THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (_continued_).
The Session of 1860--Debates on Nice and Savoy--Mr. Gladstone's
Budget--The French Commercial Treaty--The Paper Duties Bill--Lord
Palmerston's Motion of Inquiry--Mr. Gladstone's Resolution--Lord
John Russell's Reform Bill--It falls flat--Mr. James Wilson
and Sir Charles Trevelyan--The Defences of India and Great
Britain--Foreign Affairs in the Queen's Speech--The Massacre
by the Druses--The French Expedition--Palmerston's Distrust of
Napoleon--China once more--Repulse on the Peiho--Lord Elgin and
Baron Gros--The Advance on Pekin--Capture of the Taku Forts--Futile
Negotiations--Treacherous Treatment of the British Envoys--The
Summer Palace looted--Release of Mr. Parkes--Lord Elgin decrees the
Destruction of the Palace--It perishes in the Flames--The Treaty
of Peace--The Prince of Wales in Canada--Death of the Duchess of
Kent--The American Civil War--Causes of Dispute between North and
South--Election of Lincoln--Secession of South Carolina--Her Example
followed--The Confederate States--Fall of Fort Sumter--Lincoln
calls out the Militia--He places the South under Blockade--The
British Cabinet declares Neutrality--The Order in Council--Affair
of the _Trent_--Capture of Mason and Slidell--Excitement in
England--Canadian Loyalty--Russell's Ultimatum--His Correspondence
with Seward--Release of the Envoys--The Paper Duties Bill and the
Church Rates Bill--Sidney Herbert and the Volunteers.
The Session of 1860 opened on the 24th of January, her Majesty delivering
the Royal Speech in person. In the debates on the Address, affairs in
Italy became a prominent topic of discussion, especially the part that
France had played after the war in demanding the cession of Savoy and
Nice. In the Upper House Lord Brougham expressed his opinion that the
Italians should be allowed to work out their own freedom, without the
interference of foreigners, whether French, Sardinian, or Austrian. No
doubt they would do it, if Austrian interference could be got rid of;
but that was precisely the difficulty that rendered the interference of
the other Powers necessary. Lord Derby objected to Britain joining any
conference on the subject at all. On the 7th of February the Marquis of
Normanby brought forward a distinct motion upon the subject. The noble
lord--who had been distinguished as a Whig, and something more, and
whose ultra-Liberalism when Viceroy of Ireland had exposed him to much
animadversion, was converted to ultra-Conservatism by his residence as
ambassador in Italy--became during this Session the zealous partisan of
the despots whom the people had deposed. He moved an Address to the Queen
on the subject of the proposed annexation of Savoy. After some strong
language from Lord Derby and others the motion was withdrawn. But, on
the 14th of the same month, Lord Normanby brought forward another motion
in reference to the new Government of Central Italy, which he denounced
in the strongest terms of reprobation. The Marquis of Clanricarde ably
answered the vituperative speech of Lord Normanby and contradicted his
allegations from his own personal knowledge. The fiscal burdens under
which, according to Lord Normanby, the people of Sardinia groaned, the
noble marquis declared to be as nothing compared with the taxation endured
by Venetia, which was, in fact, absolute confiscation. The motion was for
the production of papers, and it was agreed to. There had been similar
discussions in the House of Commons, which led Lord John Russell, on the
12th of March, to make a formal statement about Italy, the object of which
was to vindicate the course taken by the Government. But the discussions
led to no practical result; inasmuch as, whatever might be the feeling
about the extension of the French frontiers by the annexation of Savoy and
Nice, the House was unanimously of opinion that it should not be made a
ground of war with France.
Great interest was felt at the opening of this Session about the
forthcoming financial statement of Mr. Gladstone, and the Treaty of
Commerce with France, which had been recently signed, but the terms of
which had not been laid before Parliament. This very important concession
to the doctrines of Free Trade had been negotiated by Mr. Cobden and
M. Rouher, the French Minister, and represented the better side of
Napoleon's policy. The 6th of February was fixed for the Budget, but the
illness of Mr. Gladstone caused its postponement to the 10th. His speech
on that occasion lasted four hours and was distinguished by all his
accustomed clearness, force, and eloquence. On the 21st of February Mr.
Du Cane moved a resolution against the Budget to the effect that, while
recognising the necessity of providing for the increased expenditure
of the coming financial year, the House was of opinion that it was not
expedient to add to the existing deficiency by diminishing the ordinary
revenue, and was not prepared to disappoint the just expectations of the
country by re-imposing the income-tax at an unnecessarily high rate. A
debate followed, which was continued by adjournment on the two following
days; and the result was a division, which, in a very full House, gave
to the Government a majority of 116; thus deciding the question of its
financial policy and of the Treaty of Commerce with France. A more formal
sanction, however, to this treaty was afterwards given on the motion of
Mr. Byng, who proposed to present an Address to her Majesty, expressing
the acknowledgment of the House for the treaty. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Baines; but Mr. Horsman moved an amendment to the effect that
the treaty imposed unnecessary and impolitic restrictions on the Crown
and Legislature of this country and prayed for the omission of the 11th
article from the treaty. This amendment was rejected by a majority of 282
against 56.
The financial measures of the Government raised an important
constitutional question as to the power of the House of Lords. When the
Paper Duty Repeal Bill, which had passed the House of Commons, came up
for first reading in the Upper House, Lord Monteagle gave notice that he
should, at the proper time, move its rejection. The second reading was
moved by Lord Granville on the 21st of May. Having explained the measure,
he asked in conclusion, whether it was desirable that the House of Lords,
now so popular, should furnish ground for declamation and agitation by
introducing a new system, and making its hand seen and felt in every
burden that pressed upon the people. The question, as raised by Lord
Lyndhurst in an able speech, was, whether the Lords had a right to reject
a money Bill that the Commons had adopted. Undoubtedly they possessed
the right, but it had been long in suspense. "No one," wrote Lord John
Russell to Lord Palmerston, who took the matter very lightly, "can deny
the right of the Lords to throw out the Paper Duty Repeal Bill any more
than they can deny the right of the Crown to make a hundred peers a day
or of the Commons to reject the Mutiny Bill. But the exercise of a right
that has lain dormant since the Revolution must give a great shock to the
Constitution." The result, after a long and able debate, was that the Bill
was rejected by a majority of 89, the numbers, including proxies, being
for the bill, 104; against it, 193. Lord Malmesbury, in his "Memoirs,"
gives the curious piece of information that he gratuitously offered
through Lady Palmerston, in the name of Lord Derby, the support of the
Conservative party for the remainder of the Session, in the event of the
resignation of Lord John Russell and Mr. Gladstone, and that the offer
was gladly accepted. The rejection of the Bill was hailed as a great
Conservative triumph; but among the Liberal party, both in the House of
Commons and out of doors, it excited a strong feeling against the Lords,
who were believed to have arrogated to themselves unconstitutional power
in subjecting the nation to a continuance of financial burdens, not being
representatives of the people. The feeling of hostility, however, was
mitigated by the consideration that the Lords were right in deeming it
inexpedient, at that time, when the Continental situation was full of
anxiety, to forego the income derived from the paper duties. There was,
of course, great irritation in a large section of the House of Commons,
but any further collision was averted by Lord Palmerston, who moved the
appointment of a committee of 21 to search for precedents on the subject.
