be employed. The resources of the Church of
Borne are overwhelming from the moment that it is perceived
that it is by the culture of the intellectual arm that the war is
to be carried on against religious infidelity, social disorganisa
tion, or the plots of those who employ these means and spread
this corruption.
Conclusion.
Danger has come near. It has been seen under its most re
volting and alarming features. The Papal Court must now see
in the destroyer of Poland, the patron of Revolution, and the
mover and the director of all the Governments, of Europe.
But that Cabinet has now itself thrown off the mask and pro
claims its identification with Italian “unity,” not as directed to
subvert (as heretofore put forward) the “temporal,” but also
the “ spiritual ” authority of the Pope. It pretends, at the same
time, to enter the CEcumenic Council; not to enter only, but to
displace from it alike the Pope and the Western Church,
offering its faith and its power for the restoration of religion,
harmony, and political rest in Christendom. Warning cannot
further go, nor provocation.
In respect to courage, that great quality is not wanting.
The Pope has already defied Russia, denounced her, and dis
missed her 1 epresentative. The time must have come for him to
�54
CONCLUSION.
think of devising means to restrain and counteract her. These
have but to be sought to be found. This great power can come
into being only on the condition of perfect knowledge and
of perfect integrity. These may appear beyond the reach, not
of this, but of every age. Still, no more is required than that
which Russia possesses in every one of her Diplomatists, and
all would be achieved with such a man as England recently
possessed in Lord Stowell. Nothing more is wanted than
what could be obtained from a British Court of Justice to-day,
were a case framed so as to be brought before it.
The affairs of States which appear under the present condition
of secret mismanagement and malversation on the part of rulers,
and of confusion as produced by parliamentary discussion and
ephemeral comments in the Press, are in themselves of the
utmost simplicity, and present neither difficulty nor ambiguity
when approached with the knowledge of the law and with
sincerity.
Unless a stop be put to our present course, Christendom, after
passing through long agonies of internecine strife, must pass
under the Muscovite sceptre, and thus reap a just and merited
retribution.
Such are the convictions which inspire with fervour and in
dustry those who do see; and in all times of peril, the fate of
armies, or of nations, or of ages will and must depend on single
men : nor is their station and capacity much to be taken into
account; it suffices that they see where the others do not.
Slaughter on the battle-field, without just cause and due
warrant, is individual murder. This no man can deny when
the case is put to him. The question with which the Church
has now to deal is thus reduced to very narrow limits. It is—
TO DECLARE MURDER TO BE SIN.
On this simple issue depend all the afore-stated sequences.
On the one side, the acceptance of all causes of social degra
dation ; on the other, the reversal of the present course of im
morality, financial dilapidation, political despotism, agitation for
change, rebellion, and apostacy.
If Rome is to restore the law, it is in this fashion that it has
to be done—that is by making individuals upright; in other
words, by making them citizens and gentlemen. Ten just”
men might have saved Sodom and Gomorrah. Ten just men
can save England, by preventing successively each of the acts,
by which she is perishing.
The great compiler of the “Law of Nations” concludes in
these words:—
“ May God (who alone can do it) inscribe these things on the
“ hearts of those who have the affairs of Christendom in their
�CONCLUSION.
55
“ hands, and grant them a mind intelligent of divine and human
“ Right, remembering that it is appointed by Him to govern
“ man, a creature most dear to Himself.”*
Grotius was not a member of the Church of Rome. If
his life was expended on the study of that Public Law then
obscured, and overthrown by religious wars and animosities,
so likewise was his heart given to the composing of religious
strife, and the reconciling of the rival Churches which equally
acknowledge Christ as their head. The Protestant Grotius,
dedicated his work to the Catholic King of France, Louis
XIII. In doing so he appeals to him, in the name of Justice, that
he may “ revive her buried Laws, that he may oppose himself to
“ a declining age, so that it may submit to the judgment of that
£i former age which all Christians acknowledge to have been
“ truly and sincerely Christian : and thus restore peace amongst
“ men. The task,” he says, “ is difficult, but nothing is worthy
“ of such excellent Princes (Louis XIII. and Charles I.)
“ but that which is in itself difficult, and which is even despaired
“ of by all others? ”f
* St. Chrysostom. Serm. de Elemosyna.
f Difficile negotiatium, propter studia partium, glesentibus in dies odiis inflaminata:
sed tantis regebus nihil dignum, nisi quod difficile, nisi quod ab aliis omnibus des
peratum.
�NOTE ON GROTIUS.
*
Note
on
Grotius.
The Bishop of Orleans has recommended the study of
Grotius as an essential part of education. He has added,
as an inducement, that Grotius was about to adhere to
the Church of Rome at the time of his death. This does not
appear from his common biographers. Were it so, the case
would not be altered, as his work was composed whilst he was a
Protestant, and the authority of his writings depend, not on his
religious belief, but on the soundness of his propositions. He
has, moreover, drawn largely, not only from the Sacred Writings,
but also from the early Fathers, whose words are reproduced in
almost every page.
It might have been supposed that the Protestant character of
this writer would have been seized upon by the Bishop of
Orleans, and made use of, to urge his co-religionaries by very
shame to apply themselves to this, the highest and most essential
branch of human knowledge, the foundation of all society, and
the ^handmaid of all religion. It is true that at the time that
B
* ishop
the
of Orleans wrote his treatise on Education the
Syllabus of the Pope had not appeared, and no General Council
had been announced; so that nothing was then in contemplation
by the Church of Rome, as a Church, for the rectification of the
human understanding, or the arrestation of the decay of human
affairs.
THE END.
LONDON:
'UHINTBD BY c. "WHITING, BEAUFORT HOUSE, STRAND
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Appeal of a Protestant to the Pope to restore the law of nations: reply to six questions on the business for the announced sixth Lateran Council
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 56 p. ; 21 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by G. Whiting, Strand, London. Contains bibliographical references.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Urquhart, David
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1868
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Diplomatic Review Office
Subject
The topic of the resource
Catholic Church
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Appeal of a Protestant to the Pope to restore the law of nations: reply to six questions on the business for the announced sixth Lateran Council), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5236
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Catholic Church
Conway Tracts
Foreign Relations
International Law
Protestantism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c0a78d32c32a678a4a95958fffb1b142.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=e7jaPfEvtVzmBESBqdGQoqKJSU%7EnfdMIN4xvFN2g7H-G7wnHpXZATS0%7EWinSFBbx9PI%7EZWTxtLCT-znZSAav5NQnI1xMIoMzyw8%7E9xIgEOyk9GCjRUANDGEbzHEfCLUDl-6v9IVKdNQS%7E-SrsUQjpMnIj0Bhkhe8tnEkVO35EJ1OWXl8iCHMl2ddBdytJ5MMFNeppICIC0NqdKKb4MUlIuNnIxn713%7EMJk8fQ6LGWzhLS90%7ER--3RlyYzq24MieriG8QZGkDMvCQ0wVWnzyh01vtD8Bgv5VgohRJcS1HEkU9uIWUwSAz0KxhN9CPddHlWB7Y2WLY0IzUUG8ibPhQHw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f708ad88e05469109d8fb1d630bd4c2c
PDF Text
Text
I
.fEW J'lt & ■»""-U*1
JW<-
LITTELL’S LIVING AGE.-NO. 1134.-24 FEBRUARY, 1866.
From the Fortnightly Review.
AMERICA, FRANCE, AND ENGLAND.
concerned would be in certain expectation
of it, were it not for the general belief that
M. Taine speaks of certain conditions there are in America paramount domestic
under which society becomes nothing more reasons against the adoption of such a polithan tm commerce d’affronts. Whilst .there cy. Such a course would increase the
is reason to hope that the relations be financial burdens, already very heavy, un
tween man and man, or class and class, in der which the country is now struggling;
any society of the, present day, cannot be Msvould indefinitely postpone that return to
properly characterised as an interchange of a settled and normal condition of things
insults, it is to be feared that the phrase is, which trade always craves, and especially
to a sad degree, expressive of the relations after the losses consequent upon war; it
subsisting between nations; Here the skies would call again from their homes the sol
seem always angry, and the volleys of can diers who, after the wear and tear of four
non alternate only with the hurtling of years of hardship and danger, are desirous
recriminations. The historian who shall of rest; it would cost more than any prob
live when there is a community of nations, able result of a foreign war could repay;
will probably, in reading the Blue Books of it would involve the possibility of defeat,
these years, think of Saurian growings which would imply a humiliating downfall
and gnashings in primaeval swamps. It is from the position and prestige which the
therefore with a natural anxiety that one of United States has gained by the thorough
the leading nations is seen holding a brand, suppression of the gigantic rebellion that
and hesitating whether, and whither, to threatened its existence. Nevertheless, con
throw it. It is undeniable that the United vinced as the writer himself is, by these and
States stands in this attitude at the pres higher considerations, that it would be
ent moment, and that the world has reason wrong for the United States to enter upon
to await with profound solicitude the deci a war with any foreign power, he is equally
sions of the present Congress as to the foreign' convinced that there are other considera
policy to be adopted by that nation. I tions calculated to tempt the present Gov
cannot conceive, of a, legislative assembly ernment at Washington to an opposite
gathered under more solemn circumstances course, some of which may be briefly stated
than those which surround this Congress, or here.
of one holding in itself more important
It is an old idea with rulers that, in cer
issues.
tain conditions, a foreign war is conducive
Formation, material expansion, centrali to the health of a nation, — an idea which
sation, and an ambition to lead in the, old countries have outgrown, but one that
affairs of the world, may be traced in his is sure to have powerful advocates in a
tory as the successive embryonic phases young_one. A civil war, says Lord Bacon,
through which nations pass. Unfortunately is like the heat of a fever; a foreign one,, is
history attests also many “ arrests ” on this like the heat of exercise. It need be no
line of development. America, however, longer a secret that, in the few months suc
has thus far advanced well, and has now ceeding the bombardment of Fort Sumter,
reached the last form that precedes a set and preceding the actual determination,
tled nationality. Her foreign policy, hith to coerce the South into the Union by
erto relatively of the least, now becomes of military power, there was a powerful influ
the first importance; for while it seems inev ence at Washington seeking to superinduce
itable that she should now be tempted to a war with England, with the object of
aspire to a leading position in the world, uniting the discordant parties and sections
the temptation is reinforced by some pro by a direct appeal to the patriotism of both.
vocations from without, and by certain This concession to the anti-English senti
strong inducements from within. The con ment— which, for reasons, to be hereafter
ditions for a war policy are so obvious that stated, was hitherto confined to the South
I have little doubt the nations immediately and its ally, the Northern Democratic party
THIRD 3ERIES. LIVING AGE. VOL. XXXL
1475.
�546 ,
AMERICA, FRANCE, AND ENGLAND.
— seemed a fine card to play at that junc
ture ; and if the Trent affair could have
occurred sooner than it did, that card might
have been played. That it was not, at any
rate, is due to the moral character of Mr.
Lincoln, and to the strong friendship for
England of the Chairman of the Senatorial
Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Hon.
Charles Sumner. It was plain, too, that
New England, the centre of friendship for
England at that time, would permit no war
to be undertaken on such immoral grounds,
and at the same time that she was deter
mined to make the crisis that had come an
occasion for settling the slavery question
for ever. Thus the foreign war project for
evading the national emergency was smoth
ered. It was essentially a pro-slavery plan
— though it might have encountered a pow
erful opposition from those Confederates of
Virginia and the Carolinas who cared more
for separation than for slavery — and had
it succeeded in uniting the North and
South, slavery would to-day be entering
upon a new lease of existence instead of
being abolished.
Just now the same temptation recurs.
The status of the negro in the South is a
.-subject for agitations and divisions nearly
as .fierce as those which preceded and re
sulted in the civil war. The South and its
old ally, the Democratic party in the North,
are demanding the return of the Southern
States with their governments still commit
ted exclusively to the whites : the Northern
Republicans bitterly oppose this, maintain
ing that.the humiliated slaveholders cannot
be trusted to legislate justly for the blacks,
without whose aid (in the declared opinion
of President Lincoln) the rebellion could
not have been suppressed. The issue is
most important; for, once restored to the
position of equal States, - the Southern
legislatures . could — providing only that
they did not contravene technically the
law against chattel slavery — enact a sys
tem of serfdom, and retain the “ Black
Codes,” which prohibit the education and
Srevent the elevation;of the negroes, the
forth being powerless to interfere unless
another war should arise to arm it with the
abnormal right, which it. now has, to con
trol the section it has ;just conquered.
The security proposed by the Northern Re
publicans is to give the negroes votes, which
the . Southerners and the. Democrats furi
ously oppose. It will ,be seen at once that
.this political situation necessitates the con
tinuance of a bitter sectional strife. The
. arguments of the Southern party about the
constitutional rights of States to regulate
their own suffrage naturally provoke taunts
concerning their four years’ effort to over
throw the constitution; their talk about the
inferiority of the negro leads their antago
nists to place the barbarities of Anderson
ville prison by the side of the long patience
of the negro ; the alleged “ unfitness of the
negro to vote ” is replied to with the tu
quoque based on the disloyalty of the
whites; and so long as this issue is before
the country, the Northern press naturally
parades every current instance of inhuman
ity to the negro, and every expression of
hatred to the Yankees, of which its corre
spondents easily find enough in the South.
All this of course wakes an angry and de
fiant spirit there ; and thus the country is
relegated to the dissension and agitation
about the negro which had prevailed with
out intermission for more than a generation
before the war.
There is no doubt that the late President
Lincoln foresaw this issue, and he has left
on record, in a letter recently published,
his determination to have ended the negro
agitation for ever by demanding equal
rights in the seceded States for the ne
gro. But President Johnson is a very
different man. For more than thirty years
a Southern slave-holder, a Democratic poli
tician, and a steady voter in the Congress
against all New England ideas, he never
theless— simply from a pride in the old
flag — opposed his own section. He vigor
ously resisted the rebellion, though it can
scarcely be said that he clung to the North.
The North rewarded his constancy by elect
ing him to the Vice-Presidency. But,now
that the convulsion is over, he and the
country are discovering that sudden chan
ges are rarely 'thorough. So, in the present
controversy on negro-suffrage, President
Johnson takes the side that might be expect
ed of a Tennessean Democrat, and opposes
the party which elected him. Of course
his cabinet are with him. Nevertheless
President Johnson and his cabinet see that
either by conceding the last hope of slave
ry — “a white man’s government ” — or by
some other means, this controversy must ter
minate, at least for the present, in order
that reconstruction, clamorously demanded
by the national exchequer and by trade,
may take place.
If it has been determined that negro-suf
frage shall not be conceded, what “ other
means ” remain ? Suppose some great and
overpowering national emergency were to
occur— one involving the national pride or
interest — would it not at once divert at
tention from the sectional issue ? If the
�JjjaHfrffii' jwiiuiriiiwij
»
AMERICA, FRANCE, AND ENGLAND.
I
547
Northern and the Southern man should fight mise of the negro questibn; and if their Gov
side by side for a common cause, against a ernment should attempt to bring on a for
common foe, for some years—the longer eign war for the purpose of suppressing the
the better — would not old differences be agitation of that question, there would not
healed ? And if to carry on such a war be wanting clear-headed men to repeat
Southern States as well as Northern must throughout the country the story of how
furnish quotas of men and money, and raise the original colonies compromised on the
crops for food, then Southern States must be negro question in ord er that they might form
at once reconstituted; and to effect this at a Union “for the common defence,” — that
once, must not the country be persuaded to ■ is, present an unbroken front to George III.
compromise on the negro-suffrage question ? should he seek to subjugate them,—and
The influence at Washington—I need how that compromise has proved to have
not mention names — which four years ago been pregnant with wrongs and agonies
*
urged these considerations to prevent utter which make the tea-tax of our fathers ridic
rupture between North and South, survives ulous. To keep off King George they
to suggest them as furnishing a possible es bowed to King Slavery: their posterity, still
cape from the dilemma of the administra groaning under the terrible results of that
tion which is hardly strong enough to en “policy,” will be very unlikely to extempor
counter the present Congress—the most ise a King George for the purpose of re
radical one that has ever assembled • in peating the blunder. When, however, the
America. And to this influence is now add restoration of the Southern people and lead
ed another, urging a new classof considera ers, and the re-pledging them to the Union,
tions in favour of a foreign war .; chiefly are added to the first consideration, the
this: there are a number of able leading men North-West, to whose prosperity the loyalty
in the South, each influential in his com of the Mississippi river and of both its banks
munity, who are now in disgrace, and who, to the Gulf is esseMQl may not prove to be
if the country settles down to peace, have (^inflexible virtue.
A third reason why a foreign war might
nothing left but to live on in obscurity, una
ble to hold office, and without anything to not be unwelcQme to the Washington Gov
mitigate the deep sense of humiliation or the ernment is, that it has now a large army al
wounds of pride. The flag at which Lee, ready collected and to a certain extent
Beauregard, Johnstone, Mosby, and many drilled, which it is deemed inexpedient, for
others struck, can float only to bring a shad reasous connected with the internal condi
ow upon them. The greatest of them has tion of the country, to dissolve at once, and
already hidden himself in a fourth-class col which is likely to be demoralized if it has
lege. Already the North asks, Which shall nothing to do. Nor would the people of
we prefer, the negro who defended, or the America be willing to support a large army
white who trampled upon, our flag ? A and navy in idleness. And in this connec
foreign war would be the rehabilitation of tion it may be said that whilst the rank and
these Southern men. Indeed, emigration file of the Americm military force would be
seems to be almost the only alternative glad to remain, for a loDg time certainly, in
which would enable them to emerge from their homes, a war would be more welcome to
their disgrace with the American people, the vast number of officers whom the late con
recover position, and claim rights as defend flict raised from obscurity, and for the most
ers of the nation. Moreover, it is not at all part created, and to the large majority of
certain but that they mi"ht— particularly- whom peace is sure to bring the obscurity
in the case of a war with England — be able which it brought them six years ago. The
, ■ to cast a part of the cloud under which they prominent generals of the United States
now sit upon the people and leaders of New were before the war railroad-presidents, sur
' England, who have never applauded the veyors, lawyers, &c.; hardly one of them,
motto, “ Our country, right or wrong,” and excepting Fremont, had a national reputa
• who assuredly could not be brought to fight tion. It need not be a matter of wonder
with anything like the earnestness lately dis-1 that so many among them, General Grant
played in their war with slavery, in an un- ; being of the number, are already widely
necessary or a doubtful war — not at all in ; and justly quoted as favourable to a foreign I
one whose political objects would be precise war policy.
As crowning all these considerations it
ly those which are most repulsive to the
strong moral sense of that section.
must not be forgotten that the old undying
My belief is that New England and the dream of continental occupation, of which
North-West may be relied upon to oppose the “ Monroe doctrine ” is the familiar but
any undisguised postponement by compro- , inexact label, is at present producing more
�548
AMERICA, FRANCE, AND ENGLAND.
exasperations and is under fewer restraints
than ever before. The Romulus of the
United States, whoever he may have been,
did not surround the country with any fur
row, and the Remuses had not in the first
years even to leap, so long as their filibus
tering expeditions respected those bounda
ries which the average American regards as
the natural ones of his country —i.e. the
Pacific Ocean on the west, the Atlantic on
the east, the Isthmus of Panama on the south,
and the North Pole on the north. Since the
Mexican war, and in recoil from the mean
ness and criminality which led to and at
tended the seizure of Texas, there has been
in the United States a moral sentiment able
to hold in check the disposition to encroach
upon its neighbours, as those representa
tives of a Democratic administration who
met at Ostend a few years ago and pro
posed to obtain Cuba by fair means or foul,
discovered to their cost. But the moral sen
timent which would have continued to shel
ter Mexico would not find a single American to plead its applicability to Maximilian,
unless in the reverse of the obvious sense.
And since it is understood, that the exci
sion of Maximilian by the power of the Unit
ed States means the grateful self-annexation
of Mexico (in some way) to the Union, it
will be at once seen that the passion for ex
pansion and the moral sentiment of the
country jump together in a way that they
never did before. On the other hand,
whilst the desire for Canada is much feebler
than that for Mexico, the restraint of inter
national morality which would have protect
ed it has been removed by the general sense
of wrongs received at the hands of England,
and the representatives of England in Cana
da, and by a current belief that annexation
to the Union is desired by nearly all of the
French Canadians and the Irish.
Whilst these considerations are being
urged at Washington, those who are most
strongly opposed to a foreign war, and were
among the most trusted advisers of Presi
dent Lincoln — as, for example, the Chair
man of the Committee on Foreign Affairs,
before alluded to — are now without the ear
of the President, and range in hostility.to
his plan of reconstruction. Of all the rea
sons that have been mentioned, the consid
eration which will weigh most strongly with
the President and his Cabinet will be the
hope of starving off the negro-agitation, and
of securing the ret urn of the Southern States
without negro-suffrage. If negro-equality
were to be placed beyond question by the
present Congress, every cloud of war would
clear away tor the present, and the Mexican
Empire would be the only thing concerning
which one could anticipate, even at a distant
period, any collision between the United
States and any nation of the Old World.
Hence the friends of peace in America are
as anxiously hoping for the settlement of the
negro question on the only basis which can
be final, and that will not remit the country
to the bitter animosities and agitations of
the past, as the friends of war are indiffer
ent to or anxious to' evade such settlement.
The particular danger is that the Congress
will decide to keep out the Southern States
without imposing negro-suffrage as a condi
tion of their return, in which case the Presi
dent might be induced to try and alter the
conditions under which the question would
come before another Congress, by seeking,
as above indicated, to weld the two sections,
and purge the South of the stain upon its
loyalty, with the fires of a foreign war. I
confess that the probabilities affecting the
question of war or peace between Ameri
ca and France or England seem to me
slightly inclining to the side of war; and I
am sure that the internal considerations
enumerated, much more than the claim
against England, or the Monroe doctrine —
whose importance in the case I am far from
undervaluing — will be the mainspring of
the war policy, if it be adopted.
The next question of interest is whether
a hostile movement, if determined upon, will
be directed against France or against Eng
land.
~
There is in America a traditional friend
liness towards France. At a celebration of
the national American Thanksgiving-day,
by Americans in Paris, December 7, the
heartiest applause was awarded to a toast
proposed by General Schofield in these
words: — “The old friendship between
France and the United States; may it be
strengthened and perpetuated ! ” At the
same festival the Hon. John Jay, the chair
man, alluded to some of the associations
which are stirred in every American’s mind
when France is mentioned. “ Our patriotic
assemblage,” he said, “ in this beautiful Capi
tol, amid the splendours of French art and
the triumphs of French science, recalls the
infancy of our country, and the various
threads of association that are so frequently
intertwined in the historic memories of
America and France. The French element
was early and widely blended with our
transatlantic blood, and it is a fact that two
of the five commissioners wdio in this city
signed the Treaty of Paris in 1783 —that
treaty by which England closed the war and
recognised the American Republic — were
�<
AMERICA, FRANCj
AND ENGLAND.
\
549
of Huguenot descent. In the war now ever, his perception of a growing feeling for
closed, as in that of our Revolution, French territorial expansion among the Americans.
and American officers fought side by side, But an element of .even paramount import
and side by side in our House of Representa ance in this feeling was a dread that the
tives hang — and will continue to hang, as a American Republic might have to struggle
perpetual memento of the early friendship with powerful and hostile forms of govern
between the countries — the portraits of ment. The Monroe doctrine was really
Washington and Lafayette. The territory that for which few Europeans would give it
. of Orleans, including that vast and fertile credit — a conservative policy. Explicitly
valley extending from the gulf to the limits respecting powers already planted on that
of Missouri, was ceded to us by the First continent, it affirmed the limits of the right
Napoleon almost for a song, and there are of intervention for itself, as well as for lorstill perpetuated in its names, habits, and eign powers. It was meant to be, and was,
traditions, pleasant memories of France.” an especial check upon the westward ag
Mr. Jay did not, in Catholic France, hint gressions of American filibusters, by imwhy the Huguenots happened to be in plying that only their unjust encroachments
America; he did not bring to any rude test from aBtid could justify interference with
■of historic criticism the part played, literal- other nations. It recommended <tself to
. ly, by the Marquis de Lafayette in the first, the most thoughtful men of the last genera
or by the young French chevaliers, who en tion in the United SffieB as the means of
joyed their cigars and champagne with keeping for ever out of the Western hemi
McClellan whilst the soldiers of the Union sphere that grim political idol to which the
were being massacred before Richmond, in peace of the old world had been so often
the second revolution; neither did he in sacrificed — the “ balance of power.” It as
quire whether at that time the Emperor of sumed, indeed, the Predominance of the
the French was making proposals to Eng United States on that continent, but then
land to join him in an inte wention favoura the United States open® its arms, its lands,
ble to the South, nor remenfter the Jiisses its honours to the people of all nations.
and cries in the French Assembly which The Monroe doctrine was, then, conserva
drowned M. Pelletan’s voice when he an tive, in that it put a defiq^M check upon the
nounced the downfall of Richmond (which idea of absorbing surrounding countries, and
M. Pelletan declared — mistakenly, it would limited the United States wtheidea of pre
appear — were so loud, tha®they would be dominance. Even this may seem arrogant,
heard across the Atlantic). But, in ignor but it is difficult to see by what other means
ing such questions and crowning his address the New World could have been saved from
with tue toast “ The Empgror of the becoming the mere duplicate of the Old.
French,” Mr. Jay undoubtedly represented To permit the occupation of countries,
the general determination of his country ■ which the United States has restrained her
men to put the best construction possible self from occupying, by foreign governupon everything that France does, and their, nlents of formstessentially hostile, necessi
instinctive disposition to wink at her plain tates an injurious modification of her own.
est offences. This disposition must be con Any such Power, once admitted and estab
sidered prominently in our calculations of lished, must be Watpied; and to watch it
the probable action of the United States implies Expensive fortifications of long fron
upon the Mexican Empire. There can be tiers, standing armies, and young men sup
no doubt that if any other nation than plying them — things utterly opposed to
France had established that Empire, the end the spirit in which the American Republic
of the rebellion in -America would have been was founded. A few ships might prevent
swiftly followed by the march of Federal the landing on those shores of a Power
troops across the Rio Grande.
which, once fixed there, would require that
The Monroe doctrine was of gradual and the Union should become a centralized and
natural development. The earliest ex military nation. Thus there is no principle
pression of the sentiment out of which it that would protect California, or Texas, or
grew was given by the First Napoleon, Louisiana from French encroachment, that
when he assigned as a chief reason for dis would not haye equally have protected
posing of the territory of Orleans — the Mexico. The south-western states have
greater part of the Mississippi Valley — on only to be weak to become food for the fur
the easy terms in which President Jefferson ther growth of “the Latin race/’and the
obtained it, that it was the manifest destiny glory of its new Cmsar. Hence garrisons,
of that territory to become a portion of the .under General Weitzel, and others, are al- ■
United States. . He did but express, how- ready on the south-western border, where
�550
AMERICA, FRANCE, AND ENGLAND.
x they must stay so long as the representative
of French power stays. The best men in
America, are persuaded that it would be
more favourable to the peace of the world
if such garrisons should cease to exist,
through the removal of the occasion for
them.
‘
.
The traditional friendship of the United
States with France has undoubtedly, been
strained to the utmost by this invasion of
Mexico, and by the circumstances under
which it occurred. The subversion of the
Mexican Republic was consummated in the
face of three unequivocal declarations to
the American Minister at Paris, that the
Government then existing in Mexico should
not be altered by the invasion; it was. ac
complished at a time when, the United
States was prevented from having any voice
in the matter by the gigantic war which
tied her hands; it was for the avowed pur
pose of building up a rival power on the
North American continent; and it selected
as the representative of that flagrant de
fiance of the principle which in America
has a sanctity corresponding to that of .the
“ balance of power ” in Europe, a prince
belonging to a House more unpopular
among Americans, and more associated with
the oppression of weaker peoples, than any
that has reigned on the continent of Eu
rope.
'
If it should ultimately appear that only
by war can the empire thus attempted be
expelled, war will surely come. But there
are reasons why the United States will
strain every nerve to secure that object by
negotiation before resorting to armed force.
The friendly feeling towards France already
adverted to, the equally strong feeling
among the Irish and the Roman Catholics
generally, and the especial affection and
gratitude to France of the Southerners —
whom the foreign war, if undertaken, is ex
pected to rehabilitate —• would all make
the conflict one for which the American
people tiould have little heart. It would
require repeated refusals of any other set
tlement on the part of Louis Napoleon to
generate the amount of popular exaspera
tion requisite for the war. At the same
time I doubt not but that General Scho
field and others will sufficiently convince
the Emperor of the French that the Ameri
can Government and people will never con
sent to the permanent existence of a for
eign monarchy in Mexico. The willingness
to postpone positive action in the matter is
enhanced by the consideration that non-re
cognition and hesitation on the part of the
United States, encouraging as they do the
Juarists to continue their resistance, in
juriously affecting the Mexican loan, and
accumulating the expenditure of France,
constitute in themselves almost a forcible
attack upon Maximilian. There is also
something like a superstitious belief among
the people that no government will stand
long in Mexico until it is consigned by des
tiny to the United States; and I venture to
predict that in that direction the United
States will pursue the Micawber policy of
waiting for something to turn up, and that
this policy will be presently justified by the
evacuation of Mexico by French troops,
with Maximilian close upon their heels.
Much as I regret to say it, I cannot deny
to myself that a war with England — were
there any pretext for it, or anything to be
gained by it — would unite all sections and
classes in America more effectually than one
with any other Power. The reasons for a
war, so far as they are external, weigh
against France; the feeling., against Eng
land. The traditional feeling in America
toward England has been the reverse of
what it has been toward .France. The ori
gin of this anti-English feeling is not won
derful. NextMo those portraits of Wash
ington and Lafayette, mentioned by Mr.
Jay as hanging side by side in the Hall of
Representatives at Washington, may be
found several pictures of the American gen
erals and English generals standing in less
gentle relations to each other. But the
resuscitation and increase of the ill-feeling
toward England are due to causes which it
may be well to explain, for there have been
strong commercial and other reasons why
all animosities between the countries should
Jong ago have passed away. The jealousies
which existed after the separation of 1782,
were such as are often witnessed between
parties just near enough to each other to
make differences irritating—as the right
and left wings, or old and new schools of
Churches — but these tend to subside as the
parties become more and more set and se
cure in their respective’positions. As a
matter of fact these jealousies had almost
disappeared, and but few traces of them can
be found in the generation that preceded this.
The cause of the animosity between the
Northern and Southern States was the cause
also of the revival of an anti-English feeling
in America—Slavery. English Quakers
were among the first agitators for emancipa
tion in the Union. The first abolitionist in
America — Benjamin Lundy — had. by his
side Fanny Wright, who established in Ten. nessee a colony of liberated negroes with
the intent of proving that they were fit for
�AMERICA, FRANCE, AND ENGLAND.
551
freedom. The Anti-Slavery Society, which to his immediate withdrawal from that city,
sprang up in the North, was materially as and a determination to proceed no farther
sisted by the English societies ; its watch into the Slave States. But meanwhile this
words were taken from the great anti-slave feeling had a strong reinforcement. The
ry leaders of England, and the utterances Irish were thronging to America by thou
of Sharpe, Clarkson, Wilberforce, and oth sands, and the Irish vote had become the
ers, were hurled with tremendous effect deciding power in every general election.
against the Southern institution. The It is a dreary fact that the Irish elected
*
Methodists were made to remember that every America^ President from 1844 to
Wesley had pronounced slavery to be “the 1860. To win that Irish vote a political
sum of all villanies ; ” and everywhere it party had simply to take the ground of
was held up as a token of the superiority violent antagonism to England: that sure
of England that her air was “ too pure for card the Democratic party had always been
a slave to breathe.” When the “ pro willing to play, and the Irish, almost with
slavery re-action,” as it is termed, set in — out exception, voted for it and its protege,
that is, when the invention of the cotton- Slavery. The denouncers oft England in
gin (about the first part of this century) the North were notoriously the leading
had gradually quadrupled the value of Democrats, who, for party purposes, fanned
slaves, and the Southern politicians began the hatred of this country which every Irish
to reverse the verdict of Washington, Jeff man was sure to bring with him to the Unit
erson, and Henry against slavery per se — ed States. I have no idea that these dema
mutterings against “ English Abolitionists” gogues really felt any sympathy with the
began to be heard. The anti-slavery ggsits, Irish, or that they knew anything whatever
in later times, of William Forster, Joseph about Ireland or its relations to England^
Sturge, George Thompson, and other distin whilst pouring out their invectives against
guished abolitionists, led to a fierce outcry “British Tyranny.” The Fenians have,
in the South that her rights and institutions perhaps, by this time learned (if a Fenian
were threatened by “ British abolitionists,” can learn anything) how much reality there
“ British emissaries,” and “ British gold.” was in this profuse Democratic sympathy
The writer can remember when every po for Ireland ; but when it is considered that
litical gathering in Virginia, his native there are five million Irish haters of Eng
State, was lashed into fury by the use of land in America, and that to obtain this
these phrases. President Jackson, in a great electoral power the Democratic party
Message to Congress, denounced the inter has committed itself to every anti-English
ference of “foreign emissaries” with the policy, it will be seen how vast an. addition
institution of slavery. Boston, because of to the hatred of the enraged pro slavery
its anti-slavery character, was scornfully men has thus been made in these later years.
called “ that English city.” The pro-slave-S In all this time the only section of Ameri
ry re-action gained a complete sway of the ca that could be called friendly to England
Union about twenty years ago ; since which was New England, such friendliness having
time, until 1860, slavery elected every Presi been frequently made the occasion for
dent, and was represented by large though denouncing thatByoup of States. The
gradually diminishing majorities in Con leading men of New England — Emerson,
gress. ,The commercial classes of the North Channing, Phillips, Sumner, Garrison, Low
were its violent adherents on account of ell — had been guests in the best English
the immense value of the Southern trade; homes, and had entertained English gen
and if any merchant became tarnished by a tlemen. The youth of the colleges and
suspici on of his pro-slavery soundness, the universities of New England were kindling
New York Herald published his name—a with enthusiasm for Carlyle, Tennyson,
proceeding which withdrew all dealings Mill, and the Brownings. Along with her
from him, and threatened him with ruin. anti-slavery influence there, went forth also
Thus a vast majority, North and South, from. New England editions of English
came to nourish a deep hostility toward books and English modes of thought; and as
England, for her policy of emancipation in the country at large was, in the years im
her own colonies, and for her alleged inter mediately preceding the war, gradually won
ference with slavery in America. How to an anti-slavery positions^ England be
furious the South was toward England was came, if not generally liked, at least the
shown in those disgraceful scenes — not to most respected of foreign nations. The
be reported here — which are said to have virtues of Queen Victoria were especially
attended the attempt of the Prince of a subject of frequent eulogium throughout
Wales to visit Richmond, Virginia, and led the North; and everything bade fair tO’
�552
AMERICA, FRANCE, AND ENGLAND.
bring about a reaction in the feeling to
wards the people over whom she ruled.
Indeed the welcome given to the Prince of
Wales at the time of which I now write,
bore witness to the existence of a friendlier
spirit regarding “ the mother country ” than
any one would have ventured to predict
a few years before. The gradual repres' sion of the anti-English prejudice cost the
' Republicans of the North a long period of
political weakness (for they too might have
bid for the Irish vote) ; it was the result of
the laborious diffusion of English literature,
and I know that it was esteemed by the
reflecting Americans to be a victory for
mankind.
The reasons why this friendliness has
been of late replaced by indignation and an
ger, in New England as well as elsewhere,
are too well known to require much elucida
tion here. I am quite sure that if England
had known as much about the United States
five years ago as she knows now, the pres
ent unhappy relations between the two coun
tries could not be subsisting. England
sneered at those who had been her friends,
who were fighting the last battles of a con
flict begun by herself, and gave her sympa
thies to those who had denounced her for
her love of freedom. Not going far enough
to do more than repress for a moment the
traditional animosity of the South, she
went far enough to fill the North with in
dignant surprise, and has left in both sec
tions a sentiment which might easily find
vent in war, if any sufficient object to be
gained thereby should present itself. If it
were England that had occupied Mexico,
war would have been declared against her
ere now; hitherto, as I have intimated,
whilst the war-interest has pointed to
France, the war feeling in America has
been toward England. The feeling of an
ger towards this country is so universal in
the United States that I believe it would
be impossible to find amongst its public
men, or even its literary men, a single ex
ception from it, — unless it be among a few
who, having constant personal intercourse
with England, know how little any quick
generalisations concerning this country, its
character, or its feeling, are likely to be
correct. A few protests against the very
general denunciation of England may have
been uttered there, or sent there by Ameri
cans resident here; but they have been lost
like chips in the rapids of Niagara. I
write these things with profound regret;
but I think the facts should be known.
There have been many instances in his
tory where such a condition of popular
feeling has required the merest pretext to
initiate war. In the present case there is
something which is already regarded in
America as a sufficient occasion for war
(were war desirable), and may be presently
regarded as an adequate cause for it. The
United States has, although so young as a
nation, presented more than a score of
“ claims ” against other nations; and in
every case, I believe, these claims have
been ultmately adjusted to its satisfaction,
though now and then refused at first. The
late claim upon the English Government
for damages committed by the Alabama —■
for those alone would probably have been
insisted upon-—meant much more than
a pecuniary matter to the Americans. As
*
foi the merchants who had suffered losses
by Confederate cruisers they were gener
ally men who a few years ago were so pa
tient and resigned when slavery was scut
tling human hearts and homes, that many
of us smiled with a grim satisfaction at their '
pathetic emotions when some defenceless
sloop with its innocent family of bags and
barrels was sent to the bottom. But withal
the Alabama was regarded as the palpable
symbol of that anti-American sentiment
which had appeared at the outbreak of the
war — a symbol which not the Kearsage,
but England alone, could sink; and the
claim for the losses by hei’ ' signified also a
reclamation for wounds rankling in every
American heart.
I have no intention of discussing here
the case of the A liibama; but the legal case
as it stands in the correspondence between
Earl Russel and Mr. Adams is so different
from the moral case which is at this moment
powerfully agitating the American mind,
that it seems to me important to mention
a few points recently laid by Mr. George
Bemis, the eminent jurist of Boston, before
his countrymen, which are more likely to
poison the future relations between the two
countries than any question raised in the
diplomatic discussion referred to. This
hitherto unwritten, or rather uncollected,
chapter in the history of the Alabama is
derived from the English Blue Boole, and
refers to the last two days’ stay of that
cruiser in British waters, after the Govern
ment had decided upon her detention, and
after the alleged telegraphic order for her
seizure had been sent to the officials of
Liverpool.
.
The Alabama left Laird’s dock in Liver
pool in July, 1862, under pretence of tak
ing out a pleasure party, and went to sea
without ever returning to that port again.
The American Minister having called upon
�I
AMERICA, FRANCE, AND ENGLAND.
553
Earl Russell for an explanation of this, be well to remind the reader here that, so
wrote home the following as the statement early as July 4th, the British Government
he received at that interview : —
"had promised Mr. Adams that the Custom
House officials at Liverpool should keep a
“ His lordship first took up the case of the strict watch on the movements of the ex
‘290’ [the name by which the Alabama was pected Alabama, and report any further in
first known], and remarked that a delay in de formation that could be collected concern
termining upon it had most unexpectedly ing her.) The Hercules proceeds to fulfil
been caused by the sudden development of her errand, but has not completed her ship
a malady of the Queen’s Advocate, Sir John
D? Harding, totally incapacitating him for the ping of men and warlike equipment until
transaction of business. This made it neces sometime during the morning of the 30th.
sary to call in other parties, whose opinion had During the forenoon, some hours before the
been at last given for the detention of the gunboat, Hercules starts, the AmcMn Consul has
but before the order got down to Liverpool the vessel placed the following note under the eye of
was gone.” *
the head of the Custom House : —
In the debate on the escape of the Ala
“U. S. Consulate, Liverpool,
bama, which occurred in the House of
July 30, 1862.
Lords, Aprd 29, 1864, Earl Russell gave f“Sir,—Referring to myaPMions communi
cation to you on the subject of the gunboat
.' this further explanation : —
■‘No. 290fl|fitted out by Mr. LaiM at Birken
“ The United States Government had no head, I beg now to inform you that she left
reason to complain of us in that respect [in the Birkenhead dock on Monday night [the
ves^mHmorningMrthe 29th] left
regard to the escape of the Alabama], because 28thl
we took all the precaution we could. We col M^M^^^ycomi^wed by the steilm-tug Hercu
les. The Hercules returned last evening, and
lected evidence, but it was not till it was com
was cruising off
plete that we felt ourselves justified in giving the her master stated
orders for the seizure of the vessel. These orders, Port Iypias, that she had six guns on board
however, were evaded. I can tell your lord ship concealed below, and was taking powder from
from a trustworthy source how theyiwere evaded!?’ another vessel.
The Hercules is now alongside the Wood_[Eaii Russell then proceeded to quote a pass
age from Fullam’s ‘ Cruise in the Confederate side landing-stage, taking on board men (forty
States War Steamer Alabama ’ (p. 5), of which or fifty), beams, evidently for guiMcarriages,
and other things, to convey down to the gunthe last paragraph ran as iollows] : —
“Our unceremonious departure [from Liver bo® A quantity of cutlasses was taken on
pool] was owing to the fact of news being receiv board on Friday last.
These circumstances all go to confirm the
ed to the effect that the customs authorities had
orders to board and detain us that morning.” representations heretofore made to you about
this vessel, in the face of which I cannot but
[Upon which Earl Russell adds] : —
“ That was the fact. However the owner regret she lias been permitted to leave the port,
,and I report them to youH^M you may take
came to be informed of it, it is impossible for
me to say. There certainly seems to have been such steps as you may deem necessary to pre
treachery on the part of some one furnishing the vent this flagrant violation of neutrality.
Respectfully, I am your obedient servant,
information.”
“ Thomas H. Dudley, Consul.
On the morning of July 29th, 1862, the “ The Collector of Customs, Liwrpool.”
Alabama put out from the Liverpool docks,
In response to this urgent appeal, Mr. E.
having on board several ladies,and gentle
men of the family of Mr. John Laird, M. P., Morgan, Surveyor of the Port, seems to
and enough of other invited guests to make have been sent to visit the Hercules. The
a show of a pleasure party, and was towed following is the record of his labours: —
by a steam-tug, the Hercules, to a point
Copy of a Letter from Mr. E. Morgan, Sur
fourteen miles from Liverpool. There the
party was transferred to the Hercules, and veyor, to the Collector, Liverpool.
“ Surveyor’s Office, 30 July, 1862.
the Commander of the Alabama made an
“Sir, — Referring to the steamer built by
appointment with the Hercules to return to
the
Liverpool and bring a large portion of hjs boat Messrs. Laird, which is suspected to be a gun
intendedfor some foreign government, —
crew to Beaumaris Bayljabout forty miles ■ “ I beg to state that since the date of my
distant from ’ the town.
The Hercules last report concerning her she has been lying
reached Liverpool on the evening of the in the Birkenhead docks fitting for sea, and
29th, and anchored for the night. (It may receiving on board coals and provisions for her
*The itaZzes here and elsewhere, in paragraphs crew.
“ She left the dock on the evening of the
quoted from the Blue Book,.are, of course, not in
the originals.
28th instant, anchored for the night in the
i
�554 .
AMERICA, FRANCE, AND ENGLAND.
Mersey, abreast the Canning Dock, and pro
ceeded out of the river on the following morn
ing, ostensibly on a trial trip, from which she
has not returned.
X “ I visited the tug Hercules this morning, as
she lay at the landing-stage at Woodside, and
strictly examined her holds, and other parts of
the vessel. She had nothing of a suspicious
character onboard —no guns, no ammunition,
or anything appertaining thereto. A consider
able number of persons, male and female, were
on deck, some of whom admitted to me
THAT THEY WERE A PORTION OF THE CREW,
AND WERE GOING TO JOIN THE ‘GUNBOAT.’
“ I have oniy to add that your directions to
keep a strict watch on the said vessel have been
carried out, and I write in the fullest confidence
that she left this port without any part of her
armament on board; she had not as much as a
single gun or musket.
“ It is said that she cruised off Point Lyna,9
1st night, which, as you are aware, is some fifty
miles from this port.
“Very respectfully,
(Signed)
“ E. Morgan, Surveyor.
The Foreign Enlistment Act says very
plainly, that every ship “ having on board,
conveying, carrying, or transporting ” any
person or persons “ enlisted, or who have
agreed or been procured to enlist, or who
shall be departing from his Majesty’s domin
ions for the purpose or with the intent of
enlisting,” “ shall and may be seized by
the Collector,” &c., (Stat. 59 George III. c.
69, s. 6). Mr. Morgan says some of the men
on the Hercules admitted to him “ that they
were a portion of the crew, and were going
to join the gunboat;” he knows that it is
a gunboat, and that it has gone off “ osten
sibly on a trial trip
and yet we find the
following letter sent to the Commissioners
of Customs in London: —
“ Custom House, Liverpool,
30th July, 1862.
“Honourable Sirs,—Immmediately on re
ceipt of the aforegoing communication [not
given, or perhaps Consul Dudley’s, qu. ?], Mr.
Morgan, Surveyor, proceeded on board the
Hercules, and I beg to enclose his report, ob
serving that he perceived no beams, such as are
alluded to by the American Consul, nor any
thing on bourd that would justify further action on
my part.
“ Respectfully,
. (Signed)
“ S. Price Edwards.”
The following • telegram was laid before
The Lords Commissioners of her Majesty’s
Treasury on the morning of July 29 : —
“Liverpool, 29th July, 1862.
“ ‘ No. 290.’
“Sir, — We telegraphed you this morning
that the above vessel was leaving Liverpool.
She came out of dock last night, and steamed
down the river between 10 and 11 a. m.
“ We have reason to believe she has gone to
Queenstown.
“ Yours obediently,
“Duncan, Squarey, & Blackmore.”
Lastly, here is the record of how, when
the horse was stolen, the stable-door was
locked: —
I
“ Thirty-first July, 1862, at about |
half-past seven, p. m.
“ Telegrams were sent to the Collectors at Liver
pool and CorL [at above date] pursuant to
Treasury Order, dated 31st July, to seize the gun
boat (290) should she be within either of those ports. • ,
-- “ Similar telegrams to the officers at Beaumaris
and Holyhead were sent on the morning of the 1stAugust. They were not sent on the 3ist July,
the telegraph offices to those districts being
closed. '
“ And on the 2d August a letter was also
sent to the Collector at Cork, to detain the ves
sel should she arrive at Queenstown.”
It is noticeable that only on the evening
of the 31st of July was any word sent to
Queenstown, where, according to the tele
gram of the 29th, the American agents in
Liverpool “ have reason to believe she (the
Alabama) has gone ! ” And why was no
telegram sent to Point Lynas on the night
of the 30th ? Three days were lost when
all depended upon hours. Nay, there have
been cases when England, feeling herself
aggrieved by such ships, has — as those who
remember the cases of the Terceira and the
Heligoland know — pursued and destroyed
them even in foreign waters. The feeling
was of another kind in this case: the Ala
bama .was followed through English and
other waters, but with plaudits.
Now all this is far lrom pleasant read
ing to an American. Earl Russell him
self, as quoted above, has said that there
seems to have been “ treachery ” in the
proceeding. Nay, in “ Hansard ” for Feb
ruary 16, 1864, he will be found to have
classified it as a “ belligerent operation,”
and as “ a scandal and in some degree a re
proach to British law.” Is it wonderful
then that the United States should prefer a
claim, accompanied by a suggestion of ar
bitration, for the losses by this cruiser,
which for a time swept American ships from
the seas ? Is it wonderful that it should in
terpret the refusal to admit the claim or the
suggestion as a moral confession of judg
ment ? Is it wonderful that, irrespective of
the legal points of the case, Americans
should perceive in the above facts the ex
�janet’s
555
questions.
pression of a hostile animus toward her, as
yet unlaid, so far as any official act is con
cerned, and that they, should, with their
deep sense of wrong, be eager to seize an oc
casion for retaliation ?
The liberation of John Mitchell, at the
request of the Fenians, by President John
son, after he (Mitchell) had rendered himself
so especially odious to the people of the
United States by his treason, was attended
with no popular outcry. ' It could never
have been done had there not been a gen
eral feeling of resentment toward England.
It is a straw only, but it shows the wind to
be setting from a tempestuous quarter.
It may be supposedEhat the very causes
which have operated to alienate the
Northern States from England would im
ply a friendship for her in the South; but
besides the old animosity of the South
toward England, on account of her influence
against slavery, she feels bitterly the sym
pathy of the English masses for the North,
the cold shoulder given to her agents at the
English Court, the repeated refusals of the
British Government to join France in an in
tervention, and its refusal of any aid to
prevent the South being crushed. Thus
every class and section in America has a
grievance against England.
There are, indeed, men in that country
whose thoughts reach beyond the vexations
and passions of the moment, who may be
counted on to do what they can to prevent
such a dire calamity as a war between the
two great branches of the Anglo-Saxon
race would be.
But the fact may not
be concealed that by the refusal to submit
the case of the Alabama to arbitration, in
the present state of American feeling, the
wildest Irishman who would fire a hemi
sphere to boil his potatoes is made stronger
than the most thoughtful statesman. To a
point of ministerial dignity — for the dignity
of a nation cannot depend upon shielding
the blunders of a Cabinet or the “ treachery”
of its subordinates — it must be ascribed,
that the entrance into Parliament of such
friends of the United States as Mill, Hughes,
and Fawcett, and of Forster into the Gov
ernment does not mark the meginning of
an era of good-will between the two na
tions; that the sunken AZaframa leaves
a brood of her kind to be hatched out by
the heat of the next English war, and to
resuscitate a semi-baiMSrs mode of war
fare which had seemed about to pass away;
and that even this ugly programme is the
least disastrous alternative to which the
friends of peace can look forward.
Moncuke D. Conway.
/
!
X
JANET’S QUESTIONS.
Janet ! my little Janet!
You think me wise I know;
And that when you sit and question,
With your eager face aglow,
I can tell you all you ask me :
My child, it is not so.
I can tell my little Janet
Some things she well may prize;
I could tell her some whose wisdom
Would be foolish in her eyes;
There are things I would not tell, her,
They are too sadly wise.
I can tell her of noble treasures
Of wisdom stored of old;
To the chests where they are holden
I can give her keys of gold ;
And as much as she can carry
She may take away untold.
But till her heart is opened,
Like the book upon her knee,
What is written in its pages
She cannot read nor see :
Nor tell till the rose has blossomed
If red or white Twill be.
And till life’s book is opened,
And read through every age,
Come questions, without answers, ■
Alike from child and sage :
Yet God himself is teaching
His children page by page.
I still am asking questions
With each new leaf I see ;
To your new eyes, my Janet,
Yet more revealed may be.
You must ask of God the questions
I fail to answer thee.
— Good Words.
�556
A HISTORY OF CARICATURE AND
From the Quarterly Review.
A History of Caricature and Grotesque in
Literature and Art. By Thomas Wright,
Esq.; with Illustrations from various sour-,
ces, drawn and engraved by E. W. Fair
holt, Esq.
Among the many contributions which
Mr. Thomas Wright has made towards Eng
lish antiquarian research, and, in particular,
towards the familiar delineation of the man
ners and customs of our ancestors, none is,
perhaps, so popular or so well known as his
two volumes entitled ‘ England under the
House of Hanover, illustrated from the Car
icatures and Satires of the day.’ The very
spirited woodcuts with which this book is
adorned by Mr. Fairholt might alone have
sufficed to make its fortune. Published
only in 1848, it is already difficult to pro
cure a copy. Encouraged by his success in
this line, Mr. Wright has now attempted
the wider enterprise announced in this title
page. Wd fear that in'doing so he has been
somewhat over ambitious. A history of the
‘ caricature and grotesque in literature and
art,’ extending over all countries and all
time, comprising not only pictorial represen
tations, but poetry, satire, the drama, and
buffoonery of all descriptions, is a subject
which, if it be attempted at all in a single
octavo volume, could only be so in the form
of a compact and well-reasoned essay, to
which Mr. Wright’s entertaining fragmen
tary sketches bear little resemblance. The
‘immeasurable laughter’ of nations, ancient
and modern, cannot be reduced within so
small a compass. We must therefore con
tent ourselves with thanking Mr. Wright
for his desultory but agreeable attempts for
our enlightenment. And we propose, on
the present occasion, to confine ourselves
entirely to the artistic portion of them: en
livened, as it is, by a new series of Mr. Fair
holt’s excellent illustrations. Our inability
to transfer these to our own pages places
us, as we feel, at a great disadvantage:
many words are required to explain to the
reader the contents of a picture, which
a few outlines by an able hand impress
at once visibly on the recollection. De
prived of this advantage, we must confine
ourselves as well as we can to the points on
which caricature touches the history of
social and political life, rather than those by
which it borders on the great domain of
Art, properly so called.
GROTESQUE
course, an Italian word, derived from the verb
caricare, to charge or load; and therefore it
means a picture which is charged or exaggerat
ed. [“Kitratto ridicolo,” says Baretti s Dic
tionary, “in cui fiensi grandemente accresciuti
i difetti.” The old French dictionaries say.
“ c’est la meme chose que charge en peinture.”]
The word appears not to have come into use in
Italy until the latter half of the seventeenth cen
tury, and the earliest instance I know of its em
ployment by an English writer is that quoted
by Johnson from the ‘ Christian Morals ’ of Sir
Thomas Brown, who died in 1682, but it was
one of his latest writings, and was not printed
till long after his death: “ Expose not thyself
by fourfooted manners unto monstrous draughts
(i. e. drawings) and caricatura representations.”
This very quaint writer, who had passed some
time in Italy, evidently uses it as an exotic
word. We find it next employed by the writer
of the Essay, No. 537, of the ‘ Spectator,’ who,
speaking of the way in which different people
are led by feelings of jealousy and prejudice to
detract from the characters of others, goes on to
say “From all these hands we have such
draughts of mankind as are represented in those
burlesque pictures which the Italians call cari
catures, where the art consists in preserving
amidst distorted proportions" and aggravated
features, some distinguishing likeness of the
person, but in such a manner as to transform
the most agreeable beauty into the most odious
•monster.” The word was not fully established
in oqr language in its English form of carica
ture until late in the last century.’ — p. 415.
This, no doubt, is a serviceable, artistic
definition of the word; but • its popular
meaning is, perhaps, a little more limited.
It would be difficult accurately to distin
guish ‘caricature ’in composition, accord
ing to the above description, from what we
simply term ‘ grotesque ; ’ exaggeration,
that is, of natural effects for the mere
purpose of the ludicrous. In using the word
caricature, we generally add to this notion
that of satire; and the best definition for
our purpose, as well as to suit ordinary ap
prehension, though not at all originating in
the primary meaning of the word, will
be, that ‘ caricature ’ implies the use of the
grotesque for the purpose of satire : satire,
of course, of many kinds, individual, moral,
political, as the case may be.
Looking at our subject from this point of
view, we must never eliminate from it all
those amusing details respecting classical
‘ caricature,’ to which Mr. Wright has de
voted the first part of his work, and which
a clever French writer, M. Champfleury,
hasjust illustrated inalittle book, superficial,
‘ The word caricature is not found in the dic entertaining, and ‘ cock-sure of everything,’
tionaries, I believe, until the appearance of that as the manner of his nation- is, entitled
of Dr. Johnson, in 1755. Caricature is, of ‘ Histoire de la Caricature Antique.’ The
�IN LITERATURE AND ART.
557
ancients were passionately fond of the gro erical creatures.’ In others, the desired
tesque : the Greeks intermingled it strange effect is produced, not by these mere fabri
ly, but gracefully, with their inimitable cre cations, but by grouping men and animals
ations of beauty: the Romans, after their together in fanciful or ridiculous conjunc
nature, made it coarse and sensual, where tions. And these — conceived and execut
not merely imitative of the Hellenic.
ed with a prodigality of imagination
_ ‘ The discourses of Socrates resemble the amounting in many instances to genius —
pictures of the painter Pauson.’ Some one constitute, perhaps, the favourite, though
had ordered of Pauson the picture of a by no means the only, style of comic art
horse rolling on the ground. Pauson paint familiar to the classical ancients; one of
ed him running. The customer complained which the known examples have of late
that the condition of his order had not been years greatly multiplied, owing to the disfulfilled. ‘ Turn the picture upside down,’ cowries of ancient paintings at Pompeii and
said the artist, ‘ and the horse will seem to elsewhere. There is a pretty description
roll on the ground.’ From this moderately of a picture of this sort in» the ‘ leones ’ of
facetious anecdote of Lucian Mlom a pas Philostratus. It represents a ‘number of
sage of Aristotle, in which it is said that BQpids riding races on swans: one is tight
‘ Polygnotus painted men better thanBjley ening his golden rein, another loosening"it;
are; Pauson;. worse than they are; PionHSisI one dexterously wheeling round the goal:
such as they are ; ’ and, lastly, from a few you might fancy that you could hell them
lines of Aristophanes, in which some Pau encouraging their birds, and threatening
son or other is jeered at for his poverty, as and qtSffilling with one another, as their
sumed to be the lot of Bohemian artists in very faces represent: one is trying to throw
general; M. Champfleury has arrived at the down his neighbour j another has just thrown
rapid conclusion, that Pauson was the doyen down his; another is slipping off his steed,
of all caricaturists. And he vindicates him, in order to bathe himself in the basin of the
eloquently, from the aspersions of the Sta- hippodrome.’ *
gyrite. ‘ Aristotle,’ says he, ‘ preoccupied
But, to revert to our original distinction,
with the idea of absolute beauty, has not ancient art. though rich in the grotesque,
expounded the scope of caricature, and its does not produce on us the effect of carica
importance in society. This thinker, plun ture ; either it has no definite satirical aim,
ged in philosophical abstractions, despised orDM® has such, the satire is lost .upon our
as futile an act which nevertheless consoles ignorance. The attempts of antiquaries to
the people in its sorrows, avenges it on explain its productions byraWig them a
its tyrants, and reproduces, with a satirical supposed libellous meaning are among the
pencil, the thoughts of the multitude.’
most comical efforts of modern pedantry.
Pliny the elder, after mentioning the seri A laughable scene on an Etruscan vase, repous compositions of the painter Antiphilus, resenting a lover. climbing |l ladder to his
informs us that ‘ idem (Antiphilus) jocoso. mistress’s casement,' figures, we are told,
nomine Gryllum deridiculi habitus pinxit. Jupiter and Alcmena. The capital travesUndb hoc genus picturse Gryll^voeabantur. tie of fEneas and Anchises as monkeys
The meaning of this obscure passage — (PQm») is meant tolMBfee the imitative
whether Grylluswas a ridiculous personage style of Virgil! The well-known and amus
who had the misfortune to descend to posteri ing seejSeifn a paMs studio (tW.) is ‘ an
ty in some too faithful portrait byAntiphibus,' allusion to the deMkiM of art.’ A pigmy
or whether Grvllus was a serious person a.jgl and a fox (GreoorBn Museum) are a phi
perhaps the son of Xenophon and hero of losopher and flatterer. An owl cutting off
Mantinea, whose portrait was placed by the the head of a cock is Clytemnestra mur
Athenians in the Ceramicus, whom Anti dering AgameAon;
a^shopper
philus had the audacity to caricature — driving a parrot in a car (Herculaneum) is
has exercised. the wits of plenty of anti
quaries, and will no doubt give occupation
The ‘ leones. of Flavius Philostratus, a
to many more. However, it seems to be of*the age of the’ Flavian Emperors, contain writer
a rhe
from this anecdote of Pliny that grotesque torical description of a series of pictures which he
figures engraved on ancient gems have re saw, or feigns himself to have seen, in, a ‘ stoa,’ or
colonnaded
four or
ceived the name of ‘ Grylli ’ among the ated ‘in a building® ofthe city live stories,’situ
suburb of
Neapolis.’ The
curious in modern times. This title has subjects described are partly mythological, partly
landscape. Someof them are identical with those
been particularlyKapplied to those which of frescoes of Pompeii, overwhelmed at the same
represent figures ‘ composed of the heads period; and the general description of the style of
and bodies of different animals capriciously treatment such as to remind the reader closely of
united, so as to form monstrous and chim- | those beautiful and singular Specimens of the art
of a world gone by.
�558
A HISTORY OF CARICATURE AND GROTESQUE
Seneca conducting Nero! Such are a few I tians, they still found pagan emblems and figamong the solemn interpretations which I ures in their models, and still went on imitat
modern sagacity has put on these ‘ capricci, ing them, sometimes merely copying, and
rather than caricatures,’ as M: Champfleury at others turning them to caricat ure or burlesque.
long that, a
truly calls them, with which the spirit of And this tendency continued sostill existedatre
much later date, where there
Greek antiquity, as playful as it was daring, mains of Roman buildings, the mediaeval archi
loved to decorate the chamber and engrave tects adopted them as models, and did not hesi
the gem.
tate to copy the sculpture, although it might
It is painful, and in some degree humiliat be evidently pagan in character. The accom
ing, to note the transition from the light and panying cut represents a bracket in the church
comparatively graceful character of ancient of Mont Majour, near Nismes, built in the tenth
art, even in its comic forms, to the excessive century. The subject is a monstrous head eat
grossness, meanness, and profanity, which ing a child, and we can hardly doubt that it
characterised the corresponding branch of it was really intended for a caricature on Saturn
in the middle ages in Western Europe. No devouring one of his children.’ — pp. 40-49.
doubt this change was partly a continuation
For our own parts, we should doubt
of that which took place when the brief im
portation of Grecian models into the West greatly whether the sculptor in question had
had ceased, and the coarser Roman style Saturn in his mind at all, any more than
Dante had when he imagined Satan devour
succeeded it.
ing a sinner with each of his three mouths:
‘ The transition from antiquity to what we the illustrations of which passage, in early
usually understand by the name of the middle illuminations and woodcuts, are exactly
ages,’ says Mr. Wright, ‘ was long and slow : like the copy in Mr. Wright’s work of this
it was a period during which much of the tex Mont Majour sculpture. And generally, we
ture of the old society was destroyed, while, at doubt whether Mr. Wright does not attri
the same time, a new life was gradually given bute to classical recollections .too large a
to that which remained. We know very little share in the production of that monstrous
of the comic literature of this period of transi style of art which furnishes our next re
tion ; its literary remains consist chiefly of a markable chapter in the history of carica
miss of heavy theology or of lives of Saints.
. . . The period between antiquity and the ture — the Ecclesiastical Grotesque, such
middle ages was one of such great and general as it exhibited itself especially in France,
destruction, that the gulf between ancient and England, and Germany. It has to our
mediaeval art seem to us greater and more ab minds very distinctive marks of a rougher
rupt than it really was. The want of monu Northern original. However this may be,
ments, no doubt, prevents our seeing the gradu there is something humiliating, as we have
al change of the ooe into the other; but enough, said, in the degradation of skill and esthet
nevertheless, of facts remain to convince us ic perception which is evinced by these rel
that it was not a sudden change. It is now, ics of generations to which we so often as
indeed, generally understood that the knowledge cribe a peculiarly reverential character.
and practice of the arts and manufactures of
the Romans were handed onward from master No doubt its elements, so to speak, may be
to pupil after the empire had fallen ; and this traced in part to some very ordinary pro
took place especially in the towns, so that the pensities of the human mind. It has been
workmanship, which had been declining in said, probably with some truth, that when
character during the later periods of the em the most prevailing of all common motives
pire, only continued in the course of degrada was an intense fear of hell and of evil
tion afterwards. Thus, in the first Christian spirits, the most natural mode of relief, by
edifices, the builders who were employed, or at reaction, was that of turning them into
least many of them, must have been pagans; ridicule. And however impossible it may
and they would fodow their old models of or
namentation, introducing the same grotesque be, to intellects cultivated after the modern
figures, the same masks and monstrous faces, fashion, to reconcile these propensities with
and even sometimes the same subjects from the a strong sense of the majestic and the beau
old mythology, to which they had been accus tiful, yet we cannot doubt the fact that they
tomed. It is to be observed, a so, that this kind were so reconciled. As. Dante could inter
of iconographical ornamentation had been en mingle his unique conceptions of supernatu
croaching more and more upon the old archi ral grandeur with minute descriptions of
tectural purity during the latter ages of the the farcical proceedings of the vulgarest
Empire, and that it was employed more pfo- possible fiends with their pitchforks, so the
•fusely in the later works, fro n which this task same artists who produced, or at least orna
was transferred to the ecclesiasical and to the
domestic architecture of the middle ages. Af mented, our cathedrals, with those glorious
ter the architects themselves had become Chris- | expressions of thought sublimed at once by
�IN LITERATURE AND ART.
559
the love of beauty and the love of heaven, I pride, envy; in fact, all the deadly sins comcould furnish them out with the strangest, I bined in one diabolical whole? — p. 74.
meanest, often filthiest images which a de
The goat-like countenance of the arch
based imagination might suggest. Fortu
nately, age has done so much to veil these fiend is a common mediaeval, as well as mod
debauches of skill with sober indistinctness, ern German, type; but whoever wishes to
that they seldom strike the eye of a casual tracq backward the conception of Retsch’s
observer, in a sacred edifice, very offen Mepnistopheles, should look in particular at
sively. But they lurk everywhere, and in an ivory carving, in the Maskell collection
' disgusting multitudes; in the elaborate at the British Museum, of exquisite work
stonework of ceilings, windows, and' col manship, styled the Temptation of Christ, by
umns ; in battlements, bosses, and corbeils ; Christoph Angermair, 1616.
One more instance, and a very striking
in the wood-carving of stalls, misereres,
and often on the lower surface of folding one, may be mentioned by way of exception
subsellia; while they are equally to be found, to the ordinary meanness and vulgarity
strangest of all, where the Donna Inez of which characterise the mediaeval representa
Lord Byron’s ‘ Don Juan ’ found them, in tions of the supernatural. It is noticed and
the illuminated pages of missals, destined for engraved by Malcolm, in his ‘ History of
purposes of daily devotion. So long as Caricature? The missal of King Richard
these were confined to mere burlesque, no II., preserved in the BrMRi Museum, is full
great harm was done, and certainly non,e of grotesque illustrSions ofEhe ordinary
cast, though beautifully executed.
But
intended.
among them is one of a higher and stranger
turn of invention, the exact meaning of
‘ The number and variety of such grotesque which is unknown. It Represents the choir
faces/ says Mr. Wright, ‘which we find scat of a solemn Gothic chapel. A white monk
tered over the architectural decoration of our old is celebrating mass at the altar; another lies
ecclesiastical buildings, are so great that I will prostrate before it; ten of
order, seated
not attempt to give any more particular classifi in iSir stalls, sing the service. Above these
cation of them. All this church decoration was
intended especially to produce its effect upon the appearEeated in a higher range of stalls,
middle and lower classes, and mediaeval art was, five figures dimly drawn, which on examina
perhaps more than anything else, suited to nga tion appear to be robed skeletons — two
diaeval society, for it belonged to the mass and with the Papal tiara, two with coronets, one
not to the individual. The man who could enjoy with a cardinal’s hat. The effect of the
a match at grinning through horse collars, must whole is very terrific, after the fashion of
have been charmed by the grotesque works of the the ghostliest conceptions of Jean Paul
meidteval stone-sculptor and wood-carver; and, Richter, and otheiEGerman masters of the
we may add, that these display, though often spectral and calling back to
mind, at
rather rude, a very high degree of skill in art, a the same: time,(the coincidence the the lines
of
great power of producing striking imagery? —
which Shakspeare has put into the mouth of
p. 1.48.
‘ In all the delineations of demons we have the same monarch —
yet seen,’ he says elsewhere, ‘ the ludicrous is
the spirit which chiefly predominates; and in no ‘For within the hollow crown
one instance have we had a figure which is real That wreathes the mortal temples of a King,
ly demoniacal. The devils are droll, but not Keeps Deith his court: and there the antic sits,
frightful; they provoke laughter, or at least ex Scoffing his state, and grinning at his pomp?
cite a smile, but they create no horror. Indeed,
But when the prevailing and violent quar
they torment their victims so good-humouredly
that we hardly feel for them. There is, howev rels between different classes of religious
er, one well-known instance in which the me persons in the Church perverted the same
diaeval artist has shown himself thoroughly suc tendency into a taste for licentious ribaldry
cessful in representing the features of the spirit — when it was no longer the Devil who was
of evil. On the parapet of the external gallery piously laughed at in these compositions,
of the cathedral church of Notre Dame in Par but monks, nuns, hermits, and so forth, who
is, there is a figure in stone, of the ordinary were introduced as symbols of everything
stature of a man, representing the demon, ap
parently looking wi;h satisfaction upon the in degrading — when grotesque, assuming the
habitants of the city as they were everywhere in attitude of satire, turned, according to our
dulging in sin and wickedness. The unmixed suggested distinction, into caricature prop
evil — horrible in its expression in this coun erly so called — then the practice in ques
tenance — is marvellously portrayed. It is an tion assumed a much darker complexion.
absolute Mephistopheles, carrying in his features The foulest of these representations, and
a strange mixture of hateful qualities — malice, they are only too numerous, can be barely
�560
A HISTORY OF CARICATURE AND
alluded to in a work like Mr. Wright’s. Au
older publication, already noticed, Mal
colm’s very imperfect ‘ History of Carica
ture,’ goes into more details respecting them.
