“He reviews the whole transactions between England and the
United States since the commencement of the civil war with
great warmth, beginning with the proclamation of neutrality
and ending with Mr. Laird’s rams, and tortures every
action of the British Government into a manifestation of
unfriendliness towards the Republic. We expected from Mr.
Sumner more enlightened consideration for the circumstances
in which the English people have been placed, and some
acknowledgment of the provocation they have received from
this side of the Atlantic.…
“There is only one excuse for Mr. Sumner. As an
Abolitionist, he has been accustomed to look to England for
sympathy and aid, and he is disappointed to find so many
enemies where he supposed he would see none but friends.
This feeling should not prevent him, however, from doing
justice as a publicist, nor, as a statesman, from pursuing
the course most wise and expedient at the moment.”
In a different tone, the _Morning Star_, of London, the
constant friend of the national cause, said:--
“The Hon. Charles Sumner has not belied the confidence
inspired by a long and illustrious career. He is as
firmly as ever the friend of peace, and especially of
peace between Great Britain and America. The eloquent
voice which has so often employed the stores of a richly
furnished mind in persuasives to international amity has
not, as the telegrams suggested, been inflamed by the heat
of domestic conflict to the diffusion of discord between
kindred peoples. His speech at New York on the 10th of
September is, indeed, heavy with charges against France and
England. But it is an appeal for justice, not an incentive
to strife. It is a complaint of hopes disappointed,
of friendship withheld, of errors hastily adopted and
obstinately maintained. It is, however, an argument which
does honor even to those against whom it is urged, and
which aims to establish future relations of the closest
alliance. Senator Sumner’s chief reproach is this,--that
we have acted unworthily of ourselves, unfaithfully to our
deepest convictions and best memories.…
“There runs through the whole of Mr. Sumner’s gigantic
oration--far too long to have been spoken as printed,
but yet without a word of superfluous argument or
declamation--an idea on which we can now only touch. From
the first sentence to the last, Slavery is present to
his mind. It colors all his reasoning. It inspires him
to prodigious eloquence. Not merely as the Senator for
Massachusetts, the honored chieftain of the political
Abolitionists, but as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign
Relations, he sees everywhere the presence of the Slave
Power. Against it he invokes, in periods of classic beauty
and of fervid strength, all the moral forces of the mother
country. To England he makes a passionate and pathetic
appeal--more for her own sake than that of the slave, more
for the sake of the future than of present effects--that
she withdraw all favor and succor from Rebel slave-owners.”
The _Northern Whig_, of Belfast, Ireland, noticed especially
the statement on _ocean_ belligerence:--
“One point, however, on which Mr. Sumner dwells, is of such
urgent present importance as to make the reproduction of
his remarks, at such length as our space allows, desirable.
We refer to his criticism of the claims of the Confederates
to belligerent rights _at sea_. Whether the ground which
Mr. Sumner takes on this question be or be not tenable,
whether the authorities and examples by which he supports
it really make out his case, is a matter not to be decided
summarily. His argument is, beyond dispute, a most masterly
one, and deserves the careful attention of the English
Government and its legal advisers, and will, no doubt,
engage the ingenuity of writers upon International Law.”
These expressions of opinion show something of the extent to
which Mr. Sumner was sustained, and also the British criticism
he encountered. To the latter must be added an unexpected
episode.
* * * * *
Earl Russell was on a visit to Scotland when Mr. Sumner’s
speech arrived. Being entertained at a public dinner in the
Town-Hall of Blairgowrie, September 26th, he took that occasion
to review the questions of the war, and especially to answer
Mr. Sumner, thus making a new precedent. It is not known that
any European statesman ever before made a speech criticizing
a speech in another country. The part relating to us was
approached by the remark, “I am speaking of what has occurred
in what a few years ago were the United States of America”;
and then, towards the end, he says, “The people of what
were the United States, whether they are called Federals or
Confederates.”
The following passages belong to this answer.
“It was impossible to look on the uprising of a community
of five million people as a mere petty insurrection
[‘_Hear! hear!_’], or as not having the rights which at
all times are given to those who, by their numbers and
importance, or by the extent of the territory they possess,
are entitled to these rights. [_Cheers._] Well, it was
said we ought not to have done that, because they were a
community of Slaveholders.
“Gentlemen, I trust that our abhorrence of Slavery is not
in the least abated or diminished. [_Loud and prolonged
cheers._] For my own part, I consider it one of the most
horrible crimes that yet disgrace humanity. [_Cheers._]
But then, when we are treating of the relations which we
bear to a community of men, I doubt whether it would be
expedient or useful for humanity that we should introduce
that new element of declaring that _we will have no
relations with a people who permit Slavery to exist among
them. We have never adopted it yet, we have not adopted it
in the case of Spain or Brazil, and I do not believe that
the cause of humanity would be served by our adoption of
it._ [‘_Hear! hear!_’]
“Well, then it was said that these Confederate States were
Rebels,--Rebels against the Union. Perhaps, Gentlemen,
I am not so nice as I ought to be on the subject. But
I recollect that we rebelled against Charles the First
[_a laugh_], we rebelled against James the Second, and
the people of New England, not content with these two
rebellions, rebelled against George the Third. [_‘Hear!’