The report of the committee was purely historical. The Premier adroitly
made it the basis of a series of resolutions which he moved on the 6th
of July, to the effect that the right of granting aids and supplies
to the Crown is in the Commons alone, as an essential part of their
constitution; and the limitation of all such grants as to the matter,
manner, measure, and time, is only in them. In moving this resolution,
the noble lord noticed one fact which furnished an excuse for the course
adopted by the Lords--namely, that during the interval between the second
and third reading in the Commons, the majority had dwindled down from
fifty-three to nine; a fact that could not be overlooked. He advised the
House, therefore, as the most dignified course, to be satisfied with
the declaration of its constitutional privileges. Three amendments were
proposed; but as Mr. Disraeli offered to Lord Palmerston the tribute of
his adhesion to the "patriotic speech" with which he had introduced the
motion, the amendments were withdrawn and the resolution was unanimously
adopted. These resolutions were not believed by the Liberal party to
go as far as the case demanded. Accordingly, on the 17th of July, Lord
Fermoy moved the following resolution:--"That the rejection by the
House of Lords of the Bill for the repeal of the paper duties is an
encroachment on the rights and privileges of the House of Commons; and
it is therefore incumbent on this House to adopt a practical measure for
the vindication of its rights and privileges." Lord Palmerston, however,
deprecated the renewal of the discussion and moved the previous question.
It was generally felt that Lord Fermoy's motion was ill-timed. It was
accordingly negatived by a majority of 177 to 138.
[Illustration: WILLIAM EWART GLADSTONE (1860).]
The question of the paper duties, however, the abolition of which
was assumed in the French Treaty, was yet to be settled; and Mr.
Gladstone--who was at serious issue with his chiefs on many points,
notably the expediency of spending nine millions on the fortifications
of Portsmouth and Plymouth--moved a resolution upon the subject, on
the 6th of August, when he exposed and refuted the arguments of the
paper manufacturers, showing that they were nothing better than the old
fallacies of the Protectionists; and he argued, moreover, that the House
was bound by the French Treaty to abandon the paper duty. So far as
intention was concerned, the articles of the treaty showed, beyond the
possibility of dispute, that our meaning was to part with every vestige
of the protective policy. The House of Commons had given its consent
to the treaty, and a specific pledge that it would take the necessary
steps to give it effect. With regard to the absence of reciprocity, the
protectionist interest in France was too strong for the Government. But
Mr. Gladstone regarded the prohibition of the export of rags as utterly
insignificant, because France was a dear country for rags, and was obliged
to import them for its own use. Mr. Puller moved, as an amendment, "That
without desiring to prejudice the question of a reduction, at a future
period, of the duty on books and paper, this committee does not think fit
at present to assent to such reduction." The amendment was rejected, and
the resolutions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, abolishing the duties,
were adopted.
[Illustration: DEMONSTRATION AGAINST THE CHRISTIANS IN DAMASCUS. (_See p._
315.)]
On the 1st of March Lord John Russell experienced in his own person the
wonderful changes in public sentiment that had passed over England in the
course of a single generation. He still clung to the idea that it was
necessary to do something to complete the great measure of Parliamentary
Reform, to supply its defects, and to adapt it to the altered condition
of society produced by the marvellous development of manufacturing
industry. Having been mainly instrumental in defeating the Reform Bill
of the Conservative Administration, he felt it the more incumbent upon
him to redeem the promises repeatedly made to complete the reform of the
representation of the people. He did not find fault with his own great
measure of 1832; on the contrary, with true paternal affection, he avowed
his firm belief that no measure had so few faults. What he proposed to
do was, in a simple manner, to supply its unavoidable omissions and
remedy its necessary defects. He then went into details, to which it is
unnecessary here to allude. The public took no interest whatever in the
question, as Lord Palmerston told him in language of remarkable bluntness.
This undeniable fact suggested a topic in his favour, the noble lord no
doubt forgetting that he had relied on arguments and facts of an opposite
kind thirty years before. He thought that the Legislature ought not to
wait for an agitation that would force demands upon Parliament. The
concession of just claims should not be delayed because they were not
urged. Leave was given to bring in a Bill for England; Mr. Cardwell, Chief
Secretary for Ireland, brought in a similar Bill the same evening for that
country, as did the Lord Advocate for Scotland. The second reading took
place on the 19th of March; but the report of the proceedings describes
the debate as so utterly devoid of interest that it was difficult to keep
the House together. Lord Palmerston made a speech, which, as Mr. Disraeli
happily said, was "not so much in support of as about Reform." It was
protracted by repeated adjournments from the 19th of March till the 3rd
of May, when the second reading was adopted without a division. The 4th
of June was fixed for going into committee on the Bill, when Lord John
Russell explained the course which the Government meant to take. But Sir
J. Fergusson moved an amendment on the motion that the Speaker leave the
chair, seconded by Colonel Dickson, that the debate should be adjourned
until the Irish and Scottish Bills were before the House, in order that
the three might advance _pari passu_. After a debate on this motion, the
House divided, when it was rejected by a majority of 21, the numbers
being--For the adjournment, 248; against it 269. But as the public seemed
to care little what became of the measure, and as it was now quite evident
that it could not pass during that Session, its noble author, on the
11th of June, had to make the humiliating avowal that the Government had
determined to withdraw the Bill. He acknowledged to Lord Palmerston that
"the apathy of the country was undeniable, nor was it a transient humour,"
but the Radicals were furious with the Premier, and as Cobden's biography
proves, speculated on his overthrow.