We will only say that those who enter on
the subject had better not carry into the in
quiry exaggerated notions respecting the
decorum or the piety of the so-called ‘Ages
of Faith,’ lest they should be too abruptly
dispelled.
Gradually, and with the progress of en
lightenment, a somewhat more serious,
though still familiar, mode of dealing with
subjects of this description became general;
but the change was not so early as has been
sometimes supposed, since the stalls of Hen
ry VII.’s chapel at Westminster exhibit
some of the very worst of this class of offen
ces against taste and religious feeling. But
in the fifteenth century, under the hands of
its artists, the supernatural, though still
tainted with the grotesque, germinated into
the awful. The union of the two may still
be traced in that marvellous but perishing
series of representations, ranging over all
the known and conjectured regions of life
and eternity, which decorates the Campo
Santo of Pisa—that ‘‘Antechamber of
Death,’ as the Italians call it. From the
same sources of thought arose the profuse
crop of ‘ Danses Macabres,’ dances of death,
coarsely painted on thousands of cemetery
walls, and drawn and engraved by number
less artists, with more or less of spirit; phan
tasmagorias, in which the love of the horri
ble was repulsively mixed with that of the
ludicrous, but still far less ignoble in taste
and character than those early grotesques of
ecclesiastical sculpture, to which our atten
tion has been hitherto drawn.
It is refreshing, however, to turn from this
disagreeable class of subjects to the few
specimens of a freer and healthier turn for
the ludicrous, unmixed with profanity, which
mediaaval art has left us. Probably one of
the earliest specimens of English caricature
drawing, as distinguished from mere gro
tesque, is that described by Mr. Wright, as
follows: — ‘It belongs to the Treasury of
the Exchequer, and consists of two volumes
of vellum, called Liber A and Liber B, form
ing a register of treaties, marriages, and sim-,
ilar documents of the reign of Edward I.
The clerk who was employed in writing it
seems to have been, like many of these of
ficial clerks, somewhat of a wag, and he has
amused himself by drawing in the margin
figures of the inhabitants of the provinces
of Edward’s crown, to which the documents
referred. Some of these are plainly designed for caricature.’ Two of themare evi
GROTESQUE
dently Irishmen, their costume and weapon,
the broad axe, exactly answering to the de
scription given of them by Giraldus Cambrensis. Two are Welchmen — ludicrous
figures enough, whose dress is equally in ac
cordance with contemporary description,
except in one curious particular, which
writers have not noticed. The right legs
are naked, like those of the German hackbutteers in the ‘ Lay of the Last Minstrel ’:—
‘ Each better knee was bared, tr aid
The warrior in the escalade.’
‘ When the official clerk who wrote this tran
script came to documents relating to Gascony,
his thoughts wandered naturally enough to its
rich vineyards and the wine they supplied so
plentifully, and to which, according to old re
ports, clerks seldom showed any dislike; and
accordingly, in the next sketch, we have a Gas
con occupied diligently in pruning his vine
tree.’
From the sculptured and illuminated re
ligious-grotesque of the Middle Ages to the
German and Dutch woodcut-literature of
the period of the Reformation, the transition
is not a very wide one. The style is pretty
similar, the profanity much the same, only
a fiercer element has been added by contro
versial bitterness. Perhaps this class of
works may be justly cited, in chronological
series, as affording the real commencement
of the art of modern political caricature,
properly so called. On both sides of the
question this method of ridiculing antago
nists was most profusely resorted to. The
jovial, popular figure of Martin Luther, in
particular, formed, as it well might, a very
favourite piece de resistance for pictorial sa
tirists in the old interest to work upon. One
cut, preserved by Mr. Wright, ‘ taken from
a contemporary engraving in wood, presents
a rather fantastic figure of the demon play
ing on the bagpipes. The instrument is
formed of Luther’s head, the pipe through
which the devil blows entering his ear, and
that through which the music is produced
forming an elongation of the reformer’s
nose. It was a broad intimation that Lu
ther was a mere tool of the evil one, created
for the purpose of bringing mischief into
the world.’ — p. 251. But, continues Mr.
Wright, the reformers were more than a
match for their opponents in this sort of
warfare. Doctor Martin had been identi
fied, for various cogent reasons, with Anti
christ : —
.
•
‘ But the reformers had resolved, on what ap
peared to be much more conclusive evidence,
�/!
.
561
IN LITERATURE AND ART.-
that Antichrist was only emblematical of the [ he chose, to rank among the most original
papacy : that under this form he had been long | as well as powerful of modern artists — the
dominant on earth, and that the end of his reign I famous Jacques Callot, born at the end of
was then approaching. A remarkable pamph I the century, in 1592 — a man, as Mr.
let, designed to bring this idea pictorially before i Wright truly observes, who was destined
the world, was produced from the pencil of
Luther’s friend, the celebrated painter Lucas j not only to give a new character to the
Cranach, and appeared in the year 1521, under ! then recent art of engraving on copper,
the title of “ The Passionale of Christ and An | but also to bring in a new style of ludic
tichrist.” It is a small quarto, each page of rous and fanciful composition. Inimita
which is nearly filled by a woodcut, having a ble, however, as Callot’s works are, they
few lines of explanation in German below. The belong rathesl to the class of ‘ caprices,’
cut to the left represents some incident in the or ‘ ex-travaganzas,’ than of caricature in
life of Christ, while that facing it to the right the sense in which we have used it; for his
gives a contrasting fact in the history of Papal genius had not the satirical turn, properly
tyranny. Thus, the first cut on the left repre speaking: and the same may be said of his
sents Jesus in His humility, refusing earthly
dignities and power, while on the adjoining page most successful copyisfflDella Bella, a clever )
we see the Pope, with his cardinals and bishops, artist, but who never succeeded in equalling
. supported by his hosts of warriors, his cannon his origin IM The works of Romain de
and fortifications, in his temporal dominion over Hooghe, who, brought up in the merely exsecular princes. On another we have Christ travagant school of Callot, was extensively
washing the feet of his disciples, and in con employed in producing ^satirical and em
trast the Pope compelling the Emperor to kiss blematic representations of English political
his toe. And so on, through a number of illus events after the Restoration, perhaps serve
trations, until at last we come to Christ’s ascen
sion into heaven, in contrast with which a troop as the connecting link between the old
of demons, of the most varied and singular ‘ caprice ’ and the modern political carica
forms, have seized upon the Papal Antichrist, ture.
The need for pictorial representations to
and are casting him down into the flames of
hell, where some of his own monks wait to re stimulate the political feelings of the public,
in times when literature was comparatively
ceive him.’— p. 254.
scanty, had been of course as keenly felt in
This style of pictorial satire, as the ad England as in c®Br errantries $ but it was
*
vancing art of wood-engraving began more kept in check, through the public contests >
and more to multiply specimens, attained, of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,
as we have said, much popularity in the six by the great inferioritjalof our artists, and
teenth century in Germany, and extended particularly our engravers, to those of the
itself from religious to political and purely Continent. Here and there we meet with
social subjects. Its latest employment in ’striking exceptions. The vwodcuts to the
those regions on a large and popular scale first edition of ‘Fox’s Martyrs’ contain,
was perhaps during the Thirty Years’ War ; among the fearful scenes which they gener
but the extremity to which that country was ally representkjcaricature likenesses of Gar
reduced by that dreary contest seems to diner, Bonner, and other well-known per
have extinguished its very life. The works sonages of the time, and are singularly pow
of this class, disseminated through broad erful in execution. But the like of these
sides, printed sheets, large illustrated folios are very few. One odd illustration, per
and popular duodecimos, are frequently ex haps, of the need felt for these pictorial rep
ecuted with considerable spirit as well as resentations, and the defectiveness of the
humour. But often, and especially towards ordinary means for supplying it, is to be
the latter portion of the period, they exhibit found in the peculiar taste of that age for
a strong tendency to become pedantic and employing elaborate devices on banners
allegorical. When the art of caricature, borne in procession or carried in the field,
becoming over-learned, addresses itself to in order to stimulate the ardour of partisans.
particular classes only, and requires a spe It will be remembered how the Scottish
cial education in order to make its products Protestant lords took the field against
understood, it may be-safely pronounced in Queen Mary with (among others) a great
a declining condition.
standard, on which the catastrophe of the
Perhaps the most successful result of the Kirk of Field was represented, with the fig
early wood cut-grotesque was, that it led the ure of Darnley lying on the ground, and.
way for greater achievements in art; and the words ‘ Judge and revenge my cause, O
its influence may be especially traced in the Lord.’ In the Great Rebellion such stand
designs of one who deserves, notwithstand ards were abundantly used, chiefly on the
ing the inferiority of the department which Royalist side, with devices both serious and
THIRD SERIES. LIVING AGE. VOL. XXXII.
1476.
V
$
t
�562
A HISTORY OF CARICATURE AND
GROTE.SQUE
of the caricature order. Here is an ex
English specimens of art, at first few and
ample of the latter, taken by the Round far between, began to make their way into
heads at Marston Moor, described by Rush favour among these foreign importations;
worth : —
and it is just at this period (the reign of
George I.) that we find them first exhibiting
‘ A yellow coronet: in its middle a lion couch the well-known advertisements,4 Printed for
ant, and behind him a mastiff seeming to Carington Bowles, next the Chapter House
snatch at him, and in a label from his mouth
written, Kimboltoq: at his feet little beagles, in St. Paul’s Church Yard, London,’—a
and before their mouths written, Pym, Pym, house famous in the same line for full a cen
Pym : and out of the lion’s mouth these words tury afterwards.
4 It was a defect of the earlier publica
proceeding, Quousque tandem abutere patientions of this class,’ says Mr. Wright in his
tia nostra ? ’
earlier work, 4 that they partook more of
Another curious vehicle of political cari an emblematical character than of what we
cature in England, in the seventeenth cen now understand by the term 44 caricature.”
tury, generally of very inferior order, was Even Hogarth, when he turned his hand to
that of playing-cards. 4 The earliest of politics, could not shake off his old preju
these packs of cards known,’ says Mr. dice on this subject; and it would be diffi
Wright, is one which appears to have been cult to point out worse examples than the
published at the very moment of the restora two celebrated publications which drew
tion of Charles II., and which was perhaps upon him so much popular odium,44 The
engraved in Holland. It contains a series Times.” ’ The reader will easily under
of caricatures on the principal acts of the stand the distinction, though^it cannot of
commonwealth, and on the parliamentary course be traced out with absolute accuracy
leaders.’ The ace of diamonds, for instance, in comparing different pieces. A design,
: represents 4 The High Court of Justice, or for example, in which political characters
Oliver’s Slaughterhouse.’ Among other are represented under the guise of various
packs of a" similar character which have animals, is generally emblematic or sym
been preserved, one relates to the Popish bolical in character. This is a simple in
Plot, another to the Ryehouse Conspiracy stance ; but the symbolism is often compli
(published in Holland), another to the cated, and not easy of • comprehension.
South Sea Bubble.
Hence a necessity for long letterpress ex
Romain de Hooghe, already mentioned planations in the form of labels issuing
as a follower of Callot, became, together from the mouths of the characters, or other
with others of his countrymen, as we have wise — a device showing inferiority of skill.
seen, the great exponent of English political The most effective caricature explains it
satires during the events of the last Stuart self, and exhibits point instead of allegory.
. reigns. Their productions must have been The favourite plates of the first part of the
widely circulated in England ; and, in fact, Georgian era, which appeared periodically,
, superseded in public estimation the very about 1740, styled 4 The Series of Euro
. inferior articles of domestic manufacture. pean State Jockies,’ and so forth, were
This period of Dutch supremacy among us compositions of many figures, as hiero
may be said to have continued down to the glyphical as the frontispiece to a prophetical
• date of the South Sea Bubble aforesaid ■— almanac. The gradual way in which Eng
‘ the time,’ says Mr. Wright, 4 in which lish comic art became emancipated from
■ caricatures began to be common in Eng this somewhat pedantic mould may be illus
land ; lor they had been before published at trated by a later instance, out of Gillray’s
rare intervals, and "partook so much of the works. Charles Fox was represented by
character of emblems that they are not the caricaturists of his youth with a fox’s
easily understood.’ The earliest of these, head, as his father, Lord Holland, had al
and the best, were of Dutch manufacture, most invariably been before him. And so
yet these were negligently executed. 4 So he is in one or two of Gillray’s first prints.
little point is there often in these carica But Gillray almost immediately abandoned
tures, and so great appears to have been the the old usage, and gave the patriot his own
call for them in Holland, that people seem burly physiognomy. The gradual passage
to have looked up old engravings destined from the emblematic to the simply satirical
■ originally for a totally different purpose, completes the establishment of the modern
. and, adding new inscriptions and new ex- English school of caricature.
The nature of the change cannot be bet
j planations, they were published as carical tures on the Bubble.’ *
ter exemplified than by reference to a piece
which had prodigious vogue in its day, and
* House of Hanover, i, 71.
�IN LITERATURE AND ART.
/
x
,
■
• i
■
<
■
563
is repeatedly mentioned with interest by described in the .verses accompanying the
Horace Walpole and other contemporaries. print, which are wittier than the print
Copies of it are still common in collections : itself. Its great success, however, was
we have seen it even jconverted into the evinced by the numerous rival works of art
mounting of a lady’s fan. This is headed of both political colours which it called,
‘ The Motion, 1741/ and commemorates the forth, ‘ the Reason, ‘ the Motive/ ‘ the
failure of a famous attempt to upset Sir Grounds,’ &c. It may perhaps be said with
Robert Walpole’s government. The back truth to be the prototype of that whole
ground represents Whitehall, the Treasury, class of pictorial satires, great favourites
and the adjoining buildings as they then | with Englishmen, in which the small revo
stood. (The spectator is looking down lutions of ministries and oppositions are
Whitehall from a point nearly opposite travestied as scenes of popular life.
the modern Admiralty : to his left is a dead
We need not delay over the other innu
wall along the east side of the street, be- merable caricatures of the same reign; •
hind it private buildings, Scotland Yard, they are generally very ignoble ones; but
&c., extending as far as the Banqueting ghe comparative novelty of the fashion in
House; in front, the gateway over the en England rendered them extremely popular,
trance of what is now Parliament Street, and there was a kind of frank jollity pre
with the inscription ‘ Treasury.’)
dominant in the English body corporate
*>
just at that epoch — the epoch, as Hallam
‘Lord Carteret, in the coach, is driven to satisfied himself, of the maximum of physi
ward the Treasury by the Duke of Argyll as cal well-being to be traced in our history
coachman, with the Earl of Chesterfield as among the mass of the people — which
postilion, who, in their haste, are overturning peculiarly suited this development of broad
the vehicle; and Lord Carteret cries “ Let me
get out!” The Duke brandishes a wavy national humour. One or two specimens
sword, instead of a whip; and between his may detain for a moment the eyes of those
legs the heartless changeling, Bubb Dodington, who turn them over, rare as they have now
sits in the form of a spaniel. . i. . ' Lord generally become, in the collection at the
Cobham holds firmly by the straps behind, as British Museum, or in that far more valua
footman; while Lord Lyttelton follows on ble one amassed in many a year of busy
horseback, characterised equally by his own collectorship by Mr. Hawkins, formerly of
lean form, and that of the animal on which that establishment. There is a wild force
he strides. ... In front, Pulteney, drawl in the very rough execution of the print on
ing his partisans by the noses, and wheeling a
barrow laden with the writings of the Opposi the original broadside of Glover’s famous
tion, the Champion, the Craftsman, Common ballad, ‘ Hosier’s Ghost,’ in which the spirits
Sense, &c., exclaims, “ Zounds, they’re of ‘ English captains brave,areally form a
ours ! ’” *
very spectral crew. Another may be noted
for the quiet savageness of its insult to
This once famous squib affords, as we Lord George Sackville: it is entitled, ‘ A
have said, a good exemplification of the Design for a Monument to General Wolfe
passage from the old and formal to the (1760), or, a Living Dog better than a Dead
modern style of political caricature. It Lion.’ The dead lion reclines below a bust
bears strongly the type of Dutch origin, of this hero : the living dog at his side is a
but without the carefulness of Dutch ex greyhound, and on his collar is the word
ecution. The idea is clever and suggestive, ‘ Minden.’ And, lastly, one more, for the
but the workmanship at once artificial and very oddity of the conception : ‘ Our late
feeble.
The likenesses were no doubt Prime Minister,’ 1743. It is simply the jolly
sufficiently good to amuse the public of that face of Sir Robert Walpole, without any
day; Horace Walpole calls them 1 admira accessories whatever, thrown back as against
ble ; ’ but they are inexpressive. The wavy a pillow, and the jaws relaxed into a most
sword, a relic of the emblematic school, is contagious yawn, with the words, ‘ Lo,
a clumsy piece of allegory, spoiling the what are all your schemes come to ? ’ and
realism of the piece; and so is the figure the lines from the Dunciad : —
of Pulteney, leading the Tory squires by
cords passed through their noses. The ‘ Ev’n Palinurus nodded at the helm
only fun in the composition is to be found The vapour mild o’er each Committee crept,
in the figures of Bubb Dodington as a Unfinished treaties in each office slept,
spaniel, and Lord Lyttelton on horseback And chiefless armies dozed out the campaign,
— ‘ so long, so lean, so lank, so bony,’ as And navies yawned for orders on the main.’
* House of Hanover, i. 179.
i
We cannot, however, pass over the period
�564
A HISTORY OF CARICATURE AND
of George II. without noticing that it seems
to us to be the first in which that much
enduring animal, the British lion, figures
extensively as a popular character. As
yet, people’s eyes were not open to his
ludicrous side, and artists accordingly made
free with him in every variety of emblema
tic action. We have him roaring with in
dignation at the misdeeds of various Minis
ters ; ‘ hocussed ’ apparently, and with the
Spaniard paring his claws, in allusion to
the matter of Jenkins’s ears: frightening
the Gallic cock, defending the Austrian
eagle, led passive in a leash by the Duke of
Newcastle; and, lastly, ‘ embracing George
II.’ (1745), to the discomfiture of the Pope
and Pretender, who exclaim: ‘ We shall
never be a match for George while that
lion stands by him I ’
Some of the names of the hack carica
turists of this epoch are preserved by Mr.
Wright; most of them of as little notoriety
as merit. Among them< however, are some
amateurs of social position ; and one dame
of quality—a Countess of Burlington.
‘ She was the lady of the Earl who built
Burlington House in Piccadilly; was the
leader of one of the factions in the Opera
disputes at the close of the reign of George
I.; and is understood to have designed the
well-known caricature upon Cuzzoni, Fari
nelli, and Heidegger, which was etched by
Guppy, whom she patronised.’
Such were the very undistinguished
characteristics and history of English art
in the grotesque and comic line, when the
appearance of Hogarth on the stage marked
an entirely new epoch in its history. It
would be superfluous here to recapitulate
the details of the life or achievements of
our great domestic painter; the more so,
as his powers in the line of caricature, pro
perly so called, though very great, were
subordinate to his far higher merits as a
painter of ‘ genre,’ as the French phrase it,1
a delineator of popular scenes and incidents
into which the humorous only entered as an
ingredient, although a very important one.
As a political caricaturist poor Hogarth
made a fatal mistake: he took the wrong
side:—
..
4|<
tjUlW
‘It appears evident,’ says Mr. Wright, ‘that
before this time (October, 1760) Hogarth had
gained the favour of Lord Bute, who, by his
interest with the Princess of Wales, was all
powerful in the household of the young Prince.
The painter had hitherto kept tolerably clear
of politics in his prints, but now, unluckily
for himself, he suddenly rushed into the arena
of political caricature. It was generally said
that Hogarth’s object was, by displaying his;
GROTESQUE
1,4
zeal in the cause of his patron, to obtain an in
crease of his pension; and he acknowledges
himself that his object was gain. “ This,” he
says, “being a period when war abroad and
contention at home engrossed everyone’s mind,
prints were thrown in the background; and the
stagnation rendered it necessary that I should
do some timed thing to recover my lost time,
and stop a gap in my income.” Accordingly
he determined to attack the great minister
Pitt, who had recently been compelled to re
sign his office, and had gone over to the oppo
sition. It is said that John Wilkes, who had
previously been Hogarth’s friend, having been
privately informed of his design, went to the
painter, expostulated with him, and, as he con
tinued obstinate, threatened retaliation.’
‘ The Times, No. 1,’ was the first fruit of
Hogarth’s unlucky fit of loyalty ; a labour
ed emblematic print, after the. older fash
ion, to the glory of Lord Bute and discredit
of Pitt. Wilkes attacked the artist in the
‘ North Briton; ’ Hogarth retorted — only
too successfully—in this admirable print
of Wilkes with the cap of liberty: ‘ eventu
que impalluit ipse secundo,’ for Wilkes,
with all his apparent firn and bonhomie,
was a deadly enemy. The nettled patriot
brought his friend Churchill, and a host
more of libellers in letterpress and in cop
perplate, on the back of his unfortunate as
sailant : —
‘ Parodies on his own works, sneers at his
personal appearance and manners, reflections
upon his character, were all embodied in prints
which bore such names as Hogg-ass, Hoggart,
O’Garth, &c. . . . The article by Wilkes
in the “ North Briton,” and Churchill’s metri
cal epistle, irritated Hogarth more than the
hostile caricatures, and were generally believed
to have broken his heart. He died on the 26 th
of October, 1764, little more than a year after
the appearance of the attack by Wilkes, and
with the taunts of his political as well as his
professional enemies still ringing in his ears.’
— pp. 446-449.
Hogarth left no school of followers; his
genius was of too independent and peculiar
an order to admit of this. Perhaps the
nearest to him was Paul Sandby; described
by Mr. Wright as ‘ one of those rising artists
who were offended by the sneering terms in
which Hogarth spoke of all artists but him
self, and foremost among those who turned
their satire against him.’ Sanby was one
of the original members of the Royal Ac ardemy, and is best known as a topographical
draughtsman; but Mr. Wright terms him
the father of water-colour art in England.
As a caricaturist he led the attack against
Lord Bute and the Princess Dowager, as
�I' * >
IN LITERATURE AND ART.
well as against Hogarth ; his sketch of the
two Scotchmen travelling to London on a
witch’s broomstick, with the inscription,
‘ the land before them is as the Garden of
Eden, and behind them a desolate wilder
ness,’ is one of the best of the witticisms
provoked by the miso-Caledonian movement
of that day.
We cannot quite dgree with Mr. Wright
when he says that, ‘ with the overthrow of
Bute’s Ministry (1763) we may consider the
English school of caricaturists as completely
formed and fully established.’ On the con
trary, it seems to us, from such collections as
we have examined, that the political branch
of the art was at a particularly low standard
for nearly twenty years after that event. The
American war produced very little amuse
ment of this kind; it was an affair into
which the nation entered with a dogged and
reluctant seriousness: and Washington and
Franklin, Silas Deane and John Adams,
afforded but drab-eoloured subjects for the
facetious limner. Social topics were just then
much more in vogue ; the extravagances in
dress of the Macaronies and high-flying la
dies'of the day (the acme of absurdity, in
modern costume, was certainly reached in
the years 1770-1780), the humours of Vauxhall,.and Mrs. Cornely’s masquerades, di
verted men’s minds from the bitter disap
pointment of a contest in which nothing
was to be gained either by persevering or
giving way.
*
Perhaps the best specimen
of the pictorial humour of that time was to
be found, not in the shop window prints!
but in the pages of the numerous magazines;
some of these never appeared without an
illustration or two of the jocose order, like
the comic newspapers of our time. But
when the incubus of the American war was
removed, and domestic faction reappeared
on the stage in all its pristine vivacity, the
simultaneous appearance of the ‘ Rolliad ’
and its fellow satires in literature, and of
Gillray and his fellow-workmen in art,
heralded the advent of a new era.
We must hasten to him whom Mr. Wright
terms, with perfect justice in our opinion,
1 the greatest of English caricaturists, and
perhaps of all caricaturists of modern times
whose works are known — James Gillray.’
His father was an out-pensioner of Chel* In one of the caricatures of this period (repro
duced by Mr. Wright in his former work) Lord
Sandwich is represented with a bat in his hand, in
allusion, we are told, to his fondness for cricket;
but it is a curved piece of wood, much more resem
bling that with which golf is played. And the same
peculiarly shaped instrument is put into the hand
of a cricket-loving lady in a.print of 1778 (Miss
Wicket and Miss Trigger).' What is the date of the
bat now used ?
.
‘ 565
sea Hospital, and sexton of the Moravian
burial-ground at Chelsea, where the carica
turist was born in 1757. Belonging by his
origin, and still more by his loose and Bohe
mian habits, to a very ordinary sphere of
life, it is certainly singular that he should
have acquired such a close observation and
intimate knowledge of events as they oc
curred, not only in the political, but in the
fashionable world. His great sources of
information were, no doubt, the newspa
pers ; but occasionally he seems even to have
anticipated the newspapers; more than one
court scandal and state intrigue seems to
have been blazoned first to public notice
in the well-known shop windows of Hum
phreys or of Fores, always crowded with
loiterers as soon as one of Gillray’s novel
ties appeared. It is no doubt true, and af
fords a curious subject of speculation to any
one who may think the inquiry worth pur
suing, that, when Gillray’s fame was estab
lished, many an amateur of the higher cir
cles seems to have assisted him, not merely
in furnishing hints, but also sketches, which
Gillray etched and sold for his own profit.
Some of his best caricatures, if we are not
mistaken J are from outlines supplied by
Bunbury, others were composed by Brown '
low North. But these are exceptions only,
and do-not invalidate the general proposi
tion as to the singularity of the circum
stance that this drunken son of a sexton was
for many years the pictorial Aristophanes
of his day, and aided, at least, by those who
were behind the sceMs. of much which
took place in the inner recesses of high
life.
His fame as a political caricaturist was
first established by his burlesque prints on
Rodney’s victory (1782). The rueful figure
of the unlucky French admiral De Grasse,
in one of them, is among the most charac
teristic of his performances. As we have
said, it was some time before he thoroughly
emancipated himself from the allegorical
style ; and another peculiarity of inferior ar
tists haunted him a long' time, the fashion,
namely, of overloading his compositions
with quantities of letter-press, oratorical or
jocose, proceeding from the mouths of his
characters, as if his pencil had not been fully
powerful enough to speak for itself. He
rushed with an energy all his own into the
war of squibs which succeeded the Fox and
North coalition, and then conceived those
ideals of the leading patriot, and of his
friend Burke, which he afterwards rendered
popular in every corner of the kingdom by
a thousand repetitions. A very admirable
series of sketches, however, of these two
�566
A HISTORY OF CARICATURE AND GROTESQUE
and Lord North, as ‘War, Peace, and
Neither War nor Peace,’ portraits scarcely
touched with grotesque, though in skilfully
exaggerated attitudes, commonly inserted
in the bound volumes of Gillray’s works, is,
we are satisfied, not his; it bears much
more the appearance of Sayer’s workman
ship. Fox and his personal following were
peculiarly the objects of Gillray’s aversion ;
and, not many years later than this, the
unhappy circumstances of the Prince of
Wales’s matrimonial career provoked him
into a series of the most popular, daring,
and spirited of all his works; some of which,
however, it is not easy in our decent age to
indicate even by reference, though they
seem to have been exposed without scandal
in the most frequented thoroughfares of Lon
don. Gillray, however, was ‘ not a hired
libeller,’says Mr. Wright,‘like Sayer and
some other of the lower caricaturists of that
time: he evidently chose his subjects in
some degree independently, as those which
offered him the best mark for ridicule; and
he had so little respect for the ministers or
the court, that they all felt his satire in
turn.’ After exhausting his power of picto
rial invention against the heir apparent,
he found a still more congenial subject of
1 satire in the peculiarities of his Majesty
George III. himself. Here, however, per
sonal spite is said to have given the induce
ment.
‘ According to a story which seems to be
authentic, Gillray’s dislike of the King was em
bittered bv an incident somewhat similar to
that by which George II. had provoked the
anger of Hogarth. Gillray had visited France,
Flanders, >and Holland, and he had made
sketches, a few of which he had engraved. He
accompanied the painter Loutherbourg, who
had left his native city of Strasburg to settle
in England, and became the King’s favourite
artist, to assist him in making groups for his
great painting of the ‘ Siege of Valenciennes,’
Gillray sketching groups of figures while
.Loutherbourg drew the landscapes and build
ings. After their return, the King expressed a
desire to see these sketches, and they were
placed before him. Louthesbourg’s landscapes
and buildings were plain drawings, and easy to
understand, and the King expressed himself
greatly pleased with them. But the King’s
mind was already predjudiced against Gillray
for his satirical prints : and when he saw his
hasty and rough, though spirited sketches of
the French soldjers, he threw them aside con
temptuously with the remark, “ I don’t under
stand these caricature fellows.” Perhaps the
„ very word he used was intended as a sneer
upon Gillray, who, we are told, felt the affront
deeply, and he proceeded to retort by a carica
ture which struck at once at one of the
King’s vanities, and at his political predjudices.
George III. imagined himself a great connois
seur in the Fine Arts, and the caricature was
entitled “ a connoisseur examining a Cooper’.”'
It represented the King looking at the celebrat
ed miniature of Oliver Cromwell, by the Eng
lish painter, Samuel Cooper. When Gillray
had completed this print, he is said to have ex
claimed, “I wonder if the Royal connoisseur
will understand this!” It was published on
the 18th of June, 1792, and cannot have failed
to produce sensation at that period of revolu
tions. The King is made to exhibit a strange
mixture of alarm with astonishment hi contem
plating the features of this great overthrower
of kingly power, at a moment when all kingly
power was threatened. It will he remarked,
too, that the satirist has not overlooked the
royal character for domestic economy; the
King is looking at the picture by the light of a
candle end stuck on a save-all.’
If there is any truth in the story, certainly
never was artist’s revenge more completeThe homely features of the poor old king
— his prominent eyes, light eyebrows, pro
truding lips, his shambling walk, his gaze of
eager yet vacant curiosity — are even now
better known to us through Gillray’s carica
tures than through anything which theMuses of painting and sculpture, in their
serious moods, could effect for him or
against him. Gillray’s etchings, and Peter
Pindar’s verses, were for years among the
minor plagues of royalty. Not, indeed, in
the estimation of the stout-hearted monarch
himself, as impervious to ridicule as to
argument whenever he thought himself in
the right; no man in his dominions laughed
more regularly at each hew caricature of
Gillray than he ; and a whole set, inscribed
‘ for the king,’ forwarded to him as they
came out, is said to be preserved at Wind
sor. But they were more keenly felt by
his little knot of attached courtiers, and
also by sober-minded people in general,
seriously apprehensive, in those inflammable
times, of anything which might throw ridi
cule on the Crown. One of the coarsest
and most powerful, and which is said to
have given especial offence at head-quarters,
is that which represents Queen Charlotte as
Milton’s Sin, between Pitt as Death and
Thurlow as the Devil. Others, of less
virulence, such as ‘ Affability,’ or the King
and the Ploughman ; the ‘ Lesson in Apple
Dumplings ; ’ the conjugal breakfast scene,
where George is toasting muffins, and Char
lotte frying sprats; the ‘ Anti-Saccharites,’
where the Royal pair are endeavouring to
coax the reluctant princesses (charming
figures) to take their tea without sugar, —
these, and numbers more, held up the Royal
�IN LITERATURE AND ART.
567
peculiarities, especially the alleged stingi wild and extravagant now grew on him.
ness of the Court, in a manner in which the Doubtless it was sharpened by the effect on
usual coarseness of the execution rather his brain of constant potations, which grad
tended to heighten the exceeding force and ually brought on delirium tremens. His
latest art-debauches — if such we may term
humour of the satire.
But when this country became seriously them — have often a touch of phantasma
involved in hostilities with France, repub goric-pictorial nightmare, like those of Callot,
lican, and afterwards imperial, a change Teniers, and Hollenbreughel. His last draw
came over the spirit of Gillray’s satire. ing is preserved in the British Museum, exe
Thenceforth he gradually ceased his at cuted when he was quite out of his mind — a
tacks, not only on the Royal family, but on madman’s attempt at a portrait, said to be
domestic objects of raillery in general, and that of Mr. Humphreys, the printseller. He
applied himself almost exclusively to sharp died in 1815 ; and the inscription 4 Here lies
ening the national spirit of hostility against James Gillray, the caricaturist,’ marks, or
the foreign enemy. His caricatures against lately marked, the spot of his interment in
the French are those by which he is best the Broadway, Westminster. His works,
known, especially abroad, and occupy the once so popular, had fallen so much in
greatest space in his works. This was, no fashion a few years ago that the plates were
doubt, the popular line to take, and Gillray about to be sold for old copper, when they
worked for money; but it would be doing were rescued by Mr. J. H. Bohn, the pub
great injustice to the poor caricaturist’s lisher, who gave to the public those now
memory to suppose that money was his well-known re-impressions which have pro
main object. The son of the old pensioner cured for the artist a new' lease of fame.
Gillray was the Rubens of caricature, and
was full of the popular instincts of his class.
It was not the French revolution or con the comparison is really one which does no
quests that he opposed; it was the French injustice to the inspired Fleming. The life
themselves, whom he hated with all the ve like realism of the Englishman’s boldlyhemence of a Nelson or a Windham. rounded, muscular figures, and the strong
These later compositions of his are, indeed, expression communicated to them by a few
marvellous performances. But they are so strokes of the pencil, are such as Antwerp
rather from the intensity of imaginative fu in all her pride might not disdain. Any
ry with which they are animated, than from one who has studied some of Rubens’s
crowds of nude figures which approach
the ordinary qualities of the caricaturist.
They are comparatively destitute of his nearest to the order of caricature — his
old humour and fun. Not that he had out sketches of the4 Last Judgment,’for instance,
grown these. His few domestic caricatures in the Munich Gallery —■ will appreciate the
are still full of them; such are those on justice of the parallel. Gillray was undoubt
4 All the Talents ’ (1806), one of which, the edly coarse to excess, both in conception
4 Funeral of Baron Broadbottom,’ is among and execution ; so much so, as to render his
the most comic of all his productions. The last works mere objects of disgust to many ed
survivor of its procession of mourners, the ucated in the gentler modern school. But
late Marquis of Lansdowne, has now been there are also numbers of a taste more re
dead for some years ; the features of the re fined than catholic, who disclaim all admira
mainder are quite unfamiliar to this genera tion for Rubens on the very same grounds.
tion ; and yet it is scarcely possible to look And one quality Gillray possessed which
at it even now without a smile, such as we was apparently discordant from his ordinary
bestow on the efforts of our cotemporaries character. Many of his delineations of female
Leech or Doyle. But when Gillray tried beauty ■ are singularly successful, and he
his vein on a French subject, he passed at seems to have dwelt on them with special
once from the humourous to the grotesque, pleasure, for the sake of the contrast with
and thence to the hideous and terrible. his usual disfigurements of humanity. His
One of his eccentric powers, amounting heroines are certainly not sylphs, but they
certainly to genius, comes out strongly in often are, like the celestials of Rubens, un
these later caricatures ; that of bringing to commonly fine women. Let us refer to a
gether an enormous number of faces, dis few well-known instances only ; such as his
torted into every variety of grimace, and representations of Mrs. Fitzherbert at her
yet preserving a wonderfully human ex best time, notwithstanding the. prominence
pression. We would signalise particularly of the aquiline feature, which it was his
two, one almost tragical, thh 4 Apotheosis of business to enhance ; of George III.’s daugh
Hoche;’ one farcical, the ‘Westminster ters in the 4 Anti-Saccharites,’ and other
Election’ (1804). The tendency to the prints; the Duchess of Richmond as the
�..
568
1
A HISTORY OF CARICATURE AND GROTESQUE
‘ Height of Fashion; ’ the charming seated
figure entitled ‘ Modern Elegance,’ 1795
(said to be Lady Charlotte Campbell, but
is it not an older person ?), in which, though
the costume is playfully exaggerated, the
features are finely drawn; the beauty (evi
dently a portrait also) who is reading Monk
Lewis’s ‘Tales of Wonder’ to a' bevy of
I very homely gossips (1802); and even the
I common ball-room figures, in ‘ A Broad
1
1'Hint of not meaning to Dance’ (1804), in
which, however, the design is Brownlow
North’s.
Still, we fear that Gillray must be gener
ally comprehended in the somewhat auda
cious assertion of M. Champfleury, that
‘satirists, from Moliere down to Prudhon,
only recognise two conditions for women —
those of courtezan and housewife.’ It will
be seen that several of our instances are
taken from what may be termed social,
in contradistinction to political, caricatures,
many of which are quite equally worthy of
the master, although not those on which his
popularity mainly rests. They are often of
a libellous boldness, inconceivable now-adays, and equally so in earlier times; for
the generation to which Gillray belonged
stood out in bad pre-eminence among all
others in English domestic history in respect
of this particular kind of coarseness — a
generation which could see exposed in the
shop-windows such shameless pictorial sa
tires as those directed against Lady Arch
er, and other dames of gambling celebrity;
or the representation of the dashing daugh,
ters of a countess as the ‘ Three Graces in
a High Wind; ’ or of a titled beauty nurs
ing her infant in a ball-dress, as the ‘ Fash
ionable Mamma; ’ or of Lady Cecilia John
ston, an inoffensive lady, of unobtrusive
style as well as character, against whom it
is said the artist had conceived some grudge,
which induced him spitefully to represent
her in all manner of ludicrous situations.
Others of this class, it may be added, related
to darker scandals behind the scenes, and
may not now be met with in the ordinary
collections of Gillray’s works, though they
excited little comment, and no disgust, in
his day. To pass again, for one moment
only, from Gillray’s merit as an artist,
to his specialty as a caricaturist; his strong
i power of seizing likenesses, and giving them
! a ludicrous expression, was, no doubt, the
1 chief element of his popularity. In this he
surpassed all his predecessors, though he has
been equalled by one or two of his succes
sors. But in one bye-quality we are in
clined to think him unrivalled: the faculty
of giving by a few touches a kind of double
expression to a countenance; cowardice
underlying bravado; impudence, affected,
modesty. See, as a specimen, the exceedingly comic representation of Addington
and Napoleon, sword in hand, daring each
other to cross the Channel which flows
between them. A single figure of Burke
as an ‘Uniform Whig’ (1791), admirably
drawn in other respects, conveys much
of this mingled meaning, though not quite
so easily decipherable. The sage is lean
ing against a statue of George III.; he
holds in one hand Burke’s ‘ Thoughts on
the Revolution,’ in the other a cap of liber
ty ; the motto, ‘ I preserve my consistency,
by varying my means to secure the unity of
my end.’ The caricaturist’s experience
had attained for once to ‘something like
prophetic strain.’ His facility of execution
was wonderful. It must, no doubt, be
added, as a natural qualification of such
praise, that his drawing is often incorrect
and careless in the extreme, even after
all allowance for what we have never seen
fully explained, the vast difference, in point
of excellence, between various copies of
what is apparently the same print. He
is said ‘to have .etched his ideas at once
upon £he copper, without making a previ
ous drawing, his only guides being sketches
of the distinguished characters he intended
to produce, made on small pieces of card,
which he always carried about with him.’
Of Rowlandson (born 1756, died 1827),
Mr. Wright speaks in high terms of praise,
saying that he ‘ doubtlessly stands second to ■
Gillray, and may, in some respects, be con
sidered as his equal.
. He was distin
guished by a remarkable versatility of tal
ent, by a great fecundity of imagination,
and by a skill in grouping quite equal to
that of Gillray, and with a singular ease in
forming his groups of a great variety of
figures. It has been remarked, too, that no
artist ever possessed the power of Rowland
son of expressing so much with so little ef
fort.’ We are sorry that we cannot, for our
own parts, subscribe to these eulogies. As
a political caricaturist — to which line he
resorted as a matter of trade, espousing the
Whig side as others did the Tory — he
seems to us dujl enough. In general sub
jects he succeeded better, yet appears to us
endowed with all Gillray’s coarseness, but
with little of his satirical power and none of
his artistic genius.
James Sayer, cotemporary with these
two as an artist, deserves mention as pos
sessed of a certain amount of original tai-'
ent, though not of a very high order. He
was ‘ a bad draughtsman,’ says Mr. Wright
�IN LITERATURE AND ART.
—- surely too sweeping a criticism — ‘ and
his pictures are produced more by labour
than by skill in drawing, but they possess a
considerable amount of humour.’ His like
nesses, generally produced by a small num
ber of hard and carefully-executed lines,
seem to us of great merit as such, though
wanting in life and energy. He was almost exclusively a political caricaturist,
and, unlike the reckless ^but independent
Gillray, he turned his talents to good ac. count, devoting himself to the cause of Pitt,
who bestowed on him in return the ‘ not
, unlucrative offices of Marshal of the Court
of Exchequer, Receiver of the Sixpenny
Dues, and Cursitor.’ His most famous
production was the well-known ‘ Carlo
' Khan’s Triumphal Entry into Leadenhallstreet’ (on the occasion of Fox’s India Bill,
1783), still common in collections. Butthis
succeeded chiefly because it fell in with the
humour of the time; though the idea is
good, the execution is cold, and it is encum
bered with symbolical accessories, after the
older fashion which we have described.
Among his minor works, an unfinished proof
of Boswell, Mrs. Piozzi, and others of the
Johnsonian clique, with the ghost of the
Doctor himself scowling at them from
above, exhibits a good deal of his peculiar
laborious talent.
Our catalogue of cotemporaries would
hardly be complete without including in it
the clever and goodhumoured amateur
Henry Bunbury, though no dabbler in
State affairs, like jGillray and Sayer. Bunbury had (as Mr. Wright says) ‘ little taste
for political caricature, and seldom meddled
with it. He preferred scenes of social life
and humourous incidents of cotemporary
manners, fashionable or popular.’ It may
be added that he does not seem to have
often inserted portraits in his .pieces. He
was rather the forerunner of the modern
French ' school of grotesque artists ‘ de
genre,’ of whom we shall have a word to
say presently. His drawing, says Mr.
Wright, ‘ was often bold and good, but he
had little skill in etching.’ After some
early essays in that line, “ his designs were
engraved by various persons, and his own
style was sometimes modified in this pro
cess.’ We have ourselyes seen original
drawings by his hand, very superior both in
force and refinement to the coarse style of
the ordinary plates which bear his name.
z Perhaps the best known and most ludicrous
t of his compositions are his illustrations of
‘ Geoffry Gambado’s Art of Horsemanship.’
Bunbury was brother to the baronet who
married Lady Sarah Lennox, and himself
569
husband of one of Goldsmith’s’ favourite
Miss Hornecks. He died in 1811, the date
of his last work, ‘ A Barber’s Shop in Assize
Time,’ engraved by Gillray.
Passing over Isaac Cruikshank — a very
prolific artist of the same period with Gill
ray, of whom he was a pretty close imitator
— we arrive at his illustrious son George,
who still survives to connect our era with
the last. He is now almost forgotten as a
political caricaturist, in which line he em
barked, fifty years ago, under the auspices
of his father, but soon abandoned it to
achieve his peculiar andaunique celebrity as
an etcher of small figures, chiefly in the
way of illustrations to letterpress, in which
humour and the most exquisite appreciation
of the ludicrous alternate with beauty and
pathos of no common order. ‘ The ambi
tion of George Cruikshank,’ says Mr.
Wright, ‘ was to draw what Hogarth called
moral comedies, pictures of society through
a series of acts and scenes, always pointed
with some great moral; and it must be con
fessed that he has, through a long career,
succeeded admirably.’ Every one is aware
of the zeal with which the amiable artist
has devoted himself to promote the public
good by this employment of his brain, of
which an amusing illustration is furnished
by the current story — for the truth of
which, however, we will by no means vouch
— that he insisted on formally presenting
his ‘Drunkard’s Progress’ to her Majesty!
And yet, to our taste, George Cruikshank’s
most ambitious attempts in this line are
scarcely equal to the trifling productions
which he has now and then thrown off in
mere exuberance of genius and animal
spirits. The first edition of a little book,
entitled ‘ German Popular Stories,’ which
appeared in 1834 (the letterpress was by
the late Mr. Jardine), contains, on the mi
nutest possible scale, some of the most per-1feet gems, both of humour and gracefulness,
which are anywhere to be found. The
reader need only cast his eye on ‘ Cherry,
or the Frog-Bride ; ’ the ‘ Tailor and the
Bear-; ’ ‘ Rumpelstiltskin,’ and the inimi
table procession of country folks jumping
into the lake after the supposed flocks of
sheep in ‘ Pee-wit,’ to learn how much of fun,
and grotesque, and elegance of figures also,
and beauty of landscape, may be conveyed
in how few lines.
The history of English caricature of the
Georgian era would be incomplete without
a notice of the various printsellers who
supplied the material to the public, and
whose shop-windows furnished, not so many
years ago, favourite stages or stations, as it
�570
A HISTORY OF CARICATURE AND
were, for the wandering Cockney, on his
peregrinations between East and West; and
with this Mr. Wright has accordingly fur
nished us. Perhaps the most celebrated
were Humphreys, of New Bond-street and
Piccadilly (whom, however, Mr. Wright
does not mention), and Fores.
‘ S. W. Fores dwelt first at No 3, Piccadilly,
but afterwards establishe i himself at No. 50, the
corner of Sackville Street, where the name still
remains. Fores seems to have been most fertile
in ingenious expedients for the extension of his
business. He formed a sort of library of cari
catures, and other prints, and charged for ad
mission to look at them; and he afterwards adopt
ed a system of lending them out in portfolios for
evening parties, at which these portfolios of car
icatures became a very fashionable amusement
in the latter part of the last century. At times
some remarkable curiosity was employed to add
to the attractions of his shop. Thus, on carica
tures published in 1790, we find the statement
that “ In Fores Caricature Museum is the completest collection in the kingdom. Also the
Head and Hand of Count Struenzee. Admit
tance, one shilling.” Caricatures against the
French revolutionists, published in 1793, bear
imprints stating that they were “ published by
S. W. Fores, No. 3 ,Piccadilly, where may be
seen a Complete Model of the Guillotine. Ad
mittance, one shilling.” In some this model is
said to be six feet high.’
Mr. Wright closes his list with George
Cruikshank, as the last representative of
the great school of caricaturists formed in
the reign of George HI. But there is anoth
er, still living among us, whose experience
as an artist goes very nearly back to that
reign, and who may be in the most literal
sense called the last of the political caricatu
rists as he is considered by many the best —
Mr. Doyle, the world-famous H.B. of the
past generation. Those who belonged to it
can well remember the height of popularity
which his lithographed sketches achieved,
the little blockades before the shop-windows
in St. James’s-street and the Flaymarket
whenever a new one appeared, and the con
venient topic of conversation which it was
sure to afford to men of the clubs, when meet
ing each other on the pavement. For it was
to critics of this class that H.B. particularly
addressed himself. His productions wanted
the popular vigour of those of Gillray and his
school. But it is to Mr. Doyle’s high honour
that they were also entirely free from the
scandalous coarseness of his predecessors, and
that he showed the English public how the
purposes of political satire could be fully se
cured without departing a hand’s breadth
from the dignity of the artist or the charac
GROTESQUE
ter of the gentleman. As a delineator of
figures, we cannot esteem him very success
ful. They run too much into the long and
lanky; portions of the outline, the extremities
in particular, are often almost effeminate in
their refinement: when he attempts a really
broad, bluff personage, he is apt to produce
the effect of a fine gentleman masquerading
as a Falstaff. But it was in the likeness of
his portraits, and their expression, that his
chief and singular merit consisted. And in
these, again, his success was extremely va
rious. His fortune, in a professional sense,
may be said to have been made by three
faces — those of the Duke of Wellington,
King William IV., and Lord Brougham.
The provoking, sly no-meaning, establishing
itself on the iron mask of the first; the goodhumoured, embarrassed expression of the
second; the infinite variety of grotesque
fancies conveyed in the contorted features
of the third ; these were reproduced, week
after week, for years, with a variety and
fertility perfectly astonishing. In other
cases he never could succeed in hitting off
even a tolerable likeness : of his hundred or
so representations of the late Sir Robert
Peel, we do not recollect one which conveys
to us any real remembrance of the original.
The Peel of caricaturists in general, not
only of H.B.,was a conventional person
age ; .as is, though in a less marked degree,
the Gladstone of our present popular artists.
Still more remarkable was the failure of
H.B., in common with his predecessors, in
catching the likeness of Gtsorge IV. In all
the countless burlesque representations of
that personage, from the handsome youth of
1780 to the puffy veteran of 1827, there are
scarcely any which present a tolerable re
semblance.
The courtly Lawrence suc
ceed in portraying him well enough ; the
caricaturists, usually so happy, never. H.
B.’s published sketches amount to some nine
hundred, and afford a capital key to the
cabinet and parliamentary history of Eng
land, from the Ministry of Wellington to
the end of Lord Melbourne’s. While num
bers of them *o credit to the artist’s politi
d
cal sagacity as well as his skill, we cannot
forbear to notice one which, to our present
notions, illustrates the ‘ nescia mens hominum fati sortisque futurse ’ — produced
when the Tories, to whom H.B. appertain
ed with all his heart, anticipated the tri
umphs of French over English diplomacy
under the conduct of our then Foreign Sec
retary : it is No. 171 in the series, ‘The
Lame leading the Blind: ’ Lord Palmers
ton, guided into a ditch by Talleyrand.
With the renowned H. B. the line of regu-
�IN LITERATURE AND ART.
lar British caricaturists closes. The taste of
the nation has sought another direction. But
do not let us be misunderstood. The spir
it of the' art survives, and will do so as long
as England is a free country and Englishmen
retain a sense of the ludicrous ; but its form
is so completely changed, by the substitu
tion of the cheap illustrated newspaper for
the comparatively expensive broad-sheet of
the last century, that a more convenient
moment could not be found, for closing the
old chapter in artistic history and beginning
a new one, than that in. which Doyle ceas
ed his labours and the ‘ Punch ’ school of
satirists began theirs. The very distinct
mode of treatment which the small size of
the modern comic newspaper, compared
with the old sheet, necessarily requires,
combines with other causes of difference to
render this new school something quite apart
from the old one. Its success must needs be
obtained more through skill in the delinea
tion of individual faces, and compactness of
wit in the 1 motive ’ of the composition, than
through breadth of treatment, or (generally
speaking) through talent for grouping. In
the delineation of faces, however, and es
pecially in portrait, which is the specialty
of political caricature, the designers with
whom we are now dealing have an immense
advantage over those of former times, in
being able to use the results of the art of
photography. Photographs of faces and fig
ures, always at hand, are a very superior
class of auxiliaries to those hasty ‘ drawings
on bits of card ’ with which Gillray was wont
to content himself. The popularity which
our present favourites have earned is prob
ably more real, certainly much more exten
sive, than that gained by their most success
ful predecessors, from Hogarth to Cruik-1
shank : with whose names that of Leech, so
lately lost to us, and of his living associates
and rivals, of whom we need only name
Doyle the younger and John Tenniel as
specimens, will assuredly find their places
in the future annals of art. But, arrived at
this turning point, we must take farewell of
our subject, devoting only a few pages more
to the cotemporary history of modern
French caricature, on which Mr. Wright
(to our regret) does not enter. We had
hoped to derive considerable assistance
for this purpose from a new publication
of our friend M. Champfleury, entitled
‘ Histoire de la Caricature Moderne,’ which
has just fallen into our hands ; but although
the title is thus comprehensive, the contents
reduce themselves to a few lively pages of
panegyric on two or three recent artists,
which seem to be diotated’in great measure
by personal feelings.
I
571
The general subject can be nowhere so
well studied in a summary way as in the two
volumes of M. Jaime (‘ Musee de la Carica
ture’), with very fairly executed illustra
tions, to which we can only apply the an
cient reproach, ‘ tantamne rem tarn negligenter; ’ for M. Jaime has but treated' the
matter in a perfunctory way, as if afraid
of dwelling too much on it. It has not,
however, the interest which attaches either
to the coarser but bolder style of art inaug
urated by the Germans in the sixteenth cen
tury, or to that which prevailed in the great
English age of political caricature. Callot
was indeed aJFrenchman, by race at least,
though born in Lorraine, then independ
ent ; but his associations were more with
the school of the Netherlands than that of
France. Nor had he any followers of note
in the latter country. The jealous wake
fulness of French government, and the cold
and measured style which French art de
rived from a close addiction to supposed
classical models, were both alike unfavoura
ble to the development of the artistic empire
of ‘ Laughter, holding both his sides.’
French artists of the eighteenth century for
the most part touched ludicrous subjects in
a decorous and timid way, as if ashamed of
them. As the literature of theEeountry is
said to abound in wit, while it is poor in hu
mour, so its pictorial talent found vent rath
er in the neat and effective K tableau de
genrejlthan in the irregularity of the gro
tesque ; or, to employ another simile, French
cbmic art was to English as the genteel
comedy to the screaming farce. And the
same was the case (to treat the subject
briefly) with that of other nations over
which France exercised predominant influ
ence. Chodowiecki was the popular Ger
man engraver of domesti(?fecenes in the last
century, and his copper-plates have great
delicacy of execution and considerable pow
er of expression. He was in high vogue
for the purpose of illustrating with cuts the
novels and the poetry of the great age of
German literature, and his productions are
extraordinarily numerous. But he habitu
ally shrank from the grotesque. His ad
mirers styled him the German Hogarth — a
comparison which he, we are told, rejected
with some indignation, and which Hogarth,
could he have known it, would certainly
have rejected likewise; for Chodowiecki,
with all his other merits, very seldom ap
proaches the ludicrous, and never soars to
the height or descends to the depth of cari
cature.
The unbounded licence of the first French
Revolution, and the strange mixture of the
burlesque with the terrible which attended
�572
A HISTORY OF CARICATURE AND
its progress, gave of course for some years
the most favourable opportunities possible
for the exercise of pictorial wit, so far as the
nation possessed it. There can be no great
er treat to one who loves to tread the by
ways of history, often the shortest cuts to
truth, than to turn over the series of those
magnificent volumes in the Imperial Libra
ry of Paris, in which the whole pictorial an
nals of the last century or so in France are
preserved; everything arranged as nearly
as may be in order of date, and not of sub
jects : portraits, festal shows and triumphs,
processions, battles, riots, great events, rep
resented under every form down to the
rough newspaper woodcut and street carica
ture, unrolling in one vast phantasmagoria
before the eye. We have much that is val
uable and useful in our Museum, but noth
ing, in the matter of historical art, compara
ble to this collection. An inadequate idea
of it only can be formed from the miscella
neous contents of the well-known three fo
lio volumes of prints, entitled ‘ Tableaux de
la Revolution Francaise.’ The earlier part
of the caricatures of that age are the most
humourous and also the best executed. As
the tragedy deepened, fun became more
and more out of place; and the satirists who
had seen its outbreak having most of them
lost their heads or fled the country, the
business fell into the hands of more vulgar
workmen. One of the first (1788) may be
mentioned, not so much for its execution,
which is tame enough, as because it is (as
far as we know) the real original of a piece
of wit which has since made its fortune in
every language, and been falsely attributed
to many facetious celebrities. Calonne, as a
monkey, has assembled his 1 notables,’ a flock.
of barn-door fowl. ‘ Mes chers administres,
je vous ai rassembles pour savoir a quelle
sauce vous voulez etre manges.’ ‘Maisnous
ne voulons pas etre manges du tout.’ ‘ Vous
vous ecartez de la question.’
But French art, as we have seen, refined
and softened into effeminacy under the class
civilization of the ancien regime, and ren
dered prudish also by its adherence to classi
cal models, had its decorum soon shocked by
too coarse intermixture of the grotesque. In
deed, the reason often given by Frenchmen
of the last generation for the acknowledged
inferiority of their caricatures to ours, was the
superiority of French taste, which could not
accommodate itselfto ‘ignoble’ exaggeration.
On the whole, therefore, those of the revo-<
lutionary series of which we have been
speaking are more interesting, historically,
and also from the keen wit of ten developed
in them, than from their execution. There
GROTESQUE
is no French Gillray or Rowlandson. Here
and there, however, among a multitude of
inferior performances, the eye is struck by
one really remarkable as a work of a higher
order than our English cotemporary series
could furnish. Such is the famous ‘ Arresta-'
tion du Roi d Varennes,’ 1791. The wellknown features of the Royal party, seated
at supper with lights, are brought out with
a force worthy of Rembrandt, and with
slight but marked caricature; while the
fierce, excited patriotic figures, closing in on
them from every side, have a vigour which
is really terrific. Another, in a different
style, is the ‘ Interieur d’un Comite Revolutionnaire,’ 1793. It is said, indeed, to have
been designed by a first-rate artist, Fragonai’S, one who doubtless wrought with a will,
for he had prostituted his very considerable
talents to please the luxurious profligacy of
the last days of the ancient regime, and the
stern Revolution had stopped his trade, an
nihilated his effeminate customers, and re
duced him to poverty. Fragonard’s powers
as a caricaturist are characterised by a wellknown anecdote. He was employed in
painting Mademoiselle Guimard, the famous
dancer, as Terpsichore; but the lady quar
relled with him, and engaged another to
complete the work. The irritated painter got
access to the picture, and with three or four
strokes of his brush turned the face of Terp
sichore into that of a fury. The print now
in question is a copper-plate, executed with
exceeding delicacy of touch. A dozen fig
ures of men of the people, in revolutionary
costume, are assembled round a long table in
a dilapidated hall of some public building.
A young ‘ ci-devant,’ his wife and child, are
introduced through an open door by an ush
er armed with a pike. If the artist’s inten
tion was to produce effect by the contrast of
these three graceful figures with the vulgar
types of the rest of the party, he has suc
ceeded admirably. They are humbly pre
senting their papers for examination ; but it
is pretty clear that the estimable commit
teeman, to whom the noble is handing his
passport, cannot read it. The cunning,
quiet, lawyer-like secretary of the commit
tee, pen in hand, is evidently doing all its
work. At the opposite end of the table an
excited member is addressing to the walls
what must be an harangue of high elo
quence ; but no one is listening to him, and
the two personages immediately behind him
are evidently determined to hear no noise
but their.own. But our favourite figure —
and one well worthy of Hogarth — is that of
the sentinel off duty: he is seated beside a
bottle, pike in hand, enjoying his long pipe,
�iwinM i^i i
IN LITERATURE AND ART.
573
and evidently, from the expression of his tember. It had a brief and feverish revi
face, far advanced from the excited into the val under the Republic of 1848 ; some of
meditative stage of convivial patriotism. A its productions in that period are worth a
placard on the door announces, somewhat moment’s notice, both from their execution
contradictorily as well as ungrammatically, and good humour: we remember two
‘ Ici on se tutoyent: fermez la porte s’il vous of the class of general interest; the 1 Ap
plait! ’ Altogether there is much more of parition du Serpent de Mer,’ a boat full of
the comic than the ferocious about the pa kings, startled by the appearance of the new
triots ; and one may hope that the trembling Republic as the problematical monster of
family, for whom it is impossible not to feel the deep ; and the ‘ Ecole de Natation,’ in
an interest, will this time be ‘ quittespourla which the various Kings and Emperors.of
peur.’
Europe are floundering in a ludicrous, variThe popular governments — Revolutiona ety of attitudes among the billows of revo
ry and of the First Empire — easily tamed lution, while the female rulers of Britain,
the spirit of caricature, as they did that of Spain, and Portugal are kept afloat by their
more dangerous enemies, and it only revived crinolines. But under the decorous rule of
when France was replaced under the. tyran the Empire, no such violation of the re
ny of legitimacy. There is a great deal of spect due to constituted authorities at home
merit in those on the Bonapartist side, of is any longer tolerate^, while ridicule,
1814 and 1815 ; many of them appear to be even of foreign potentates, is permitted
executed by some one clever artist, to us un only under polite restrictions. Debarred
known. We will only notice one of them,' from this mode of expressing itself, French
the ‘Voeu d’un Royaliste, ou la seconde en gaiety finds one of its principal outlets, in
tree triomphante.’ Louis XVIII. is mounted the more innocent shape of social carica
behind a Cossack — the horse and man are ture, which was never so popular, or culti
admirably drawn—while the poor King’s vated by artists of so much eminence, as
expression, between terror and a sense’ of within the last thirty years. And here we
the ludicrous of his position, is worthy of the must notice a singular change in French
best efforts of Gillray or Doyle.
workmanship, which appears to us to have
Caricature continued to be a keen party been occasioned chiefly or wholly by the
weapon in France through the period of introduction of lithography. We have al
the Restoration, and in the early years of ready observed how much difficulty its art
Louis Philippe. The latter monarch’s head ists found in departing from the rules of
especially, under the resemblance of a pear, classical outline and correct drawing, so
which Nature had rendered appropriate, long as the old-fashioned line engraving
was popularised in a thousand ludicrous or prevailed, and the consequent inferiority of
ignominious representations; his Gillray French to English caricature in breadth,
was Honore Daumier, a special friend and its superiority in congjlmess. The intro
favourite of M. Champfleury, but in whom duction and great popularity of lithography
we are unable ourselves to recognize more in'France seems to have altogether changed
than secondary merit. ‘ Entre tous, Dau the popular taste. Artists now dash off,
mier fut celui qui accommoda la poire aux rather than embody, their humorous con
sauces les plus diverses. Le roi avait une ceptions in the sketchiesLof all possible
honnete physionomie, large et etouffee. styles, and that which affords the greatest
La caricature, par l’exageration des lignes licence for grotesque distortions of figure \
du masque, par les differents sentimens and face. Boilly, a clever and fertile lithog
qu’elle preta a l’homme au toupet, le ren- rapher, was perhaps the first to bring
dit typique, et laissa un ineffa?able relief. this style of composition into vogue. But
Les adversaires sont utiles. En politique, to such an extent has the revolution now
un ennemi v.aut souvent mieux qu’un ami.’ gone, while we, on the other hand, have
The genius of Daumier had some analogy been pruning the luxuriance of the old
with that of the sculptor-caricaturist Dan- genius of caricature, that the positions of
tan.
the two countries seem to have become re
But, the liberty of art, like that of the versed, and England to be now the country
Tribune, degenerated into licence, and of classic, France of grotesque art; in the
France has never been able in her long age comic line of which any reader may judge
of State tempests to maintain the line be for himself, by comparing the style of the
tween the two. Political caricature was cuts in ‘ Punch,’, for instance, with those in
once more extinguished in the Orleans the ‘ Charivari.’ We cannot say that we
reign, with the applause of decent people find the change on the other side of the
in general, by the so-called laws of Sep- Channel an improvement, or that we have
�I
574
/
A HISTORY OF CARICATURE AND GROTESQUE.
been enabled to acquire a taste for the
hasty lithographed caricatures of popular
figures and scenes which encumber French
print-shops. The works of Bunbury, among
English artists of this kind of renown, per
haps most nearly approach them ; but these,
rough though they are, have, at all events,
a body and substance, and consequently a
vigour, which their Gallic successors appear
to us to lack, and which they endeavour too
often to supply by loose exaggeration.
However, it is idle to set up our own canons
of taste in opposition to that of a nation,
and a foreign nation into the bargain ; and
we may do our readers more service by
giving them a few short notices of the
leading artists who have risen to popular
ity in modern France by this style of com
position.
Nicolas Toussaint Charlet had an educa, tion and parentage somewhat like those of
our Gillray; born in 1792, the son of an
old dragoon of Sambre-et-Meuse, he began
his career in a not very noble occupation,
being employed in the office where military
recruits were registered and measured: and
it was in that function, possibly, that he
picked up and stored in his memory those
thousand types of grotesque young con
scripts and old grognards, ‘ enfants de
troupe,’ ‘ tourlourous,’ and ‘ gamins,’ with
which he filled the shop-windows while
amusing the multitude with their darling
‘ scenes populaires.’ He was not exactly a
caricaturist in the peculiar sense which we
have given to the word, but an artist‘de
genre; ’ in his own peculiar line few have
surpassed him. It must be noticed that his
sturdy Bonapartism evinced itself in some
ambitious attempts at more serious compo•sitions ; one of which, ‘ La Garde meurt et
ne se rend pas,’ established his fame in 1816,
while an ‘ Episode de la Campagne de
Russie ’ (1836) is ranked at the head of his
works by some of his admirers. But for
our part, we greatly prefer the exquisite
naivete, though without much of the Eng
lish vigour, which characterises some of his
popular scenes; such — to quote one among
a thousand — as that in which a peasant,
looking down with the utmost gravity on a
comrade who is lying in the road, helplessly
drunk, exclaims, ‘ Voilh pourtant comme je
serai dimanche ! ’ Charlet, who died in
1845, left some two thousand lithographed
designs, besides numerous water-colours and
etchings.
Paul Chevalier Gavarni, born in 1801,
ranks at the head of the living caricaturists
of France, unless the Vicomte Amedee de
Noe (under his nom de plume, or rather de
crayon, of ‘ Cham,’ Ham the son of Noah) be
supposed to contest with him that eminence.
The journal ‘ Les Gens du Monde ’ (1835),
and subsequently the ‘Charivari,’ owed to
him the greater part of tlaeir celebrity. If not
equal to Charlet in the ‘ naif’ and simply
popular style, Gavarni excels him in satiri
cal force and in variety. Twenty-five
years hence (says Theophile Gautier) ‘ it is
through Gavarni that the workhwill know
of the existence of Duchesses of the Rue
du Helder, of Lorettes, students, and so
forth.’ Gavarni visited England in 1849,
where, according to his biographer M. de
Lacaze (in the ‘ Nouvelle Biographie Ge
nerale ’), he took so profound a dislike to our
English aristocratic social system (it was
the year, be it remembered, in which the
doctrine ‘la propriete c’est- le vol,’ took
some short hold on Parisian spirits), that
he fell into a fit of‘le spleen,’ became
misanthrophic, and produced nothing fora
long time but sketches of ‘ gin-shop frequent
ers, thieves, street-sweepers, Irishmen, and
the beggars of St. Giles’s and Whitechapel;’
but we are happy to learn, from the same
authority, that he soon recovered his gaiety
in the less oppresive atmosphere of Paris.
His ‘ CEuvres Choisies’ were published as
long ago as 1845, in four volumes. ‘ Deja,’
says Champfleury, ‘ son oeuvre est curieuse
h consulter comme l’expression d’un peintre
de moeurs epris d’ideal elegant dans une
epoque bourgeoise.’
Completing these brief notices of modern
French caricaturists with the mere mention,
of the great artist Gustave Dore, who has
lately condescended to some clever extrava
gances allied to caricature, and of that ec
centric novelty Griset,.we must now con
*
clude our hasty retrospect of the art in
general. The institution of the ‘ comic
illustrated newspaper ’ has now made the
tour of the world ; the United States fur
nish abundant specimens; Germany and
Italy toil manfully in the wake of France and
England; we have even seen political carica
tures from Rio de Janeiro nearly as good as
the ordinary productions of either. But it
is impossible to follow a subject so greatly
widening in its dimensions; and as cheap
ness of execution, while it extends the
popularity of this class of compositions,
diminishes the labour expended on them,
we have not to expect for the future either
productions of so much interest, or artists
of such celebrity, as some of those dealt
with in this article.
�575
REST FOR THE WEARY.
I
,arest for the weary.
“ TRere remaineth therefore a rest to the people of
God/’— Heb. iv. 9.
Dear the storm-won calm of autumn
Brooding o’er the quiet lea;
Sweet the distant harp-like murmur
Trembling from the charmed sea.
Nestling breezes clog the branches;
Leaves lie swooning on the air;
Nature’s myriad hands are folding
O’er her gentle heart, for prayer.
Make the lean grave sleek with treasn
Whilst they, weary, take their rest.
Dead they are not; only sleeping,
Dull although their senses be,
Yet they for the summons listen,
Calling to eternity.
Brothers, sleeping in the Saviour,
Sound their dreamless sleep and ble
But we trust, when this is broken,
There remaineth still a rest !
New-born on the lap of silence,
Cradled on a hoary tomb,
Lo 1 babe evening craves a blessing
As the day forsakes the gloom;
As one lingering sunbeam flushes
The grey spire to golden red,
And the motto “ peace ” is blazoned
Glorious o’er the resting dead.
Peace be to the shapeless ashes,
Perfect once in valour’s mould;
Once on fire for truth and duty,
Now without a spark, and cold..