and laughter._] … But, certainly, if I look to the
declarations of those New England orators,--and I have
been reading lately, if not the whole, yet a very great
part, of the very long speech by Mr. Sumner on the subject,
delivered at New York,--I own, I cannot but wonder to see
these men, the offspring, as it were, of three rebellions,
as we are the offspring of two rebellions, really speaking,
like the Czar of Russia, the Sultan of Turkey, or Louis
the Fourteenth himself, of the dreadful crime and guilt of
rebellion. [_Loud laughter and cheers._] …
“I said, that in America, although there were some of the
local courts which had not the authority of such men as
Lord Stowell and Sir William Grant, yet there was a Court
of Appeal, there was a Supreme Court, in the United States,
which contained, and had for many years contained, men as
learned and of as high reputation in the law and of as
unsullied reputation for integrity as any that have sat in
our English courts of justice, and that we ought to wait
patiently for the decision of those tribunals. Now what
is my surprise to find, and what would be your surprise
to find, that Mr. Sumner is so prejudiced that he brings
these declarations of mine against me, saying _that I have
diminished the reputation of the American Courts_, and that
I showed myself biased against the Federal States, by the
declaration I then made in Parliament! [_A gentleman from
the Southern States among the company here ejaculated, ‘He
is not to be believed.’_]
“I will not detain you further on these subjects; but
one remark I must make on the general tendency of these
speeches and writings in America. The Government of
America discusses these matters very fairly with the
English Government. Sometimes we think them quite in the
wrong; sometimes they say we are quite in the wrong; but
we discuss them fairly, and with regard to the Secretary
of State I see no complaint to make. I think he weighs
the disadvantages and difficulties of our situation in a
very fair and equal balance. But there are others, and Mr.
Sumner is one of them, his speech being an epitome almost
of all that has been contained in the American press, by
whom our conduct is very differently judged.”
In defending the concession of belligerent rights to Rebel
Slavery, Earl Russell forgot two things: first, that the
Rebels, whatever their numbers, were without ports or Prize
Courts, and therefore unable to administer justice on the
ocean, which was essential to the protection of neutrals, and,
in the nature of things, the condition precedent of any such
concession; and, secondly, he forgot, that, whatever might be
the traditional relations with existing nations “permitting
Slavery to exist among them,” it was now proposed, for the
first time in history, to recognize a rebel community seeking
to found a new nation whose declared corner-stone was Slavery,
which Mr. Sumner insisted was contrary to good morals and the
Antislavery principles so constantly and loftily avowed by
England.
On another occasion Earl Russell seems to have laid down a
rule requiring Prize Courts, as will be seen in Mr. Sumner’s
speech.[172] He insisted that vessels seized should be tried in
a Prize Court. If this rule is correct, how vindicate the award
of belligerent rights to a community without Prize Courts?
Another question may also be asked: If Slavery be, as Earl
Russell declared, “one of the most horrible crimes that yet
disgrace humanity,” how could England make any concession to
Rebels whose single declared object of separate existence was
this very crime?
The answer to Mr. Sumner on Prize Courts will be appreciated
after reading the report in the London _Times_, June 16,
1863,[173] of what Earl Russell actually said in the House of
Lords.
“With regard to the decisions in Prize Courts, I must say I
lament that the Constitution of the United States is such,
that, instead of being brought at once before the Court of
Admiralty, where generally you have a very eminent judge to
preside, perfectly well acquainted with the Law of Nations,
_such cases go in the first instance before the District
Courts_, then, I think, before a Circuit Court, and it is
only after a considerable delay that they come before the
Supreme Court of the United States. I say this, because
I believe we should all very much respect a decision of
the Supreme Court of the United States, and it is to be
lamented that there should be a considerable delay before
the judgment of that tribunal can be obtained.”
The compliment to the Supreme Court of the United States,
which, like the House of Lords and the Privy Council, is not
a court of original jurisdiction in prize cases, will hardly
excuse the reflection upon the District Courts, which are the
Admiralty Courts of the United States,--especially when it is
considered that those at Boston and New York, where the prize
cases chiefly occurred, were administered at the time by judges
who would compare favorably with the contemporary judge of the
English Admiralty. Judge Sprague, of Boston, and Judge Betts,
of New York, were “very eminent” and “perfectly well acquainted
with the Law of Nations,” although only judges of District
Courts.
The speech of Earl Russell was noticed by Mr. Adams, in a
despatch to Mr. Seward, under date of October 1, 1863:--
“The event of the week has been the speech of Earl Russell
at Blairgowrie, evidently drawn forth by the report of Mr.
Sumner’s address at New York.”[174]
It was the subject of comment by the press of England and the
United States. The sympathetic _Morning Star_ said:--
“Mr. Sumner’s oration has had an unexpected effect. It
has stirred the phlegmatic nature of Earl Russell. The
Foreign Secretary has replied from his Scottish retreat to
the complaints and reproaches of the New England Senator.
Absurdly contemptuous in his personal allusions to the
distinguished Senator, Lord Russell confesses the force of
his accusations by taking the trouble to reply to them.…
“It would also have been well, if our Foreign Secretary
had included in his reply some notice of one of the
most distinct and gravest of Mr. Sumner’s complaints.
The defence of our recognition of the Confederates as
belligerents is without novelty. It is a simple repetition
of the old statement, that our naval commanders required to
be instructed whether they should respect the new flag or
treat it as that of a pirate. Lord Russell does not touch
the objection raised by Mr. Sumner, that the Confederates
had no ocean navy, and could provide one only from neutral
ports. Neither does his Lordship explain why the resolution
to recognize the Confederates as belligerents was taken in
the absence from this country of a Federal minister.
“But, notwithstanding these defects, Lord Russell’s speech
at Blairgowrie is an immense advance upon his previous
utterances on the American Question. It is evident that
he begins to perceive the real issue of the conflict, and
rightly estimates the direction of British sentiment.”