The affairs of India occupied considerable attention during the Session
of 1860. Its finances had got into a state of confusion, the public debt
was increasing every year, and it was found impossible, by those charged
with the administration, to equalise the income and the expenditure. In
these circumstances, the Home Government had, in the previous year, sent
out Mr. James Wilson as financial member of the Legislative Council at
Calcutta. On his arrival in India he devoted himself to the study of
Indian finances; and when he had mastered the subject, he matured a plan
for the reduction of expenditure, which, in connection with improvements
in the system of taxation, would, he hoped, make matters right. He brought
this plan before the Council in an able and elaborate speech. It was well
received in India and also most favourably in Great Britain; but it did
not meet the approbation of Sir Charles Trevelyan, who had been recently
appointed Governor of Madras and considered himself a very high authority
on Indian affairs. He was betrayed into the indiscretion of attacking
Mr. Wilson's scheme. The conduct of a great public functionary in India,
in thus openly assailing the measures of the Government under which he
served, especially in the then critical state of Indian affairs, presented
an example of imprudence so dangerous that it could not be tolerated; and,
accordingly, the Home Government gave orders for the immediate recall of
Sir Charles Trevelyan. He found able defenders--Mr. Bright among them--in
Parliament. Afterwards, in a debate on Indian finance, which occurred on
the 13th of August, the Secretary for India, Sir Charles Wood, stated
that the recall of Sir Charles Trevelyan was the most painful duty of
his public life. He then went into a discussion of the rival schemes and
came to the conclusion that there must be new taxes. In fact, the classes
best able to bear taxation had hitherto in a great measure escaped it;
merchants and fund-holders could be reached only by means of an income-tax
and this measure was therefore adopted. The result of Mr. Wilson's
scheme realised the most sanguine expectations of its supporters. He was
unfortunately removed by death in the midst of his labours, being cut off
by cholera, at Calcutta, on the 11th of August, after a residence of about
a year in India; but the system he inaugurated was ably carried out by his
successor, Mr. Laing; in consequence of which the resources of India were
very rapidly developed and the country entered upon a career of prosperity
quite unprecedented in its history. Railways were constructed, irrigation
works were restored, private enterprise was encouraged, and social
progress was promoted in every direction; a remarkable instance of the
good that may be effected by sound economic principles, honestly carried
out.
An Act was passed this year for the reorganisation of the Indian army,
which was one of the consequences of the transfer of the government
from the East India Company to the Queen--a benefit to India of immense
magnitude, resulting from the late mutiny. The India Council was opposed
to the change in the army; but the Cabinet sustained Sir Charles Wood
and Parliament sanctioned the measure. On the 12th of June Sir Charles
Wood brought in a Bill to alter the regulation of her Majesty's local
European forces in India. The East India Company had maintained three
armies, one at each presidency, part of which consisted of Europeans,
enlisted in Great Britain for local service in India, the proportion of
which to the Company's native troops was two to one. After the mutiny had
been put down, there was much discontent among the European soldiers with
reference to the new arrangements; in consequence of which many of them
were discharged and sent home. It was resolved, after much consideration,
that our military power in India should consist of a uniform force,
instead of the anomaly of two European armies. After a lengthened debate,
Sir Charles Wood replied to the objections that had been made to the Bill,
and the House divided, when the second reading was carried by a majority
of 289 to 53. The Bill also encountered some opposition in the Lords, but
the second reading was carried _nem. con._, and it quickly passed through
the other stages and became law. Equally important was the vote for nine
millions for coast defences, defended by Lord Palmerston in a masterly
speech enumerating the dangers to which England was exposed. It caused
great friction in the Cabinet, so much so that Lord Palmerston wrote to
the Queen, "however great the loss to the Government by the retirement of
Mr. Gladstone, it would be better to lose Mr. Gladstone than to run the
risk of losing Portsmouth or Plymouth." The Chancellor of the Exchequer,
however, remained in office, after a hard-hitting correspondence with the
Premier. The Bill passed by large majorities.
The Session was brought to a close on the 28th of August. The Queen
had gone to Scotland and the Royal Speech was delivered by the Lord
Chancellor. It referred to frightful atrocities that had been committed by
the Druses on the Christian population of Syria, who had been massacred
in great numbers in the most treacherous and barbarous manner. Those
atrocities inspired the Queen with the deepest grief and indignation and
her Majesty had cheerfully concurred with the Emperor of Austria, the
Emperor of the French, the Prince Regent of Prussia, and the Emperor of
Russia, in an engagement with the Sultan to send him military assistance,
so long as it would be necessary, to re-establish order in that part of
his dominions. The only one of the parties who fulfilled this engagement,
however, was the Emperor of the French, whose Syrian expedition
accomplished the mission assigned to it in a satisfactory manner. The
Speech also alluded to a joint expedition of French and British forces
sent to the Chinese seas, which were to advance to the northern provinces
of the empire, in order to support the just demands of the Allied Powers,
and to give all possible weight to the diplomatic action of Lord Elgin,
who had gone out as special ambassador for this service. It was he who had
negotiated the Treaty of Tientsin, the faithful and full performance of
which was now demanded from the Emperor of China.
The massacre of the Maronite Christians in Syria, referred to in the Royal
Speech, was one of the most frightful occurrences of the kind on record.
Lord Dufferin, who was appointed British Commissioner in Syria, describes
some of those scenes in his despatches to Sir H. Bulwer, the British
Ambassador at Constantinople. He attributed the massacres and all the
wars, quarrels, and disturbances that had agitated the Lebanon for the
last fifteen years, to the dissatisfaction of the Turkish authorities with
the measure of self-government enjoyed by the Christians. Their policy was
to prove the scheme adopted by the Great Powers in 1845 as impossible.
With this object they stimulated, as occasion served, the chronic
animosity existing between Maronites and Druses. In proportion as foreign
influences exalted the arrogance and fanaticism of the Christians, their
independence became more insufferable to the Turks, and a determination
was arrived at to inflict on them, through the instrumentality of the
Druses, a severer chastisement than they had yet received. But he states
also, that the Christians had been long meditating an onslaught on the
Druses, which was to end in the overthrow of the Turkish authority in
Lebanon. On the 28th of May a general attack was made on the Maronite
villages in the neighbourhood of Beyrout and Lebanon, and they were burnt
to the ground. Next day Hasbeya, a large town under Mount Hermon, was
attacked by the Druses. The Turkish commander told the inhabitants that
if they laid down their arms he would protect them. They did so, and were
sent under a small escort towards Damascus, and were seized on the way
by a body of Druses. Having got rid of the armed men, the treacherous
commander abandoned the place; and, on the 5th of June, the Druses rushed
in and murdered indiscriminately the whole male population in the most
revolting circumstances, the Turkish soldiers assisting in the work of
slaughter. Several other towns were treated in the same manner. The number
of killed in this horrible massacre has been variously estimated; some say
that 900, and others that 1,800 persons were slain. Beyrout itself was
threatened by the infuriated and victorious Druses; and the presence of
an English pleasure-yacht in the harbour, with a single gun, is supposed
to have had more effect in averting the danger than all the troops of the
Turkish Pasha, whose conduct, in fact, showed that he connived at the
massacres. On the 9th of July similar outrages began at Damascus. A mob of
the lowest order of Moslem fanatics assembled in the streets, and instead
of being dispersed by the Turkish troops--of whom there were 700 in the
town, under the command of Ahmed Pasha--they were allowed to increase
until they began a general attack upon the houses in the Christian quarter
and committed many murders. The soldiers sent to quell the disturbance
joined the mob and next day the work of destruction was renewed with
greater violence. On the 11th of July there were about 18,000 or 20,000
Christian inhabitants in the city, and 7,000 or 8,000 poor refugees from
other quarters. Between 11,000 and 12,000 were collected in the castle and
fed by the Government.