Smiting was the hero smitten,
Swordless hands now cross his breast;
Share we his mute supplication ;
Weary, may the soldier rest!
Peace to him who braved the tempest,
Polar ice, and tropic wave;
Long the homeless sea who traversed,
Then came home to find a grave !
In this calmest roadstead anchored,
May no more the sailor rove,
Till he lose himself for ever
“ In the ocean of God’s love! ”
Peace to him, the tried and saintly;
Wise to counsel, apt to cheer;
With a sober smile for gladness,
With a hope for every tear.
Earth lies lightly on his bosom,
Faith bedecks his priestly tomb
With the sacred flowers that symbol
Life, and light, and deathless bloom.
Peace to him who bears no legend
Carved above his lowly bed,
Save that he was found, unsheltered
From the storm and winter, dead.
Peace to him, that unknown brother,
Quit of want, and woe, and shame;
Trust we that the nameless stranger
Bears in heaven a filial name 1
From the four winds assembled,
Kindred in the fate to die ;
Eld and infant, alien, homebred,
Neighbours now, how calm they lie!
Valour, beauty, learning, goodness,
With the weight of life opprest,
THE BITTER AND THE SWEET.
Come, darling Effie,
Come, take the cup:
Effie must drink it all —
Drink it all up.x
/
Darling, I know it is
Bitter and bad;
But ’twill make Effie dear .
Rosy and glad.
Mother would take it all
For her wee elf— ,
But who would suffer then?
Effie herself.
If Effie drinks it,
Then, I can tell,
She will go out to play
Merry and well.
' Drink, and then, darling,
You shall have this, —
Sweet after bitter:
Now, first, a kiss.
Ah, darling Effie,
God also knows,
When cups of bitterness
His hand bestows,
1
How His poor children need
Urging to take
Merciful draughts of pain,
Mixed for their sake.
He, too, gives tenderly
Joy after pain,
Sweet after bitterness,
After loss gain.
— Sunday Magazine.
I,
�WERE WOLVES.
From the Spectator.
WERE *
WOLVES.
. A i >; i
In this remarkable little book, remarkable
for a power its external aspect does not
promise and an interest its name will not
create, Mr. Baring-Gould, an author known
hitherto chiefly by his researches in North
ern literature, investigates a belief, once
general in Europe, and even now enter
tained by the majority of the uneducated
class. In widely separated places, and
among races the most distinct, a belief has
been traced in the existence of beings who
combine the human and the animal char
acter, who are in fact men changed either
in form or in spirit into beasts of prey. The
belief, though strong still, was strongest in
the Middle Ages, when men were more un
restrained both in their acts and their cre
dulities. In the extreme North it was so
powerful that Norwegians and Icelanders
had a separate name for the transformation,
calling men gifted with the power or afflicted
with the curse men “ not of one skin.” Mr.
Baring-Gould pushes his theory far when
he connects the story of the Berserkir with
the theory of were wolves, the Berserkir be
ing extant to this day in Asia, calling them
selves Ghazis, and keeping up their fury as
the Berserkir probably did, with drugs ; but
all Scandinavia undoubtedly believed that
men had upon occasion changed into ani
mals, and exhibited animal bloodthirstiness
and power. So did the Livonians. So
down to the very end of the sixteenth cen
tury did all Southern Europe, where the
Holy Office made cases of metempsychosis
subject of inquiry and of punishment. The
very victims often believed in their own
guilt. One man in 1598, Jacques Roulet,
of Angers, stated in his confession that
though he did not take a wolf’s form he was
a wolf, and as a wolf committed murders,
chiefly of children. Even now the peasants
in Norway believe as firmly in persons who
can change themselves into wolves as the
peasants in Italy do in the evil eye, the
Danes think persons with joined eye brows
liable to the curse, the people of SchleswigHolstein keep a charm to cure it, the Slo
vaks, Greeks, and Russians have popular
words for the were wolf, and Mr. BaringGould was himself asked at Vienne to as
sist in hunting a loup garou, or wolf who
ought to have been a human being. In In
dia the belief is immovable, more particu
larly in Oude, where the mass of evidence
collected is so extraordinary that it shook
-for a moment the faith of a man so calm as
the Resident, Colonel Sleeman, and induced
him to give currency to a theory that
wolves might suckle and rear the children
of human beings, who thenceforward would
be wolves. Ultimately, we believe, he
abandoned that notion, but not before he
had puzzled all India with his collection of
exceptional facts, and riveted the supersti
tion of the people of Oude.
A belief so universal and so lasting sug
gests some Cause more real than a supersti
tious idea, and Mr. Baring-Gould believes
he has discovered one. He hold^that in
every human being there is some faint
trace of the wild-beast nature, the love of
destruction and of witnessing the endurance
of suffering. Else why do children display
cruelty so constantly, string flies on knitting
pins, and delight in the writhings of any
animal ? In the majority this disposition is
eradicated either by circumstances, by
training, or by the awakening of the great
influence we call sympathy. In a minority
the desire remains intact but latent, liable
to be called out only by extraordinary inci
dents or some upset of the ordinary balance
of their minds. In a few it becomes a pas
sion, a sovereign desire, or even a mania
entitled to be ranked as a form, and an ex
treme form, of mental disease. It was the
latter exhibition which gave rise to the be
lief in the were-wolves, who were, in Mr.
Baring-Gould’s opinion, simply raving mani
acs, whose wildness took the form either of
a desire to murder or of a belief in their own
power of becoming beasts of prey. So late
as 1848 an officer, of the garrison in Paris
was brought to trial on a charge of rifling
graves of their bodies and tearing them to
pieces, and the charge having been proved
on conclusive evidence, his own confession
included, was sentenced to one year’s im
prisonment. He was mad, but had he lived
before madness was understood he would
have been pronounced either a vampire or
a loup garou. Madness miscomprehended
was the cause of the facts which supported
, the monstrous belief, a theory almost de
monstrated by the history of the case of
Jacques Roulet. The extract is long, but
the story is complete:
“ In 1598, a year memorable in the annals of
lycanthropy, a trial took place in Angers, the
details of which are very terrible. In a wild
and unfrequented spot near Caude, some coun
trymen came one day upon the corpse of a boy
of fifteen, horridly mutilated and bespattered
with blood. As the men approached, two
* Were Wolves. By Sabine Baring-Gould. Lon wolves, which had been rending the body,
bounded away into the thicket. The men gave
don : Smith, Elder, and Co.
�7
\
WERE WOLVES.
577
chase immediately, following their bloody tracks
Jacques Roulet would have been found in
till they lost them; when suddenly crouching sane by any modern jury, and there is scarcely
among the bushes, his teeth chattering with in mediaaval literature a case of lycanthropy
fear, they found a man half naked, with long which cannot be explained upon this sim
/
hair and beard, and with his hands dyed in
blood. His nails were long as claws, and ple theory, — the one at last adopted, and
were clotted with fresh gore and shreds of hu in our judgment proved, by Colonel Sleeman flesh. This is one of the most puzzling man in Oude, but a more difficult question
and peculiar cases which come under our no remains behind. Is it quite certain that all
tice. The wretched man, whose name was cases of long-continued and outrageous cruel
Roulet, of his own accord stated that he had ty presuppose madness ? Is cruelty in fact
fallen upon the lad and had killed him by a natural quality, which can be cultivated,
smothering him, and that he had been prevent or an abnormal desire, the result of extreme
ed from devouring the body completely by the and gradual depravation of the passions
arrival of men on the spot. Roulet proved and the reason ? Take the well known case
on investigation to be a beggar from house to of Gilles de Uetz in 1440. If evidence
house, in the most abject state of poverty. His
companions in mendicity were his brother John can prove anything it is certain that this
and his cousin Julien. He had been given man, head of the mighty House of Laval,
lodging out of charity in a neighbouring vil lord of entire counties and of prodigious
lage, but before his apprehension he had been wealth, did throw up a great position in the
absent for eight days. Before the judges, public service to wander from town to
Roulet acknowledged that he was able to trans town and seat to seat kidnapping children,
form himself into a wolf by means of a salve whom he put slowly te death to delight
which his parents had given him. When ques himself with their agonies. He confessed
tioned about the two wolves which had been himself to eight hundred such murders, and
seen leaving the corpse, he said that he knew
perfectly well who they were, for they were his his evidence was confirmed by the relics
companions, Jean and Julien, who possessed found. He was betrayed by his own agents,
the same secret as himself. He was shown the and in the worst age of a cruel cycle his
clothes he had worn on the day of his seizure, crimes excited a burst of horror so profound
and he recognized them immediately; he de that he, a noble of the class which was be
scribed the boy whom he had murdered, gave yond the law, so powerful that he never at
the date correctly, indicated the precise spot tempted to escape, «vas burnt alive. Was he
where the deed had been done, and recognized mad, or only bad beyond all human ex
the father of the boy as the man who had first perience ? Mr. Baring-Gould inclines evi
run up when the screams of the lad had been dently to the former theory, and it is at all
heard. In prison, Roulet behaved like an idiot. events a pleasing one, but it is difficult for I
When seized, his belly was distended and hard;
in prison he drank one evening a whole pailful thinking men to forget that power has in oth
of water, and from that moment refused to eat er instances produced this capacity of cruelty,
or drink. His parents, on inquiry, proved to to refuse credence to all stories of the cruelty
be respectable and pious people, and they proved of Caesars, and Shahs, and West Indian slave
that his brother John and his cousin Julien holders. It is possible, and we hope true,
had been engaged at a distance on the day of that the genuine enjoyment of pain is rare
Roulet’s apprehension. ‘ What is your name, among the sane, though the Roman popu
and what your estate ? ’ asked the judge, Pierre
Herault. — ‘My name is Jacques Roulet, my lace felt something like it, and though we
age thirty-five; I am poor, and a mendicant/ are ever and anon startled by cases of wil
— ‘ What are you accused of having done ? ’ — ful cruelty to animals, but genuine indiffer
‘Of being a thief—of having offended God. ence to it is frequent, and granted the in
My parents gave me an ointment; I do not difference, any motive may give it an ac
know its composition.’—‘When rubbed with tive form. The thirst for domination is the
this ointment, do you become a wolf? ’ — ‘ No • most common impulse, but in well known
but for all that, I killed and ate the child Cor instances jealousy, fear, hatred, religious
nier : I was a wolf.’ — ‘ Were you dressed as a bigotry, and even vanity, have been equal
wolf?’ — ‘I was dressed as I am now. I had
events the passion
my hands and my face bloody, because I had ly efficacious. At all that it is restraina
been eating the flesh of the said child.’ — ‘ Do differs from madness in
your hands and feet become paws of a wolf ? ’_ ble. Hardly one genuine case on a great
‘ Yes, they do.’ — ‘ Does your head become like scale has been recorded in a civilized coun
that of a wolf — your mouth become larger ? ’ — try for many years, and it seems certain
‘ I do not know how my head was at the time; I that the restraints of order prevent it from
used my teeth; my head was as it is to-day. I acquiring its full sway, and that therefore it
have wounded and eaten many other little is rather the depravation of nature than na
children; I have also been to the sabbath.’ ”
ture itself which is its origin. Gilles de
THIRD SERIES. DIVING AGE. VOL. XXXII.
1477.
V
�578
SCIENCE AND MIRACLE.
,Retz is possible, if he were sane, only in a
class which can indulge every impulse with
impunity, and at a time when law is no
longer to be feared. It may be true that he
belonged to the were-wolf genus, the men
afflicted with homicidal mania, but he may
also have belonged to a class now almost as
exceptional, the men in whom unrestricted
power has developed that thirst for testing
it in its highest, its most frequent, and its
most visible form, the infliction of slow
death-agonies upon powerless human beings.
It was, we fear, the madness of a Ceesar
rather than of a were wolf which influenced
Gilles de Betz, and Mr. Baring-Gould
would, we think, have exemplified his theo
ry more perfectly had he excluded stories
which testify not so much to the instability
of human reason as to the depths of evil
lurking in the human heart. He argues in
deed that Gilles de Betz is the link between
the citizen and the were wolf, but then in so
doing he assumes one tremendous datum,
that madness always shows itself in the ex
treme development of the latent heart, and
not in its radical perversion. One of its
■ commonest forms nevertheless is intense
hatred of those whom the patient has most
genuinely and fondly loved, and the bal
ance of probability is that insanity as often
perverts as intensifies the secret instincts of
its victim. Mr. Baring-Gould has, we
■ think, demonstrated that madness misap
prehended was the root of the were-wolf
delusion, but not that homicidal mania is
the ultimate expression of an inherent ten• dency in universal human nature.
From the Spectator.
SCIENCE AND MIRACLE.
Professor huxley, in the remarkable
lecture on “ improving natural knowledge ”
delivered to the working classes at St. Mar
tin’s Hall, and since published in the Fort
nightly Review, states with a candour and
moderation worthy of all praise, certain
notions destructive of all worship, — ex
cept that very impossible kind of worship
recommended by Professor Huxley, worship
■ of the Unknown and Unknowable, — which
have been gaining more and more hold of
■ merely scientific men for many generations,
and which, we need not say, are absolutely
inconsistent with admitting the activity of
: any supernatural will in the Universe, and
.•.still more the actual occurrence of miracle.
Now it is a matter worth a little considera
tion how far men of pure science are trust
worthy on matters of this kind, how far
their evidence is what we should call on
other subjects the evidence of experts, or
not. On a medical subject, we should never.think of adopting absolutely any theory
rejected by a very large and, perhaps in
creasing, number of the most eminent men
in the medical profession. On a historical
subject, we should think it absurd to take
up with a view against which every fresh
historian of learning and eminence began
with clearer and clearer conviction to pro
test. How far, then, even if it be true, as
it possibly may be, that the tendency of
the highest and calmest scientific thought is
increasingly anti-supernatural, can we con
sider this the tendency of a class entitled
to special intellectual deference, or the re
verse ? Mr. Brooke Foss Westcott, in a
very thoughtful volume which he has just
published on the Gospel of the Resurrec
tion” * freely admits that “ a belief in
miracles decreases with the increase of
civilization,” but maintains, amidst other
weaker and less defensible positions, that
the accuracy of comprehensive views of
nature as a whole, is not only not secured,
but may be even specially endangered, by
too special and constant a study of given
parts of nature. “ The requirements,” he
says, “ of exact science bind' the attention
of each student to some one small field,
and this little fragment almost necessarily
becomes, for him the measure of the whole,
if indeed he has ever leisure to lift his eyes
to the whole at all.” And undoubtedly the
man who has been studying, say, for the
sake of a definite example, the chemical
effects of light all his life, and who knows
that every different substance when burnt
yields a different spectrum, so that you may
know by the number and situation of the
dark lines exactly what substance it is that
is burning, might be inclined to look at the
possibility of miracle, and at faith in the
supernatural will, from a narrow point of
view. He will say to himself, ‘If one of
these spectra were suddenly to change its
appearance, if such a dark line vanished,
and such others appeared, should I not
know with a certainty to me infallible, — a
certainty on the absoluteness of which I
should never hesitate to risk my own life
or that of my family, — that some other
element had been introduced into the burn
ing substance ? Could anything persuade
me that the change was due to divine
volition apart from the presence of a new
* Macmillan.
�SCIENCE AND MIRACLE.
'
'
j
■
579
element or new elements in the burning be equivalent to the positive alteration in
substance ? Must not the Almighty him the essence of a mighty whole, as really
self, if He chose to make the change, make astounding in itself as the change which
it by providing the characteristic element could made oxygen burn (that is, oxidize)
for the purpose,—just as if He chose to or two and two equal to five.
alter the moral traits of a human character,
Now this is, we take it, something less
He could only do it by a process that would than conjecture, — indeed demonstrable
alter the character itself, and not by mak scientific error, if science be taken to in
ing a stupid and ignorant man give out all clude anything more than the laws of physi
the characteristic signs of wisdom and cal phenomena. It is probably true indeed
learning, or a malignant and cruel man put that in some sense the physical forces of the
forth all the moral symptoms of warm be- Universe are an invariable quantity, which
nevolence and charity.’ Sb the scientific only alter their forms, and not their sum
man would argue, and we are disposed to total. If I move my arm, the motion, says
think would argue rightly. For, admitting the physiologist, is only the exact equiva
that the physical qualities of things are lent of a certain amount of heat which has
realities at all, we should say that to make disappeared and taken the form of that
the physical qualities of one thing inter motion. If I do not move it, the heat re
change with the physical qualities of an mains for use in some other way. In either
other, without interchanging the things, is, case the stock of force is unchanged. This
if it be logically and morally possible, as is the conviction of almost all scientific
the Transubstantiationists believe and most men, and is probably true. But whether
other men disbelieve, a piece of divine the stock of physical force is constant or
magic or conjuring, and not a miracle. But not, the certainty that human will can
then, do not many great scientific men like change its direction and application — can
Professor Huxley really infer from such transfer it from one channel to another —
trains of reasoning far more than they will is just the same. And what that really
warrant ? All that such reasonings do tend means, if Will be ever free and uncaused,
to show, is, that if you truly conceive the though of course not unconditioned,—
natural constitutions of things, there are which is, we take it, as ultimate arid scienti
changes which you cannot make without fic a certainty as any in the Universe, — is
destroying those very things altogether, no less than this, — that a strictly super
and substituting new ones. As a miracle natural power alters the order and constitu
which should make two and two five is tion of nature, — takes a stock of physical
intrinsically impossible (Mr. Mill and the force lying in a reservoir here and transfers
Saturday Review in anywise notwithstand it to a stream of effort there, — in short,
ing), so also (though less certainly) a mira that the supernatural can change the order
cle which should make oxygen a combusti and constitution of the natural, — in its
ble gas instead of a supporter of combus essence pure miracle, though miracle of hu
tion, and quite certainly a miracle which man, and not of divine origin. For ex
should make it right to do what is known ample, almost every physiologist will admit
to be wrong, or wrong to do what is known the enormous power that pure Will has
to be right, is intrinsically impossible. But over the nervous system, — that it can pro
the modern scientific inference goes much long consciousness and even life itself for
further than this, and immediately extends certain short spaces, by the mere exertion
the conception of these inherent constitu of vehement purpose. Physicians tell you
tions of certain things and qualities to the constantly that such and such a patient
whole Universe, — assuming, for instance, may no doubt, if it be sufficiently impor
that it is just as impossible, just as much tant, by a great effort command his mind
a breach in the inherent constitution of sufficiently to settle his affairs, but that it
some one or more things, for one who has will be at the expense of his animal force,
been dead to live again, for the phenomena — in short, that it will be a free transfer of
of decomposition to be arrested, the heart force from the digestive and so to say vege
once silent to begin to beat, as for oxygen tating part of his system, to that part of
itself to burn without ceasing to be oxygen. his physical constitution, his nervous system,
The way in which this view would *e de which lies closest, as it were, to the will.
b
fended would be that all matter and all its Nay, we have heard physicians say that
qualities are now almost proved to be modes patients, by a great effort of pure will,
of force, and all force indestructible, so have, as they believe, prolonged their own
that any kind of supernatural change in life for a short space, that is, have imparted,
the phenomena of matter would appear to we suppose, through the excitement pro
�580
SCIENCE AND MIRACLE.
duced by the will on the nervous system
and so downwards, a certain slight increase
of capacity to assimilate food to the failing
organic powers of the body. In other
words, we conclude, just as the organism is
failing to draw supplies of physical force
from the outward world, its power of doing
so may be slightly prolonged,—the out
ward world drained of a small amount of
force it would otherwise, have kept in stock,
and the organism compelled to absorb it —
by a pure volition. Can there be a clearer
case of action of the supernatural on the
natural, — even granting that the sum
total of physical force is not altered, but
only its application changed ?
What more do we want to conceive
clearly the room for Christian miracle, than
the application of precisely the same con
ception to God and Christ ? The students
of the Universe appear to us to be in pre
cisely the same condition with regard to
the Universe, as a scientific observing mind
secreted in some part of a human body
(not the mind moving that body, but some
other) would be in with relation to the
structural, chemical, mechanical laws of
that body. Suppose an atom of your
blood able to retain its identity constantly
in a human body, and to travel about it on
a tour of scientific observation. It would
very soon arrive at the conclusion that
there were great laws of circulation of the
blood and the fluids which supply it,—
such as we see in nature in the astronomi
cal laws, — great laws of force by which
the legs and arms are moved, like the forces
of tides or falling waters in the Universe,
— great structural laws, by which different
tissues, like the hair, the skin, nails, the
nervous and muscular tissues, grow up out
of the nourishment supplied them, just as
we notice the growth of trees and flowers
out of the earth, —and great though some
what uncertain laws of alternation between
activity and repose, — like the laws of night
and day; — and such a scientific particle
as we have supposed would undoubtedly
soon begin to say that the more deeply it
studied these things, the more the reign of
pure law seemed to be extended in the
universe of the body, so that all those un
certain and irregular phenomena (which
we, however, really know to be due to the
changes effected by our own free self-gov
erning power), must be ascribed, it would
say^ not to any supernatural influence, but
to its own imperfect knowledge of the
more complex phenomena at work. And
such a scientific particle would be perfectly
justified in its inferences; for we have sup
posed it only an intellectual observing ma
chine, not a free will with knowledge of its
own that there is a power which is not
caused, and which can effect real modificacations in the relation even of physical
forces which never vary in amount. But
nevertheless it would be wrong, and could
never know the truth, namely, that the
ordering of the succession in these physical
forces, — the interchanges between one and
the other, — the physical influences over
the body exerted by the command of the
appetites and passions, were all of them
really traceable in great part to super
natural power, though to supernatural pow
er which does not either add to or subtract
from the sum total of physical force present
in the Universe. And we maintain that
the men of pure science, as they are called,
—the men who study everything- but Will,
— fall into precisely the same blunder as
such a rationalizing particle of a human
body, and for the same reason. They are
quite right in their inferences from their
premises, but their premises are radically
defective.
In truth the room for miracle remains as
wide as ever. Admit all the discoveries
of science, and still they only prove a cer
tain constancy in the amount of physical
force, and a certain invisible law of suc
cession between the same phenomena. But
just as a man who puts forth a great effort
to retain his consciousness and reason or
even life for a short time longer than he
would otherwise do, may succeed, — suc
ceed, that is, in pumping up the failing
supply of physical force from the Universe
to his system for a few minutes or hours,
when without such an effort it would have
fled from his body and passed away ipto
other channels, — so miracle only assumes
that a supernatural power infinitely greater
than man’s will might, on sufficient reason,
— which every Christian believes to be far
more than sufficient, — do the same thing
infinitely more effectually, and for a far
longer time. Miracle is in essence only the
directing supernatural influence of free
mind over natural forces and substances,
whatever these may be. In man we do 'not
call this miracle, only because we are ac
customed to it, — and in nature scientific
men refuse to believe that any such direct
ing power exists at all. But nevertheless,
every accurate thinker will see at once,
that free will, Providence, and Miracle do
not differ in principle at all, but are only
less or more startling results of the same
fact, — which true reason shows to be fact,
— that above nature exist .free wills, pro-
�THE DURATION
OF OUR SUPPLY OF COAL.
shall readily understand that the vital ques
tions for the wealth, progress, and greatness
of our country are these : — “Is our supply1
of coal inexhaustible ? and if not, how
long will it last?” — Mr. Jevons enables
us to answer both these 'questions. It is
very far from being inexhaustible ; it is in
process of exhaustion ; and, if we go on
augmenting our consumption from year to
year at our present rate of increase, it will
not last a hundred years. Our geological
knowledge is now so great and certain, and
what we may term the underground survey
of our islands has been so complete that we
know with tolerable accuracy both the ex
tent, the thickness, and the accessibility
of our coal fields, and the quantity of coal
annually brought to the surface and used
up. The entire amount of coal remaining
in Great Britain, down to a depth of 4,000
feet, is estimated to be 80,000 millions of
tons. Our annual consumption was in 1860
about 80 millions. At that rate the avail
able coal would last for 1,000 years. But
our consumption is now steadily increasing
at the rate of
per cent, per annum, and
will in 1880 be, not 80 millions, but 160
millions ; and, if it continues thus to increase,
will have worked out the whole 80,000 mil
lions before the year 1960. Nay it would
reach this climax probably some time earlier ; for our calculation includes all the coal
down to 4,000 feet; and no coal mine has
yet been worked at a greater depth than
2,500 feet; and we do not believe that mines
can be worked profitably, and we have lit
tle reason to think they can be worked at
all, at such a depth as 4,000 feet.
Of course we know that, practically, our
coal-fields will not be worked out within this
period. Of course we are aware that our
present rate of annual augmentation cannot.
be maintained. Every year we have to go
deeper for our supply; and going deeper
means incurring greater and greater ex
pense for labour, for machinery, for ventila
tion, for pumping out the water, for acci
dents, &c. Going deeper, therefore, implies
an enhanced price for the coal raised, and
that enhancement of price will check con
sumption. But it is precisely this imminent '
enhancement of price, and not ultimate ex
haustion, that we have to dread; for it is this
enhancement which will limit our rate of
progress and deprive us of our special ad
vantages and our manufacturing supremacy.
Let us see a little in detail the modus ope
rands The difficulty of working and raid
ing coal increases rapidly as the mine grows
deeper, or as inferior mines have to be
worked ; the heat grows more insupporta
bably of all orders of power, which do not,
indeed, ever break the order of nature, but
’ can and do transform, — as regards man by
very small driblets,— but as regards higher
than human wills in degrees the extent of»,
which we cannot measure, — natural forces
from one phase of activity into another, so
as greatly to change the moral order and
significance of the Universe in which we
live.
?
k
THF DURATION
k’
From the Economist, 6 Jan.
OF OUR SUPPLY OF
COAL.
U$der the title of “ The Coal Question/
Mr. Jevons * has furnished the public with
a number of well-arranged and for the
most part indisputable facts, and with a
series of suggestive reflections, which every
one interested in the future progress and
greatness of his country will do well to pon
der seriously. Few of us need to be re
minded how completely cheap coal is at the
foundation of our prosperity and our com
mercial and manufacturing supremacy.
Coal and iron make England what she is ;
and her iron depends upon her coal. Other
countries have as much iron ore as we have,
and some have better ore ; but no country
(except America, which is yet unde
veloped) has abundant coal and ironstone
in the needed proximity." Except in
our supply of coal and iron we have no
natural suitabilities for the attainment
of industrial greatness; nearly all the
raw materials of our manufactures come to
us from afar ; we import much of our wool,
most of our flax, all our cotton and all our
silk. Our railroads and our steamboats are
made of iron and are worked by coal. So
are our great factories. So now is much of
our war navy. Iron is one of our chief arti
cles of export; all our machinery is made
of iron; it is especially in our machinery
that we surpass other nations ; it is our ma
chinery that produces our successful textile
fabrics; and the iron which constructs this
machinery is extracted, smelted, cast, ham
mered, wrought into tools, by coal and the
steam which coal generates. It is believed
that at least half the coal raised in Great
Britain is consumed by the various branches
of the iron trade.
With these facts present to our mind we
I
* The Coal Question. By W. Stanley Jevons, M.
A. Macmillan, 1865.
581
�582
THE DURATION OF OUR SUPPLY OF COAL.
ble, the shafts and passages longer, the dan
Nor does there seem any escape from
ger greater, the ventilation more costly, the these conclusions theoretically, nor any way
quantity of water to be kept out or got out of.modifying them practically. We may,
more unmanageable. A very short period it is said, economise in the use of coal.
may raise engine coal and smelting coal But, in the first place, the great economies
from 5s to 10s per ton. Now a cotton mill that can be reasonably looked for have been
of ordinary size will often use for its steam- already introduced. In smelting iron ore
power 80 tons of coal per week. This at 5sis we use two-thirds less coal than formerly,
l,000Z a year; at 10s per ton, it is 2,000/. and in working our steam engines one-half
But the cotton mill is full of machinery; less;. and, in the second place, it is only a
and one great element in the cost of this rise in the price of coal that will goad us
machinery is the coal used in smelting and into a more sparing use of it; and this
working the iron of which the machinery is very rise of price is the proof and the meas
made. The railroads which bring the cot ure of our danger. “ Export no more
ton to the mill and take the calico and yarn coal,” it is suggested, and so husband your
back to the place of exportation are made stores. But we could not adopt this expe
of iron and worked by coal: so are the dient, even if it were wise to do so, or con
steamboats which bring the cotton to our sistent with our commercial policy, without
shores and export the yarn to Germany; — throwing half our shipping trade into ton
the cost of carriage, therefore, which is a fusion by depriving them of their ballast
very large item in the contingent expenses trade; and even then the evil would be
of our factories, will be greatly increased scarcely more than mitigated ? “ Why,”
both directly and indirectly by a rise in the ask others, “ should we not, when our own
price of coal. An advance in that price stores of coal are exhausted, import coal
from 5s to 10s per ton, maybe estimated to from other countries which will still be rich
be equivalent to 2,000/ a year on the work in mineral fuel, and thus supply our need ?”
ing cost of a good-sized cotton mill. That Simply because of all articles of trade and
is,, as compared with the present state of industry coal is the most bulky in propor
things, and as compared with foreign coun tion to its value; and that it is the fact of
tries, every manufacturer wouid have a having it at hand, of having it in abundance,
burden of 2,000/ a year laid upon him, and of having it cheap, of having it without the
would have to raise the cost of his goods to cost of carriage, that has given us our manu
that extent. .How long could he continue facturing superiority. With coal brought
to compete with his rivals under this disad from America, with coal costing what coal
vantage, or (it would be more correct to then would cost, we could neither smelt our
say) with his present advantage taken away iron, work our engines, drive our locomo
from him ? And how long would coal con tives, sail our ships, spin our yarn, nor
tinue to be supplied even at 10s a ton ?
weave our broad cloths. Long before we
And, be it observed, the check to the had to import our fuel the game would be
consumption of coal— the retardation i. e. up.
in our progress towards ultimate and abso
Of 136 millions of tons now annually
lute exhaustion — can only come from in raised throughout the world, Great Britain
crease of price, and the moment that it does produces 80 millions and the United States
come, the decline of our relative manufac only 20. But this is only because we have
turing pre-eminence has begun. We shall had the first start, and because our popula
avoid the extinction of our coal in the short tion is far denser, and because our iron and
period of a century ; but we shall do so only our coal lie conveniently for each other and
by using less now; — and using less now conveniently for carriage. As soon as
means producing less iron, exporting less America is densely peopled, to America
calico and woollens, employing less ship must both our iron and our coal supremacy
ping, supporting a scantier population, — and all involved therein — be trans
ceasing our progress, receding from our rela ferred ; for the United States are in these
tive position. We may, it is true, make our respects immeasurably richer than even
coal last a thousand years instead of a hun- Great Britain. Their coal-fields are esti
dred, and reduce the inevitable increase in mated at 196,000 square miles in extent,
its price to a very inconsiderable rate; while ours are only 5,400. But this is not
but we can do so only by becoming stationary ; all: their coal is often better in quality and
and to become stationary implies letting incomparably more accessible than ours, es
other nations pass us in the race, exporting pecially in the Ohio valley. In some places
our whole annual increase of population, the cost at the pit’s mouth even now is 2sjper
growing relatively, if not positively, poorer ton in America, against 6s in England.
'
and feebler.
�HAIR-DRESSING IN EXCELSIS.
From the Spectator.
'583
a man’s hair is naturally as long as a woman’s
strikes them with a sense of surprise, and
have almost ceased to dress it. They use
It is not easy to understand the differen pomade still, or at least hairdressers say
ces in the popular appreciation of the mi so, and a few of them, unaware that a
nor trades. Why is a tailor considered rath mixture of cocoa-nut oil and thin spirit is
er contemptible, when no idea of ridicule in all ways the absolutely best unguent,
attaches to a bootmaker ?
Both make waste cash upon costly coloured oils, but
clothes, and in trade estimation the tailor, hairdressing for men is out of fashion. The
who must always be something of a capital average hairdresser contemptuously turns
ist, is the higher man of the two, but the over the male head to some beginner, who
popular verdict is against him. Nobody snips away till hair and tournure are got
calls a hosier the eighteenth part of a man, rid of with equal speed. Up to 1860, too,
yet strictly speaking his business is only a women wore their hair, even on occasions
minor branch of tailoring. No ridicule at demanding a grand toilette, after a very
taches to a hatter, notwithstanding the lu simple fashion, one which the majority of
natic proverb about his permanent mental them could manage very well for them
condition, but everybody laughs internally selves, and which required only careful
as he speaks of a -hairdresser. Is it because brushing. This fashion was not perhaps
.hairdressers were once popularly supposed altogether in perfect taste. Simplicity has
to be all Frenchmen, and therefore share charms, but still a custom which compelled
the contempt with which dancing-masters women with Greek profiles and complex
are regarded by people who, while they ex lions of one shade only and girls with cherry
press it, would not for the world fail to profit cheeks and turned-up noses equally to wear
by their instructions ? A singing-master is their hair like Madonnas, was open to some
allowed to be an artist, often one of the slight attack on artistic grounds. Madonnas
first class, but a dancing-master is consider should not have laughing blue eyes, or pout
ed a cross between an artist and a monkey. ing lips, or flaxen hair, or that look of esOr are hairdressers despised, like men mil pieglerie which accompanies a properly turn
liners, because their occupation, especially ed-up nose, — not a snub, that is abomina
in modern Europe, where men have aban ble, but just the nez retrousse which artists
doned wigs, long locks, and the careful ar detest and other men marry. The Second
rangement of the hair, is essentially femi Empire, however, does not approve simpli
nine ? That may be the explanation, for city, and gradually the art of dressing hail'
nobody despises the lady’s-maid more or has come again into use. The fashion of
less because if she is “ very superior ” she wearing hair a I’Imperatrice was the first
- can dress hair as well as any hairdresser. blow to the Madonna mania, and young
Or is the sufficient cause to be sought in women with no foreheads, and with pointed
their pretensions, in their constant but un foreheads, and with hair-covered foreheads,
successful claim to be considered artists, all pulled their unruly locks straight back
something a little lower than professionals, because an Empress with a magnificent
but a great deal higher than mere trades forehead chose to make the best of it. Any
men, a claim which induces them to indulge thing uglier than this fashion in all women
in highflown advertisements and the inven with unsuitable foreheads and all women
tion of preposterous names, usually .Greek, whatever with black hair it would be hard
but not unfrequently Persian, for totally to conceive, and the mania did not as a
useless unguents ? The claim is allowed in mania last very long. Then came the day
France, but in England, like the similar of invention, the use of false hair, the in
one of the cook and the confectioners, sertion of frisettes, the introduction of gold
it has always been rejected, a rejection en dyes, the re-entry of the vast combs prized
which excites the profession every now and by our great grandmothers, the admiration
then to somewhat violent and therefore ri of pins stolen from the Ionian and Pompe
diculous self-assertion. They perceive an ian head-gear, and a general attention to
opportunity just at present. For a good the head-dress which we can best describe
many years past the business of the coiffeur by quoting from the Manners and Customs
has been comparatively a very simple affair, of Ancient Greece a paragraph on the hair
rising scarcely to the dignity of a trade and dressing of Athenian women : — “ On noth
entirely outside the province of art.x Men ing was there so much care bestowed as.
all over Europe have adopted the fashion upon the hair. Auburn, the colour of Aph
of the much ridiculed Roundheads, cut their rodite’s tresses in Homer, being consider
hair habitually close, till the assertion that ed most beautiful, drugs were invented in
HAIRDRESSING IN EXCELSIS.
�584
HAIR-DRESSING IN EXCELSIS.
which the hair being dipped, and exposed incident in the annals of modern folly. Some
to the noon day sun, it acquired the covet thirty women had their hair dressed in pub
ed hue, and fell in golden curls over their lic by the, same number of men — not, we
shoulders. Others, contented with their,. are sorry to say, to the accompaniment of
own black hair, exhausted their ingenuity slow music,— an improvement we recom
in augmenting its rich gloss, steeping it in mend to Mr. Carter’s attention — and some
oils and essences, till all the fragrance of two hundred men and women looked on and
Arabia seemed to breathe around them. applauded the result. There was in the
Those waving ringlets which we admire in middle of the room a long table covered
their sculpture were often the creation of with a white cloth, as it were for some sort
art, being produced by curling-irons heated of experiment, but upon the table could be
in ashes ; after which, by the aid of jewel seen nothing but hand-mirrors, which look
led fillets and golden pins, they were ed indigestible. So long were other visitors
brought forward over the smooth white incoming that one visitor, who was con
forehead, which they sometimes shaded to scious of wan ting the scissors and of a total
the eyebrows, leaving a small ivory space absence of bear’s grease, was afraid that one
in the centre, while behind they floated in of the many gentlemen who in winning cos
shining profusion down the back. When tume, and faultless “ ’eads of air,” and un
decked in this manner, and dressed for the mistakable hairdressing propensities, hover
gunascitis in their light flowered sandals ed near the door, would insist upon his
and semi-transparent robes, they were having his hair cut and dressed forthwith,
scarcely farther removed from the state of merely to wile away the time. But fortu
nature than the Spartan maids themselves.” nately, just as a gentleman with a “ ’ead of
The grand triumph of the Ionic barbers, air” which would have done credit to any
the invention of a mode of plaiting which wax figure in any shop window, was ap
occupied many hours, and could therefore proaching with sinister looks, visitors, mas
be repeated only once a week, and requir culine and feminine began to pour in. Then
ed those who wore it to sleep on their backs there was diffused around the room an
with their necks resting on wooden trestles, odour of bear’s grease, and probably cost
hollowed out lest the bed should derange lier unguents, and from the look of the
the hair, has not indeed been repeated, ladies’ hair the writer was under the im
though under the fostering care of Mr. Car pression that he beheld the victims who
ter even that perfection may one
be had been immolated •upon the shrine of
attained. Still we have the auburn dyes, hairdressing, and who were to exhibit the
and the pins, and all the Athenian devices, effects of the sacrifice. But not so. Awhile,
and it is not quite certain that the “ chig and then there came in, each leaning upon
non,” the nasty mass of horsehair and hu the arm of the cavalier who was to “ dress
man hair which women have learnt to stick her,” about thirty-two ladies, from an age to
on the back of their heads, and which is ac which it would be ungallant to allude down
tually sold in Regent Street attached to to (one can hardly say “ bashful ”) fifteen.
bonnets, is not an additional triumph over Their hair was in some instances apparently
nature. We have a picture somewhere of just out of curl-papers, but for the most part
a chignon more than three thousand years hanging unconfined except at the back, where
old, but if we are not mistaken there are it was fastened close to the crown, and then
feathers on it as well as hair, the very idea hung down like a horse’s tail. Among the
which the President of the Hairdressers’ thirty were one or two magnificent cheveAcademy on Tuesday reinvented, and for lures, but we did not see one that quite
which he was so heartily applauded. Of realized the painter’s ideal, one which the
course, with the new rage for artificial ar wearer could have wrapped round her as
rangement, false hair, dyes, chignons, hair Titian’s model must have done, or one on
crepe, hair frise, and we know not what, the which the owner could have stood, as on a
hairdresser’s art is looking up, and the sen mat, as Hindoo women have been known to
sible tradesmen who practise it, sensible in do. Their comic appearance, and the clap
in all but their grandiloquence — which is, ping of hands which arose thereat, showed
we take it, half-comic, half a genuine effort one at once that they were the victims or
at self-assertion — are making the most of (if you please) the heroines. They sat at the
their opportunity.
white-cloth-covered table, and the cavaliers
The soire'e, or “ swarry,” as the doorkeep drew from black bags combs, arid puffs, and
er persisted in calling it, of the Hairdress hair-pins, and what looked like small roll
ers’ Academy, held in the Hanover Square ing-pins, and tapeworms, and bell-ropes,
Rooms on Tuesday, was really a noteworthy and cord off window-curtains, and muslin
�mmM-
/
’
'
•.
'
'
FRENCH AND AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONS.
>
585
and tissue-paper, and flowers and fruits of sheAvould entice oui’ “ golden youth ” (or
the earth imitated in green and gold. Then our golden age, for the matter of that) ?
the “ dressing ” began, and the spectator What manner of woman, then, would set
saw with awe and amazement what art can the fashion in hairdressing ?
And we
do for hair, then one repented of ever hav know what has been the consequence in
ing doubted the truth of ladies who at balls France (if we are not nearly as bad here)
say, with a significant glance at head-dresses, of following in small matters the lead of the
“ Why, how do you do, dear ? I really did demi-monde. On the other hand, two con
not know you.” Some people may think victions at all events we acquired from the
that hair, however plenteous or however spectacle. One is that modern hairdressing
scanty, looks better in its natural state than in its highest form is a branch of jewelling,
when it is made into a flower garden ; and the real art being shown not in the arrange
others may hold that no kind of hair is im ment of the hair, but in the addition of
proved by being interwoven with tape things which are not hair — combs, rib
worms or bell-ropes, or even the cord off bons, flowers, dewdrops, and gilt insects —
window-curtains. But it is certain that by the last a taste essentially inartistic and de
the use of muslin and other materials already praved. The other was that it is not safe
spoken of a result may be obtained which for any man to make a proposal in the
would justify a man in cutting his mother evening.
So utterly were some of the
(on the score of non-recognition, if on no “ subjects” changed by the act of the ope
other), and which would lead one to believe rators, that the possibility of not knowing
that so long as a lady has a couple of hand in the morning the betrothed of the even
fuls of hair left she may, with the help of ing seemed very real indeed, and the mis
art, hold her own against Berenice. When take would be an awkward one for both
all the ladies were “ dressed ” one of the parties.
“ dressers ” made an unexceptionable little
speech in unexceptionable English (for
which our experience of hairdressing had
not prepared us), concluding by saying
that the ladies in their “ dressed ” state
would walk round the table each leaning
From the Economist, 27 January.
on the arm of her “ dresser,” so that the
spectators might all have a full view. As THE ANALOGY BETWEEN THE FRENCH
he said, so did they; nay, they went fur
AND AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONS.
ther, and walked round twice, amidst the
applause of (he assembled witnesses. We
The Emperor of the French has said
were disappointed that no prize beyond many remarkable things, but few more
applause was given; we had thought that remarkable than the short sentence in
at least a small-tooths comb, after the fash which he hints that there is some analogy
ion of those said by Miss Emmeline Lott to between the Constitution of France and
be used in the Turkish harems, would have that of the United States. The statement
been bestowed. But perhaps it would have has been received in England with an
been dangerous to have given so decided a impatience which is. a little unjust, and
preference to the hair of one lady over that is caused by too exclusive an attention
of another, for after all it must be with some to surface differences. Those differences
difficulty that the subjects of the exhibition are of course patent to every one ; but the ■
are collected. After the b< swarry ” came a analogy is not the less real and striking.
ball, at which whosoever danced with the The key-note of the American Constitution
ladies who had their heads powdered was, is the existence of an Executive which dur
if he disliked dust, to be pitied. The com ing its term of office is irresponsible to the
pany seemed to be, for the most part, or at people, which acts by its own volition,
any rate to a considerable extent, connect which can pursue if necessary a policy dia
ed with the hairdressing interest, and that metrically opposed to the wishes of those
they should do all they could to bring their who elected it. That also is the key-note
craft to perfection is not only pardonable, of the system established by the Second
but commendable. Would it, however, be Empire. The President does as he pleases
well if society in general should patronize in all matters within his province just as
such exhibitions ? Opinions happily differ, the Emperor does, and like him is irrespon
but we cannot help thinking evil would come sible to the Legislature — need not, indeed,
of it. What manner of woman, is it that explain to the representatives of the people
must study such matters as hairdressing, if | his own official acts. His ministers are his
�586
FRENCH AND AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONS.
ministers or clerks, bound to obey his or
ders; not bound to pay any heed, and fre
quently not paying any heed, to votes
passed by the popular body. Of course,
in America as in France this absolute
disunion between the Executive and the
body which controls the purse is very
inconvenient, and it has in each country
been met in the same way. In France the
Minister without a portfolio explains to
the Corps Legislatif the plans of depart
ments which he does not control, and in
America a friend or connection or political
ally of the President performs the same
function, Mr. Raymond for example occupy
ing as nearly as possible that position in
Congress, which M. Rouher occupies in
the French Chamber. It is true the French
spokesman is a recognised official, and the
American spokesman is not, but the recog
nition does not diminish “ responsibility ” in
the English parliamentary sense, but rather
increases it. It is true Mr. Johnson cannot
effect through Congress what the Emperor
can effect through his Legislature, but that
is because he has not a majority and the
Emperor has. In theory the French Cham
ber has as much right to reject a bill pro
posed by the Imperial Government as Con
gress has, and were the Emperor less dread
ed it would frequently do so. At the pres
ent moment Mr. Johnson is trying to
“ make a majority ” to support his policy b^
means quite as strong as those used in
French elections. He has ordered that
no radical recommendation for office shall
be listened to, and has it is said threatened
that unless his opponents give way he will
dismiss every official throughout the Union
who owes his election to the recommenda
tion of an opponent, a measure which has
daunted his stoutest adversaries as fatal
to their re-election. They will be in fact,
as in France, struck out of the Government
list. Indeed the prerogative of the Presi
dent is in many ways greater than that
of the Emperor. Each is commander-inchief, but the President can deprive any
officer of his commission by decree, and
the Emperor cannot. A French officer’s
grade is his “property,” and though the
law has once or twice been violated, it
/could not be broken through except for
a State necessity. Emperor and President
are alike masters of the Civil Service, but
the President can and does dismiss at will,
and the bureaucracy of France is perma
nent. An order, such as Mr. Johnson is
said to have threatened to give, would in
France have aroused an unconquerable re
sistance. No doubt the Emperor of the
French can do things infinitely more highhanded than the President could attempt,
but that is not by virtue of the idea of
the French Constitution, but by reason
of his control over a system essentially and
radically despotic, which he did not make,
and which his predecessors also used, the
French police. Mr. Johnson has no such
organisation at his disposal, but when it ex
isted during the first two years of the war it
was used without much regard to anything
but the safety of the Federation. Without
the police aud the immense army, and with
a hostile majority in the Chamber, the Em
peror would be almost precisely in the po
sition of the President.
But the latter is subject to removal at
the expiration of his term ? No doubt Mr.
Johnson is, and has therefore a great temp
tation to make his policy accord with the
policy approved by the electors, and so has
the Emperor Napoleon, who follows opinion
quite as anxiously; but. that deference is no
part of the Constitution, which provides for
change in the individual, but not for change
in the absolute independence of the office.
In changing our Premier, we ensure a
Change of policy, because if the new man
disobeys, he also can be dismissed next day;
but in changing the President, America
merely places one independent and irre
movable official in place of another. The
theories of the Imperial and Republican sys
tems are identical, except in the illogical
peculiarity of the French Constitution, that
it introduces the hereditary element into the
Executive, whereas the right of election
logically includes a right of dismissal at
periods fixed by mutual agreement. But
the freedom of the Press, of speech, of asso
ciation ? Well, these things exist in Amer
ica and do not exist in France; but it is
not in consequence of the Constitution, but
of the popular will. Nothing prevents an
American President, with Congress at his
back, from subverting the freedom of the
Press, by means, for example, of remissible
taxes, if they think that policy sound. The
Emperor and his first Chamber did think it
sound, and so freedom in France ended, a
fact greatly no doubt to be regretted, but
in, no way proving that the principles of the
American and French Constitutions are not
analogous. One very remarkable power
indeed is possessed by the American Legis
lature which is not possessed by the French,
and that is the right of passing a law by a
two-third vote, in defiance of the President.
But the French Chamber is theoretically
just as strong, for it could insist on a certain
law being passed, under penalty of a rejec
�/
/
xico.
s
587
tion of the Budget, and the Emperor must by which alone a constitutional monarch
. either yield, or appeal to a plebiscitum, that can acquire great individual power. At all
is, strike a coup d’etat upsetting the Consti events, should circumstances ever compel
tution, which gives the Chamber such a the Emperor to relax the overstrictness
right of control. That the two sets of insti of his regime, it is to the American rather
tutions are worked in a different way, and than to the British form of freedom that
with a different spirit, is too obvious for re he appears likely to feel his way.
mark ; but that does not destroy the theo
retic analogy to which the Emperor points.
The truth is that apart from the operation
..of the State system, which with many faults
' still organises popular resistance, the Presi
dent of the United States is, during his
From the Saturday Review, Jan. 27.
term of office, an excessively powerful mon
MEXICO.
arch, and the fact, revealed only by the
war, has evidently struck forcibly on the
The position which the Government of
imagination of the Emperor of the French. the United States is prepared to take up
As he acknowleges in his speech he still dis with regard to Mexico is at last clearly and
likes Parliamentary Government, for which finally established, and it is one that is cal
he is himself singularly unfitted, and he culated to excite some apprehension for the
glances at the Union with a passing thought future peace of the world. During the au
that if he ever grants “ liberty,” it will be in tumn months of last year, Mr. Seward was
the American and not in the English form. continually urging on the Federal Govern
Should the thought ever become active, it ment the expediency of the speedy with
is astonishing how little he will have to do drawal of the French troops; and, with
to restore “liberty” after the American many sincere protestations of the most frienimodel as it would appear were the Union ly feeling towards France, he gave the Em
a republic one and indivisible. He would peror to understand that, if his troops were
have to introduce laws establishing the free to stay much longer where they were, a
dom of the press, and the right of associa rupture between the two countries was inev
tion, and the liability of all officials to pros itable. The Emperor would be only too
ecution for illegal acts done in their official glad to get his troops away if he could do so
capacities; and the exemption of all citizens without compromising his own honour, and
from arrest except on criminal charges, and that of France ; and it seemed to him that
the constitutional change would be theoret the best way of arranging the matter would
ically alinost complete. The remaining bethat the French troops. should go, and
changes which would be necessary — such that the United States should recognise the
as abstinence from interference in the elec Emperor Maximilian. • The Mexican Em
tions, recognition of the right of debate, pire, being thus placed on a friendly footing
and restoration of the legislative initiative with the only Power it has to dread, might
to individual members — are scarcely con hope to establish itself and prosper, if pros
stitutional. These changes once accom perity in Mexico is possible for it. France
plished, France would be in possession of a would have succeeded, or, at least, would
great amount of practical liberty, of the not have openly and conspicuously failed;
control of her own Legislature, and of an and all jealousy between Washington and
Executive terribly strong indeed, but not Paris would have been at an end. But Mr.
stronger than that of the American Union; Seward has distinctly and decisively re
rather less strong, because hampered by the jected this proposal. The United States
legal rights of the army, and the customary will not recognise the Emperor Maximil
rights of the civil bureaucracy. That is not ian, nor treat him on any but a hostile foot
a form of Government we admire, because ing. lathe eyes of the Americans, he is
it lacks the one strength of the Parliamen an intruder, and an enemy of an injured and
tary system, the absolute identity of the friendly Republic, and they can never be
Legislature and the Executive power; but content until his enterprise has wholly failed.
it is one which might suit France for a time, Congress, as Mr. Seward remarks, must
and would have the immense advantage of exercise its legitimate influence on the Gov
permitting free thought and its expression, ernment of the President ; and the Pres
and some activity of Parliamentary life ident has not only to announce his own de
without the previous dismissal of the Napo cision, but that of the American people and
leonic dynasty, which will never, we fear, its representatives; and the opinion of the
consent to that incessant intellectual conflict American people is violently against the
�588
MEXICO.
Mexican Empire. Of this there can be no withdrawn; but if this is not done, the time
doubt; for even if the accusations continu must come when they will insist on having
ally brought up in Congress against the Em their wishes fulfilled.
peror Maximilian were true, instead of
This uncompromising language of the
being, as for the most part they are, gross American Government has placed the Em
misrepresentations, still the vehemence and peror of the'French in a very difficult po
pertinacity with which they are urged show sition. He cannot seem to yield to threats;
clearly enough how deep is the animosity but still he knows that, if any way of with
that prompts them. If the whole question drawing his troops with honour can be found,
were simply one of the continuance of the he must use it. He has, therefore, set ear
Mexican Empire, it might be worth while nestly to work to disprove the view which
to discuss these accusations, and to show how the American Government has adopted.
very slight is the basis on which they have He denies altogether that he ever wished to
been reared ; but all matters of detail are set up a Monarchy in Mexico, or to crush a
swallowed up in the gravity of the declara Republic. But the Republican Govern
tion which the United States have now is ment had insulted and offended him, plun
sued. The view of the Government of the dered and murdered his subjects, gave no
United States is, that the French have vio compensation, and perhaps was too weak,
lated the Monroe doctrine in its proper poor, and anarchical to give any. He inter
and original sense. There was a Republic fered merely to get redress, but he did not
established in Mexico, holding its territory see how it was possible to hope for redress
unopposed, in harmony with the country, from, such a Government as then existed in
dear to the inhabitants, and in the most Mexico. Several leading Mexicans pro
friendly relations with the United States. posed to establish a Monarchy, and he con
The French came to pull down this Repub curred in the idea because he thought a Mon
lic, and to set up a Monarchy, and they per archy, which had long been a favourite no
sist in remaining in Mexico to force this tion of many Mexicans, offered the best
alien Empire on an unwilling Republican chance of getting a Government strong, du
people. This is the mode in which the rable, and enlightened enough to pay him
United States have determined, after full what he was owed. This is all. He no
deliberation, to regard the recent history of more wishes to put down a Republic in Mexi
Mexico; and they will not allow any com co than he does to put down a Republic at
promise by which their adherence to this Washington; he merely wished, and wishes,
view might seem to be weakened. So long to have an instrument ready to provide him
as France stays in Mexico, forcing an Em with the redress he asked. The Emperor
pire on the Republicans of a contiguous Maximilian and his Court, and his Orders
State, America will treat France exactly as of the Eagle and Gaudalupe, are only pret
she would expect France to treat her if ty bits of machinery for the recovery of
she sent a fleet, and landed troops, to set up money owing to Frenchmen; and it must
a Republic in Belgium. Much, it is ac be owned that, if this is all, they are about
knowledged, is to be borne from France, as expensive a pi^ce of machinery, in com
which would not be borne from any other parison with the object to be effected, as
country. It will be only in the last resort was ever invented. But then, as the Em
that the language of America would be peror said in his speech, this machinery
come hostile to a country endeared to her has answered, or very nearly answered.
by so many traditions, and bound to her by There is now in Mexico an enlightened
so many ties. The tone of Mr. Seward’s Government triumphant overall opposition,
letter is very conciliatory, and the Govern with a French commerce trebled in an in
ment of President Johnson has been reso credibly short space of time, plentifully sup
lute in preventing any indirect breaches of plied with troops, and quite ready to pay off
amity. The export of arms from California all that is due to France. A few more ar
has been prevented, and still more recently rangements have still to be made with the
a considerable portion of the troops in Tex Emperor Maximilian, so that the stipulat
as has been disbanded. France has nothing ed payments may be fully secured, and then
to complain of in small things; there is only the French troops will be finally and hon
the one great point of difference between her ourably withdrawn. The ecstatic visions of
and the United States, that she has violated M. Chevalier, and the ardent proclama
a doctrine to which the United States at tions of Marshal Forey, are forgotten, or
tach the greatest importance, and which utterly neglected. We hear no more of the
they are resolved to uphold. They now spread of French influence over the West
merely ask that the French troops shall be ern hemisphere, of the necessity of enabling
�MEXICO.
tv
*
589
the Latin race to confront the Anglo-Saxon his own resources. If the Emperor Maxi
race in the New World. The Americans milian would but announce that he was
are told that all that has been done in Mexi- now quite, sure of his throne, and that
. Co has been done simply to redress the French aid was no longer necessary to him,
wrongs and support the claims of French the French might undoubtedly retire with
men; the French’themselves are told that out dishonour. They could not retire at
this most desirable end has been accom once, but it may be presumed that the
plished, and that the troops who have ren Americans would be quite satisfied if a Con
dered its accomplishment possible may soon vention like the September Convention
be expected home. But it is scarcely neces with Italy were agreed on, and if it were
sary to say that neither the Americans nor arranged that all French troops should have
the French will be satisfied. The Ameri quitted Mexico by the end of the present
cans think, and think with perfect truth, year. If the French went, the Austrians
that the experiment of recovering French and Belgians must go too— not necessarily
debts by shooting Republicans until the at the very same time, but before very long;
Austrian Archduke was made Emperor as it is obvious that, if the French have been
would never have been tried unless it had guilty of coming to American soil to tram
been supposed that it could be tried with ple down a Republic and set up a Monarchy,
out the United States being able to inter so have they. The Emperor Maximilian
fere with it. The French know that at least would therefore have to decide whether he
twenty millions of French money have been could possibly hold his own with native
sunk in the experiment, and that if their troops against his domesticV’enemies; and
troops were withdrawn it would be a great secondly, whether, if he thought it possible
deal more difficult to"recover the new debt to succeed, he would also think it worth
than it was to recover the old one. The while to try. It may be assumed, perhaps, that
Emperor, by adopting the view that he is the Emperor of the French would be able
merely trying to get his just dues from Mexi to provide that Mexico should be left alone,
co, has done something to conciliate the and that, if he did not go there, neither
Americans; yet he has made it even harder would the Americans. But if all foreign
than before to justify to France the with troops were withdrawn, the Emperor
drawal of the troops. To throw away twen would have to fight Mexicans with Mexi
ty millions in the attempt to get back a cans. His Mexicans would feel no enthusi
tenth of that sum is as deplorable an invest asm for him, would regard him as a foreign
ment, and as conspicuous a failure, as he er, and would with difficulty be induced to
could well make. The last Mexican loan of believe that his cause was the winning one.
about six millions sterling was almost entire His adversaries would be ardent, stimulated
ly subscribed by the French poor, on the by the encouragement of the Americans,
direct solicitation of the local officials of the panting for revenge, and able to take ad
Government, and it would most seriously vantage of that general disposition to go
impair the confidence of the lower classes in against the existing Government, whatever
the Emperor’s policy if it ended in a loss it may be, which pervades all nations of
to them of money which they only sub Spanish descent. But even if the Emper
scribed because he seemed to ask for it him- or thought that, after a very long and pro
self.
tracted fight, he might possibly hold his own,
The Emperor must, therefore, risk some and retain a precarious possession of some
thing. He might risk either a war with of the richer parts of the Mexican territory,
America, or a blow to his prestige in France. he might very probably hesitate before he
His speech was very judiciously worded, and embarked on so dangerous an adventure,
he seemed to be preserving a firm attitude, and might begin to examine whetherit could
and consulting the dignity of his country, possibly answer to him to take the risk. If
while he prepared a mode of escape from his he stayed as long as the French stayed, and
Embarrassment by asserting that his work found that the pressure of the Americans
was done in Mexico, and that the Emperor was depriving him even of his Austrians 1
Maximilian was firmly established there. and Belgians, he would incur no- disgrace
It will now naturally be his first object to by resigning a position that he might fairly
get the Emperor Maximilian to share this consider untenable. But the French could
opinion ; and the story may be true that he .scarcely withdraw altogether if he went.
has sent over a special envoy to represent They could not acknowledge that their at
to the Emperor of Mexico that he must tempt to obtain redress had been entirely in
consent to the withdrawal of the French vain, and all their money wasted ; and they
troops, and tTy his chance of empire from would naturally seek to make some arrange-
�THE EMPERORS SPEECH.
From the Spectator, 27th January.
ment with the United States by which, if a
Government favoured by the United States
THE EMPEROR’S SPEECH.
was set up, a return to mere anarchy should
be prevented, and the right of the French
The Emperor of the French has opened
to enjoy some sort of guarantee for the settle the Session of his Chambers for the thir
ment of their claims should be recognized. teenth time, and for the thirteenth time his '
speech is the political fact in the European
history of the week. Its interest turns
mainly upon three paragraphs, those relating
[From another article in the same paper, we to Mexico, to Italy, and to his pledge of one
copy the French Emperor’s address.]
day “crowning the edifice” by conceding
liberty. Of course he says other things,
The French Emperor’s address to his but they are so vague or so formal that they
Legislature is generally an interesting study. add nothing to our knowledge either of his
It is feebler and less clever this year than purposes or his position. He will “ remain
usual, but still it is interesting/ The au a stranger” to the internal disputes of Ger
gust author of these compositions has the art many, “ provided French interests are not
of touching all great questions of European directly engaged,” but as he is the sole
concern in a tone of frankness and gener judge whether they are so or not, this
osity, and noble sentiments in a Royal or amounts only to a pledge that France will
Imperial speech are always pleasant and re not interfere with Prussia until her Em
freshing. What, for example, can be more peror chooses, an assertion which makes a
considerate or delicate than the manner in very small draft upon our political faith.
which he handles the Americans? They He promises to restore the right of associa
are reminded of a century of friendship, and tion for industrial purposes, but the liberty
it is politely suggested that Imperialism is thus regained is to be “ outside politics,”
only the Constitution of the United States and to be limited “ by the guarantees which
in a French Court dress. The Mexican ex public order requires ” i. e., by any guaran
pedition is explained in a manner that tee the Emperor thinks expedient. He an
ought to disarm the most suspicious Yankee, nounces a reduction of the Army, but it has
and it seems as if all had been a mistake been effected without a reduction of num
about the Latin race, as it was about the bers, and declares that a financial equili
proposed recognition of the South. Some brium has been secured by the surplus of
body did say something about the Latin revenue, for which surplus his Minister of
race, which has evidently been misconstrued Finance only just ventures to hope on con
a good deal; but the “ American people” dition that everything goes right for two
will now comprehend that “ the expedition, more years. He suggests that France is
in which we invited them to join, was not governed very much like the United States,
opposed to their interests.” France “prays” but does not attempt to explain wherein he
sincerely for the prosperity of the great Re finds the analogy between a Constitution
public, and, just as a French Emperor is only which changes its Executive every four
an American President in disguise, so Im years, and leaves the entire legislative power
perialism in Mexico has been founded “ on to the representatives of the people, and a
the will of the people.” Mr. Seward very Constitution which was intended to make
Hkely never swears. His talent lies chiefly the executive power hereditary, and which
in the line of making other people swear. intrusts the initiative of legislation entirely
But it is possible that some less courteous to the man who is to carry that legislation
Anglo-Saxons in Washington and in New out. On all these subjects, Germany, fi
York, who are anxious about the Monroe nance, co-operation, and the Constitution,
doctrine, after reading all these high-mind the Emperor’s utterance is suggestive, with
ed expressions, and especially the one about out clearly instructing either his subjects or
the French praying for them, will feel in the world. No one, for example, could tell
clined, in the language used in the School without knowing facts which the Emperor
for Scandal by the friends of Joseph Sur does not reveal whether his paragraph on
face, to observe, “ Damn your sentiments.” Germany is a hint to Count von Bismark to
However this may be, and whatever may be go on in his course and prosper, or a.men
the turn the Mexican difficulty is taking, ace that France would not bear a Union, of
one thing is clear, that the French Emper Northern Germany against which its in
terests are directly engaged.
or puts his sentiments neatly and well.
�THE EMPEROR ’S SPEECH.
591
Even on the three points we have excepted die course, and the object of this part of
the Emperor, as his wont is, gives the world his speech is simply to soothe Americans
a riddle to read. What, for instance, is the into waiting until he can retreat with hon
meaning of the sentence which says that our. He who three years ago spoke only of
France “ has reason to rely on the scrupulous strengthening a branch of the Latin race to
execution of the Treaty with Italy of the 15 th resist Anglo-Saxon aggression, now anxious
September, and on the indispensable main ly repudiates any idea of hostility to the
tenance of the power of the Holy Father ? ” Union. He recalls to the Americans “ a
Does it mean that Napoleon regards the noble page in the history of France,” her
temporal power as indispensable, or only assistance to the Republic in its great rebel
the spiritual; that he will put down internal lion, reminds them that he requested them to
revolt in Rome, or suffer Italy to garrison take a part in reclaiming Mexican debts,
the city, provided only the Pope is left spir and almost implores thein to recollect that
itually independent ? Is his dictum a threat “ two nations equally jealous of their inde
to the Revolution or a threat to the priests | pendence ought to avoid any step which
Reading it by the light of the Emperor’s would implicate their dignity and their
character, we should believe the sentence honour.” Is that an assurance or a menintended only to ward off opposition until 1 afte ? For a French Sovereign to speak
the evacuation of Rome was complete, but of possible contingencies as “ implicating
read by the facts in progress, blithe re French dignity and honour ” is a very
cruiting for Rome going on in France, and ^serious thing, but then why these unusual
the pressure employed in Florence to make professions of regard for the Union ? It is
Italy accept the Papal debt, we should be true in a preceding paragraph Napoleon
lieve it implied that while Napoleon will re has affirmed that he is arranging with the
tire, the Pope must remain independent Emperor Maximilian for the recall of his
King of Rome. The maintenance of the army, bumhen their return must be effect-'
Pope’s power is declared indispensable, but ed when it “will not compromise the in
nothing is said of the invisible means by terests which France went out to that dis
which it is to be maintained.
tant land to defend.” When is that ? Do
So with the Mexican declaration. The the interests to be defended include the re
Emperor, we admit, is upon this point placed invigoration of the Latin race ? Nothing is
in a most difficult position. He made the clear from the speech, and according to
singular blunder made by the Times and by the Yellow Book, which is always supposed
the majority of English politicians, but not to explain the speech, the French Army is
made by the people he rules. Careless of only to return from Mexico when the Presi
principle and forgetting precedent, reject dent of the Union has recognized the Mexi
ing the idea that freedom must conquer can Empire, an act which he has refused to
slavery, and overlooking his uncle’s adage do, and which Congress has specifically for
that twenty-five millions must beat fifteen if bidden him to perform. There is nothing in
they can once get at them, he convinced the speech inconsiste^; with that interpreta
himself that the South must break up the tion, and if it is correct the Americans will
Union. Consequently he invaded Mexico, simply contrast the compliments offered
and placed his nominee on its throne. As them in words with the impossible proposal
his subjects, with the strange instinct which submitted in fact, and be less content than
supplies to great populations the place of ever. All they obtain is a promise 'that at
wisdom, had from the first foreseen, he some time not specified, when a result they
erred in his first essential datum. The dislike has been accomplished, the Emperor
South did not break up the Union, but the will, if consistent with his honour, withdraw
Union broke up the South, and Napoleon the troops through whom he has been able
finds himself compelled either to withdraw to accomplish it — not a very definite or
from a great undertaking visibly baffled and very satisfactory pledge.
repulsed, or to accept a war with the oldest
It is on the “ crowning of the edifice ’
ally of France — a war in which, if defeat alone that the Emperor is partially explicit.
ed, he risks his throne, and if successful, can He will not grant a responsible Ministry.
gain nothing except financial embarrass That system of government, always abhor
ment. Neither alternatiye seems to him en rent to him, has not become more pleasant
durable — the former as fatal to the reputa of late years, and he declares for the tenth
tion for success which is essential to his per time that “ with one Chamber holding with
sonal power, the latter as bringing him into di in itself the fate of Ministers the Executive
rect conflict with the wishes of all his peo is without authority and without spirit,” the
ple. He strives therefore to find some mid- “ one ” being inserted either to avoid a di-
�592
BEAU-MONDE AND THE DEMI-MONDE IN PARIS.
ers by an anouncement for which, after
all, both should have been prepared. No
one who is at all conversant with the ordina
ry course of Parisian life — we do not say
familiar with its inner mysteries — ought to
have been astonished at hearing that cer
tain grandes dames of French society had
sought for invitations to a masqued ball
which was to be given by a distinguished
leader of the demi-monde. We have had, in
our own country, certain faint and partial
indications of the same curiosity, revealed
in an awkward and half-hesitating sort of
way. English great ladies once made an
off-night for themselves at Cremorne, in
order to catch a flying and furtive glance,
not of the normal idols of those gay gar
dens, but of the mere scenic accessories to
their attractions and triumphs. But as yet
we have never heard that the matrons of
English society have sought an introduction
to the Lais of Brompton or the Phryne of
May-fair, even under the decorous con
cealment of mask and domino. Nor has it
yet been formally advertised here that the
motive of so unusal a request was a desire
to learn the arts and tactics by which the
gilded youth — and, it might be added, the
gilded age — of the country is subjected to
the thrall of venal and meretricious beauty.
That such a rumour should be circulated
and believed in France is — to use the cur
rent slang — “highly suggestive.” It sug
gests a contrast of the strongest, though it is
far from a pleasing, kind between the
society of to-day and the society of other
days. It was long the special boast of the
French that with them women enjoyed an
influence which in no other part of the
world was accorded to their sex, and that
this influence was at least as much due to
their mental as to their physical charms.
The women of other nations may have been
more beautiful. To the Frenchwomen was
specially given the power of fascination ;
and it was the peculiar characteristic of her
fascination that its exercise involved no dis
credit to the sense or' the sensibility of the
men who yielded to it. A power which
showed itself as much in the brilliance of
bons mots and repartee as ip smiles and
glances, a grace of language and expression
which enhanced every grace of feature
and of attitude, a logic which played in
the form of epigram, and a self-respect
From the Saturday Review.
which was set off rather than concealed by
THE 1 BEAU-MONDE AND THE
DEMI the maintenance of the most uniform cour
tesy to others — such were the arts and
MONDE IN PARIS.
insignia of the empire which the most cele
The Paris journals lately surprised their brated Frenchwomen, from the days of
French, and startled their foreign, read Maintenon and De Sevigne to those of
rect sarcasm upon the English Constitution,
or from a sudden recollection of the part
played by the Prussian Chamber of Peers.
He believes that his system has worked well,
that France, tranquil at home, is respected
abroad, and, as he adds with singular au
dacity, is without political captives within or
exiles beyond her frontiers. Are, then, the
Due d’Aumale, M. Louis iBlanc, and the
author of Labienus at liberty to return
to France ? Consequently nothing will be
changed, but the Emperor, resolving to “ im
prove the conditions of labour,” will await
the time when all France, being educated,
shall abandon seductive theories, and all
who live by their daily toil, receiving in
creasing profits, “ shall be firm supporters
of a society which secures their well-being
and their dignity.” No one can complain
of any obscurity in that apology for the
Empire. Its central ideas are all expressed,
and all expressed with truthful lucidity.
The Emperor is to rule “ with authority and
spirit.” There is to be no political freedom,
no discussion even of “ theories of govern
ment, which France for eighty years has
sufficiently discussed.” Intelligence and cap
ital are still to remain disfranchised, but in
return the labourer’s condition is to be im
proved. “ Bread to the cottage, justice to
the palace,” was the promise of the Venetian
Ten, and Napoleon, if he changes the
second, adheres to the first condition. His
offer is also bread to the cottage, provided
only that there is silence in the palace. It
is for France to decide whether she accepts
an offer which is not a small one, which if
honestly made is capable of fulfillment, and
which would pledge her Government to the
best ad interim occupation it could possibly
pursue. Only we would just remind her
that education in the Emperor’s mouth has
hitherto meant only education through
priests, and improvement in the condition
of the labourer only a vast expenditure out
of taxes which the labourer pays, that the first
result of these works has been the reckless
over-crowding of all towns, and that of these
promises there is not one which liberty
could not also secure.
�BEAU-MONDE ANDTPHE DEMI-MONDE IN PARIS.
593
Madame Deffand and Madame Roland or of the roturier ; the conflicts of science and
those of Madame Recamier, exercised over theology — all these furnished materials for
the warriors, sages, and statesmen of France. the tongues of the clever women, materials
The homage paid by the men to the brilliant of which the clever women fully availed
women who charmed the society which they themselves. The final result was not, in
had helped to create may not always have deed, wholly satisfactory. How many a
been perfectly disinterested. The friend short sharp sarcasm, shot from the tongue
ship of the women for their illustrious ad of brilliant causeuses,‘rebounded on the gil
mirers may not always have been perfectly ded rooms wherein it first hurtled! How
Platonic. There may have been some im many a satire, sugared with compliment, at
propriety—or, as our more Puritan friends which rival beaux chuckled in delight,
would say, some sin — in the intercourse of came back with its uncovered venom to the
some of the most celebrated Frenchmen hearts of those whose admiration had first
and Frenchwomen. Yet even this could provoked it! How many a gibe of reckless
not have been predicated of all. Madame truth, aimed at courts and nobles, distilled
de Sevigne’s reputation comes out. clear through laquais and waiting-maids into the
and spotless even from the foulest assault of streets of Paris, to whet the after-wrath
wounded vanity and slighted love. We do of that fierce canaille! Many of those
not forget the comprehensive loves and the clever women had better been silent; many
deliberate inconstancy of Ninon. But Ni of those pungent epigrams had better been
non, corrupt, as she may have been, was unsaid. Still, while the spirited talk went
not venal. She did not ruin her lovers by her on, life was illumined by no common bril
covetousness, and then receive their wives liance ; and vice not only decked itself, but
and sisters in her salons. She was courted forgot _ itself, in the guise of intelligence
by elegant and virtuous women, because she and wit.
was the single and solitary instance as yet
But what a change is it now! There are
known of a woman possessing every grace drawing-rooms in Paris which are more
and every charm save the grace and charm brilliant and gorgeous than any that De
of virtue. Whatever may have been the Sevigne or Recamier ever satin
*
But their
relations between the sexes in those days, brilliance and splendour are not of such
it was at least free from grossness. The airy impalpabilities as genius or wit. They
charms which attracted men to the Maison are solid, substantial, tangible. They are
Rambouillet were not those of sense alone, the brilliance and the splendour, not of able
or in a special degree. They were those of men and clever women, but of the uphol
conversation at once spirited, graceful, sterer, the mechanician, and the decorator.
elegant, and vivacious. To an accom There is gold, there is marble, there is lapis
plished man there is perhaps no greater lazuli; there are pictures, statues, ormolu
social treat than to hear good French clocks; there are rich velvets and cloud
spoken by an educated and clever French like lace, and a blaze of amethysts, rubies,
woman. In her hands a language of which and diamonds. There are trains of Impe
both the excellences and the defects eminent rial dimensions and tiaras of Ijnperial bright
ly qualify it for the purposes of conversational ness. And in whose honour is all this grand
combat becomes a weapon of dazzling fence. display ? To whom is the court paid by
Those delicate turns of phrase which imply this mob of sombre-clad and neatly-gloved
so much more than they express fly like men of every age, from twenty to sixty ?
Parthian shafts, and the little commonplaces Who have taken the place of the great
which may mean nothing do what the female leaders of society whose names have
pawns do when manipulated by a clever added lustre to France ? Strange as it
chess-player — everything. And in the age may seem, their successors are secondwhen the empire of Frenchwomen rested rate or third-rate actresses, opera-dancers,
upon their grace and power in conversa and singers at public rooms and public gar
tion, there was ample matter to task their dens. We do not intend to undertake the
remarkable talents. It was an age of new superfluous task of penning a moral dia
ideas. Government, religion, and philoso tribe, or inveighing against the immorality
phy: the administration of the kingdom of the age. Sermons there are, and will
and the administration of the universe ; the be, in abundance on so prolific and provok
rights of kings to be obeyed by their people ing a theme. In every age actresses and
and the right of the Creator to the adora ballet-girls have had their admirers. In
tion of his creatures; the claims of privi every age, probably, they will continue to
lege and the claims of prerogative; the have admirers. But what is worthy of note
pretensions of rank and the pretensions is this. Formerly this admiration was of
THIRD SERIES. LIVING AGE. VOL. XXXI [.
1478.
�594
BEAU-MONDE AND THE DEMIMONDE IN PARIS.
an esoteric kind. The worshippers adored
their divinities in secret. The temples of
the goddesses were, at any rate, not obtrud
ed on the public eye, nor in possession of
the most open, public, and splendid streets.
The cult, too, was confined to a narrower
circle. But now all this is changed; the
fanes of the divinities ‘are splendid and in
the most splendid streets ; the cult is open,
avowed, public. The worshippers are of
every age, and are all equally indifferent to
secrecy. There is no restriction and no ex
clusion, save on two grounds — those of
poverty and intelligence. There is a kind
of intellect admitted into this gorgeous cote
rie, but it is intellect in livery. The dra
matic author and the dramatic critic are
now as much appendages to the dramatic
courtezan as her coachman and her femme de
chambre. Where professional reputation
depends on scenic effect, and scenic effect
depends upon the equivoque put into the
.actress’s mouth, and the applause with
Tvhich their delivery is received, the man
who concocts the equivoque and the man
•who criticises their delivery become equally
•objects of attention to the actress who is
looking ou^ for a clientele. Saving these
necessary exceptions, these assemblies are
• comprised of rich old men anxious to dissi;pate the money which they have made, and
•rich young men as anxious to dissipate the
•wealth which they have inherited. And
;now we hear that the wives and sisters of
these men seek admission to these Paphian
jhalls.
Jt is, indeed, not an unnatural, though it
iis far from a decent, curiosity which prompts
ladies entitled to the reputation of virtue
do examine something of the life and dounestic economy of those ladies whose very
• existence presupposes an entire repudiation
< of virtue. The married women naturally
•■desire to know something of the manners
and mein and language of the-rivals whose
■arts have diverted their own husbands’
■treasures into alien and obnoxious channels.
'When a wife hears that her husband has,
at one magnificent stroke on the Bourse,
(Carried off one or two millions of francs,
; she is curious to ascertain the process by
which no inconsiderable proportion of these
-winnings has been “ affected ” to the payiment of Madlle. Theodorine’s debts or to the
■purchase of Madlle. Valentine’s brougham.
.And the anxious mother, who has long
■dreamed of the ceremony which might
unite the fortunes of her dear Alcide with
"the dot of her opulent neighbour’s daughter,
Is tortured between the misery of frustrated
Slopes and curiosity to understand the mo
tives which impel Alcide to become the
daily visitor of Mdlle. Gabrielle in the Rue
d’Arcade, and her daily companion when
riding in the Bois de Boulogne. Certainly
the subject is a very curious one. But does
the solution of the problem quite justify
the means taken to solve it? Might not
enough be inferred from the antecedent
history of those who are the subjects of it
to dispense with the necessity of a nearer
examination? Take a number of women
of the lower classes from the different
provinces of France — with no refinement,
with a mere shred of education, and with
but small claim to what an English eye
would regard as beauty — but compensating
for lack of knowledge, education, and re
finement by a vivacity and a coquetry pe
culiarly French. Take these women up to
Paris, tutor them as stage supernumeraries,
and parade before them the example of the
arts of the more successful Eorettes. The
rest may be imagined. From these general
premises it is not difficult to conjecture the
product obtained; to conceive that manner
on which jeunes gens dote, a manner made
up of impudence and grimace ; that repar
tee which mainly consists of ,a new slang
hardly known two miles beyond the Made
line ; those doubles entendres of which per
haps memory is less the parent than instinct,
and that flattery which is always coarse and
always venal. It would be erroneous to say
that we have here given a complete picture
of the class which certain leaders of Paris
fashion wish to study. There are, in the
original, traits and features which we could
not describe, and which it is unnecessary
for us to attempt to describe, as they are por
trayed in the pages of the satirist who has im
mortalized the vices of the most corrupt city
at its most corrupt era. Juvenal will supply
what is wanting to our imperfect delinea
tion. English ladies may read him in the
vigorous paraphrases of Dryden and Gif
ford ; ’ while their French contemporaries
may arrive at a livelier conception of what
we dare not express, if only they stay till
the supper crowns the festal scene of the
masqued ball. If they outstay this, they
will have learned a lesson the value of
which we leave it for themselves to com
pute.
.
. .
It is idle to say that curiosity of this kind
is harmless because it is confined to a few.
Only a few, indeed, may have contemplated
the extreme step of being present at the
Saturnalia of the demi-monde. But how
many others have thought of them and
talked of them ? To how many leaders of
society are the doings of these women the
�THE COVERT.
subjects of daily curiosity and daily con
versation ? How many patrician. -— or, at
all events, noble — dames regular attend
ants at mass, arbiters of fashion, and orna
ments of the Church, honour with their in
quisitiveness, women of whose existence,
twenty years ago, no decent Frenchwoman
was presumed to have any knowledge ?
And do these noble ladies suppose that this
curiosity is disregarded by the adventur
esses from Arles or Strasburg, Bordeaux or
Rouen, whom successful prostitution has
dowered with lace, diamonds, carriages,
and opera-boxes ? Do they suppose that
the professed admiration of the young
Sardanapali for the ex-couturieres and bal
let-girls of Paris has not a more potent ef
fect when combined with the ill-concealed
interest of their mothers and sisters ? And
what that effect is on the men in one class,
and on the women in another, a very slight
knowledge of human nature is sufficient to
suggest. That girls of moderately good looks
will contentedly continue to ply the shuttle
at Lyons, or to drudge as household servants
in Brittany, or to trudge home to a supperless
chamber in Paris with the bare earnings of
a supernumerary or a coryphee at a small
theatre, when a mere sacrifice of chastity
may enable them not only to ruin young
dukes and counts, but to become the theme
and admiration of duchesses and countesses,
is a supposition which involves too high a
U 1 •-■! .
belief in human virtue; and the conditions
we have named are found to be fatal to the
virtue of the poorer Frenchwomen. And
as for the men, what must be the effect on
them ? Debarred from the stirring conflict
of politics; exiled, so to speak, from the
natural arena of patriotic ambition ; know
ing no literature save that of novels in
which courtezans are the heroines, and
caring for no society but that of which
courtezans are the leaders; diversifying the
excitement of the hazard-table and the
betting-room with the excitement of the
coulisses; learning from their habitual asso
ciations to lose that reverence for women
and that courteous attention to them which
are popularly supposed to have at one time
characterized the gentlemen of France —
they partially redeem the degradation which
they court by showing that even a mixture
of vapid frivolity, sensual indulgence, and
senseless extravagance is insufficient to cor
rupt a nation, unless also the female leaders
of society conspire to select for their notice
and admiration those creatures for whom
the law of the land would better have pro
vided the supervision of the police and
the certificate of professional prostitution.
When virtuous women of birth and position
rub shoulders with strumpets, protests are
useless and prophecies are superfluous; for
the taint which goes before destruction is
already poisoning the heart of the nation.
',fl. J
i.
••• • .
‘
bn .
••
' r
'
«
------ — W.’tWUS. •» .(<
‘i
{f, •
bill f>
too’t ito <I> ;!•>.. j vf'jqUiH wto
-w
. *' fl-r< —W
RO
aw; al p
to
’
sir
fi:
THE COVERT.
The eagle beats his way
Strong-winged through the burning blue:
All through the heat of the day
In the covert the wood-doves coo.
Take the wings of the dove, my soul!
Take the wings of the dove!
For the sun is not thy goal,
But the secret place of love. <
Close to the earth and near,
And hidden among the flowers,
By the brink of the brooklet clear,
The dove in her covert cowers.
>‘ni Wq XT
. .ih
Take the wings of the dove, my soul I
Take the wings of the dove!
For the sun is not thy goal,
But the secret place of love.
<•
--.ml.
Flee not afar, my soul
Flee not afar for rest 1
.
The tumult may round thee roll,
q
Yet the dove be in thy breast.
Take the wings of the dove, my soul!
Take the wings of the dove!
--X
For the sun is not thy goal,
But the resting place of love.
"ir Mw
U
yi iv
Good Words'
�596
ORATION OF THE HON. GEORGE BANCROFT.
IN MEMORY OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, THE in her inmost nature, she disenthralled re
MARTYR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED ligion from bondage to temporal power,
STATES.
that her worship might be worship only in
Oration of the Hon. George Bancroft,
at the request of both Houses of Congress,
in the Hall of the House of Representa*v lives of the United States, on Monday,
Feb. 12, 1866. !
Senators, Representatives, ofAmerica: —
GOD IN HISTORY.
That God rules in the affairs of men is
as certain as any truth of physical science.
On the great moving power which is from
the beginning hangs the world of the senses
and the world of thought and action. Eternal
wisdom marshals the great procession of the
nations, working in patient continuity
through the ages, never halting, and never
abrupt, encompassing all events in its over
sight, and ever affecting its will, though
mortals may slumber in apathy or oppose
with madness. Kings are lifted up or thrown
down, nations come and go, republics flour
ish and wither, dynasties pass away like a
tale that is told; but nothing is by chance,
though men in their ignorance of causes may
think so. The deeds of time are governed
as well as judged, by the decrees of eterni
ty. The caprice of fleeting existences bends
to the immovable omnipotence which plants
its foot on all the centuries, and has neither
change of purposes nor repose. Sometimes
like a messenger through the thick darkness
of night, it steps along mysterious ways ; but
when the hour strikes for a people, or for
mankind, to pass into a new form of being,
unseen hands draw the bolts from the gates
of futurity; an all-subduing influence pre
pares the mind of men for the coming revo
lution ; those who plan resistance find them
selves in conflict with the will of Provi
dence, rather than with human devices;
and all hearts and all understandings, most
of all the opinions and influences of the
unwilling, are wonderfully attracted and
compelled to bear forward the change which
becomes more an obedience to the law of
universal nature than submission to the ar
bitrament of man.
GROWTH OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC.
In the fulness of time a republic rose up
in the wilderness of America. Thousands
of years had passed away before this child
of the ages could be born. From whatever
there was of good in the systems of former
centuries she drew her nourishment: the
wrecks of the past were her warnings.
With the deepest sentiment of faith fixed
spirit and in truth. The wisdom which had
passed from India through Greece, with
what Greece had added of her own; the
jurisprudence of Rome; the mediaaval mu
nicipalities ; the Teutonic method of repre
sentation ; the political experience of Eng
land ; the benignant wisdom of the exposi
tors of the law of nature and of nations in
France and Holland, all shed on her their
selectest influence. She washed the gold
of political wisdom from the sands whereever it was found; she cleft it from the
rocks; she gleaned it among ruins. Out of
all the discoveries of statesmen and sages,
out of all the experience of past human life,
she compiled a perennial political philoso
phy, the primordinal principles of national
ethics. The wise men of Europe sought the
best government in a mixture of monarchy,
aristocracy, and democracy; and America
went behind t^ese names to extract from
them the vital elements of social forms, and
blend them harmoniously in the free Com
monwealth, which comes nearest to the illus
tration of the natural equality of all men.
She intrusted the guardianship of establish
ed rights to law; the movements of reform
to the Spirit of the people, and drew her
force from the happy reconciliation of both.
TERRITORIAL EXTENT OF THE REPULIC.
Republics had heretofore been limited to
small cantons or cities and their dependen
cies ; America, doing that of which the like
had not before been known upon the earth,
or believed by kings and statesmen to be
possible, extended her republic across a
continent. Under her auspices the vine of
liberty took deep root and filled the land;
the hills were covered with its shadow ; its
boughs were like the goodly cedars, and
reached unto both oceans. The fame of
this only daughter of freedom went out
into all the lands of the earth; from her
the human race drew hope.
PROPHECIES ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF
SLAVERY.
Neither hereditary monarchy nor heredi
tary aristocracy planted itself on our soil;
the only hereditary condition that fastened
itself upon us was servitude. Nature works
in sincerity, and is ever true to its law.
The bee hives honey, the. viper distils pois
on ; the vine stores its juices, and so do the
poppy and the upas. In like manner, every
thought and every action ripens its seed,
each in its kind. In the individual man,
�ORATION OF THE HON. GEORGE BANCROFT.
. 597
and still more in a nation, a just idea gives position of Virginia and the South that the
life, and progress, and glory; a false j®pn- clause of Jefferson was restored, and the
ception portends disaster, shame, and death. whole Northwestern Territory — all the
A hundred and twenty years ago, a West' territory that then belonged to the nation
Jersey Quaker wrote : “ this trade of im — was reserved for the labor of freemen.
porting slaves is dark gloominess hanging
over the land; the consequences will be DESPAIR OK THE MEN OF THE REVO’‘£l
" lution.
grievous to posterity.”. At the North the
growth of slavery was arrested by natural
The hope prevailed in Virginia that the
causes; in the region nearest the tropics it abolition of the slave trade would bring
throve rankly, and worked itself into the with it the gradual abolition of slavery ; but
organism of the rising States. Virginia the expectation was doomed to disappoint
stood between the two; with soil, and cli ment. In supporting incipient measures
mate, resources demanding free labour, for emancipation, Jefferson encountered
and yet capable of the profitable employ difficulties greater than he could overcome;
ment of the slave. She was the land of and after vain wrestlings, the words that
great statesmen ; and they saw the danger broke from him, “ I tremble for my coun
of her being whelmed under the rising flood try, when I reflect that God is just, that his
in time to struggle against the delusions of justice cannot sleep forever,” were words
avarice and pride. Ninety-four years ago, of despair. It was the desire of Washing
the Legislature of Virginia addressed the ton’s heart that Virginia should remove
British king, saying that the trade in slaves slavery by a public act; and as the pros
was “ of great inhumanity,” was opposed to pect of a general emancipation grew more
the “ security and happiness ” of their con and more dim he, in utter hopelessness of
stituents, “ would in time have the most the action of the State, did all that he could
destructive influence,” and “ endanger their by bequeathing freedom to his own slaves.
very existence.” And the king answered Good and true men had, from the days of
them, that “ upon pain of-his highest dis 1776, thought of colonizing the negro in
pleasure, the importation of slaves should the home of his ancestors. But the idea of
not be in any respect obstructed. “ Phar colonization was thought to increase the dif
isaical Britain,” wrote Franklin in behalf of ficulty of emancipation; and in spite of
Virginia, “to pride thyself in setting free a strong support, while it accomplished much
single slave that happened to land on thy good for Africa, it. proved impracticable as
coasts, while thy laws continue a traffic a remedy at home. Madison, who in early
whereby so many hundreds of thousands are life disliked slavery so much that he wished
dragged into a slavery that is entailed on “ to depend as little as possible on the labor
their posterity.” “A serious view of this of slaves ; ” Madison, who held that where
subject,” said Patrick Henry in 1773, “ gives slavery exists “ the republican theory be
a gloomy prospect to future times.” In the comes fallaciotis; ” Madison, who in the
same year George Mason wrote to the Leg last years of his life would not consent to
islature of Virginia: “ The laws of impar the annexation of Texas, lest his country
tial Providence may avenge our injustice men should fill it with slaves ; Madison, who
upon our posterity.” In Virginia, and in said, “ slavery is the greatest evil under
the Continental Congress, Jefferson, with which the nation labors, a portentous evil,
the approval of Edmund Pendleton, brand an evil — moral, political and economical —ed the slave trade as piracy; and he fixed a sad blot on our free country,” went mourn
in the Declaration of Independence as the fully into old age with the cheerless words:
corner stone of America: “ All men are “ No satisfactory plan has yet been devised
created equal, with an unalienable right to for taking out the stain.”
liberty.” On the first organization of tem
NEW VIEWS OF SLAVERY.
porary governments for the continental do
main Jefferson, but for the default of New
The men of the Revolution passed away.
Jersey, would, in 1784, have consecrated A new generation sprang up, impatient that
every part of that territory to freedom. In an institution to which they clung should be
the formation of the National Constitution condemned as inhuman, unwise and unjust;
Virginia, opposed by a part of New Eng in the throes of discontent at the self-re
land vainly struggled to abolish the slave proach of their fathers, and blinded by the
trade at once and forever; and when the lustre of wealth to be acquired by the cul
ordinance of 1787 was introduced by Na ture of a new staple, they devised the theo
than Dane, without the clause prohibiting ry that slavery, which they would not abol
slavery, it was through the favourable dis ish, was not evil, but good. They turned
�598
ORATION OF THE HON. GEORGE BANCROFT.
on the friends of colonization, and confi
dently demanded, “ Why take black men
from a civilized and Christian country, where
their labor is a source of immense gain and
a power to control the markets of the
world, and send them to a land of ignorance,
idolatry, and indolence, which was the home
of their forefathers, but not theirs ? Slav
ery is a blessing. Were they not in their
ancestral land naked, scarcely lifted above
brutes, ignorant of the course of the sun,
controlled by nature ? And in their new
abode, have they not been taught to know
the difference of the seasons, to plough, to
plant and reap, to drive oxen, to tame the
horse, to exchange their scanty dialect for
the richest of all the languages among men,
and the stupid adoration of follies for the
purest religion ? And since slavery is good
for the blacks, it is good for their masters,
bringing opulence and the opportunity of
educating a race. The slavery of the black
is good in itself; he shall serve the white
man forever.” And nature, which better
understood the quality of fleeting interest
and passion, laughed, as it caught the
echo: “ man ” and “ forever 1 ”
SLAVERY AT HOME.
A regular development of pretensions fol
lowed the new declaration with logical con
sistency. Under the old declaration every
one of the States had retained, each for itself,
the right of manumitting all slaves by an
ordinary act of legislation ; now, the power
of the people over servitude through their
legislatures was curtailed, and the privil
eged class was swift in imposing legal and
constitutional obstruction, on the people
themselves. The power of emancipation
was narrowed or taken away. The slave
might not be disquieted by education. There
remained an unconfessed consciousness that
the system of bondage was wrong, and a
restless memory that it was at variance
with the true American tradition, its safety
was therefore to be secured by political or
ganization. The generation that made the
Constitution took care for the predomi
nance of freedom in Congress, by the ordi
nance of Jefferson ; the new school aspired
to secure for slavery an equality of votes in
the Senate; and while it hinted at an or
ganic act that should concede to the collec
tive South a veto power on national legisla
tion, it assumed that each State separately
had the right to revise and nullify laws of
the United States, according to the discre
tion of its judgment.
SLAVERY AND FOREIGN RELATIONS.
The new theory hung as a bias on the for
eign relations of the country; there could be
no recognition of Hayti, nor even the Amer
ican colony of Liberia; and the world was
given to understand that the establishment
of free labor in Cuba would be a reason for
wresting that island from Spain. Territo
ries were annexed; Louisiana, Florida, Tex
as, half of Mexico; slavery must have its
share in them all, and it accepted for a time
a dividing line between the unquestioned
domain of free labor and that in which in
voluntary labor was to be tolerated. A few
years passed away, and the new school,
strong and arrogant, demanded and recived an apology for applying the Jefferson
proviso to Oregon.
SQUATTER SOVEREIGNTY.
The application of that proviso was inter
rupted for three administrations; but justice
moved steadily onward. In the news that the
men of California had chosen freedom, Cal
houn heard the knell of parting slavery7; and
on his deathbed he counselled secession.
Washington, and Jefferson, and Madison,
had died despairing of the abolition of slav
ery ; Calhoun died in despair at the growth
of freedom., His system rushed irresistibly
to its natural development. The death
struggle for California was followed by a
short truce; but the new school of politicians
who said that slavery was not evil, but good,
soon sought to recover the ground they had
lost, and confident of securing Texas, they
demanded that the established line in the
territories between freedom and slavery
should be blotted out. The country, believ
ing in the strength and enterprise and ex
pansive energy of freedom, made answer,
though reluctantly: “ Be it so ; let there be
no strife between brethren ; let freedom and
slavery compete for the territories on equal
terms, in a fair field under an impartial ad
ministration ; ” and on this theory, if on any,
the contest might have been left to the de
cision of time.
DEED SCOTT DECISION.
The South started back in appallment
from its victory; for it knew that a fair
competition foreboded its defeat. But where
could it now find an ally to save it from its
own mistake ? What I have next to say is
spoken with no emotion but regret. Our
meeting to-day is, as it were, at the grave,
in the presence of Eternity, and the truth
must be uttered in soberness and sincerity.
�ORATION OF THE. HON. GEORGE BANCROFT.
In a great republic, as was observed more
than two thousand years ago, any attempt
to overturn the state owes its strength to aid
from some branch of the government. The
Chief Justice of the United States, without
any necessity or occasion, volunteered to
come to the rescue of the theory of slavery.
And from his court there lay no appeal but
to the bar of humanity and history. Against
the Constitution, against the memory of the
nation, against a previous decision, against
a series of enactments, he decided that the
slave is property, that slave property is en
titled to no less protection than any other
property, that the Constitution upholds it in
every territory against any act of a local
Legislature, and even against Congress it
self ; or, as the President tersely promulgat
ed the saying : “ Kansas is as much a slave
. State as South Carolina or Georgia ; slav
ery, by virtue of the Constitution, exists in
every territory.” The municipal character
of slavery being thus taken away, and slave
property decreed to be “ sacred,” the au
thority of the courts was invoked to intro
duce it by the comity of law into States
where slavery had been abolished; and in
one of the courts of the United States a
judge pronounced the African slave trade
legitimate, and numerous and powerful ad
vocates demanded its restoration.
TANEY AND SLAVE RACES.
Moreover, the Chief Justice, in his elabo
rate opinion, announced what had never
been heard from any magistrate of Greece
or Rome — what was unknown to civil law,
and canon law, and feudal law, and comm on
law, and constitutional law; unknown to
Jay, to Rutledge, Ellsworth and Marshall
— that there are “ slave races.” The spirit
of evil is intensely logical. Having the au
thority of this decision, five States swiftly
followed the earlier example of a sixth, and
opened the way for reducing the free negro
to bondage; the migrating free negro be
came a slave if he but touched the soil of a
seventh ; and an eighth, from its extent and
soil and mineral resources, destined to in
calculable greatness, closed its eyes on its
coming prosperity, and enacted — as by Ta
ney’s decision it had the right to do — that
every free black man who would live within
its limits must accept the condition of slav
ery for himself‘and his posterity.
SECESSION RESOLVED ON.
Only one step more remained to be taken.
Jefferson and the leading statesmen of his
day held fast to the idea that the enslave
ment of the African was socially, morally
599
and politically wrong. The new school was
founded exactly upon the opposite idea;
and they resolved first to distract the demo
cratic party for which the Supreme Court
had now furnished the means, and then to
establish a new government, with negro
slavery for its corner stone, as socially, mor
ally and politically right.
THE ELECTION.
As the presidential election drew on, one
of the old traditional parties did not make
its appearance; the other reeled as it sought
to preserve its old position; and the candi
date who most nearly represented its best
opinion, driven by patriotic zeal, roamed
the country from end to end to speak for
union, eager at least to confront its enemies,
yet not having hope that it would find its
deliverance through him. The storm rose
to a whirlwind ; who should allay its wrath ?
The most experienced statesmen of the
country had failed ; there was no hope from
those who were great after the flesh; could
relief come from one whose wisdom was like
the wisdom of little children ?
EARLY LIFE OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
The choice of America fell on a man born
west of the Alleghanies, in the cabin of poor
people of Hardin county, Kentucky — Abra
ham Lincoln.
His mother could read, but not write ; his
father could do neither ; but his parents sent
him, with an old spelling-book, to school,
and he learned in his childhood to do both.
When eight years old he floated down the
Ohio with his father on a raft which bore
the family and all their possessions to the
shore of Indiana; and, child as he was, he
gave help as they toiled through dense for
ests to the interior of Spencer county.
There in the land of free labor he grew up
in a log cabin, with the solemn solitude for
his teacher in his meditative hours.
Of
Asiatic literature he knew only the Bible;
of Greek, Latin, and medieval, no more
than the translation of 2Esop’s Fables; of
English, John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress.
The traditions of Georgfe Fox and William
Penn passed to him dimly along the lines .of'
two centuries through his ancestors, who
were Quakers.
HIS EDUCATION.
Otherwise his education was altogether
American. The Declaration of Independ
ence was his compendium of political wis
dom, the life of Washington his constant
study, and something of Jefferson and Madi
son reached him through Henry Clay, whom
�600
ORATION OF THE HON. GEORGE BANCROFT.
he honoured from boyhood. For the re^t,
from day to day, he lived the life of the
American people; walked in its light; rea
soned with its reason, thought with its pow
er of thought; felt the beatings of its mighty
heart; and so was in every way a child of
nature—a child of the West—a child of
America.
HIS PROGRESS IN LIFE.
At nineteen, feeling impulses of ambition
to get on in the world, he engaged himself
to go down the Mississippi in a flat boat,
receiving ten dollars a month for his wages,
and afterwards he made the trip once more.
At twenty-one he drove his father’s cattle
as the family migrated to Illinois, and split
rails to fence in the new homestead in the
wild. At twenty-three he was a captain of
volunteers in the Black Hawk war. He
kept a shop ; he learned something of sur
veying ; but of English literature he added
to Bunyan nothing but Shakespeare’s plays.
At twenty-five he was elected to the Legis
lature of Illinois, where he served eight
years. At twenty-seven he was admitted
to the bar. In 1837 he chose his home at
Springfield, the beautiful centre of the
richest land in the State. In 1847 he was
a member of the national Congress, where
he voted about forty times in favour of the
principle of the Jefferson proviso. In 1854
he gave his influence to elect 'from Illinois
to the American Senate a democrat who
would certainly do justice to Kansas. In
1858, as the rival of Douglas, he went be
fore the people of the mighty Prairie State,
saying: “ This Union cannot permanently
endure, half slave and half free ; the Union
will not be dissolved, but the house will
cease to be divided.” And now, in 1861,
with no experience whatever as an exec
utive officer, while States were madly fly
ing from their orbit, and wise men knew
not where to find counsel, this descendant
of Quakers, this pupil of Bunyan, this
child of the great West was elected Presi
dent of America.
He measured the difficulty of the duty
that devolved on him, and was resolved to
fulfil it.
HE GOES TO WASHINGTON.
As on the eleventh of February, 1861, he
left Springfield, which for a quarter of a
century had been his happy home, to the
crowd of his friends and neighbours whom
he was never more to meet, he spoke a
solemn farewell: “ I know not how soon I
shall see you again. A duty has devolved
upon me, greater than that which has de
volved upon any other man since Washing
ton. He never would have succeeded, ex
cept for the aid of Divine Providence, upon
which he at all times relied. On the same
Almighty Being I place my reliance. Pray
that I may receive that Divine assistance,
without which I cannot succeed, but with
which success is certain.” To the men of
Indiana he said : > “ I am but an accidental,
temporary instrument; it is your business
to rise up and preserve the Union and lib
erty.” At the capital of Ohio he said:
“ Without a name, without a reason why I
should have a name, there has fallen upon
me a task such as did not rest even upon
the Father of his country.” At various
places in New York, especially at Albany
before the Legislature, which tendered him
the united support of the great Empire
State, he said: “ While I hold myself the
humblest of all the individuals who have
ever been elevated to the Presidency, I
have a more difficult task to perform than
any of them. I bring a true heart to the
work. I must rely upon the' people of the
whole country for support; and with their
sustaining aid even I, humble as I am, can
not fail to carry the ship of State safely
through the storm.” To the Assembly of
New Jersey, at Trenton, he explained: “ I
shall take the ground I deem .most just to
the North, the East, the West, the South,
and the whole country, in good temper,
certainly with no malice to any section. I
am devoted to peace, but it may. be neces
sary to put the foot down firmly.” In the
old Independence Hall of Philadelphia he
said: “ I have never had a feeling politi
cally that did not spring from the senti
ments embodied in the Declaration of In
dependence, which gave liberty, not alone
to the people of this country, but to the
world in all future time. If the country
cannot be- saved without giving up that
principle, I would rather be assassinated on
the spot than surrender it. I have said
nothing but what I am willing to live and
die by.
IN WHAT STATE HE FOUND THE
.COUNTRY.
Travelling in the dead of night to escape
assassination, Lincoln arrived at Washing
ton nine days before his inauguration. The
outgoing President, at the opening of the
session of Congress had still kept as the
majority of his advisers men engaged in
treason : had declared that in case of even
an “ imaginary ” apprehension of danger
from notions of freedom among the slaves,
“ disunion would become inevitable.” Lin-
�ORATION OF THE HOI . GEORGE BANCROFT.
601
coin and others had questioned the opinion of of th© South, or any decision of the Su
Taney; such impugning he ascribed to the preme Court; and, nevertheless, the seced
“ factious temper of the times.” The fa ing States formed at Montgomery a provi
vorite doctrine of the majority of the sional government, and pursued their re
democratic party on the power of a terri lentless purpose with such success that the
torial legislature over slavery he condemned Lieutenant-General feared the city of
as an attack on “ the sacred rights of pro Washington might find itself “ included in
perty.” The State Legislatures, he insist a foreign country,” and proposed, among
ed, must repeal what he called “their un the options for the consideration of Lincoln,
constitutional and obnoxious enactments,” to bid the seceded States “ depart in peace.”
and which, if such, were “ null and void,” The great republic seemed to have its em
or “ it would be impossible for any human blem in the vast unfinished capitol, at that
power to save the Union ! ” Nay 1 if these moment surrounded by masses of stone and
unimportant acts were not repealed, “ the prostrate columns never yet lifted into
injured States would be justified in revolu their places: seemingly the monument of
tionary resistance to the government of the high but delusive aspirations, the confused
Union.” He maintained that no State wreck of inchoate magnificence, sadder
might secede at its sovereign will and than any ruin of Egyptian Thebes or
pleasure; that the Union was meant for Athens.
perpetuity; and that Congress might at
tempt to preserve, but only by conciliation;
HIS INAUGURATION.
that “the sword was not placed in their
The fourth of March came. With inhands to preserve it by force; ” that “ the stincftve wisdom the new President, speak
last desperate remedy of a despairing peo ing to the people on taking the oath of
ple ” would be “ an explanatory amend office, put aside every question that divided
ment recognizing the decision of the Su the country, and gained a right to univer
preme Court of the United States.” The sal support, by planting himself on the
American Union he called “ a confederacy ” single idea of Union. That Union he de
of States, and he thought it a duty to make clared to be unbroken and perpetual; and
the appeal for amendment “ before any of he announced his determination to fulfil
these States should separate themselves “the simple duty of taking care that the
from the Union.” The views off the Lieu laws be faithfully executed in all the
tenant-General, containing some patriotic States.” Seven days later, the convention
advice, “ conceded the right of secession,” of confederate States unanimously adopted
pronounced a quadruple rupture of the a constitution of their own; and the new
Union “ a smaller evil than the reuniting of government was authoritatively announ
the fragments by the sword,” and “ eschew ced to be founded on the idea that slave
ed the idea of invading a seceded State. ry is the natural and normal condition
After changes in the Cabinet, the Presi of the negro race. The issue was made up
dent informed Congress that “ matters were whether the great republic was to main
still worse; ” that “ the South suffered se tain its providential place in the history of
rious grievances,” which should be redress mankind, or a rebellion founded on negro
ed “ in peace.” The day after this message slavery gain a recognition of its principle'
the flag of the Union was fired upon from throughout the civilized world. To the
Fort Moultrie, and the insult was not disaffected Lincoln had said: “ You have
revenged or noticed. Senators in Congress no conflict without being yourselves the ag
telegraphed to their constituents to seize gressors.” To fire the passions of the South
the national forts, and they were not ar ern portion of the people the confederate
rested. The finances of the country were government chose to become aggressors;
grievously embarrassed. Its little army and on the morning of the 12th of April
was not within reach — the part of it in began the bombardment of Fort Sumter,
Texas,' with all its stores, were made over and compelled its evacuation.
by its commander to the seceding insur
UPRISING OF THE PEOPLE
gents. One State after another voted in
convention to go out of the Union. A
It is the glory of the late President that
peace Congress, so-called, met at the re he had perfect faith in the perpetuity of
quest of Virginia, to concert the terms of the Union. Supported in advance by
capitulation for the continuance of the Douglas, who spoke as with the voice of a
Union. Congress in both branches sought million, he instantly called a meeting of
to devise conciliatory expedients ; the ter Congress, and summoned the people to
ritories of the country were organized in a come up and repossess the forts, places and
manner not to conflict with any pretensions property which had been seized from the
�602
ORATION OF THE HON. GEORGE BANCROFT.
Union. The men of the North were trained
in schools; industrious and frugal; many
of them delicately bred, their minds teem
ing with ideas and fertile in plans of enter
prise ; given to the culture of the arts;
eager in the pursuit of wealth, yet employ
ing wealth less for ostentation than for de
veloping the resources of their country;
seeking happiness in the calm of domestic
life; and such lovers of peace that for gen
erations they have been reputed unwarlike.
Now, at the cry of their country in its dis
tress, they rose up with unappeasable patri
otism : not hirelings'— the purest and of the
best blood in the land; sons of a pious
ancestry, with a clear perception of duty,
unclouded faith and fixed resojve to succeed,
they thronged round the President to sup
port the wronged, the beautiful flag of the
nation. The halls of theological semi
naries sent forth their young men, whose
lips were touched with eloquence, whose
hearts kindled with devotion to serve in the
ranks, and make their way to command
only as they learned the art of war. Strip
lings in the colleges, as well as the most
gentle and the most studious; those of
sweetest temper and loveliest character and
brightest genius passed from their classes to
the camp. The lumbermen sprang forward
from the forest, the mechanics from their
benches, where they had been trained by
the exercise of political rights to share
the Hfe and hope of the Republic, to feel
their responsibility to their forefathers,
their posterity and mankind, went forth re
solved that their dignity as a constituent
part of this republic should not be impaired.
Farmers and sons of farmers left the land
but half ploughed, the grain but half plant
ed, and, taking up the musket, learned to
face without fear the presence of peril- and
the coming of death in the shocks of war,
while their hearts were still attracted to the
charms of their rural life, and all the tender
affections of home. Whatever there was of
truth and faith and public love in the com
mon heart broke out with one expression.
The mighty winds blew from every quarter
to fan the flame of the sacred and unquench
able fire.
in an eminent degree attained to freedom
of industry and the security of person and
property. Its middle class rose to greatness.
Out of that class sprung the noblest poets
and philosophers, whose words built up the
intellect of its people; skilful navigators,
to find out the many paths of the ocean;
discoverers in natural science, whose inven
tions guided its industry to wealth, till it
equalled any nation of the world in letters,
and excelled all in trade and commerce.
But its government was become a govern
ment of land, and not of men; every blade
of grass was represented, but only a small
minority of the people. In the transition
from the feudal forms, the heads of the so
cial organization freed themselves from the
military services which were the conditions
of their tenure, and throwing the burden on
the industrial classes, kept all the soil to
themselves. Vast estates that had been
managed by monasteries as endowments for
religion and charity were impropriated to
swell the wealth of courtiers and favorites;
and the commons, where the poor man once
had his right of pasture, were taken away,
and, under forms of law, enclosed distributively within their own domains. Although
no law forbade any inhabitant from pur
chasing land, the costliness of the transfer
constituted a prohibition; so that it was the
rule of that country that the plough should
not be in the hands of its owner. The
church was rested on a contradiction,
claiming to be an embodiment of absolute
truth, and yet was a creature of the statute
book.
HER SENTIMENTS.
The progress of time increased the terri
ble contrast between wealth and poverty;
in their years of strength, the laboring peo
ple, cut off from all share in governing the
State, derived a scanty support from the
severest toil, and had no hope for old age
but in public charity or death. A grasping
ambition had dotted the world with military
posts, kept watch over our borders on the
northeast, at the Bermudas, in the West
Indies, held the gates of the Pacific, of the
Southern and of the Indian Ocean, hover
ed on our northwest at Vancouver, held the
THE WAR A WORLD-WIDE WAR.
whole of the newest continent, and the en
For a time the war was thought to be trances to the old Mediterranean and Red
confined to our own domestic affairs; but Sea ; and garrisoned forts all the way from
it was soon seen that it involved the desti Madras to China.
That aristocracy had
nies of mankind, and its principles and gazed with terror on the growth of a com
causes shook the politics of Europe to the monwealth where freeholds existed by the
centre, and from Lisbon to Pekin, divided million, and religion was not in bondage to
the governments of the world.
the state ; and now they could not repress
GREAT BRITAIN.
their joy at its perils. They had not one
There was a kingdom whose people had I word of sympathy for the kind-hearted
�ORATION OF THE HON
poor man’s son whom America had chosen
for her chief; they jeered at his large hands,
and long feet, and ungainly stature; and
the British' secretary of state for foreign af
fairs made haste to send word through the
palaces of Europe that the great republic
was in its agony,, that the republic was no
more, that a head stone was all that remain
ed due by the law of nations to “ the late
Union.” But it is written: “ Let the dead
bury their dead ; ” they may not bury the
living. Let the dead bury their dead; let
a bill of reform remove the worn-out gov
ernment of a class, and infuse new life into
the British constitution by confiding right
fill power to the people.
HER POLICY.
GEORGE BANCROFT.
603
land. Thrice only in all its history has that
yearning been fairly met; in the days of
Hampden and Cromwell, again in the first
ministry of the elder Pitt, and once again in
the ministry of Shelburne. Not that there
have not at all times been just men among
the peers of Britain — like Halifax in the
days of James the Second, or a Granville, an
Argyll, or a Hdughton in ours ; and we can
not be indifferent to a country that produces
statesmen like Cobden and' Bright; but the
best bower anchor of peace was the working
class of England, who suffered most from
our civil war, but who, while they broke
their diminished bread in sorrow, always en
couraged us to persevere.
FRANCE AND THE MONROE DOCTRINE. ■
*
The act of recognizing the rebel belliger
But while the vitality of America is inde
structible, the British government hurried ents wagLconcerted with France ; France, so
to do what never before had been done by beloved in America, on which she had con
Christian powers, what was in direct con ferred th® greatest benefits that one people
flict with its own exposition of public law in ever conferred on another^ France, which
the time of our struggle for. independence. stands foremost on the continent of Europe
Though the insurgent States had not a ship for the solidity of her culture, as well as for
in an open harbor, it invested them with the bravery and ■ generous impulses of her
all the rights of a belligerent, even on the sons ; France, which for centuries had been
ocean; and this, too, when the rebellion moving steadily in its own way towards in
was not only directed against the gentlest tellectual and policial freewom. The poli
and most beneficent government on earth, cy regarding further^ponization of Ameri
without a shadow of justifiable cause, but ca by European power®!, known commonly
when the rebellion was directed against Ma as the doctrine of Mowoe, had its origin in
man nature itself for the perpetual enslave France; and if it takes any man’s name,
ment of a race. And the effect of this re should bear the name of Turgot. It was
cognition was that acts in themselves pirati adopted by Louis the Sixteenth, in the cabi
cal found shelter in British courts of law. net of which Vergennes was the most imThe resources of British capitalist^ their portant member. It is emphatically the poliworkshops, their armories, their private ar cy of France^ to which, with transient de
senals, their shipyards, were in league with viations, the Bourbons, the First Napoleon,
the insurgents, and every British harbor in the House of Orleans have ever adhered.
the wide world became a safe port for British
ships, manned by British sailors, and arrngfl THE EMPEROR NAPOLEON AND MEXICO.
The late President was perpetually har
with British guns, to prey on our peaceful
commerce ; even on our ships coming from assed by rumors that the Emperor Napoleon
British ports, freighted with British pro the Third desired formally to recognize the
ducts, or that had carried gifts of grain to States in rebellion as an independent power,
the English poor. The prime minister in and that England held him back by her re
the House of Commons, sustained by cheers, luctance, or France by her traditions of
scoffed at the thought that their laws could freedom, or he himself by his own better
be amended at our request, so as to pre judgment and clear perception of events.
serve real neutrality; and to remonstrances But the republic of Mexico, on our borders,
now owned to have been just, their secreta was, like ourselves, distracted by a rebellion,
ry answered that they could not change and from a similar cause. The monarchy
of England . had fastened upon us slavery
their laws ad-infinitum.
which did not disappear with independence;
RELATIONS WITH ENGLAND.
in like manner, the ecclesiastical policy es
The people of America then wished, as tablished by the Spanish council of the In
they always have wished, as they still wish, dies, in the days of Charles the Fifth and
friendly relations with England; and no Philip the Second, retained its vigor in the
man in Europe or America can desire it Mexican Republic. The fifty years of civil
' more strongly than I. This country has al war under which she had languished was
ways yearned for good relations with Eng- I due to the bigoted system which was the
�604
ORATION OF THE HOnJ GEORGE BANCROFT. '
legacy of monarchy, just as here the inheri
tance of slavery kept alive political strife,
and culminated in civil war. As with us
there could be no quiet but through the end
of slavery, so in Mexico there could be no
prosperity until the crushing tyranny of in
tolerance should cease. The party of slav
ery in the United States sent their emissa
ries to Europe to solicit aid; and so did the
party of the church in Mexico, as organized
by the old Spanish council of the Indies,
but with a different result. Just as the re
publican party had made an end of the re
bellion, and was establishing the best gov
ernment ever known in that region, and giv
ing promise to the nation of order, peace,
and prosperity, word was brought us, in the
moment of our deepest affliction, that the
*
French emperor, moved by a desire to erect
in North America a buttress for Imperial
ism, would transform the republic of Mexico
into a secundo-geniture for the house of
Hapsburgh. America might complain ; she
>could not then interpose, and delay seemed
justifiable. It was seen that Mexico could
not, with all its wealth of land, compete in
cereal products with' our northwest, nor, in
tropical products, with Cuba; nor could it,
under a disputed dynasty, attract capital, or
create public works, or develop mines, or
borrow money; so that the imperial system
of Mexico, which was forced at once to rec
ognize the wisdom of the policy of the repub
lic by adopting it, could prove only an un
remunerating drain on the French treasury
for the support of an Austrian adventurer.
THE PERPETUITY OF REPUBLICAN INSTI
TUTIONS.
Meantime, a new series of momentous
questions grows up, and forces themselves
on the consideration of the thoughtful. Re
publicanism has learned how to introduce
into its constitution every element of order,
as well as every element of freedom; but
thus far the continuity of its government has
seemed to depend on the continuity of elec
tions. It is now tobe considered how per
petuity is to be secured against foreign oc
cupation. The successor of Charles the
First of England dated his reign from the
death of his father; the Bourbons, coming
back after a long series of revolutions,
claimed that the Louis who became king was
the eighteenth of that name. The present
emperor of the French, disdaining a title
from election alone, is called the third of his
name. Shall a republic have less power of
continuance when invading armies prevent
a peaceful resort to the ballot box ? What
force shall it attach to intervening legisla
tion ? What validity to debts contracted
for its overthrow ? These momentous
questions are by the invasion of Mexico
thrown up for solution. A free State once
truly constituted should be as undying as its
people; the republic of Mexico must rise
again.
THE POPE OF ROME AND THE REBELLION.
It was the condition of affairs in Mexico
that involved the Pope of Rome in our dif
ficulties so far that he alone among temporal
sovereigns recognized the chief of the Con
federate States as a president, and his sup
porters as a people; and in letters to two
great prelates of the Catholic Church in the
United States gave counsels for peace at a
time when peace meant the victory of se
cession. Yet events move as they are or
dered. The blessing of the Pope at Rome
on the head of Duke Maximilian could not
revive in the nineteenth century the eccle
siastical policy of the sixteenth; and the re
sult is only a new proof that there can be no
prosperity in the State without religious
freedom.
THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA.
When it came home to the consciousness
of the Americans that the war which they
were waging was a war for the liberty of all
the nations of the world, for freedom itself,
they thanked God for the severity of the
trial to which he put their sincerity, and
nerved themselves for their duty with an
inexorable will. The President was led
along by the greatness of their self-sacrifi
cing example; and as a child, in a dark
night on a rugged way, catches hold of the
hand of its father for guidance and support,
he clung fast to the hand of the people, and
moved Calmly through the gloom. While
the statesmanship of Europe was scoffing
at the hopeless vanity of their efforts, they
put forth such miracles of energy as the
history of the world had never known.
The navy of the United States drawing into
the public service the willing militia of the
seas, doubled its tonnage in eight months,
and established an actual blockade from
Cape Hatteras to the Rio Grande. In the
course of the war it was increased five fold
in men and in tonnage, while the inventive
genius of the country devised more effec
tive kinds of ordnance, and new forms of
naval architecture in wood and iron. There
went into the field, for various terms of
service, about two million men; and in
March last the men in service exceeded a
million; that is to say, one of every two
able-bodied men took some part in the war;
and at one time every fourth able-bodied
I man was in the field. In one single month.
�ORATION OF THE HO-N.
GEORGE BANCROFT.1
605
one hundred and sixty-five thousand were Mississippi, which would not be divided,
recruited into service. Once, within four and the range of mountains which car
weeks, Ohio organized and placed in the ried the stronghold of the free through
field, forty-two regiments of infantry — Western Virginia and Kentucky and Ten
nearly thirty-six thouand men; and Ohio nessee to the highlands of Alabama. But
was like other States in the east and in the it invoked the still higher power of immor
west. The well-mounted cavalry numbered tal justice. In ancient Greece, where ser
eighty-four thousand ; of horses there were vitude was the universal custom, it was
bought, first and last, two thirds of a mil held that if a child were to strike its parent,
lion. In the movements of troops science the slave should defend the parent, and by
came in aid of patriotism ; so that, to choose that act recover his freedom. After vain
a single instance out of many, an army resistance, Lincoln, who had tried to solve
twenty-three thousand strong, with its ar the question by gradual emancipation, by
tillery, trains, baggage and animals, were colonization, and by compensation, at last
moved by rail from the Potomac to the Ten saw that slavery must be abolished, or the
nessee, twelve hundred miles in seven days. Republic must die; and on the 1st day of
In the long marches, wonders of military January, 1863, he wrote liberty on the ban
construction bridged the rivers; and where- ners of the armies. When this proclamaever an army halted, ample supplies await tion, which struck the fetters from three
ed them at their ever changing base. The millions of slaves reached Europe, Lord
vile thought that life is the greatest of Russell, a countryman of Milton and Wil
blessings did not rise up. In six hundred berforce, eagerly put himself forward to
and twenty-five battles, and severe skir speak of it in
name of mankind, saying:
mishes blood flowed like water. It streamed “ It is of a very strange nature ; ” “a meas
over the grassy plains ; it stained the rocks; ure of war of a very questionable kind; ”
the undergrowth of the forest was red an “ act of vengeance on the slave owner,”
with it; and the armies marched on with that does no more thanEErofess to emanci
majestic courage from one conflict to anoth pate slaves where the United States authorer, knowing that they were fighting for God ities cannot make emancipation a reality.”
and liberty. The organization of the medi Now there was no pa™ of the country emcal department met its infinitely multiplied braced in the proclamation where the United
duties with exactness and despatch. At the States could not and did hot make emanci. news of a battle, the best surgeons of our jfflffipn a reality. Those who saw Lincoln
cities hastened to the field, to offer the most frequently had nev^fibefore heard
zealous aid of the greatest experience and him speak with bitterness of any human
skill. The gentlest and most refined of being ; but he did not conceal how keenly
women left homes of luxury and, ease to he felt that he had been wronged by Lord
build hospital tents near the armies, and Russell. And he wrote, in reply to another
serve as nurses to the sick and dying. Be caviller: “ The emancipation policy, and
sides the large supply of religious teachers the use of colored troops/gvere the greatest
by the public, the congregations spared to blows yet dealt to the rebellion. The job was
their brothers in the field the ablest minis a great national one ; and let none be slight
ters.
The Christian Commission, which ed who bore an honorable part in it. I hope
expended five and a half millions, sent four peace will come soon, and come to stay;
thousand clergymen chosen out of the best, then there will be some black men who can
to keep un soiled the religious character of remember that they have helped mankind
the men, and made gifts of clothes and food to this great consummation.”
and medicine. The organization of private
RUSSIA AND CHINA.
charity assumed unheard of dimensions.
■The Sanitary Commission, which had seven
The proclamation accomplished its end,
thousand societies, distributed, under the for, during the war, our armies came into
direction of an unpaid board, spontaneous military possession of every State in rebel
contributions to the amount of fifteen mil lion. Then, too, was called forth the
lions, in supplies or money — a million and new power that comes from the simultane
a half in money from California alone — ous diffusion of thought and feeling among
and dotted the scene of war from Paducah the nations of mankind. The mysterious
to Port Royal, from Belle Plain, Virginia, sympathy of the millions throughout the •
to Browsnville, Texas, with homes and world was given spontaneously. The best
lodges.
writers of Europe waked the conscience
of the thoughtful, till the intelligent moral
THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION.
sentiment of the Old World was drawn
pi The country had for its allies "the River to the side of the unlettered statesman
�606
ORATION OF THE HONF GEORGE BANCROFT.
of the West. Russia, whose emperor had
just accomplished one of the grandest acts
in the course of time by raising twenty mil
lions of bondmen into' freeholders, and thus
assuring the growth and culture of a Rus
sian people, remained our unwavering
friend. From the oldest abode of civiliza
tion, which gave the first example of an im
perial government with equality among the
people, Prince Kung, the secretary of state
for foreign affairs, remembered the saying
of Confucius, that we should not do to
others what we would not that others should
do to us, and in the name of the Emperor
of China closed its ports against the war
ships and privateers of “ the seditious.”
CONTINUANCE OF THE WAR.
The war continued, with all the peoples
of the world for anxious spectators. Its
cares weighed heavily on Lincoln, and his
face was ploughed with the furrows of
thought and sadness. With malice towards
none, free from the spirit of revenge, victo
ry made him importunate for peace; and
his enemies never doubted his word, or
despaired of his abounding clemency. He
longed to utter pardon as the word for all,
but not unless the freedom of the negro
should be assured. The grand battles of
Mill Spring which gave us Nashville, of
Fort Donelson, Malvern Hill, Antietam,
Gettysburg, the Wilderness of Virginia,
Winchester, Nashville, the capture of New
Orleans, Vicksburg, Mobile, Fort Fisher,
the march from Atlanta and the capture of
Savannah and Charleston, all foretold the
issue. Still more, the self-regeneration of
Missouri, the heart of the continent; of Ma
ryland, whose sons never heard the mid
night bell chime so. sweetly as when they
rang out to earth and heaven that, by the
voice of her own people, she took her place
among the free ; of Tennessee, which passed
through fire and blood, through sorrows and
the shadow of death, to work out her own
deliverance, and by the faithfulness of her
own sons to renew her youth like the eagle
— proved that victory was deserved and
would be worth all that it cost. If words
of mercy uttered as they were by Lincoln
on the waters of Virginia, were defiantly
repelled, the armies of the country, moving
with one will, went as the arrow to its
mark, and without a. feeling of revenge
struck a deathblow at rebellion.
ing him to a second term of service. The
raging war that had divided the country
had lulled; and private grief was hushed
by the grandeur of its results. The nation
had its new birth of freedom, soon to be
secured forever by an amendment of the
Constitution. His persistent gentleness had
conquered for him a kindlier feeling on the
part of the South. His scoffers among the
grandees of Europe began to do him honor.
The laboring classes every where saw in his
advancement their own. All peoples sent
him their benedictions. And at the mo
ment of the height of his fame, to which his
humility and modesty added charms, he fell
by the hand of the assassin; and the only
triumph awarded him was tb,e march to the
grave.
THE GREATNESS OF MAN.
This is no time to say that human glory
is but dust and ashes, that we mortals are
no more than shadows in pursuit of shadows.
How mean a thing were man, if there were
not that within him which is higher than
himself—if he could not master the illu
sions of sense, and discern the connections
of events by a superior light which comes
from God. He so shares the divine impul
ses that he has power to subject interested
passions to love of country, and personal
ambition to the ennoblement of man. Not
in vain has Lincoln lived, for he has helped
to make this Republic an exatnple of jus
tice, with no caste but the caste of humani
ty. The heroes who led our armies and
ships into battle — Lyon, McPherson, Rey
nolds, Sedgwick, Wadsworth, Foote, Ward,
with their compeers — and fell in the ser
vice, did not die in vain ; they and the my
riads of nameless martyrs, and he, the chief
martyr, died willingly “ that government of
the people, by the people, and for the peo
ple, shall not perish from the earth.”
THE JUST DIED FOR THE UNJUST.
The assassination of Lincoln, who was so
free from malice, has from some mysterious
influence struck the country with solemn
awe, and hushed, instead of exciting, the
passion for revenge. It seemed as if the
just had died for the unjust. When I think
of the friends I have lost in this war — and
every one who hears me has, like myself,
lost those whom he most loved — there is
no consolation to be derivedftom victims on
the scaffold, or from any thing but the es
tablished union of the regenerated nation.
Lincoln’s assassination.
„ CHARACTER OF LINCOLN.
I
Where, in the history of nations, had a
Chief Magistrate possessed more sources of
In his character Lincoln was through and
consolation and joy, than Lincoln? His through an American. He is the first nacountrymen had shown their love by choos I tive of the region west of the Alleghanies to
�ORATION OF THE HON . GEORGE BANCROFT.
i
607
attain to the highest station; and how hap
Lincoln was one of the most unassuming
py it is- that the man who was brought for of men. In time of success, he gave credit
ward as the natural outgrowth and first for it to those whom he employed, to the
fruits of that region should have been of un people, and to the providence of God. He
blemished purity in private life, a good son, did not know what ostentation is; when he
a kind husband, a most affectionate father, became President he was rather saddened
and, as a man, so gentle to all. As to in than elated, and his conduct and manners
tegrity, Douglas, his rival, said of him, “ Lin showed more than ever his belief that all
coln is the honestest man I ever knew.”
men are born equal. He was no respecter
The habits of his mind were those of of persons ; and neither rank, nor reputa
meditation and inward thought, rather than tion, nor services overawed him. In judg
of action. He excelled in logical statement, ing of character he failed in discrimination,
more than in executive ability. He rea and his appointments were sometimes bad;
soned clearly, his reflective judgment was but he readily deferred to public opinion,
good, and his purposes were, fixed; but and in appointing tne head of the armies he
like the Hamlet of his only poet,, his will followed the manifest preference of Conwas tardy in action, and for this reason, and gressBu
A good President will secure unity to his
not from humility or tenderness of feeling,
he sometimes deplored that the duty which administration by his own supervision of
devolved on him had not fallen to the lot of the various departments. Lincoln, who acnever governed
another. He was skilful in analysis, dis cepted advice ^adily
cerned with precision the central idea, on by any member of his Caftnet, and could
which a question turned, and knew how to not be moved from a purpose deliberately
disengage it and present it by itself in a few formed; but his supervision of affairs was
homely, strong old English words that would unsteady and incomplete |Jand sometimes,
be intelligible to all. He delighted to ex by a sudden interference transcoding the
press his opinions by apothegm, illustrate usual forms, he rather confused than adthem by a parable, or drive them home by a vanced the public business. If he ever
story.
failed in the scrupulous regard due to the
Lincoln gained a name by discussing relative rights of Congress, it was so evi
questions which, of all others, most easily dently without design that no conflict
led to fanaticism; but he was never carried could ensue, or evil precefent be estabaway by enthusiastic zeal, never indulged lished. Truth he would receive from any
in extravagant language, never hurried to one ; but, when impressed by others, he did
support extreme measures, never allowed not use their opinions till by reflection he
himself to be controlled by sudden impulses. had made them thoroughly his own.
During the progress of the election at which
It was the nature of Lincoln to forgive.
he was chosen President, he expressed no When hostilities ceased w he who had al
opinion that, went beyond the Jefferson ways sent forth the flag with every one of its
proviso of 1784. Like Jefferson and Lafa stars in the field, was eager to receive back
yette, he had faith in the intuitions of the his returning count^men, and meditated
people, and read those intuitions with rare some new announcement to the South.”
sagacity. He knew how to bide his time, The amendment of the Constitution abolish
and was less apt to be in advance of public ing slavery had his most earnest and un
opinion than to lag behind. He never wearied support. During the rage of war
sought to electrify the public by taking we get a glimpse into his soul from his
an advanced position with a banner of privately suggesting to Louisiana that “ in
opinion; but rather studied to move for defining the franchise some of the colored
ward compactly, exposing no detachment people might be let in,” saying: “ They
in front or rear; so that the course of his would probably help, in some trying time
administration might have been explained to come, to keep the jewel of liberty in the
as the calculating policy of a shrewd and family of freedom.” In 1857 he avowed
watchful politician, had there not been seen himself “ not in favor of ” what he improp
behind it a fixedness of principle which erly called .“ negro citizenship: ” for the
from the first determined his purpose and Constitution discriminates between citizens
grew more intense with every year, consum and electors. Three days before his death
ing his life by,its energy. Yet his sensibili- he declared his preference that “ the elect
ties were not acute, he had no vividness of ive franchise were now conferred on the
imagination to picture to his mind the hor very intelligent of the colored men and on
rors of the battle-field or the sufferings in those of them who served our cause as
hospitals ; his conscience was more tender soldiers;” but he wished it done by the
than his feelings.
States themselves, and he never harbored
�608
ORATION OF THE HON. GEORGE BANCROFT.
the thought of ^exacting it from a new government as a condition of its recognition.
The last day of his life beamed with sun
shine, as he sent by the - speaker of this
House his friendly greetings to the men
of the Rocky Mountains and the Pa
cific slope; as he contemplated the return
of hundreds of thousands of soldiers to fruit
ful industry; as he welcomed in advance
hundreds of thousands of emigrants from
Europe; as his eye kindled with enthusi
asm at the coming wealth of the nation.
And'so, with these thoughts for his country,
he was removed from the toils and temp
tations of this life and was at peace.
PALMERSTON AND LINCOLN.
Hardly had the late President been con
signed to the grave, when the Prime Minis
ter of England died, full of years and hon
ours. Palmerston traced his lineage to the
time of the conqueror: Lincoln went back
only to his grandfather. Palmerston re
ceived his education from the best scholars
of Harrow, Edinburgh, and Cambridge;
Lincoln’s early teachers were the silent
forest, the prairie, the river, and the stars.
Palmerston was in public life for sixty
years ; Lincoln for but a tenth of that time.
Palmerston was a skilful guide of an estab
lished aristocracy; Lincoln a leader or rather
a companion of the people. Palmerston
was exclusively an Englishman, and made
his boast in the House of Commons that the
interest of England was his Shibboleth;
Lincoln thought always of mankind as well
as his own country, and served human na
ture itself. Palmerston from his narrowness
as an Englishman did not endear his coun
try to any one court or to any one people,
but rather caused uneasiness and dislike;
Lincoln left America more beloved than
ever by all the peoples of Europe. Palm
erston was self-possessed and adroit in
reconciling the conflicting claims of the fac
tions of the aristocracy; Lincoln, frank and
ingenuous, knew how to poise himself on the
conflicting opinions of the people. Palm
erston was capable of insolence towards the
weak, quick to the sense of honour, not
heedful of right; Lincoln rejected counsel
given only as a matter of policy, and was
not capable of being wilfully unjust. Palm
erston, essentially superficial, delighted in
banter, and knew how to divert grave op
position, by playful levity. Lincoln was a
man of infinite jest on his lips, with saddest
earnestness at his heart. Palmerston was a
fair representative of the aristocratic lib
erality of the day, choosing for his tribunal,
not the conscience of humanity, but the
House of Commons ; Lincoln took to heart
I the eternal truths of liberty, obeyed them
as the commands of Providence, and accept
*
ed the human race as the judge of his fidel
ity. Palmerston did nothing that will en
dure ; his great achievement, the separation
of Belgium, placed that little kingdom
where it must gravitate to France; Lincoln
finished a work which all time cannot over
throw. Palmerston is a shining example of
the ablest of a cultivated aristocracy; Lin
coln shows the genuine fruits of institutions
where the laboring man shares and assists to
form the great ideas and designs of his
country. Palmerston was buried in West
minster Abbey by the order of his Queen,
and was followed by the British aristocracy
to his grave, which after a few years will
hardly be noticed by the side of the graves
of Fox and Chatham; Lincoln was followed
by the sorrow of his country across the con
tinent to his resting-place in the heart of
the Mississippi valley, to be remembered
through all time by his countrymen, and by
all the peoples of the world.
CONCLUSION.
As the sum of all, the hand of Lincoln
raised the flag; the American people was
the hero of the war; and therefore the re
sult is a new era of republicanism. The dis
turbances in the country grew not out of any
thing republican, but out of slavery, which is
a part of the system of hereditary wrong,
and the expulsion of this domestic anomaly
opens to the renovated nation a career of
unthought of dignity and glory. Hence
forth our country has a moral unity as the
land of free labour. The party for slavery
and the party against slavery are no more,
and are merged in the party of Union and
freedom. The States which would have Ieff“*
us are not brought back as conquered States,
for then we should hold them only so long
as that conquest could be maintained ; they
come to their rightful place under the Consti
tution as original, necessary and inseparable
members of the State. We build monu
ments to the dead, but no monuments of
victory. We respect the example of the
Romans, who never, even in conquered
lands, raised emblems of triumph. And
our generals are not to be classed in the
herd of vulgar conquerors, but are of the
school of Timoleon and William of Orange'
and Washington. They have used the
sword only to give peace to their country
and restore her to her place in the great
assembly of the nations. Our meeting
closes in hope, now that a people begins to
live according to the laws of reason., and re
publicanism is intrenched in a continent.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
America, France and England
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway, Moncure Daniel, 1832-1907 [1832-1907]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [Boston, Mass.]
Collation: [545]-608 p. ; 23 cm.
Notes: From Littell's Living Age, vol. XXX11, third series, no. 1134, (24 February 1866): re-published from Fortnightly Review 3: 442-459 (January 1 1866). From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed in double columns. Includes comment and letters on the Alabama debate in the House of Commons.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[T.H. Carter & Co.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1866
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5438
Subject
The topic of the resource
International relations
France
England
USA
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<p class="western"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br />This work (America, France and England), identified by <span style="color:#0000ff;"><span lang="zxx"><u>Humanist Library and Archives</u></span></span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</p>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Foreign Relations
France
Great Britain
United States-Foreign Relations
United States-Politics and Government
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/8899572780d658b430d11ef187b3018a.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Gr%7EDtXx-FL0mObr-WoHuhF-EEK%7EqAHtwGK%7E6mUvGQ9cQrTE2-Q02bUfQcWtxRaWpVdWPLJw2EdTwZCur6-BawclnKcZZNG-JXQpZfGB3YD0O65EIkFl0jKw3qyl5pDDu7rLwp81672aH5jdH1PV6q9wkKxuPVXDNAn-78MgL-yo6IcX9EZI1KRarLGN8I5MgVTuwEXirX3hkRuzFJyjEGUeFYijrw6%7EECHUOyqs0Z%7Eycdrvx3PNRkErkeai0k4KvX9ci2u%7E7T2VB7Jv0jhn7Qvfm3b%7EnH1mlglHHk131R0ioUEZVP%7EZENMd9Dgb63pB9wIiA4M5cb65kjgB%7EMEJRdQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
10b44cd6c482625d6401cf9114feb6dc
PDF Text
Text
SHOWING
PRESENT PERILS
FROM
ENGLAND AND FRANCE ;
THE
NATURE AND
CONDITIONS OF INTERVENTION BY MEDIATION ; AND ALSO BY
RECOGNITION; THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ANY RECOGNITION
OF A NEW POWER WITH SLAVERY AS A CORNER
STONE ; AND TIIE WRONGFUL CONCESSION
OF OCEAN BELLIGERENCY.