These deplorable events, of course, caused strong representations to
be made to the Sultan by the ambassadors of the Christian Powers, in
consequence of which he sent Fuad Pasha, the Minister for Foreign Affairs,
with a strong force, to Syria, to execute summary justice upon the guilty
parties. He did so with a vengeance. At Beyrout he hanged and shot a great
number of Moslems; and the following despatch, transmitted by him to
Constantinople from Damascus, dated August 4, will show the vigour with
which he executed his task:--"Yesterday I arrested 330 persons guilty
of having taken part in the massacres. To-day the number of arrests
exceeds 400. By the day after to-morrow, at the latest, the principal
persons who are seriously compromised will have been apprehended." The
French expedition was under the command of General Beaufort d'Hautpoul,
and left Marseilles in the beginning of August. It numbered about 12,000
men and met with little resistance. By a later convention between the
Great Powers, the stay of the French troops was prolonged till the 26th
of June, 1861, to enable a plan to be formed for the organisation of the
government of the Lebanon and to secure the tranquillity of Syria. Lord
Palmerston was alarmed at this, and believed that Napoleon was determined
on a permanent occupation of the country. From these and other causes
he went so far as to tell the French Ambassador, Count Flahault, that
it was impossible to trust the Emperor any longer, and that if war was
forced on England, England would fearlessly accept it. However, at the end
of July Lord Dufferin was appointed to act as British Commissioner, in
conjunction with commissioners on the part of France, Austria, Prussia,
and Russia. The object of the commission was to inquire into the origin
of the disturbances and outbreak, to alleviate the sufferings and losses
of the Christians, and to make arrangements for the future administration
of Syria, so as to prevent, as far as possible, a recurrence of similar
calamities.
It would seem as if the difficulties with China were destined never to
have an end. The Treaty of Tientsin provided for the appointment of
ambassadors on the part of Great Britain and China to reside at their
respective Courts, and for the permanent establishment of the British
Minister at the Court of Pekin. The Honourable Mr. Bruce, brother of Lord
Elgin, was accordingly sent out in March, 1859. Anticipating the usual
obstacles of Chinese diplomacy in the way of the plenipotentiary to the
metropolis, he was required to do his duty firmly and admit of no excuses;
but insist on the right of presenting his credentials to the Emperor in
person and to require the literal fulfilment of the treaty with regard to
the establishment of the mission permanently at Pekin. A sufficient naval
force was to accompany him to the mouth of the Peiho. He arrived at Hong
Kong in the month of May, and was joined there by M. de Bourboulon, the
French Ambassador. When they reached Shanghai, it was proposed to them by
the Chinese authorities that the ratifications should be exchanged there,
or that, if they must go to Pekin, it should be by land, a journey of two
months, instead of ascending the river Peiho. They, however, insisted on
the latter route, and were escorted by a squadron of gunboats and some
other vessels under the command of Admiral Hope. Proceeding in advance
to reconnoitre the fortifications, he found those demolished last year
now strengthened by additional ditches, with an increased number of more
powerful booms. Few guns were visible, but there were numerous embrasures
masked with matting. After waiting for some days, tantalised with false
promises and evasive answers, Admiral Hope was resolved to force his way
up the river. The first barrier was penetrated, when a tremendous fire
suddenly opened from the forts, where guns of large calibre had been
concealed. The _Plover_ was disabled, the _Kestrel_ sunk in her position,
and the admiral was severely wounded. He then determined to take the forts
by _coup de main_. A landing was effected, in obedience to his orders, on
the evening of the 21st of June, but the attempt completely miscarried.
In consequence of this humiliating repulse, Lord Elgin was again sent
out as British Plenipotentiary, with a powerful expedition, to enforce
the execution of the treaty of which he was the author. General Hope
Grant, then in India, was appointed to the chief command, and several
Sikh regiments volunteered their services. Baron Gros, the French
Plenipotentiary, accompanied Lord Elgin. They arrived at Hong Kong on the
21st of June, 1860. On the 25th of July the French expedition joined the
British near the mouth of the Peiho river; disembarking at Pehtang, where
they remained encamped to the 12th of August. In the meantime an ultimatum
had been sent to Pekin, demanding satisfaction for the treacherous attack
on the British, the immediate ratification of the treaty at Pekin,
permission to proceed in a British vessel to Tientsin, and an escort
to conduct the British Ambassador with due honour to Pekin. The French
Ambassador joined in these demands, which also included an indemnity for
the losses sustained. The Great Council answered this despatch, stating
that its contents had filled them with the greatest astonishment, and that
they were altogether contrary to "decorum."
[Illustration: THE IMPERIAL PALACE, PEKIN, LOOKING NORTH.]
Nothing now remained for the Allies but to fight their way to the
metropolis. They advanced along the banks of the Peiho, constructing
bridges over the creeks and ditches, till, arriving within a mile of
Taku, they encountered the enemy's batteries, which they carried by
storm, routing the Chinese garrison, and capturing forty-five guns. They
then advanced against the Taku forts, which they assailed with Armstrong
guns at 2,000 yards' range, the Chinese firing upon the troops from all
their forts within range so effectively that our sappers were unable to
lay down the bridge, the men who carried it being knocked over and the
pontoon destroyed. A breach, however, was soon made, our men swarming
across and entering single file in the most gallant manner. At the same
time the French effected an entrance, the garrison was driven back step
by step and hurled pell-mell through the embrasures on the opposite side.
After an hour's desperate fighting, the whole of the forts on both sides
of the river hauled down their war banners and hoisted flags of truce,
but they refused to surrender. In the course of the evening, however,
they abandoned all their positions, leaving 400 guns in the hands of the
Allies. Admiral Hope then advanced to Tientsin, which he occupied. There
he found a placard posted on the walls, announcing that the barbarians
were defeated, and were suing for peace, and that the inhabitants need
not be alarmed. Negotiations were then opened by fresh commissioners of
high rank, whom Messrs. Parkes and Wade were sent to meet at Tangchow,
twenty-five miles distant. On the 15th of September they returned,
having made satisfactory arrangements for Lord Elgin's reception; and
camping-ground had been assigned to the British forces. On arriving at
the spot, however, they found it occupied by a large Chinese army; while
batteries had been hastily thrown up and armed so as to flank the proposed
site of the British camp. Mr. Parkes started back to Tangchow to see the
High Commissioners, and ask the reason of this move. He was accompanied
by Mr. de Morgan, attaché to the British Legation, and by Mr. Bowlby,
correspondent of the _Times_. Meanwhile, the Chinese cavalry, which
were very numerous, had almost entirely surrounded the British forces.
Sufficient time had elapsed for the party to arrive from Tangchow. While
anxiously waiting for them, a sudden attempt was made to assassinate
Colonel Walters and others, including some French officers. Mr. Parkes and
his companions, however, did not return. They were all taken prisoners by
the Chinese, carried off into the interior, and treated with frightful
cruelty; their hands and feet being so tightly bound with cords that in
some instances the flesh burst and mortification ensued.
In consequence of the treachery of the Chinese, their camp was attacked by
the allied forces and the enemy was completely defeated. The authorities
were now willing to negotiate once more; but Lord Elgin refused unless the
prisoners were surrendered in three days, threatening that otherwise his
army would advance to the assault on Pekin. Prince Kung, who now became
the chief negotiator, persisting in the system of evasion, the allied
armies marched forward, and on the 6th of October the French entered
the Summer Palace of the Emperor, which they looted of its inestimable
treasures. Two days afterwards Mr. Parkes and his companions were released
and permitted to join the camp.
The siege guns were placed in position before the walls of the mysterious
metropolis of the vast Chinese empire, and notice had been given to its
defenders that unless it were surrendered before noon of the following
day the attack would commence. The Emperor had departed, on the pretext
that he was obliged to go on a hunting expedition, deputing his authority
to Prince Kung and his Ministers. The latter thought it the wisest course
to surrender unconditionally, in order to save the city from destruction.
The gates were thrown open and the flags of Britain and France were soon
seen floating from the walls. It was the first time for thousands of years
that the sanctity of the Imperial capital was thus violated. In the terms
proposed Lord Elgin stipulated that, if the garrison surrendered, the
city would be spared. He was then in ignorance of the fate of some of
the British prisoners; but when he became acquainted with the horrifying
details he resolved to inflict signal punishment for such barbarous
outrages against humanity: he therefore proposed that the Summer Palace
of the Emperor, the place in which some of the worst tortures had been
inflicted upon the prisoners, should be burnt to the ground. Baron Gros
declined to take part in this measure, but Lord Elgin determined to
act in the matter on his own responsibility. He wrote to Prince Kung,
reminding him that of the total number of twenty-six British subjects
seized in defiance of honour and of the law of nations, thirteen only had
been restored alive, all of whom carried on their persons evidence, more
or less distinctly marked, of the indignities they had suffered; while
thirteen had been barbarously murdered. He declared that until this foul
deed should be expiated, peace between Great Britain and the existing
dynasty of China was impossible. He announced that the Summer Palace must
be forthwith levelled with the ground. He required that the sum of 300,000
taels should be at once paid down, to be appropriated, at the discretion
of her Majesty's Government, to those who had suffered and to the families
of the murdered men; and, lastly, that the whole of the indemnity
stipulated in the Treaty of Tientsin should be paid before the armies of
Britain and France removed from the city, should the Governments of those
countries see fit to adopt that course.
Notwithstanding the indiscriminate loot by which the Summer Palace had
been stripped of all that was portable among its precious treasures,
there yet remained much that was beautiful and gorgeous in that wonderful
abode of Oriental pomp and luxury. It consisted of a series of elegant
and picturesque buildings spread over an extensive park. Lord Elgin was
determined that not a trace of this grandeur should remain and that the
spot on which the blood of British subjects had been so treacherously
and cruelly shed, should for ever remain a monument of British power and
of retributive justice. Accordingly, the buildings were set on fire by a
detachment of our troops and totally destroyed. The Chinese authorities
were now brought to a sense of their real position. They no longer
dared to talk of Lord Elgin's want of decorum, but humbly signed the
convention on the 24th of October. In that treaty the Emperor expressed
his deep regret at the breach of friendly relations that had occurred
by the conduct of the garrison of Taku in obstructing her Majesty's
representative when on his way to Pekin; he conceded the right to her
of having an ambassador resident in that city if she thought proper; he
agreed to pay a sum of 8,000,000 taels, in certain fixed instalments,
as indemnity for the cost of the war. It was also provided that British
subjects were to be allowed to reside and trade at Tientsin, and that
Chinese subjects should be at liberty to emigrate to British colonies, and
to ship themselves and their families on board British vessels; and the
Queen was to have the option of retaining a force at Tientsin and at other
specified places, until the indemnity should be paid. The ratifications
were duly exchanged and the allied armies retired from Pekin to Tientsin
on the 5th of November, 1860.
The Session of 1861 was opened on the 5th of February, by the Queen in
person, who informed her Parliament, among other matters, that she was
glad to take the opportunity of expressing her warm appreciation of the
loyalty and attachment to her person manifested by the Canadians on the
occasion of the residence of the Prince of Wales among them. The Prince
arrived in America on the 24th of July, 1860 and remained there till
the 20th of October. During his tour he was everywhere received with
the greatest enthusiasm, the people of the United States vieing with
the Queen's subjects in Canada in the honours paid to him in popular
demonstrations, addresses, and ovations. If he were to be their own
Sovereign, and if they were royalists of the highest type, they could not
have manifested greater ardour than they did wherever his Royal Highness
went. Not the least interesting incident connected with this tour was his
visit to the tomb of Washington. Yet royal festivities were accompanied by
royal bereavement. The Duchess of Kent died on the 16th of March, 1861,
aged seventy-five years. She had throughout her life enjoyed the respect
of the public, and won the gratitude of the empire, by the excellent
manner in which she had educated and trained the Princess Victoria for
her high destiny as Queen of England. Addresses of condolence on this
melancholy event were therefore unanimously adopted by both Houses--that
of the Upper House being moved by Earl Granville and seconded by the Earl
of Derby; and that of the Lower House by Lord Palmerston and seconded
by Mr. Disraeli, who thus happily concluded his speech:--"For the great
grief which has fallen on the Queen there is only one source of human
consolation--the recollection of unbroken devotedness to the being
whom we have loved and whom we have lost. This tranquil and sustaining
memory is the inheritance of our Sovereign. It is generally supposed
that the anguish of affection is scarcely compatible with the pomp of
power; but that is not so in the present instance. She who reigns over
us has elected, amid all the splendour of empire, to establish her life
on the principle of domestic love. It is this--it is the remembrance and
consciousness of this--which now sincerely saddens the public spirit and
permits a nation to bear its heartfelt sympathy to the foot of a bereaved
throne and whisper solace even to a royal heart."
But these domestic affairs were overshadowed by events in the United
States. Since the beginning of the year, affairs in North America had
assumed a more and more unhappy and alarming character, and the British
Government had felt itself compelled to issue, on the 14th of May, its
celebrated proclamation of neutrality. It is now time, therefore, to
revert to the circumstances in which the great American Union was for
a time broken up and a war of colossal magnitude waged during nearly
four years between the Northern and Southern States. For many years a
feeling of estrangement had been gradually growing up, grounded partly
on differences of economic policy, partly on original want of sympathy
between the inhabitants of each region, but most of all on the continual
collisions to which the question of slavery gave rise. The national
tariff had long been so adjusted as to protect the interests of New
England manufacturers by excluding, with more or less rigidity, the
manufactured products of Great Britain and other European countries;
and the Morrill tariff, passed in March, 1861, carried this principle
of exclusion to a still greater height. That this commercial policy was
injurious to the interests of the South cannot be doubted, since, as they
had no manufactures, they reaped no benefit from protection; while the
tariff impeded that free interchange of their own teeming supplies of
raw material with the products of the industry of other nations, which
was necessary to the full development of their material civilisation.