SPEECH
'
’
OF
HON. CHARLES SUMNER,
BEFORE THE
CITIZENS OF NEW YORK, AT THE COOPER INSTITUTE,
SEPT. 10, 1863.
-------------- Jam non ad culmina rerum
Injustos crevisse queror. Tolluntur in altum
Ut lapsu graviore ruant.
—CL AUDI AN.
NEW YORK:
YOUNG MEN’S REPUBLICAN UNION.
1 8 G 3.
�“ To this condition the Constitution of this Confederacy reduces the whole African race; and
while declaring these to be its principles, their founders claim the privilege of being admitted
into the society of the nations of the earth!—principles worthy only of being conceived and
promulgated by the inmates of the infernal regions, and a fit constitution for a confederacy
in Pandemonium! Now, as soon as the nature of this constitution is truly explained and
understood, is it possible that the nations of the earth can admit such a Confederacy into their
society ? Can any nation, calling itself civilized, associate, with any sense of self-respect, with
a nation avowing andpracticing such principles? Will not every civilized nation, when the
■nature of this Confederacy is understood, come to the side of the United States, and refuse
all association with them, as, in truth, they are hostes humani generis? For the African
is as much entitled to be protected in the rights of humanity as any other portion of the
human race. As to Great Britain, her course is, in the nature of things, already fixed and
immutable. She must, sooner or later, join the United States in this war, or be disgraced
throughout allfuture time ; for the principle of that civilization which this Confederacy repu
diates was by her—to her great glory, and with unparalleled sacrifices—introduced into the
code of civilization; and she will prove herself recreant if she fails to maintain it.”—Speech
<f Hon. Josiah Quincy, to the Union Club of Boston.
Wright <fc Potter, Printers, No. 4 Spring Lane, Boston.
�The following Speech was delivered at the invitation of the New York Young
Men’s Republican Union, at Cooper Institute, on the 10th of September, 1863.
The announcement that Mr. Sumner had consented to address the citizens of
New York on a subject so momentous attracted an audience numbering not less
than three thousand persons, among whom were most of the acknowledged repre
sentatives of the intelligence, wealth and influence of the Metropolis. Long
before the hour appointed for the delivery of the speech, the entrance doors
were besieged- by an impatient and anxious crowd, who, as soon as the gates
were opened, filled the seats, aisles, lobbies and platform of the vast hall, leaving
at least an equal number to return home unable to gain an entrance to the
building.
Of the following named gentlemen, who were invited to occupy seats upon
the platform, a majority were present, while in the auditorium were seated
hundreds of equally prominent citizens, who preferred to retain seats near the
ladies whom they had escorted to the meeting:—
Francis Lieber, LL. D.,
George Bancroft,
Major-!¡eneral Dix,
Horace Greeley,
George Griswold,
John E. Williams,
W. W. De Forest,
Cornelius Vanderbilt,
Abram Wakeman,
Rev. Dr. Tyng,
Cyrus W. Field,
Alex. T. Stewart,
Horace Webster, LL. D.,
Joseph Lawrence,
John A. Stevens,
Pelatiah Périt,
James A. Hamilton,
IL B. Claflin,
T. L. Thornell,
Col. William Borden,
William Goodell,
Rev. Dr. Thompson,
Rev. Dr. Gillette,
.William Cullen Bryant,
Major-General.Fremont,
A. A. Low,
John Jay,
Henry Grinnell,
James Gallatin,
Cephas Brainerd,
William B. Astor,
William H. Aspinwall,
Oliver Johnson,
W. M. Evarts,
William Curtis Noyes
Rev. Dr. Hitchcock,
Shepherd Knapp,
William II. Webb,
James W. Gerard,
Anson Livingston,
Frank W. Ballard,
Isaac H. Bailey,
George: B. Lincoln,
Gen. Harvey Brown,
Rev. Dr. Shedd,
Rev. Dr. Durbin,
Peter Cooper,
Major-Gen. Doubleday,
Charles H. Marshall,
Marshall 0. Roberts,
Judge Bradford,
Charles II. Russell,
E. Delafield Smith,
Hamilton Fish,
Robert B. Minturn,
Rev. Dr. Cheever,
F. B. Cutting,
Charles King, LL. D.,
Rev. Dr Ferihs,
Ex-Governor King,
George Folsom,
Samuel B. Ruggles,
S. B. Chittenden,
Charles T. Rodgers,
Mark Hoyt,
Lewis Tappan,
Rev. Dr. Storrs,
Rev. Dr. Adams,
Rev. Dr. Vinton,
Daniel Drew,
Francis Hall,
Geo. William Curtis,
Judge Edmonds.
Rev. Dr. Asa D. Smith,
Truman Smith,
William A. Hall,
Prosper M. Wetmore,
B. F. Manierre,
George P. Putnam,
E. C. Johnson,
Rev. Dr. Osgood,
Elliott C. Cowdin,
Rev. T. Ralston Smith,
J. S. Schultz,
M. Armstrong, Jr.,
I). A. Hawkins,
Edgar Ketchum,
Joseph Hoxie,
Rev. Dr. Bellows,
Gen. S. C. Pomeroy,
James McKaye,
George F. Butman,
David Dudley Field.
The President of the United States and the members of the Cabinet were also
invited to be present.
�4
At least one thousand ladies were in the audience, among whom Mrs. Lincoln
was an attractive and conspicuous personage. The wives and daughters of many
of New York’s wealthiest and worthiest citizens, by their presence and enthusiasm
evinced the deep interest they felt in the occasion, the speaker, and the theme
discussed.
David Dudley Field, Esq., who had been selected by the Committee as
Chairman of the meeting, introduced Mr. Sumner to the audience in the
following words:—
REMARKS OF MR. FIELD.
Ladies and Gentlemen :—At no former period in the history of the coun
try, has the condition of its foreign relations been so important and so critical as
it is at this moment. In what agony of mortal struggle this nation has passed
the last two years, we all know. A rebellion of unparalleled extent, of inde
scribable enormity, without any justifiable cause, without even a decent pretext,
stimulated by the bad passions which a barbarous institution had originated, and
encouraged by expected and promised aid from false men among ourselves,
has filled the land with desolation and mourning. During this struggle it has
been our misfortune to encounter the evil disposition of the two nations of
Western Europe, with which we are most closely associated by ties of blood,
common history, and mutual commerce. Perhaps I ought to have said, the evil
disposition of the Governments rather than of the Nations, for in France the
people have no voice, and we know only the imperial will and policy, while in
England the masses have no powers, the House of Commons being elected by
a fraction of the people, and the aristocratic classes being against us from dislike
to the freedom of our institutions, and the mercantile (lasses from the most sordid
motives of private gain. To what extent this evil disposition has been carried,
what causes have stimulated it, in what acts it has manifested itself, and what
consequences may be expected to follow from it in future, will be explained by
the distinguished orator who is to address you this evening. His position, as
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, has given him an
acquaintance with the subject, equal, if not superior, to that of any other person
in the country. He needs no introduction from me. His name is an introduc
tion and a passport in any free community between the Atlantic and the Pacific
Seas ; therefore, without saying more, I will give way for Charles Sumner, of
Massachusetts.
Amid the most marked demonstrations of satisfaction, expressed frequently
by long-continued applause and hearty cheers, Mr. Sumner proceeded in the
delivery of his discourse. The meeting adjourned about an hour before
midnight.
It may be proper to add, as an evidence of the importance attached to Mr.
Sumner’s treatment of the subject, that three New York newspapers, and two
in Boston, printed the entire speech on the day following its delivery.
Copies of the speech will be mailed to those who may request them. Address
“Cor. See’y of Young Men’s Republican Union, Box 1219 P. O. New York
City.”
�SPEECH.
Fellow-Citizens,—From the beginning of the war in which we
are now engaged, the public interest has alternated anxiously
between the current of events at home and the more distant
cm rent abroad. Foreign Relations have been hardly less absorb
ing than Domestic Relations. At times the latter have seemed
to wait upon the former, and a packet from Europe has been like
a messenger from the seat of war. Rumors of Foreign Interven
tion aic constant, now in the form of Mediation, and now in the
form of Recognition ; and more than once the country has been
summoned to confront the idea of England, and of France too,
in open combination with Rebel Slave-mongers battling, in the
name of Slaxery, to build an infamous Power on the destruction
of this Republic.
It may be well for us to turn aside from battle and siege here
at home—from the blazing lines of Gettysburg, Vicksburg and
Charleston—to glance for a moment at the perils from abroad ; of
course I mean from England and France, for these are the only
Foieign 1 owers that thus far have been moved to intermeddle on
the side of Slavery. The subject to which I now invite attention
may not have the attraction ot waving standards or victorious
marches, but,more than any conflict ot arms, it concerns the Civil
ization of the age. If Foreign Powers can justly interfere against
Human Freedom, this Republic will not be the only sufferer.
There is always a natural order in unfolding a subject, and I
shall try to pursue it on this occasion, under the following heads ;
-¿'¿»■¿-—I he perils to our country from Foreign Powers, especially
as foreshadowed in the unexpected and persistent conduct of
England and France since the outbreak of the war.
Secondly—T he nature of Foreign Intervention by Mediation
with the principles applicable thereto, as illustrated by historic
instances—showing especially how England, by her conspicuous,
wide-spread and most determined Intervention to promote the
extinction of African Slavery, is irrevocably commiited against
any act or policy that can encourage this criminal pretension.
Ihirdly—The nature of Foreign Intervention by Recognition,
with the principles applicable thereto, as illustrated by historic
�6
instances—showing that by tlie practice of nations, and especially
by the declared sentiments of British Statesmen, there can be no
Foreign Recognition of an insurgent Power where the contest for
Independence is still pending.
Fourthly—The moral impossibility of Foreign Recognition, even
if the pretended Power be de facto Independent, where it is com
posed of Rebel Slave-mongers seeking to found a new Power with
Slavery for its declared “ corner-stone.” Pardon the truthful
plainness of the terms which I employ. I am to speak not
merely of Slave-holders; but of people to whom Slavery is a
passion and a business—therefore Slave-mongers ; now in Rebel
lion for the sake of Slavery—therefore Rebel Slave-mongers.
Fifthly—The absurdity and wrong of conceding Ocean Bellig
erency to a pretended Power, which, in the first place, is without
a Prize Court—so that it cannot be an Ocean Belligerent in fact—
and which, in the second place, even if Ocean Belligerent in fact,
is of such an odious character, that its Recognition is a moral
impossibility.
From this review, touching upon the present and the past;
leaning upon history and upon law ; enlightened always by prin
ciples which are an unerring guide, our conclusion will be easy.
[I]
Perils from Foreign Powers.
The perils to our country, as foreshadowed in the action of
Foreign Powers since the outbreak of the war, first invite our
attention.
There is something in the tendencies of nations, which
must not be neglected. Like individuals, nations influence
each other; like the heavenly bodies, they may be disturbed by
each other in their appointed orbits. This is apparent even in
peace; but it becomes more apparent in the convulsions of war,
sometimes from the withdrawal of customary forces and some
times from their increased momentum. It is the nature of war
to enlarge as it continues. Beginning between two nations, it
gradually widens its circle, sucking other nations into its fiery
maelstrom. Such is human history. Nor is it different, if the
war be for Independence. Foreign Powers may for a while keep
out of the conflict; but the examples of history show how difficult
this has been
The Seven United Provinces of Holland, under that illustrious
character, William of Orange, the predecessor and exemplar of
our Washington, rose against the dominion of Spain, upheld by
the bigotry of Philip II., and the barbarity of his representative,
Alva; but the conflict, though at first limited to the two parties,
was not slow to engage Queen Elizabeth, who lent to this war of
Independence the name of her favorite Leicester and the undying .
�heroism of Sidney, while Spain retorted by the Armada. The
United Provinces of Holland, in their struggle for Independence,
were the prototype of the United States of America, which I need
not remind you, drew into their contest the arms of France,
Spain, and Holland. In the rising of the Spanish Colonies
which followed, there was less interposition of other nations,
doubtless from the distant and outlying position of these Colonies,
although they were not beyond the ambitious reach of the Holy
Alliance, whose purposes with regard to them were so far thwarted
by Mr. Canning, backed by the declaration of Mr. Munroe—known
as the Munroe doctrine—that the British Statesman felt authorized
to boast that he had called a New World into existence to redress
the balance of the Old. Then came the struggle for Greek Inde
pendence, which, after a conflict of several years, darkened by
massacre, but relieved by an exalted self-sacrifice, shining with
names like Byron and Bozzaris, that cannot die, at length chal
lenged the powerful interposition of England, France and Russia.
The Independence of Greece was hardly acknowledged, when
Belgium, renouncing the rule of the Netherlands, claimed hers
also, and here again the Great Powers of Europe were drawn into
the contest. Then came the effort of Hungary, inspired by
Kossuth, which, when about to prevail, aroused the armies of
Russia. There was also the contemporaneous effort of the Roman
Republic, under Mazzini, which when about to prevail, aroused
the bayonets of France. And lastly we have only recently
witnessed the resurrection of Italy, inspired by Garibaldi, and
directed by Cavour; but it was not accomplished until Louis
Napoleon, with his well-trained legions, carried the imperial
eagles into the battle.
Such are famous instances, which are now so many warnings.
Ponder them and you will see the tendency, the temptation, the
irresistible fascination, or the commanding exigency under which,
in times past, Foreign Nations have been led to take part in con
flicts for Independence. I do not dwell now on the character of
these various interventions, although they have been mostly in the
interest of Human Freedom. It is only as examples to put us
on our guard that I now adduce them. The footprints all seem
to lead one way.
But even our war is not without its warnings. If thus far in
its progress other nations have not intervened, they have not
succeeded in keeping entirely aloof. The foreign trumpet has
not sounded yet; but more than once the cry has come that we
should soon hear it, while incidents have too often occurred,
exhibiting an abnormal watchfulness of our affairs and an uncon
trollable passion or purpose to intermeddle in them, with signs^of
unfriendly feeling. Of course, this is applicable especially, if not
exclusively, to England and France.
�8
Perils from England.
(1.) There is one act of the British Cabinet which stands fore
most as an omen of peril—foremost in time—foremost also in the
magnitude of its consequences. Though plausible in form, it is
none the less injurious or unjustifiable. Of course, I refer to that
inconsiderate Proclamation in the name of the Queen, as early as
May, 1861, which, after raising Rebel Slave-mongers to an equality
with the National Government in Belligerent Rights, solemnly
declares “ neutrality ” between the two equal parties;—as if the
declaration of equality was not an insult to the National Govern
ment, and the declaration of neutrality was not amoral absurdity,
offensive to reason and all those precedents which make the
glory of the British name. Even if the Proclamation could be
otherwise than improper at any time in such a Rebellion, it was
worse than a blunder at that early date. The apparent relations
between the two Powers were more than friendly. Only a
few months before, the youthful heir to the British throne
had been welcomed every where throughout the United States
—except in Richmond—as in the land of kinsmen. And yet
—immediately after the tidings of the rebel assault on Fort
Sumter—before the National Government had begun to put
forth its strength—and even without waiting for the arrival of
our newly-appointed Minister, who was known to be at Liver
pool on his way to London, the Proclamation was suddenly
launched. I doubt if any well-informed person, who has read
Mr. Dallas's despatch of 2d May, 1861, recounting a conversation
with the British Minister, will undertake to vindicate it in point
of time. Clearly the alacrity of this concession was unhappy, for
it bore an air of defiance or at least of heartlessness towards an
ally of kindred blood engaged in the maintenance of its tradi
tional power against an infamous pretension. But it was more
unhappy still, that the good genius of England did not save this
historic nation, linked with so many triumphs of freedom, from
a fatal step, which, under the guise of “neutrality,” was a
betrayal of civilization itself.
It is difficult to exaggerate the consequences of this precipitate,
unfriendly and immoral concession, which has been and still is
an overflowing fountain of mischief and bloodshed—hac fonte
derivata clades;—-first, in what it vouchsafes to Rebel Slave
mongers on sea and in British ports, and secondly, in the impedi
ments which it takes from British subjects ready to make money
out of Slavery ;—all of which has been declared by undoubted
British authority. Lord Chelmsford—of professional renown as
Sir Frederick Thesiger—now an Ex-Chancellor—used these words
recently in the House of Lords ; “ If the Southern Confederacy
had not been recognized as a belligerent Power, he agreed with
his noble and learned friend [Lord Brougham] that, under these
circumstances, if any Englishman were to fit out a privateer for
�9
the purpose of assisting the Southern States against the Northern
States, he would be guilty of piracy.'’''—But all this was changed
by the Queen’s Proclamation. For the Rebel Slave-monger there
is the recognition of his flag ; for the British subject there is the
opportunity of trade. For the Rebel Slave-monger there is fellow
ship and equality; for the British subject there is a new customer,
to whom he may lawfully sell Armstrong guns and other warlike
munitions of choicest British workmanship, an,d, as Lord Palmers
ton tells us, even ships of war too, to be used in behalf’of Slavery.
What was unlawful is suddenly made lawful, while the ban is
taken from an odious felony.
It seems almost superfluous
to add, that such a concession, thus potent in its reach, must
have been a direct encouragement and overture to the Rebel
lion. Slavery itself was exalted when barbarous pretenders—
battling to found a new Power in its hateful name—without so
much as a single port on the ocean where a prize could be
carried for condemnation—were yet, in the face of 'this essential
deficiency, swiftly acknowledged as ocean belligerents, while,
as a consequence, their pirate ships, cruising for plunder in
behalf of Slavery, were acknowledged as National ships, entitled
to equal privileges with the National ships of the United States.
This simple statement is enough. It is vain to say, that such a
concession was a “necessity.” There may have been a strong
temptation to it, constituting, perhaps, an imagined necessity, as
with many persons there is a strong temptation to Slavery itself.
But such a concession to Rebel Slave-mongers, fighting for Slavery,
can be vindicated only as Slavery is vindicated. As well undertake
to declare “neutrality” between Right and Wrong—between
Good and Evil—with a concession to the latter of Belligerent
Rights ; and then set up the apology of “ necessity.”
(2.) It was natural that an act so essentially unfriendly in
character and also in the alacrity with which it was done, should
create throughout England an unfriendly sentiment towards us,
easily stimulated to a menace of war. And this menace was not
wanting-soon afterwards, when the two rebel emissaries on board
the Trent were seized by a patriotic, brave commander, whose high
est fault was, that, in the absence of instructions from his own Gov
ernment, he followed too closely British precedents. This accident
—for such it was and nothing else—was misrepresented, and, with
an utterly indefensible exaggeration, was changed by the British
nation, backed by the British Government, into a casus belli, as if
such an unauthorized incident, which obviously involved no ques
tion of self-defence, could justify war between two civilized Nations.
And yet, in the face of a positive declaration from the United States,
that it was an accident, the British Government made preparations
to take part ivitli rebel slave-mongers, and it fitly began such ignoble
preparations by keeping back from the British people, the official
despatch of 30th November, 1861, where our Government, after
�10
announcing that Capt. Wilkes had acted “ without any instruc
tions,” expressed a trust that “ the British Government would con
sider the subject in a friendly temper,” and promised “ the best
disposition on our part.” It is painful to recall these things. But
they now belong to history, and we cannot forget the lesson they
teach.
(3.) But this tendency to espouse the side of Slavery, appears
in small things, as well as great, becoming more marked in
proportion to the inconsistency involved. Thus, for instance,
where two British subjects “ suspected ” of participation in the
Rebellion were detained in a military prison, without the benefit
of habeas corpus, the British Minister at Washington was directed
by Her Majesty’s Government to complain of their detention as
an infraction of the Constitution of the United States, of which this
intermeddling Power assumed for the time to be the “ expounder
and the case was accordingly presented on this ground. But
the British cabinet, in its instinctive aptness to mix in our
war, if only by diplomatic notes, seemed to have forgotten the
British Constitution, under which, in 1848, with the consent of
the leaders of all parties,—Brougham and Derby, Peele and
D’lsraeli,—the habeas corpus was suspended in Ireland and the
Government was authorized to apprehend and detain “ such
persons as they shall suspect.” The bill sanctioning this exercise
of power went through all its stages in the House of Commons in
one day, and on the next day it went through all its stages in the
House of Lords, passing to bo a law without a dissenting vote.
It will hardly be believed that Lord Russell, who now complains
of our detention of “ suspected” persons, as an infraction of the
Constitution of the United States, was the Minister who intro
duced this Bill, and that, on that occasion he used these words :
“ I believe in my conscience that this measure is calculated to
prevent insurrection, to preserve internal peace, to preserve the
unity of this empire and to save the throne of these realms and
the free institutions of this country.”
(4.) The complaint about the habeas corpus was hardly
answered when another was solemnly presented, on account of the
effort to complete the blockade of Charleston, by sinking at
its mouth ships laden with stone, usually known as the “ stone
blockade.” In common times her Majesty’s government would
have shrunk from any intermeddling here. It could not have
forgotten that history, early and late, and especially English
history, abounds in similar incidents ; that as long ago as 1456,
at the siege of Calais by the Duke of Burgundy, and also in 1628
at the memorable siege of Rochelle by Cardinal Richelieu, ships
laden with stone were sunk in the harbor; that during the war
of the Revolution in 1778 six vessels were sunk by the British
commander in the Savannah River, not far from this very Charles
ton, as a protection against the approach of the French and
�11
American naval forces; that in 1804, under the direction of the
British Admiralty, an attempt was made to choke the entrance into
the harbor of Boulogne by sinking stone vessels, and that in 1809
the same blockade was recommended to the Admiralty by no less
a person than Lord Dundonald, with regard to another port, saying,
“ Ships filled with stones will ruin forever the anchorage of Aix,
and some old vessels of the line well loaded would be excellent
for the purpose.” But this complaint by the British Cabinet
becomes doubly strange, when it is considered that one of the
most conspicuous treaties of modern history contained solemn
exactions by England from France, that the harbor of Dunkirk,
whose prosperity was regarded with jealousy, should be permanently
“ filled up,” so that it could no longer furnish its accustomed hospi
talities to commerce. This was the Treaty of Utrecht, in 1713.
But by the Triple Alliance, only four years later, France was con
strained to stipulate again that nothing should be omitted“ which
Great Britain could think necessary for the entire destruction of the
harbor,” and the latter Power was authorized to send commission
ers as “ ocular witnesses of the execution of the Treaty.” These
humiliating provisions were renewed in successive treaties down
to the peace of Versailles in 1783, when the immunity of that
harbor was recognized with American Independence. But Great
Britain, when compelled to open Durkirk, still united with the
Dutch in closing the Scheldt, or as a British writer expresses it, she
“ became bound to assist in obstructing this navigation.” (JEncyclopcedia Britannica. Vol. x. p. 77, article, France.) One of
the two reasons put forth by Great Britain for breaking peace with
France in 1792, and entering upon that world-convulsing war,
was that this revolutionary Power had declared it would open the
Scheldt. And yet it is Great Britain, thus persistent in closing
ports and rivers, that now interferes to warn us against a “ stone
blockade.”
(5.) The same propensity and the same inconsistency will be
found in another instance, where an eminent peer, once~Foreign
Secretary, did not hesitate, from his place in Parliament, to
charge the United States with making medicines and surgical
instruments contraband, “ contrary to all the common laws of
war, contrary to all precedent, not excluding the most ignorant
and barbarous ages.” Thus exclaims the noble lord. Now I
have nothing to say of the propriety of making these things con
traband. My simple object is to exhibit the spirit against which
we are to guard. It would be difficult to believe that such a dis
play could be made in the face of the historic fact, exposed in
the satire of Peter Plymley’s Letters, that, Parliament, in 1808,
by large majorities, prohibited the exportation of Peruvian Bark
into any territory occupied by France, and that this measure was
introduced by no less a person than Mr. Percival, and commended
by him on the ground that “ the severest pressure was already
�12
felt on the continent from the want of this article, and that it
was of great importance to the armies of the enemy.” {Han
sard's ParHam en t ary Debates.') Such is authentic British prece
dent, in an age neither “ ignorant ” nor “ barbarous,” which is now
ostentatiously forgotten.
(6.) This same recklessness, which is of such evil omen, breaks
forth again in a despatch of the Foreign Secretary, where he
undertakes to communicate to Lord Lyons the judgment of the
British Cabinet on the President’s Proclamation of Emancipa
tion. Here at least, you will say, there can be no misunder
standing, and no criticism ; but you are mistaken. Such an act,
having such ah object, and being of such unparalelled importance,
would, under any ordinary circumstances, when great passions
found no vent, have been treated by the Minister of a Foreign
Po wer with supreme caution, if not with sympathy; but, under
the terrible influence of the hour, Lord Russell, not content with
condemning the Proclamation, misrepresents it in the most bare
faced manner. Gathering his condemnation into one phrase, he
says, that it “ makes Slavery at once legal and illegal,” whereas
it is obvious, on the face of the Proclamation, to the most careless
observer, that, whatever may be its faults, it is not obnoxious to
this criticism, for it makes Slavery legal nowhere, while it makes
it illegal in an immense territory. An official letter, so incom
prehensible in motive, from a statesman usually liberal if not
cautious, must be regarded as another illustration of that irri
tating tendency, which will be checked only when it is fully
comprehended.
(7.) The activity of our navy is only another occasion for
criticism in a similar spirit. Nothing can be done any where to
please our self-constituted monitor. Our naval officers in the
Mest Indies, acting under instructions modelled on the judgments
of the British Admiralty, are reprehended by Lord Russell in a
formal despatch. The judges in our Prize Court are indecently
belittled by this same Minister from his place in Parliament, when
it is notorious that there are several who will compare favorably
with any British Admiralty Judge since Lord Stowell, not even
excepting that noble and upright magistrate, Dr. Lushington.
And this same Minister has undertaken to throw the British
shield over a newly-invented contraband trade with the rebel
slave-mongers via Metamoras, claiming that it w7as “ a lawful
branch of commerce,” and “ a perfectly legitimate trade.” The
Dolphin and Peterhoff were two ships elaborately prepared in
London, lor this illicit commerce, and they have been duly con
demned as such ; but their seizure by our cruisers was made the
occasion of official protest and complaint, with the insinuation of
“vexatious capture and arbitrary interference,” followed by the
menace, that, under such circumstances, “ it is obvious Great
Britain must interfere to protect her flag.”
�(8.) This persistent, inexorable criticism, even at the expense
of all consistency or of all memory, has also broken forth in
forms incompatible with that very “ neutrality,” which was so
early declared. It was bad enough to declare neutrality, when
the question was between a friendly Power and an insulting Bar
barism; but it was worse after the declaration to depart from it,
if in words only. The Court of Rome at a period when it pow
erfully influenced the usage of Nations, instructed its cardinal
Legate, on an important occasion, as a solemn duty first and above
all things, to cultivate “indifference” between the parties, and in
this regard he was to be so exact, that, not only should no partiality
be seen in his conduct, but it should not be remarked even
“ in the words of his domestics.” (Wicquefort, Parfait Ambassadeur, Liv. ii. p. 144.) If in that early day, before steam and
telegraph, or even the newspaper, neutrality was disturbed by
“ words,” how much more so now, when every word is multiplied
indefinitely, and wafted we know not where—to begin, wherever
it falls, a subtle, wide-spread and irrepressible influence. But
this injunction is in plain harmony with the refined rule of Count
Bernstoff, who, in his admirable despatch oil this subject, at the
time of the Armed Neutrality, says sententiously, “ Neutrality
does not exist when it is not perfect.” It must be clear and
above suspicion. Like the reputation of a woman, it is lost when
you begin to talk about it. Unhappily there is too much occasion
to talk about the “ neutrality” of England. I say nothing of a
Parliamentary utterance that the National cause was “ detested
by a large majority of the House of Commons,” or of other
most unneutral speeches. I confine myself to official declara
tions. Here the case is plain. Several of the British Cabinet,
including the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, two great masters of “ words,” have allowed them
selves in public speeches, to characterize offensively our pres
ent effort to put down Rebel Slave-mongers, as “ a contest
for empire on one side and for independence on the other.”
Here were “ words,” which, under a specious form, were under
stood to give encouragement to Rebel Slave-mongers. But they
were more specious than true—revealing nothing but the side
espoiised by the orators. Clearly on our side it is a contest
for National life, involving the liberty of a race. Clearly on the
other side it is a contest for Slavery, in order to secure for
this hateful crime new recognition and power. Our Empire is
simply to crush Rebel Slave-mongers. Their Independence is
simply the unrestrained power to whip women and sell children.
Even if at the beginning, the National Government made no
declaration on the subject, yet the real character of the war was
none the less apparent in the repeated declarations of the other
side, who did not hesitate to assert their purpose to build a new
Power on Slavery—as in the Italian campaign of Louis Napoleon
�14
against Austria, the object was necessarily apparent, even before
the Emperor tardily at Milan put forth his life-giving Proclama
tion that Italy should be free from the Alps to the Adriatic, by
which the war became, in its declared purpose, as well as in
reality, a war of Liberation. That such a Rebellion should bo
elevated by the unneutral “words” of a Foreign Cabinet, into
a respectability of which it is obviously unworthy, is only another
sign which we must watch.
(9.) But these same orators of the British Cabinet, not con
tent with giving us a bad name, have allowed themselves to pro
nounce against us on the whole case. They declared that the
National Government cannot succeed in crushing Rebel Slave
mongers and that dismemberment is inevitable. “ Jefferson
Davis ” says one of them “ has created a nation.” Thus do these
representatives of declared “neutrality” degrade us and exalt
Slavery. But it is apparent that their proclamation, though
made in Parliament and repeated at public meetings, was founded
less on any special information from the seat of war, disclosing
its secret, than on political theory, if not prejudice. It is true
that our eloquent teacher, Edmund Burke, in his famous letter to
the Sheriffs of Bristol, argued most persuasively that Great
Britain could not succeed in reclaiming the colonies, which had
declared themselves independent. His reasoning rather than
his wisdom, seems to have entered into and possessed the British
statesmen of our day, who do not take the trouble to see that the
two cases are so entirely unlike that the example of the one is not
applicable to the other; that the colonies wore battling to found
anew Power on the corner-stone of “ liberty, equality and hap
piness to all men,” while our Slave-mongers are battling to found
a new Power on the corner-stone of “ Slavery.” The difference
is such as to become a contrast—so that whatever was once gen
erously said in favor of American Independence now tells with
unmistakable force against this new-fangled pretension.
No British statesman saw the past more clearly than Lord
Russell when long ago, in striking phrase, he said that England,
in her war against our fathers, “ had engaged for the suppression
of Liberty(Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 2d series, Vol.
viii. p. 1036, April 16, 1823,) but this is precisely what Rebel
Slave-mongers are now doing. Men change ; but principles are
the same now as then. Therefore, do I say, that every sympathy
formerly bestowed upon our fathers now belongs to us their
children, striving to uphold their work against bad men, who
would not only break it in pieces but put in its stead a new
piratical Power, whose declared object is “ the suppression of
Liberty.” And yet British ministers, mounting the prophetic
tripod, presume most oracularly to foretell the doom of this
Republic. Their prophecies do not disturb my confidence. I
do not forget how often false prophets have appeared—includ
�15
ing the author of the Oceana, who published a demonstration
of the impossibility of monarchy in England only six months
before Charles II. entered London amidst salvoes of cannon,
and the hurrahs of the people. Nor do I stop to consider how
far such prophecies uttered in public places by British Minis
ters are consistent with that British “neutrality” which is so
constantly boasted. Opinions are sometimes allies more potent
than subsidies, especially in an age like the present. Prophecies
are opinions proclaimed and projected into the future, and yet
these are given freely to Rebel Slave-mongers. There is matter
for reflection in this instance, but I adduce it now only as
another illustration of the times. Nothing can be more clear
. than that whosoever assumes to play the prophet becomes pledged
in character and pretension to sustain his prophecy. The learned
Jerome Cardan, professor and doctor, and also dabbler in astrol
ogy, of great fame in the middle ages, undertook to predict the
day of his death, and he maintained his character as a successful
prophet by taking his own life at the appointed time. If. British
Ministers, who have played the prophet, escape the ordinay influ
ences of this craft, it will bo from that happy nature, which has
suspended for them human infirmity and human prejudice. But
it becomes us to note well the increased difficulties and dangers
to which on this account the National cause is exposed.
(10.) But it is not in “ words” only,—of speeches, despatches
or declarations,—that our danger lies. I am sorry to add that
there are acts also with which the British Government is too closely
associated. I do not refer to the unlimited supply of “ muni
tions of war,” so that our army at Charleston, like our army at
Vicksburg, is compelled to encounter Armstrong guns and Blake
ley guns, with all proper ammunition, from England; for the
right of British subjects to sell these articles to Rebel Slave-mon
gers was fixed when the latter, by sudden metamorphosis were
•changed from lawless vagrants of the ocean to lawful Belligerents.
Nor do I refer to the swarms of swift steamers, “a pitchy cloud
warping on the Eastern wind,” always under the British flag, with
contributions to Rebel Slave-mongers ; for these too, enjoy a kin
dred immunity. Of course, no Royal Proclamation can change
wrong into right or make such business otherwise than immoral;
but the Proclamation may take from it the character of felony.
But even the Royal Proclamation gives no sanction to the prep
aration in England of a naval expedition against the commerce of
the United States. It leaves the Parliamentary Statute, as well
as the general Law of Nations, in full efficacy to restrain and
punish such an offence. And yet in the face of this obvious prohi
bition, standing forth in the text of the law, and founded in reason
“ before human statute purged the common weal,” also exempli
fied by the National Government, which, from the time of Wash
ington, has always guarded its ports against such outrage, powerful
�16
ships have been launched, equipped, fitted out and manned in
England, with arms supplied at sea from another English vessel,
and then, assuming that by this insulting hocus pocus all English
liability was avoided, they have proceeded at once to rob and
destroy the commerce of the United States. England, has been
their naval base from which were derived the original forces and
supplies which enable them to sail the sea. Several such ships
are now depredating on the ocean, like Captain Kidd, under pre
tended commissions—each in itself a naval expedition. As Eng
land is not at war with the United States, these ships can be
nothing else than pirates ; and their conduct is that of pirates.
Unable to provide a Court for the trial of prizes, they revive
for every captured ship the barbarous Ordeal of Fire. Like
pirates, they burn all that they cannot rob. Flying from sea to
sea, they turn the ocean into a furnace and melting-pot of American
commerce. Of these incendiaries the most famous is the Alabama,
with a picked crew of British sailors, writh “trained gunners out
of her Majesty’s naval reserve,” and with every thing else from
keel to top-mast British ! which, after more than a year of unlawful
havoc, is still burning the property of our citizens, without once
entering a Rebel Slave-monger port, but always keeping the
umbilical connection with England, out of whose womb she sprung,
and never losing the original nationality stamped upon her by
origin, so that at this day she is a British pirate ship—precisely
as a native-born Englishman, robbing on the high seas, and never
naturalized abroad, is a British pirate subject.
It is bad enough that all this should proceed from England.
It is hard to bear. Why is it not stopped at once ? One cruiser
might perhaps elude a watchful Government. But it is difficult
to see liow this can occur once—twice—three times ; and the cry
is still they sail. Two powerful rams are now announced, like
stars at a theatre. Will they too be allowed to perform ? I wish
there were not too much reason to believe that all these perform-,
ances are sustained by a prevailing British sympathy. A French
man, who was accidentally a prisoner on board the Alabama at
the destruction of two American ships, describes a British packet
in sight whose crowded passengers made the sea resound with
cheers as they witnessed the captured ships handed over to the
flames. The words of Lucretius were verified; Suave etiam
belli certamina magna tueri. But these same cheers were echoed
in Parliament, as the builder of the piratical craft gloried in his
deed. The verse which filled the ancient theatre with glad
applause, declared a sympathy with Humanity; but English
applause is now given to Slavery and its defenders; “ I am an
Englishman, and nothing of Slavery is foreign to me.” Accordingly
Slavery is helped by English arms, English gold, English ships,
English speeches, English cheers. And yet for the honor of
England, let it be known, that there are Englishmen, who have
�17
stood firm and unshaken amidst this painful recreancy. Their
names cannot be forgotten. And still more for the honur of
England, let it be spoken that the working classes, who were called
to suffer the most, have bravely borne their calamity, without
joining with the enemies of the Republic. Their cheers have
been for Freedom and not for Slavery.
But the cheers of the House of Commons seem to prevail in
her Majesty’s Government. Municipal Law is violated—while
International Law,in its most solemn obligation to do untoothers
as we would have them do unto us—is treated as if it did not
exist. Eminent British functionaries in Court and Parliament,
vindicate the naval expeditions, which, in the name of Slavery,
have been unleashed against a friendly Power. Taking advan
tage of an admitted principle, that “ munitions of war ” may
be supplied, the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer tells us,
that “ships of war” may be supplied also. Lord Palmerston
echoes the Lord Chief Baron. Each vouches American author
ity. But they are mistaken. The steel which they strive to
“ impell ” cannot be feathered from our sides. Since the
earliest stage of its existence the National Government has
asserted a distinction between the two cases; and so has the
Supreme Court, although there are words of Story which have
been latterly quoted to the contrary. But the authority of the
Supreme Court is positive on both the points into which the
British apology is divided. The first of these is that, even if a
“ ship of war” cannot be furnished, the offence is not complete
until the armament is put aboard, so that where the ship, though
fitted out and equipped in a British port, awaits her armament
at sea, she is not liable to arrest. Such an apology is an insult
to the understanding and to common sense—as if it was not
obvious that the offence begins with the laying of the keel for
the hostile ship, knowing it to be such; and in this spirit the
Supreme Court has decided that it “ was not necessary to find
that a ship on leaving port was armed or in a condition to
commit hostilities;—for citizens are restrained from such acts as
are calculated to involve the country in a war.” U. S. vs. Quincy,
6 Peters, 445.) The second apology assumes, that, even if the
armament were aboard so that the “ ship of war” was complete at
all points, still the expedition would be lawful, if the juggle of a
sale were adroitly employed. But on this point the Supreme
Court, speaking by Chief Justice Marshall, has left no doubt of
its deliberate and most authoritative judgment. In the case
before the Court, the armament was aboard, but cleared as
cargo ; the men too were aboard but enlisted for a commercial
voyage; the ship, though fitted out to cruise against a nation
with which we were at peace, was not commissioned as a privateer,
and did not attempt to act as such until she had reached the
River La Plata, where a commission was obtained and the crew
2
�18
re-enlisted, yet, in the face of these extenuating circumstances, it
was declared by the whole Court that the neutrality of the United
States had been violated, so that the guilty ship could not after
wards be recognized as a legitimate cruiser. All these disguises
were to no purpose. The Court penetrated them every one,
saying that, if such a ship could lawfully sail there would be on
our part“ a fraudulent neutrality, disgraceful to our government,
of which no nation would be the dupe.” (The Gran Para, 7
Wheat., 471, and also four other cases in same volume.') But a
“neutrality” worse even than that condemned in advance by our
Supreme Court, “ of which no nation would be the dupe,” is now
served out to us, which nothing but the fatal war spirit that has
entered into Great Britain can explain. There was a time when
the Foreign Secretary of England, truly eminent as statesman
and as orator, Mr. Canning, said in the House of Commons : “ If
war must come, let it come in the shape of satisfaction to be
demanded for injuries, of rights to be asserted, of interests to be
protected, of treaties to be fulfilled. But, in God's name, let it
not come on in the paltry, pettifogging way of fitting out ships in
our harbors to cruise for gain. At all events let the country dis
dain to be sneaked into a warP (Canning’s Speeches, Vol. v.
p. 51.) These noble words were uttered in reply to Lord John
Russell and his associates in 1823, on their proposition to repeal
the Foreign Enlistment Act and to overturn the statute safeguards
of British neutrality. But they speak now with greater force
than then.
Even if it be admitted that “ ships of war,” like “ munitions of
war,” may be sold to a Belligerent, as is asserted by the British
Prime Minister, echoing the Lord Chief Baron, it is obvious that
it can be only with the distinction, to which I have already alluded,
that the sale is a commercial transaction, pure and simple, and
not, in any respect, a hostile expedition fitted out in England.
The ship must be “ exported” as an article of commerce, and it
must continue such until its arrival at the belligerent port,
where alone can it be fitted out and commissioned as a “ ship of
war,” when its hostile character will commence. Any attempt
in England to impart to it a hostile character, or, in one word, to
make England its naval base, must be criminal; but this is
precisely what has been done. And here are the leonine foot
prints which point so badly.
(11.) But not content with misconstruing the decisions of our
Supreme Court, in order to make them a cover for naval expedi
tions to depredate on our commerce, our whole history is forgotten
or misrepresented. It is forgotten, that, as early as 1793, under
the administration of Washington, before any Act of Congress on
the subject, the National Government recognized its liability,
under the Law of Nations, for ships fitted out in its ports to depre
date on British commerce ; that Washington, in a Message to
�19
Congress, describes such ships as “ vessels commissioned or
equipped in a warlike form, within the limits of the United
States,” and also as “ military expeditions or enterprises,”
(American Slate Papers, Vol. i. p. 22.) and that Jefferson, in
vindicating this policy of repression, said, in a letter to the French
Minister, that “ it was our wish to preserve the morals of our
citizens from being vitiated by courses of lawless plunder and
murder; ” (Ibid, 148.) that, on this occasion the National
Government made the distinction between “ munitions of war ”
which a neutral might supply in the way of commerce to a belligent, and “ ships of war,” which a neutral was not allowed to
supply, or even to augment with arms; that Mr. Hammond, the
British plenipotentiary at that time, by his letter of 8th May,
1793, after complaining of two French privateers fitted out at
Charleston, to cruise against British Commerce, expressly declares
that he considers them “ breaches of that neutrality which the
United States profess to observe, and direct contraventions of the
Proclamation which the President had issued,” ( Wharton's State
Trials, p. 49,) and that very soon there were criminal proceed
ings, at British instigation, on account of these privateers, in
which it was affirmed by the Court, that such ships could not be
fitted out in a neutral port without a violation of international
obligations; that, promptly tbereafterwards, on the application
of the British Government, a statute was enacted, in harmony
with the Law of Nations, for the better maintenance of our neu
trality ; that, in 1818, Congress enacted another statute in the
nature of a Foreign Enlistment Act, which was proposed as
an example by Lord Castlereagh, when urging a similar statute
upon Parliament; that in 1823 the conduct of the United
States on this whole head was proposed as an example to the
British Parliament by Mr. Canning; that, in 1837, during the
rebellion in Canada, on the application of the British Govern
ment, and to its special satisfaction, as was announced in Par
liament by Lord Palmerston, who was at the time Foreign
Secretary, our Government promptly declared its purpose “ to
maintain the supremacy of those laws which had been passed to
fulfil the obligations of the United States towards all nations
which should be engaged in foreign or domestic warfare ; ” and,
not satisfied with its existing powers, undertook to ask additional
legislation from Congress ; that Congress proceeded at once to the
enactment of another statute, calculated to meet the immediate
exigency, wherein it was provided that collectors, marshals and
other officers shall u seize and detain any vessel which may be
provided or prepared for any military expedition or enterprise
against the territories or dominions of any Foreign Prince or
Power.” (Statutes at Large, Vol. v. p. 212.) It is something
to forget these things ; but it is convenient to forget still further
that, on the breaking out of the Crimean War, in 1854. the
�British Government, jointly with France, made another appeal to
the United States, that our citizens “ should rigorously abstain
from taking part in armaments of Russian privateers, or in any
other measure opposed to the duties of a strict neutrality ” and
this appeal, which was declared by the British Government to be
“in the spirit of just reciprocity,” was answered on our part by a
sincere and determined vigilance, so that not a single British or
French ship suffered from any cruiser fitted out in our ports.
And it is also convenient to forget still further the solemn obliga
tions of Treaty, binding on both parties, by which it is stipulated,
“ That the subjects and citizens of the two nations shaTl not do any acts of
hostility or violence against each other, nor accept commissions or instructions
so to act from any foreign prince or state, enemies to the other party ; nor
shall the enemies of one of the parties b$ permit ted to invite or endeavor
to enlist in their military service, any of the subjects or citizens of the other
party ; and the laws against all such offences and aggressions shall he punc
tually executed!’ (Statutes at Large, Vol. viii. p. 127.)
But at the date of this Treaty, in 1794, there was little legislation
on the subject in either country; so that the Treaty, in harmony
with the practice, testifies to the requirements of the Law of
Nations, as understood at the time by both Powers.
And yet, forgetting all these things,—which show how faith
fully the National Government has acted, both in measures
of repression and measures of compensation—also how often the
British Government has asked and received protection at our
hands, and how highly our example of neutrality has been appre
ciated by leading British statesmen—and forgetting also that
“spirit of just reciprocity” which, besides being the prompting
of an honest nature, had been positively promised—ship after ship
is permitted to leave British ports to depredate on our commerce ;
and when we complain of this outrage, so unprecedented and so
unjustifiable, all the obligations of International Law are ignored,
and we are petulantly told that the evidence against the ships is
not sufficient under the statute; and when we propose that the
statute shall be rendered efficient for the purpose, precisely as in
past times the British Government, under circumstances less
stringent, proposed to us, we are pointedly repelled by the old
baronial declaration, that there must be no change in the laws of
England; while to cap this strange insensibility, Lord Palmerston,
in one of the last debates of the late Parliament, brings against
us a groundless charge of infidelity to our neutral duties during
the Crimean war, when the fact is notoriously the reverse, and
Lord Russell, in the same spirit, imagines an equally groundless
charge, which he records in a despatch, that we have recently
enlisted men in Ireland, when notoriously we have done no such
thing. Thus all the obligations of reciprocal service and good
will are openly discarded, while our public conduct, as well in
the past as the present, is openly misrepresented.
�21
(12.) This flagrant oblivion of history and of duty, which seems
to be the adopted policy of the British Government, has been
characteristically followed by a flat refusal to pay for the damages
to our commerce caused by the hostile expeditions. The United
States, under Washington, on the application of the British
Government, made compensation for damages to British commerce
under circumstances much less vexatious, and, still further, by
special treaty, made compensation for damages “ by vessels origi
nally armed ” in our ports, which is the present case. Of cours'e,
it can make no difference—not a pin’s difference—if the armament
is carried out to sea, in another vessel from a British port, and there
transhipped. Such an evasion may be effectual against a Par
liamentary statute, but it will be impotent against a demand upon
the British Government, according to the principles of Interna
tional Law; for this law looks always at the substance and not the
form, and will not be diverted by the trick of a pettifogger.
Whether the armament be put on board in port or at sea,
England is always the naval base, qt, according to the language’
of Sir William Scott, in a memorable case, the “station” or
“ vantage ground,”—which he declared a neutral country could
not be. (Twee Gebroeders, 3 Robinson, R. 162.) Therefore,
the early precedent between the United States and England
is in every respect completely applicable, and since this prece
dent was established — not only by the consent of England but
at her motion— it must be accepted on the present occasion
as an irreversible declaration of International duty. Other
nations might differ, but England is bound. And now it is
her original interpretation, first made to take compensation from
us, which is flatly rejected, when we ask compensation from her.
But even if the responsibility for a hostile expedition fitted out in
British ports were not plain, there is something in the recent con
duct of the British Government calculated to remove all doubt.
Pirate ships are reported on the stocks ready to be launched, and
when the Parliamentary statute is declared insufficient to stop
them, the British Government declines to amend it, and sodoin%
it openly declines to stop the pirate ships, saying, “ if the Parlia
mentary statute is inadequate then let them sail.” It is not
needful to consider the apology. The act of declension is positive
and its consequences are no less positive, fixing beyond question
the responsibility of the British Government for these criminal
expeditions. In thus fixing this responsibility, we but follow the
suggestions of reason, and the text of an approved authority,
whose words have been adopted in England.
. It must, be laid down as a maxim, that a sovereign, who, knowing the
crimes of his subjects, as for example that they practice piracy cm strangers,
and being also able and obliged to hinder it, does not hinder it, renders
umself criminal, because he has consented to the bad action, the commission
�22
of which he has permitted. It is presumed that a Sovereign knows what
his subjects openly and frequently commit, and, as to his power of hindering
the evil, this likewise is always presumed, unless the want of it be clearly
proved.”
Such are the words of Burlamaqui, in his work on Natural Law,
quoted with approbation by Phillimore in his work on the Law
of Nations.—^Phillimore, Vol. i. p. 237.) Unless these words are
discarded as “ a maxim,”—while the early precedent of British
demand upon us for compensation is also rudely rejected—it is
difficult to see how the British Government can avoid the conse
quences of complicity with the pirate ships in all their lawless
devastation. But I forbear to dwell on this accumulating liability,
amounting already to many millions of dollars, with accumulating
exasperations also. My present object is accomplished, if I
make you see which way danger lies.
(13.) But beyond acts and words this same British rabbia
shows itself in the official tone, which has been adopted towards
the National cause in its unparalelled struggle—especially
throughout the correspondence of the British Foreign Office. Of
course, there is no friendship in any of these letters. Nor is there
any sympathy with the National championship against Rebel Slave
mongers, nor one word of mildest dissent even from the miscreant
apostolate which was preached in their behalf. Naturally the
tone is in harmony with the sentiment. Hard, curt, captious,
cynical, it evinces an indifference to those kindly relations which
nations ought to cultivate with each other, and which should be
the study of a wise statesmanship. The Malay runs a-muck, and
such is the favorite diplomatic style in dealing with us. This is
painfully conspicuous in all that concerns the pirate ships. But
I can well understand that a Minister, who so easily conceded
Belligerent Rights to Rebel Slave-mongers, and then so easily
permitted their ships to sally forth for piracy, would be very
indifferent to the tone of what he wrote. And yet even outrage
may be soothed or softened by gentle words; but none such have
come out of British diplomacy to us. Most deeply do I regret
this too suggestive failure. And believe me, fellow citizens, I say
these things with sorrow unspeakable, and only in discharge of
my duty on this occasion, when, face to face, I meet you to
consider the aspects of our affairs abroad.
(14.) But there is still another head of danger in which all
others culminate. I refer to an intrusive Mediation or, it may be,
a Recognition of the Slave-monger pretension as an Independent
Nation; for such propositions have been openly made in Parlia
ment and constantly urged by the British press, and, though not
yet adopted by her Majesty’s Government, they have never been
repelled on principle, so that they constitute a perpetual cloud,
threatening to break, in our foreign relations. It is plain to all
�23
who have not forgotten history, that England never can be guilty
of such Recognition without an unpardonable apostacy; nor can
she intervene by way of Mediation except in the interests of
Freedom. And yet such are the strange “ elective affinities ”
newly born between England and Slavery; such is the towering
blindness, with regard to our country, kindred to that which pre
vailed in the time of George Grenville and Lord North, that her
Majesty’s Government, instead of repelling the proposition, simply
adjourn it, meanwhile adopting the attitude of one watching to
strike. The British Minister at Washington, of model prudence,
whose individual desire for peace I cannot doubt, tells his Govern
ment in a despatch which will be found in the last Blue Book,
that as yet he sees no sign of “ a conjuncture at which Foreign
Powers may step in tuith propriety and effect to put a stop to the
effusion of blood.” Here is a plain assumption that such a con
juncture may occur. But for the present we arc left free to wage
the battle against Slavery without any such Intervention in arrest
of our efforts.
Such are some of the warnings which lower from the English
sky, bending over the graves of Wilberforce and Clarkson, while
sounding from these sacred graves are heard strange, un-English
voices, crying out, “ Come unto us, Rebel Slave-mongers, whippers of women and sellers of children, for you are the people
of our choice, whom we welcome promptly to ocean rights—
with Armstrong guns and naval expeditions equipped in our
ports, and on whom we lavish sympathy always and the prophecy
of success ;—while for you, who uphold the Republic and oppose
Slavery, we have hard words, criticism, rebuke and the menace
of war.”
Perils from France.
If we cross the channel into France, we shall not be encouraged
much. And yet the Emperor^
anting habitually nTconcert
with flic British Cabinet, has not intermeddled so illogicaTTy or
displayed a temper of so little international amiabTTitv. The
Correspondence under his direction, even at the most critical
moments, leaves little to be desired in respect of form. Nor has
there been a single blockade-runner under the French flag; nor
a single pirate ship from a French port. But in spite of these
things, it is too apparent that the Emperor has taken sides against
us in at least four important public acts—positively, plainly,
offensively. The Duke de Choiseul, Prime Minister of France,
was addressed by Frederick the Great, as “ the coachman of
Europe,”—a title which belongs now to Louis Napoleon. But he
must not try to be “ the coachman of America.”
(1.) Following the example of England Louis Napoleon has
acknowledged the Rebel Slave-mongers as ocean Belligerents, so
that with the sanction of France, our ancient ally, their pirate
�24
J
ships, although without a single open port which they can call
their own, enjoy a complete immunity as lawful cruisers, while all
who sympathize with them may furnish supplies and munitions of
war. This fatal concession was aggravated by the concurrence
of the two great Powers. But, God be praised, their joint act,
though capable of giving a brief vitality to Slavery on pirate
decks, will be impotent to confirm this intolerable pretension.
(2.) Sinister events are not alone and this recognition of
Slavery was followed by an expedition of France, in concurrence
with England and Spain, against our neighbor Republic, Mexico.
The two latter Powers, with becoming wisdom, very soon with
drew ; but the Emperor did not hesitate to enter upon an invasion.
A French fleet with an unmatched iron-clad, the consummate
product of French naval art, is now at Vera Cruz and the French
army after a protracted siege has stormed Puebla and entered the
famous Capital. This far-reaching enterprise was originally said
to be a sort of process, served by a general, for the recovery of
outstanding debts due to French citizens. But the Emperor in a
mystic letter to General Forey gave to it another character. He
proposed nothing less than the restoration of the Latin race on
this side of the Atlantic, and more than intimates that the United
States must be restrained in power and influence over the Gulf
of Mexico and the Antilles. And now the Archduke Maximilian
of Austria has been proclaimed Emperor of Mexico under the
protection of France. It is obvious that this imperial invasion,
though not openly directed against us, would not have been made,
if our convulsions had not left the door of the continent ajar, so
that foreign Powers may now bravely enter in. And it is more
obvious that this attempt to plant a throne by our side would
“ have died before it saw the light,” had it not been supposed that
the Rebel Slave-mongers were about to triumph. Plainly the
whole transaction is connected with our affairs. But it can be
little more _than_a transient experiment—for who can doubt that
this imperial exotic, planted„by foreign care and propped by
foreign bayonets, will disappear, before the ascending glory of the
Republic.
(3.) This enterprise of war was followed by an enterprise of
diplomacy not less hardy The Emperor, not content with stirring
against us the gulf of Mexico, the Antilles and the Latin race,
entered upon work of a different character. He invited England
and Russia to unite with France in tendering to the two Belliger
ents (such is the equal designation of our Republic and the
embryo slave-monger mockery !) their joint Mediation to procure
“ an armistice for six months, during which every act of war,
direct or indirect, should provisionally cease on sea as well as on
land, to be renewed if necessary for a further period.” The
Cabinets of England and Russia, better inspired, declined the
invitation, which looked to little short of Recognition itself. Under
�25
the armistice proposed all our vast operations must have been
suspended—the blockade itself must have ceased—while the rebel
ports were opened on the one side to unlimited imports of supplies
and military stores, and on the other side to unlimited exports of
cotton. Trade for the time would have been legalized in these
ports, and Slavery would have lifted its grinning front before the
civilized world. Not disheartened by this failure, the Emperor
alone pushed forward his diplomatic enterprise against us, as he
had alone pushed forward his military enterprise against Mexico,
and he proposed to our Government the unsupported mediation
of France. His offer was promptly rejected by the President.
Congress by solemn resolutions, adopted by both Houses, with
singular unanimity, and communicated since to all foreign govern
ments, announced that such a proposition could be attributed
only “ to a misunderstanding of the true state of the question
and the real character of the war in which the Republic is
engaged ; and that it was in its nature so far injurious to the
national interests that Congress would be obliged to consider its
repetition an unfriendly act.” This is strong language, but it
frankly states the true position of our country. Any such offer,
whatever may be its motive, must be an encouragement to the
Rebellion. In an age when ideas prevail and even words become
things, the simple declarations of statesmen are of incalculable
importance. But the head of a great nation is more than states
man. The imperial proposition tended directly to the dismem
berment of the Republic and the substitution of a ghastly Slave
monger nation.
Baffled in this effort, twice attempted, the Emperor does not
yet abandon its policy. We are told that “ it is postponed to a
more suitable opportunityso that he too waits to strike—if the
Gallic cock does not sound the alarm in an opposite quarter.
Meanwhile the development of the Mexican expedition shows too
clearly the motive of mediation. It was all one transaction.
Mexico was invaded for empire, and mediation was proposed in
order to help the plot. But the invasion must fail with the
diplomacy to which it is allied.
(4.) But the policy of the French Emperor towards our
Republic has not been left to any uncertain inference. For a
long time public report has declared him to be unfriendly, and
now public report is confirmed by what he has done and said.
The. ambassadorial attorney of Rebel Slave-mongers lujs been
received by him at the Tuilleries; members of Parliament, on an
errand of hostility to our cause, have been received by him at
Fontainebleau ; and the official declaration has been made that
he desires to recognize the Rebel Slave-mongers as an Independent
Power. This has been hard to believe ; but it is too true. The
French Emperor is against us. In an evil hour, under tempta
tions which should be scouted, he forgets the precious tradi
�26
tions of France whose blood commingled with ours in a common
cause ; he forgets the sword of Lafayette and Rochambeau flash
ing by the side of the sword of Washington and Lincoln, while
the lilies of the ancient monarchy floated together with the
stars of our infant flag ; he forgets that early alliance, sealed
by Franklin, which gave to the Republic the assurance of
national life, and made France the partner of her rising glory ;
Heu pietas, lieu prisca fides,—manibus date lilia plenis ; and he
forgets still more the obligations of his own name,—how the
first Napoleon surrendered to us Louisiana and the whole region
West of the Mississippi, saying, “ this accession of territory
establishes forever the power of the United States, and gives to
England a maritime rival destined to humble her pride ; ” and
he forgets also how he himself, wdien beginning his Intervention
for Italian Liberty, boasted proudly that France always stood for
an “idea ; ” and, forgetting these things, which mankind cannot
forget, he seeks the disjunction of this Republic, with the spoliation
of that very territory, wflnch had come to us from the first Napo
leon, while France, always standing for an “ idea ” is made under
his auspices to stand for the “ idea ” of welcome to a new evangel
of Slavery, with Mason and Slidell as the evangelists. Thus is
the imperial influence thrown on the side of Rebel Slave-mongers.
Unlike the ancient Gaul, the Emperor forbears for the present to
fling his sword into the scale ; but he flings his heavy hand, if
not his sword.
But only recently we have the menace of the sword. The
throne of Mexico has been offered to an Austrian Archduke. The
desire to recognize the Independence of Rebel Slave-mongers has
been officially declared. These two incidents are to be taken
together—as the complements of each other. And now we are
assured by concurring report, that Mexico is to be maintained as
an Empire. The policy of the Holy Alliance, originally organized
against the great Napoleon, is adopted by his representative
on the throne of France. What its despot authors left undone
the present Emperor, nephew of the first, proposes to accomplish.
It is said that Texas also is to be brought under the Imperial Pro
tectorate, thus ravishing a possession, which belongs to this
Republic, as much as Normandy belongs to France. The “ parti
tion ” of Poland is acknowledged to be the great crime of the last
century. It was accomplished by Three Powers, with the silent
connivance of the rest ; but not without pangs of remorse on the part
of one of the spoilers. “ I know,” said Maria Theresa to the ambas
sador of Louis XVI., “ that I have brought a deep stain on my
reign by what has been done in Poland ; but I am sure that I should
be forgiven, if it could be known what repugnance I had to it.”
(Flassan, Histoire de la Diplomatie Française, Vol. vii. p. 125.)
But the French Emperor seeks to play on this continent the very
part which of old caused the contrition of Maria Theresa ; nor could
�27
the “ partition” of our broad country—if in an evil hour it were
accomplished—fail to be the great crime of the present century.
Trampier upon the Republic in France—trampier upon the Repub
lic in Mexico—it remains to be seen if the French Emperor can
prevail as trampier upon this Republic. I do not think he can ;
nor am I anxious on account of the new Emperor of Mexico, who
will be as powerless as King Canute against the rising tide of the
American people. His chair must be withdrawn or he will be
overwhelmed.
And here I bring to an end this unpleasant review. It is with
small satisfaction, and only in explanation of our relations with
Foreign Powers, that I have accumulated these instances, not one
of which, small as well as great, is without its painful lesson,
while they all testify with a single voice to the perils of our
country.
[II.]
Foreign Intervention, by Mediation or Intercession.
But there is another branch of the subject, which is not less
important. Considering all these things and especially how great
Powers abroad have constantly menaced Intervention in our war,
now by criticism and now by proffers of Mediation, all tending
painfully to something further, it becomes us to see what, accord
ing to the principles of International Law and the examples
of history will justify Foreign Intervention, in any of the forms
which it may take. And here there is one remark which may
be made at the outset. Nations are equal in the eye of Inter
national Law, so that what is right for one is right for all. It
follows that no nation can justly exercise any right which it
is not bound to concede under like circumstances. Therefore,
should our cases be reversed, there is nothing which England
and France have now proposed or which they may hereafter
propose which it will not be our equal right to propose, when
Ireland or India once more rebel, or when France is in the throes
of its next revolution. Generously and for the sake of that Inter
national Comity, which should not be lightly hazarded, we may
reject the precedents they now furnish; but it will be hard for
them to complain if we follow them.
Foreign Intervention is on its face inconsistent with every idea
of National Independence, which in itself is nothing more than
the conceded right of a nation to rest undisturbed so long as it
does not disturb others. If nations stood absolutely alone, dis
sociated from , each other, so that what passed in one had little or
no influence in another, only a tyrannical or intermeddling spirit
could fail to recognize this right. But civilization itself, by draw
ing nations nearer together and bringing them into one society,
has brought them under reciprocal influence, so that no nation
�28
can now act or suffer by itself alone. Out of the relations and
> suggestions of good neighborhood—involving, of course, the admitI ted right of self-defence—springs the only justification or apology
* which can be found for Foreign Intervention, which. is the general
term to signify an interposition in the affairs of another coun
try, whatever form it may take. Much is done under the name
of “ good offices,” whether in the form of Mediation or Interces
sion ; and much also by military power, whether in the declared will
of superior force or directly by arms. Recognition of Indepen
dence is also another instance. Intervention in any form is
interference. If peaceable it must be judged by its motive and
tendency; if forcible it will naturally be resisted by force.
Intervention may be between two or more nations, or it may be
between the two parties to a civil war; and yet again, it may be
where there is no war, foreign or domestic. In each case, it
should be governed strictly by the same principles, except, per-’
haps, that, in the case of a civil war, there should be a more
careful consideration, not only of the rights, but of the suscepti
bilities of a nation so severely tried. This is the obvious sugges
tion of humanity. Indeed, Intervention between nations is only
a common form of participation in foreign war; but intervention
in a civil war is an intermeddling in the domestic concerns of
another nation. Of course, whoever acts at the joint invitation
of the belligerent parties, in order to compose a bloody strife, will
be entitled to the blessings which belong to the peace-makers;
but, if uninvited, or acting only at the invitation of one party,
he will be careful to proceed with reserve and tenderness, in the
spirit of peace, and will confine his action to a proffer of good
offices in the form of Mediation or Intercession, unless he is ready
for war. Such a proffer may be declined without offence. But
it can never be forgotten that, inhere one side is obviously fighting
for Barbarism, any Intervention, whatever form it may take,—if
only by captious criticism, calculated to give encouragement to
the wrong side, or to secure for it time or temporary toleration,
if not final success,—is plainly immoral. If not contrary to the
Law of Nations, it ought to be.
Intervention, in the spirit of Peace and for the sake of Peace,
is one of the refinements of modern civilization. Intervention,
in the spirit of war, if not for the sake of war, has filled a large
space in history, ancient and modern. But all these instances
may be grouped under two heads; first, Intervention in external
affairs ; and, secondly, Intervention in internal affairs. The first
may be illustrated by the Intervention of the Elector Maurice, of
Saxony, against Charles V. ; of King William against Louis
XIV.; of Russia and France, in the seven years’ war ; of Russia
again between France and Austria, in 1805, and also between
France and Prussia, in 1806 ; and of France, Great Britain and
Sardinia, between Turkey and Russia, in the war of the Crimea.
�29
The Intervention of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, in the affairs
of Poland; of Great Britain among the native Powers of India ;
and of the Allied Powers, under the continued inspiration of the
Treaty of Pilnitz, in the French Revolution, are illustrations of
the second head. But without dwelling on these great examples,
I shall call attention to instances, which show more especially the
growth of intervention, first, in external, and, then, in internal
affairs. And here I shall conceal nothing. Instances, which
seem to be against the principles which I have at heart, will at
least help to illustrate the great subject, so that you may see it
as it is.
Intervention in External Affairs.
(1.) First in order, and for the sake of completeness, I speak
of Intervention in external affairs, where two or more nations are
parties.
As long ago as 1645, France offered Mediation between what
was then called “ the two crowns of the North,” Sweden and
Denmark. This was followed, in 1648, by the famous Peace of
Westphalia, the beginning of our present Law of Nations, which
was negotiated under the joint Mediation of the Pope and the
Republic of Venice, present by Nuncio and Ambassador. Shortly
afterwards, in 1655, the Emperor of Germany offered his Media
tion between Sweden and Poland, but the old historian records
that the Swedes suspected him of seeking to increase rather than
to arrange pending difficulties, which was confirmed by his
appearance shortly afterwards in the Polish camp. But Sweden,
though often belligerent in those days, was not so always, and, in
1672, when war broke forth between France and England on one
side and the Dutch Provinces on the other, we find her proffering
a Mediation, which was promptly accepted by England, who justly
rejected a similar proffer which the Elector of Brandenburg,
ancestor of the kings of Prussia, had the hardihood to make while
marching at the head of his forces to join the Dutch. The
English notes on this occasion, written in what at the time was
called “ sufficiently bad French but in most intelligible terms,”
declared that the Electoral proffer', though under the pleasant
name of mediation, (par le doux nom de mediation?) was in real
ity an arbitration, and that, instead of a Mediation, unarmed and
disinterested, it was a Mediation, armed and pledged to the
enemies of England. (Wicquefort, L’Ambassadeur, Vol. i.
p. 135.)
Such are some of the earlier instances, all of which have their
lesson for us. But there are modern instances. I allude only to
the Triple Alliance between Great Britain, Prussia and Holland,
which, at the close of the last century, successively intervened,
by a Mediation, which could not be resisted, to compel Denmark—
�30
which had sided with Russia against Sweden—to remain neutral for
the rest of the war; then in 1791 to dictate the terms of peace
between Austria and the Porte ; and lastly in 1792, to constrain
Russia into an abandonment of her designs upon the Turkish
Empire, by the peace of Jassey. On this occasion the Empress
of Russia, Catharine, peremptorily refused the Mediation of
Prussia and the Mediating Alliance made its approaches through
Denmark, by whose good offices the Empress was finally induced
to consent to the Treaty. While thus engaged in a work of pro
fessed Mediation, England, in a note to the French ambassador
declined a proposition to act as Mediator between France and the
Allied Powers; leaving that world-embracing war to proceed. But
England has not only refused to act as Mediator but has also refused
to submit to a mediation. This was during the last war with the
United States, when Russia, at that time the ally of England,
proffered her Mediation between the two belligerents, which was
promptly accepted by the United States. Its rejection at the
time by England, causing the prolongation of hostilities, was
considered by Sir James Mackintosh less justifiable, as “ a medi
ator is a common friend, who counsels both parties with a weight
proportioned to their belief in his integrity and their respect for
his power ; but he is not an arbitrator to whose decision they sub
mit their differences where award is binding on them.” The
peace of Ghent was concluded at last under Russian Mediation.