Again, the original contrast between Virginia and New England--the one
settled by men of aristocratic connections, ruled by territorial instincts
and disposed to Toryism in Church and State; the other by persons of
the middle rank, predisposed to trade and industry and clinging fast to
the "dissidence of Dissent" as their great religious principle--this
contrast was ever present to embitter any misunderstanding that might
arise. But lastly, and chiefly, the relations between North and South
were disturbed by quarrels arising out of slavery. At the time when the
colonies achieved their independence, all the thirteen provinces held
slaves and legalised slavery. But in course of time natural causes--the
labour of a slave not being comparable to that of a free labourer in a
temperate climate--produced the diminution and, finally, the extinction of
slavery in the Northern States. Northern slaveholders sold their slaves
to Southern planters and trusted to the continuous and ever-increasing
emigration from Europe, supplemented by a considerable number of free
blacks, to supply the wants of the labour market. The time came when the
citizens of States that but a short time before had harboured slavery
themselves denounced slavery as a sin. The Abolitionists, among whom
Garrison was the most prominent person, became a strong party at the
North, especially in the New England States; associations were formed
for obstructing the operation of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 and
facilitating the escape of slaves to Canada; and during the ten years that
this law was in force, collisions of more or less magnitude between the
Federal and State judicatures were continually taking place. The death of
John Brown at Harper's Ferry, while attempting to liberate slaves, was
only one of many incidents. But, on the other hand, the proceedings of
the slaveholders and their partisans were, and had been for years, of a
character so outrageous, that conscientious men might well begin to ask
themselves whether, in yielding obedience to the Federal legislation,
which, in order to preserve the Union, sanctioned such things, they were
not breaking a law of higher and more sacred obligation. There was also a
danger, as exemplified in the formation of the new State of Kansas, that
slavery would extend in the territories of the Republic, for Kansas did
not become a Free State until the two sides had shed one another's blood.
The time came for the election of a President to succeed Mr. Buchanan. The
great Republican party at the North represented the feelings that were
lacerated and the convictions that were outraged by the recent course of
events, of which we have given an outline; and in November, 1860, this
party carried its candidate, Abraham Lincoln, against the two Democratic
candidates, Douglas and Breckinridge. The meaning of this nomination was
plain. It announced, "We will have no more compromises." But as, under
the constitution of the United States, every State sends two members to
the Senate, the members of which were at this time pretty evenly balanced,
half from Free, and half from Slave States, the effect of the triumph of
the Republican party, and of the foreseen application of the above policy
in dealing with the territories, could only be that in a few years the
balance of parties in the Senate would be destroyed, as more and more
new, and, necessarily Free, States were admitted into the Union. Then,
argued the slaveholders, the Abolitionists will become more intolerable
than ever; if they give to our domestic institutions for a time an
insulting toleration, it will only be while they gather their forces for
an open assault; the Fugitive Slave Law will be repealed as soon as they
obtain the requisite majority in Congress, and our negro property will be
everywhere depreciated in value, while on the borders of Free States it
will be utterly valueless. Impelled by such motives as these, the people
of South Carolina, which of all the States in the Union had for years
been known to be the most restive under the Federal obligation, met in
convention at Columbia, and on the 20th of December, 1860, voted the State
out of the Union.
The South Carolina politicians had rightly calculated that the example
thus set would soon be followed by other Slave States. Between this date
and May, 1861, the following States adopted ordinances of secession,
voting themselves out of the Union: Mississippi, Florida, Alabama,
Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North
Carolina. The last four States seceded unwillingly from the Union, and
only because, hostilities having broken out, it was practically impossible
for them to remain neutral, and community of interest attracted them to
the Slave States that had already seceded. The first shot fired in anger
in this civil war was aimed from a battery on Morris Island, on the 9th of
January, 1861, at a vessel bringing reinforcements to Fort Sumter. South
Carolina sent commissioners to Washington to negotiate with the President
for the peaceful surrender to her of Federal forts and property within
the limits of the State. Mr. Buchanan, on the eve of retirement, declined
to recognise them in any other capacity but that of private citizens of
South Carolina; however, a sort of informal understanding was arrived at,
that so long as each side remained passive force should not be resorted
to. On the 18th of February the leading men in the seven States that had
then seceded having by this time arranged the terms of a new Federation,
to be called "The Confederate States of America," Mr. Jefferson Davis and
Mr. Stephens were inaugurated at Montgomery, Alabama, as President and
Vice-President of the new confederacy. A Constitution was adopted nearly
resembling that of the United States, the main difference being that the
President was to be elected for six years instead of four, and could not
be re-elected during his term of office.
[Illustration: CAPTURE OF JOHN BROWN AT HARPER'S FERRY. (_See p._ 320.)]
Mr. Lincoln, in his sincere anxiety to avoid bloodshed, did not attempt
to reinforce the garrison of Fort Sumter; but he declared that he must
reprovision it and would use any force that might be required for
the purpose. This was rendered necessary by the conduct of the South
Carolinans, who had stopped the supply of provisions to the fort from the
shore. A fleet was accordingly prepared and despatched to Charleston.
About the same time Major Anderson, the Federal commandant, removing his
men from all the other posts and batteries that he had hitherto held
in the harbour, concentrated his force in the island fort of Sumter.
These measures were declared by the South Carolinans a breach of the
understanding that had hitherto subsisted and their general was ordered to
summon the fort. General Beauregard accordingly summoned Major Anderson
to surrender; upon his refusal, fire was opened from batteries, the
positions of which had been carefully selected so as to surround the fort
with a girdle of fire; the Federals made what resistance they could; but
after the barracks had been burnt, and they were in imminent peril of the
explosion of the magazine, they capitulated on honourable terms. In this
the first conflict of the war, singular to relate, not a man was killed or
mortally wounded on either side. Fort Sumter fell on the 13th of April,
1861.
The news came like a thunder-clap on the feverishly expectant people of
the North. The suspense of the last three months had seriously interfered
with trade, and painfully affected all classes with a sense of uncertainty
and insecurity. Now there must be no more parleying or coaxing; the flag
of the Union had been fired at--had been lowered--it must be raised again
at all hazards. Mr. Lincoln, justly interpreting the general sentiment,
issued on the 15th of April a proclamation calling out the militia in
all the loyal States of the Union, to the number of 75,000 men, in order
to put down certain "combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the
ordinary course of judicial proceedings," which were obstructing the
execution of the laws in the seven seceded States. The men of the Free
States hastened to obey the call, and to send regiments of militia to
Washington to defend the national capital. But upon the Slave States
that had not yet seceded the effect of Mr. Lincoln's appeal was very
different. The Governors of these States--Maryland, Tennessee, Missouri,
Arkansas, North Carolina, Virginia, and Kentucky--flatly, and in most
cases indignantly, refused to call out troops for any such purpose as
that indicated by Mr. Lincoln's proclamation. And, since neutrality for
communities situated between the North and the seceded States became every
day more difficult, and the common interest of slaveholding strongly
impelled the leading men in the border States to throw in their lot with
their seceded brethren, it was not long before all the States above-named,
with the exception of Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky, adopted ordinances
of secession and voted themselves out of the Union, and Missouri
afterwards did the same. Besides calling out 75,000 of the militia, Mr.
Lincoln, by his proclamation of the 19th of April, declared the ports of
all the seceding States to be in a state of blockade, and that any vessel
attempting, after being once warned, to violate such blockade, would be
captured and sent into a Federal port for adjudication before a prize
court. By a supplementary proclamation of the 27th of April the blockade
was extended to the ports of Northern Virginia.
These proceedings, as soon as they became known in Europe, formed the
subject of anxious consideration with the British Government. The Cabinet
determined on a proclamation of neutrality, which appeared in the _London
Gazette_ of the 14th of May. It began by taking notice that "hostilities
had unhappily commenced between the Government of the United States of
America and certain States styling themselves the Confederate States
of America;" announced the Queen's determination "to maintain a strict
and impartial neutrality in the contest between the said contending
parties," and commanded her subjects to observe a like neutrality. The
substantial part of it was the public declaration that, in the judgment
of the Executive, a state of war existed, with all those incidents that
are attached to a state of war by the law of nations. The "incident"
most interesting to British subjects was the now recognised liability
to capture and condemnation of any British vessel going to Charleston
for cotton, or taking hardware to New Orleans. A few days afterwards
(June 1st) an Order in Council was adopted, interdicting the vessels of
war or privateers of either belligerent from carrying prizes into any
British port, at home or in the colonies. The operation of this order,
the adoption or nonadoption of which was entirely optional with the
British Government, was exclusively favourable to the Federals, since any
prizes taken by their cruisers could be carried into their own ports;
whereas a Confederate captain, after taking a prize, his own ports being
blockaded and British ports not open to him, had no alternative between
taking a bond from her master, the future liquidation of which was highly
problematical, and destroying his prize at sea. France and the other
Maritime Powers quickly followed the example of Great Britain, both as
regarded neutrality and the disposal of prizes (except that France allowed
a captor to bring his prize into a French port, but not to sell it there);
so that the Confederates soon found out that privateering was unprofitable
and abandoned it. The captures and destructions of which we heard so much
during the remainder of the war were all made by commissioned cruisers
of the Confederate navy. The attitude of the British Government pleased
neither party. The North thought, on the one hand, that even belligerent
rights should not have been conceded to the seceding States. The South
argued that the independence of a large and important country might fairly
have been recognised. Their cause gained advocates from the result of the
first campaign; the raw levies of the North were defeated in the battle
of Bull Run towards the end of July, and for the next two months the
forces of the South appeared to be entirely triumphant. The blockade of
the Southern ports had, moreover, entailed a terrible cotton famine in
Lancashire, and the Government was earnestly pressed by many competent
persons to recognise the South and break the blockade. Mr. Gladstone gave
expression to a prevalent feeling, when in a famous speech at Manchester
he declared that Jefferson Davis had made an army, a navy, more than that
a nation. The Emperor Napoleon was early in the field with remonstrances
against the policy of Lord John Russell, and there was a moment when even
Lord Palmerston wavered. Fortunately the Foreign Secretary stood firm,
and declined to be a party to any intervention of the Foreign Powers in
the contest, and his prudence was thoroughly justified by the transient
character of the Confederate successes.
Meanwhile the conduct of the Federal Government, though high-handed
at first, averted a menacing peril, which, had it fallen upon them,
might have been fatal to all their plans of conquest, gigantic as they
were. The Confederate Government, being desirous of sending accredited
representatives to the principal nations of Europe, appointed Messrs.
Mason and Slidell on a special mission to the Governments of Great Britain
and France. The real object of this mission, it was well understood,
was to obtain recognition for the new State, or, at least, to pave the
way for recognition. To the Northern Americans and their Government the
thought of this was intolerably exasperating. There is a well-known maxim
of Sir William Scott's that "you may stop your enemy's ambassador on
his passage." Fortifying themselves with this, and forgetting in their
haste to inquire into the exact nature of the circumstances to which the
dictum applied, and in defiance of the advice of their legal officers,
the American Government gave orders to its naval commanders to seize
Messrs. Mason and Slidell wherever they could catch them. The English
mail-steamer _Trent_, Captain Muir, sailed from Havana for Southampton
on the 7th of November, 1861, having on board a large quantity of specie
and numerous passengers, among whom were the Confederate Envoys already
mentioned, with their respective secretaries, who, having run the
blockade from New Orleans, had reached Havana. On the next day, as the
_Trent_ was passing through the Bahama Channel, a large steamer, having
the appearance of a man-of-war, but showing no colours, was observed
ahead. As the _Trent_ approached, the stranger--an American vessel, the
_San Jacinto_, commanded by Captain Wilkes--fired a shot across her bows
and compelled the surrender of the envoys. The _Trent_ pursued her way,
first to the island of St. Thomas, and thence to Southampton. In Great
Britain upon the arrival of the news of what had befallen her, the feeling
of astonishment and indignation was universal. Could anything be more
infatuated, it was argued, on the part of the Federal Government than to
insult thus wantonly, to provoke thus recklessly, a Power which it was
of the utmost consequence to them to be on the best understanding with;
and which, if their enemy, could brush away their blockading squadrons
like so many flies, and supply herself at once, with full right and a
clear conscience, with the cotton for want of which the population of
Lancashire was in a state of semi-starvation? Anyhow, whatever came of it,
the sacredness of the right of asylum must be maintained; the wrong that
had been done must be undone; the guests that had been rudely torn from
England's board must be given back again. Such feelings were, as nearly
as possible, universal; nor did the Government show itself a dull and
inapt interpreter of the people's mind. A demand, made in terms of studied
courtesy, for the restoration of the captured persons was immediately
forwarded to the American Government. It was the last despatch read by the
Prince Consort and was modified on his sick bed in accordance with his
views. M. Thouvenel, in the name of the Emperor of the French, as well as
the Governments of Prussia, Austria, and Russia, wrote friendly despatches
to Washington, reprehending the act of Captain Wilkes and counselling
the dignified abandonment of untenable ground. But as the issue seemed
doubtful, particularly since the Northern press had, with scarcely an
exception, approved the seizure, and the House of Representatives had
actually passed a vote of thanks to Captain Wilkes for the promptitude and
vigour of his proceedings, it was thought advisable to prepare for the war
that would have inevitably followed the refusal of our demand. The din of
preparation resounded through our arsenals and dockyards and troops were
hastily forwarded to Canada. The unexpected warmth and heartiness with
which the Canadians met the appeal thus suddenly made on their loyalty,
the zeal with which they called out their militia and volunteers and
prepared to strengthen the defences of their frontier, awakened a warm
sense of satisfaction in the Mother Country.