But England has not always been belligerent. When Andrew
Jackson menaced letters of marque against France, on account of
a failure to pay a sum stipulated in a recent Treaty with the
United States, King William IV. proffered his Mediation between
the two Powers ; but happily the whole question was already
arranged. It appears also that, before our war with Mexico, the
good offices of England were tendered to the two parties, but
neither was willing to accept them, and war took its course.
Such are instances of interference in the external affairs of
nations, and since International Law is to be traced in history,
they furnish a guide which we cannot safely neglect, especially
in view of the actual policy of England and France.
Intervention in Internal Affairs.
(2.) But the instances of Foreign Intervention in the internal
affairs of a nation are more pertinent to the present occasion.
They are numerous and not always harmonious, especially if we
compare the new with the old. In the earlier times such Inter
vention was regarded with repugnance. But the principle then
declared has been sapped on the one side by the conspiracies of
tyranny, seeking the suppression of liberal institutions, and on
tlie other side, by a generous sympathy, breaking forth in support
of liberal institutions. According to the old precedents, most of
�31
which will be found in the gossiping book of Wicquefort, from
whence they have been copied by Mr. Wildman, even Foreign
Intercession was prohibited. Not even in the name of charity
could one ruler speak to another on the domestic affairs of his
government. Peter, King of Arragon, refused to receive an
embassy from Alphonzo, King of Castile, entreating mercy for
rebels. Charles IX., of France, a detestable monarch, in reply to
ambassadors of the Protestant princes of Germany, pleading for his
Protestant subjects, insolently said that he required no tutors to
teach him how to rule. And yet this same sovereign did not
hesitate to ask the Duke of Savoy to receive certain subjects
“ into his benign favor and to restore and re-establish them in
their confiscated estates.” (Guizot’s Cromwell, Vol. ii. p. 210.)
In this appeal there was a double inconsistency; for it was not
only an interference in the affairs of another Prince but it was in
behalf of Protestants, only a few months before the massacre of
St. Bartholomew. Henry III., the successor of Charles, and a
detestable monarch also, in reply to the Protestant ambassadors,
announced that he was a sovereign prince, and ordered them to
leave his dominions. Louis XIII. was of a milder nature, and yet
when the English ambassador, the Earl of Carlisle, presumed to
speak in favor of the Huguenots, he declared that no interference
between the King of France and his subjects could be approved.
The Cardinal Richelieu, who governed France so long, learning
that an attempt was made to procure the Intercession of the
Pope stopped it by a message to his Holiness, that the King would
be displeased by any such interference. The Pope himself, on
another recorded occasion, admitted that it would be a pernicious
precedent to allow a subject to negotiate terms of accommodation
through a foreign Prince. On still another occasion, when the
King of France, forgetting his own rule, interposed in behalf of the
Barberini Family, Innocent X. declared, that as he had no desire
to interfere in the affairs of France, he trusted that his Majesty
would not interfere in his. Queen Christina of Sweden, on
merely hinting a disposition to proffer her good offices, for the
settlement of the unhappy divisions of France, was told by the
Queen Regent, that she might give herself no trouble on the
subject, and one of her own Ministers at Stockholm declared that
the overture had been properly rejected. Nor were the States
General of Holland less sensitive. They even went so far as to
refuse audience to the Spanish ambassador, seeking to congratu
late them on the settlement of a domestic question, and, when
the French ambassador undertook to plead for the Roman Cath
olics, the States by formal resolution denounced his conduct as
inconsistent with the peace and constitution of the Republic, all
of which was communicated to him by eight deputies who added
by word of mouth whatever the resolution seemed to want in
plainness of speech.
�32
Nor is England without similar examples. Louis XIII.,
shortly afte*’ the marriage of his sister Henrietta Maria with
Charles I., consented that the English ambassador should
interpose foi the French Protestants; but when the French
ambassador in England requested the repeal of a law against
Roman Catholics, Charles expressed his surprise that the King of
France should presume to intermeddle in English affairs. Even
as late as 1745, when, after the battle of Culloden, the Dutch
ambassador in France was induced to address the British Govern
ment in behalf of Charles Edward, the Pretender, to the effect
that if taken he should not be treated as a rebel, it is recorded
that this Intercession was greatly resented by the British Govern
ment which, not content with an apology from the unfortunate
official, required that he should be rebuked by his own govern
ment also. And this is British testimony with regard to Intervention
in a civil war, even when it took the mildest form of Intercession
for the life of a prince.
But in the face of these repulses, all these nations at different
times have practiced Intervention in every variety of form. Some
times by Intercession or “ good offices ” only, sometimes by
Mediation, and often by arms. Even these instances attest the
intermeddling spirit, for wherever Intervention was thus repulsed,
it was at least attempted.
But there are two precedents belonging to the earlier period,
which deserve to stand apart, not only for their historic impor
tance, but for their applicability to our times. The first was the
effort of that powerful minister, who during the minority of Louis
XIV. swayed France—Cardinal Mazarin—to institute a Mediation
between King Charles I. and his Parliament. The civil war had
already been waged for years ; good men on each side, had fallen,
Falkland fighting for the King and Hampden fighting for the Par
liament, and other costliest blood had been shed on the fields of
Worcester, Edgehill, Newbury, Marston Moor, and Naseby, when
the ambitious Cardinal, wishing to serve the King, according to
Clarendon, promised“ to press the parliament so imperiously, and
to denounce a war against them, if they refused to yield what was,
reasonable.” For this important service he selected the famous
Pomponne de Believre, of a family tried in public duties—himself
President of the Parliament of Paris and a peer of France—con
spicuous in personal qualities, as in place, whose beautiful head
preserved by the graver of Nanteuil is illustrious in art, and whose
dying charity lives still in the great hospital of the Hotel Dieu at
Paris. On his arrival at London, the graceful ambassador pre
sented himself to that Long Parliament which knew so well how
to guard English rights. Every overture was at once rejected, by
formal proceedings, from which I copy these words: “We do
declare that we ourselves have been careful on all occasions to
compose these unhappy troubles, yet we have not, neither can,
�33
admit of any Mediation or interposing betwixt the King and us by
any foreign Prince or State; and we desire that his Majesty, the
French King, will rest satisfied with this our resolution and
answer.” On the committee which drew this reply was John
Selden, unsurpassed for learning and ability in the whole splendid
history of the English bar, on every book of whose library was
written, “ Before every thing, Liberty ” and also that Harry Vane
whom Milton, in one of his most inspired sonnets, addresses, as
** Vane, young in years, but in sage counsel old,
Than whom a better Senator ne’er held
The helm of Rome, when gowns not arms repelled
The fierce Epirot and the African bold.”
The answer of such men may well be a precedent to us; especially
should England, taking up the rejected policy of Mazarin, presume
to send any ambassador to stay the Republic in its war with
Slavery.
But the same heart of oak, which was so strenuous to repel
the Intervention of France, in the great question between King
and Parliament, was not less strenuous even in Intervention—when
it could serve the rights of England or the principles of religious
liberty. Such was England when ruled by the great Protector,
called in his own day “ chief of men.” No nation so powerful
as to be exempt from that irresistible intercession, where beneath
the garb of peace there was a gleam of arms. From France,
even under the rule of Mazarin, he claimed respect for the
Protestant name, which he insisted upon making great and
gloiious. From Spain, on whose extended empire the sun at
that time never ceased to shine, he insisted that no Englishman
should be subject to the Inquisition. Reading to his council a
despatch from Admiral Blake, announcing that he had obtained
justice from the Viceroy of Malaga, Cromwell said “ that he
hoped to make the name of Englishman as great as ever that of
Roman had been.
In this same lofty mood he turned to propose
his Mediation between Protestant Sweden and Protestant Bremen,
chiefly bewailing that being both his friends they should so
despitefully combat one against another ;” “ offering his assistance
to a commodious accommodation on both sides,” and “ exhorting
them by no means to refuse any honest conditions of reconcile
ation.”— (Milton's Prose Works, Vol. vi. p. 315, 16.) Here was
Intervention between nation and nation ; but it was soon followed
by an Intervention in the internal affairs of a distant country,
which of all the acts of Cromwell is the most touching and
sublime. The French ambassador was at Whitehall urging the
signature of a treaty, when news unexpectedly came from a
secluded, valley of the Alps—far away among those mountain .
ton cuts which are the affluents of the Po—that a company of
pious Protestants, who had been for centuries gathered there,
3
�34
where they kept the truth pure “ when our fathers worshipped
stocks and stones,” were now suffering terrible persecution from
their sovereign, Emanuel of Savoy ; that they had been despoiled
of all possessions and liberties, brutally driven from their homes,
given over to a licentious and infuriate violence, and that when
they turned in self-defence, they had been “ slain by the bloody
Piemontcse, that rolled mother with infant down the rocks ; ” and
it was reported that French troops took part in this dismal
transaction. The Protector heard the story, and his pity flashed
into anger. He declined to sign the treaty until France united
with him in securing justice to these humble sufferers, whom he
called the Lord’s people. For their relief he contributed out of
his own purse <£2,000, and authorized a general collection through
out England, which reached to a large sum ; but, besides giving
money, he set apart a day of Humiliation and Prayer for them.
Nor was this all. t( I should be glad,” wrote his Secretary,
Thurloe, “ to have a most particular account of that business,
and to know what has become of these poor people, for whom our
very souls here do bleed.”—( Vaughan's Protectorate, Vol. i. p.
177.) But a mightier pen than that of any plodding secretary
was enlisted in this pious Intervention. It was John Milton,
glowing with that indignation which his sonnet on the massacre
in Piemont has made immortal in the heart of man, who wrote
the magnificent despatches, in which the English nation of that day
after declaring itself “ linked together with its distant brethren,
not only by the same type of humanity, but by joint communion
of the same religion,” naturally and gloriously insisted that
“ whatever had been decreed to their disturbance on account of
the Reformed Religion should be abrogated, and that an end be
put to their oppressions.” But not content with this call upon
the Prince of Savoy, the Protector appealed to Louis XIV. and
also to his Cardinal Minister; to the States General of Holland;
to the Protestant Cantons of Switzerland; to the King of Denmark;
to Gustavus Adolphus, and even to the Protestant Unitarian
Prince of remote Transylvania ; and always by the pen of Mil ton
—rallying these Princes and Powers in joint intreaty and inter
vention and “ if need be to some other speedy course, that such a
numerous multitude of our innocent brethren may not miserably
perish for want of succor and assistance.” The regent of Savoy,
who was the daughter of Henry IV., professed to be affected by this
English charity, and announced for her Protestant subjects “a free
pardon, and also such privileges and graces as cannot but give
the Lord Protector a sufficient evidence of the great respect borne
both to his person and Mediation."—(Guizot's History of Crom
well, Vol. ii. p. 211-19; Milton's Prose Works, Vol. vi. p. 318-37.)
But there was still delay. Meanwhile Cromwell began to inquire
where English troops might debark in the Prince’s territories,
and Mazarin, anxious to complete the yet unfinished Treaty with
�35
England, joined in requiring an immediate pacification in the
valleys and the restoration of these persecuted people to their
ancient liberties. It was done. Such is the grandest Intervention
of English history, inspired by Milton, enforced by Cromwell, and
sustained by Louis XIV., with his Cardinal minister by his side,
while foreign nations watched the scene.
But this great instance, constituting an inseparable part of
the glory of the Protector, is not the last occasion on which Eng
land intervened in behalf of the liberties of Protestants. Troubles
began in France with the revocation of the edict of Nantes; but
these broke forth in the rebellion of the Camisards, smarting
under the revocation. Sheltered by the mountains of the Cevennes, and nerved by their good cause, with the device, “ Liberty
of Conscience ” on their standards, they made head against two
successive Marshals of France, and perplexed the old age of Louis
XIV., whose arms were already enfeebled by foreign war. At
last, through the Mediation of England, the great monarch made
terms with his Protestant rebels, and the civil war was ended.
(Merlin, article, Ministre.')
Intervention, more often armed than unarmed, showed itself in
the middle of the last century. All decency was set aside when
Frederick of Prussia, Catharine of Russia, and Maria Theresa of
Austria, invaded and partitioned Poland, under the pretext of
suppressing anarchy. . Here was Intervention with a vengeance,
and on the side of arbitrary power. But such is human incon
sistency, there was almost at the same time, another Intervention
in the opposite direction. It was the Armed Intervention of
France, followed by that of Spain and Holland, in behalf of
American Independence. But Spain began Intervention here by an
offer of Mediation, with a truce, which was accepted by France on
condition that meanwhile the United States should be independent
in fact. (Martens Nouvelles Causes Celebres, Vol. i. p. 434.)
Then came, in 1788, the Armed Intervention of Prussia, to sustain
an illiberal faction in Holland, which was followed afterwards by the
compact between Great Britain, Prussia, and Holland, known as
the Triple Alliance, which began the business of its copartnership
by an Armed Intervention to reconcile the insurgent provinces of
Belgium to the German Emperor and their ancient Constitution.
As France began to be shaken by domestic troubles, Mediation in
her affairs was occasionally proposed. Among the papers of
Burke is a draft of a Memorial written in 1791, in the name of
the Government, offering what he calls this healing mediation.”
Then came the vast coalition for Armed Intervention in France to
put down the Republic. But even this dreary cloud was for a
moment brightened by a British attempt in Parliament, through
successive debates, to institute an Intercession for Lafayette,
immured in the dungeons of European despotism. “ It is
reported,” said one of the orators, “ that America has solicited
�36
the liberation of her unfortunate adopted fellow-citizen. Let
British magnanimity bo called in aid of American gratitude, and
exhibit to mankind a noble proof, that wherever the principles of
genuine liberty prevail, they never fail to inspire sentiments of
generosity, feelings of humanity, and a detestation of oppression.”
(Parliamentary History, Vol. xxxi. p. 38; Vol. xxxii. p. 1348.)
Meanwhile France, against which all Europe intervened, played
her part of Intervention, and the scene was Switzerland. In the
unhappy disputes between the aristocratic and democratic par
ties, by which this Republic had been distracted, French Mediation
had already become chronic, beginning in 1738, when it found a
partial apology in the invitation of several of the Cantons and of
the government of Geneva; occurring again in 1768, and again
in 1782. The mountain Republic, breathing the air of Freedom,
was naturally moved by the convulsions of the French Revolu
tion. Civil war ensued, and grew in bitterness. At last, when
France herself was composed under the powerful arm of the First
Consul, we find him turning to compose the troubles of Switzer
land. He was a military ruler, and always acted under the
instincts of military power. By an address, dated at the palace
of St. Cloud, Bonaparte declared that, already for three years the
Swiss had been slaying each other, and that, if left to themselves,
they would continue to slay each other for three years more,
without coming to any understanding; that, at first, he had
resolved not to interfere in their affairs, but that he now changed
his mind, and announced himself as the Mediator of their diffi
culties, proclaiming, confidently, that his Mediation would be
efficacious as became the great people in whose name he spoke.
(Garden Histoire des Traites de Paix, Vol. viii. p. 21.) Deputies
from the Cantons, together with all the chief citizens, were sum
moned to Paris, in order to declare the means of restoring the
union, securing peace and reconciling all parties. Of course,
this was Armed Mediation; but Switzerland was weak and France
was strong, while the declared object was union, peace and recon
ciliation. I know not if all this was accomplished, but the civil
war was stifled* and the constitution was established by what is
entitled in history, the Act of Mediation.
From that period down to the present moment, Intervention in
the internal affairs of other nations has been a prevailing practice,
now cautiously and peaceably; now offensively and forcibly.
Sometimes it was against the rights of men ; sometimes it was in
their favor. Sometimes England and France stood aloof; some
times they took part. The Congress of Vienna, which undertook
to settle the inap of Europe, organized a universal and perpetual
Intervention in the interest of monarchical institutions and exist
ing dynasties. This compact was renewed at the Congress of
Aix la Chapelle, in 1818, with the explanatory declaration that
the five great Powers would never assume jurisdiction over ques
�37
tions concerning the rights and interests of another Power, except
at its request and without inviting such Power to take part in the
conference. But this concession was obviously adverse to any
liberal movement. Meanwhile the Holy Alliance was formed
specially to watch and control the revolutionary tendencies of the
age ; but into this combination England, to her honor, declined
to enter. The other Powers were sufficiently active. Austria,
Russia and Prussia, did not hesitate at the Congress of Laybach,
in 1840, to institute an Armed Intervention for the suppression of
liberal principles in Naples; and again two years later, at the
Congress of Verona, these same Powers, together with France,
instituted another Armed Intervention to suppress liberal princi
ples in Spain, which ultimately led to the invasion of that king
dom and the overthrow of its constitution. France was the bellig
erent agent, and would not be turned aside, although the Duke
of Wellington at Verona and Mr. Canning at home, sought to
arrest her armies by the Mediation of Great Britain, which Medi
ation x^as directly sought by Spain and directly refused by France.
The British Government, in admirable letters, composed with
unsurpassed skill and constituting a noble page of International
Law, disclaimed for itself and denied to other Powers the right
to require changes in the internal institutions of Independent
States, with the menace of hostile attack in case of refusal; and
it bravely declared to the Imperial and Royal Interventionists,
that “ so long as the struggles and disturbances of Spain should
be confined within the circle of her own territory, they could not
be admitted by the British Government to afford any plea for
foreign interference,” and in still another note it repeated that
“ a menace of direct and imminent danger could alone, in excep
tion to the general rule, justify foreign interference.” (Pliillimore’s International Law, Vol. iii. pp. 757-66.) These were the
words of Mr. Canning; but even Lord Castlereagh, in an earlier
note, had asserted the same limitation, which at a later day had
the unqualified support of Lord Grey and also of Lord Aberdeen.
Justly interpreted they leave no apology for Armed Intervention
except in a case of direct and imminent danger, when a nation,
like an individual, may be thrown upon the great right of selfdefence.
But Great Britain bore testimony by what she did, as well as
by what she refused to do. Even while resisting the Armed Inter
vention of the great conspiracy, her Government intervened some
times by Mediation and sometimes by arms. Early in the contest
between Spain and her Colonies, she consented on the invitation
of Spain to act as Mediator, in the hope of effecting a reconcilia
tion ; but Spain declined the Mediation which she had invited,
brom 1812 to 1823 Great Britain constantly repeated her offer.
In the case of Portugal she went further. Under the counsels of
Mr. Canning, whose speech on the occasion was of the most
�38 ‘
memorable character, she intervened by landing troops at Lisbon ;
but this Intervention was vindicated by the obligations of treaty.
Next came the greater instance of Greece, when the Christian
Powers of Europe intervened to arrest a protracted struggle and
to save this classic land from Turkish tyranny. Here the first
step was a pressing invitation from the Greeks to the British and
French governments for their Mediation with the Ottoman Porte.
These Powers together with Russia proffered the much desired
Intervention, which the Greeks at once accepted and the Turks
rejected. Battle had already raged fiercely, accompanied by bar
barous massacre. Without delay, the Allied forces were directed
to compel the cessation of hostilities, which was accomplished by
the destruction of the Turkish fleet at Navarino and the occu
pation of the Morea by French troops. At last, under the
continued Mediation of these Powers, the independence of Greece
was recognized by the Ottoman Porte, and another Free State,
consecrated to Freedom, took its place in the Family of Nations,
But Mediation in Turkish affairs did not stop here. The example
of Greece was followed by Egypt, whose provincial chief Mehemet
Ali rebelled, and, by a genius for war, succeeded in dispossessing
the Ottoman Porte not only of Egypt, but of other possessions
also. This civil war was first arrested by temporary arrangement
at Kutoyah in 1833, under the Mediation of Great Britain and
France, and, finally ended by an Armed Mediation in 1840, when,
after elaborate and irritating discussions, which threatened to
involve Europe, a Treaty was concluded at London between Great
Britain, Russia, Austria and Prussia, by which the Pacha was
compelled to relinquish some of his conquests, while he was
secured in the government of Egypt, as a perpetual vassal of the
Porte. France dissatisfied with the terms of this adjustment stood
aloof from the Treaty, which found its apology, such as it had,
first, in the invitation of the Sultan and secondly, in the desire
to preserve the integrity of the Turkish empire as essential to the
balance of power and the peace of Europe ; to which reasons may
also be added the desire to stop the effusion of blood.
Even before the Eastern questions were settled, other compli
cations had commenced in Western Europe. Belgium, restless
from the French Revolution of 1830, rose against the House of
Orange and claimed her Independence. Civil war ensued ; but
the Great Powers promptly intervened, even to the extent of
arresting a Dutch army on its march. Beginning with an armis
tice, there was a long and fine-spun negotiation, which, assuming
the guise alternately of a pacific Mediation and of an Armed In
tervention, ended at last in the established separation of Belgium
from Holland, and its Recognition as an Independent Nation. Do
you ask why Great Britain intervened on this occasion ? Lord
John Russell, in the course of debate at a subsequent day, declared
that a special motive was “ the establishment of a free constitu
�39
tion.” (Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d scries, Vol. xciii. p.
417—66—Houseof Commons, July 11,1847.) Meanwhile the penin
sula of Spain and Portugal was torn by civil war. The regents of
these two kingdoms respectively appealed to Great Britain and
France for aid, especially in the expulsion of the pretender Den
Carlos from Spain, and the pretender Don Miguel from Portugal.
For this purpose the Quadruple Alliance of these Powers was
formed in 1834. The moral support derived from this Treaty is
said to have been important; but Great Britain was compelled to
provide troops. This Intervention, however, was at the solicita
tion of the actual governments. Even after the Spanish troubles
■were settled the war still lingered in the sister kingdom, when in
1847, the Queen appealed to Great Britain, the ancient patron of
Portugal, to mediate between herself and her insurgent subjects,
and the task was accepted, in the declared hope of composing the
difficulties in a just and permanent manner “ with all due regard
to the dignity of the Crown on the one hand and the Constitu
tional liberties of the Kation on the other.” The insurgents did
not submit until after military demonstrations. But peace and
liberty were the two watchwords here.
Then occurred the European uprising of 1848. France was
once more a Republic; but Europe wiser grown did not interfere
in her affairs, even so much as to write a letter. But the case
was different with Hungary, whose victorious armies, radiant with
liberty regained, expelled the Austrian power only to be arrested
by the Armed Intervention of the Russian Czar, who yielded to the
double pressure of an invitation from Austria and a fear that suc
cessful insurrection might extend into Poland. It was left for
France at the same time in another country, with a strange incon
sistency, to play the part which Russia had played in Hungary.
Rome, which had risen against the temporal power of the Pope,
and proclaimed the Republic, was occupied by a French army’
which expelled the republican magistrates, and, though fifteen
years have already passed since that unhappy act, the occupation
still continues. From this military Intervention Great Britain
stood aloof. In a despatch, dated at London January 28, 1849,
Lord Palmerston has made a permanent record to the honor of his
country. His words are as follows: “ Her Majesty’s Government
would upon every account, and not only upon abstract principle
but with reference to the general interests of Europe, and from
the value which they attach to the maintenance of peace, sincerely
deprecate any attempt to settle the differences between the Pope
and his subjects by the military interference of foreign Powers ”
(Phillimore, International Law, Vol. ii. p. 676.) But he gave
iuHher point to the whole position of Great Britain, in contrast
? ith r rance, when he said, “ Armed Intervention to assist in retain
ing a badgovernment would be unjustifiable.” (Ibid, 448.) Such
was the declaration of the Lord Palmerston of that day. But
�40
•
how much more unjustifiable must be assistance to found a bad
government, as is now proposed. The British Minister insisted
that the differences should be accommodated by “ the diplomatic
interposition of friendly Powers,” which he declared a much better
mode of settlement than an authoritative imposition of terms by
foreign arms. In harmony with this policy Great Britain during
this same year united with France in proffering Mediation between
the insurgent Sicilians and the King of Naples, the notorious
Bomba, in the hope of helping the cause of good government and
liberal principles. Not disheartened by rebuff, these two govern
ments in 1856 united in a friendly remonstrance to the same
tyrannical sovereign against the harsh system of political arrests
which he maintained, and against his cruelty to good citizens thrust
without any trial into the worst of prisons. The advice was
indignantly rejected, and the two governments that gave it at
once withdrew their Ministers from Naples. The sympathy of
Russia was on the wrong side, and Prince Gortschakoff, while
admitting that “ as a consequence of friendly forethought, one
government might give advice to another,” declared in a circular
that “ to endeavor by threats or a menacing demonstration, to
obtain from the King of Naples concessions in the internal affairs
of his government, is a violent usurpation of his authority, and
an open declaration of the strong over the weak.” This was
practically answered by Lord Clarendon, speaking for Great Brit
ain at the Congress of Paris, when, admitting the principle that
no government has the right to intervene in the internal affairs of
other nations, he declared that there were cases where an exception to this rule becomes equally a right and a duty ; that peace
must not be broken, but that there was no peace without justice,
and that, therefore, the Congress must let the King of Naples
know its desire for an amelioration of his system of government,
and must demand of him an amnesty for political offenders suffer
ing without a trial. This language was bold beyond the practice
of diplomacy ; but the Intervention which it proposed was on the
side of humanity.
But I must draw this part of the discussion to a close, although
the long list of instances is not yet exhausted. Even while I
speak, we hear of Intervention by England and France, in the
civil war between the Emperor of China and his subjects ; and
also in that other war between the Emperor of Russia on the one
side and the Poles whom he claims as subjects on the other side ;
but with this difference, that, in China these Powers have taken
the part of the existing government, while in Poland they have
intervened against the existing government. In the face of posi
tive declarations of neutrality the British and French Admirals
have united their forces with the Chinese ; but thus far in Poland
although there has been no declaration of neutrality, the Inter
vention has been unarmed. In both these instances we witness
�the same tendency, directed, it may be, by the interests or preju
dices of the time, and so far as it has yet proceeded, it is at least
in Poland on the side of liberal institutions. But alas! for
human consistency—the French Emperor is now intervening in
Mexico with armies and navies, to build a throne for an Austrian
Archduke.
British Intervention against Slavery.
But there is one long-continued Intervention by Great Britain,
which speaks now with controlling power; and it is on this ac
count that I have reserved it for the close of what I have to say
on this head. Though not without original shades of dark, it has
for more than half a century been a shining example to the civil
ized world. I refer to that Intervention against Slavery, which
from its first adoption has been so constant and brilliant as to
make us forget the earlier Intervention for Slavery, when, for
instance, Great Britain at the peace of Utrecht intervened to ex
tort the detestable privilege of supplying slaves to Spanish Amer
ica at the rate of 4,800 yearly for the space of thirty years, and
then again at the peace of Aix la Chapelle higgled for a yet longer
sanction to this ignoble Intervention ; nay it almost makes us
forget the kindred Intervention, at once most sordid and criminal,
by which this Power counteracted all efforts for the prohibition of
the slave-trade even in its own colonies, and thus helped to fasten
Slavery upon Virginia and Carolina. The abolition of the slavetrade by act of Parliament in 1807 was the signal for a change of
history.
But curiously, it was the whites who gained the first fruits of
this, change by a triumphant Intervention for the suppression of
White Slavery in the Barbary States. The old hero of Acre,
Sir Sidney Smith, released from his long imprisonment in France,
sought to organize a “ holy league ” for this Intervention ; the
subject was discussed at the Congress of Vienna ; and the agents
of Spain and Portugal, anxious for the punishment of their pirat
ical neighbors argued that, because Great Britain had abolished
for itself the traffic in African slaves, therefore it must see that
whites were no longer enslaved in the Barbary States. The argu
ment was less logical than humane. But Great Britain under
took the work. With a fleet complete at all points, consisting of
five line-of-battle ships, five heavy frigates, four bomb-vessels, and
five gun-brigs, Lord Exmouth approached Algiers, where he was
joined by a considerable Dutch fleet, anxious to take part in this
Intervention. “ If force must be resorted to ” said the Admiral
in his General Orders, “we have the consolation of knowing that
we fight in the sacred cause of humanity and cannot fail of suc
cess.” A single day was enough—with such a force in such a
cause. The formidable castles of the great Slave-monger were
�42
battered to pieces, and he was compelled to sign a Treaty, con
firmed under a salute of twenty-one guns, which in its first
article stipulated “ The Abolition of Christian Slavery forever.”
Glorious and beneficent Intervention ’—Not inferior to that re
nowned instance of antiquity, where the Carthaginians were
required to abolish the practice of sacrificing their own children ;
a Treaty which has been called the noblest of history, because it
was stipulated in favor of human nature. The Admiral, who
had thus triumphed, was hailed as an Emancipator. He received
a new rank in the peerage, and a new blazonry on his coat of
arms. The rank is of course continued in his family, and on
their shield, in perpetual memory of this great transaction, is still
borne a Christian slave holding aloft the cross and dropping his
broken fetters. But the personal satisfactions of the Admiral
were more than rank or heraldry. In his despatch to the Gov
ernment, describing the battle and written at the time, he says:
“ To have been one of the humble instruments in the hands of
Divine Providence for bringing to reason a ferocious government
and destroying forever the insufferable and horrid system of
Christian Slavery, can never cease to be a source of delight and
heartfelt comfort to every individual happy enough to be employed
in it.” (Osier’s Life of Exmouth, pp. 297, 334, 432.)
But I have said too much with regard to an instance, which,
though beautiful and important, may be regarded only as a paren
thesis in the grander and more extensive Intervention against
African Slavery, which was already organizing, destined at last to
embrace the whole Human Family. Even before Wilberforce
triumphed in Parliament, Great Britain intervened with Napo
leon, in 1806, to induce him to join in the abolition of the slavetrade ; but he flatly refused. What France would not then yield,
was extorted from Portugal in 1810 ; from Sweden shortly after
wards ; and from Denmark in 1814. An ineffectual attempt was
made to enlist Spain, even by the temptation of pecuniary subsi
dies ; and also to enlist the restored monarch of France, Louis
XVIII. even by the offer of a sum of money outright or the
cession of a West India Island, in consideration of the desired
abolition. Had gratitude to a benefactor prevailed, these Powers
could not have resisted ; but it was confessed by Lord Castlercagh,
in the House of Commons, that there vras a distrust of the Brit
ish Government “ even among the better classes of people,” who
thought that its zeal in this behalf was prompted by a desire to
injure the French Colonies and commerce, rather than by benevo
lence. But the British Minister was more successful with Portugal,
which was induced, by pecuniary equivalents, to execute a Supple
mentary Treaty in January, 1815. This was followed by the de
claration of the Congress of Vienna, on motion of Lord Castlereagli,
15th February, 1815, denouncing the African slave-trade “ as
inconsistent with the principles of humanity and universal benev
�43
olence.” Meanwhile Napoleon returned from Elba, and what the
British Intervention failed to accomplish with the Bourbon Mon
arch, and what the Emperor had once flatly refused, was now
spontaneously done by him, doubtless in the hope of conciliat
ing British sentiment. His hundred days of power were signal
ized by an ordinance abolishing the slave-trade in France and her
colonies. Louis XVIII. once again restored by British arms and
with the shadow of Waterloo upon France, could not do less than
ratify this imperial ordinance by a royal assurance that “ the
traffic was henceforth forever forbidden to all the subjects of his
most Christian Majesty.” Holland came under the same influ
ence and accepted the restitution of her colonies, except the Cape
of Good Hope and Guiana, on condition of the entire abolition of
the slave-trade in the restored colonies and also everywhere else
beneath her flag. Spain was the most indocile ; but this proud
monarchy, under whose auspices the African slave-trade first came
into being, at last yielded. By the Treaty of Madrid, of 22d
September, 1817, extorted by Great Britain, it stipulated the
immediate abolition of the trade north of the Equator, and
also, after 1820, its abolition everywhere, in consideration of
¿£400,000, the price of Freedom, to be paid by the other contract
ing party. In vindication of this Intervention, Wilberforce declared
in Parliament that, “ the grant to Spain would be more than
repaid to Great Britain in commercial advantages by the opening
of a great continent to British industry,”—all of which was
impossible if the slave-trade was allowed to continue under the
Spanish flag.
At the Congress of Aix la Chapelle in 1818, and of Verona in
1822, Great Britain continued her system of Intervention against
Slavery.
Her primacy in this cause was recognized by European
Powers. It was the common remark of continental publicists
that she “ made the cause her own.” (1 Phillimore Interna
tional Law, 330.) Ono of them portrays her vividly “ since 1810
waging incessant war against the principle of the slave-trade, and
by this crusade, undertaken in the name of Humanity, making
herself the declared protectress of the African race.” (Cussy,
Causes Celebres de Droit Maritime, Vol. i. p. 157, Vol. ii. pp.
362, 63.) These are the words of a French authority. Accord
ing to him, it is nothing less than “ an incessant war ” and a
“ crusade,” which she has waged and the position which she has
achieved is that of “ Protectress of the African race.” In this
character she has not been content with imposing her magnani
mous system upon the civilized world, but she has carried it
among the tribes and chiefs of Africa, who by this omnipresent
Intervention, were summoned to renounce a barbarous and crim
inal custom. By a Parliamentary Report, it appears that in
1850, there were twenty-four treaties in force, between Great
Britain and foreign civilized Powers, for the suppression of the
�slave-trade, and also forty-two similar treaties between Great
Britain and native chiefs of Africa.
But this Intervention was not only by treaties; it was also by
correspondence and circulars. And here I approach a part of the
subject which illustrates the vivacity of this Intervention. All
British ministers and consuls were so many pickets on constant
guard in the out-posts where they resided. They were held to
every service by which the cause could be promoted, even to
translating and printing documents against the slave-trade, espe
cially in countries where unhappily it was still pursued. There
was the Pope’s Bull of 1839, which Lord Palmerston did not hesi
tate to transmit for this purpose to his agents in Cuba, Brazil,
and even in Turkey, some of whom were unsuccessful in their
efforts to obtain its publication, although, curiously enough, it
was published in Turkey. (Parliamentary Papers, 1841, Vol. xxx.
Slave Trade, Class B, p. 34, 197, 223; Class C, p. 73, Class D,
p. 15.)
Such a zeal could not stop at the abolition of the traffic.
Accordingly Great Britain, by Act of Parliament in 1834 enfran
chised all the slaves in her own possessions, and thus again
secured to herself the primacy of a lofty cause. The Inter
vention was now openly declared to be against Slavery itself.
But it assumed its most positive character while Lord Palmerston
was Foreign Secretary, and I say this sincerely to his great honor.
Throughout his long life, among all the various concerns in which
he has acted, there is nothing which will be remembered hereafter
with such gratitude. By his diplomacy her Majesty’s Govern
ment constituted itself into a vast Abolition Society with the
whole world for its field. It was in no respect behind the famous
World’s Convention against Slavery, held at London in June,
1840, with Thomas Clarkson, the pioneer Abolitionist, as Presi
dent ; for the strongest declarations of this Convention were
adopted expressly by Lord Palmerston as “ the sentiments of her
Majesty’s Government,” and communicated officially to all British
functionaries in foreign lands. The Convention declared “ the
utter injustice of Slavery in all its forms ; and the evil it inflicted
upon its miserable victims ; and the necessity of employing every
means, moral, pacific, and religious, for its complete abolition—
an object most dear to the members of the Convention, and for
the consummation of which they are especially assembled.”
These words became the words of the British Government, and,
in circular letters, were sent over the world. (Parliamentary
Papers, 1841, Vol. xxx. Class B, p. 33.)
But it was not enough to declare the true principles. They
must be enforced. Spain and Portugal hung back. The Secre
tary of the Anti-Slavery Society was sent “ to endeavor to create
in these countries a public feeling in favor of the abolition of
Slavery,” and the British Minister at Lisbon was desired by Lord
�45
Palmerston “ to afford all the assistance and protection in his power
for promoting the object of his journey.” (Ibid, p. 128.) British
officials in foreign countries sometimes back-slidcd. This was
corrected by another circular addressed to all the four quarters
of the globe, setting forth, “ that it would be unfitting that any
officer, holding an appointment under the British Government
should, either directly or indirectly, hold or be interested in slave
property.” The Parliamentary Papers, which attest the univer
sality of this instruction, show the completeness with which it was
executed. The consul at Rio Janeiro, in slave-holding Brazil,
had among his domestics three negro slaves, “ one a groom and
the other a waiter and a woman he was forced to hire as a nurse
to his children;” but he discharged them at once under the Anti
Slavery discipline of the British Foreign office, and Lord Palmers
ton in a formal despatch “ expresses his satisfaction.” (Ibid,
1842, Vol. xlviii. Class B, p. 732.) In Cuba, at the time of the
reception there was not a single resident officer holding under its
British Crown “ who was entirely free from the charge of counte
nancing Slavery.” But only a few days afterwards, it was
officially reported, that there was “ not a single British officer
residing there who had not relinquished or was not at least
preparing to relinquish the odious practice.” (Ibid, p. 206.)
This was quick work. Thus was the practice according to the
rule. Every person, holding an office under the British govern
ment, was constrained to set his face against Slavery, and the way
was by having nothing to do with it, even in employing or hiring
the slave of another ; nothing, directly or indirectly.
But Lord Palmerston, acting in the name of the British Gov
ernment, did not stop with changing British officials into practi
cal Abolitionists whenever they were in foreign countries. He
sought to enlist other European governments in the same policy,
and to this end requested them to forbid all their functionaries,
residing in slave-holding communities, to be interested in slave
property or in any holding or hiring of slaves. Denmark for a
moment hesitated, from an unwillingness to debar its officers in
slave countries from acting according to the laws where they
resided, when the minister at once cited in support of his request,
the example of Belgium, Holland, Sweden, Naples and Portugal,
all of which without delay had yielded to this British Interven
tion ; and Denmark ranged herself in the list. (Ibid, p. 42.
Vol. xliv. Class C, pp. 7-15.) Nor was this indefatigable Propa
ganda confined in its operations to the Christian Powers. With a
sacred pertinacity it reached into distant Mohammedan regions,
where Slavery was imbedded not only in the laws, but in the
habits, the social system, and the very life of the people, and
called upon the Government to act against it. No impediment
stood in the way ; no prejudice, national or religious. To the
Schah of Persia, ruling a vast, outlying slave empire, Lord Pal
�46
merston announced the desire of the British Government “ to see
the condition of Slavery abolished in every part of the world ; ”
“ that it conceived much good might be accomplished even in
Mohammedan countries by steady perseverance and by never omit
ting to take advantage of favorable opportunities,” and “ that the
Schah would be doing a thing extremely acceptable to the British
Government and nation if he would issue a decree making it
penal for a Persian to purchase slaves.” (Ibid, 1842, Vol. xliv.
Class D, p. (0.) To the Sultan of Turkey, whose mother was a
slave, whose wives were all slaves, and whose very counsellors,
generals and admirals were originally slaves, he made a similar
appeal, and he sought to win the dependent despot by reminding
him that only in this way could he hope for that good will which
was so essential to his government; “ that the continued support
of Great Britain will for some years to come be an object of
importance to the Porte ; that this support cannot be given effect
ually unless the sentiments and opinions of the majority of the
British nation shall be favorable to the Turkish Government, and
that the whole of the British nation unanimously desire beyond
almost any thing else to put an end to the practice of making
slaves.” (Ibid, 1841, Vol. xxx. Class D, pp. 15-18; also, Ibid,
1842, Vol. xliv. Class D, p. 73.) Such at that time was the voice
of the British people. Since Cromwell pleaded for the Vaudois,
no nobler voice had gone forth. The World’s Convention against
Slavery saw itself transfigured, while platform speeches were trans
fused into diplomatic notes. The Convention, earnest for Uni
versal Emancipation, declared that “ the friendly interposition of
Great Britain could be employed for no nobler purpose; ” and, as
if to crown its work, in an address to Lord Palmerston, humbly
and earnestly implored his lordship “ to use his high authority for
connecting the overthrow of slavery with the consolidation of
peace; ” and all these words were at once adopted in foreign
despatches as expressing the sentiments of Her Majesty’s Gov
ernment. (Ibid, 1841, Vol. xxx. Class D, pp. 15, 16.) Better
watch-words there could not be, nor any more worthy of the
British name. There can be no consolidation of peace without
the overthrow of Slavery. This is as true now as when first
uttered. Therefore is Great Britain still bound to her original
faith; nor can she abandon the cause of which she was the
declared Protectress without the betrayal of Peace, as well as the
betrayal of Liberty.
But even now while I speak this same conspicuous fidelity to a
sacred cause is announced by the recent arrivals from Europe.
The ship canal across the Isthmus of Suez, first attempted by the
early Pharaohs, and at last undertaken by French influence under
the auspices of the Pacha of Egypt, is most zealously opposed by
Great Britain—for the declared reason, that in its construction
“ forced labor ” is employed, which this Power cannot in con
�47
science sanction. Not even to complete this vast improvement,
bringing the East and the West near together, for which mankind
has waited throughout long centuries, will Great Britain depart
from the rule which she has so gloriously declared. Slavery is
wrong; therefore it cannot be employed. The canal must stop
if it cannot be built without “ forced labor.”
General Principles applicable to Intervention.
And here I close the historic instances which illustrate the
right and practice of Foreign Intervention. The whole subject
will bo seen in these instances, teaching clearly what to avoid
and what to follow. In this way the Law of Nations, like history,
gives its best lessons. But, for the sake of plainness, I now
gather up some of the conclusions.
Foreign Intervention is armed or unarmed, although sometimes
the two are not easily distinguishable. An unarmed Intervention
may have in it the menace of arms, or it may be war in disguise.
If this is the case, it must be treated accordingly.
Armed Intervention is war and nothing less. Of course it can
be vindicated only as war, and it must be resisted as war.
Believing as I do, most profoundly, that war can never be a game,
but must always be a crime when it ceases to be a duty ; a crime
to be shunned if it be not a duty to be performed swiftly and
surely ; and that a nation, like an individual, is not permitted to
take the sword, except in just self-defence—I find the same lim
itation in Armed Intervention, which becomes unjust invasion just
in proportion as it departs from just self-defence. Under this
head is naturally included all that Intervention which is moved
by a tyrannical or intermeddling spirit, because such Intervention,
whatever may be its professions, is essentially hostile; as when
Russia, Prussia and Austria, partitioned Poland; when the Holy
Alliance intermeddled everywhere, and menaced even America;
or when Russia intervened to crush the independence of Hungary,
or France to crush the Roman Republic. All such Intervention
is illegal, inexcusable and scandalous. Its vindication can be
found only in the effrontery that might makes right.
Unarmed Intervention is of a different character. If sincerely
unarmed, it may be regarded as obtrusive, but not hostile. It
may assume the form of Mediation, or the proffer of good offices,
at the invitation of both parties, or, in the case of civil war, at
the invitation of the original authority. With such invitation,
this Intervention is proper and honorable. Without such invita
tion it is of doubtful character. But if known to be contrary to
the desires of both parties, or to the desires of the original
authority in a distracted country, it becomes offensive and inad
�48
missible, ztnless obviously on the side of Human Rights, when
the act of Intervention takes its character from the cause in which
it is made. But it must not be forgotten that, in the case of a
civil war, any Mediation, or indeed, any proposition which does
not enjoin submission to the original authority, is in its nature
adverse to that authority, for it assumes to a certain extent the
separate existence of the other party, and secures for it temporary
immunity and opportunity, if not independence. Congress,
therefore, was right in declaring to Foreign Powers, that any
renewed effort of mediation in our affairs will be regarded as an
unfriendly act.
There is another case of unarmed Intervention, which I cannot
criticise. It is where a nation intercedes or interposes in favor
of Human Rights, or to secure the overthrow of some enormous
wrong, as where Cromwell pleaded, with noble intercession, for
the secluded Protestants of the Alpine valleys; where Great
Britain and France declared their sympathy with the Greeks
struggling for Independence, and where Great Britain alone,
by an untiring diplomacy, set herself against Slavery everywhere
throughout the world.
The whole lesson on this head may be summed up briefly. All
Intervention in the internal affairs of another nation is contrary
to law and reason, and can be vindicated only by overruling
necessity. If you intervene by war, then must there be the
necessity of self-defence. If you intervene by Mediation or Inter
cession, then must you be able to speak in behalf of civilization
endangered or human nature insulted. But there is no Power
which is bound to this humane policy so absolutely as England ;
especially is there none which is so fixed beyond the possibility of
retreat or change in its opposition to Slavery, whatever shape this
criminal pretension may assume—whether it be the animating
principle of a nation—the “ forced labor ” of a multitude—or even
the service of a solitary domestic.
[III.]
Intervention by Recognition.
There is a species of Foreign Intervention, which stands by
itself, and has its own illustrations. Therefore, I speak of it by
itself. It is where a Foreign Power undertakes to acknowledge
the independence of a colony or province which has renounced its
original allegiance, and it may be compendiously called Interven
tion by Recognition. Recognition alone is strictly applicable to
the act of the original government, renouncing all claim of alle
giance and at last acknowledging the Independence which has
been in dispute. But it is an act of Intervention only where a
Foreign Government steps between the two parties. Of course,
the original government is so farmaster of its position, that it may
�49
select its own time in making this Recognition. But the question
arises at what time and under what circumstances can this Recog
nition be made by a Foreign Power. It is obvious that a Recogni
tion, proper at one time and under special circumstances, would
not be proper at another and under different circumstances.
Mr. Canning said with reference to Spanish America, that “ if he
piqued himself upon any thing it was upon the subject of time,"
and he added that there were two ways of proceeding, “ one went
recklessly and with a hurried course to the object, which, though
soon reached, might be almost as soon lost, and the other was by
a course so strictly guarded that no principle was violated and
no offence given to other Powers.” (Hansard’s Parliamentary
Debates, 2d Series, Vol. xii. p. 7, 8.) These are words of wise
statesmanship, and they present the practical question which
must occur in every case of Recognition. What condition of the
controversy will justify this Intervention ?
And here again the whole matter can be best explained by
historic instances. The earliest case is that of Switzerland which
led the way, as long ago as 1307, by breaking off from the House
of Hapsburg, whose original cradle was in a Swiss Canton. But
Austria did not acknowledge the Independence of the Republic
until the peace of Westphalia, more than three centuries and a
half after the struggle began under William Tell. Meanwhile
the Cantons had lived through the vicissitudes of war foreign and
domestic, and had formed treaties with other Powers, including
the Pope. Before Swiss Independence was acknowledged, the
Dutch conflict began under William of Orange. Smarting under
intolerable grievances and with a price set upon the head of their
illustrious Stadholder, the United Provinces of the Netherlands
in 1572 renounced the tyrannical sovereignty of Philip II., and
declared themselves independent. In the history of Freedom this
is an important epoch. They were Protestants, battling for rights
denied, and Queen Elizabeth of England, who was the head of
Protestantism, acknowledged their Independence and shortly after
wards gave to it military aid. The contest continued, sustained
on the side of Spain by the genius of Parma and Spinola, and on
the side of the infant Republic by the youthful talent of Maurice,
son of the great Stadholder; nor did Foreign Powers stand aloof.
In 1594, Scotland, which was Protestant also, under James VI.,
afterwards the first James of England, treated with the insurgent
Provinces as successors of the Houses of Burgundy and Austria,
and in 1596 France also entered into alliance with them. But
the claims of Spain seemed undying ; for it was not until the
peace of Westphalia, nearly eighty years after the revolt, and
nearly seventy years after the Declaration of Independence, that
this Power consented to the Recognition of Dutch Independence.
Nor does this example stand alone even at that early day.
Portugal in 1640 also broke away from Spain and declared herself
4
�50
independent, under the Duke of Braganza as King. A year had
scarcely passed when Charles I. of England negotiated a treaty
with the new sovereign. The contest had already ceased but not
the claim; for it was only after twenty-six years that Spain made
this other Recognition.
Traversing the Atlantic Ocean in space and more than a century
in time, I come to the next historic instance which is so inter
esting to us all, while as a precedent it dominates the whole
question. The long discord between the colonies and the mother
country broke forth in blood on the 19th April, 1775. Indepen
dence was declared on the 4th July, 1776. Battles ensued; Tren
ton, Princeton, Brandywine, Saratoga, followed by the winter of
Valley Forge. The contest was yet undecided, when on the 6th Feb
ruary, 1778, France entered into a Treaty of Amity and Commerce
with the United States, containing, among other things, a Recogni
tion of their Independence, with mutual stipulations between the
two parties to protect the commerce of the other, by convoy on
the ocean, “against all attacks, force and violence;” {Statutes at
Large, Vol. viii. p. 16,) and this Treaty on the 15th March was
communicated to the British Government by the French Ambas
sador at London, with a diplomatic note in which the United
States are described as “in full possession of the Independence
pronounced by the Act of 4th July, 1776,” and the British Gov
ernment is warned that the King of France,“in order to protect
effectively the legitimate commerce of his subjects and to sus
tain the honor of his flag, has taken further measures with the
United States.”—{Martens Nouvelles Causes Celebres. Vol. i. p.
406.) A further Treaty of Alliance, whose declared object was
the maintenance of the Independence of the United States, had
been signed on the same day; but this was not communicated ;
nor is there any evidence that it was known to the British Govern
ment at the time. The communication of the other was enough;
for it was in itself an open Recognition of the new Power, with a
promise of protection to its commerce on the ocean, while the war
was yet flagrant between the two parties. As such it must be
regarded as an Armed Recognition, constituting in itself a bellig
erent act—aggravated and explained by the circumstances under
which it was made—the warning, in the nature of a menace,
by which it was accompanied—the clandestine preparations by
which it was preceded—and the corsairs to cruise against British
commerce, which for some time had been allowed to swarm
under the American flag from French ports. It was so accepted
by the British Government. The British Minister was summ:>
rily withdrawn from Paris ; all French vessels in British harbors
were seized, and on the 17th March a message from the king
was brought down to Parliament, which was in the nature of a
declaration of war against France. In this declaration there
was no allusion to any thing but the Treaty of Amity and Com
�51
K
merce, officially communicated by the French Ambassador, which
was denounced by his majesty as an “ unprovoked and unjust
aggression on the honor of his crown and the essential interests
of his kingdoms, contrary to the law of nations, and injurious to
the rights of every Foreign Power in Europe.” Only three days
later, on the 21st March, the Commissioners of the United States
were received by the King of France, in solemn audience, with
all the pomp and ceremony accorded by the Court of Versailles
to the representatives of Sovereign Powers. War ensued between
France and Great Britain on land and sea, in which Holland and
Spain afterwards took part against Great Britain. With such
allies a just cause prevailed. Great Britain by Provisional
Articles, signed at Paris 30th November, 1782, acknowledged the
United States “ to be free, sovereign and independent,” and
declared the boundaries thereof.
The success of colonial Independence was contagious, and the
contest for it presented another historic instance more discussed
and constituting a precedent, if possible, more interesting still.
This was when the Spanish Colonies in America, following the north
ern example, broke away from the mother country and declared
themselves independent. The contest began as early as 1810;
but it was long continued and extended over an immense region—
from New Mexico and California in the North to Cape Horn in
the South—washed by two vast oceans—traversed by mighty rivers
and divided by lofty mountains—fruitful in silver—capped with
snow and shooting with volcanic fire. At last the United States
satisfied that the ancient power of Spain had practically ceased to
exist, beyond a reasonable chance of restoration, and that the
contest was ended, acknowledged the Independence of Mexico and
five other provinces. But this act was approached only after fre
quent debate in Congress, where Henry Clay took an eminent
part, and after most careful consideration in the cabinet, where
John Quincy Adams, as Secretary of State, shed upon the ques
tion all the light of his unsurpassed knowledge, derived from
long practice, as well as from laborious study, of International
Law. The judgment on this occasion must be regarded as an
authority. President Munroe in a Special Message, on the 8th
March, 1822—twelve years after the war began—called the atten
tion of Congress to the state of the contest which he said “ had
now reached such a stage and been attended with such decisive
success on the part of the provinces, that it merits the most
profound consideration whether their right to the rank of inde
pendent nations, with all the advantages incident to it, in tbejr
intercourse with the United States, is not complete.” After
setting forth the de facto condition of things, he proceeded;
“Thus it is manifest that all these provinces are not only, in
the full enjoyment of their independence, but, considering,,the
state of the war and other circumstances, that there is not, the
�52
most remote prospect of their being deprived of it.” In proposing
their Recognition the President declared that it was done “ under
a thorough conviction that it is in strict accord with the law of
nations,” and further that “ it is not contemplated to change
thereby, in the slightest manner, our friendly relations with either
of the parties.” In accordance with this recommendation Con
gress authorized the Recognition. Two years later, the same
thing was done by Great Britain, after much debate diplomatic
and parliamentary. No case of International duty has been illus
trated by a clearer eloquence, an ampler knowledge or a purer
wisdom. The despatches were written by Mr. Canning, and
upheld by him in Parliament; but Lord Liverpool took partin the
discussion—succinctly declaring, that there could be no right to
Recognition “ while the contest was actually going on,” a conclusion
which was cautiously but strongly enforced by Lord Lansdowne
and nobly vindicated in an Oration, reviewing the whole subject,
by that great publicist Sir James Mackintosh. (Mackintosh’s
Works Vol. iii. p. 438.) All inclined to Recognition but admitted
that it could not take place so long as the contest continued; and
that there must be “ such a contest as exhibits some equality of
force, so that if the combatants were left to themselves, the issue
would be in some degree doubtful.” But the Spanish strength
throughout the whole continent was reduced to a single castle in
Mexico, an island on the coast of Chili, and a small army in
Upper Peru, while in Buenos Ayres no Spanish soldier had set
foot for fourteen years. “ Is this a contest ” said Mackintosh
“ approaching to equality ? Is it sufficient to render the inde
pendence of such a country doubtful ? Does it deserve the name
of a contest ? ” It was not until 1825 that Great Britain was so
far satisfied as to acknowledge this Independence. France fol
lowed in 1830 ; and Castilian pride relented in 1832, twenty-two
years from the first date of the contest.
The next instance is that of Greece, which declared itself Inde
pendent January 27, 1822. After a contest of more than five
years, with alternate success and disaster, the Great Powers inter
vened forcibly in 1827; but the final Recognition was postponed
till May 1832. Then came the instance of Belgium, which
declared itself Independent in October, 1830, and was promptly
recognized by the Great Powers who intervened forcibly for this
purpose. The last instance is Texas, which declared its Indepen
dence in December, 1835, and defeated the Mexican Army under
Santa Anna, making him prisoner, in 1836. The power of Mexico
seemed to be overthrown, but Andrew Jackson, who was then
President of the United States, in his Message of December 21,
1836, laid down the rule of caution and justice on such an occa
sion, as follows; “ The acknowledgment of a new State as inde
pendent and entitled to a place in the family of nations, is at all
times an act of great delicacy and responsibility; but more
�53
especially so when such state has forcibly separated itself from
another, of which it had formed an integral part and which still
claims dominion over it. A premature recognition under these
circumstances, if not looked upon as justifiable cause of war, is
always liable to be regarded as a proof of an unfriendly spirit.”
And he concluded by proposing that our country should “ keep
aloof” until the question was decided “ beyond cavil or dispute.”
During the next year—when the contest had practically ceased
and only the claim remained—this new Power was acknowledged
by the United States, who were followed in 1840 by Great Britain,
France and Belgium. Texas was annexed to the United States
in 1845, but at this time Mexico had not joined in the general
recognition
Principles Applicable to Recognition.
Such are the historic instances which illustrate Intervention by
Recognition. As in other cases of Intervention, the Recognition
may be armed or unarmed, with an intermediate case, where the
Recognition may seem to be unarmed when in reality it is
armed, as when France simply announced its Recognition of the
Independence of the United States, and at the same time prepared
to maintain it by war.
Armed Recognition is simply Recognition by Coercion. It is a
belligerent act constituting war, and it can be vindicated only as
war. No nation will undertake it, unless ready to assume all the
responsibilities of war, as in the recent cases of Greece and Bel
gium, not to mention the Recognition of the United States by
France. But an attempt, under the guise of Recognition, to
coerce the dismemberment or partition of a country is in its
nature offensive beyond ordinary war ; especially when the coun
try to be sacrificed is a Republic and the plotters against it are
crowned heads. Proceeding from the consciousness of brutal
power, such an attempt is an insult to mankind. If Armed
Recognition at any time can find, apology, it will be only where
it is sincerely made for the protection of Human Rights. It
would be hard to condemn that Intervention which saved Greece
to Freedom.
Unarmed Recognition is where a Foreign Power acknowledges
in some pacific form the Independence of a colony or province
against the claim of its original Government. Although exclud
ing all idea of coercion, yet it cannot be uniformly justified.
No Recognition where the Contest is still pending.
And here we are brought to that question of “ time,” on which
Mr. Canning so pointedly piqued himself, and to which President
Jackson referred, when he suggested that “ a premature Recog
nition ” might be “looked upon as justifiable cause of war.”
�54
Nothing is more clear than that Recognition may be favored at
one time, while it must be rejected at another. So far as it
assumes to ascertain Rights instead of Facts, or to anticipate
the result of a contest, it is wrongful. No Nation can under
take to sit in judgment on the rights of another Nation with
out its consent. Therefore, it cannot declare that de jure a
colony or province is entitled to Independence; but from the
necessity of the case and that international intercourse may not
fail, it may ascertain the facts, carefully and wisely, and, on
the actual evidence, it may declare that de facto the colony or
province appears to be in possession of Independence, which
means, first, that the original Government is dispossessed beyond
the possibility of recovery, and secondly, that the new Govern
ment has achieved that reasonable stability with fixed limits
which gives assurance of a solid Power. All of this is simply
fact and nothing more. But just in proportion as a Foreign
Nation anticipates the fact, or imagines the fact, or substitutes its
own passions for the fact, it transcends the well-defined bounds
of International Law. Without the fact of Independence, posi
tive and fixed, there is nothing but a claim. Now nothing can be
clearer than that while the terrible litigation is still pending and
the Trial by Battle, to which appeal has been made, is yet unde
cided, the fact of Independence cannot exist. There is only a
paper Independence, which though reddened with blood, is no
better than a paper empire or a paper blockade, and any pretended
Recognition of it is a wrongful Intervention, inconsistent with a
just neutrality, since the obvious effect must be to encourage
the insurgent party. Such has been the declared judgment ot
our country and its practice, even under circumstances tempting
in another direction, and such also was the declared judgment
and practice of Great Britain with reference to Spanish America.
The conclusion, then, is clear. In order to justify a Recogni
tion it must appear beyond doubt that de facto the contest is
finished, and that de facto the new government is established
secure within fixed limits.
These are conditions precedent
which cannot be avoided, without an open offence to a friendly
Power, and an open violation of that International Law which is
the guardian of the peace of the world. It will be for us shortly
to inquire if there be not another condition precedent, which
civilization in this age will require.
Do you ask now if Foreign Powers can acknowledge our Slave
monger embryo as an Independent Nation ? There is madness in
the thought. A Recognition, accompanied by the breaking of the
blockade would be war—impious war—against the United States,
where Slave-mongers would be the allies and Slavery the inspira
tion. Of all wars in history none more accursed; none more
sure to draw down upon its authors the judgment alike of God
and man. But the thought of Recognition—under existing cir
�55
cumstances—while the contest is still pending—even without any
breaking of the blockade or attempted coercion, is a Satanic
absurdity, hardly less impious than the other. Of course, it
would unblushingly assume that, in fact, the Slave-mongers
had already succeeded in establishing an Independent Nation
with an untroubled government, and a secure conformation
of territory—when in fact, nothing is established—nothing is
untroubled—nothing is secure,—not even a single boundary line;
and there is no element of Independence except the audacious
attempt; when, in fact, the conflict is still waged on numerous
battle-fields, and these pretenders to Independence have been
driven from State to State—driven away from the Mississippi,
which parts them—driven back from the sea which surrounds
them—and shut up in the interior or in blockaded ports, so that
only by stealth can they communicate with the outward world.
Any Recognition of such a pretension, existing only as a pre
tension, scouted and denied by a whole people with invincible
armies and navies embattled against it, would be a flaming
mockery of Truth. It would assert Independence as a fact
when notoriously it was not a fact. It would be an enormous lie.
Naturally a Power thus guilty would expect to support the lie by
arms.
[iv.]
Impossibility of any Recognition of Rebel Slave-Mongers
with Slavery as a Corner-Stone.
But I do not content myself with a single objection to this
outrageous consummation. There is another of a different nature.
Assuming, for the moment, what I am glad to believe can never
happen, that the new Slave Power has become Independent in
fact, while the national flag has sunk away exhausted in the con
test, there is an objection which, in an age of Christian light, thank
God ! cannot be overcome—unless the Great Powers which, by
solemn covenants, have branded Slavery, shall forget their vows,
while England, the declared protectress of the African race, and
France, the declared champion of “ ideas,” both break away from
the irresistible logic of their history and turn their backs upon
the past. Vain is honor; vain is human confidence, if these
nations at a moment of high duty can thus ignobly fail. “ Renown
and grace is dead.” Like the other objection, this is of fact
also ; for it is founded on the character of the Slave-monger pre
tension claiming Recognition, all of which is a fact. Perhaps it
may be said that it is a question of policy ; but it is of a policy
which ought to be beyond question, if the fact be established.
Something more is necessary than that the new Power shall be
de facto Independent. It must be de facto fit to be Independent and
from the nature of the case every nation will judge of this fitness
�56
as a fact. In undertaking to acknowledge a new Power, you
proclaim its fitness for welcome and association in the Family of
Nations. Can England put forth such a proclamation in favor of
the whippers of women and sellers of children ? Can France
permit Louis Napoleon to put forth such a proclamation ?
And here, on the threshold of this inquiry, the true state of the
question must not be forgotten. It is not whether old and existing
relations shall be continued with a Power which permits Slavery ;
but whether relations shall be begun with a new Power, which
not merely permits Slavery, but builds its whole intolerable
pretension upon this Barbarism. “ No New Slave State ” is a
watchword with which we are already familiar ; but even this cry
does not reveal the full opposition to this new revolt against Civili
zation ; for even if disposed to admit a new Slave State, there
must be, among men who have not yet lost all sense of decency,
an undying resistance to the admission of a New Slave Power,
having such an unquestioned origin and such an unquestioned
purpose as that which now flaunts in piracy and blood before the
civilized world, seeking Recognition for its criminal chimera.
Here is nothing for nice casuistry. Duty is as plain as the moral
law or the multiplication table.
Look for a moment at the unprecedented character of this pre
tension. A President had been elected by the people, in the
autumn of 1860, who was known to be against the extension of
Slavery. This was all. He had not yet entered upon the per
formance of his duties. But the Slave-mongers saw that Slavery
at home must suffer under this popular judgment against its
extension, and they rebelled. Under this inspiration State after
State pretended to withdraw from the Union and to construct a
new Confederacy, whose “corner-stone” was Slavery. A Consti
tution.was adopted, which declared in these words: (1.) “ No
law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves
shall be passed ; ” and (2.) “ in all territory, actual or acquired,
the institution of Negro Slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate
States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and the
Territorial Government.” Do not start. These are the authentic
words of the text. You will find them in the Constitution.
Such was the unalterable fabric of the new Government. Nor
was there any doubt or hesitation in proclaiming its distinctive
character. Its Vice-President, Mr. Stephens, who thus far had
been remarked for his moderation on Slavery, as if smitten with
diabolic light, undertook to explain and vindicate the Magna Carta
just adopted. His words are already familiar ; but they cannot
be omitted in an accurate statement of the case. “ The new
Constitution,” he said, “ has put at rest forever all the agitating
questions relating to our peculiar institution, African Slavery, as
it exists among us,” which he proceeds to declare “was the
immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.”
�51
The Vice-President then announced unequivocally the change
that had taken place. Admitting that “ it was the prevailing
idea of the leading statesmen at the foundation of the Old Consti
tution that the enslavement of the African was wrong in principle,
socially, morally and politically, and that it was a violation of the
laws of nature,” he denounces this idea as “ fundamentally
wrong,” and proclaims the new government as “ founded upon
exactly the opposite idea.” There was no disguise. “ Its founda
tions,” he avows, “ are laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great
truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man ; that Slavery,
subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condi
tion.” Not content with exhibiting the untried foundation, he
boastfully claims for the new government the priority of invention.
“ Our new Government” he vaunts, “ is the first in the history of
the world based upon this great physical, philosophical and moral
truth. This stone which was rejected by the first builders is
become the chief stone of the corner.” And then, as if priority of
invention were not enough, he proceeds to claim for the new
Government future supremacy, saying that it is already “ a growing
power, which if true to itself, its destiny and its high mission, will
become the controlling power upon this continent.”
Since Satan first declared the “ corner-stone ” of his new
government and openly denounced the Almighty throne, there
has been no blasphemy of equal audacity. In human history
nothing but itself can be its parallel. Here was the gauntlet
thrown down to Heaven and Earth, while a disgusting Barbarism
was proclaimed as the new Civilization. Two years have already
passed, but, as the Rebellion began, so it is now. A Governor of
South Carolina in a message to the Legislature as late as 3d
April, 1863, took up the boastful strain and congratulated the
Rebel Slave-mongers that they were “ a refined, cultivated and
enlightened people,” and that the new Government was “ the
finest type that the world ever beheld.” God save the mark!
And a leading journal, more than any other the organ of the
Slave-mongers, lias uttered the original vaunt with more than the
original brutality. After dwelling on “ the grand career and
lofty destiny ” before the new Government, the Richmond
Examiner of 28th May, 1863, proceeds as follows; “ Would that
all of us understood and laid to heart the true nature of that
career and that destiny and the responsibility it imposes. The
establishment of the Confederacy is, verily, a distinct reaction
against the whole course of the mistaken civilization of the age.
For Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, we have deliberately
substituted Slavery, Subordination and Government. Reverently
ice feel that our Confederacy is a God-sent missionary to the
nations ivith great truths to preach. We must speak thus boldly ;
but whoso hath ears to hear let him hear.” It is this God-sent
�58
missionary to the nations, which it is now proposed to welcome at
the household hearth of the civilized world.
Unhappily there arc old nations, still tolerating Slavery, already
in the Family; but now, for the first time in history a new nation
claims admission there, which not only tolerates Slavery, but,
exulting in its shame, strives to reverse the judgment of mankind
against this outrage, and to make it a chief support and glory,
so that all Recognition of the new Power will be the Recognition
of a sacrilegious pretension,
°
u With one vast blood-stone for the mighty base.”
Elsewhere Slavery has been an accident; here it is the prin
ciple. Elsewhere it has been an instrument only; here it is the
inspiration. Elsewhere it has been kept back in a becoming
modesty; here it is pushed forward in all its brutish nakedness.
Elsewhere it has claimed nothing but liberty to live; here it
claims liberty to rule with unbounded empire at home and
abroad.
Look at this candidate Power as you will, in its
whole continued existence, from its Alpha to its Omega, and it
is nothing but Slavery ! Its origin is Slavery ; its main-spring is
Slavery ; its object is Slavery. Wherever it appears, whatever it
does, whatever form it takes, it is Slavery alone and nothing else,
so that, with the contrition of Satan, it might cry out,
Me miserable ! which way shall I fly
Infinite wrath and infinite despair ?
Which way I fly is hell; myself am hell.
The Rebellion is Slavery in arms; Slavery on horse-back;
Slavery on foot; Slavery raging on the battle-field ; Slavery
raging on the quarter-deck, robbing, destroying, burning, killing,
in order to uphold this candidate Power. Its legislation is
simply Slavery in statutes; Slavery in chapters ; Slavery in
sections—with an enacting clause. Its Diplomacy is Slavery in
pretended ambassadors; Slavery in cunning letters; Slavery in
cozening promises ; Slavery in persistent negotiations—all to
secure for the candidate Power its much desired welcome.
Say what you will; try to avoid it if you can ; you are com
pelled to admit that the candidate Power is nothing else
than organized Slavery, which now in its madness—sur
rounded by its criminal clan, and led by its felon chieftains—
braves the civilization of the age. Any Recognition of Slavery is
bad enough. But this will be a Recognition of Slavery with
welcome and benediction, imparting to it new consideration and
respectability, and worse still, securing to it neiv opportunity and
foothold for the supremacy which it openly proclaims.
In ancient days the candidate was robed in white, while at the
Capitol and in the Forum, he canvassed the people for their votes.
The candidate Nation, which is not ashamed of Slavery, should
�59
be robed in black, while it conducts its great canvass and asks
the votes of the Christian Powers. “ Hung be the heavens with
black, yield day to night,” as the outrage proceeds ; for the
candidate gravely asks the international Recognition of the
claim to hold property in man; to sell the wife away from the
husband ; to sell the child away from the parent; to shut the
gates of knowledge; to appropriate all the fruits of another’s
labor. And yet the candidate proceeds in his canvass—although
all history declares that Slavery is essentially barbarous, and
that whatever it touches it changes to itself; that it barba
rizes laws ; barbarizes business ; barbarizes manners ; barbarizes
social life, and makes the people who cherish it barbarians. And
still the candidate proceeds—although it is known to the Christian
Powers that the partisans of Slavery are naturally “ filibusters,”
always apt for lawless incursions and for robbery; that, during
latter years, under their instigation and to advance their preten
sions, expeditions, identical in motive with the present B.ebellion,
were let loose in the Gulf of Mexico, twice against Cuba, and
twice also against Nicaragua, breaking the peace of the United
States and threatening the repose of the world, so that Lopez
and Walker were the predecessors of Beauregard and Jefferson
Davis. And yet the candidate proceeds—although it is obvious
that the Recognition which is urged, will be nothing less than a
solemn sanction by the Christian Powers of Slavery everywhere
throughout the new jurisdiction, whether on land or sea, so that
every ship, which is a part of the floating territory, will be Slave
Territory. And yet with the phantasy that man can hold property
in man shooting from his lips; with the shackle and lash in his
hands ; with Barbarism on his forehead; with Filibusterism in his
recorded life; and with Slavery flying in his flag wherever it
floats on land or sea; the candidate clamors for Christian Recog
nition. It is sad to think that there has been delay in repelling
the insufferable canvass. “ Is thy servant a dog that he should do
this thing ? ” It is not necessary to be a Christian ; it is sufficient
to be a man—in order to detest and combat such an accursed
pretension.
If the Recognition of a de facto Power was a duty imposed
upon other nations by International Law, there would be no
opportunity for objections founded on principle or policy. But
there is no such duty. International Law leaves to each nation,
precisely as the municipal law leaves to each citizen, what com
pany to keep or what copartnership to form. No company and
no copartnership can be forced upon a nation. It is all a question
of free choice and acceptance. International Law on this head
is like the Constitution of the United States, which declares:
“ New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union.”
Not must but may; it being in the discretion of Congress to
determine whether the State shall be admitted. Accordingly, in
�60
the exercise of this discretion, Congress for a long time refused
to admit Missouri as a Slave Slate. And now the old Missouri
Question, in a more outrageous form, on a grander theatre, “with
monarchs to behold the swelling scene,”—is presented to the Chris
tian Powers of the world. If it were right to exclude Missouri,
having a few slaves only and regarding Slavery merely as a
temporary condition, it must be right to exclude a pretended
nation, which not only boasts its millions of slaves, but passion
ately proclaims the perpetuity and propagation of slavery as the
cause and object of its separate existence.
Practical statesmen have always treated the question of Recog
nition as one of policy—to be determined on the facts of the
case—even where the Power was de facto established; as
appears amply in the debates of the British Parliament on
the Recognition of Spanish America.
If we go behind the
practical statesmen and consult the earliest oracles of Interna
tional Law, we shall find that, according to their most approved
words, not only may Recognition be refused, but there are
considerations of duty this way which cannot bo evaded. It is
not enough that a pretender has the form of a Commonwealth.
‘ A people,” says Cicero, in a definition copied by most jurists,
“is not every body of men howsoever congregated, but a gathered
multitude, associated under the sanction of justice and for the
common good.”—Juris consensu et utilitalis communione sociaius.
(De Repub. Lib. i., 25.) And again he goes so far as to say, in
the Republic, “ when the king is unjust, or the aristocracy, or
the people itself, the Commonwealth is not vicious but null.” Of
course a Commonwealth that was null would not be recognized.
But Grotius, who speaks always with the magistral voice of learning
and genius, has given the just conclusion, when he presents the
distinction between a body of men, who being already a Recog
nized Commonwealth, are guilty of systematic crime, as, for
instance, of piracy, and another body of men, who, not yet Recog
nized as a Commonwealth, are banded together for the sake of
systematic crime—sceleris causa coeunt. (De Jure Belli, ac Pads,
Lib. iii., cap. 3, § 2.) The latter, by a happy discrimination, he
places beyond the pale of honor or fellowship; nam hi criminis
causd sociantur. But when before in all history, have creatures,
wearing the human form, proclaimed the criminal principle of
their association, with the audacity of our Slave-mongers ?
It might be argued, on grounds of reason and authority even,
that the declared principle of the pretended Power, was a violation
of International Law. Eminent magistrates have solemnly ruled,
that, in the development of civilization, the slave-trade has
become illegal, by a law higher than any statute. Sir William
Grant, one of the ornaments of the British bench, whose elegant
mind was governed always by practical sense, adjudged that “ this
trade cannot, abstractedly speaking, have any legitimate existence,”
�61
(Amedie, 2 Acton R. 240^ ; and our own great authority, Mr.
Justice Story, in a remarkable judgment, declared himself con
strained “ to consider the trade against the universal law of
society.” (La Jeune Eugenie, 2 Mason R. 451.) But the argu
ments which are strong against any Recognition of the slavetrade, are strong also against any Recognition of Slavery itself.
It is not, however, necessary, in the determination of present
duty, to assume that Slavery, or the slave-trade, is positively for
bidden by existing International Law. It is enough to show,
that according to the spirit of that sovereign law which “ sits
empress, crowning good, repressing ill,” and according also to
those commanding principles of justice and humanity, which
cannot be set at naught without a shock to human nature itself,
so foul a wrong as Slavery can receive no voluntary support from
the Commonwealth of Nations. It is not a question of law but
a question of Morality. The Rule of Law is sometimes less com
prehensive than the Rule of Morality, so that the latter may
positively condemn what the former silently tolerates. But within
its own domain the Rule of Morality cannot be less authoritative
than the Rule of Law itself. It is, indeed, nothing less than the
Law of Nature and also the Law of God. If we listen to a
Heathen teacher we shall confess its binding power. “ Law,”
says Cicero, “is the highest reason implanted in nature, which
prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the
contrary.”—(DeLegibus, Lib. i., cap. 5.) This law is an essential
part of International Law, as is also Christianity itself, and,
where treaties fail and usageds silent, it is the only law between
nations. Jurists of all ages and countries have delighted to
acknowledge its authority, if it spoke only in the still small voice
of conscience. A celebrated professor of Germany in our own
day, Savigny, whose name is honored by the students of juris
prudence everywhere, touches upon this monitor of nations, when
he declares that “ there may exist between different nations a
common consciousness of Right similar to that which engenders
the Positive Law of particular nations.”—(System des heutigen
Römischen Rechts, L. vii., cap 11, § 11.) But this common con
sciousness of right is identical with that law, which, according to
Cicero, is “ the highest reason implanted in nature.” Such is
the Rule of Morality.
The Rule of Morality differs from the Rule of Law in this
respect: that the former finds its support in the human con
science ; the latter in the sanctions of public force. But moral
power prevails with a good man as much as if it were physical. I
know no different rule for a good nation than for a good man.
I am sure that a good nation will not do what a good man would
scorn to do.
But there is a rule of prudence superadded to the Rule of
Morality. Grotius in discussing treaties docs not forget the
�62
wisdom of Solomon, who, in not a few places, warns against
fellowship with the wicked, although he adds, that these were
maxims of prudence and not of law.—(Lib. ii., cap. 15, § 9.)
And he reminds us of the saying of Alexander, “ that those
grievously offend who enter the service of Barbarians.” (ZW,
§ 11.) But better still are the words of the wise historian of
classical antiquity, who enjoins upon a Commonwealth the duty of
considering carefully, when sued for assistance, “ whether what is
sought is sufficiently pious, safe, glorious, or on the other hand
unbecoming —(Sallust Fragm., iv. 2.) and also those words
of Scripture which after rebuking an alliance with Ahab, ask with
scorn, “ Shouldst thou help the ungodly ? ” (2 Chron., xiv. 2.)
If the claim for Recognition be brought to the touch-stone of
these principles, it will be easy to decide it.
Vain is it to urge the Practice of Nations in its behalf. Never
before in history has such a candidacy been put forward in the
name of Slavery; and the terrible outrage is aggravated by the
Christian light which surrounds it. This is not the age of dark
ness. But even in the Dark Ages, when the Slave-mongers of
Algiers “ had reduced themselves to a government or state,” the
renowned Louis IX. “ treated them as a nest of wasps.” (1 Phillimorc, p. 80.) Afterwards but slowly they obtained “ the rights
of legation ” and “ the reputation of a government; ” but at last,
weary of their criminal pretensions, the aroused vengeance of
Great Britain and France blotted out this Power from the list of
nations. Louis XI., who has been described as “ the sovereign
who best understood his interest,” indignant at Richard III. of
England, who had murdered two infants in the tower, and usurped
the crown, sent back his ambassadors without holding any inter
course with them. This is a suggestive precedent; for the parricide
usurper of England had never murdered so many infants, or
usurped so much as the pretended Slave Power, which is strangely
tolerated by the sagacious sovereign who sits on the throne of
Louis XI. But it is not necessary to go so far in history ; nor
to dwell on the practice of nations in withholding or conceding
Recognition. The whole matter is stated by Burke with his
customary power:
“ In the case of a divided kingdom by the Law of Nations, Great Britain,
like every other Power, is free to take any part she pleases. She may
decline, with more or less formality, according to her discretion, to acknowl
edge this new system ; or she may recognize it as a government de facto,
setting aside all discussion of its original legality, and considering the
ancient monarchy as at an end. The Law of Nations leaves our court
open to its choice. The declaration of a new species of government on new
principles is a real crisis in the politics of Europe.” (Thoughts on French
Affairs, 1791.)
�63
Another eloquent publicist, Sir James Mackintosh, while urging
on Parliament the Recognition of Spanish America, says, “ The
reception of a new State into the society of civilized nations by
those acts which amount to recognition is a proceeding, which, as
it has no legal character, is purely of a moral nature; ” and he
proceeds to argue that since England is “ the only anciently free
State in the world, for her to refuse her moral aid to communities
struggling for liberty, is an act of unnatural harshness.” (Mack
intosh's Works, Vol. iii. p. 438.) Thus does he vindicate Recog
nition for the sake of Freedom. How truly he would have
repelled any Recognition for the sake of Slavery, let his life
testify.
But, perhaps, no better testimony to the practice of nations can
be found than in the words of Vattel, whose work, presenting the
subject in a familiar form, has done more, during the last century,
to fashion opinion on the Law of Nations than any other authority.
Here it is briefly:—
If there be any nation thatwa&es an open profession of trampling justice
under foot, of despising and violating the right of others, whenever it finds
an opportunity, the interest of human society will authorize all others to
humble and chastise it.” {Book ii., cap. 4, § 70.) “ To form and support
an unjust pretension is to do an injury not only to him who is interested in
this pretension, but to mock at justice in general and to injure all nations.”
{Ibid.} “ He who assists an odious tyrant—he who declares for an unjust
and rebellious people—violates his duty.” {Ibid, § 56.) “As to those
monsters, who under the title of sovereigns, render themselves the scourges
and horror of the human race, they are savage beasts, whom every brave
man may justly exterminate from the face of the earth.” {Ibid.} “ But if
the maxims of a religion tend to establish it by violence and to oppress all
those who will not embrace it, the law of nature forbids us to favor that
religion or to contract any unnecessary alliance with its inhuman followers,
and the common safety of mankind invites them rather to enter into an
alliance against such a people; to repress such outrageous fanatics, who
disturb the public repose and threaten all nations.” (Ibid, Book ii.. can 12
§ 162.)
r
’
Vainly do you urge this Recognition on any principle of the
Comity of Nations. This is an expansive term into which enters
much of the refinements, amenities and hospitalities of Civiliza
tion, and also something of the obligations of moral duty. But
where an act is prejudicial to national interests or contrary to
national policy or questionable in morals, it cannot be commended
by any considerations of courtesy. There is a paramount duty
which must not be betrayed by a kiss. For the sake of Comity, acts
of good will and friendship not required by law are performed
between nations; but an English Court has authoritatively
declared that this principle cannot prevail “ where it violates the
law of our own country, the Law of Nature or the Law of God
�64
and on this adamantine ground it was decided, that an American
slave, who had found shelter on board of a British man-of-war,
could not be recognized as a slave. (Forbes v. Cochrane, 2 Barn,
and Cres., R. 448.) But the same principle would prevail against
the Recognition of a new Slave Nation.
Vainly do you urge this Recognition on any reason of Peace.
There can be no peace founded on injustice; and any Recognition
is an injustice which will cry aloud resounding through the
universe. You may seem to have peace ; but it will be only a
smothered war, destined to break forth in war more direful than
before.
Thus is every argument for Recognition repelled, whether it be
under the sounding words, Practice of Nations—Comity of Nations
—or Peace. There is nothing in Practice, nothing in Comity,
nothing in Peace, which is not against any such shameful sur
render.
But applying the principles which have been already set
forth ; — assuming what cannot be denied, — that every Power is
free to refuse Recognition ; assuming that it is not every body of
men that can be considered a Commonwealth, but only “ those
associated under the sanction ofjustice and for the common good; ”
that men “ banded together for the sake of systematic crime ” can
not be considered a Commonwealth ;—assuming that every member
of the Family of Nations will surely obey the Rule of Morality ;
that it will “ shun fellowship with the wicked ; ” that it will not
“ enter into the service of Barbarians ; ” that it will avoid what is
“ unbecoming ” and do that only which is “ pious, safe and
glorious; ” and that above all things it will not enter into an
alliance “ to help the ungodly ; ” assuming these things — every
such member must reject with indignation a new pretension whose
declared principle of association is so essentially wicked. Here
there can be no question. The case is plain; nor is any language
of contumely or scorn too strong to express the irrepressible
repugnance to such a pretension, which, like vice, “ to be hated
needs only to be seen.” Surely there can be no Christian Power
which will not leap to expose it, saying with irresistible voice:
(1.) No neiv sanction of Slavery. (2.) No new quickening of
Slavery in its active and aggressive Barbarism. (3.) No new
encouragement to the “ filibusters ” engendered by Slavery. (4.)
No new creation of Stave territory. (5.) No new creation of a
Slave Navy. (6.) Ao new Slave Nation. (7.) No installation
of Slavery as a new Civilization. But all this Litany will fail, if
Recognition prevails — from which Good Lord deliver us! Nor
will this be the end of the evil.
Slavery, through the new Power, will take its place in the
Parliament of mankind, with all the immunities of an Indepen
dent Nation, ready always to uphold and advance itself, and
organized as an unrelenting Propaganda of the new Faith. A
�65
Power, having its inspiration in such a Barbarism, must be essen
tially barbarous ; founded on the asserted right to whip women
and to sell children, it must assume a character of disgusting
hardihood, and, openly professing a determination to revolutionize
the Public Opinion of the world, it must be in open schism with
Civilization itself, so that all its influences will be wild, savage,
brutal, and all its offspring kindred in character.
Parcl genders pard; from tigers tigers spring;
No dove is hatched beneath the vulture’s wing.
Such a Power, from its very nature, must be Despotism at home
“ tempered only by assassination,” with cotton-fields instead of
Siberia, while abroad it must be aggressive, dangerous and revolt
ing, in itself a Magnum Latrociniiim, whose fellowship can have
nothing but “ the filthiness of Evil,” and whose very existence will
be an intolerable nuisance. When Dante, in the vindictive judgment
which he hurled against his own Florence, called it bordello, he
did not use a term too strong for the mighty House of Ill Fame
which the Christian Powers are now asked for the first time to
license. Such must be the character of the new Power. But
though only a recent wrong, and pleading no prescription, the
illimitable audacity of its nature will hesitate at nothing ; nor is
there any thing offensive or detestable which it will not absorb
into itself. It will be an Ishmael with its hand against everyman.
It will be a brood of Harpies defiling all which it cannot steal.
It will be the one-eyed Cyclop of nations, seeing only through
Slavery, spurning all as fools who do not see likewise, and bellow
ing forth in savage egotism :
Know then, we Cyclops are a race above
Those air-bred people and their goat-nursed Jove ;
And learn our power proceeds with thee and thine
Not as Jove wills, but, as ourselves incline.
Or worse still, it will be the soulless monster of Frankenstein—the
wretched creation of mortal science without God—endowed with
life and nothing else—forever raging madly, the scandal to human
ity—powerful only for evil—whose destruction will be essential to
the peace of the world.
Who can welcome such a creation ? Who can consort with it ?
There is something loathsome in the idea. There is contamina
tion even in the thought. If you live with the lame, says the ancient
proverb, you will learn to limp ; if you keep in the kitchen you will
smell of smoke ; if you touch pitch you will be defiled. But what
lameness so pitiful as that of this pretended Power j what smoke so
foul as its breath ; what pitch so defiling as its touch ? It is an
Oriental saying that a cistern of rose-water will become impure,
if a dog be dropt into it; but a continent of rose-water with
�66
•
■
’•
•
•
i
:
■
'
•’
•
I
i
Rebel Slave-mongers would be changed into a vulgar puddle.
Imagine, if you please, whatever is most disgusting, and this
pretended Power is more disgusting still. Naturalists report
that the pike will swallow any thing except the toad ; but this it
cannot do. The experiment has been tried, and, though this fish,
in its unhesitating voracity, always gulps whatever is thrown to
it, yet invariably it spews this nuisance from its throat. But our
Slave-monger pretension is worse than the toad; and yet there
are Foreign Nations which, instead of spewing it forth, are already
turning it like a precious morsel on the tongue,
But there is yet another ground on which I make this appeal.
It is a part of the triumphs of Civilization, that no Nation can
act for itself alone. Whateverit does for good or for evil,
affects all the rest. Therefore a Nation cannot forget its obligations to others. Especially does International Law, when
it declares the absolute Equality of Independent Nations,
cast upon all Nations the duty of considering well how this
privilege shall be bestowed, so that the welfare of all may be
best upheld.
But the whole Family of Nations would be
degraded by admitting this new pretension to any toleration, much
less to any equality. There can be no reason for such admission ;
for it can bring nothing to the general weal. Civil society is
created for safety and tranquillity. Nations come together and
fraternize for the common good. But this hateful pretension can
do nothing but evil for civil society at home or for nations in their
relations with each other. It can show no title to Recognition ;
no passport for its travels; no old creation. It is all new; and
here let me borrow the language of Burke on another occasion ;
“ It is not a new Power of an old kind. It is a new Power of a
new species. When such a questionable shape is to be admitted
for the first time into the brotherhood of Christendom, it is not
a mere matter of idle curiosity to consider how far it is in its
nature alliable ivith the rest.” (Regicide Peace, 2d Letter.')
The greatest of corporations is a nation ; the sublimest of all
associations is that which is composed of nations, independent
and equal, knit together in the bonds of peaceful Fraternity as
the great Christian Commonwealth. The Slave-mongers may be
a corporation in fact; but no such corporation can find a place in
that sublime Commonwealth. As well admit the Thugs, whose
first article of faith is to kill a stranger—or the Buccaneers, those
old “ brothers of the coast,” who plundered on the sea—or better
still revive the old Kingdom of the Assassins, where the king was
an assassin, surrounded by counsellors and generals who were
assassins, and all his subjects were assassins. Or yet again better
at once and openly recognize Anti-Christ, who is the supreme and
highest impersonation of the Slave-Power.
Amidst the general degradation that would follow such an
obeisance to Slavery, there are two Christian Powers that would
�67
appear in sad and shameful eminence. I refer to Great Britain—
the declared “ protectress of the African race,”—and to France, the
declared champion of “ ideas,”—who, from the very largess of their
pledges, are so situated, that they cannot desert the good old
cause and turn their faces against civilization without a criminal
tergiversation, which no mountain of diplomacy can cover.
Where then would be British devotion to the African race ?
Where then would be French devotion to ideas ?—Remem
bered only to point a tale and show how nations had fallen.
Great Britain knows less than France of national vicissitudes ;
but such an act of wrong would do something in its influence to
equalize the conditions of these two nations. Better for the fastanchored isle that it should be sunk beneath the sea, with its
cathedrals, its castles, its fields of glory, Runnymede, West
minster Hall and the home of Shakspeare, than that it should do
this thing. .In other days England has valiantly striven against
Slavery ; and now she proposes to surrender, at a moment when
more can be done than ever before against the monster wherever
it shows its head, for Slavery everywhere has its neck in this
Rebellion. In other days France has valiantly striven for ideas;
and now she too proposes to surrender, although all that she has
professed to have at heart is involved in the doom of Slavery,
which a word from her might hasten beyond recall. But it is in
England, more even than in France, that the strongest sentiment
for Rebel Slave-mongers has been manifest, constituting a moral
mania, which menaces a pact and concordat with the Rebellion
itself,—as when an early Pope, the head of the Christian Church,
did not hesitate to execute a piratical convention with a pagan
enemy of the Christian name. It only remains that the new
coalition should be signed, in order to consummate the unutterable
degradation. It was the fate of zEdipus, in the saddest story of
antiquity, to wed his own mother without knowing it; but
England will wed the Slave-Power with full knowledge that the
relation, if not incestuous, is vile. The contracting parties will
be the Queen of England, and Jefferson Davis, once the patron of
“ repudiation,” now the chief of Rebel Slave-mongers. It will
only remain for this virtuous Lady, whose pride it is to seek
justice always, to bend in pitiful abjectness to receive as a pleni
potentiary at her Court the author of the Fugitive Slave Bill.
A Slave-monger Power will take its seat at the great councilboard, to jostle thrones and benches, while it overshadows
Humanity. Its foul attorneys, reeking with Slavery, will have
their letter of license, as the ambassadors of Slavery, to rove
from court to court, over foreign carpets, poisoning that air which
has been nobly pronounced too pure for a slave to breathe. Alas!
for England, vowed a thousand times to the protection of the African
race and knit perpetually by her best renown to this sacred
loyalty, now plunging into adulterous honey-moon with Slavery—
�68
recognizing the new and impious Protestantism against Liberty
itself—and wickedly becoming the Defender of the Faith even
as professed by Rebel Slave-mongers. Alas ! for England’s Queen
—woman and mother—carried off from the cause of Wilberforce
and Clarkson to sink into unseemly dalliance with the scourgers
of women and the auctioneers of children; for a “ stain,” deeper
than that which aroused the anguish of Maria Theresa, is settling
upon her reign. Alas! for that Royal Consort, humane and
great, whose dying voice was given to assuage the temper of that
ministerial despatch by which, in an evil hour, England was made
to strike hands with Rebel Slave-mongers ; for the councillor is
needed now to save the land which lie adorned from an act of
, inexpiable shame.
And for all this sickening immorality I hear but one declared
apology. It is said that the Union permitted and still permits
Slavery ; therefore Foreign Nations may recognize Rebel Slavei mongers as a new Power. But here is the precise question.
9 England is still in diplomatic relations with Spain, and was only
a short time ago in diplomatic relations with Brazil, both per
mitting Slavery; but these two Powers are not new; they are
already established; there is no question of their Recognition;
nor do they pretend to found empire on Slavery. There is no
reason in any relations with them why a new Power, with Slavery
as its declared “ corner-stone,” whose gospel is Slavery and whose
evangelists are Slave-mongers, should be recognized in the Family
of Nations. If Ireland were in triumphant rebellion against the
British Queen, complaining of rights denied, it would be our duty
to recognize her as an Independent Power; but if Ireland
rebelled, with the declared object of establishing a new Power,
which should be nothing less than a giant felony and a nuisance
to the world, then it would be our duty to spurn the infamous
pretension, and no triumph of the Rebellion could change this
plain and irresistible necessity. And yet, in the face of this com
manding rule, we are told to expect the Recognition of Rebel
Slave-mongers.
But an aroused Public Opinion, “ the world’s collected will”
and returning reason in England and France will see to it that
Civilization is saved from this shock and the nations themselves
from the terrible retribution which sooner or later must surely
attend it. No Power can afford to lift itself before mankind and
openly vote a new and untrammelled charter to injustice and
cruelty. God is an unsleeping avenger; nor can armies, fleets,
bulwarks or “ towers along the steep ” prevail against his mighty
anger. There is but one word which the Christian Powers can utter
to any application for this unholy Recognition. It is simply and
austerely “ No,” with an emphasis that shall silence argument
and extinguish hope itself. And this Proclamation should go
forth swiftly. Every moment of hesitation is a moment of apos
�69
tacy, casting its lengthening shadow of dishonor. Not to dis
courage is to encourage ; not to blast is to bless. Let this simple
word be uttered and Slavery will shrink away with a mark on its
forehead, like Cain—a perpetual vagabond—without welcome or
fellowship, so that it can only die. Let this simple word be
uttered and the audacious Slave-Power will be no better than the
Flying Dutchman, that famous craft, which, darkened by piracy
and murder, was doomed to a perpetual cruise, unable to enter a
port;
.
Faint and despairing in their watery bier,
To every friendly shore the sailors steer ;
Repelled from port to port they sue in vain,
And track with slow, unsteady sail the main,
Unblest of God and man ! Till time shall end
Its view strange horror to the storm shall lend.
[V.]
No Concession
of Ocean Belligerency without a Prize
Court;—especially to Rebel Slave-mongers.
Too much have I spoken for your patience, if not enough for
the cause. But there is yet another topic which I have reserved
to the last, because logically it belongs there, or at least it can be
best considered in the gathered light of the, previous discussion.
Its immediate, practical interest is great. I refer to the conces
sion of Belligerent Rights, being the first stage to Independence.
Great Britain led the way in acknowledging the embryo gov
ernment of Rebel Slave-mongers as Belligerents on sea as well as
on land, and, by a Proclamation of the Queen, declared her
neutrality between the two parties, thus lifting the embryo gov
ernment of Rebel Slave-mongers, which was nothing else than
organized and aggressive Slavery, to an Equality on sea as well
as on land with its ancient ally, the National Government. Here
was a blunder if not a crime—not merely in the alacrity with
which it was done but in doing it at all. It was followed imme
diately by France, and then by Spain, Holland and Brazil. The
concession of Belligerent Rights on land was only a name and
nothing more ; therefore I say nothing about it. But the conces
sion of Belligerent Rights on the Ocean is of a widely different
character, and the two reasons against the Recognition of the
independence of the embryo government are applicable also to
this concession. First, The embryo government has no maritime
or naval Belligerent Rights, de facto; and secondly, an embryo
government of Rebel Slave-mongers cannot have the character de
facto which would justify the concession of maritime or naval
Belligerency; so that could the concession be vindicated on
the first ground, it must fail on the second.
The concession of Ocean Bt lligerency is a Letter of License
from the consenting Powers to every Slave-monger cruiser, or
�70
•
rather it is the countersign of these Powers to the commission of
every such cruiser. Without such countersign the Slave-monger
cruiser would be an outlaw, with no right to enter a single foreign
port. The declaration of Belligerency gives to him legal competency and admits him to testify by flag and arms. Without such
competency he could have no flag, and no right to bear arms on
the ocean. Burke sententiously describes it as an “ intermediate
Treaty which puts rebels in possession of the Law of Nations.”
And this is plainly true.
The magnitude of this concession may be seen in three aspects ;
first, in the immunities which it confers; putting an embryo
government of Rebel Slave-mongers on an equality with established
governments, making its cruisers lawful instead of piratical,
and opening to them boundless facilities at sea and in port, so that
they may obtain supplies and even hospitality. Secondly, in the
degradation that it fastens upon the National Government, which
is condemned to see its ships treated on an equality with the ships
of Rebel Slave-mongers, and also the just rule of “ neutrality ”
between Belligerent Powers calledin to fetter its activity against a
giant felony. And thirdly, it may be seen in the disturbance to
commerce which it sanctions, by letting loose lawless sea-rovers,
armed with Belligerent Rights—including the right of search
—whose natural recklessness is left unbridled, and without
any remedy even from diplomatic intercourse. The ocean is a
common highway ; but on this account it is for the interest of all
who share it, that it should not be disturbed by predatory
hostilities. Such a concession should be made with the greatest
caution, and then, only under the necessity of the case, on the
overwhelming authority of the fact; for, from beginning to end,
it is simply a question of fact, absolutely dependent on those
conditions and prerequisites without which Ocean Belligerency
cannot exist.
As a general rule, Belligerent Rights are conceded only where
a rebel government, or contending party in a civil war, has
acquired such form and body, that, for the time being, within
certain limits, it is sovereign de facto, so far at least as to
command troops and to administer justice. The concession of
Belligerency is the Recognition of such limited sovereignty, which
bears the same relation to acknowledged Independence as gristle
bears to bone. It is obvious that such sovereignty may exist
de facto on land without existing de facto on the ocean. It may
prevail in armies and yet fail in navies. In short the fact may
be one way on land, and the other way on the ocean; nor can it
be inferred on the ocean simply from its existence on the land.
Since every such concession is adverse to the original government,
and is made only under the necessity of the case, it must be
carefully limited to t\\e.actual fact. Indeed, Mr. Canning, who
has shed so much light on these topics, openly took the ground
�that “ Belligerency is not so much a principle as a fact.” And
the question then arises, whether the Rebel Slave-mongers have
acquired such de facto sovereignty on the ocean as entitles them
to Ocean Belligerent rights.
There are at least two “ facts ” which are patent to all, first,
that the Rebel Slave-mongers have not a single port into which
even legal cruisers can take their prizes for adjudication ; and
secondly, that the ships which now presume to exercise Ocean
Belligerent rights in their name—constituting the Rebel Slave
monger navy, which a member of the British Cabinet said was
“to be created”—were all “created” in England, which is the
naval base from which they sally forth on their predatory cruise
without once entering a port of their own pretended Government.
These two “ facts ” are different in character.
The first
attaches absolutely to the pretended Power, rendering it incom
petent to exercise Belligerent jurisdiction on the ocean. The
second attaches to the individual ships, rendering them piratical.
But these simple and unquestionable “ facts ” are the key to unlock
the present question
From the reason of the case, there can be no Ocean Belligerent
without a port into which it can take its prizes. Any other rule
would be absurd. It will not be enough to sail the sea, like
the Flying Dutchman ; the Ocean Belligerent must be able to
touch the land and that land its own. . This proceeds on the idea
of civilized warfare, that something more than naked force is
essential to the completeness of a capture. According to the
earlier rule, transmutation of property was accomplished by the
“ pernoctation ” of the captured ship within the port of the
Belligerent, or as it was called, deductio infra præsidia. As early
as 1414, under Henry V., of England, there was an Act of Par
liament, requiring privateers to bring their prizes into a port of
the kingdom, and to make a declaration thereof to a proper officer,
before undertaking to dispose of them. (Runnington’s Statutes.
Vol. i., p. 491.) But the modern rule interposes an additional
check upon lawless violence by requiring the condemnation of a
competent court. This rule, which is among the most authori
tative of the British Admiralty, will be found in the famous
letter of Sir William Scott and Sir John Nichol, addressed to
John Jay, as follows; “ Before the ship or goods can be disposed
of by the captors, there must be a regular judicial proceeding,
wherein both parties may be heard and condemnation therefrom
as Prize in a Court of Admiralty, judging by the Law of Nations
and Treaties.” This is explicit. But this rule is French as well
as English. Indeed it is a part of International Law. A seizure
is regarded merely as a preliminary act, which does not divest the
property, though it paralyzes the right of the proprietor. A
subsequent act of condemnation, by a competent tribunal, is nec
essary to determine if the seizure is valid. The question is
�72
compendiously called prize or no prize. Where the property of
neutrals is involved this requirement becomes of absolute importtance. In conceding Belligerency, all the customary belligérant
rights with regard to neutrals are conceded also, so that the
concession puts in jeopardy neutral commerce. But without
dwelling on this point, I content myself with the authority of two
recent French writers. M. Hautefeuille, in his elaborate work,
says “ the cruiser is not recognized as the proprietor of the objects
seized, but he is held to bring’ them before the tribunal and obtain
a sentence declaring them- to be prize.” {Hautefeuille, Des
Droits et des Devoirs des Nations neutres, Vol. iii., p. 299, 323,
352.)/ And a later writer, M. Eugene Cauchy, whose work has
appeared since our war began, says, “ A usage, which evidently
has its source in natural equity, requires that, before proceeding
to divide the booty, there should be an inquiry as to the regularity
of the prize; and to this end, every prize taken from an enemy
should be carried before the judge established by the sovereign
of the captor.” {Cauchy, Droit Maritime International, Vol. i.,
p. G5, 66. But if the Power, calling itself Belligerent, cannot
comply with this condition ; if it has no port into which it can
bring the captured ship, and no court, according to the require
ment of the British Admiralty, with “ a regular judicial proceeding
wherein both parties may be heard,” it is clearly not in a situation
to dispose of a ship or goods as prize. Whatever may be its force
in other respects, it lacks a vital clement of Ocean Belligerency.
In that semi-sovereignty, which constitutes Belligerency on land,
there must be a provision for the administration of justice, without
which there is nothing but a mob. In that same semi-soyereignty
on the ocean there must be a similar provision. It will not be
enough that there should be ships duly commissioned to take
prizes, there must also be courts to try them ; and the latter are
not less important than the former.
Lord Russell himself, who was so swift to make this concession,
has been led to confess the necessity of Prize Courts on the part
of. Ocean Belligerents, and thus to expose the irrational character
of his own work. In a letter to the Liverpool Chamber of Com
merce, dated 1st January, 1862, occasioned by the destruction of
British cargoes, the Minister says : “ The owners of any British
property, not being contraband of war, on board a Federal vessel*
captured and destroyed by a Confederate vessel of war, may claim
in a Confederate Prize Court compensation for destruction of such
property.” (Wheaton’s Elements, Lawrence’s edit., p. 1024.)
But if there be no Prize Court, then justice must fail; and with
this failure tumbles in fact the whole wretched pretension of
Ocean Belligerency—except in the galvanism of a Queen’s
Proclamation, or a Cabinet concession.
If a cruiser may at any time bdrn prizes, it is only because of
some exceptional exigency in a particular case, and not according
�73
to any general rule. . The general rule declares that there can be
no right to take a prize, if there be no port into which it may be
carried. The right of capture and the right of trial are the com
plements of each other through which a harsh prerogative is
supposed to be rounded into the proper form of civilized warfare.
Therefore, every ship and cargo, burned by the captors, for the
reason that they had no port, testifies that they are without that
vital sovereignty on the ocean, which is needed in the exercise
of Belligerent jurisdiction, and that they are not Ocean Belliger
ents in fact. Nay more ; all these bonfires of the sea cry'out
against that Power, which by a precipitate concession of a false
Belligerency furnished the torch. As well invest the rebellious
rajahs of India, who have never tasted salt water, with this Ocean
prerogative, so that they too may rob and burn; as well constitute
land-locked Poland, now in arms for Independence, an Ocean
Belligerent; or enroll mountain Switzerland in the same class • or
join with Shakspeare in making inland Bohemia a country with
hospitable ports on the ocean.
J
n^i° aggr?va^e this concession of a false Belligerency, the ships are
’ ngged> armed and manned in Great Britain. It is out
° • F-r»1 • •
and British iron that they are constructed * rig’o’cd
with British ropes ; made formidable with British arms ; supplied
with British gunners and navigated by British crews, so as to con
stitute in all respects a British naval expedition. British ports sup
ply the place of Bebel Slave-monger ports. British ports are open
to them when their own are closed. British ports constitute their
naval, base of operations and supplies, furnishing every thing necdexcept an officer—the ship’s papers—and a court for the trial
oi the prizes—each of which is essential to the legality of the expe
dition. And yet these same ships, thus equipped in British ports
and never touching a port of the pretended government in wlio-e
name they rob and burn,—being simply a rib taken out of the side
oi England and contributed to a Slave-monger Rebellion,__ receive
the further passport of Belligerency from the British Government
when tn fact the Belligerency does not exist. The whole proceed
ing, from the laying of the keel in a British dockyard to the
bursting flames on the ocean, is a mockery of International Law
and an insult to a friendly Power.
The case is sometimes said to be new ; but it is new only inas
much as no such “ parricide ” is provided against in express
terms. It was not anticipated. But the principles which govern
it are as old as justice and humanity, in the interests of which
Belligerent Rights are said to be conceded. Here it is all reversed
apparent that, whatever may have been the motives
ot the British Government, Belligerent Rights have been conceded
in the interests of injustice and inhumanity. Burning ships and
pattered wrecks are the witnesses. If such a case is not con
demned by International Law, then has this law lost its virtue
�74
Call such cruisers by whatever polite term most pleases the ear,
and you do not change their character with their name. Without
a home and without a legal character, they are mere gypsies of
the sea, who by their criminal acts have become disturbers of the
common highway, outlaws and enemies of the human race.
But there is a precedent, which shows how impossible it is for
a pretended Power, without a single port, to possess Belligerent
Bights on the ocean, and how impossible it is for the ship of such
pretended Power to be any thing but a felon ship. James II. of
England, after he had ceased to be de facto king and while he was
an exile without a single port, undertook to issue Letters of
Marque. It was argued unanswerably before the Privy Council
of William III., that, whatever might be the claims de jure of a
deposed prince, he could not receive from any other sovereign
u international privileges ; ” 4i that, if he could grant a commission
to take the ships of a single nation, it would in effect be a general
license to plunder, because those who were so commissioned would
be their own judges of whatever they took; and that the reason of
the thing which pronounced that robbers and pirates, when they
formed themselves into a civil society, became just enemies, pro
nounced also that a king without territory, without power of
protecting the innocent or punishing the guilty, or in any way of
administering justice, dwindled into a pirate if he issued commis
sions to seize the goods and ships of nations, and that they who
took commissions from him must be held by legal inference to have
associated ‘ sceleris causa1 and cozild not be considered as members
of civil society.11 (Pliillimore, International Law, Vol. i. 401.)
These words are strictly applicable to the present-case. Whatever
may be the force of the Bebel Slave-mongers on land, they are no
better on the ocean than the “ deposed prince ”—“ without
power of protecting the innocent or punishing the guilty, or in any
way of administering justice; ” and, like the prince, they too have
“ dwindled into a pirate,”—except so far as they may be sustained
by British Becognition.
And. there is yet another precedent, which shows that the
appropiation of a captured ship or cargo without judicial proceed
ings, is piracy. The case is memorable. It is none other than
that of the famous Captain Kidd, who, on his indictment for piracy,
as long ago as 1698, produced a commission in'justification. But
it was at once declared that it was not enough to show a commis
sion ; he must also show a condemation of the captured ship. The
Lord Chief Baron of that day said that “ if he had acted pursuant to
his commission he ought to have condemned ship and goods ; that
by not condemning them he showed his aim, mind and intention,
and that he did not act in that case by virtue of his commission,
but quite contrary to it; that he took the ship and shared the
money and goods, and was taken in that very ship, so that there
is no color or pretence that he intended to bring this ship to Eng
�land to be condemned or to have condemned it in any of ike English
plantations; and that whilst men pursue their commissions they
must be justified ; but when they do things not authorized or ever
intended by them, it was as if they had no commissions. (Har
grave’s State Trials, Vol. v. p. 314.) Capt. Kidd was condemned
to death and executed as a pirate. If he was a pirate, worthy of
death, then, by the same rule, those rovers who burn ships, rob
cargoes and adorn their cabins with rows of stolen chronometers,
—without any pretence of a Prize Court—must be pirates, worthy
of death likewise.
But without now considering more critically what should be
the fate of these ocean-incendiaries, or what the responsibilities of
England, out of whom they came,-I content myself with the
conclusion that they are not entitled to Ocean Belligerency.
But even if Rebel Slave-mongers coagulated in embryo
government, have arrived at that semi-sovereignty de facto on
the ocean which justifies the concession of Belligerent Rights, yet
the Christian Powers should indignantly decline to make the
concession, because they cannot do so without complicity with a
shameful crime. Here I avoid details. It is sufficient to say,
that every argument of fact and reason—every whisper of con
science and humanity—every indignant outburst of an honest
man against the Recognition of Slave-monger Independence is
equally strong against any concession of Ocean Belligerency.
Indeed such concession is the half-way house to Recognition, and
it can be made only where a nation is ready, if the fact of Inde
pendence be sufficiently established, to acknowledge it—on the
principle of Vattel that “ whosoever has a right to the end has aright
to the means.” (Book IV. cap. v. § 60.) But it is equally clear,
that where a nation, on grounds of conscience,.must refuse the
Recognition of Independence, it cannot concede Belligerency, for
zohere the end is forbidden the means must be forbidden also.
But the illogical absurdity of any such concession by Great
Britain, so persistent always against Slavery and now for more
than a generation the declared “ protectress of the African race,”
becomes doubly apparent when it is considered, that every rebel
ship built in England and invested with Ocean Belligerency,
carries with it the law of Slavery, so that the ship becomes an
extension of Slave Territory by British concession.
And yet it is said that such a monster is entitled to the conces
sion of ocean rights, and the British Queen is made to proclaim
them. Sad day for England when another wicked compromise
was struck with Slavery, kindred in nature to that old Treaty,
which mantles the cheeks of honest Englishmen as they read it,
by which the slave-trade was protected and its profits secured to
British subjects! I know not the profits which have been secured
by the destruction of American commerce; but I do know that
the Treaty of Utrecht, crimson with the blood of slaves, is not
�76
so crimson as that reckless Proclamation, which gave to Slavery a
frantic life, and helped for a time, nay still helps the demon, in
the rage with which it battles against Human Rights. Such a
ship with the Law of Slavery on its deck and with the flag of
Slavery at its mast-head, sailing for Slavery, burning for Slavery,
fighting for Slavery and knowing no other sovereignty than the
pretended government of Rebel Slave-mongers, can be nothing
less, in spirit and character, than a Slave-Pirate and the enemy of
the human race. Like produces like, and the parent Power,
which is Slavery, must stamp itself upon the ship, making it a
floating offence to Heaven, with no limit to its audacity—wild,
outrageous, impious, a monster of the deep to be hunted down by
all who have not forgotten their duty alike to God and man.
Meanwhile there is one simple act which the justice of England
cannot continue to refuse. That fatal concession of Ocean
Belligerency, made in a moment of eclipse, when reason and
humanity were obscured, must be annulled. The blunder-crime
must be renounced, so that the Slave-pirates may no longer sail the
sea, burning, destroying, robbing, with British license. Then will
they promptly disappear forever, and with them will disappear
the occasion of strife between two Great Powers, who ought to
be, if not as mother and child, at least as brothers among the
Nations. And may God in his mercy help this consummation !
And here I leave this part of the subject, founding my objec
tions on two grounds:
(1.) The embryo government of Rebel Slave-mongers has not
that degree of sovereignty on the ocean which is essential to
Belligerency there.
(2.) Even if it possessed the requisite sovereignty, no Christian
Power can make any such concession to it without a shameful
complicity with Slavery.
Both of these are objections of fact. Either is sufficient. But
even if the Belligerency seems to be established as a fact, still its
concession in this age of Christian light would seem to be impos
sible, unless under some temporary aberration, which, for the
honor of England and the welfare of Humanity, it is to be hoped
will speedily pass away.
Our Duties.
Again, fellow-citizens, I crave forgiveness for this long trespass
upon your patience. If the field that we have traversed has been
ample, it has been brightened always by the light of International
Justice, exposing clearly from beginning to end the sacred land
marks of duty. I have been frank, disguising nothing and keeping
nothing back ; so that you have been able to see the perils to which
the Republic is exposed from the natural tendency of war to breed
war, as exhibited in the examples of history, and also from the
�77
fatal proclivity of Foreign Powers to intermeddle, as exhibited in
recent instances of querulous criticism or intrusive proposition, all
adverse to the good cause, while pirate ships have been permitted
to depredate on our commerce; then how the best historic instances
testify in favor of Freedom and how all Intervention of every kind,
whether by proffer of mediation or otherwise, becomes intolerable
when its influence tends to the establishment of that soulless
anomaly a professed Republic built on the hopeless and everlasting
bondage of a race—and especially how Great Britain is sacredly
engaged by all the logic of her history and all her traditions in
unbroken lineage against any such unutterable baseness; then
how all the Christian Powers, constituting the Family of Nations,
are firmly bound to set their faces against any Recognition of the
embryo government of Rebel Slave-mongers, on two grounds;
first, because its Independence is not in fact established ; and
secondly, because, even if in fact established, its Recognition is
impossible without criminal complicity with Slavery ; and lastly,
how these same Christian Powers are firmly bound by the same
two-fold reasons against any concession of Ocean rights- to this
hideous pretender.
It only remains that the Republic should lift itself to the height
of its great duties. War is hard to bear—with its waste, its pains,
its wounds, its funerals. But in this war we have not been
choosers. We have been challenged to the defence of our
country, and in this sacred cause, to crush Slavery. There is no
alternative.
Slavery began the combat, staking its life and
determined to rule or die. That we may continue freemen there
must be no slaves; so that our own security is linked with the
redemption of a race. Blessed lot, amidst the harshness of war,
to wield the arms and deal the blows under which the monster
will surely fall! The battle is migltty, for into Slavery has
entered the Spirit of Evil. It is persistent, for such a gathered
wickedness, concentrated, aroused and maddened, must have a
tenacity of life, which will not yield at once. But might will not
save it now; nor time either.
That the whole war is contained in Slavery may be seen, not
only in the acts of the National Government, but also in the
confessions of the Rebel Slave-mongers. Already the President,
by Proclamation, has announced that the slaves throughout the
whole rebel region “ are and henceforward shall be free,” and, in
order to give the fullest assurance of the irreversible character of
this sublime edict, he has further announced “ that the Executive
Government of the United States, including the military and
naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom
of such persons.” Already an enlightened Commission has been
constituted, to consider how these thronging freedmen can be
best employed for their own good and the national defence. And
�80
the fulness of a new life and covered with a panoply of renown,
it will confess that no dominion is of value which does not
contribute to human happiness. Born in this latter day and the
child of its own struggles, without ancestral claims, but heir of
all the ages—it will stand forth to assert the dignity of man, and
wherever any member of the Human Family is to be succored,
there its voice will reach—as the voice of Cromwell reached
across France even to the persecuted mountaineers of the Alps.
Such will be this Republic;—upstart among the nations. Aye!
as the steam-engine, the telegraph and chloroform are upstart.
Comforter and Helper like these, it can know no bounds to its
empire over a willing world. But the first stage is the death of
Slavery.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Our foreign relations showing present perils from England and France ... and the wrongful concession of ocean belligerency: speech of Hon. Charles Sumner, before the citizens of New York at the Cooper Institute, Sept. 10, 1863
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Sumner, Charles [1811-1874]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: New York, NY
Collation: 80 p. ; 23 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. "The following speech was delivered at the invitation of the New York Young Men's Republican Union, at Cooper Institute, on the 10th of September, 1863". [From Introductory, p, [3]].||(DES) Written in ink on title page: See pp 23-27, p. 67, 78. Underlinings and marginal markings on those pages. Printed by Wright & Potter, Boston. Mass.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Young Men's Republican Union
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1863
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5209
Subject
The topic of the resource
International relations
USA
England
France
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Our foreign relations showing present perils from England and France ... and the wrongful concession of ocean belligerency: speech of Hon. Charles Sumner, before the citizens of New York at the Cooper Institute, Sept. 10, 1863), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Foreign Relations
United States-Foreign Relations
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/049e15269cfc71c0d494c3f1b7baf7f2.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=MjHVAPqqBzdxAv8dUqKxrpae26t2blqJx9uYFkaQWe3lWkhpG5u3Fy0UhQjv0xB9rPwIIlPCuKOTiapOJqbWjyAOd8WD6YbSVzsezvKiLz5KAY09Yk5YajbOTgZAQwkJQDM2ODRsklPfdnr-tyFB4R2DeVMrwI9PdUpNEOQFNQeWALA-I077RSkjrZglPKnGxLO6ztEvUUwUb3xWyJiQwq07TUL84HZcclXnDWbFkn-vjirR6xQCi8PWPGIUDw-kh8Bcu-O-HlQfYyy6AkwZQxOaKum8F85fXYVl%7EatsQm16H2PpJ8A%7EmOuDyY9cDkzB7NaGzklSgpjAlLIyF6%7En4g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
44c946fd7f703de275b94c7ee0f393c1
PDF Text
Text
CONTRADICTIONS
OF
LORD PALMERSTON
IN REFERENCE TO
POLAND AND CIRCASSIA,
■Snr,;II< £(7
' -a
“ Russia can be reached only in her instruments.”
The Crisis, Paris, 184,0.
LONDON:
HARDWICKE, 192, PICCADILLY.
August, 1863.
Price One Shilling.
'*
�/v
<■ SIM
£ H
' "■'
A d A £’•'.'■•.• H '’■•ATAM
jasas Of won'
iHl IO
ClWMA&tAiL M1W
>•■ PZ>’1Z1’100
if M >h
*fa a®
.
.-
. * j4 .
■
la T4>.-iT 9«l|ji'.-
..
.,.'■
■■?
*■ eb»
A5^/h;' ,^«
y
* 4^C
fr
.
fc
'■’ .i’'> A r/£ oA
S$W f>%O ^n- wA'y. L y
*’’
hrjufii'.A.n.'Az. ■ >
z ■ '.''J
4^5 :'Z
Ar:;.'? .taiiS
.
.
:•:••■ L
„•»
' £ Wi ?■- ir-il---- : -Wi.bbB *•
'. • '
•'
.
' ,
.
.
.
“
.
'.
*
lb
W1 'A ai-lMpt
" rc\" >
■b?
*
tH
•
•>. .
9«Ci’U”-.':..T '? f/j
.
.
r
.“
-.
< fa iMjgjffijff/f-•■ -
,
< ■■
.
-.
bOjfcK
?‘^s'uy a> ., A. •'« T mil * o ?i • •iis‘;jtK • j bu r
»
•
. «
*
- \ '1'■ '■
. f!Wl-t
.
.
W'i
'W .’T < .
b-,- >.'•• -<_
% hissed A A
' ■.'
< . 1U£{
J
x;': tjS . j
|
*
�FALSEHOOD AS A METHOD OF GOVERNMENT.
17, 1863.
An event took place towards the end of the recent Session of
Parliament unprecedented in the history of this country. The
First Minister of the Crown was deliberately charged by Mr.
Cobden with three falsehoods.
The three falsehoods had all been told in the House, and one
was a wilful perversion, after his death, of a speech delivered by
a rival. The purpose in the three cases was to involve the House
in expenditure.
On the 30th of July, 1845, Lord Palmerston had announced
that the invention of steam-ships had destroyed the maritime
supremacy of England; Sir Robert Peel had scouted the notion
as a ridiculous absurdity. On the 23rd of July, 1860, Lord
Palmerston attributed to Sir Robert Peel this very state
ment—namely, that steam had bridged the Channel, and that as
regards security from aggression, England had ceased to be an
island.
On.the 10th July, 1862, Mr. Cobden, on the authority of
quotations from Hansard, called on Lord Palmerston to admit
that his assertion was a mistake, stating that, in order to be Par
liamentary, he used the word “ inexactness^ Lord Palmerston
refused to enter on the subject. Mr. Cobden’s constituents and
several. other bodies have since addressed him on the subject,
conveying their approbation of his conduct.
The effect of Mr. Cobden’s accusation is, therefore, to raise
the objeet of it above all Parliamentary control.
This alarming state of things would be at once reversed if the
laws were enforced. The former practice of the expulsion from
the House of Commons of those who stated what was not true,.
REPORT OF ST. PANCRAS COMMITTEE, APRIL
�would not- only stop the scandal but prevent the malversation
which these falsehoods are employed to disguise.
The first Memoir hereto appended is on Falsehood as dealt with
by the forms of the House of Commons. The second is on the
Falsehoods of .Lord Palmerston, giving some idea of the
extent to which Falsehood is carried on in the management of
the Country.
Signed by order of the Committee, and on their behalf.
C. D. Collet, Chairman.
C. F. Jones, Secretary.
I.
How to deal with Falsehood by the
Forms of the House of Commons.
For some generations back it has been held as an axiom that
Members of the Legislature were incapable of falsehood. Since
the year 1847, however, accusations of this offence have not
only circulated without the walls of Parliament, but have on
several occasions made their way into the House of Commons.
These accusations have always been directed against the same
person—Lord Palmerston. Hitherto they have always been
incidental to Motions respecting some foreign State. Such
Motions have generally been got rid of by means of a u countout” or the dropping of an order of the day, so that the issue
has been evaded.
The recent charges laid against Lord Palmerston, by Mr.
Cobden, having been made under cover of the word <( inex
actness,” have neither presented to the House a dilemma to be
evaded nor to individual members an opportunity to be seized.
The remedy is therefore to reverse the act of Mr. Cobden, and
to bring forward a Motion in the House, dealing with the act by
its proper name, and inflicting the ancient Parliamentary punish
ment for that offence. An inspection of the Journals of the House
shows that this punishment consists in expulsion.
In the cases selected, the motive to falsehood appears unim
portant; namely, to obtain the privilege of Parliament for some
person not entitled to it. The sole point at issue was whether the
Member had spoken the truth or not. The first of these two
cases is that of Colonel Wanklyn, who was summarily expelled.
The second, that of Sir John Prettiman, who was suspended,
and afterwards restored on submission, is still more instructive,
because it shows the pains taken to examine into and to prevent
prevarication, always more difficult to deal with than direct false
hood.
�7
CASE OF COLONEL WANKLYN.
A.D. 1677} 30 Charles II. Friday, February 1.—A Motion being made
against the frequent and irregular granting of Paper Protections by Mem
bers of this House; and
A Petition of Angela Margaretta Cottington being read, complaining
of Mr. Wanklyn, a Member of this House, for granting a Protection to
Charles Cottington, Esq., her husband, as his menial servant, whereby
she was hindered in her prosecution at law against him;
And the House being also informed that the said Mr. Wanklyn had
granted another Protection to one Jones, whereby to hinder the execution
of a writ of restitution awarded by the Court of King’s Bench;
And Mr. Wanklyn being present, and standing up in his place, and an
swering for himself, and to several questions which were propounded to him
by Mr. Speaker ;
And being withdrawn by Order, and the matter debated;
Resolved, &c., nem. contradicente, That Colonel Wanklyn in granting
Protection to Mr. Cottington and Mr. Jones, not being his menial servants,
has violated the justice and honour of this House.
. The Question being put, That Mr. Wanklyn, for granting such Protec
tions, shall be expelled this .House;
The House divide;
The Yeas go forth ;
TeUor,
TeBers
the
} for the Noes’ 109-
And so it was resolved in the Affirmative.
The Question being put, That Mr. Wanklyn shall receive his sentence at
the Bar standing;
It was resolved in the Affirmative.
Mr. Wanklyn being brought to the Bar by the Seijeant-at-Arms attend
ing the House, Mr. Speaker, in the name of the House, pronounced the
said sentence.
Ordered, That Mr. Speaker do issue out his warrant to the Clerk of the
Crown to make out a new writ for the election of a Member to serve in this
present Parliament for the Borough of Westbury in the County of Wilts,
in the room of Thomas Wanklyn, Esq., who was this day expelled the
*
House.
CASE OF SIR JOHN PRETTIMAN.
A.D. 1669, 21 Charles II. Wednesday, December 1.—Upon complaint
made of a Breach of Privilege committed by one * * in arresting of
Robert Humes, a menial servant of Sir John Prettiman, a Member of this
House;
Ordered, That it be referred to Mr. Speaker to examine the matter com
plained of, and give such order therein as he shall find just.
Saturday, December 4.—Mr. Speaker reports the case of Robert Humes,
servant to Sir John Prettiman, arrested and in the prison of the King’s
Bench: that he was heretofore a merchant, but left off his trade about five
years since, and that in August last he was entertained a servant to Sir
John Prettiman at twelve pounds per annum wages : and was employed in
recovering his rents; and was arrested in four several actions of the case,
of a hundred pounds a piece.
* Journals of the House of Commons, vol. ix. pp. 430-31.
�8
The Question being put, That privilege be allowed to Robert Humes,
menial servant to Sir John Prettiman ;
’
The House divided;
The Yeas went out;
poMheYeas.29.
I
.
19.
And so it was resolved in the Affirmative.
Ordered, That the Marshal of the King’s Bench do discharge Robert
Humes, menial servant to Sir John Prettiman (being arrested in breach of
privilege) out of prison.
Monday, March 21, 1670 (New Style.')—Two Petitions being tendered
against Sir John Prettiman, one from Dame Theodosia Prettiman, and
the other from Elizabeth Humes ;
Ordered that the Petitions be read to-morrow morning; and that Sir John
Prettiman have notice to attend then.
Wednesday, March 30.—A Petition of Elizabeth Humes, wife of Robert
Humes, was read;
Resolved, &c., That the Petition be committed to [here follow twenty
names], or any five of them ; and they are to meet to-morrow morning, at
seven of the clock, in the Speaker’s Chambers, and to examine the matter of
the Petition, and report it, with their opinions therein, to the House; and to
send for persons, papers, and records.
Thursday, April 7.—Sir Gilbert Talbot reports from the Committee to
which the Petition of Elizabeth Humes was committed, the whole state of
the matter and evidence therein : And that the Committee did leave it to the
House, to do what they should think fit therein.
And the Question, upon the whole matter, being, whether the said Humes
ought to be allowed privilege as the menial servant of Sir John Pretti
man ;
Resolved, &c., That the matter be recommitted to the former Committee,
to examine whether Sir John Prettiman did know of the condition of the
said Humes, and what accusations were against Humes, when he entertained
him for his servant; and whether he knew he was a prisoner for any criminal
matter, or under bail for the good behaviour, when he did entertain him;
and whether he were so when the Motion was made for his privilege ; and
whether he were arrested, or in prison, for a real debt, or whether the actions
against him were not feigned: And Sir John Prettiman is to attend the
Committee, and make it appear that he^was arrested and detained prisoner
for debt, after he was retained his servant: And the Committee is revived,
and to sit this afternoon : And the Keeper of the prison of the King’s Bench
is to attend the Committee, to give an account of the arresting and detaining
of the said Humes in prison: And all that shall come to the Committee are
to have voices : And [here follow eight names] are added to the Committee :
And the care of the matter is recommended to Mr. Crouch.
Friday, April 8.—Mr. Crouch reports from the Committee to whom the
Petition of Mrs. Humes was committed, That they had, in pursuance of the
order of recommitment, examined the whole matter of fact thereby directed,
relating to Sir John Prettiman’s protection, and moving the House for
giving privilege to Robert Humes, as his menial servant.
Upon stating whereof to the House, it appeared that the House had been
ill-dealt with by Sir John Prettiman in his concealing the truth of the case,
and that Humes was released out of prison, from actions depending against
him, by the miscarriage of Sir John Prettiman, as his menial servant, when
in truth he was not.
�Sir John Prettiman being withdrawn into the Speaker’s Chambers;
Resolved, &c., nemine contradicente, That Sir John Prettiman be suspended
his sitting in this House, and from all privileges Its a Member thereof, until
he shall produce Robert Humes.
Resolved, &c., That he be called to the Bar of this House, and receive from
Mr. Speaker this sentence upon his knees.
The House being informed that the said Sir John Prettiman was not to
be found in the Speaker’s Chambers, ordered that the Serjeant-at-Arms at
tending this House do bring the said Sir John Prettiman to the Bar of
this House to-morrow morning, to receive his sentence as aforesaid.
Resolved, &c., That the back door of the Speaker’s Chambers be nailed
up, and not opened during any sessions of Parliament.
Saturday, April 9.—Ordered, that it be referred to Colonel Bird, Sir
Thomas Meeres, Colonel Reames, Mr. Coleman, Colonel Talbot, to see a
true entry made in the Journal, of the matters concerning Sir John Pret
timan.
Resolved, &c., That no Member of this House do grant any protection to
any but such only as are their menial servants. And that all protections
already granted to any other persons besides menial servants be forthwith
withdrawn and called in.
Resolved, &c., That all protections and written certificates of the Members
of this House be declared void in Taw, and be forthwith withdrawn and called
in, and that none be granted for the future; and that the privilege of Mem
bers for their menial servants be observed according to Law; and that, if
any menial servant shall be arrested and detained contrary to privilege, he
shall, upon complaint thereof made, be discharged by order from the
Speaker.
Same day, afternoon.—Resolved, &c., That a day be given to Sir John
Prettiman to appear and receive the judgment of the House against him.
Resolved, &c. That the day be the second Tuesday at the next meeting
after the Recess.
Monday, April 11, 1670.—(The King having made a speech to the Two
Houses) Mr. Speaker reports the effects of His Majesty’s Speech: And
that it was His Majesty’s pleasure the House should adjourn till the 21th
of October next.
And accordingly the House adjourned till the 24th of October next.
Monday, October 31, 1670.—A Petition of Sir John Prettiman being
tendered to the House;
Ordered, That the Petition of Sir John Prettiman be read on Thursday
morning, nine of the clock.
Triday, November 11.—The Petition of Sir John Prettiman, Knight, was
read. The Petition of Elizabeth Humes was also read.
Resolved, &c., That the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House do, accord
ing to former order, bring Sir John Prettiman to the Bar of this House on
Monday next, to receive the judgment of the House against him.
Monday, November 14.—In pursuance of the former order of this House, Sir
John Prettiman was, by the Serjeant-at-Arms, brought to the Bar of the
House; who there, upon his knees, received from Mr. Speaker the judgment
and sentence of the House, for his being suspended sitting in this House,
and of all privileges, as a Member thereof, until he shall produce Robert
Humes.
Resolved, &c., that Sir John Prettiman be heard at the Bar of this House
on Monday next upon his Petition, and the Petition of Mrs. Humes, both
formerly read; and that the Seijeant do give them notice hereof.
Wednesday, November 23.—The House then, according to former Order,
did proceed to the hearing of the matter between Sir John Prettiman and
�10
Mrs. Humes. And the Petitions on both sides being again read; and the
counsel for Sir John Prettiman, and the parties and witnesses on both sides,
being heard; it being made appear, on the behalf of Sir John Prettiman,
that he had, since the last recess, used his utmost endeavour to apprehend
and bring in Humes, the husband of Mrs. Humes ; and nothing of the sug
gestions of Mrs. Humes, her Petition being made out ; upon Debate of this
matter;
Resolved, &c., That Sir John Prettiman be restored; and have his pri
vilege, to attend the duty of his place, as a Member of this House.
*
J
From the passage in italics it appears that detection was fol
lowed not only by the punishment of the offender, but by a pro
vision to ensure the non-recurrence of similar acts. The restora
tion of the practice of punishing offences would now, as then, be
accompanied by provisions to prevent them, or, rather, the pro
visions already made by the laws would cease to be ineffective the
moment it was known that punishment would be the result of
their infraction.
il
The Falsehoods of Lord Palmerston.
From the diplomatic history of the last thirty-six years we
propose to select such cases of falsehood as are most glaring, and
such as may be dealt with without entering into the objects for
which they were told.
The cases brought forward by Mr. Cobden have, of course, to
be narrated first, and a careful consideration will show that two of
these were, beyond all others, appropriate ones for the House to
deal with. The list then extends in the inverse order of time.
'
REGARDING THE MILITARY FORCES OF FRANCE.
(mb. cobden’s first charge.)
On Monday, July 7, Mr. Cobden laid before the House a
comparative statement of the forces of England and France, both
naval and military, showing that never had the naval superiority
of England been so great, or the military superiority of France so
small, as at the present time. He complained of the habitual
i( inexactness ” of Lord Palmerston as the cause of the panic,
and consequently of the increase in the expenditure. He made
special reference to his having added 200,000 men to the real
numbers of the French army:—
“ But the noble Lord lias not confined his statements to the navy. He has
also given, us some facts and figures respecting the land forces of Erance ; but
in his statement there was an inexactness of a very grave kind, for he exceeded
the amount of the Trench force by two hundred thousand men, which called
* Journals of the House of Commons, vol. ix. pp. 114—169.
J
�11
down a correction from the Moniteur. I must complain of the habitual in
exactness of the noble Lord as to these matters, and if the China debate
should come on to-morrow I should have to recite another grave inaccuracy.
On the 24tli (23rd) of May the noble Lord, in speaking of the land forces of
France, said: ‘ On the 1st of January, 1862, the French army consisted’—
these are the corrected figures which the noble Lord afterwards gave—‘ of
446,348 men under arms. There was a reserve of 170,000 men, liable to be
called out at a fortnight or three weeks’ notice, malting altogether 616,348 ’
not 816,000 as the noble Lord really said.
“ Lord Palmerston.—No. I never said anything of the kind.
“Mr. Cobden.—I beg the noble Lord’s pardon, this was not a mistake of
■a figure. There was addition and subtraction, and the statement was the same
all through. The noble Lord proceeded‘ In addition to this force actually
under arms, or liable to be called out for service, I stated that there were 268,417
National Guards, making a total available force of 884,765.’ ”—Times, July 8.
Lord Palmerston replied.-.—
“ The hon. Member accuses me of great exaggeration. Now, I utterly deny
that I have been guilty of any exaggeration. Now, with regard to the French
army, I stated on a recent occasion that the French army on the 1st January,
consisted of 446,000 men under arms, and 170,000 men of the reserve, making
a total of 616,000 men. I was reported to have made that total 816,000. It
is very seldom that those gentlemen who report our debates in this House
commit an error, and an error in one figure is not unnatural.”—Times, July 8.
This was on the 7th July. Lord Palmerston speaks of a
recent occasion, but there had been two occasions. The first was
on the 19th May, the second was on the 23rd, and purported to be
a correction not of the former speech but of the erroneous report
of it. On the 19th May Lord Palmerston said:—
“ On the 1st of January last, France had 646,000 men, I think, at all events
upwards of 640,000 men under arms. She had, in addition, 170,000 men of
reserve, liable to be called back to the ranks at a fortnight’s notice. Besides
that she has upwards of 200,000 National Guards. Therefore, her regular
forces under arms, or liable to be called to the ranks at a fortnight’s notice,
are about 816,000 to our 100,000. The French Government had since
determined that towards the end of the year 31,000 of the 646,000 should be
transferred from the active army to the reserve, making no difference in the
amount available, but diminishing the expense without diminishing the eventual
efficiency. I should say, besides the 646,000, there were 70,000 of the con
scription of the present year, which might be called out at any moment if
necessary.”—Times, May 20.
On May 23rd, Lord Palmerston said:—
“ The lion. Gentleman (Sir R. Clieton) read a report of something which I
had said here on a former occasion, in which, notwithstanding its general ac
curacy, there was a mistake of a figure. On the 1st of January, the French
army consisted of 446,348 men under arms. There was, besides, a reserve of
170,000 men, liable to be called out at a fortnight or three weeks’ notice,
making altogether 616,348 men under arms or liable to be called out for service;
there were 268,417 National Guards, making a total available force of 884,705.
And I stated that besides these there were 70,000 men of the conscription for
the present year, liable to be called out if their services should be required. I
also stated that of the 446,000 it was intended at the time to transfer between
30,000 and 40,000 from the number under arms io the reserve, making no dif-
�12
ference in the really available force, though the change is attended with a certain
amount of economy.”—Times, May 24.
It is thus evident that the reporters had made no mistake. Lord
Palmerston says only one figure was wrong, meaning it to
be believed that an 8 was substituted by the reporters for a 6. After
making a variety of minor corrections of a statement in which he
professed that only one figure was wrong, he says, “Making a total
available force OF 884,765.” What he had said before was,
“ Therefore her regular forces under arms or liable to be called to
the ranks at a fortnight?s notice, are about 816,000, against our
100,000.” The reporters, therefore, according to him, substituted,
not a 6 for an 8, but the words in italics for those in small
capitals.
The occasion of this correction has to be taken into considera
tion. It was made on the night of Friday, the 23rd May.
The' next morning the following denial appeared at Paris, in
the Monileur:—
“ In the sitting of the House of Commons of the 19th instant, Lord Pal
estimated the strength of the Trench. army on the 1st of January,
1862, at 816,000 men, of whom 646,000 were under arms, and 170,000 under
reserve. This estimate contains an error sufficiently serious to require a recti
fication. On the 1st of January, 1862, the effective strength of the army was
not 646,000, but 447,000 men—a difference of 199,000 men. The reserve
counted, at the same date, not 170,000 men, but 165,000—a difference of
5000. The total error is, therefore, 204,000 men, or one quarter of the estimate
made in the House of Commons. Since the 1st of January the number of men
of the active army who have been allowed to go into the reserve is not 31,000,
but exceeds 38,000. This brings the reserve to 203,000 men, and reduces the
effective strength of the active army to 409,000 men.- Total, 612,000.”
merston
If Lord Palmerston had been misreported, it was his duty to
have corrected the error the next day. It was also open to him
to inform the French Government what he had really said. But
the Moniteur corrects not the reporters, but Lord Palmerston.
Before taking so serious a step, the French Government must have
demanded an explanation, and have failed to obtain it. The
Moniteur addresses itself to England, for in France it is no crime
to have a quarter of a million extra soldiers in arms. Lord Pal
merston corrects the reporters just in time to nullify the effect
in England of the protest in the Moniteur. That protest is then
a cry of distress. Lord Palmerston tyrannises over the French
Emperor in this matter, just as M. Thouvenel domineers over
Lord Russell in the affairs of Mexico. This is the one Cabinet,
of which “ some members live on the banks of the Seine, and
others on the banks of the Thames.”*
The case, however, is not complete without Lord Palmerston’s
description of the notice in the Monileur. On the 7 th July he said:—
* Lord Palmerston in 1856.