The language used by Mr. Seward in the despatch announcing the intention
of the American Government to surrender the captives, seemed to show that
that Government was so strongly disposed to consider the seizure good and
lawful, that it is fair to conjecture that a very little wavering, the
least sign of a disposition to recede from the resolute attitude that
Britain had taken up, would have turned the scale in America in favour of
a rejection of our demand. In a despatch of prodigious length, displaying
great reach of thought and mastery of language, united to an extraordinary
power of subtle distinction and analysis, Mr. Seward discussed the
_Trent_ incident in connection with the established principles of
international law, and also with other principles not yet established,
but which he thought might by parity of reasoning be deduced from those
universally admitted, and without the definition of which a case that
presented in many respects novel features could not easily be determined.
The upshot was this--that the American Government justified the conduct
of Captain Wilkes in every point but one: he was right in stopping the
_Trent;_ he was right in searching her; he was right in seizing the
persons of the Confederate Envoys and their secretaries; but he was
wrong in allowing the _Trent_ to proceed quietly on her voyage after the
seizure. What he ought to have done was, to put a prize crew on board
the _Trent_, and send her to the nearest American port where there was a
Court of Admiralty, in order that she might either have been condemned as
a lawful prize, or else released. Thus the omission of an act, which to
obtuse understandings on the British side of the Atlantic would have given
to the whole incident a yet more aggravated and intolerable character
than that which it already bore, was transcendentalised in the subtle
apprehension of Mr. Seward into the one flaw in an otherwise perfect
crystal, which vitiated the procedure of Captain Wilkes, invalidated the
else unimpeachable case of America, and which--for he had to come at last
to the point--compelled the American Government to accede to the demands
of Britain, and place the captured persons at the disposal of Her Majesty.
They were accordingly transferred on board H.M.S. _Rinaldo_, a ship
belonging to the squadron stationed at Halifax, whence they soon found
their way to their respective destinations.
The despatch of Earl Russell in reply to that of Mr. Seward, though
not to be compared with the latter in point of diplomatic finesse and
argumentative subtlety, nevertheless fairly met and disposed of the chief
arguments by which the American Minister had endeavoured to establish that
the captured persons were "contraband of war." Thus, with reference to the
dictum of Sir William Scott, that "you may stop your enemy's ambassador on
his passage," Earl Russell proved that the meaning of that great legist
was, not that this might be done _anywhere_, on the territory or within
the jurisdiction of a friendly neutral for instance, but that it might be
done in any place of which you were yourself the master, or in which you
had a right to exercise acts of hostility, that is, in any part of the
enemy's country. But the American Government was not the master on board
the _Trent_, nor had it a right to exercise acts of hostility on board of
her, England being a neutral Power; it was manifest, therefore, that this
dictum of Sir William Scott could not be adduced in support of the act of
Captain Wilkes.
The Session of 1861 was not fruitful in important legislative enactments.
The remission of excise duty in regard to paper was, perhaps, of all the
measures agreed to by Parliament, the one that has been most prolific in
results. This remission was proposed by Mr. Gladstone, as Chancellor of
the Exchequer, in his speech on the Budget, and though vigorously opposed,
was at length carried. Cheap literature and journalism, and along with
these the harmless entertainment of the people, have benefited enormously
by the change. Doubtless the cheapness of the material has led at times
to the abuse of the benefit conferred. It is found, however, that the
sale of corrupting works is limited and that the immense majority of
the cheap newspapers and periodicals that the reduction of the paper
duty has brought into existence are, though often dull and in bad taste,
respectable and moral in their tone. The Government brought in a Bill
for the abolition of church rates, which passed the second reading by
a considerable majority. This stimulated the Tory party to unwonted
efforts; the third reading of the Bill, contrary to the usual practice of
the House, was opposed, and on a division the numbers were found to be
equal--274 voting that the Bill do pass, and the same number supporting
the amendment of Mr. Estcourt, that it be read a third time that day six
months. The Speaker had to give his casting vote, and he gave it against
the Bill, justifying his vote in a short and statesmanlike speech, on the
ground that the exact equipoise of parties seemed to indicate that the
House itself felt that the Bill might be the better for revision.
The country sustained grievous losses in the deaths this year of Sir
James Graham, a politician of a somewhat "cross-bench" disposition, and
Lord Herbert of Lea, better known as Sidney Herbert. The breakdown in
our military departments which the Crimean War had witnessed, required
unflagging diligence, strong sense, and uncommon strength of constitution
in the administrator who undertook the task of reparation. Of these
requisites Sidney Herbert possessed the first two in an eminent degree;
and the thorough efficiency of the expeditionary force that marched to
Pekin in 1860 attested the improvement which the indefatigable labours of
the Secretary at War had introduced into every branch of the service. The
labours imposed upon the Minister for War at this particular period were
almost more than human strength could grapple with. The Volunteer movement
had to be promoted and watched; the Indian army was to be fused with
that of the Queen without detriment to individual rights and interests;
coast defence had to be readjusted in conformity with the enlarged powers
of the new rifled artillery. His name is honourably connected with the
institution, as a set-off to the aggressive attitude of France, of the
National Volunteer Association, which was formed on the 16th of November,
1859. In May of the same year the formation of volunteer corps of riflemen
had begun, under the auspices of the Government; and by the end of the
year many thousands were enrolled in all parts of Great Britain. On the
7th of March, 1860, 2,500 volunteer officers were presented to the Queen;
after which they dined together, the Duke of Cambridge occupying the
chair. On the 23rd of June following, there was a grand review in Hyde
Park, when 18,450 volunteers defiled before the Queen in admirable order.
A great national rifle shooting match was held at Wimbledon, from the 2nd
to the 7th of July, when Captain Edward Ross obtained the Queen's prize of
£250, and the gold medal of the association. Again, on the 7th of August,
the Queen reviewed 20,000 volunteers at Edinburgh. In the beginning of
1861 the association had an annual income of £1,500, with a capital of
£3,000; the volunteers in Great Britain then numbering at least 160,000.
The sudden rise of this vast volunteer army, composed of the finest men
in the world, was the answer which Great Britain gave to the threats of
French invasion.
[Illustration: GENERAL ROBERT LEE.]