�13
“ But my statement was 616,000, and not 816,000. The French. Moniteur
corrected my statement, and what was that correction ? It charged me with
having made a little error both in the force under arms and in reserve, and the
aggregate was stated by the Moniteur to be 612,000 instead of 616,000. That
was the correction of the Moniteur, which completely and substantially affirmed
the statement that I had made.”—Times, July 8.
Lord Palmerston pretends that the Moniteur accuses him of
an error of only 4000 men; but the Moniteur expressly says:
“ The total error is 204,000 men.” Mr. Cobden terms this
“ inexactness.” The issue between them was the simplest in the
world. Lord Palmerston said it was a mistake of a single
figure. Mr. Cobden said it was not a mistake of a single figure.
Lord Palmerston’s words prove Mr. Cobden’s case. On this
Mr. Cobden drops the matter.
REGARDING THE RATIFICATION OF THE TREATY
OF TIEN-TSIN.
(mr. cobden’s second charge.)
The next day occurred the China debate, and, according to his
promise, Mr. Cobden brought up another case of “ inexactness.”
He proved that Lord Palmerston had first declared that the
Emperor of China had ratified the Treaty of Tien-Tsin, and had
afterwards declared that the war of 1859 was made to obtain the
ratification of that Treaty. Here are the two statements:—
Lord Palmerston, March 16, 1860.
“ A Treaty has been concluded with China. That Treaty has been approved
by the Emperor. We want the ratifications to be exchanged; we want the
Treaty to become a formal and acknowledged compact between the two
countries.”—Mansard, vol. 157, p. 807.
Lord Palmerston, February 14,1861.
“ It is well known that the operations in China arose from the refusal of the
Chinese Government to ratify the Treaty of Tien-Tsin, which has been con
cluded between the two countries. It became necessary to obtain the ratifica
tion of that Treaty.—Mansard, vol. 161, p. 401.
Lord Palmerston said in March, I860, “ That Treaty has
been approved by the Emperor.” That is, it had been ratified by
him at Pekin, as it had been by Queen Victoria in London. On
reference to the Blue-books it will be found that in China this
had been publicly done. An edict had appeared respecting the
Treaty, and it had actually been put in operation before the arrival
of Mr. Bruce. His visit was to exchange the ratifications, which
the Treaty had specially provided must be done at Pekin, although
that exchange could have taken place just as well at London, or
at any Chinese port. When Lord Palmerston contradicts Mr.
Cobden on this point, on the 8th July, he makes his former as
sertion still plainer. For he says, “It (the last expedition) was
�14
Q
not undertaken solely because Mr. Brtjce was not allowed to go
to Pekin (another falsehood); but because the Emperor refused to
ratify certain articles of that Treaty, which he said must be changed
before they could be carried out ”
On the 10th July, when Mr. Cobden answered what Lord
Palmerston had said on the 8th, he (Mr.. Cobden) repeated,
“ I stated that the Treaty had been ratified, and that all that had
to be done was to exchange the ratifications. ’
The truth, as appears in the documents published by the Eng
lish Government itself, is that not only had the Emperor of China
publicly assented to the Treaty, not only were the English actually
trading at some of the new ports opened to them by it before Mr.
Bruce’s arrival and the attack on the Peiho forts, but that no
objection was ever offered to the formal act of exchanging the
ratifications of the two Sovereigns, whether at Pekin or elsewhere.
Lord Palmerston is so sensible of the falsehood he is stating that
he carefully mixes up “ ratification” and il exchange of ratifica
tions,” and by doing so asserts that what Mr. Cobden read confirmed his statement. This was on the 10th, as we shall pre
sently see.
No war having been declared, the Treaty of Tien-Tsin was un
lawfully obtained, and is not binding upon China. Whether it
was obtained by one or by two lawless expeditions is of no im
portance here. What is of importance is, that, in this as in other
matters, Lord Palmerston’s statements are diametrically op
posed to each other.
REGARDING STEAM HAVING DESTROYED ENG
LAND’S NAVAL SUPREMACY.
(mr. cobden’s third charge.)
On the 10th of July, Mr. Cobden brought a third accusation
of inexactness” against Lord Palmerston. He had quoted
Sir Robert Peel as concurring with him instead of being op
posed to him on the subject of steam, the cause of the destruction
of England’s naval supremacy. Mr. Cobden said:—
“ At an early period of my experience in this House a circumstance hap
pened to which I must refer, because it affords another example—a flagrant
example of the inexactness and carelessness of the noble Lord in the state
ments which he makes to us. It occurred in 1845. On that occasion the
noble Lord had already mounted this hobby of his, that steam was the great
danger of this- country. He was fond of saying that the application of steam
to navigation had spanned the Channel with a steam bridge. That simile
occurs a dozen times in his speeches from 1842 downwards. Let nobody
undervalue the force of these repetitions of a phrase, because by dint of them
we come at last to believe them ourselves, and we make others believe them
also. In 1845 the noble Lord, in a harangue intended to induce Sir R. Peel
�15
to increase our armaments in some direction, launched this favourite idea of
his. Sir R. Peel controverted it. That led to the noble Lord rising again to
explain himself. I will read these passages. Outlie 30th of July, 1845, Lord
Palmerston said:—
“ ‘ In reference to steam navigation, what he (Lord Palmerston) said was,
that the progress which had been, made had converted the ordinary means of
transport into a steam bridge.’
“ Sir R. Peel, immediately following in reply, said
“1 The noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) appeared to retain the impression
that our means of defence were rather abated by the discovery of steam navi
gation. He (Sir Robert Peel) was not at all prepared to admit that. He
thought that the demonstration which we could make of our steam navy was
one which would surprise the world ; and as the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston)
had spoken of steam bridges, he would remind him that there were two parties
who could play at making them.’
Now comes this flagrant specimen of the noble Lord’s inexactness. I pur
posely use that long and rather French word because I wish to be Parlia
mentary in what I say. (Laughter.) The noble Lord, in speaking of this
very Fortifications Bill when he brought it in on the 23rd of July, 1860, said,
still reiterating the same argument:—“ e And, in fact, as I remember Sir R. Peel stating, steam had bridged the
Channel, and for the purposes of aggression had almost made this country cease
to be an island.”
“ Now, I happened to hear all that myself, but I am afraid to say so, because I
may be contradicted. (“ Hear,” and laughter.) But now T will make a sug
gestion to the noble Lord. Will he send one of his junior Lords of the Trea
sury to the library to get Hansard? I give him the volumes:—Hansard,
vol. 82, p. 1233, and vol. 160, p. 18. The noble Lord will probably speak
again, as we are in committee, and it would be a grateful thing if he would get
Hansard to satisfy himself of that gross inaccuracy. Moreover, it would only
be just to the memory of a great Statesman, and it is also due to. this House
that he should admit his error and recant it. There would be a novelty about
such a proceeding that would be quite charming. (Laughter.) Let him admit
that he is wrong. _ I will forgive him the China business if he will only get
Hansard, and admit that he was wrong, that it was a fiction—quite a mistake of
memory. (“ Hear, hear,” and laughter.) But the serious question is what kind
of opinion shall we form of the noble Lord’s judgment.”—Times-, July 11, 1862.
Observe, Mr. Cobden says the serious question is Lord Pal
judgment, not his integrity, which he had just proved
not to exist. Lord Palmerston evades; the charge:—
merston’s
“ It is very curious that my hon. Friend accuses me of inexactitude, and
refers me to Hansard to prove my error. I do not feel much disposed to
follow his example, because he and I differed the other evening on a matter of
historical fact. He contended that the Emperor of China had ratified the
Treaty of Tien-Tsin. I said he had not. After two or three days’ delay, my
hon. Friend brought down a Blue-book to confirm his assertion, and proceeded
to read a passage which completely substantiates my statement. [Mr. Cobden
intimated dissent.] Let my hon. Friend read it again if he pleases. I did not
the other night read the whole of the case; but the fact was just as he read it,
and as I stated it. The Emperor of China wrote one of his mandarins to say
that he approved of the Treaty; but when he was called upon to ratify it, and
exchange ratifications, which process alone could give it international value, he
refused, and that which my hon. Friend read confirmed the statement I made.”
(Cheers.)—Times, July 11, 1862.
�16
Mr. Cobden had quoted not a Blue-book but Hansard. One
of his quotations has already been extracted under the head
“Lord Palmerston, March 16, 1860.” The other was from
Lord John Bussell, February 13, 1860:—
“ The Treaty of Tien-Tsin had been signed, and had received the special
approval of the Emperor of China. Nothing but the ratification remained to
be given, and it would have been impossible for us—because Her Majesty’s
forces had suffered a loss, because 400 or 500 men had been killed or wounded
—to give up a Treaty solemnly agreed to, or to retreat from conditions to
which the Emperor of China had given his assent.”—Hansard, vol. 156,
p. 945.
Since this Memoir was published in its original form, Lord
Palmerston has gone round again. In the Debate of July 9,
on Fortifications, he used these words:—
“The hon. Member for Rochdale has referred to something which passed
between myself and the late Sir Robert Peel. When I said that steam had
bridged the channel, Sir Robert replied, in a way suitable to a debate in this
House, “ Ay, it may have bridged the Channel, but that is a game at which
two can play.”—Times, July 10, 1863.
The Prime Minister is charged by Mr. Cobden with three
falsehoods. Two are proved; the proof being accompanied by
fresh falsehoods: the third is admitted. This was a case to be
submitted to the judgment of the House. Mr. Cobden had no
option but a duty which he was bound to perform.
In 1670 the House of Commons suspended Sir John Pretti
man, for having only “ dealt badly with the House by conceal
ing the truth” about a man for whom he had obtained privilege,
by falsely representing him to be his menial servant. The offence
was the falsehood. It is no mitigation of Lord Palmerston’s
offence that it is in weighty, not in trifling matters, that
he has “ dealt badly with the House by concealing the truth.”
But this, which is no mitigation of the offence, is an aggravation
of the danger. In 1670 the House resented an act of deception.
In 1862 it courts such acts, in order to pretend that it is de
ceived. No such deception exists any longer.
GENERAL PRACTICE OF FALSEHOOD
(charges
brought by the queen and substantiated by
EARL RUSSELL.)
The falsehoods with regard to the French army were told
with the view to excite alarm in England, so as to increase the
military expenditure as against the aggressive power of France.
At the same time the Cabinets of England and France are de
clared to be so united as to form but one.
*
* A little while ago, Louis Napoleon was asked by an ecclesiastic, “Why
�17
Lord Palmerston has, during his whole career, been engaged
in increasing the military force of France, and in directing that
force to illegal objects.
,
In 1835 the English navy having been increased, at the instance
of William IV., as a precaution against Russia, Lord Palmerston
suggested to France to increase hers. When France complied with
this advice, he immediately made it a pretence for increased arma
ments on the part of England as against France. He has since
made France a partner in all his schemes of intervention.
So long ago as 1837 the Times made the charge which we
have here pressed home, namely, that Lord Palmerston makes
use of falsehood, not to escape from an attack, but as a method
of Government. The Times wrote, December 29, 1837: —
“ England has been in the habit of receiving as truth the assertions of a
Minister. We are now brought into the lamentable predicament of having
to guard against deception, and to be armed against design in every phrase
which escapes from the lips of the man who at present directs the Foreign
Policy of Great Britain. . . What must be said of the Minister of England
who now, after the display of the force which we have described (the Russian
fleet in the Baltic), instead of taking steps to counteract her, (Russia) instead
of remonstrating, protesting, and preventing, stands forward to justify the
measure, and then to repudiate the responsibility, and, not content with
this, perverts facts, and falsifies truth ?”
Lord Palmerston has now associated France with England
in the distant regions of China, and, pursuing the same course as
in 1837, has brought her forces into the neighbourhood of dis
turbed India, all the while arming in England against her. In 1848,
on the election of Louis Napoleon to the Presidency of the French
Republic, he wrote to Vienna that it was to be inferred from
such a choice that France would enter on a course of aggression.
To Lord Ponsonby, November 11, 1848:—
“Important changes may take place in France; the election, which is
• coming on next month, may bring other men into power in that country;
with other men another policy may come in. Traditional maxims of policy
connected with a busier action in regard to foreign countries may be taken
up as the guide of the Government of France. Popular feeling in that
country, which at present inclines to peace, might easily be turned in an
opposite direction, and the glory, as it would be considered in France, of
freeing the whole of Italy up to the Alps from the domination of Austria
*
might reconcile the French nation to many sacrifices and to great exer
tions.”!
do you not give out openly that you will defend the Pope against Gari
baldi ?” He replied, “ If I were to do so, Palmerston would have me upset
in a week.” The Committee insert this statement on the written testimony
of a gentleman of high standing and character.
* “Italy shall be free from the Alps to the Adriatic.”—Words of Louis
Napoleon in 1859.
T Correspondence respecting the Affairs of Italy, 1849, part iii. pp. 566,
C
�Such purposes of aggression were, however, not compatible
with the then constituted order of things. Lord Palmerston,
however, joined in the measures taken to render Louis Napoleon
absolute, and thus overthrow all restraint upon that career whose
aggressive tendencies he had prophesied.
Throughout Europe it had been Lord Palmerston’s boast to
have established (( Constitutional Government.” To this he had
sacrificed the prerogatives of .every Crown, the usages of every
people, the ancient village government of Greece, the fueros of
the Basques, the old estates of Spain and Portugal. On the en
actment of the coup dftat of the 2nd of December, 1851, he-has
tened to sanction a massacre of unarmed and inoffensive citizens,
the arrest of the members of the Assembly, and the restoration, by
violence and perjury, of a form of government that had destroyed
the liberty of the French people, and indemnified them for the
loss by setting Europe in flames. When asked to give reasons, he
replied, that the unity of purpose and of authority in the Presi
dent was his object. He said in Parliament, February 3,1852:—
“ Such was the antagonism arising from time to time between the French
Assembly and the President that their long co-existence became impossible,
and it was my opinion that if one or the other were to prevail it would be
better for France, and, through the interests of France, better for the in
terests of Europe, that the President should prevail than the Assembly, and
my reason was, that the Assembly had nothing to offer for the substitution
of the President, unless an alternative obviously ending in civil war or
anarchy, whereas the President, on the other hand, had to offer unity of
purpose and unity of authority, and if he were inclined to do so, might give
to France internal tranquillity, with good and permanent government.”
The “ unity of purpose” of Louis Napoleon had already been
•shown in his invasion and occupation of a portion of Italy
(Rome). It could not be the interest of England to confer
i( unity of authority” upon such an individual by means of a
*
usurpation.
The words of Lord Palmerston are unintelligible as those of a
British Minister; they are merely the repetition of a passage on
the same subject contained in a. Russian despatch a quarter of a
century before. Count Pozzo di Borgo wrote from Paris, 22nd
December, 1826:—
“The ancient fortresses are repaired with a dilatoriness that keeps them
still in a state of imperfection, and, consequently, of weakness, particularly
as regards the completion of those raised on the opposite frontier; the great
roads are falling into decay; the army itself and the marine are in a state
that calls for additions and ameliorations ; without which it would be im
possible to make them act with the unity and the power indispensable to
* “Brunnow is said to have mentioned triumphantly the events of the
second and third of December in Paris on the frst of that month, in his
passage through Berlin. He was sure of the success of the plot before it took
place.”—Private Letter, 1852.
�19
their action and their movements............. A serious war and the sacrifices
it would impose, would give rise, I fear, to all the effects of panic among
the capitalists, indifference among a great portion of the nation, and revo
lutionary sentiments, among many others............... In proportion as the situa
tion is. delicate, it will require increased care and interest to guard it from
the evils which menace it. Russia has re-established the French monarchy
by her arms, she has continued to protect it by her generosity, she will
preserve it, I dare hope, from the embarrassments and even misfortunes
which seem to menace it, by her influence and her policy.”
This letter was written soon after the invasion of Spain, into
which, in spite of Mr. Canning, Russia was able to inveigle
- France. Within four years afterwards, France had entered on
the conquest of Algiers. It is impo^ible, except on the supposi
tion that the military power of France is at the disposal of Russia,
to account for the anxiety which a Russian Ambassador feels that
France should be strong. It is impossible, except on the supposi
tion that the British Minister has adhered to this scheme, to
account for his efforts to increase that aggressive power of France
which he predicted beforehand, and which he persists in holding
up. to the English people as an object at once for alarm and
imitation.
Accordingly, it is on this very point that detection has over
taken Lord Palmerston. On his giving his sanction—in defiance
of the Queen and of his colleagues—to the coup d’etat of the
2nd December, he was removed from office by the Queen. On
the opening of Parliament, Lord John Russell announced that this
was not the first time he had been detected. He produced a
memorandum addressed to himself by the Queen on a-former
occasion, in which was consigned a description of the frauds and
usurpations Lord Palmerston had been in the habit of practising,
and a requirement that such practice should cease. Lord Pal
merston did not reject the imputation; on the contrary, he accepted
the terms on which his continuance in office then and for the
future was to depend. He wrote to Lord John Russell:—
“ I have taken a copy of this memorandum of the Queen, and will not fail
to attend to the directions it contains.”
Lord John Russell did not produce to Parliament the whole of
the Queen’s letter, and at a later date, when requested, he refused
to give the remaining portion. We are left in ignorance as to
the. specific occasions in which Lord Palmerston “ failed in sin
cerity.” We may, therefore, infer that specific instances were
given only as an illustration of a general practice; this is borne
out both by the reply of Lord Palmerston and by the terms of the
Queen’s letter. The latter are as follows]
“The Queen requires, first, that Lord Palmerston will distinctly
state what he proposes to do in a given case, in order that the Queen
may know as distinctly to what she is giving her royal sanction,
c2
�20
Secondly, having once given Her sanction to a measure, that it he
not arbitrarily altered or modified by the Minister. Such an act she
must consider as failing in sincerity towards the Crown, and justly
to be visited by the exercise of her constitutional right of dismissing
that Minister, She expects to be kept informed of what passes
between him and the foreign Ministers before important decisions
are taken, based upon intercourse; to receive the foreign despatches
in good time; and to have the drafts for her approval sent to her in
sufficient time to makelherself acquainted with their contents before
they must be sent off. The Queen thinks it best that Lord John
Russell should show this letter to Lord Palmerston.”
On the 3rd of February, 1852, Lord John Russell testified
to the truth of the charges contained in the Queen’s letter, and
made the application of them, using the following words:—
“The noble Lord passed by the Crown, and put himself in the
PLACE OF THE CROWN.”
REGARDING THE ABANDONMENT OF OUR MARI
TIME RIGHTS.
(self-contradiction.)
Mr. Cobden denounces as ridiculous Lord Palmerston’s
pretence that steam has injured, or can injure the naval supremacy
of England, but Mr. Cobden has prepared and is still preparing
the way for Lord Palmerston to destroy the real source of that
supremacy—the Right of Search. The subject has been so fre
quently treated that it is necessary only to recite Lord Palmer
ston’s three speeches on this head:—
Lord Palmerston, November 7,1856.
“ I cannot help hoping that these relaxations of former doctrines, which
were established in the beginning of the war, practised during its continuance,
and which have since been ratified by formal engagements, may perhaps be
still further extended, and that, in the course of time, those principles of war
which are applied to hostilities by land may be extended without exception to
hostilities by sea, so that private property shall no longer be the object of
aggression on either side.”—Times, November 8, 1856.
Lord Palmerston, February 3,1860.
“ A naval Power like England ought not to surrender any means of weaken
ing her enemies at sea. If we did not seize their seamen on board their
merchant vessels, we should have to fight them on board their ships of war.
I deny that private property is spared in war on land any more than in war at
sea. On the contrary, armies in an enemy’s country take whatever they want
or desire, without the slightest regard to the right of property, as we shall find
to our cost if a hostile army should ever succeed in landing in this country.”—
Morning Star, Feb. 6, 1860.
Lord Palmerston, March 17, 1862.
“ The passage quoted as having been part of what I said at Liverpool, related
to two matters. First of all to the exemption of private property at sea from
capture; and, secondly, to the assimilation of the principles of war at sea to
�21
the practice of war on land. I am perfectly ready to admit that I have entirely
altered my opinion on the first point. Further reflection and deeper thinking
has satisfied me that what at first sight is plausible—and I admit that it is
plausible on the surface—is a most dangerous doctrine, and I hope that the
honourable Member (Mr. Bright) will be kind enough to give weight to my
thoughts, and also come round to those second thoughts which are proverbially
the best.” “ My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham has very ably and
very fully shown that it was a wise and politic measure on the part of the Go
vernment to adopt the principle that a neutral flag should cover enemy’s
goods. There is a principle upon which, as it appears to me, this doctrine
must stand. We have lately maintained, at the risk of war, that a merchant
ship at sea is a part of our territory, that that territory cannot be violated
with impunity, that, therefore, individuals cannot be taken out of a mer
chantman belonging to a neutral country. The same principle may be said
to apply to goods as well as men.”—Times, March 18, 1862.
The transmutation, by a “ principle,” of a ship, whose function
is to move from place to place, and, therefore, to convey help to
the enemy, into a territory whose peculiarity is that it remains
fixed, and, therefore, cannot convey goods to the enemy, is a
climax of absurdity. It covers contraband of war, despatches,
everything. It transmutes the neutral into an enemy so much
the more dangerous as he is himself exempted from all danger.
It is, of course, a flagrant contradiction to the declaration of the
3rd of February, 1860, that “A naval Power like England ought
not to surrender any means of weakening her enemies at sea.”
REGARDING THE SUEZ CANAL.
(SELF-CONTRADICTION’.)
Up to 1857, there was no documentary evidence to show what
had been Lord Palmerston’s conduct in this matter. Mr.
Urquhart, in the il Progress of Russia,” published in 1853, had
declared that Russia, through Lord Palmerston, had actively
intrigued against it for twenty-five years. In 1857 this statement
was confirmed by Lord Palmerston’s admission. In 1858, it
received the further confirmation of his denial:—
Lord Palmerston, July 7, 1857.
“ For the last fifteen years her Majesty’s Government have used all the in
fluence they possess at Constantinople and in Egypt to prevent that scheme
from being carried into execution.”—Hansard, vol. 116, p. 1014.
Lord Palmerston, Ju:ne 1, 1858.
“ We are told now that for fifteen years we have been exercising a moral
constraint upon the Sultan of Turkey to prevent him giving his sanction to
this scheme. Now, I can assure those who hold that opinion that they are
entirely mistaken.”—Hansard, vol. 150, p. 1381.
�22
REGARDING- THE DANISH SUCCESSION.
(CHARGE BY LORD ROBERT MONTAGU.)
The succession to the Crown of Denmark is of course a matter
in which England has no more right to interfere than in the
election of the Governor of New York, or the form of Govern
ment in France. This subject has, however, occupied the English
Government for at least twelve years. The correspondence had
filled, according to Lord Palmerston, in 1851, two thousand
pages of letterpress, and has given rise to repeated contradictions
on his part. The first statement was brought out by a question
from Mr. Disraeli :—
Lord Palmerston, February 4, 1850.
“ There are grave questions to be determined. There is one relating to the
succession to the Danish Crown; another, what should be the Constitution of
the Duchy of Schleswig in relation to the other part of what we call the
Danish Monarchy. . . . We must not expect that matters of that kind can be
arranged so quickly as we could wish; and more especially considering that
Her Majesty’s Government is only acting as mediator, and that we have no
power to exercise authority in regard to these questions.”—Hansard, vol. 108,
p. 283.
The second was a reply to Mr. Urquhart, who “ begged to ask
further, whether in this correspondence there had been any nego
tiation as to the succession to the Crown of Denmark, or in respect
to the succession in the Duchies”:—
Lord Palmerston, March 20, 1851.
“ A good deal had passed in regard to these points, that was to say, in regard
to the succession to the Crown of Denmark • and, as connected with that, in
regard to the arrangements for the order of succession in Schleswig.and Hol
stein. But Her Majesty’s Government had studiously and systematically held
themselves aloof from taking any share in these negotiations. Her Majesty’s
Government have confined themselves strictly to the mediation which they under
took, which was a' mediation for the purpose of bringing about a restoration
of peace between Denmark and the German Confederation.”—Hansard, vol.
115, p. 221.
In 1850, the Mediation included in its scope the settling of the
Danish Succession; in 1851, it had always been confined to the
restoration of peace between Denmark and Germany. Two years
afterwards, Mr. Blackett asked a question which brought forth
a third statement. This statement contradicted both the previous
ones. According to the first statement, it was only as Mediator
that England had anything to do with the Danish Succession;
according to the third, it was her “ business” to alter that Suc
cession.
Lord Palmerston, August 12, 1853.
ee As things stood, the succession to Denmark Proper went in the female
line, the succession of Holstein went in the male line, the succession of
Schleswig was disputed between two parties (!) ; and, therefore, on the death
�23
of the King and his Uncle, who was the next heir, Denmark would have gone
to the female heir, Holstein to the male, and Schleswig been divided between
them. (!) It was the business of the British Government to prevent such a state
of things, and it was thought an important object to keep together those three
States which in common parlance were called the Danish Provinces. He was
anxious to get renunciations also from that male branch which had claims on
Holstein, and to combine the whole in some party who might equally claim
all portions. That was accomplished by the Treaty.”—Hansard, vol. 129,
p. 1680.
On the 5th June, 1851, was signed the Protocol of Warsaw,
which established the “ principle of the integrity of the Danish
Monarchy.” On the 8th May, 1852, this was consigned to a
European Treaty. This was prima facie evidence that Lord
Palmerston’s statement of March, 1851, was false. The d«atj
*
mentary proof was not, however, made public till, on the 18th
June, 1861, Lord Robert Montagu produced in the House the
Draft of the original document:—
Protocol of London, August 2, 1860.
" Art. I.—The unanimous desire of the said Powers is that the state of the
possessions actually united under the Crown of Denmark shall be maintained
in its integrity.”—Hansard, vol. 163, p. 1266.
‘‘Thus,” to use the words of Lord R. Montagu, “the Pro
tocol and the Treaty were conceived in subjection and were exe
cuted in duplicity.”
This was a charge of falsehood, but it was made as a prima
facie case. Lord Robert Montagu challenged Lord Pal
merston to rebut the evidence brought against him. Lord Pal
merston could not disprove, but he did not then dare to avow
his falsehood. He answered by a “ Count Out.”
REGARDING THE FALSIFICATION OF THE
AFFGHAN DESPATCHES.
(CHARGE BY MR. DUNLOP.)
The Danish Treaty places the eventual succession of Denmark
in the Emperor of Russia, by cutting out nineteen of the inter
vening heirs. The Affghan Forgeries, first denied by Lord Pal
merston, are now justified by him on the ground that they
were necessary to save the honour of Russia, and to induce her to
act in accordance with the interests of England:—
Lord Palmerston, March 1,1818.
“ If any man will give himself the trouble of referring to those Debates, as
recorded in Hansard, respecting the despatches of Sir Alexander Burnes, he
will see that it is not true to assert that the papers produced to the House did
not contain a faithful report of the opinions which that Gentleman gave to the
Governor-General and the Board of Control. I do not mean to say that Sir A.
Burnes did not himself subsequently alter those opinions, but the passages
omitted contained opinions on subjects irrelevant to the question at issue.”—
Hansard, vol. 97, p. 102.
�24
Lord Palmerston, March 19,1861.
“ The policy and conduct of the Government were regulated, not by the
opinions of their subordinate agent at Caubul, but by the general knowledge
which they possessed of the state of affairs in the East, of the aggressive
views then entertained by Russia, and of the means by which that State was
preparing to carry hostilities to the very frontiers of our Indian possessions.
If that be so, the question is not the degree in which Parliament has been
misled, or in which Lieutenant Burnes has been injured, by the omission of
portions of his despatches in which his personal opinions, evidently arising
from confusion of ideas, misconception and overcredulity were stated, at
variance with the views justly entertained by the Government under which
he was acting. . . .”
“The opinions of Lieutenant Burnes, which are omitted from the de
spatches form no elements in the policy which was adopted.”—Hansard, vol.
162, p. 63.
Lord Palmerston on this occasion did not hesitate to charge
with falsehood a faithful ally of the British Government, Dost
Mahommed, on the ground not that he had evidence to prove it,
but that to tell falsehoods was a very natural thing.
“ I am sure' nothing can be more easily conceived than that the draught
which was submitted to Lieutenant Burnes was one thing, and the letter
which was sent off was of a totally different character.”—p. 60.
In 1848, Lord Palmerston met the charge by asserting that
the Papers did contain a faithful report of the opinions of Sir A.
Burnes. In 18G1, defending himself against the same charge,
he says his opinions were omitted because they were not acted
upon. When the denial was made, the unmutilated Papers had
not been published. At that time he could say that Lord Fitz
gerald, the President of the Board of Control, “ having access
to these documents, felt himself bound to state that he could not
find any trace on the part of the then Government of concealing
or misrepresenting the facts.” He could boldly challenge ex
posure, and say, “ Sir, if any such thing had been done, what
was to prevent the two adverse Governments who succeeded us
in power from proclaiming the fact, and producing the real docu
ments?”
When the real documents are produced, and the omitted words
are marked by brackets so as to render all further concealment
impossible, he covers the confession by making it in the form of
a justification. The omissions and alterations respecting Russia are
acknowledged in the same manner. This point is worthy of par
ticular attention, because it is the habitual practice and special
art of Lord Palmerston.
*
* Mr. Dunlop thus addressed his constituents at Greenock on the 21st of
October, .1861
“ The idea of my motion being considered an attack on the present Govern
ment never entered my imagination; and the notion that Lord Palmerston
would have resigned, had it been carried, must rest entirely on the assumption
�25
“ I say it was perfectly right, in the letter which has been referred to, to
substitute the words, ‘ the Russian Government’ for the words ‘ the Emperor,’
and to omit the words which would have identified the Emperor in person
with the communication made to Dost Mahommed. . . . Nothing could
have been more unwise than to pin them (the Russian Government) down to
that which you wished them to disavow, and to make it impossible, consistently
with their honour, to undo that which your remonstrances were especially in
tended to induce them to retract.”—pp. 60-1.
It would have been unworthy of Lord Palmerston to have
admitted a forgery without justifying it by a falsehood. The
Russian Government had already disavowed its agents. The
disavowal had been forwarded to Calcutta, and it was after this
that Vicovitch was sent to Caubul with the autograph letter
of the Emperor of Russia. Sir Alexander Burnes wrote,
December 20, 1837:—
“ I shall take an early opportunity of reporting on the proceedings of this
Russian agent, if he be so in reality; for, if not an impostor, it is a most un
called for proceeding, after the disavowal of the Russian Government conveyed
through Count Nesselrode, alluded to in Mr. McNeill’s letter on the 1st of
June last.”
This passage is one of those suppressed in the papers of 1839.
*
REGARDING CIRCASSIA.
'
(MISQUOTATION OF TREATIES—SELF CONTRADICTION.)
This portion of the world, so long thought of only as the region
of fabulous romance, then brought into the light of day to be for
gotten for a quarter of a century, is now seen to contain the key
to the destinies of the world. Yet in 1837 and 1838, when
England was sending an army across the Indus to oppose Russian
influence, nobody would take the trouble to see that the real bul
wark of India was to be preserved by supporting Circassia, not
by destroying Caubul. On the contrary, when the Vixen was
sacrificed by consent of Parliament, the general feeling was that
a great danger—war with Russia—had been escaped at a small
sacrifice—the honour of England. This sacrifice, however, could
be accomplished only on the condition that somebody should veil
it by a falsehood, namely, that the Bay of Soudjouk Kale was in
the possession of Russia at the time the Vixen was seized there.
This falsehood has not yet been retracted by Lord Palmerston,
and cannot therefore be set down here, as it would require the
statement of the whole case. It has, however, been supported by
that he was undeniably guilty, and that he would not^have dared to stand an
inquiry. I can truly say that I not only did not believe that he was participant
in the falsification—though I admit that such belief would not have deterred
me—but that till I heard his speech in answer to me, I had never entertained
even a suspicion that he had been so.”
* See Affghan Papers, 1849, p. 81.
�26
subsequent falsehoods, capable of being dealt with on the plan
said down for this Memoir, namely, simply as falsehoods, and
without reference to the designs with which they are uttered.
The Treaty of Adrianople, September 14, 1829, affected to
confer on Russia the east coast of the Black Sea. Had Russia
been able to conquer this territory, there would have been little
difficulty about the matter. But Russia, not having conquered
this coast, that is, Circassia, it remains very important that Turkey
never had the right or made the attempt to possess it. Russia’s
false claim, of thirty-three years standing, has to be backed up
by false representations, so as to seclude the Circassians from the
commerce of the world till Russia shall have really conquered the
country. In two or three places on the coast the Turks had
erected small forts, by permission of the Circassians. Had these
been specified by name in the Treaty of Adrianople, there would
have been some colour of a title on the part of Russia to these
places, especially if she actually possessed them. But no such
places are mentioned in the Treaty of Adrianople.
On Monday, August 24, 1857, in the House of Commons, in
reply to Lord Raynham, Lord Palmerston said:—“Thecoast
of Circassia—that was to say, the eastern coast of the Black Sea
—was ceded to Russia by Turkey at the Treaty of Adrianople—
that treaty ceding certain points by name along the coast round to
the Sea oj Azoff. The Russians were engaged in hositilities with,
the Circassians on the northern part of the eastern coast, and it
appeared that some of the cruisers which, by the Treaty of Paris,
Russia was entitled to maintain in the Black Sea, had been sent
to operate against the Circassians at Ghelendjik and Redout Kale.
He did not apprehend that in so doing, the Russians had at all
exceeded their powers under the Treaty of Paris.”
The words of the Treaty of Adrianople, Art. IV., are:—
“ The whole of the coast of the Black Sea, from the mouth of the Kuban
as far as the port of St. Nicholas, inclusively, shall remain in perpetuity
under the dominion of the Empire of Russia.”
The Treaty, therefore, instead of ceding certain points by name
along the coast round to the Sea of Azoff, specifies only the two
*
extremities.
This falsehood of Lord Palmerston did not, however, first
appear under the sanction of his name. In the debate of the
21st of June, 1838, on the sacrifice of the Vixen in the previous
year, Lord John Russell said:—
“ What is the case as. to the state of the port at which Mr. Belt’s vessel
is reported to have arrived ? This port, apparently, did not belong to Russia
* A copy of the Treaty of Adrianople will be found in the Collection of
Treaties between Russia and Turkey published by the Government in 1854.
�until the year 1783. Up to that period the fact was acknowledged that it
belonged to Turkey in the map put forth by the Russian authorities, and
this evening alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman. In that map, it is
true, that a great part of Circassia was laid down as belonging to inde
pendent tribes. But three of the places at that time so laid down as be
longing to Turkey were, by the subsequent Treaty of Adrianople, transferred,
by name, to Russia. These places were Soudjouk Kale, Poti, Anapa. They
were named specially in the Treaty, and thence has arisen a claim on the part
of Russia that the whole of that territory which had belonged to Turkey
belongs, since, to her, and has been confirmed to, and comes under her do
minion.”—Mirror of Parliament, p. 4999.
Neither Anapa, nor Poti, nor Soudjouk Kale, is mentioned in
the Treaty of Adrianople. Lord John Russell must have
been whispered to by Lord Palmerston. He appears, however,
to have read the Treaty after the Debate, since the words in
italics quoted from the “ Mirror of Parliament” are not in Han
sard.
In defending himself against the charge of deceiving the
owners of the Vixen, Lord Palmerston had recourse to a pro
cess of fraud and falsehood unexampled in parliamentary history.
Mr. Urquhart, on returning home from Constantinople, where
he had been Secretary of Embassy, consigned in a letter to Lord
Palmerston (dated September 20, 1837) a history of his con
duct in regard to the Vixen, which was at once a statement and
a charge. Sir Stratford Canning (June 16, 1838) requested
Lord Palmerston to lay this letter on the table of the House.
Lord Palmerston refused:—
“With regard to that letter from Mr. Urquhart, it was written after
that Gentleman had ceased to hold an official appointment, and is therefore
to be regarded as a private communication. The letter contains, too, a
number of misstatements and misrepresentations, and is, in fact, an attack
upon my conduct. I have not replied to that letter ; and, considering that it
is not official, I doubt whether it ought to be laid before the House.”—Ibid.,
p. 4831.
Sir S. Canning then requested that that portion of the letter
might be produced which referred to the FZrm. Lord Pal
merston replied:—
“ I believe that that part of the letter is connected with a false statement in
the Petition, namely, that the voyage of the Vixen was undertaken in consequence
of encouragement given to the undertaking by the Under Secretary of State. I
really doubt whether such a document ought to be laid before Parlia
ment.”
To this Sir S. Canning rejoined :—
“ I am informed that there are other portions of the letter having refer
ence to the Vixen. The circumstance of the document not being official,
induces the noble Lord to think that it ought not to be laid upon the table ;
but I beg to ask the noble Lord whether he himself has any objection to
the production of such parts of the communication as have reference to the
Vixen, Mr. Urquhart having given his consent to its production.”
�28
Lord Palmerston then said:—
“The fact is, that Mr. Urquhart wrote me a loDg letter subsequent to
his recal, which letter would, I believe, fill one of the volumes on the table,
and which letter contains a number of misstatements and misrepresentations
connected with transactions in which we had both been concerned. I have
not had time to reply to that letter, or to enter into a controversy with Mr.
Urquhart, and therefore the letter has remained wholly unanswered, but if I
were to lay the document on the table of the House I should be obliged to
accompany it with an answer from myself, in reference to the misstatements
it contains. I do not know that there is any portion of the letter which has an
important bearing on the affair of the Vixen ; but I shall look at it again, and
inform the right honourable Gentleman whether such be the case or not, but
if any part of it is to be produced, it will be necessary for me to write a reply,
and to lay that reply also on the table of the House.”
The letter was connected with a false statement in the petition,
and therefore could not be published. The letter, nevertheless,
had not an important bearing on the affair of the Vixen, though
the false statement which it supported was the whole case referred
to Parliament. Finally, though unimportant, the letter could not
be published unless an answer could be written by Lord Palmerston, and laid on the table of the House.
This conversation is quoted from the Mirror of Parliament. It
is also reported in the Times of June 18, 1838. Not a trace of
it is to be found in Hansard.
Lord Palmerston did, after this, write a reply, but he never
laid it on the table of the House. It was left for Mr. Urquhart
to publish in the Times. But, on the day of the debate (June
21), Lord Palmerston did not hesitate to say that this reply,
written after the lapse of six months, was written the day after
he received Mr. Urquhart’s letter.
“ But we now come to another part of these transactions, being that in
which the right honourable Gentleman means to impute to me, personally,
some considerable blame—I mean as to the matters which form the subject
of a letter written by Mr. Urquhart, and published in the Times this morn
ing. I beg, in the first place, to say that, during the little leisure which in
disposition sometimes gives me, I wrote a letter to Mr. Urquhart, in
answer1 to one I had received from him the day before ; a fact which I men
tion to show the course that was taken in answering his communication.”
Mr. Urquhart’s letter to Lord Palmerston was dated Sep
tember 30, 1837
*
Lord Palmerston’s reply is dated June 20, 1838.|
On June 16, 1838, Lord Palmerston said:—
“That letter has remained wholly unanswered.”
On June 21, 1838, Lord Palmerston said of the same
letter:—•
* It will be found in the Times of June 21, 1838.
j\ See the Times of July 26, 1838, which also contains Mr. Urquhart’s
rejoinder.
�29
. “ I wrote a letter to Mr. Urquhart in answer to one I had received from
him the day before.”
Everybody, surely, can understand a direct falsehood like this.
It must be evident that if Lord Palmerston could not com
pass his defence without having recourse to falsehood, he must
have been guilty of something far worse than anything the Motion
imputed to him.
Such an extraordinary manoeuvre must have had a special ob
ject; but the mode in which it was intended to operate can be
explained only by some one personally cognisant at the time of
the whole transaction. Lord Palmerston completed his task
by repeating, and at the same time contradicting, what he had
said about the private nature of Mr. Urquhart’s communica
tion :—
“It would ill become me to criticise the course that Gentleman has
thought proper to take, but my objection is not what it has been sup
posed to be by the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire (Lord
Stanley)—that his letter was a betrayal of official confidence ; my objection
is exactly the reverse, namely, that it contains a great number of private
and confidential communications between Mr. Urquhart and other people
which I did not think fit or proper to be published.”—Ibid., p. 4990.
What is a betrayal of official confidence ? Is it not the
revelation by a public servant of private and confidential com
munications made to him as such? Does Lord Palmerston
mean to say that breach of official confidence means pub
lishing that which the public ought to know? If he does not
mean this, it is difficult to know what he does mean. But in
this last contradiction, if the meaning is obscure the purpose
is obvious. The North American Indians, in their warlike
marches, leave to the last man the office of concealing the trail
which may betray them. This feat seems to a European impos
sible, but Lord Palmerston has learned to perform it with an
ease and a perfection which far surpass those of the inhabitants of
the forest. He guards against the danger of being detected and
contradicted in his falsehoods by detecting and contradicting
himself.
REGARDING THE RELATIONS OF ENGLAND WITH
RUSSIA.
(self-contradiction.)
Lord Palmerston lately proposed an assimilation between
war and peace. From 1837 to 1840 he effected an assimilation
between enmity and friendship. He combined with Russia on
all European matters, while he made war upon Dost Mahomed
merely for receiving at his Court a Russian Envoy.
�30
Lord Palmerston, December 14, 1837.
“ I say, therefore—not at all dissembling—that I think Russia does keep a
larger force than is required for the defence of her own possessions, and than is
consistent with the general well-being of other nations at peace with her . .
that having no reason to believe that the intention of Russia is otherwise than
friendly towards this country—having reason, on the contrary, to believe
(whatever her policy or ultimate intentions may prompt) that she has no wish
or design to embark in a war with England, I feel &c.”*
Lord Palmerston, March 11, 1839.
“Ido not like to touch this part of the subject,lest the possible supposition
should be entertained that, in what I say, I am giving any countenance to an
opinion that may be anywhere entertained, that we are now in a state in which
a rupture with Russia is likely to arise. There is nothing in the relations be
tween this country and Russia to justify such an opinion ; on the contrary, I
believe that, on both sides, there is a strong and anxious desire to preserve the
peaceful relations, and to maintain that friendship which at present exist.
Lord Palmerston, March 19, 1861.
“ Russia was then in a state of active hostility to England in regard to our
Asiatic affairs............ The policy which the Governor-General had adopted
required that Dost Mahomed should be treated as an enemy, because he was
allied with those who were at ffiat time the enemies of England.”—Hansard,
vol. 162, pp. 62—3.
REGARDING THE RUSSIAN FLEET IN THE BALTIC.
(self-contradiction.)
Lord Palmerston’s contradiction of himself on this point is
one of the most remarkable of his many contradictions. In 1837
there was, according to his statement at the time, a correspond
ence between England and Russia, respecting the Russian Fleet
in the Baltic. In 1848 he denied that any such correspondence
had taken place. In'making this denial he affected to reply
to a demand for papers on the part of Mr. Anstey. No such
demand was made by Mr. Anstey in his speech, nor were the
papers in question among those recited in his Motion:—
Lord Palmerston, December 14, 1837.
“ I am asked whether any measures have been adopted by the Government
- to prevent Russia from proceeding with the naval armament at Cronstadt.
Now, with regard to the building and equipping of a fleet, no Government is
entitled to prescribe to another Power what fleets it shall build; but unques
tionably when a Foreign Power is fitting out a considerable force, either by
sea or land which indicates intentions calculated to give reasonable ground of
uneasiness to another Power, or its allies, then the Government of such country
has a right to demand for what purpose such force is intended; and certainly
the presence and equipment of the Russian fleet, as it was collected in the
Baltic two or three years ago, did lead to explanations between the Govern* Opinions and Policy of the Right Honourable Viscount Palmerston,
G.C.B., M.P., &c., as Minister, Diplomatist, and Statesman, during more than
Forty Years of Public Life; with a Memoir by George Henry Francis, Esq.
Editor of “ Maxims and Opinions of the Duke of Wellington,” &c. London:
Colburn and Co. 1852. P. 361.
t Ibid. pp. 406-7.
�31
ments of England and of Russia, but those explanations were satisfactory to
the Government of this country • and although, since that time, a large number
of vessels have been fitted out for the purpose of review, there has not been
any such display of naval force in the Baltic as might be reasonably looked upon
as indicating a hostile intention on the part of Russia towards any other
Power.”*
Loud Palmerston, March 1, 1848,
“ The bon. Member (Mr. Anstey) asks for all the correspondence which may
have passed from the year 1835 downwards on the subject of the Russian fleet
in commission in the Baltic. I do not recollect that any particular communi
cations took place on this subject between the British Government, on the one
hand, and those of Russia or Erance on the other.”—Hansard, vol. 97, p. 120.
REGARDING THE COMPARATIVE STRENGTH OF
ENGLAND AND RUSSIA.
(self-contradiction.)
When a Minister avows that he has committed a forgery to
save the honour of an enemy, it is natural to suppose that enemy
to be strong. Lord Palmerston, however, when urged to arm
against Russia, declared that she was weaker than England:—
Lord Palmerston, December 14,1837..
" Does he suppose that Russia—ay, even that same Russia which he seems
so desirous to convert into a general alarm-giver—is in a more warlike position
as regards financial matters than Great Britain? I beg to tell him he is.quite
as much mistaken in thinking that Russia at this moment could.find means to
commence an offensive war, as he is in asserting that England is in such a state
as to render her unable to provide for a defensive one. . . I assert that Russia
would find it more difficult to undertake a war, which had not for its object
self-defence, than England.”f
England, then, was strong enough to cope with Russia if both
stood alone; the only danger was lest England should be en
cumbered by the assistance of allies—for instance, France and
Poland:—
Lord Palmerston, July 9, 1833.
“I repeat that a general war must have taken place if England had interfered
by arms; because, on one side there were Russia, Austria, and Prussia enter
taining one opinion, and, on the other, England and Erance were united in a
different interpretation. Austria and Prussia were both in possession of Polish
provinces, and both were interested, or believed themselves interested (which
is much the same thing), in establishing the interpretation put by Russia on
the Treaty. And what was the state of the disposable army of these Powers?
Russia had an army in Poland against which the Poles were scarcely able to
make head; Austria had an army on the Austrian frontier of Poland; while
Prussia had concentrated her forces on the Russian frontier;. and if the British
Government had wished to make the fate of the Poles certain, and to involve
them in a contest with forces so superior as to render resistance on their part
for a week impossible, they had nothing to do but to declare that they would,
by force of arms, compel Russia to maintain the Constitution of Poland.”^
Lord Palmerston succeeded in persuading the British Par
liament that Austria was the enemy of Poland. That the reverse
* Opinions of Lord Palmerston, pp. 356-7.
f Ibid. pp. 362-3.
J Ibid. pp. 244-5.
�32
was the truth, has lately been established by the public testimony
of a Polish Gentleman whose character and whose knowledge of
the subject are alike unimpeachable:—
Count Zamoyski, July 11, 1861.
“ I remember, when the insurrection broke out in Warsaw, the people looked
up to the Austrian Consul as their friend. There was no English Consul and
no French Consul. No impediment was raised in the way of any man in
Galicia passing the frontier and joining the army. We had several regiments
formed of Galicians. Austria, at that very time, far from being offended at the
Galicians, actually supported the insurrection. The Emperor of Austria
issued a proclamation to the Province in which be announced that six months’
taxes would be.remitted as a token of gratitude for their conduct during the
struggle. Their conduct .consisted in collecting money and men, and sending
them to the Polish insurrection. The Plenipotentiary of the Austrian Govern
ment at the Congress of Vienna was Prince Metternich. Now, the Prince,
during the Polish insurrection of 1831, concealed himself from the Russian
Embassy, but he saw the Polish Envoy every evening, receiving him by the back
door of his house. He conferred with him, and expressed the greatest sym
pathy with Poland, but regretted he could do nothing so long as England and
France took no action. He actually ended every conference about Poland by
saying to the Polish Envoy :—
My dear friend, you lose your time here; you should go to the Govern
ments of Paris and London. We cannot move without having the assurance
and security that they are determined to do the tiling in earnest—to check
Russia at once and for ever.’
. “The Emperor Francis II., of Austria, sent a message through his Mi
nister to the Polish Envoy, and it was to this effect:—
“ ‘ The Emperor feels that he is drawing near his end. He is about to ap
pear before the great Judge. The possession of Galicia weighs upon his con
science as a crime, and he would be happy to restore it to Poland, provided
that it would not be amiexed to Russia.’
“A few years afterwards, the Plenipotentiary of England at Vienna was Lord
Holland, who was then Mr. Henry Fox. He took occasion to observe to
Prince Metternich that he was surprised Austria did not see the benefit
which she would derive from the restoration of Poland, Not knowing what
had happened before, he said Austria had remained quiet, not apprehending the
immense interest she had in the restoration of Poland. This was in 1835.
Metternich’s answer was:—
“ ‘Do you think we do not know and understand that ? Give me the as
surance that Poland will be restored in twenty-four hours, and I will subscribe
to it at once. But do you think it is an easy matter to accomplish ? It wants
the assistance, of you English and French. Give me the assurance that you are
willing to do it, and I am ready. I will ask no compensation for Galicia. The
compensation, of course, would be the re-establishment of the barrier between
ourselves and Russia.’
“ The Polish Envoy at Vienna in 1831 was my own brother, so I have this
from a good source.”
REGARDING POLAND.
(equivocation.)
It was not enough to persuade the British Parliament that
Austria was hostile to Poland, it was necessary to profess a be
lief that Poland would continue to exist as a State. This was
merely a matter of the careful placing of words. In 1832 it was
�33
impossible to exterminate a large kingdom morally or politically.
Nobody dared to say, “Your words are inappropriate, and therefore
unmeaning.” Four years afterwards it was easy to say that what
lie meant was, that it was impossible to exterminate a nation
morally or physically, and as these words, by virtue of having a
meaning, were the reverse of what he had formerly said, they were
taken to mean the same:—
Lord Palmerston, June 28, 1832.
“ As to the idea which seems to be entertained by several gentlemen of its
being intended to exterminate a large kingdom, either morally or politically, if
it be seriously entertained anywhere, it is so perfectly impracticable that I
think there need he no apprehension of its being attempted.”*
Lord Palmerston, April 20, 1836.
" What I, on the occasion referred to, said, was this—that it was impossible
for Russia to exterminate, nominally^ or physically, a nation. I did not say king
dom. A kingdom is a political body, and may be destroyed ; but a nation is
an aggregate body of men; and what I stated was that if Russia did entertain
the project, which many thinking people believe she did, of exterminating the
Polish nation, she entertained what it was hopeless to accomplish, because it
was impossible to exterminate a nation, especially a nation of so many millions
of men as the Polish Kingdom, in its divided state, contained.”!
The conduct of Lord Palmerston in respect to Poland cannot
be better summed up than in the words of Mr. Hennessy,
July 2, 1861:
“ I have said that England has been to blame throughout the whole of this
business. When Lord Clarendon touched the Polish question he did it damage.
Lord Aberdeen and other British statesmen of our day injured it. But the
Minister who has from the beginning to this hour done the most against Poland
is the present Premier. It may surprise some hon. Members to be told that,
when other great Powers were anxious to assist Poland, the noble Lord on
behalf of England, stepped in and prevented them. Had I myself heard such a
statement some time ago, I should probably have been surprised also. But
this session I have seen many things which must lessen the confidence of
the country in the noble Lord. I have observed him rise in his place and
lose his temper when accused by one of his own supporters of falsifying Sir
A. Burnes’s despatches. I have watched influential Members of the Liberal
party recording their votes against the noble Lord when that grave charge was
denied but not disproved. I have heard another supporter of the Govern
ment, when he brought forward the case of the Baron de Bode, taunted by the
noble Lord with bringing forward a case involviug fraud, and I have then
seen, on that issue, the Minister defeated by a majority of this House, and
the charge of fraud flung back upon the noble Lord. And, not the least dis
graceful, I have seen the House counted out by the Government when charges
equally serious were made against the noble Viscount by the noble Lord near me
(Lord Robert Montagu.)”
In reply to this charge, namely, that of having used the power
of England against Poland, and having been guilty of acts which
rendered his denial unworthy of belief, Lord Palmerston was
not able to utter a syllable.
* Opinions of Lord Palmerston, p. 202.
+ Azc.
J Opinions of Lord Palmerston, p. 315.
�34
REGARDING THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE TREATY
OF VIENNA.
(mental reservation.)
_The only difficulty in the way of Lord Palmerston’s betrayal
of Poland has lain in the Treaty of Vienna, by which we were
bound to maintain Poland in the enjoyment of certain rights.
Out of this difficulty Lord Palmerston easily extricates him
self. On August 8, 1831, Mr. Hunt presented a petition pray
ing the House of Commons to address the King to dismiss Lord
Palmerston from his councils for not having assisted Poland.
Mr. Hume said we were bound by treaty to see justice done to
Poland:—
“Lord Palmerston could not, consistently ■with his duty, give the hon.
Member those explanations which he desired; but this, at least, he would
undertake to say, that ichatever obligations existing Treaties imposed, would at
all times receive the attention of Government.”
On August 16, 1831, on a Motion for papers by Colonel
Evans, after an attack by Mr. Hume:—
“ Lord Palmerston hoped that nothing he had said, and nothing he had
omitted to say, would lead any man to suppose that the British Government
had forgotten any obligations imposed upon it by Treaties, or that it was not
prepared to fulfil those Treaties.”
This was before Warsaw had fallen, and while the cessation of
intercourse between England and Russia might have saved
Poland. He denied that England was bound to maintain the
Treaty of Vienna by force. But then he coupled this doctrine
with the hypothesis that England had to stand alone against the
other Powers. On June 28, 1832, in reply to Mr. Cutlar
Fergusson, he said:—
“ England lay under no peculiar obligation, individually and independently
of the other contracting parties, to adopt measures of direct interference by
force.”
At this time it was supposed in England that Austria and
Prussia were ready to make war in concert with Russia, and that
all the other Powers would have been neutral. Now, it is known
that Austria, France, Turkey, Sweden, and Persia were on the
side of Poland, and had to be restrained by Lord Palmerston.
He, however, is quite equal to the emergency. Pie shifts his
doctrine to the very simple one that a State making a joint
Treaty is not bound to enforce it if one of the parties choose to
violate it.
On February 27, 1863, Lord Palmerston, in reply to Mr.
Hennessy, said:—
“ The hon. Member assumes that by the Treaty of Vienna we are under
an obligation to interfere with the affairs of Poland. We have a right to
interfere, but we are under no obligation to do so.”
�35
When, therefore, Lord Palmerston told Mr. Hume that the
British Government had not forgotten any obligations imposed
upon it by Treaties, he made a mental reservation that there were
no such obligations. Falsehood here emulates the simplicity of
truth, and by that simplicity triumphs.
REGARDING THE RUSSO-DUTCH LOAN.
(FORGERY IN COLLUSION WITH THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADORS.)
Connected with the Polish Revolution is the payment of the
Russo-Dutch Loan, and with that again the separation of Belgium
from Holland. The continued payment to Russia of this loan
after it had lapsed by this separation, according to the Treaty
of 1815, was obtained by a most elaborate falsehood concerted
between Lord Palmerston and the Russian Ambassadors.
This falsehood, told in 1832, is contrary to all the evidence, and
especially to Lord Palmerston’s own prior statement. The
substance of it was that Russia had been willing to ensure a
compulsory observance of the Treaty of 1815, and had offered to
march 60,000 men into Belgium for that purpose.
The statement first appears in a note from the Russian Ambas
sadors to Lord Palmerston, dated January 25, 1831. They
declare, at the same time, that in all their conversations with Lord
Palmerston they have reserved their right to the continuance
of the payments as the condition on which they adhered to the
Protocol of the 20th of December 1830. This Protocol they
describe as one which “ does not yet take away the sovereignty
of the King of the Netherlands.” - Yet the Protocol declares
that u the very object of the UnioQ of Belgium with Holland
finds itself destroyed, and that thenceforth it becomes indis
pensable to recur to other arrangements to accomplish the in
tentions to the execution of which the Union should have served
as a means.”
Loan Palmerston, February 18,1831.
“ They (the Conference) were not to concern themselves with the question
whether Belgium, having won her freedom with her arms, should or should not
be subject again to Holland, and no such interference took place.”*
The Protocol of the 20th December, 1830, like every other, was
signed by Russia; she was therefore bound to adhere to it. The
offer of the 60,000 men must, then, have been made not only before
the 25th of January, 1831, but before the 20th of December,
1830—the date of the Protocol.
The offer must also have been known to foreign Powers, since
the Emperor abstained from following up this determination,
4<out of respect to the representations of his Alfies, and princiOpinions of Lord Palmerston, p. 156.
�36
pally out of deference to the opinions and wishes of the Cabinet
of London.”
It was not till the 4th November, 1830, that the King of Hol
land invoked the interference of the Five Powers; it was not
till the 10th that he consented to an armistice. The offer must,
therefore, have been made between the 10th November and the
20th December, 1830. The offer was not for many months com
municated to the public, nor to the Parliament, nor to the Minis
ters themselves. The letter of the 25th January appears to have
lain (unanswered) in Lord Palmerston’s desk till the time came
round for the December payment.
The payments were made twice in the year, the one per cent,
of the principal being paid in July, the interest in December.
The Treaty stipulated for the lapse of a year before the payments
should cease. The July payment was therefore made without
hesitation. But the December one was beyond the stipulated
term. The Comptroller of the Exchequer demurred to the pay
ment. So grave was the objection which he raised, that the case
was submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown. Then it was
that Lord Palmerston first produced the letter of the Russian
Ambassadors reciting this offer, and it was upon this letter that
he obtained an opinion favourable to the Russian claim, and con
sequently the payment of the usual December instalment.
The legality of this payment was warmly contested in both Houses,
and on several occasions. But in spite of this apparent pressure,
the offer of the 60,000 men, which, according to the prevalent
notions of the day, would have justified the payment to Parlia
ment, was still kept in reserve. Sir Thomas Denman, it is true,
referred to a Russian document which had influenced his own
legal opinion, and the non-production of which he deplored. But
the document was not produced. The motives which induced its
suppression appear to have continued for fifteen years, after which
period it was laid before Parliament and printed.
The story of a proposed forcible intervention came out he
France, on the opening of the Chambers in 1832, in the shape of
a boast by M. Casimir Perier that he had threatened with war
any Power that should presume to send forces into Belgium. He
attributed the “ salvation of Belgium” to the promptitude of that
declaration. The Duke of Wellington was indignant at this
statement, and denounced it in the House of Lords as a falsehood.
On the 16th March, 1832, he
“ Most distinctly denied the assumption of M. Perier, namely, that other
nations had evinced an intention of interfering by force. The British Govern
ment had no such intention, nor had any of the other Powers ; and he would
add that the French Government knew that such was the case.”—Hansard,
vol. 11, p. 307.
�37
Lord Grey confirmed the statement of the Duke of Wel
lington.
Some months afterwards, on the 12th of July, Lord Patbrought forward the Russian statement in Parliament
for the first time:—
merston
“In the beginning of October, 1830, the King of the Netherlands applied
to his Allies, telling them his authority had been overthrown in Belgium, and
he asked for military assistance to enable him to re-establish it. Such an appli
cation was made to Great Britain, to Austria, to Russia, and to Prussia. What
was the answer—not of the present, but of the late Administration ? Why,
they declined to afford the military assistance required of them. What, how
ever, was the answer of the Emperor of Russia ? He signified to his Allies
that he had 60,000 men on his frontiers, ready to march for the pur
pose of re-establishing the authority of the King of the Netherlands, if the
other contracting parties to the Treaty were of opinion that such a proceeding
would be consistent with the general interest.”—Hansard, vol. 14, p. 326.
The message of the King of Holland was dated the 4th No
vember. By the 29th Russia required every man, whose services
she could command, to defend herself in Poland, transferring them
from the remotest stations, and leaving naked her most exposed
frontiers. Nobody got up to question the reality of the offer, or
to state the impossibility of its execution. The Duke-of Wel
lington, who had contradicted the statement before it was put
into a definite shape, remained silent.
From that moment the assertion of Lord Palmerston has
been accepted as truth.
This assertion, so long delayed, has no other evidence than that
it is made by the Russian Ambassadors in the letter above men
tioned. That letter, marked “ confidential,” appears never to
have been answered; an answer to it appears, however, to have
been imperative, since it invokes the 11 spirit and the letter of the
Treaty.” The new Treaty commences by declaring that com
plete agreement between the spirit and the letter does not exceed
On the grounds above stated there can be no doubt that the
assertion of Lord Palmerston was false.
Upon this falsehood was obtained the payment of the instal
ment, and through it the payments have continued up to the
present time. It therefore represented a value for Russia, limiting
it to a pecuniary one, of l,837,500Z.
It will also appear from the circumstances and context that the
Russian note of the 25th January, 1831, never had existence.
The need of something to show having arisen at a posterior
date, such a document was forged. It was collusively assumed
between the parties to have been presented by the one and ac
cepted by the other at the time of its date.
�38
.REGARDING RUSSIA AND TURKEY.
(self-contradiction.)
Nearly all the falsehoods already collected have reference to
Russia, and were told for her interest. Secresy and intrigue
have not sufficed to keep down Turkey in the interest of Russia.
Direct falsehoods have been supplied. Among the most obvious
of them is one about the Treaty of Adrianople. By this Treaty
Russia obtained possession of the mouth of the Danube. Lord
Palmerston actually denied that she had obtained by that
Treaty any territory in Europe. He gave an argument in sup
port of his assertion, namely, that she was under a Treaty obliga
tion to make no such acquisition. The obligation, of course, had
no geographical limits. This additional falsehood is important,
because it shows at a glance that Lord Palmerston was not un
acquainted with the truth, but wilfully perverted it.
Lord Palmerston, August 7, 1832.
“ If ever there was just ground for going to war, Russia had it for going to
war with Turkey. She did not, however, on that occasion, acquire any increase
of territory, at least in Europe. I know that there was a continued occupation
of certain points, and some additional acquisitions on the Euxine, in Asia; but
she had an agreement with the other European Powers, to the effect that suc
cess in that war should not lead to any aggrandisement in Europe, I think the
official situation I hold in this House renders it my duty to state facts like
these.”*
Lord Palmerston, April 20, 1836.
“ Undoubtedly, when Russia acquired a portion of the Danube by the Treaty
of Adrianople, that part of the river fell within the scope of the Treaty of
Vienna, as being a part of Russia.” f
REGARDING THE TREATY OF JULY 15, 1840.
(ERASURE OF HANSARD.)
The turning point in the career of Lord Palmerston, and in
the history of the world, is the Treaty of 1840, for the Pacification
of the Levant, by the four Powers to the exclusion of France.
By this Treaty Russia was authorised to occupy Constantinople.
The meaning of the transaction as regards Russia and Turkey
was concealed by the device of the quarrel between the Sultan
and the Pasha of Egypt. England affected to side with the
former, France supported the latter. But though Englishmen
were easily mystified as regards Russia and Turkey, they were not
disposed to sacrifice the good understanding with France. It be
came necessary to make it be believed in Parliament that no insult
had been offered to France. Mr. Hume demanded the production
of the Treaty. Lord Palmerston refused to produce it because
it had not been ratified, and was therefore not yet valid, but he
declared that the Treaty which he refused to the English Parlia
* Opinions of Lord Palmerston, p. 216.
f Ibid., p. 314.
�39
ment he had already, as a mark of confidence, forwarded to the
French Government. This statement was doubly false. No copy
of the Treaty was sent to the French Government for two months
after its signature. By a Protocol signed on the same day as the
Treaty, it was to come into operation without waiting for ratifica
tion.
Loud Palmerston, Avgust 6,1840.
“ My honourable Friend (Mr. Htjme) asked for a copy of the Convention that
had been entered into with the great Powers: that a Convention had been
entered into was certain, but it was not fulfilled until it was ratified and ex
changed by each of the Powers that were parties to it; and until this was
done it was impossible that the document could be made public, or that it
could be laid before Parliament.”—Hansard, vol. 55, p. 1371.
Extract erom Protocol oe July 15,1840.
“ The said Plenipotentiaries, in virtue of their full powers, have agreed
between them Xhat the preliminary measures mentioned in Article II. of the
said Convention shall be put in execution immediately, without waiting for the
exchange of ratifications; the respective Plenipotentiaries state formally by
the present Act the assent of their Courts to the immediate execution of these
measures.”*
These measures were the employment of the British fleet
against Mehemet Ali, and—if she had assisted him—against
France.
Lord Palmerston, August 6, ] 840.
“ In the case of the Convention between France and England, with respect
to Belgium, that Convention was not communicated to the Belgian Govern
ment till after it was ratified; whilst, in the present case, the Treaty was for
warded to France two days after it was signedTimes, August 7, 1840.
Lord Palmerston to M. Guizot, September 16, 1840.
“ The Undersigned had the honour, on the 17th July, to inform his Excellency
M. Guizot, that a Convention upon the affairs of Turkey had been signed on the
15th of that month, &c. . . . The ratifications of that Convention having now
been exchanged, the Undersigned has the honour of transmitting to M.
Guizot, for the information of the French Government, a copy of that Conven
tion and of its annexes.”!
The falsehood of the 6 th August was told for the House of
Commons. We quote it from the Times’ report of the next day.
But, though the House of Commons accepted the statement without inquiry, there were others who could not be deceived by it.
M. Guizot has just published the History of his Embassy to
the Court of St. James in 1840. In it this passage occurs:—
“ On the 16th of September, when all the ratifications had arrived and been
exchanged in London, Lord Palmerston at length made known to us officially
and textually the Treaty of the 15th of July.”
The Appendix to the Correspondence contains the reply of
M. Thiers to a Memorandum of Lord Palmerston of the
31st August, in which he (M. Thiers) says:—
* Convention for the Pacification of the Levant, presented by command.
1841.
f Correspondence relative to the Affairs of the Levant, Part II., p. 190.
�40
“ All at once, on the 17th of July, Lord Palmerston calls to the Foreign
Office the Ambassador of France, and informs him that a Treaty had been
signed the day before yesterday; he tells him this without even communicating
to him the text of the Treaty.”
In another place, speaking of this Treaty, he says :—
“ Which was not communicated to it until two months later.”—Pp. 453,455.
M. Guizot says of this Despatch of M. Thiers:—
“ I read it to Lord Palmerston, who had returned the same day from the
country, and gave him a copy of it.”—P. 318.
When, therefore, Lord Palmerston corrected his speech for
Hansard, he erased the falsehood which had had such an effect
in the House, and substituted the following indistinct and un
meaning form of words:—
“ The four Powers then determined, in accordance with the regulation already
made with France, that they would join in carrying the arrangement into effect,
and notice of the same was given to the French Minister two dags after it was
completed. In the case of the Convention made between France and England
alone, in reference to Belgium, notice of the same was not communicated to
the other Powers till some time after.”—Hansard, vol 55, p. 1378.
If this falsehood had been detected on the night of its utterance,
the career of Lord Palmerston might have been closed.
Lord Palmerston, ever since he has been Foreign Secretary,
harS pretended a great regard for the independence and integrity
of the Ottoman Empire. He said, 11th July, 1833:—
“ The integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire are necessary to
the maintenance of the tranquillity, the liberty, and the balance of Power in the
rest of Europe.”*
No change has taken place in Lord Palmerston’s conduct to
Turkey since he ventured to express a very different opinion.
On the 5th of February, 1830, being in opposition, he for once
spoke out his intentions:—
“I object to the policy of making the integrity of the Turkish dominions in
Europe an object essentially necessary to the interests of Christian and civilised
Europe.”!
These falsehoods are presented here disconnected from the con
sideration of the subjects to which they relate. It is sufficient
that the designs attempted require the use of falsehood for any
honest man to condemn them; they might be arrested in their
course by a nation which, though unable to comprehend treason,
should at least resolve to punish falsehood. But this process will
cease to be effective when, at length, the time shall have arrived
in which falsehood shall no longer be necessary for the success of
treason.
* Opinions of Lord Palmerston, p. 246.
C. WHITING, BEAUFORT HOUSE, STRAND.
f Ibid., p. 131.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Contradictions of Lord Palmerston in reference to Poland and Circassia et caetera
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
St Pancras Committee on Foreign Affairs
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 40 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. The Report originally appeared under the title 'Falsehood as a Method of Government'. Printed by C. Whiting, London. Includes bibliographical references.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Hardwicke
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1863
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5247
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Contradictions of Lord Palmerston in reference to Poland and Circassia et caetera), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Subject
The topic of the resource
Foreign Relations
Great Britain
Politics
Conway Tracts
Foreign Relations
Great Britain-Politics and Government-1837-1901
Henry John Temple
Press